Confusion around Micheals actions


#1

OK. There seems to be a lot of trouble building up around the Diablerie thread and matters relating to it. For the sake of transparency, and hopefull to defuse any issues that may be arising from it, I have decided to put up this post explaining my IC and OOC actions.

During an IC discussion in the Elder forum, the question of Michael having commited diablerie was raised. This was a legitimate tactic, as he had the social flaw(?) of “Forgiven Diablerie”, and had the stain visible in (on?) his aura.
Seeing an opportunity to undermine another Elder, Micheal started events to discredit his accuser. He contacted the Harpy of Denver, which was his previous domain, and asked them to send clarification to the Harpy of Hamilton. This has been done, and the Harpy should be recieving said missive shortly.

Now, OOC, I saw this as a good time to remove a social flaw in a manner that furtherd the game. Let me make it clear now that this was not done as a player tring to spite another player, but rather trying to set it so that it was an Elder meddling “behind the scenes” so as to embarress and undermine another Elder.

Let me just say that doing this is a larger pain in the a** than you can imagine. Although there is a mechanic that says “Hey, spend double the Flaw cost and its gone”, coming up with an IC way of making it happen has resulted in much discussion and head ache.

In game, the status was given to Micheal by Prince Tyler of Melbourne, who thought he had diablerised a Sabbat member by the name of Jasper. He had been incorrectly informed, as Jasper had actually been torpored, staked, and shipped back to Denver. It was in Denver where Micheal recieved permission to perform The Right of Amaranth upon Jasper, and thus commited a Sanctioned Diablerie.


#2

So which bit is IC?
Because you might have just advertingly gacked my arch nemesis, Jasper… I wondered where he disappeared off to… Down your gullet apparently. :rofl:


#3

This wasn’t so much an IC post as an explanation of IC thoughts and actions.


#4

Sorry. The parts where I refer to Micheal are the IC thoughts and actions, and the parts were I refer to me as I(?? Now I 'm starting to feel like a Malkav) where OOC


#5

Being in the rules discussion, I’m trying to outline my in character reasons for out of character actions. Doing this so that everyone can see what has been done and how.

Though I admit, I would have really liked to have let it roll on in game…


#6

There is still to be the IC inquiry which is a way to have it resolved IC


#7

Maybe you should go:
OOC: blah blah blah (when you whisper quietly to players instead of their characters)
and then
IC: blah blah blah (for when you jump back on the public soapbox)

It makes reality much easier when reading, and less drawn conclusions. :grinning:
You got to be careful when you type OOC statements and mark them as such - otherwise they can be used against you.

Or do mostly everything IC… You have the most fun that way.
And uh, Malkav is the only way. :wink:


#8

And if this was a character forum I probably would have tried to do it that way. Thats why I brought it here to the Rules Forum, so it can all be discussed OOC.


#9

Oh… I have just noticed that there is a category section… “rules discussions” apparently.
I just work off the topic list which work in updated rows… goog grief… I’m probably not the only one who is been doing that…

I just always try to talk in character no matter where I am.


#10

I am still so confused - what is the purpose of buying off the flaw?

Regardless of whether you were sanctioned or not, you have still committed diablerie. Diablerie is drinking the soul of the victim. It doesn’t matter if it is in your aura or not, or it’s been forgiven or not; either you have done it or you have not.


#11

My understanding is that Merv read the flaw as ‘he committed diablerie without the right and was forgiven for the sin by the Prince of that Domain for whatever reason’ as opposed to ‘diablerie was committed in a sanctioned way’ (which is apparently what the book states, and does specifically mention as a reward or trophy).

I do not know the discussions with the ST on this matter, so can not comment further than this.


#12

The purpose was so that IC I could turn around and go “No, it wasn’t me”. The social side has been cleaned up, and the physical evidence is gone, so it becomes the word of one Elder against another.


#13

Let me be clear that Micheal has NEVER stated that he has not commited diablerie. He is just cleaning up his public image. (After all, we all know Elders can do no wrong)


#14

Some people’s characters don’t like “diablerists” because well, that’s the Camarilla. We’re the good guys.

OOC: If you wanted someone to have the response you would like, you’re in the wrong sect buddy. It’s called a “flaw” and some flaws (like this one in the Camarilla) is just not like cricket. If you’re in the Sabbat, it’s like, “job well done buddy.”


#15

So he is more moving it to a form of dark secret. totally did it… but there is no documented proof, just a lot of here say.


#16

As stated previously, yes it is a flaw… but it’s a 1 point flaw. - I believe that is almost word for word what the ST said on that matter in this regard.

Everything sort of went a bit messy, and there will be consequences for that… but IC for now the topic has been halted - publicly - so that everyone has a chance to figure things out both OOC for rule issues and IC for how their character would react to this. Not everyone is great at interacting on the internet for things, and so I think this is now at a point where it has to move forward IC and in person.


#17

Diablerie - forgiven or not - is very very bad in the Camarilla… Unless you noticed, (especially) Elders and Ancillae get very very upset about these people.
EDIT: Oooop, um pretend my post is above Sophie’s, I posted a micro second after her’s :frowning:


#18

Regretfully, that is not what McTavish has achieved. See Chris’ comment in the main Status Post.

I will give some thought to this IC and make an official announcement as Harpy.


#19

Yes, diablerie is a bad thing. Yes, it is publicly frowned upon by the Camarilla. And at the same time, you can be given the right to diablerise someone as a prize !!

Its one of those problems of mechanics not quite meshing with gameplay


#20

Have you recieved the IC letter from the Harpy of Denver?