Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • Thankfully Lore of the Bloodlines clears up the eye issue. In addition to Beckett's comments about whether or not a Tremere would be well read enough to be trying to out a Salubri, it because questionable even what the general knowledge on them or their 'tells' are.
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Monalfie; 07-21-2017, 12:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Well, as to the first paragraph, I'm just going to have to disagree. A negative burden is being placed upon the character for having the merit in these situations, a problem arising out of said merit. That would be a flaw to me. This is different than it being used against. Not much else I can add to that.

    You were the one to establish that rumors would arise from the herd, seemingly. But as per the below, it sounds like we have quite different standards for how entering/existing in a city is.


    The games I run and have been in are quite less intrusive. I am definitely...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Monalfie; 07-21-2017, 11:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • You keep saying things I'm not disagreeing with mixed in with what I have a problem with. I'll try to make it clear again.
    I don't have an issue with someone targeting someone's merits.
    I have issue with a merit being used as a flaw by the ST.
    The reason it isn't different is because you are present Herd as the problem - I'm specifically discussing this talk as though Herd is a liability in and of itself. That it somehow gives rise to rumors of such a telling Salubri description. That people are all rabid to fight for a specific group of three people in their one dot Herd. It...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Well, I disagree, and consider that almost mean spirited to ST. I don't have issue with merits being used against someone. Kidnapping or killing a retainer, using a herd to determine someone's patterns, interfering with their resources. But I do protest the idea of the merit itself being a problem in the vein of a territory dispute arising from that. At that point it becomes almost a flaw. It'd be like saying a Ventrue shouldn't have resources because their stocks will tank and they'll be humiliated socially just because they have the merit.

    I'm just not buying this as something...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Monalfie; 07-20-2017, 03:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • No, it doesn't specify safe from attack. I mean, I even specified that. Nothing about what I said even implied 'automagically protected'. Merely that the idea that the writing of the background very much implies they are your herd unless acted upon. The idea that they are the cause of the problem, being different than used as an avenue of attack, seems out of sorts.

    Again, all things that apply to Salubri with a herd or not. If they hear about the Salubri with those descriptors, it becomes an issue regardless. The idea that someone their specific vessels make that information more...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Ok, but none of that even has to do with being a Salubri, it just relates to being a Kindred with a herd. Vessel overlap/territorial disputes, I would think the merit itself would/should preclude that. It specifically relates as 'being able to feed from without fear'. I agree they could be found out and could be vectors of attack. But all this assumes the Salubri is already being tracked or someone is already out to get them. It isn't relating to them being put at risk for being Salubri. And especially given, like I said, that the book outright says most Salubri have at least one herd dot, the...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, but you said 'Disliking a feeding method is different from killing something every time you feed.' Unless you were specifically only referencing every time you feed from animals. To which I'd say, as I was trying to get at before, feeding of almost all animals kills them. Dogs and small have two points and taking half risks death without hospitalization. So unless these are country Salubri feeding off cows and horses, most of their prey (dogs, cats, rants, birds) will die anyway. Or rich ones who know all night vets.

    In what way does having a herd make it significantly more...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I'd draw the line with duress. But I think some non-violent coercion is fine. Also, I disagree as to the nature of the Blood Bond. 'forcing love' is influencing emotion. But the person in question can resist.

    You are seemingly ignoring the numerous other ways I listed before… It is only killing every time you feed if they are solely feeding on animals. And like I made note, feeding on anything smaller than a cow is almost certainly going to kill the animal anyway. This is a non-starter, feeding on animals has always been presented as more humane. And feeding between animals, blood...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The blood bond influences emotion, it is coercion. But it isn't outright mind control by any means. I think it would depend much on the situation. I would say the qualifier 'truly willing' is still unnecessary. Only that they are giving permission. I'm not pretending each situation has an absolute rule, but would require the ST to be aware of the person's state. Conditioning would be fine imo, I mostly meant outright commands.

    Not much worse than someone who eats meat regularly. As someone else pointed out once, they don't have the choice to go vegetarian. Whether or not they'd...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Thanks, I fixed it. Cifer...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It certainly would be gray in some scenarios, it would ultimately come down to Storyteller discretion, which I think is fine. But as for Dominate, I would say it isn't actually someone's will. It'd be akin to forcing them, it supplants their will. Whereas something like Presence is more influencing/coercing them to be willing. As would be a blood bond.

    As for legal consent, I mentioned it because I wanted to establish the difference between the casual definition (just agreeing in general) and legal consent (which could be consider more rigid in interpretation as for how it can be...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Monalfie; 07-20-2017, 10:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Page 9 of V20.
    "Feeding, which vampires call “the Kiss,” is an incredibly intoxicating and erotic experience for Cainites and their victims."
    Page 15
    "Sensual:It might be a pang of desire, or it might be an undeniable physical lust, but becoming a vampire is a sexual consummation, as is the act of feeding."...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Monalfie; 07-20-2017, 09:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • I did mention the concept of legal consent further back. But I felt it was too high a standard for the weakness.

    Aya Tari Not to brush aside any such experiences, but it seems like being drugged could very much fall into a similar category. Whether or not the victim was aware or traumatized doesn't make it not rape. Personally I'm not a fan of the entire 'vampires are a huge rape metaphor' for a lot of reasons, but that aside, the comparison can stand.

    This conversation actually reminds me of the discussion I've had with a group before on how problematic the concept of...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I contest the idea 'explains exactly what is about to happen. Because I think with a druggie or drunk they could fudge the wording. But yes, it is partly restrictive. For something that doesn't outright disallow feeding, I think that's fine.
    As I said on one of my earlier posts, I don't think legal consent is the strictest level of standard for this. Nothing about the weakness says one cannot use coercion. And I don't see how someone could give will for someone else.

    As for an animal, you would just kill the animal beforehand. Give how likely one would be to do so with feeding...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Monalfie; 07-19-2017, 09:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blood Bags, blood dolls/ghouls/herd (the book even specifically says most Salubri have at least one dot of herd), using presence (having a friend help or learning it), during seduction (I find the idea of someone specifying no biting beforehand unlikely), animals, someone who has been drugged/drunk, I don't consider it overly restrictive.
    Not to mention that overall it is less restrictive as a penalty. Antitribu Salubri get no nourishment from breaking their weakness restriction. Ventrue physically vomit what they drink. Healers just lose a point of willpower, so they can still feed this...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I disagree on two fronts. The first would be that allowing for unaware targets defeats it really being a meaningful weakness whatsoever.

    But onto the wording itself, I think you can be considered unwilling in regards to something you aren't aware of. I don't need to know someone is trying to say, drug me, to be unwilling to let someone drug me. It isn't specifying 'unwilling of the specific instance of feeding', but unwilling generally. I think it'd be an unrealistic reading to say someone is not unwilling if they wouldn't go along with it if they have knowledge of what you were attempting....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • My reasoning is that the metaphysics of the curse are what matter, not the perception. So I would thinking a being actually being unwilling matters over whether or not they can physically express their lack of desire in the matter. In a similar manner to how I see the Ventrue weakness.

    As for the kiss, I would say possibly they could feed, loss the willpower, but not lose more if the kiss makes the target willing....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • For the record, I think the final sentence is questionable. Whether or not they are under the kiss once you start, I think being unwilling to start would cause the weakness to activate anyway. But yeah, I would agree with the rest. I would even go so far as to add to other flawed situations.
    -You grab someone with the intent to feed. It doesn't matter if they know you're going to feed, perceived resistance should be enough. Unwilling to go along with the situation in general would be important for it to be meaningful.
    -Someone aware of the Masquerade and is unwilling would apply, such...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It doesn't say they have to be willing. It just says they have trouble with unwilling vessels. One cannot be unwilling without a will.

    Interesting scenario, a ghost telling a Salubri not to drink from their body. Can't recall if ghosts in cWoD count as the same people, though....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Why would that matter? The weakness itself it outlined as 'Salubri have difficulty feeding on unwilling vessels.' A corpse very distinctly lacks any will whatsoever.

    On that note, I'll try to double check my Lore of the Bloodlines later to see any further outlines. As for dominating or drugging, depends on how one views willing. I'd say it isn't clear whether their willingness needs to meet the burden of legal consent or if any induced willingness is fine. I'd probably lean towards it being fine for drugs and not for Dominate. Probably fine for Presence or someone under a blood bond....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Monalfie
Monalfie
Member
Last Activity: Today, 03:30 PM
Joined: 10-14-2016
Location:
Working...
X