2018-06-11 [DMFA#1844] - Parental disapproval

[Nightmask]

There's another consideration. Even if Regina is somehow guilty of assaulting Dan, and accidental manslaughter, what is the appropriate penalty?

What would you sentence a 15-year-old to in our society, if this happened to them?

I think that begs the question 'what kind of sentence would a being get if they had been in similar circumstances?'  Given how both groups look at one another it's hard to imagine a demon getting sentenced the same as a being for the same crime if the same court was overseeing both.  In the being court it seems like the demon would have gotten a death sentence while a being would have gotten a lighter sentence, no telling how the creature court would handle a similar situation since given how demons favor power it's possible a being would get the same treatment based on the simple 'hey if that being could defeat that demon the demon clearly was too weak to survive good going being!'

[Nightmask]

Just to throw in my two cents. Most of the arguments I've seen are "Was Regina wrong to kill those people?"

The answer is yes. No matter what happened previously, no matter what they thought when she came running out of the house, it is clear from the comic that Regina never considered the third option: Running. There was nothing stopping her from simply fleeing. Perhaps they would have caught her, and she would have been forced to fight, perhaps not. I'd hazard a guess that at top speed a Demon could easily outrun most Beings if they really wanted to.

You can argue her mental state all you want, but she never considered the completely valid, easiest, least dangerous and destructive option that was open to her. Even if it was a simple heat of the moment decision, the fault still lies with her. Period.

You're assuming she had the option of running, we don't know that she had the option of running.  What we do know is that the area had plenty of adventurer patrols and Dan was explicitly trying to stop her from going outside because he knew that they would try to kill a lone demon wandering through the area.  It's easy to say someone could have run when you're outside the situation, not so easy inside the situation.  Running also presents your back to an enemy leaving you vulnerable, one would have to be VERY confident in their ability to run fast enough that a possibly magically-endowed enemy with ranged weapons can't nail you while you're running away.  Running isn't actually as easy or low danger as you think in that regard, running is very much a 'how safe is it to run rather than fight? situation.  It's not even remotely like we've seen Dan's perspective on things where she was just some demon that tricked him and murdered a bunch of people, even from what Dan says we know the area was dangerous to demons and they weren't going to have a 'take prisoners' mentality but instead were of the 'take NO prisoners' mentality.

[Jasonrevall]

There's another consideration. Even if Regina is somehow guilty of assaulting Dan, and accidental manslaughter, what is the appropriate penalty?

What would you sentence a 15-year-old to in our society, if this happened to them?

The same thing we do in real life. Try them as an adult. If a police officer draws their gun to stop a murderer covered in blood and tells someone to freeze you don't get the right to shoot them just because you said so. Everyone keeps coming to Regina's defense by saying that she had every right to leave. Noone is discounting that anyone in any situation has a right to leave if they are uncomfortable at any time that should be a given. This does not give Regina the right to draw blood, nor the right to kill, nor the right to mass murder. Just like the teenagers that shoot up schools and throw rocks onto highways, Regina deserves at the very least prison.

It's also very possible that Regina, in her adrenaline fueled rage, ignored or didn't notice they were asking her to halt and explain herself. This is Regina. As she's said before she's the one that lived so we only got her side because the other side is in a grave somewhere.

[Dishonored]

Just to throw in my two cents. Most of the arguments I've seen are "Was Regina wrong to kill those people?"

The answer is yes. No matter what happened previously, no matter what they thought when she came running out of the house, it is clear from the comic that Regina never considered the third option: Running. There was nothing stopping her from simply fleeing. Perhaps they would have caught her, and she would have been forced to fight, perhaps not. I'd hazard a guess that at top speed a Demon could easily outrun most Beings if they really wanted to.

You can argue her mental state all you want, but she never considered the completely valid, easiest, least dangerous and destructive option that was open to her. Even if it was a simple heat of the moment decision, the fault still lies with her. Period.

You're assuming she had the option of running, we don't know that she had the option of running.  What we do know is that the area had plenty of adventurer patrols and Dan was explicitly trying to stop her from going outside because he knew that they would try to kill a lone demon wandering through the area.  It's easy to say someone could have run when you're outside the situation, not so easy inside the situation.  Running also presents your back to an enemy leaving you vulnerable, one would have to be VERY confident in their ability to run fast enough that a possibly magically-endowed enemy with ranged weapons can't nail you while you're running away.  Running isn't actually as easy or low danger as you think in that regard, running is very much a 'how safe is it to run rather than fight? situation.  It's not even remotely like we've seen Dan's perspective on things where she was just some demon that tricked him and murdered a bunch of people, even from what Dan says we know the area was dangerous to demons and they weren't going to have a 'take prisoners' mentality but instead were of the 'take NO prisoners' mentality.

I know she had the option of running because she was running. She ran away from the San house, and was blocks away when she ran into the adventurers. From the art, she didn't literally run into them; she could have continued running. Also, as another poster (apologies for laziness in looking it up) said, she has wings. She could fly away once outside.

You can assume anything you want, but with the evidence provided by the comic, she could have just kept going. Instead, she took the "easy" way out, and made a bad situation worse.

[Genesis]

Just to throw in my two cents. Most of the arguments I've seen are "Was Regina wrong to kill those people?"

The answer is yes. No matter what happened previously, no matter what they thought when she came running out of the house, it is clear from the comic that Regina never considered the third option: Running. There was nothing stopping her from simply fleeing. Perhaps they would have caught her, and she would have been forced to fight, perhaps not. I'd hazard a guess that at top speed a Demon could easily outrun most Beings if they really wanted to.

You can argue her mental state all you want, but she never considered the completely valid, easiest, least dangerous and destructive option that was open to her. Even if it was a simple heat of the moment decision, the fault still lies with her. Period.

You're assuming she had the option of running, we don't know that she had the option of running.  What we do know is that the area had plenty of adventurer patrols and Dan was explicitly trying to stop her from going outside because he knew that they would try to kill a lone demon wandering through the area.  It's easy to say someone could have run when you're outside the situation, not so easy inside the situation.  Running also presents your back to an enemy leaving you vulnerable, one would have to be VERY confident in their ability to run fast enough that a possibly magically-endowed enemy with ranged weapons can't nail you while you're running away.  Running isn't actually as easy or low danger as you think in that regard, running is very much a 'how safe is it to run rather than fight? situation.  It's not even remotely like we've seen Dan's perspective on things where she was just some demon that tricked him and murdered a bunch of people, even from what Dan says we know the area was dangerous to demons and they weren't going to have a 'take prisoners' mentality but instead were of the 'take NO prisoners' mentality.

I know she had the option of running because she was running. She ran away from the San house, and was blocks away when she ran into the adventurers. From the art, she didn't literally run into them; she could have continued running. Also, as another poster (apologies for laziness in looking it up) said, she has wings. She could fly away once outside.

You can assume anything you want, but with the evidence provided by the comic, she could have just kept going. Instead, she took the "easy" way out, and made a bad situation worse.

Atleast one of the adventurers has what look like possibly crossbow bolts, if not normal arrows, and the other has wings. Not to mention the fact that, given her total kill count, it's likely the rest of the patrols closed in pretty quick.

[Dishonored]

Atleast one of the adventurers has what look like possibly crossbow bolts, if not normal arrows, and the other has wings. Not to mention the fact that, given her total kill count, it's likely the rest of the patrols closed in pretty quick.
[/quote]

There was risk in attacking, too. Two-on-one, with one side armed, wasn't a certain thing either. Also, her total kill count at that point was one, and from what was shown the alarm hadn't been raised yet.

[Genesis]

Atleast one of the adventurers has what look like possibly crossbow bolts, if not normal arrows, and the other has wings. Not to mention the fact that, given her total kill count, it's likely the rest of the patrols closed in pretty quick.

There was risk in attacking, too. Two-on-one, with one side armed, wasn't a certain thing either. Also, her total kill count at that point was one, and from what was shown the alarm hadn't been raised yet.

I meant the total number of kills we know she gets, 12, so obviously something has to happen to bring more combatants into the fight, since I doubt even Regina is going to kill 8 more random civies.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I mean, heck, maybe they shouted "Halt, Fiend!" in the manner of The Tick - but from the look of them in her memory, I'm guessing they were shitting themselves. :-(

To be honest, it's what I'd be doing in that circumstance.

... which? ;-]

[Nightmask]

Just to throw in my two cents. Most of the arguments I've seen are "Was Regina wrong to kill those people?"

The answer is yes. No matter what happened previously, no matter what they thought when she came running out of the house, it is clear from the comic that Regina never considered the third option: Running. There was nothing stopping her from simply fleeing. Perhaps they would have caught her, and she would have been forced to fight, perhaps not. I'd hazard a guess that at top speed a Demon could easily outrun most Beings if they really wanted to.

You can argue her mental state all you want, but she never considered the completely valid, easiest, least dangerous and destructive option that was open to her. Even if it was a simple heat of the moment decision, the fault still lies with her. Period.

You're assuming she had the option of running, we don't know that she had the option of running.  What we do know is that the area had plenty of adventurer patrols and Dan was explicitly trying to stop her from going outside because he knew that they would try to kill a lone demon wandering through the area.  It's easy to say someone could have run when you're outside the situation, not so easy inside the situation.  Running also presents your back to an enemy leaving you vulnerable, one would have to be VERY confident in their ability to run fast enough that a possibly magically-endowed enemy with ranged weapons can't nail you while you're running away.  Running isn't actually as easy or low danger as you think in that regard, running is very much a 'how safe is it to run rather than fight? situation.  It's not even remotely like we've seen Dan's perspective on things where she was just some demon that tricked him and murdered a bunch of people, even from what Dan says we know the area was dangerous to demons and they weren't going to have a 'take prisoners' mentality but instead were of the 'take NO prisoners' mentality.

I know she had the option of running because she was running. She ran away from the San house, and was blocks away when she ran into the adventurers. From the art, she didn't literally run into them; she could have continued running. Also, as another poster (apologies for laziness in looking it up) said, she has wings. She could fly away once outside.

You can assume anything you want, but with the evidence provided by the comic, she could have just kept going. Instead, she took the "easy" way out, and made a bad situation worse.

Yes you're certainly assuming things, because the evidence in the comic provides no such evidence.  Her running FROM Wildy's home is a completely separate thing from being able to run from 2 armed adventurers.  You're looking at things reasoning from the end desire of 'she's totally wrong how can I support it by what's in the comics?' I'm reasoning from 'what can we conclude from what we seen in the comics.'  From what we see in the comics the evidence is a perfect storm of mistakes happened thanks to people misunderstanding what other people said.  Regina reacted on instinct and adrenaline and killed an innocent person and fled believing it better than staying and being forced to kill anyone else because she knew she wouldn't be able to explain it was an accident.  In fleeing she ran across one of the many patrols in the area, one armed with sufficient weapons and means as to make her feel she couldn't run and fought to defend herself when they attacked her based on nothing but she had blood on her claws.  Other patrols quickly arrived, either called by the first patrol or by the sound of battle forcing her to have to kill all of them to survive.  All of those she killed after she fled Wildy's house qualify as self-defense.

[Nightmask]

There's another consideration. Even if Regina is somehow guilty of assaulting Dan, and accidental manslaughter, what is the appropriate penalty?

What would you sentence a 15-year-old to in our society, if this happened to them?

The same thing we do in real life. Try them as an adult. If a police officer draws their gun to stop a murderer covered in blood and tells someone to freeze you don't get the right to shoot them just because you said so. Everyone keeps coming to Regina's defense by saying that she had every right to leave. Noone is discounting that anyone in any situation has a right to leave if they are uncomfortable at any time that should be a given. This does not give Regina the right to draw blood, nor the right to kill, nor the right to mass murder. Just like the teenagers that shoot up schools and throw rocks onto highways, Regina deserves at the very least prison.

It's also very possible that Regina, in her adrenaline fueled rage, ignored or didn't notice they were asking her to halt and explain herself. This is Regina. As she's said before she's the one that lived so we only got her side because the other side is in a grave somewhere.

You're misrepresenting things there.  While Regina commited manslaughter she didn't commit murder so isn't a murderer.  That was also not a case of a member of law-enforcement confronting a murderer covered in blood it was two mercenaries confronting one lone female that the ONLY things that they knew was she was a demon and she had blood on her.  Law-Enforcement actually isn't empowered to simply pull its weapons out and immediately try to gun someone down because they have blood on them (after all it could be their own blood not someone else's) yet we know that the adventurers will do just that when they see demons.  What Regina had was the absolute right to defend herself against strangers trying to kill her, she did not commit mass murder because her intent was to preserve her life from people trying to kill her just for being a demon.  We KNOW that they were trying to kill her just for being a demon because again Dan's own memories of things have him thinking that if she goes outside and is met by the patrols that they'll try to kill her on sight.  So no we don't have just her side of things we have Dan's side too making it clear that the adventurers weren't interested in justice just in killing her for being a demon.

[Dishonored]

I know she had the option of running because she was running. She ran away from the San house, and was blocks away when she ran into the adventurers. From the art, she didn't literally run into them; she could have continued running. Also, as another poster (apologies for laziness in looking it up) said, she has wings. She could fly away once outside.

You can assume anything you want, but with the evidence provided by the comic, she could have just kept going. Instead, she took the "easy" way out, and made a bad situation worse.

Yes you're certainly assuming things, because the evidence in the comic provides no such evidence.  Her running FROM Wildy's home is a completely separate thing from being able to run from 2 armed adventurers.  You're looking at things reasoning from the end desire of 'she's totally wrong how can I support it by what's in the comics?' I'm reasoning from 'what can we conclude from what we seen in the comics.'  From what we see in the comics the evidence is a perfect storm of mistakes happened thanks to people misunderstanding what other people said.  Regina reacted on instinct and adrenaline and killed an innocent person and fled believing it better than staying and being forced to kill anyone else because she knew she wouldn't be able to explain it was an accident.  In fleeing she ran across one of the many patrols in the area, one armed with sufficient weapons and means as to make her feel she couldn't run and fought to defend herself when they attacked her based on nothing but she had blood on her claws.  Other patrols quickly arrived, either called by the first patrol or by the sound of battle forcing her to have to kill all of them to survive.  All of those she killed after she fled Wildy's house qualify as self-defense.
[/quote]

No, I'm not reasoning that way. I'm saying it wasn't black-and-white. Regina did not have to kill or be killed. It probably would have escalated to that, granted, but it wasn't a sure thing.

As you say, she ran across the patrol and felt like she couldn't run. Feelings aren't fact; they're certainly not an excuse for murder.  If they were, murder would never be a crime.

As for self-defense...your definition of self-defense and mine vary greatly. Self-defense is when attacked, and only when attacked, you defend yourself by fighting back. If someone storms up to you, calls you every name in the book, threatens everything you love with bodily harm, but does not touch you, it's still only self-defense if they touch you or use something to attempt physical harm. I've seen nothing that shows the adventurers attacking first. Dan is self-defense; he touched her physically in what seemed to be a threatening manner. Perfectly justified, if a bit over the top.

I've learned this in my own life, the hard way. Walking (or running) away from a fight is a perfectly valid option unless you're unable to, or someone touches you.

[Genesis]

No, I'm not reasoning that way. I'm saying it wasn't black-and-white. Regina did not have to kill or be killed. It probably would have escalated to that, granted, but it wasn't a sure thing.

As you say, she ran across the patrol and felt like she couldn't run. Feelings aren't fact; they're certainly not an excuse for murder.  If they were, murder would never be a crime.

As for self-defense...your definition of self-defense and mine vary greatly. Self-defense is when attacked, and only when attacked, you defend yourself by fighting back. If someone storms up to you, calls you every name in the book, threatens everything you love with bodily harm, but does not touch you, it's still only self-defense if they touch you or use something to attempt physical harm. I've seen nothing that shows the adventurers attacking first. Dan is self-defense; he touched her physically in what seemed to be a threatening manner. Perfectly justified, if a bit over the top.

I've learned this in my own life, the hard way. Walking (or running) away from a fight is a perfectly valid option unless you're unable to, or someone touches you.

They DID attack her. We see one pull his sword the second he see's her.

[Dishonored]

No, I'm not reasoning that way. I'm saying it wasn't black-and-white. Regina did not have to kill or be killed. It probably would have escalated to that, granted, but it wasn't a sure thing.

As you say, she ran across the patrol and felt like she couldn't run. Feelings aren't fact; they're certainly not an excuse for murder.  If they were, murder would never be a crime.

As for self-defense...your definition of self-defense and mine vary greatly. Self-defense is when attacked, and only when attacked, you defend yourself by fighting back. If someone storms up to you, calls you every name in the book, threatens everything you love with bodily harm, but does not touch you, it's still only self-defense if they touch you or use something to attempt physical harm. I've seen nothing that shows the adventurers attacking first. Dan is self-defense; he touched her physically in what seemed to be a threatening manner. Perfectly justified, if a bit over the top.

I've learned this in my own life, the hard way. Walking (or running) away from a fight is a perfectly valid option unless you're unable to, or someone touches you.

They DID attack her. We see one pull his sword the second he see's her.

Pulling the sword wasn't an attack. It was probably a reflex action, but pulling a sword from more than the length of the blade away is an "attack" the same way drawing a gun and pointing it is. It's threatening, but does no harm until it's actually used. it didn't stop her from leaving, it didn't stop her from doing non-deadly damage.

I realize the outcome probably would have turned out the same no matter what she did; sometimes there are no good options. But justifying her violence after she left the house, from what is shown, is the same as saying the police shooting all the unarmed suspects recently is justified because they thought they had to.

In the United States, if someone was angry at me and knocked on my door, and had a gun, and said they were going to kill me, I could legally close and lock the door. I could call the authorities. I could (stupidly) even go out and get in their face and mouth off to them. As long as the trigger isn't pulled, they do not break in, nothing is damaged, and there is no physical contact, it's not self-defense. Period. The second any of the conditions are mentioned, I can legally defend myself. That is the definition of self-defense.

  There are places in America where that still isn't enough, and homeowners that have been broken into and violently assaulted who injured or killed their attackers have been charged with assault themselves and/or manslaughter. (Personally I think that's crazy, but it happens.)

So. We're applying real life logic and reasoning to a comic strip. Perhaps where you live the definitions are different, but from where I stand, every death that Regina could have walked away from is murder.

I'm leaving the conversation, because the concept of adults who think emotion is a valid reason to end another person's life is a large part of why I'm a hermit that reads funny comics online.

[Genesis]

No, I'm not reasoning that way. I'm saying it wasn't black-and-white. Regina did not have to kill or be killed. It probably would have escalated to that, granted, but it wasn't a sure thing.

As you say, she ran across the patrol and felt like she couldn't run. Feelings aren't fact; they're certainly not an excuse for murder.  If they were, murder would never be a crime.

As for self-defense...your definition of self-defense and mine vary greatly. Self-defense is when attacked, and only when attacked, you defend yourself by fighting back. If someone storms up to you, calls you every name in the book, threatens everything you love with bodily harm, but does not touch you, it's still only self-defense if they touch you or use something to attempt physical harm. I've seen nothing that shows the adventurers attacking first. Dan is self-defense; he touched her physically in what seemed to be a threatening manner. Perfectly justified, if a bit over the top.

I've learned this in my own life, the hard way. Walking (or running) away from a fight is a perfectly valid option unless you're unable to, or someone touches you.

They DID attack her. We see one pull his sword the second he see's her.

Pulling the sword wasn't an attack. It was probably a reflex action, but pulling a sword from more than the length of the blade away is an "attack" the same way drawing a gun and pointing it is. It's threatening, but does no harm until it's actually used. it didn't stop her from leaving, it didn't stop her from doing non-deadly damage.

I realize the outcome probably would have turned out the same no matter what she did; sometimes there are no good options. But justifying her violence after she left the house, from what is shown, is the same as saying the police shooting all the unarmed suspects recently is justified because they thought they had to.

In the United States, if someone was angry at me and knocked on my door, and had a gun, and said they were going to kill me, I could legally close and lock the door. I could call the authorities. I could (stupidly) even go out and get in their face and mouth off to them. As long as the trigger isn't pulled, they do not break in, nothing is damaged, and there is no physical contact, it's not self-defense. Period. The second any of the conditions are mentioned, I can legally defend myself. That is the definition of self-defense.

  There are places in America where that still isn't enough, and homeowners that have been broken into and violently assaulted who injured or killed their attackers have been charged with assault themselves and/or manslaughter. (Personally I think that's crazy, but it happens.)

So. We're applying real life logic and reasoning to a comic strip. Perhaps where you live the definitions are different, but from where I stand, every death that Regina could have walked away from is murder.

I'm leaving the conversation, because the concept of adults who think emotion is a valid reason to end another person's life is a large part of why I'm a hermit that reads funny comics online.

No one said emotion is a valid reason to kill the adventurers. The valid reason to kill them is them pulling a deadly weapon on her. Should she have waited until there was a sword sticking out of her chest? No, and again, it's almost guaranteed she couldn't have run. Aside from the fact that we know more guards are gonna show up, one of them has a ranged weapon, eliminating running as an option, and the other has wings. In addition we don't even know of Regina is a skilled enough flyer to escape the arrowfire.

Also on a less serious note, considering what we've just seen(her incapacitating a cubi in one, albeit surprise, attack and flat out one-shotting a being, I'm not sure if she can attack non-lethally.

Edit: And another thing, I don't know if it applies in DMFA but in most fantasy settings, swords can be thrown with great accuracy, and depending on how magic works/is possessed, can re retrieved easily.

[Jasonrevall]

There's another consideration. Even if Regina is somehow guilty of assaulting Dan, and accidental manslaughter, what is the appropriate penalty?

What would you sentence a 15-year-old to in our society, if this happened to them?

The same thing we do in real life. Try them as an adult. If a police officer draws their gun to stop a murderer covered in blood and tells someone to freeze you don't get the right to shoot them just because you said so. Everyone keeps coming to Regina's defense by saying that she had every right to leave. Noone is discounting that anyone in any situation has a right to leave if they are uncomfortable at any time that should be a given. This does not give Regina the right to draw blood, nor the right to kill, nor the right to mass murder. Just like the teenagers that shoot up schools and throw rocks onto highways, Regina deserves at the very least prison.

It's also very possible that Regina, in her adrenaline fueled rage, ignored or didn't notice they were asking her to halt and explain herself. This is Regina. As she's said before she's the one that lived so we only got her side because the other side is in a grave somewhere.

You're misrepresenting things there.  While Regina commited manslaughter she didn't commit murder so isn't a murderer.  That was also not a case of a member of law-enforcement confronting a murderer covered in blood it was two mercenaries confronting one lone female that the ONLY things that they knew was she was a demon and she had blood on her.  Law-Enforcement actually isn't empowered to simply pull its weapons out and immediately try to gun someone down because they have blood on them (after all it could be their own blood not someone else's) yet we know that the adventurers will do just that when they see demons.  What Regina had was the absolute right to defend herself against strangers trying to kill her, she did not commit mass murder because her intent was to preserve her life from people trying to kill her just for being a demon.  We KNOW that they were trying to kill her just for being a demon because again Dan's own memories of things have him thinking that if she goes outside and is met by the patrols that they'll try to kill her on sight.  So no we don't have just her side of things we have Dan's side too making it clear that the adventurers weren't interested in justice just in killing her for being a demon.

I'm going to bow out of the conversation. I'm not really comfortable with this topic right now. Feel free to continue discussion without me.

[Nightmask]

No, I'm not reasoning that way. I'm saying it wasn't black-and-white. Regina did not have to kill or be killed. It probably would have escalated to that, granted, but it wasn't a sure thing.

As you say, she ran across the patrol and felt like she couldn't run. Feelings aren't fact; they're certainly not an excuse for murder.  If they were, murder would never be a crime.

As for self-defense...your definition of self-defense and mine vary greatly. Self-defense is when attacked, and only when attacked, you defend yourself by fighting back. If someone storms up to you, calls you every name in the book, threatens everything you love with bodily harm, but does not touch you, it's still only self-defense if they touch you or use something to attempt physical harm. I've seen nothing that shows the adventurers attacking first. Dan is self-defense; he touched her physically in what seemed to be a threatening manner. Perfectly justified, if a bit over the top.

I've learned this in my own life, the hard way. Walking (or running) away from a fight is a perfectly valid option unless you're unable to, or someone touches you.

They DID attack her. We see one pull his sword the second he see's her.

Pulling the sword wasn't an attack. It was probably a reflex action, but pulling a sword from more than the length of the blade away is an "attack" the same way drawing a gun and pointing it is. It's threatening, but does no harm until it's actually used. it didn't stop her from leaving, it didn't stop her from doing non-deadly damage.

I realize the outcome probably would have turned out the same no matter what she did; sometimes there are no good options. But justifying her violence after she left the house, from what is shown, is the same as saying the police shooting all the unarmed suspects recently is justified because they thought they had to.

In the United States, if someone was angry at me and knocked on my door, and had a gun, and said they were going to kill me, I could legally close and lock the door. I could call the authorities. I could (stupidly) even go out and get in their face and mouth off to them. As long as the trigger isn't pulled, they do not break in, nothing is damaged, and there is no physical contact, it's not self-defense. Period. The second any of the conditions are mentioned, I can legally defend myself. That is the definition of self-defense.

  There are places in America where that still isn't enough, and homeowners that have been broken into and violently assaulted who injured or killed their attackers have been charged with assault themselves and/or manslaughter. (Personally I think that's crazy, but it happens.)

So. We're applying real life logic and reasoning to a comic strip. Perhaps where you live the definitions are different, but from where I stand, every death that Regina could have walked away from is murder.

I'm leaving the conversation, because the concept of adults who think emotion is a valid reason to end another person's life is a large part of why I'm a hermit that reads funny comics online.

That last part is pretty ironic, since neither I or anyone else arguing in Regina's defense has been making such claims, we've been using logical, rational points to explain why Regina really didn't have a choice when she fled that would have let her get away without harming anyone.  You've been the one arguing most ardently from the emotional standpoint, insisting all her actions were wrong and evil and that she deserved death and dismissing all the rational mitigating factors involved.  You may not be willing to admit it but it's true, you've argued for Regina's death with emotional arguments, insisting that they were valid reasons for complete strangers to immediately draw weapons and attempt to kill her just for being a demon and having NO idea what had happened.

In the real world and in fantasy stories (outside a rare few) when you draw a weapon on someone that's a threat, you aren't generally required to wait for them to actually injure or kill you to respond in defense of your own life.  It's not rational or logical to expect anyone, including Regina, when fleeing and someone draws a weapon on them to let someone kill them.  When you know the people you've encountered are going to attempt to kill you on sight you have the absolute right to defend yourself, that's not emotional that's rational.  Regina's valid, rational reason to end those other lives was because they were trying to take hers and weren't about to 'take her alive' or 'detain her for questioning' or anything else non-lethal.  We know that from her AND from Dan.  They were regrettable but justified under the circumstances.  What would have been justifying someone's death for emotional reasons would be backing up the Adventurers looking to kill Regina and treating her as an irredeemable monster (and mind you I didn't see her as much better than that myself until we got this more in-depth look at the full story from both sides).

[Nightmask]

No, I'm not reasoning that way. I'm saying it wasn't black-and-white. Regina did not have to kill or be killed. It probably would have escalated to that, granted, but it wasn't a sure thing.

As you say, she ran across the patrol and felt like she couldn't run. Feelings aren't fact; they're certainly not an excuse for murder.  If they were, murder would never be a crime.

As for self-defense...your definition of self-defense and mine vary greatly. Self-defense is when attacked, and only when attacked, you defend yourself by fighting back. If someone storms up to you, calls you every name in the book, threatens everything you love with bodily harm, but does not touch you, it's still only self-defense if they touch you or use something to attempt physical harm. I've seen nothing that shows the adventurers attacking first. Dan is self-defense; he touched her physically in what seemed to be a threatening manner. Perfectly justified, if a bit over the top.

I've learned this in my own life, the hard way. Walking (or running) away from a fight is a perfectly valid option unless you're unable to, or someone touches you.

They DID attack her. We see one pull his sword the second he see's her.

Pulling the sword wasn't an attack. It was probably a reflex action, but pulling a sword from more than the length of the blade away is an "attack" the same way drawing a gun and pointing it is. It's threatening, but does no harm until it's actually used. it didn't stop her from leaving, it didn't stop her from doing non-deadly damage.

I realize the outcome probably would have turned out the same no matter what she did; sometimes there are no good options. But justifying her violence after she left the house, from what is shown, is the same as saying the police shooting all the unarmed suspects recently is justified because they thought they had to.

In the United States, if someone was angry at me and knocked on my door, and had a gun, and said they were going to kill me, I could legally close and lock the door. I could call the authorities. I could (stupidly) even go out and get in their face and mouth off to them. As long as the trigger isn't pulled, they do not break in, nothing is damaged, and there is no physical contact, it's not self-defense. Period. The second any of the conditions are mentioned, I can legally defend myself. That is the definition of self-defense.

  There are places in America where that still isn't enough, and homeowners that have been broken into and violently assaulted who injured or killed their attackers have been charged with assault themselves and/or manslaughter. (Personally I think that's crazy, but it happens.)

So. We're applying real life logic and reasoning to a comic strip. Perhaps where you live the definitions are different, but from where I stand, every death that Regina could have walked away from is murder.

I'm leaving the conversation, because the concept of adults who think emotion is a valid reason to end another person's life is a large part of why I'm a hermit that reads funny comics online.

No one said emotion is a valid reason to kill the adventurers. The valid reason to kill them is them pulling a deadly weapon on her. Should she have waited until there was a sword sticking out of her chest? No, and again, it's almost guaranteed she couldn't have run. Aside from the fact that we know more guards are gonna show up, one of them has a ranged weapon, eliminating running as an option, and the other has wings. In addition we don't even know of Regina is a skilled enough flyer to escape the arrowfire.

Also on a less serious note, considering what we've just seen(her incapacitating a cubi in one, albeit surprise, attack and flat out one-shotting a being, I'm not sure if she can attack non-lethally.

Edit: And another thing, I don't know if it applies in DMFA but in most fantasy settings, swords can be thrown with great accuracy, and depending on how magic works/is possessed, can re retrieved easily.

While I've never been in the Regina fanclub I'm certainly finding it baffling how at this point anyone would not recognize she had only acted in self-defense when she encountered those Adventurers.  Like you've pointed out they drew weapons the moment that they saw her and we've nothing to suggest that they stopped and simply tried to confront her verbally to see what was going on.  Like I've pointed out even Dan knew that they'd try to kill any demon that they crossed on sight rather than attempt to talk to them, that was why he tried to stop Regina in the first place.  The set-up we've got is pretty clear that the adventurer mindset of 'kill on sight' is what got them killed by Regina, because they weren't going to let her flee the area.

It does show though how how we form initial impressions of a character they can color things about the character to the point even new information that should change those initial impressions doesn't as the reader doesn't want to accept the changes.  It now makes me wonder how many of those that still think Regina's so vile and evil someone should kill her horribly love Kria, because so far as we know Regina's not killed anyone since that incident whereas Kria's killed quite a few people, even the pizza delivery guy and gardener weren't safe from her.  Yet Kria's introduction was quite different from Regina's.

[Shakal]

Unfortunately when it comes to the case of the adventurers, there is simply too much we don't know to say with complete certainty how exactly their meeting resulted in the eventual bloodbath it became. And as the story is moving on, unless we get Word of God coming into this thread, we never will. Here is as best I can assemble what we know.

1: Dan was concerned the adventuring parties would 'assume the worst'. Exactly what 'the worst' here is and what actions they would take is not known.

2: Regina attacks Dan and from Dan's memory, seems to have gotten the reaction to her assault that she expected. We only have Dan's memory for the follow up lines, but both of them remember Regina being outside of Dan's reach 'just before' (the immediate proceeding panel) to when Regina assaults Dan.

3: Regina kills Wildy's mother by accident. In this case we are going entirely based on her own testimony when it comes to her motivation, but both accounts up to this point line up enough that it is understandable for us to accept her own statement of her intents as true.

4: After the death of Wildy's mother, Regina flees the scene, and runs into two adventurers. We don't get an individual accounting for the other 9 that she killed. Regina remembers one drawing their sword upon seeing Regina with blood on her claws. They appear to be shocked, inferring further might be dangerous given this is years old memory of someone else's expression. Her reflection still appears to be angry, teeth barred and prepared to fight. With this being her own witness, that is probably worthwile to consider true.

Following this thread it does not seem to me that any of the above is currently considered to be in dispute. For instance, noone is arguing that Regina kills Wildy's mother intentionally. If any of these are in dispute, or there are additional facts relevant to this that any feels needs to be added, please do so.

From here, my own conclusions follow.

1: I do consider Regina to be guilty of Assault. My takeaway from her own statements along with Dan's remembered reaction to the outcome of the assault is that she intentionally wounded him while she did not consider him to be a threat to herself. They both remember Dan being separated from her, not grabbing or striking her. She stated that it was her intent by that act to "show him what real power was", making clear that she felt she had the power, and he did not. She did not feel threatened by him, nor did she fear imminent harm from him.

2: I do consider Regina to be guilty of Manslaughter. Dan testifies that it is 1st degree murder, but we've no indication at this point that Regina had actually intended to kill anyone up to this point. With a lacking of evidence to the contrary, we must accept Regina's testimony to be true, and that her killing was not done with intent or even foreknowledge of her actions.

3: When it comes to the 11 deaths following Wildy's mother, we know very few details. Technically we don't even know if the two adventurers we see died, or if the deaths were of 11 others and those two left the battle with their lives. We do not know (despite assertions in the thread above) who attacked whom first. Drawing a sword is not an attack (it is a threat, but not an attack) in and of itself. It is threatening, but as Regina already had deadly weapons coated in blood (her claws, which she cannot remove, but she is responsible for the blood on them). Drawing weapons brings the sides of this conflict into parity (or at least closer to parity, as Regina killed 11 and escaped shows they were still woefully underpowered compared to her). Regina herself says that "It wasn't a time of peaceful negotiations", and considering both her intentional assault previously on Dan, and her memory of her own body language at the end, it does not seem likely that she tried. We don't know if the adventurers tried talking to Regina, but again after her assault on Dan and her own words, it does not seem to me that asking her to stop would have been heeded. Dan was worried about Regina encountering the adventurers upon her departure, but we do not know if he feared they would kill her on sight, that they would order her to leave town rudely, or what exactly he feared. We also don't know how founded in truth those fears might be. Potentially making this more nuanced is if one of the adventurers is in fact a gryphon (A), which would indicate inclusion of creatures into this community, and thus further complicate the question of what the adventurers would do upon seeing Regina. I will say though that if any demon seen in this village is killed immediately on sight, it is surprising that the danger Regina was in did not seem to occur to Wildy, Biggs, or Wildy's mother when the two showed up at the house. One would think a response of "What are you doing bringing a demon here, she'll be killed!" would have been in order.

Given all that we've seen up until now, including the behavior of the adventurers under both Talsgrove and Carlys, I would consider it fully possible of any that the adventurers attacked Regina immediately, that Regina ignored their attempts to de-escalate and fight her way out, or that Regina struck first regardless of what the adventurers were going to do. In the case of either of the latter two, I would consider Regina guilty of 11 counts of murder, as these deaths would be with intent and at her instigation. If the adventurers attacked her first given only what we know I would have to justify her subsequent actions as self defense, but a lot more detail of the bloodbath itself would be needed for me to feel at all confident in that verdict. The fact she was running from the scene of assault and manslaughter muddies responsibility further.

Finally, I will say that I don't think Regina is a horrible, evil person, though she did make a number of very bad mistakes, and the ethics instilled in her by her culture does lead her to a worldview that I find reprehensible. She cares nothing for the lives she destroyed, only that her father was upset that she hadn't killed the witnesses. She wounded Dan to the point he went into shock to prove the point that she could (again, "show him what real power is"). The death of Wildy's mother is sad and tragic, but for that alone I don't think less of Regina. That was a pure, unknowing, unintended mistake which itself does not speak to her character one way or another. I do not fault her for defending herself, but will fault her for any opportunity to spare lives that she passed up.

[Genesis]

Unfortunately when it comes to the case of the adventurers, there is simply too much we don't know to say with complete certainty how exactly their meeting resulted in the eventual bloodbath it became. And as the story is moving on, unless we get Word of God coming into this thread, we never will. Here is as best I can assemble what we know.

1: Dan was concerned the adventuring parties would 'assume the worst'. Exactly what 'the worst' here is and what actions they would take is not known.

2: Regina attacks Dan and from Dan's memory, seems to have gotten the reaction to her assault that she expected. We only have Dan's memory for the follow up lines, but both of them remember Regina being outside of Dan's reach 'just before' (the immediate proceeding panel) to when Regina assaults Dan.

3: Regina kills Wildy's mother by accident. In this case we are going entirely based on her own testimony when it comes to her motivation, but both accounts up to this point line up enough that it is understandable for us to accept her own statement of her intents as true.

4: After the death of Wildy's mother, Regina flees the scene, and runs into two adventurers. We don't get an individual accounting for the other 9 that she killed. Regina remembers one drawing their sword upon seeing Regina with blood on her claws. They appear to be shocked, inferring further might be dangerous given this is years old memory of someone else's expression. Her reflection still appears to be angry, teeth barred and prepared to fight. With this being her own witness, that is probably worthwile to consider true.

Following this thread it does not seem to me that any of the above is currently considered to be in dispute. For instance, noone is arguing that Regina kills Wildy's mother intentionally. If any of these are in dispute, or there are additional facts relevant to this that any feels needs to be added, please do so.

From here, my own conclusions follow.

1: I do consider Regina to be guilty of Assault. My takeaway from her own statements along with Dan's remembered reaction to the outcome of the assault is that she intentionally wounded him while she did not consider him to be a threat to herself. They both remember Dan being separated from her, not grabbing or striking her. She stated that it was her intent by that act to "show him what real power was", making clear that she felt she had the power, and he did not. She did not feel threatened by him, nor did she fear imminent harm from him.

2: I do consider Regina to be guilty of Manslaughter. Dan testifies that it is 1st degree murder, but we've no indication at this point that Regina had actually intended to kill anyone up to this point. With a lacking of evidence to the contrary, we must accept Regina's testimony to be true, and that her killing was not done with intent or even foreknowledge of her actions.

3: When it comes to the 11 deaths following Wildy's mother, we know very few details. Technically we don't even know if the two adventurers we see died, or if the deaths were of 11 others and those two left the battle with their lives. We do not know (despite assertions in the thread above) who attacked whom first. Drawing a sword is not an attack (it is a threat, but not an attack) in and of itself. It is threatening, but as Regina already had deadly weapons coated in blood (her claws, which she cannot remove, but she is responsible for the blood on them). Drawing weapons brings the sides of this conflict into parity (or at least closer to parity, as Regina killed 11 and escaped shows they were still woefully underpowered compared to her). Regina herself says that "It wasn't a time of peaceful negotiations", and considering both her intentional assault previously on Dan, and her memory of her own body language at the end, it does not seem likely that she tried. We don't know if the adventurers tried talking to Regina, but again after her assault on Dan and her own words, it does not seem to me that asking her to stop would have been heeded. Dan was worried about Regina encountering the adventurers upon her departure, but we do not know if he feared they would kill her on sight, that they would order her to leave town rudely, or what exactly he feared. We also don't know how founded in truth those fears might be. Potentially making this more nuanced is if one of the adventurers is in fact a gryphon (A), which would indicate inclusion of creatures into this community, and thus further complicate the question of what the adventurers would do upon seeing Regina. I will say though that if any demon seen in this village is killed immediately on sight, it is surprising that the danger Regina was in did not seem to occur to Wildy, Biggs, or Wildy's mother when the two showed up at the house. One would think a response of "What are you doing bringing a demon here, she'll be killed!" would have been in order.

Given all that we've seen up until now, including the behavior of the adventurers under both Talsgrove and Carlys, I would consider it fully possible of any that the adventurers attacked Regina immediately, that Regina ignored their attempts to de-escalate and fight her way out, or that Regina struck first regardless of what the adventurers were going to do. In the case of either of the latter two, I would consider Regina guilty of 11 counts of murder, as these deaths would be with intent and at her instigation. If the adventurers attacked her first given only what we know I would have to justify her subsequent actions as self defense, but a lot more detail of the bloodbath itself would be needed for me to feel at all confident in that verdict. The fact she was running from the scene of assault and manslaughter muddies responsibility further.

Finally, I will say that I don't think Regina is a horrible, evil person, though she did make a number of very bad mistakes, and the ethics instilled in her by her culture does lead her to a worldview that I find reprehensible. She cares nothing for the lives she destroyed, only that her father was upset that she hadn't killed the witnesses. She wounded Dan to the point he went into shock to prove the point that she could (again, "show him what real power is"). The death of Wildy's mother is sad and tragic, but for that alone I don't think less of Regina. That was a pure, unknowing, unintended mistake which itself does not speak to her character one way or another. I do not fault her for defending herself, but will fault her for any opportunity to spare lives that she passed up.

Even if the adventurers did try to talk, would that have changed anything? It's not like they were going to let her go once they found out she killed a being, accident or not. Adventurers in DMFA have consistently shown themselves to jump at a chance to kill creatures, and have only backed down when left with no choice.

Combine that with the previously mentioned things stopping her from running, and you have a situation that only ever had one outcome.

Edit: also I think this is the single longest thread I've seen on any one comic strip here.

[MT Hazard]

Edit: also I think this is the single longest thread I've seen on any one comic strip here.

And yet the current comic (1846) thread has no replies at all. Funny that.

[Shakal]

Even if the adventurers did try to talk, would that have changed anything? It's not like they were going to let her go once they found out she killed a being, accident or not. Adventurers in DMFA have consistently shown themselves to jump at a chance to kill creatures, and have only backed down when left with no choice.

Combine that with the previously mentioned things stopping her from running, and you have a situation that only ever had one outcome.

If the adventurers tried to detain her until the authorities arrived (assuming that in cases of creatures, they are not officially acting as the authorities, again this is not made completely clear up until now), they would be well within their rights to do so, as she was fleeing after having committed multiple felonies.

I suppose a way to address this, if the proposition is that we must assume that the adventurers were going to kill Regina, as adventurers as a group "have consistently shown themselves to jump at a chance to kill creatures", must we not also grant the adventurers the same jump in logic in their own actions being self defense, as demons as a group have ALSO shown a disregard for the lives of beings and not just a willingness but at times glee in the slaughter of beings, known as rampages? That as Regina herself described this is in fact an important part of their very culture? Does this become of both sides only trying to defend themselves, without either side being the aggressor?

[Genesis]

Even if the adventurers did try to talk, would that have changed anything? It's not like they were going to let her go once they found out she killed a being, accident or not. Adventurers in DMFA have consistently shown themselves to jump at a chance to kill creatures, and have only backed down when left with no choice.

Combine that with the previously mentioned things stopping her from running, and you have a situation that only ever had one outcome.

If the adventurers tried to detain her until the authorities arrived (assuming that in cases of creatures, they are not officially acting as the authorities, again this is not made completely clear up until now), they would be well within their rights to do so, as she was fleeing after having committed multiple felonies.

I suppose a way to address this, if the proposition is that we must assume that the adventurers were going to kill Regina, as adventurers as a group "have consistently shown themselves to jump at a chance to kill creatures", must we not also grant the adventurers the same jump in logic in their own actions being self defense, as demons as a group have ALSO shown a disregard for the lives of beings and not just a willingness but at times glee in the slaughter of beings, known as rampages? That as Regina herself described this is in fact an important part of their very culture? Does this become of both sides only trying to defend themselves, without either side being the aggressor?

Pretty much. It's pretty clear so far that both sides are in the wrong, adventurers are glorified hit-squads/mercenaries, and demons are,for lack of a better term, barbarians.

Though personally I see the adventurers as worse, since so far most demons seem relatively apathetic, and all but one case have been individuals committing their crimes, whereas adventurers are organized groups of thugs who seem to also enjoy killing, often based solely on species.

[Shakal]

Even if the adventurers did try to talk, would that have changed anything? It's not like they were going to let her go once they found out she killed a being, accident or not. Adventurers in DMFA have consistently shown themselves to jump at a chance to kill creatures, and have only backed down when left with no choice.

Combine that with the previously mentioned things stopping her from running, and you have a situation that only ever had one outcome.

If the adventurers tried to detain her until the authorities arrived (assuming that in cases of creatures, they are not officially acting as the authorities, again this is not made completely clear up until now), they would be well within their rights to do so, as she was fleeing after having committed multiple felonies.

I suppose a way to address this, if the proposition is that we must assume that the adventurers were going to kill Regina, as adventurers as a group "have consistently shown themselves to jump at a chance to kill creatures", must we not also grant the adventurers the same jump in logic in their own actions being self defense, as demons as a group have ALSO shown a disregard for the lives of beings and not just a willingness but at times glee in the slaughter of beings, known as rampages? That as Regina herself described this is in fact an important part of their very culture? Does this become of both sides only trying to defend themselves, without either side being the aggressor?

Pretty much. It's pretty clear so far that both sides are in the wrong, adventurers are glorified hit-squads/mercenaries, and demons are,for lack of a better term, barbarians.

Though personally I see the adventurers as worse, since so far most demons seem relatively apathetic, and all but one case have been individuals committing their crimes, whereas adventurers are organized groups of thugs who seem to also enjoy killing, often based solely on species.

And here again we come down to the central conflict in this discussion, that you are insisting that it is clear both sides are in the wrong. I see that there is far too much ambiguity to say that with the certainty that you are ascribing, and that while some permutations of the possibilities would have Regina not responsible for the later deaths, there are many others where she is fully responsible in part of whole. If you can show where you are getting this increased certainty, please share and link it.

For instance, are all of the following deaths of adventurers that attacked her first, or were any bystanders also killed? Anyone that tried to break the sides up and stop the fighting? Any that she killed once they started trying to flee once she killed many of their number?

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Nightmask, please stop double-posting. You've done it twice now. I've been watching.

Everyone, please trim appropriately.


Both of these edicts are in the rules. Please don't make me get the Darkmoon out.

[The One Guy]

Though personally I see the adventurers as worse, since so far most demons seem relatively apathetic, and all but one case have been individuals committing their crimes, whereas adventurers are organized groups of thugs who seem to also enjoy killing, often based solely on species.

I would disagree here.  While outright malice is worse than apathy, there is reason for the adventurer's malice: to protect (and potentially avenge) their fellow beings.  The only reason for a rampage is as a show of power.

This is not to say there aren't cases where the adventurers are in the wrong and take things too far, but at their core they do what they do to prevent rampages and other acts that creatures may do against beings.

[Nightmask]

Nightmask, please stop double-posting. You've done it twice now. I've been watching.

Everyone, please trim appropriately.


Both of these edicts are in the rules. Please don't make me get the Darkmoon out.

I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to 'double-posting', I also don't see anything in the sticky to this forum that references anything regarding 'double-posting' or trimming.  So where are these rules you're referring to that don't appear to be in this forum?

[Jasonrevall]

I'm coming back one more time to point out to those saying that adventurers are worse than demons that we have proof of demons constantly, for no other reason than the munchies, murdering and devouring beings. Kria has done this several times. LORENDA has done this! http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_098.php She ate her other tenants in her previous homes! Kria has eaten her ex! Cheating on someone isn't grounds for murder I wouldn't think right? It's also been pointed out numerous times that its normal for demons to kill beings as a show of superiority in their culture. Regina was just talking about how rampages are a normal coming of age thing. How can you possibly see the beings as completely in the wrong when their actions were ultimately started to stop the slaughter of their people for mere games and ego boosting? Regina had to pay a fine for killing the people she killed like it was nothing. Rich demons would be able to slaughter people left and right with no repercussions in a system like that and you're defending the demons? The beings are on the bottom of the wrung of power and they're just trying to survive in a harsh world that wants them dead and sometimes they make mistakes. The undead that attacked Kria was right. Kria was an agent who is looking to destroy and subjugate the undead. Kria and Regina and Pegasus are all evil. Also Regina wasn't a child when she went on that rampage if she was in the same stage as Dan when he was getting out of general school. I was 19 when I got out of general. They were both adults. Also I think this argument is getting a bit too intense for what's being discussed.

And with that I'm going to bow out one last time because I'm afraid if this keeps going further it's going to get far too heated.

[Genesis]

Actually, do we know if those early comics are canon anymore? A lot of the plot threads seem to have been dropped, and the earliest ones were... strange to say the least.

I mean, have we even seen it mentioned Kria(and lorenda) ate any beings recently?

Edit: Also am I the only one here having fun? I know I for one enjoy long morally ambiguous debates.

[Nightmask]

Actually, do we know if those early comics are canon anymore? A lot of the plot threads seem to have been dropped, and the earliest ones were... strange to say the least.

I mean, have we even seen it mentioned Kria(and lorenda) ate any beings recently?

Edit: Also am I the only one here having fun? I know I for one enjoy long morally ambiguous debates.

I don't generally mind a good discussion, as long as people don't start taking things personally or getting personal in the responses, because then it stops being a good discussion and becomes considerably more hostile to expressing dissenting opinions and that's a totally not-fun environment.

[MSpears]

Nightmask, please stop double-posting. You've done it twice now. I've been watching.

Everyone, please trim appropriately.

Both of these edicts are in the rules. Please don't make me get the Darkmoon out.

Ilearch, I have to agree with Nightmask here.  There are two places on this thread where he responds to two different people, using a separate message for each, but if that's what you mean by "double-posting", then Genesis is guilty of it too.

EDIT: I see what you mean.  Nightmask, you're not going to find it in the sticky itself.  You have to go into the Twelve-Sided Lounge, click on the sticky for that, and then follow the link to this page: http://clockworkmansion.com/main.php?page=rules

"If you've made a post in a thread, and you have a new thought that you want to add, use the edit button and add it to your previous post."  However, looking back at Nightmask's posts... I still don't see anything that looks like it qualifies as 'double-posting', not by that definition.  It just looks like he's replying to different people.  I could be missing something, though.