(larp) Idea for Blood Hunts (influenced by NorCal)

[keyboardninja]

I think that it should cost the Prince a status trait to call a Blood Hunt. The need to go to such an extreme only indicates his/her lack of power/authority to bring the individual to justice. If we made it cost a status trait up front, I think there'd be fewer bullshit blood hunts

Comments

[internofdoom]

SO, basicly, you are looking to go back to the second ed rule? :P

[keyboardninja]

I'm trying to think of a way to systematically meld common sense and the workings of such a large and diverse Org with the canonical materials presented in the books.

While the books may infer the use blood hunts as common parlance, I don't think they were ever used quite as frivolously as we see them used in the Org.

[keyboardninja]

Yes, but local games/domains, council, and some Coords, like to get their panties in a wad whenever an Archon or Justicarial agent gets involved.

[kory_mon]

Like a few of us were discussing this past year, the 'Bloodhunt' is both a punishment and a political maneuver. Any Prince that starts calling them willy-nilly is well...paranoid? Insecure? Failing? Falling into trouble

[perpetuallysad]

There's a distinction in there that you brought up, but didn't push to the forefront:

Right of Destruction can be private, between a small number of individuals. A blood hunt is functionally equivalent to giving an entire domain the Right of Destruction over and individual, and then offering Right of Destruction over anybody that impedes the destruction of the original individual.

If that second part sounded confusing, then you understand why we have a separate thing called a "blood hunt."

[kory_mon]

Nope. I fully understood. Ie: do not impede the Prince's justice, dumb ass, by helping a Bloodhunted individual less you yourself be Bloodhunted as well.

[whiteymcdrow]

This is still not wholly correct; Everyone is -required- to participate in a Bloodhunt, and kudos to who gets there first.

Right of Destruction is given to specific people, and other people are punished (though not severely) if they interfere because of a breach of the traditions.

It's "Everybody kill him!" versus "You guys kill him! Not you, YOU!"

[gwydapllew]

I don't like it. I think that the Blood Hunt is one of the few powers a Prince should be able to exercise as they see fit. Calling a Blood Hunt does not necessarily weaken a Prince's standing; some individuals SHOULD be Blood Hunted for their actions, and doing so should make a Prince stronger, not weaker.

Likewise, a Prince who calls for Blood Hunts superfluously will find that either a) they are so powerful that their Domain kowtows to their will or b) that someone rises up within the Domain and overthrows them. Either option is perfectly in-genre, perfectly acceptable, and should not involve the Justicariate.

I would much rather see a Domain handle their own problems then call in Archons and Justicars to fix the problem. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Prince abusing his power, because it is a self-correcting problem.

It's vampire. You do everything you can to get away with everything you want. If you make a mistake, you lose. If you don't make a mistake, the rules shouldn't punish you.

[famularo]

This isn't really necessary. Bloodhunts rarely get abused.

The only thing I think is stupid is the opinion that the Primogen can't overturn the hunt if a Prince doesn't have enough status to strip. That's crap. If the Prince doesn't have enough status, it sucks to be that guy... because he just lost his Acknowledgement and his throne. It doesn't make the Prince immune. That would be idiotic.

[accountamatrix]

You don't follow Iowa much, do you?

[famularo]

I said rarely, not never. Iowa usually makes me smack my forehead.