Remove ads

Green Flame Rising (Exalted vs Dresden Files)

Reader mode
A monk, a knight a wizard, a bound old warlock and a heavily bruised young girl in armor.

I think if we all stay the sheer weirdness-factor might cause the cops to retreat.
 
[X] Follow the others into the bedroom

Even if Molly wasn't bruised her being here alone with Harry would be seriously sketchy to the cops. If Greene is willing to skirt due process already and has enough support in the department to get away with it then we'd just be giving him ammunition.

How much more slack would they give him if he can paint Dresden as possibly abusing a kid?

If someone needs to play witness have Micheal stick around; he doesn't need to explain shit about why he's hanging around and can keep them honest.

Worst comes to worst, I'm sure the white god would arrange for a very scary lawyer to get him off scot free if he gets accused of stuff while on the job.
 
[x]Follow the Others into the Bedroom
[x]Crown of Eyes: Who Shot this bullet?(Referring to the one from the Sniper we saved)
 
Last edited:
DragonParadox said:
The Loup Garou was mortal, free will and everything and you could bind that into a circle if you knew what you were doing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am sorry if I'm late, but I'd like to say that this technically has an example in Infernals. That is, usually being "free willed" but not always and then going back. Which is why I don't think circles would work.

Usually Infernals are pretty free even in Exalted, even if its not quite to the degree of right now, but they could just leave if they feel like it (whether its a good idea etc).

But as just one example, there is One Hand Fury of the Infernal Monster Style. It allows you to turn your arm into an artifact, weapon does some cool stuff, but there is this clause...

All social attacks by Yozis and Third Circle demons against the martial artist are undodgeable for one full day following any flaring of the runes. The character may argue against the Yozis or their core aspects (i.e., parry) but can't ignore or reject the nature of the weapon she has become. Worse, once in the lifetime of any Infernal Monster Style master, the Yozis may telepathically command her to act as they please for one scene across any distance or realms of existence. Resistance is not possible, and defenses that trump this control merely postpone it to another time. The character can be ordered to betray her Motivation but can't be given an unacceptable order. This effect is a closely guarded secret of the Yozis and remains unknown to their Infernal Exalted and the Fivescore Fellowship alike. If any individual masters suspect the danger or have discovered this curse the hard way, they have kept the knowledge to themselves. Anys Syn, elder aide to Chejop Kejak and chief architect of the Immaculate Dragon Styles, would personally prosecute any of the Maidens' Chosen found to be compromised in such a manner, her own predilection for wearing gloves to major battles notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This would be a similar temporary free-will lacking, I'd say.

This doesn't mean you're -always so-, just in some circumstances.

Another example may be something like the SMA Charm "Joy in Ownership", I guess? The difference from other mind stuff is that the victim metaphysically counts as the martial artist's property.
 
Last edited:
OctarineShrike said:
Sure, from a Watsonian standpoint. Doylistically Uju32's plan was explicitly to Crown of Eyes the bullet later. Figure staring at/fidgeting with part of a bullet in a room with a monk/dad/Gorefel is safe enough if we don't talk about what we learned.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm cautious about locking out further questions on more important things by asking badly worded or low-utility ones now - I really don't feel I have a good understanding of how this power works tbh

@DragonParadox - I hope this isn't too vague, but would the following 'burn' the topic of 'the organisation that the shooter is working with/for/is hired by' if we ask "What is the name of the person who fired this bullet?"

And would a better question be "What is the name and aliases of the person who fired this bullet?"
 
BeepSmile said:
I'm cautious about locking out further questions on more important things by asking badly worded or low-utility ones now - I really don't feel I have a good understanding of how this power works tbh

@DragonParadox - I hope this isn't too vague, but would the following 'burn' the topic of 'the organisation that the shooter is working with/for/is hired by' if we ask "What is the name of the person who fired this bullet?"

And would a better question be "What is the name and aliases of the person who fired this bullet?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The way I understand it, it would burn our question for the bullet. We concentrate on a person in our Line of sight and ask, we burn using that person as a question focus. We ask a question concentrating on an object in our LOS, you burn the ability to ask future questions relating to that object.

Abstract situations within our line of sight is I just shrug and take the GMs word for what can be done
 
If we're there with Harry... in a wrecked dress and a bodysuit that would have to be assumed in somebody's kink... or in what is clearly some of his clothes? The fuckers would assume they interrupted something. And it wouldn't make things simpler for Harry.

At all.

Honestly the monk is the least problematic dude here. If we had to take a dive out the window carrying a Nazi, if shit hits the fan, we can probably pull it off with fewer heads turned. But lets see how this goes.
 
Last edited:
Modus_Tollens said:
If we're there with Harry... in a wrecked dress and a bodysuit that would have to be assumed in somebody's kink... or in what is clearly some of his clothes? The fuckers would assume they interrupted something. And it wouldn't make things simpler for Harry.

At all.

Honestly the monk is the least problematic dude here. If we had to take a dive out the window carrying a Nazi, if shit hits the fan, we can probably pull it off with fewer heads turned. But lets see how this goes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If shit really hits the fan we can propably intimidate the cops into leaving.
They will propably rationalise later why exactly they ran fron a 17 year old, but for now raw dice would carry through.
 
BeepSmile said:
I'm cautious about locking out further questions on more important things by asking badly worded or low-utility ones now - I really don't feel I have a good understanding of how this power works tbh

@DragonParadox - I hope this isn't too vague, but would the following 'burn' the topic of 'the organisation that the shooter is working with/for/is hired by' if we ask "What is the name of the person who fired this bullet?"

And would a better question be "What is the name and aliases of the person who fired this bullet?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, it would burn out the bullet, the gun and the gunman if you get another hook for things related to the organization you can use it. Magic Nazis are an occult and dangerous enough topic that your Crown goes 'this is awesome, lets learn more' as opposed to say its reactions to gambling which is 'yawn, here are your numbers'.
 
DragonParadox said:
No, it would burn out the bullet, the gun and the gunman if you get another hook for things related to the organization you can use it. Magic Nazis are an occult and dangerous enough topic that your Crown goes 'this is awesome, lets learn more' as opposed to say its reactions to gambling which is 'yawn, here are your numbers'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ahhh. Unfortunate. I would like to not burn the gunman as a topic/focus, since it might be better for us to ask for a list of the names (and those people's aliases) of all members of the group who the gunman is a part of who sent the gunman after us.

(He could be hired/a contractor, and I'd not like to ask for details on the wrong set of people)

@ thread: Intention here is that by having a full set of names, a group name is redundant, and this question would also cover anyone who is a double agent - either for or against that group
---
[X] Follow the others into the bedroom
 
I think we want things to stop flying around wildly before we do it to the bullet, because right now we can't do anything with the information. We could narrow it down if Harry's open to doing some thaumaturgic divination - names without context won't get us very far when searching blind, but if he's setting up we can ask HIM what works best for nailing the target.
 
So to clarify

We use the bullet as a question focus to find the identity of who shot it.

What kinds of questions would we be unable to ask if we then find the gunman and use them as the focus? Would we be unable to ask who sent them? Would we be unable to ask personal questions about them like their fears?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top