Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Raidensparx

Pages: [1]
1
DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?
« on: October 15, 2011, 04:33:33 AM »
Quote from: Tedronai on October 15, 2011, 04:27:19 AM
If a KotC was 'supposed' to oppose a particular evil, by physical conflict if necessary, I don't think it would matter to them that that evil claimed the 'protection' of Neutral Ground.
I think the Knight's response to that would be something along the lines of, 'There is no neutrality in the war against Evil.'
But I was really only using them as an example to demonstrate that there are non-signatories who can hold their own in a fight, even against some serious heavy-hitters (true dragons, for instance).

I agree, not contesting that.  They're just usually the ones who already have the backing of a powerful faction, just one that may not have signed the Accords.  Where as the character in the example given was apparently not backed by them, and in fact would be in just as much danger from the faction he would have belonged to.

2
DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?
« on: October 15, 2011, 04:16:15 AM »
Quote from: Tedronai on October 15, 2011, 01:38:25 AM
At this point I'd like to point out that Knights of the Cross are not signatories.  And wouldn't necessarily roll over and die the way some minor talent or other minor player would.

Very true, I didn't consider Knights of the Cross under the non-signatories.  Though considering who they are...well, dang near all supernaturals know who they represent, and pretty much treat them with respect unless they have the upper hand.  Plus, with their power, they probably wouldn't be involved in a conflict on Accorded Neutral Ground unless they were meant to be there to stop one.  That whole "you'll be where you're meant to be" power.

3
DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?
« on: October 15, 2011, 12:10:59 AM »
Quote from: Tedronai on October 14, 2011, 10:57:30 PM
There are two stipulations with regards to ANGs explicit in the canon.
The first, that no signatory start conflict within.
And the second, that any signatory that finds themselves in a conflict within take that conflict outside.

ie. even if a non-signatory starts a conflict within an ANG territory, signatories cannot simply claim that 'he started it' and commence with the pummeling (except in the case where that pummeling is expressly to the purpose of moving the conflict out of ANG).

If a non-signatory starts a conflict within an ANG territory, they're going to die.  Horribly.  Or something just as bad is going to occur.  Because the only hope Minor Talents and someone who is apparently Red Court but not Red Court has to survive in that world is to not be noticed or to not make yourself more trouble than you're worth.

If a guy not protected by the accords tries to convince a bunch of innocent people to attack a Drake, he's going to die.  Or at least wish that was it.

Plus, I find it hard to believe that a Red Court vampire, short of a member of St. Giles', would not be under their protection, or would ever consider themselves not a part of it.  Even if THEY don't, they technically, physically, are.  The Red Court is more than just some masquerade, it's a race.  You're a red court vampire, and what you do as a red court vampire affects all of their standing.  And a lone red court going around breaking the accords reflects very poorly on them.  Hell, knowing the vampires they may kill him themselves and offer up his body as retribution, especially if he refuses to be a member of their organization.

4
DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?
« on: October 14, 2011, 07:08:58 PM »
Quote from: Richard_Chilton on October 14, 2011, 06:46:12 PM
No - that was explained during the novel.  The Red Court position was that Dresden, through his own carelessness, accidentally drank something designed to heighten the flavour of the blood the Red Court would be drinking.  He wasn't even attacked - he merely did something that not even the most consciously host could have conceived him doing.  And what does he do? He breaks the guest law by attacking his host for doing something that she was legally entitled to do.

If the poison had killed him then they probably would have had to pay a fine.  Or maybe Bianca would have to been turned over to the White Council for Justice.  There wouldn't have been a war over a low ranking member of the White Council dying... Now if it had been a Warden, then I could maybe see a war, just as there was a war over the death of Red Court Noble.

And it's the Accords that matter more than guest law because the invitation never promised safe passage.  Blanca's house wasn't neutral ground but the party was happening under the Accords.  Dresden was the White Council representative - invited under the accords - which is why he was thinking of going there even before the crap started to happen. 

Bianca was just going to twist the wording of the accords to kill Dresden (White Council rep), kill Thomas and claim Justine (insulting White Court rep), trap Lea with an unbalanced gift (Winter Court rep), impress the Dragon (Accords freeholder), all under the eyes of the two cloaked figures (who might have represented another accord faction).  If she was able to legally do all of that then she would have declared herself a Major Player.

Richard

Which, when compared to this scenario, differs quite a bit.  This character intends to knowingly spike drinks that he fully intends for minor talents; innocent people in a neutral ground that DOES guarantee safety from the factions who agreed to the accords. There's a reason anytime something is about to go down between wizards or vampires and such, the minor talents know to head to Mac's pub.  Because they won't drag their fight into that place, and will leave the people inside it alone.  Plus, he intends to use the narcotic saliva to control them into attacking what the editted first post claims is a Drake, and a Winter Emissary.  Again, on the Neutral Grounds.

In short, the character is breaking the neutrality of the neutral grounds by purposefully performing a mental stress attack and causing addiction in neutral individuals, with the intent of sicking them on a much more powerful entity that they likely have little chance against and would likely end in their deaths, and said entity is also a powerful servant of Winter and Mab, the one who mainly pushes for these accords.

Yes, this character is heavily boned.

5
DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?
« on: October 14, 2011, 12:50:33 PM »
Quote from: Tedronai on October 14, 2011, 07:27:40 AM
I'm pretty sure Neutral Ground does not provide more protection than the Laws of Hospitality.  Supernatural nations tend to take those rather seriously, too.  And with all of those guests (everything from the White Court's black sheep to a Dragon) at Bianca's little shindig, not one of them raised a formal complaint about an unannounced 'recreational drugging' of the beverages.

As for the person 'running' the Neutral Ground, they can declare you unwelcome in their establishment entirely independently of any breach of the Accords.  And any breach of the Accords is entirely independent of what they deem acceptable in their establishment.
And that's even assuming that someone in-the-know 'runs' the Neutral Ground, and that it's not merely Central Park, or a local sporting stadium with an oblivious management.

I'm fairly certain Bianca's place was not Accorded Neutral Ground.  It was her place, which meant it was her territory.  But the accords never officially made it a neutral ground.  As such, there was really nothing the accords could do that would keep her from doing anything, since everyone technically had made a choice to go there.

Accorded Neutral Ground means that everyone agrees "we do not pull any shit there, ever, and expect serious repercussions if we do".

6
DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?
« on: October 14, 2011, 06:59:39 AM »
Quote from: Tedronai on October 14, 2011, 06:36:34 AM
Unless he pulls the same 'recreational' excuse that Bianca employed, saying something along the lines of, 'Here, this one's got a little extra kick; I think you'll like it,' as he hands his victim the drink.  At which point he can, narrowly, claim that he informed them of the intoxicating effects of the beverage, and thus that they accepted it 'knowingly'.

Depending on who runs the neutral ground, as well as who's the one drugging people, pretty sure that wouldn't fly either.  If groups could get away with stuff like that, it'd leave way too much room open for factions to screw around with it.  And from what we've seen, the factions do not screw around with Accorded Neutral Ground.  Hell,
(click to show/hide)
, and even HE knew better than to try and pull anything on neutral ground.  And you know if he could have gotten away with it, he would have.

They take that stuff seriously.

7
DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?
« on: October 14, 2011, 03:48:06 AM »
Quote from: VVolf on October 14, 2011, 02:38:43 AM
Just for additional clarification, if he is buying the drinks, spiking them, offering them to people, and they accept, then I don't believe there's any violation. If he's spiking the drinks the patrons ordered themselves then he's in violation against the owner of the establishment and against those who's drinks he spiked.

No, it's still a pretty major violation.  That scenario would only count if the targets were ALREADY AWARE of their drinks being drugged, and they drank it anyway.  What he's doing above is still breaking the neutrality of the place by secretly doing injury to those who went to the place expecting a safe haven.

8
GS Book Club / Re: Ghost Story Book Club - Chapters 46-FINISH **MAJOR SPOILERS**
« on: October 13, 2011, 10:50:16 PM »
...is it bad that because of the covers, I've never pictured him in my mind WITHOUT a hat?

9
DFRPG / Re: White Court Fae?
« on: October 13, 2011, 10:36:51 PM »
Quote from: sinker on October 13, 2011, 10:07:42 PM
There's an example that may or may not be applicable to this question depending on how you feel about undertown.

In summer knight
(click to show/hide)
If you feel that undertown is a part of the physical world then there's an answer.

Undertown has never really been explained, but considering just the grand scale of how many fae and other Nevernever creatures hang out there?  I have a hard time believing it's just part of the physical world.  Might be a place where the barrier between the two places is weaker, or undertown is an always open gate, or some other strange occurrence that has never been explained.  But yeah, it's hard to consider it still part of "our" world.

10
DFRPG / Re: White Court Fae?
« on: October 13, 2011, 08:12:59 PM »
Another point to be made, aren't the bodies Fae use in the mortal realm just ectoplasm?  Stuff that disappears after they're done with it?  Unless it was a male fae, a female fae outside the Nevernever likely wouldn't be able to even BE impregnated, much less give birth to anything.

Anyway, I'm getting the feeling that White Court/Fae conception is something we're going to need a WoJ about, since right now we can only make the best of guesses or theories.  And the camp seems pretty soundly split between "not able to conceive", "child couldn't be both", or "child would totally be both."

11
DFRPG / Re: White Court Fae?
« on: October 13, 2011, 02:13:17 AM »
Angels are servants of the White God, and powerful to the point that Dresden looking at one with his sight would have screwed him up permanently.  And the Fae are terrified of an angel interfering with them.  Not even Mab screws around with them.

Angels are not Fae.

12
DFRPG / Re: How do you do a group social conflict?
« on: October 12, 2011, 11:33:56 PM »
Fate is honestly pretty easy.  Most conflicts will act the same, as said above.  And sometimes as a GM, you just have to make a call on what makes for better story.  AN EXAMPLE:

In the Dresden Files Noir game I'm running, we have two social characters.  One is a White Court Virgin who operates a Speakeasy, while the other is a Man of Faith Pianist.  Their combat skills...suck.  And their stealth skills...suck.  Luckily there's a Warden character for combat and a Werehawk for stealth.  Anywho, they tend to rely on each other for social conflicts since they tend to be the distraction a lot, using an act they have of being an actor and actress too dumb to know any better who stumbled across one of Capone's warehouses and accidentally bumped into the guards.  One would initiate the social combat, while the other would either make their own "attack" if the target had a pretty low chance of winning, or would do a supportive maneuver to play off what they're doing.  And I'd let them invoke the aspect they shared from chargen, since DFChargen involves you having at least one aspect backstory shared with another in the group.

They managed to convince two of Capone's thugs that they'd be great in pictures.  But yeah, just treat conflict as normal, and use your intuition when they want to do something you're not sure they can.  After all, as GM you technically don't have to follow any of the rules given.  You can use them at your discretion.

13
GS Book Club / Re: Ghost Story Book Club - Chapters 46-FINISH **MAJOR SPOILERS**
« on: October 12, 2011, 10:20:25 PM »
Quote from: Teck Loh on October 06, 2011, 07:16:00 AM
3) And since harry is winter knight and alive does he have to live in the NN or does he have to commute to Chicago?

I don't see why he has to stay in Nevernever and commute. The Summer Knight before Fix stayed in his artist apartment in Chicago, didn't he? But then he doesn't have his old apartment anymore... Hmm... Maybe Mab will pay him a salary (in fairy gold?) and he can maybe afford a penthouse in Chicago!

Teck

Chances are good that if he ever does get a residence back in Chicago, it'll probably be where his house used to be.  Or he'll take up residence on Demonreach.  That island seemed pretty dedicated to getting its custodian back.

14
DFRPG / Re: White Court Fae?
« on: October 12, 2011, 04:45:09 AM »
I'd be wary of any player wanting to be both a pretty vampire AND a fae creature.  If only because Myspace is full of them.

15
DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?
« on: October 12, 2011, 04:42:44 AM »
Quote from: The Mighty Buzzard on October 12, 2011, 04:09:06 AM
Oh, and I'd have the proprietor ban him from the place too.  Just on general principles.

This.  For the ANG I've had in my game, I knew from the get-go that the punishment for breaking the accords would mean a permanent ban from ever coming back to that location again for that character, and also that the major powers in the area (in this game the White Council due to Wizard presence, the Red and White Court, as well as any fae running around) know this individual has broken the accords.  This would give them the Trouble Aspect "Marked", which meant until the individual or the faction he/she represented made some kind of major penance for the transgression, they're marked as an individual who broke the rules and doesn't follow them, and as such the other groups have no real obligation to follow the rules while interacting with them.  Which means no guarantee of safe parley when talking with other groups, no real ability to call in favors, and being killed by one of them wouldn't result in any consequence on their part.

Luckily, my players in one game at least in some form know about Neutral Ground, and know not to screw around with it.  And in the other game, one of the characters actually owned the ANG, so there was that extra pressure to not screw around with another player's stuff.

Pages: [1]