Confusion around Micheals actions


You mean like this?
Someone else with rights dips their hand into the cookie jar, but instead of getting killed for it they:
shake their hand and give them a pat on the back;
Offer that they can take all the cookies they want;
“Let’s pretend you didn’t commit a cardinal sin;”
"Let’s inform no-one else and keep this a secret so everyone else doesn’t know of them being a law-breaker;"
And then “oh, i’m found out, rush to my defense everyone.”
Like that?


Yes, I’ve got it. I’ll factor it in to my reply. I’m just waiting to hear back from a few “influential” characters who are private messaging the Harpy.


More like this:

Polititician takes large bribe
Public gets wind of this and raises a fuss
Politition pays off the right people
All the evidence dissapears
Politician looks inncent and says “Who, me?” when asked about it

Yes, it happened. But now there is no evidence, only heresay.


OOC: Actually I thought it was your esteemedness identifying it as heresay :wink: lol


Nope. All the “evidence” has dissapeared, now I just have to look innocent…

And it is a huge pain that there is no guidelines in the book about this. You can be “Sanctioned”, which, I quote: When granted, this status allows a specifically defined breach of one sect law. You can expend Sanctioned to break that law without incurring punishment. This action is a exception to the specific law, allowed by an Authority of a domain.

So, hey, Micheal was specifically allowed to diablerise Jasper without incurring punishment. And yet diablerie is a bad bad thing. See the OOC headaches?


From what I’m aware, you may be ALLOWED to commit diablerie without punishment, but you will still be JUDGED for it socially, which is the purpose of the flaw, and the reason it’s considered such is that even if a person is given permission, the sect as a whole still abhors the act and many members will judge you for this action nonetheless. Thus there is no mechanical effect, only a roleplay one. So in this case, it seems it would be difficult to truly remove, considering that even if the evidence is gone, McTavish has openly admitted to this diablerie in the past and we all know about it, meaning the social debuff would still in effect be there.


Uhmmm…who has MacTavish ever admitted his diablerie to? Thats one of the things I have been very carefull not to do IC, and I thought I had succeeded.


Close but no cigar …


I think the brood have also mentioned it…


If I could just here from all other players, I am needing to know how many characters KNOW that Micheal has commited diablerie. By this I mean that I would like an OOC comment that you posses this knoweledge, and where it was gained.This does not include the knoweledge of the Flaw, or Aura perception, just verbal statements from Micheal.


Are you wanting personal replies or on this forum?


What - so you know who to eliminate to protect your new cover? LOL nice try …

I suggest anyone who has this knowledge PM’s the ST’s in case there is a decision of some sort pending that info.


I suspect the issue is less that IC Mctavish is trying to figure out stuff and more that Merv is trying to figure out if anyone has ended up with OOC comments that they have taken as IC; because there is confusion given what Merv remembers telling people and what people are now trying to claim. So this I believe is an attempt to clear up the issue to separate IC and OOC.


So as I see it, the sanctioned means you can commit diablerie and live. The flaw means you suffer socially for it though. But do the two come hand in hand, as in can you be sanctioned without getting the flaw to go with it? The fluff reading suggests they go together …


LOL I get it, y’all elders dump on us neonates if we say “Dia…”, but the ranks close when it’s done by one of the lads in the big room eh? That’s why we all love the Camarilla!

And Brick already tried the dodgy memory routine … didn’t end too well ;o)


Please watch how your words come across. Though it appears to me that this is a joke, to some it may come across as an accusation. If you are seriously worried about things, by all means message the ST with the information and they can decide if the information was gained IC or from accidental OOC things being slipped.


I am pretty sure this whole thread is OOC conversation. Right, Bob?


Yes, it is in the rules discussion section. Rules discussion by its very nature is OOC


Yeh, there just doesnt seem to be any way to buy it off. Though the way I was seeing it was that the only difference between Forgiven and Sanctioned is that there seems to be extra (?) stigma attached to not gaining permission first.

“Hey kids, plan ahead and get The Rite of Amaranth first, and none of the big kids can pick on you…”

And yeh, the request was an OOC one, as I’m curious to know who I slipped up with and how.


It’s on the web - no take backs :innocent: mind you not too many people know cos it’s the 4th hit currently.