.jpg){kind=link}
Warning:[]
This ritual should only be attempted by those who have a reasonable level of culinary expertise and hospitality experience. The minutiae of the instructions are incredibly important.
As with any dinner party, a good host invites their guests to share their home. All the principles of hospitality are similar to appropriate hosting standards, with one caveat: while you host this party, your home belongs to the guests. It is not your own. That being said, no one must enter your home once the ritual has begun, as it could catastrophically alter the host-to-guest dynamic of this ritual.
About This Ritual:[]
In the following details of this ritual, the terms “ritualist” and “host” are interchangeable.
This ritual was conceived by 14th-century master chef Guillaume Tirel.
The original details are not entirely clear, but rumours exist that the formulae were not entirely of his own creation, but his case was the first that resulted in some measure of success.
Since its inception, the ritual has been attempted throughout history, often with terrible results (most notably the Feast of Fools of 1430, which led to the attempted dissolving of the holiday by the Council of Basel the following year).
The guests are not typical beings and must be treated with a heightened sense of respect.
Two major facets compose this ritual. Culinary and hospitality/etiquette.
It appears as though none of these are restricted by time or cultural influences, and may be subjective to the ritualist.
The Goal:[]
If every guest is satisfied, and leaves of their volition contented, you may ask for a favour (The Last Question) from one guest.
As with many Faustian bargains, you may ask for wealth, power, or any other typical worldly desire, but you must direct the question to the appropriate individual (and the request must be very specific). You will learn which guest is appropriate for which type of favour throughout the night, as you learn more about them (as any good host would). The guests are also known to be very fickle, so a great deal of importance is stressed on being clear, and humble.
The magnitude of your request must parallel the perceived success of your dinner party. For example, if you know you barely managed to survive, requesting a loved one be returned from death would be offensive.
It's important to study these rules and stipulations, as once the meal has been served, the guests will arrive, and it would be very rude as a host to direct your attention away from your guests (by checking the guidelines).
Culinary Formula:[]
Five dishes must be prepared, all in single servings, and served in separate spots around two tables. There are small discretionary choices available to the ritualist, but they must follow the guidelines strictly.
One dish will be served for each of the four guests, and one final dish for the ritualist.
Dish One:[]
There's a discrepancy between which choice works more efficiently, but both are known to serve true to function.
Option one: A dish cooked from anything that has been killed by the ritualist, but must be something the ritualist themselves would eat (see The Good Host Rule).
Option two: A plethora of clean, raw vegetables that are endemic to the region (preferably harvested by the ritualist).
Dish Two:[]
The finest cut of meat that the ritualist can afford (bovine tenderloin is known to work well). In the account that the ritualist is a hunter, it's better to use a prized game of their victory. The meat must not be fish but may be poultry, beef, pork, or game.
This dish should be served with potatoes or rice, and bread. Gravy and/or sauces are not mandatory but are rumoured to be appreciated (source is needed).
Dish Three:[]
Perhaps the easiest dish to accommodate, dish three must not be cooked by the ritualist. It must be cheaply obtained, in a large quantity, lower in quality, and very calorically dense.
Modern options have proven easily accessible (Mcdonald's or other such fast food appears to be an excellent choice).
Dish Four:[]
Similar to dish one, there are two main options available for your fourth guest.
Option one: Anything that may cause severe bodily harm or death to the ritualist if consumed (but must be organic in nature). If the ritualist has any severe allergies, those may prove to be an excellent choice. Otherwise, the flesh of a poisonous creature (such as frogs, or the puffer fish), or copious amounts of poisonous produce (typically fungus) serve well. The amount must be sufficient to kill the ritualist.
Option two: This option is in direct contrast to the previous choice. It must be milk, as fresh as possible (no longer than one and a half hours) from the source. Human milk is acceptable.
Dish five:[]
This dish must be something that the ritualist very much enjoys, yet has infrequently (think of responses you’d have if someone were to ask about your favourite food). This dish must be appropriately enjoyed by the ritualist. It is recommended that it be a dish that the ritualist has made on many occasions, and thus, has very little likelihood of poor results. In one account, a host who had their own dish catered, (not to their satisfaction) died of asphyxiation shortly after the meal was finished.
The Good Host Rule: All of these meals (aside from dish four, option one) must be made in a fashion that the ritualist would eat. If the ritualist is a vegetarian/vegan, any meat or dairy must be served in a way that appears to be the most palatable/alluring to them.
Hospitality Formula:[]
Two tables must be used in the performance of this ritual.
One large table, with ample room for four (4) guests to eat (and have place settings, drinking glasses, etcetera). This table should ideally be square, or round so that the guests are able to see one another and the host, without turning their bodies (this is known as the Line Of Sight rule).
If any other shape of table is used, no one guest must be at the head or foot of the table. If a guest is at the head, another must be at the foot (keeping in mind the Line Of Sight rule).
The second table must be a smaller, personal-sized table. It may be large enough to accommodate multiple guests but must be smaller than the guest table (and only host one place setting). The two tables must never touch. This will be the ritualist's table.
This separation is important. You may think of this distinction as though you are a servant, permitted to dine with your masters.
A typical formal layout of a one-course meal (appropriate to the ritualist's culture or one they are very familiar with) must be set up. Including but not exclusively: fork and knife, water glass, wine glass, placemat (or charger), candles (appropriate to table size), serviettes/napkins, water carafe and wine carafe.
If a guest should run out of water or wine, it is appropriate for the host to fill their glass, although not mandatory, as the guests may pour for themselves. The carafes must never run out. If they appear to be low, the host must promptly refill them. The wine provided must be something the host would drink (alcohol-free if the host abstains from alcohol, or another type of beverage, such as cider or juice).
Once the guests arrive, the ritualist becomes the host, and must follow certain hospitality guidelines regardless of culture:
- Never touch a guest without their permission (never has permission been given, so far as anyone knows).
- Never touch the belongings of a guest (this includes their place setting and meal, once served. Their cup must not be touched if being filled by the host).
- Never directly address a single guest. Questions or conversations must organically find themselves directed at a guest (if they were talking and you inquire about the subject). There is one exception to this rule, that is The Final Question.
- Never address a guest by name, or provide any sort of nickname (even if you think you know their name, you don't. They are both non-denominational and connected in some way to many systems of theology).
- Never let the carafes run dry.
- Never let any candles burn down entirely.
- Above all else, never reveal your name to your guests (a title such as chef, doctor, political or military position may be provided if it comes up organically) this includes nicknames and initials.
- The Final Question must be directed to the appropriate guest.
- The host must try their best to enjoy themselves. This may be the most difficult rule to adhere to, as the ritual can be very intensive and stressful, but consider: is any dinner party truly worth attending if the host is in shambles?
Consequences:[]
The extent of consequences for failed dinners and broken rules are not fully known. There is potential to improve or change the ritual itself (although deviation is strongly advised against).
Such consequences have been noted:
A host/ritualist who fails to enjoy their own dish may asphyxiate, or die of toxic shock syndrome.
A host/ritualist who fails to provide appropriate or satisfactory meals to their guests may suffer a particularly gruesome end, or in one known case, lack thereof (see Notable Cases of Failure). The fate met for an unsatisfactory meal is specific to the infringed upon host.
A host/ritualist who fails to accommodate any particular hospitality rule may find themselves living an undesirable, or so called “cursed” life.
Notable Cases of Success:[]
Guillaume Tirel, Pont-Audemer, 1325: Unknown desire, possibly culinary prowess.
A Russian peasant, and self proclaimed mystic, St Petersburg, 1915: Desire is believed to be lasting fame (infamy?).
An abstract American artist, New York, 1959: Desired simply “To have a dinner party.”
Notable Cases of Failure:[]
This list is difficult to properly determine, as much of the information based on failed rituals appears to be little more than rumours and is often attributed to sacrilege, worship of demons (as such cases as the dissolution of the Knights Templar), insanity, or the works of political tyranny (The Great Leap Forward). It is rare that survivors exist, or are even capable/willing to discuss the events or their failures.
It is also important to note that without understanding what it is the ritualist requested in The Final Question, it’s impossible to know whether or not the ritual was a success.
A Ritual For Dinner-2
Despite Guillarme Tirel being the first truly understood case of this ritual, the earliest known historical account is also one of the only cases with any real substantiation of disaster. The failure of this ritual is thought to be the cause of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, in 79 AD.
It is also theorized that the first failure (and perhaps attempt) of this ritual was one purportedly well-known individual. He allegedly attempted the ritual in the early decades of the fourth (4th) century B.C.E. (or possibly as early as the 6th century B.C.E.). The ritualist in question was burdened with everlasting life and doomed to walk the world, without love or purpose, for eternity. According to associated myths, he desired to bring his brother back from the dead.