I have though of something we might investigate before just setting fire to the town and hoping for the best though. Food and supplies need to get into the castle somehow, so it might be worthwhile to check whether we can make use of our small size to smuggle ourself into the castle.
Why does everything end with Bay12 trying to burn everything?
Actually I meant 'before' as 'try smuggling with supplies first as an alternative plan to burning everything'. I am not all that fond of plan fire in general.
I believe we are agreed on this.
Someone who works with demons has a choice. Someone who was born a demon didn't.
In some settings, certain types of beings are Always Chaotic Evil.
This isn't that setting, or at least it doesn't apply to us.
In many settings, a significant number of people think that certain types of beings are Always Chaotic Evil.
We'll prove them wrong.
If the adventurers know we are significantly demonic (quite likely) and consider demons to be Always Chaotic Evil (fairly likely considering the harm they seem to be attempting to do to the amulet) they will consider us an enemy by definition.
Unless...we show them otherwise.
Someone who works with demons has a choice. Someone who was born a demon didn't.
And why do people hate demons? Assuming this holds true in this game world, because they do horrible things. As a race they are rather homogeneously evil. If we're part devil, from their point of view, it's much more likely we're trying to play a trick on them than try to do good.
Firstly, I'd like to point out that a lot of what you say could be applied with minor modification to a wide variety of real-world prejudices. Do you think any of them apply? I, for one, would not write off anyone with a trace of X as being Pure Evil just because "everyone knows" all X are evil. I'd give them a chance. That's what we need--a chance.
That, and players who won't ruin it.
We can't exactly defeat the adventurers without a lot more power, and trickery pretty much requires more illusive power. Power requires amulet, key behind door.
In any case, you didn't explain what we have to lose.
Unless we split them up, (like with an enormous fire), and only have to deal with a drained & weakened sorceress, (like right now).
I don't understand what you mean with the last part, 'what we have to lose'.
1. How do you intend to make an enormous fire that also manages to split the adventurers up somehow?
2. What do we have to lose by trying the normal-friendship option before going the Nanoha-friendship option?
Perhaps not, but we are anyway (see: attempting to cause riot, shoplifting).
Why did we do those, anyways?
To get money, practice illusion. aka get more power. (power = knowlege = options = etc)
[/quote]
Ah.
Simple: No vivisection, and one more step and one more transit we can escape during.
Assuming they do take us to a 'competent' researcher, there is still no guarantee of non-vivisection.
[/quote]
Why not? What competent researcher goes straight for vivisection, especially on an intelligent being who can talk and such?
Killing adventurers
To be fair, I am suggesting a fair deal of killing, albeit indirectly.
Why?
Dealing with demons?
Is that inherently evil? Is he dealing, or studying?
...I really hate when GMs leave vital tidbits like that uncertain. Shouldn't the familiar be somewhat familiar with what the Master does?
Doesn't the amulet's power to save us require us to have it?
Isn't threatening to keep it away if we don't behave pointless if they keep it away regardless?
I think it was more of a 'we have to be really close to it'. It was in our master's possession after all.
Another thing left unclear. On that note, how close is close enough? And how long do we need to be that close? Would sitting on the sorceress's bedroom window for five minutes each night be enough?
Not their lapdog, their ally. That is the plan with the highest chance of not dying, whether due to amulet withdrawal or angering a bunch of pretty powerful adventurers.
The power'd be too disproportionate to be called an alliance.
France allied with the colonies in the American Revolutionary War. Germany allied with Italy in WWII. In the cold war, both sides made many alliances with much weaker nations.
Your claims are false.
First off, my point still doesn't require any of that, just an adventurer with a soft spot and two with souls (or that the one is the leader/strong enough to keep the other/s in line). That's all.
Think: Would you allow a potentially powerful potential ally with a sad past onto your team, or would you chuck him out due to his old owner who he didn't have any overt affections for, thereby creating a new enemy who could easily become more powerful? (Moderately experienced or learned* adventurers would be familiar with this possibility.)
*As in "listen to old tales told by bards", not as in "read lots of books".
The way the GM described it at the beginning, our master wasn't really that horrible of a guy. Kind of an asshole, but not evil. Plus these adventurers sure are good at looting, (implying greed), and just listen to that guy's name, "Isilev the Just"; that just trumpets doucheyness.
Or justness...
Anyways, this is another thing left unclear. Was he really halfway decent, or are we seeing him through tinted lenses? Alright, this is one that it's understandable we don't know; we'll have to ask around.
Why did no one think of being a homunculus?
Sad past? We wallowed in a gold pile, were fed, (honey & raw meat! not cheap), mana'd & possibly doted on by our master, (something of a prideful moment, our creation was likely), and the only negative was having to sit through his boring & sometimes humiliating lectures.
I was referring to the claim I'd suggested about us being an unwillingly-corrupted creature without a choice in the matter.
So, if we join them, we'll be deceiving them about our 'sad past' in order to get near the amulet.
Not entirely. It wasn't our choice to be made, and it wasn't our choice to be part-demon. The only fib is in the origin of our soul, and I'd be willing to drop that in the name of compromise.
Assuming we told them a tale of sadness- we could just stay neutral
The sob story would certainly help, though.
Assumingthey aren't Isilev the Just isn't a zealot.
Even if he is one of the adventurers (was this ever stated?) and is such a zealot, he's got two friends who hopefully keep him in line. Just like almost every single zealoty hero in fiction.
This'd be an interesting turn of events if we were playing as the adventurers.
Indeed.
But playing as the dragon, we won't have a say in where we go or what we do. Pilgrimage to the draconic-ruled beastman civ of the north? Not likely. But hey, the GM might be able to do something creative, so...if it works out I can see it being fun. But that's a nasty if, especially if Mr. Lurker gets bored.
You know how we get a say? Prove to be valuable to the party's efforts.
And we could steal it back later, like we would have to by your plan anyways.
They already know we need it. We haven't exactly succeeded at a low profile...
We might be able to steal it back now.
I doubt it.
And we'd still have to tail them, which could lead to all sorts of fun. Oh, and the sorceress lady's experimenting with it.
Both of those are true regardless of our choices.
They don't know we need it, we have kept a low profile.
That requires ignorance on the adventurer's part of how familiars work, failure to learn anything from the experiments, and pretending the whole High Profile trait (and the ripples we're making with our powers and such, inexplicable and probably connected by some pattern we can't see from our hyperoptic position) doesn't exist.
Remind me, which plan was that?
And why was it a good idea?
Firing the town.
-snip-
To summarize...allying with the adventurers means they kill/enslave their new pal, and setting fire to the town will work and will, rather than destroying the amulet or covering it in rubble or causing its bearers to flee, put it in our grasp. Oh, yeah, and we want to prove everyone who hates demons right.
I don't buy it.
I fail to see why this would inevitably lead to us being subservient to the adventurers.
Also, Alfred and Batman. Servant and master, yet friends and allies.
Alfred could quit. And do we want to play the Alfred to the adventuring party's batman?
He never would, and that was only the most obvious example. Besides, if Alfred was a small magical dragon, I'm sure Batman would take him on enough of his atrols and whatnot to make being him interesting.
Why not?
I suspect it's just a difference of opinion...
[/quote]
I fail to see why any of that is impossible with the adventurers by our side. Firstly, I'd like to mention that adventurers...
adventure. Not much adventure to be found if you stay within shouting distance of your own front porch. Secondly, joining the adventurers gives us much better chances in the world, as far as not getting killed/captured/hated on sight goes, than becoming a town-murdering arsonist. Thirdly, it's easier to get close to the amulet--which we both agree is something we
must do--if the adventurers like us than if they hate us.
[/spoiler]
Just as a note, the amulet and our distance from it are not nessecairy for our survival. It's just that if we don't get our hands on it in 3 months (or was it weeks), we will come under the current's owners control. At that point, the link will be restablished and we will get our manaflow in order. If we get it ourselves, we can restore our manaflow too.
Well, according to Grizzly, our freedom is pretty important and becoming the "lapdog" of the sorceress is worse than death...and, anyways, she's kinda messing with it.
Anyways. Long-term, we don't agree. Short-term,
dispel the illusion and claim to be a small dragon interested in studying this amulet. Medium-term...well, one thing I'm realizing is that there's too many assumptions and unknowns. Before we can make a plan, we need to know some of them. Let's do some recon of the area in general, and the party in specific.
Poll
Author
Topic: (ISG) You are a bound familiar (Read 47792 times)