The Clockwork Mansion

Dan may have forgotten that he is talking to a Creature at a Creature party and he himself is a Creature.

Regina is really not the sharpest tool in the shed. She's very fortunate she didn't blunder into Dan otherwise, as otherwise she would be very, very dead, even before he became a full-fledged incubus.

Of course, all of this just reiterates what monsters many creatures are - Regina doesn't really seem to care all that much about what she did, nor attach any importance to making amends for it in any way. Also points out why many wouldn't really care much for demons.

Quote from: Tapewolf on June 11, 2018, 04:40:34 AM
Dan may have forgotten that he is talking to a Creature at a Creature party and he himself is a Creature.

He does tend to use the terms 'creatures' and 'Demons' interchangeably, something he's going to have to get out of the habit of. As for not thinking of himself as a creature, he has spend 25 years thinking of himself as a being, going to be hard habit to break.

Quote from: MT Hazard on June 11, 2018, 10:16:26 AM

Quote from: Tapewolf on June 11, 2018, 04:40:34 AM
Dan may have forgotten that he is talking to a Creature at a Creature party and he himself is a Creature.

He does tend to use the terms 'creatures' and 'Demons' interchangeably, something he's going to have to get out of the habit of. As for not thinking of himself as a creature, he has spend 25 years thinking of himself as a being, going to be hard habit to break.

Added to it, his pledge was simply to make amends and alot has happened just in comic time.

Oy.

When this story arc started, I figured the plot was headed for some kind of redemption arc for Regina. The whole split-panel Dan's story vs Regina's story thing made me pretty confident I knew what was going to happen next. The story would demonstrate that the two are not so different after all, the whole thing would turn out to be a big misunderstanding, etc. Turns out, nope! She's still an incredibly horrible person that needs to die in a fire. Seriously, I get that the first kill was an accident, but... wow. Dan treated Regina to an awkward date. Regina treated him to a trail of bodies that included his friend's mother, and the best excuse Regina's got is that she reflexively swings at people with enough force to kill a being.

I could still maybe accept her side of things if she showed a shred of compassion or remorse, which it looked like she might in #1842. NOPE! She's upset - because her dad was mad at her and she got grounded from going on rampages. Seriously, what the hell? I keep having to remind myself that she was raised to think killing beings is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged (like how "going on a rampage" is treated as a privilege to be taken away as a punishment). But even if that explains her attitude, it doesn't really excuse it. She's still a damned loon and a danger to any being around her.

From a story perspective, I am still pretty impressed that the whole "Adventurers Vs Creatures" thing has been expanded upon instead of retconned out of existence. It's an interesting look at just how messed-up a world would need to be for "Adventurer" to be a respected career instead of violent sociopathy. I'm also impressed that the story hasn't taken the "pacifism solves everything" route. Don't get me wrong, nobody can call the current state of paranoid xenophobia a good thing. But the story understands that conflicts don't just go away, and the current situation is a believable result of powerful creatures treating beings as not deserving to exist.

Quote from: MT Hazard on June 11, 2018, 10:16:26 AM
He does tend to use the terms 'creatures' and 'Demons' interchangeably, something he's going to have to get out of the habit of. As for not thinking of himself as a creature, he has spend 25 years thinking of himself as a being, going to be hard habit to break.

True, it would be less believable if he didn't make the occasional slip.

Quote from: Sabreur on June 11, 2018, 12:47:39 PM
I could still maybe accept her side of things if she showed a shred of compassion or remorse, which it looked like she might in #1842. NOPE! She's upset - because her dad was mad at her and she got grounded from going on rampages. Seriously, what the hell? I keep having to remind myself that she was raised to think killing beings is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged (like how "going on a rampage" is treated as a privilege to be taken away as a punishment). But even if that explains her attitude, it doesn't really excuse it. She's still a damned loon and a danger to any being around her.

Yeah, she's definitely the product of her environment.  As you say, pacifism isn't going to solve this problem, but if you can take away the encouragement things should at least improve in the long haul.  And I have to think, from the perspective of say, Hizell, that if you could keep stirring that pot, keep the Demons and Beings at each other's throats, they're never going to be able to threaten your place at the top of the tree.

Quote from: MT Hazard on June 11, 2018, 10:16:26 AM

Quote from: Tapewolf on June 11, 2018, 04:40:34 AM
Dan may have forgotten that he is talking to a Creature at a Creature party and he himself is a Creature.

He does tend to use the terms 'creatures' and 'Demons' interchangeably, something he's going to have to get out of the habit of.

I don't think he means "demon" when he says "creature" in the current comic. He certainly hasn't restricted his enmity to them. Demons and 'cubi have just been the most available "monster" types for him to go up against. Mab is an exception. Mattie's never been anything but nice, plus she's cute, but he's fought others of her kind. He's still not entirely trusting of Pyro. Etc.

At the rate Dan is going in two or three hundred years he may wind up one of those angry at the world types

Quote from: e_voyager on June 12, 2018, 03:51:08 AM
At the rate Dan is going in two or three hundred years he may wind up one of those angry at the world types

I think part of that is running into Regina. She seems to bring that out in people, even without murdering their friends.

On a more serious note, I get what you're saying. I don't think Dan will go off the deep end, though. He's got a lot of good people supporting him, and while he has his flaws he's fundamentally a decent person.

Quote from: Tapewolf on June 11, 2018, 04:40:34 AM
Dan may have forgotten that he is talking to a Creature at a Creature party and he himself is a Creature.

Well there are humans that say a very similar thing about other humans. In other fiction Batman in particular thinks humans are violent and doesn't trust them not to betray him and if you go by the life stealing monsterfied superman storyline I'm pretty sure everyone at some point even does betray him so. Life can be cruel and people sometimes give up and just declare that their entire people suck. It's not really that much of a stretch to me that some creatures think of other creatures as incapable of breaking free of their natures and being decent people despite not coming to terms that they themselves are in fact creatures or maybe they have and just expect themselves to lose it someday and do something horrible. Some humans feel that way too that humans inevitably hurt one another and they too will inevitably hurt someone irreversibly.

Sorry if I went a little too deep there I just found this page interesting.

Quote from: e_voyager on June 12, 2018, 03:51:08 AM
At the rate Dan is going in two or three hundred years he may wind up one of those angry at the world types

Well, remember that this was a vow he made a long time ago; he's been getting better recently.

Quote from: Sabreur on June 11, 2018, 12:47:39 PM
Oy.

When this story arc started, I figured the plot was headed for some kind of redemption arc for Regina. The whole split-panel Dan's story vs Regina's story thing made me pretty confident I knew what was going to happen next. The story would demonstrate that the two are not so different after all, the whole thing would turn out to be a big misunderstanding, etc. Turns out, nope! She's still an incredibly horrible person that needs to die in a fire. Seriously, I get that the first kill was an accident, but... wow. Dan treated Regina to an awkward date. Regina treated him to a trail of bodies that included his friend's mother, and the best excuse Regina's got is that she reflexively swings at people with enough force to kill a being.

On the other hand, someone guilty of 12 murders deserves the needle. Someone guilty of 2 cases of assault, 1 case of manslaughter, and 11 cases of self-defense deserves a significantly lighter punishment like a hefty prison sentence or a lashing if prisons aren't really a thing yet.

No Regina, no jokes after that story.

Oy.

What a terrible person

Quote from: Eboreg on June 13, 2018, 03:01:57 PM
On the other hand, someone guilty of 12 murders deserves the needle. Someone guilty of 2 cases of assault, 1 case of manslaughter, and 11 cases of self-defense deserves a significantly lighter punishment like a hefty prison sentence or a lashing if prisons aren't really a thing yet.

Now lower it to one case of accidental manslaughter, throw in mitigating circumstances (specifically, that first case of assault was in response to being assaulted; the 2nd case of assault plus accidental manslaughter was while being on edge and expecting another assault coming in, plus the other person being unexpectedly made of paper), and add in a non-adult actor, and it should be even less.

Really though, this is the key thing. Dan thinks Regina did 12 acts of intentional murder; Regina thought it was one case of accident, and 11 cases of self-defense.

Quote from: keybounce on June 14, 2018, 10:53:29 PM

Quote from: Eboreg on June 13, 2018, 03:01:57 PM
On the other hand, someone guilty of 12 murders deserves the needle. Someone guilty of 2 cases of assault, 1 case of manslaughter, and 11 cases of self-defense deserves a significantly lighter punishment like a hefty prison sentence or a lashing if prisons aren't really a thing yet.

Now lower it to one case of accidental manslaughter, throw in mitigating circumstances (specifically, that first case of assault was in response to being assaulted; the 2nd case of assault plus accidental manslaughter was while being on edge and expecting another assault coming in, plus the other person being unexpectedly made of paper), and add in a non-adult actor, and it should be even less.

Really though, this is the key thing. Dan thinks Regina did 12 acts of intentional murder; Regina thought it was one case of accident, and 11 cases of self-defense.

Dan never assaulted her and you two are confusing your manslaughters. It would be criminally negligent manslaughter due to her recklessness and in fact every single action that ended a life after that would be considered either straight up murder or more criminally negligent manslaughter. Either way its all homicide and the only legal system that defends it is a legal system that lets you pay a fine if you murder or rape someone like the one they apparently have in furrae. From the perspective of any place where law is actually attempting in some form to legitimately be just and that isn't straight up facism or in the grip of tyranny there is no defending what Regina did.

Quote from: Jasonrevall on June 14, 2018, 11:34:11 PM

Quote from: keybounce on June 14, 2018, 10:53:29 PM

Quote from: Eboreg on June 13, 2018, 03:01:57 PM
On the other hand, someone guilty of 12 murders deserves the needle. Someone guilty of 2 cases of assault, 1 case of manslaughter, and 11 cases of self-defense deserves a significantly lighter punishment like a hefty prison sentence or a lashing if prisons aren't really a thing yet.

Now lower it to one case of accidental manslaughter, throw in mitigating circumstances (specifically, that first case of assault was in response to being assaulted; the 2nd case of assault plus accidental manslaughter was while being on edge and expecting another assault coming in, plus the other person being unexpectedly made of paper), and add in a non-adult actor, and it should be even less.

Really though, this is the key thing. Dan thinks Regina did 12 acts of intentional murder; Regina thought it was one case of accident, and 11 cases of self-defense.

Dan never assaulted her and you two are confusing your manslaughters. It would be criminally negligent manslaughter due to her recklessness and in fact every single action that ended a life after that would be considered either straight up murder or more criminally negligent manslaughter. Either way its all homicide and the only legal system that defends it is a legal system that lets you pay a fine if you murder or rape someone like the one they apparently have in furrae. From the perspective of any place where law is actually attempting in some form to legitimately be just and that isn't straight up facism or in the grip of tyranny there is no defending what Regina did.

I'm not really sold on that.  Dan reaching for Regina could be seen as provocation and a threat and justify her slashing him as she did.  It also provides mitigation that she thought the second time she was also slashing at Dan and had no actual intent to kill.  What came after seems more like self-defense since we do know that their society being as it is a demon walking around with blood on its claws is going to automatically be subjected to lethal attacks without any opportunity to explain things.  She could have just fought off another demon that tried to rape her and they'd have still been trying to kill her just for having blood on her.  Dan himself can expect people to randomly try and murder him just for being a cubi if/when it becomes known to others (remember Mink's mother, a loving and gentle soul, was murdered by someone just for being a cubi and people cheered the adventurer that did it).  So you really can't fault Regina for wanting to stay alive when people were trying to kill her on sight with no idea what had actually happened.  So while she's on the hook for accidentally killing Wildy's mom the rest of the killings were self-defense.

Quote from: Nightmask on June 16, 2018, 05:36:08 PM

Quote from: Jasonrevall on June 14, 2018, 11:34:11 PM

Quote from: keybounce on June 14, 2018, 10:53:29 PM

Quote from: Eboreg on June 13, 2018, 03:01:57 PM
On the other hand, someone guilty of 12 murders deserves the needle. Someone guilty of 2 cases of assault, 1 case of manslaughter, and 11 cases of self-defense deserves a significantly lighter punishment like a hefty prison sentence or a lashing if prisons aren't really a thing yet.

Now lower it to one case of accidental manslaughter, throw in mitigating circumstances (specifically, that first case of assault was in response to being assaulted; the 2nd case of assault plus accidental manslaughter was while being on edge and expecting another assault coming in, plus the other person being unexpectedly made of paper), and add in a non-adult actor, and it should be even less.

Really though, this is the key thing. Dan thinks Regina did 12 acts of intentional murder; Regina thought it was one case of accident, and 11 cases of self-defense.

Dan never assaulted her and you two are confusing your manslaughters. It would be criminally negligent manslaughter due to her recklessness and in fact every single action that ended a life after that would be considered either straight up murder or more criminally negligent manslaughter. Either way its all homicide and the only legal system that defends it is a legal system that lets you pay a fine if you murder or rape someone like the one they apparently have in furrae. From the perspective of any place where law is actually attempting in some form to legitimately be just and that isn't straight up facism or in the grip of tyranny there is no defending what Regina did.

I'm not really sold on that.  Dan reaching for Regina could be seen as provocation and a threat and justify her slashing him as she did.  It also provides mitigation that she thought the second time she was also slashing at Dan and had no actual intent to kill.  What came after seems more like self-defense since we do know that their society being as it is a demon walking around with blood on its claws is going to automatically be subjected to lethal attacks without any opportunity to explain things.  She could have just fought off another demon that tried to rape her and they'd have still been trying to kill her just for having blood on her.  Dan himself can expect people to randomly try and murder him just for being a cubi if/when it becomes known to others (remember Mink's mother, a loving and gentle soul, was murdered by someone just for being a cubi and people cheered the adventurer that did it).  So you really can't fault Regina for wanting to stay alive when people were trying to kill her on sight with no idea what had actually happened.  So while she's on the hook for accidentally killing Wildy's mom the rest of the killings were self-defense.

Sorry, but my read on this just doesn't match up with yours concerning the attacks on both Dan and Wildy's mom. In http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php) both of them remember Dan's arms being up, not stretched out. He's not reaching for her, and BOTH remember it this way. There's no reason for us to change this to him reaching out and grabbing her. Further she slices him with her right hand, moving forward, meaning she had to reach back and THEN swipe forward to get that motion, specifically reaching out to get in range to do so.

She was (understandably) uncomfortable with the situation and thus leaving, but that does not give her any justification for instigating physical violence. She believed Dan to be a being, she felt no actual danger from him, so there was nothing for her to be defending herself from. Had he grabbed her, run in front of her to bar her way, maybe, but she specifically extended herself to physically assault someone.

With Wildy's mom, Regina was staring at Dan when she felt Wildy's mom touch her, so she knew it wasn't him. In her own words, she was so hopped up on adrenaline that she slashed at the one behind her without any thought beyond that. She didn't know who they were, she killed them without cause. Yes, without intent, so it's manslaughter instead of murder.

Finally when it comes to the adventurers, again in her own words, "It wasn't a time for peaceful negotiations." There's no way to know how things would have turned out, but if we map this onto as similar a situation as we can in our own world, someone just assaulted and bloodied one person, accidentally killed another, and then ran into the police, we don't usually consider any cops they kill to be in 'self defense', even if both sides are shooting.

Quote from: Shakal on June 16, 2018, 07:23:45 PM

Quote from: Nightmask on June 16, 2018, 05:36:08 PM

Quote from: Jasonrevall on June 14, 2018, 11:34:11 PM

Quote from: keybounce on June 14, 2018, 10:53:29 PM

Quote from: Eboreg on June 13, 2018, 03:01:57 PM
On the other hand, someone guilty of 12 murders deserves the needle. Someone guilty of 2 cases of assault, 1 case of manslaughter, and 11 cases of self-defense deserves a significantly lighter punishment like a hefty prison sentence or a lashing if prisons aren't really a thing yet.

Now lower it to one case of accidental manslaughter, throw in mitigating circumstances (specifically, that first case of assault was in response to being assaulted; the 2nd case of assault plus accidental manslaughter was while being on edge and expecting another assault coming in, plus the other person being unexpectedly made of paper), and add in a non-adult actor, and it should be even less.

Really though, this is the key thing. Dan thinks Regina did 12 acts of intentional murder; Regina thought it was one case of accident, and 11 cases of self-defense.

Dan never assaulted her and you two are confusing your manslaughters. It would be criminally negligent manslaughter due to her recklessness and in fact every single action that ended a life after that would be considered either straight up murder or more criminally negligent manslaughter. Either way its all homicide and the only legal system that defends it is a legal system that lets you pay a fine if you murder or rape someone like the one they apparently have in furrae. From the perspective of any place where law is actually attempting in some form to legitimately be just and that isn't straight up facism or in the grip of tyranny there is no defending what Regina did.

I'm not really sold on that.  Dan reaching for Regina could be seen as provocation and a threat and justify her slashing him as she did.  It also provides mitigation that she thought the second time she was also slashing at Dan and had no actual intent to kill.  What came after seems more like self-defense since we do know that their society being as it is a demon walking around with blood on its claws is going to automatically be subjected to lethal attacks without any opportunity to explain things.  She could have just fought off another demon that tried to rape her and they'd have still been trying to kill her just for having blood on her.  Dan himself can expect people to randomly try and murder him just for being a cubi if/when it becomes known to others (remember Mink's mother, a loving and gentle soul, was murdered by someone just for being a cubi and people cheered the adventurer that did it).  So you really can't fault Regina for wanting to stay alive when people were trying to kill her on sight with no idea what had actually happened.  So while she's on the hook for accidentally killing Wildy's mom the rest of the killings were self-defense.

Sorry, but my read on this just doesn't match up with yours concerning the attacks on both Dan and Wildy's mom. In http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php) both of them remember Dan's arms being up, not stretched out. He's not reaching for her, and BOTH remember it this way. There's no reason for us to change this to him reaching out and grabbing her. Further she slices him with her right hand, moving forward, meaning she had to reach back and THEN swipe forward to get that motion, specifically reaching out to get in range to do so.

She was (understandably) uncomfortable with the situation and thus leaving, but that does not give her any justification for instigating physical violence. She believed Dan to be a being, she felt no actual danger from him, so there was nothing for her to be defending herself from. Had he grabbed her, run in front of her to bar her way, maybe, but she specifically extended herself to physically assault someone.

With Wildy's mom, Regina was staring at Dan when she felt Wildy's mom touch her, so she knew it wasn't him. In her own words, she was so hopped up on adrenaline that she slashed at the one behind her without any thought beyond that. She didn't know who they were, she killed them without cause. Yes, without intent, so it's manslaughter instead of murder.

Finally when it comes to the adventurers, again in her own words, "It wasn't a time for peaceful negotiations." There's no way to know how things would have turned out, but if we map this onto as similar a situation as we can in our own world, someone just assaulted and bloodied one person, accidentally killed another, and then ran into the police, we don't usually consider any cops they kill to be in 'self defense', even if both sides are shooting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but she knew for a fact that dan wasn't a being, and thus would be (relatively) fine, since he just told her his mother is a "tamed" creature.

Plus it's pretty clear demons have Hilariously strong flight or fight responses, and quite tilted to fight at that, so walking up behind one that's clearly agitated and touching her is like sneaking up on and poking a lion and expecting not to get you insides, outside.

And I'm pretty sure the adventurers are completely unofficial correct? As in they have no legal jurisdiction to try to kill her.

Edit: I'm not saying Regina is faultless, but there are mitigating factors at work.

Quote from: Genesis on June 16, 2018, 10:30:24 PM

Quote from: Shakal on June 16, 2018, 07:23:45 PM

Quote from: Nightmask on June 16, 2018, 05:36:08 PM

Quote from: Jasonrevall on June 14, 2018, 11:34:11 PM

Quote from: keybounce on June 14, 2018, 10:53:29 PM

Quote from: Eboreg on June 13, 2018, 03:01:57 PM
On the other hand, someone guilty of 12 murders deserves the needle. Someone guilty of 2 cases of assault, 1 case of manslaughter, and 11 cases of self-defense deserves a significantly lighter punishment like a hefty prison sentence or a lashing if prisons aren't really a thing yet.

Now lower it to one case of accidental manslaughter, throw in mitigating circumstances (specifically, that first case of assault was in response to being assaulted; the 2nd case of assault plus accidental manslaughter was while being on edge and expecting another assault coming in, plus the other person being unexpectedly made of paper), and add in a non-adult actor, and it should be even less.

Really though, this is the key thing. Dan thinks Regina did 12 acts of intentional murder; Regina thought it was one case of accident, and 11 cases of self-defense.

Dan never assaulted her and you two are confusing your manslaughters. It would be criminally negligent manslaughter due to her recklessness and in fact every single action that ended a life after that would be considered either straight up murder or more criminally negligent manslaughter. Either way its all homicide and the only legal system that defends it is a legal system that lets you pay a fine if you murder or rape someone like the one they apparently have in furrae. From the perspective of any place where law is actually attempting in some form to legitimately be just and that isn't straight up facism or in the grip of tyranny there is no defending what Regina did.

I'm not really sold on that.  Dan reaching for Regina could be seen as provocation and a threat and justify her slashing him as she did.  It also provides mitigation that she thought the second time she was also slashing at Dan and had no actual intent to kill.  What came after seems more like self-defense since we do know that their society being as it is a demon walking around with blood on its claws is going to automatically be subjected to lethal attacks without any opportunity to explain things.  She could have just fought off another demon that tried to rape her and they'd have still been trying to kill her just for having blood on her.  Dan himself can expect people to randomly try and murder him just for being a cubi if/when it becomes known to others (remember Mink's mother, a loving and gentle soul, was murdered by someone just for being a cubi and people cheered the adventurer that did it).  So you really can't fault Regina for wanting to stay alive when people were trying to kill her on sight with no idea what had actually happened.  So while she's on the hook for accidentally killing Wildy's mom the rest of the killings were self-defense.

Sorry, but my read on this just doesn't match up with yours concerning the attacks on both Dan and Wildy's mom. In http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php) both of them remember Dan's arms being up, not stretched out. He's not reaching for her, and BOTH remember it this way. There's no reason for us to change this to him reaching out and grabbing her. Further she slices him with her right hand, moving forward, meaning she had to reach back and THEN swipe forward to get that motion, specifically reaching out to get in range to do so.

She was (understandably) uncomfortable with the situation and thus leaving, but that does not give her any justification for instigating physical violence. She believed Dan to be a being, she felt no actual danger from him, so there was nothing for her to be defending herself from. Had he grabbed her, run in front of her to bar her way, maybe, but she specifically extended herself to physically assault someone.

With Wildy's mom, Regina was staring at Dan when she felt Wildy's mom touch her, so she knew it wasn't him. In her own words, she was so hopped up on adrenaline that she slashed at the one behind her without any thought beyond that. She didn't know who they were, she killed them without cause. Yes, without intent, so it's manslaughter instead of murder.

Finally when it comes to the adventurers, again in her own words, "It wasn't a time for peaceful negotiations." There's no way to know how things would have turned out, but if we map this onto as similar a situation as we can in our own world, someone just assaulted and bloodied one person, accidentally killed another, and then ran into the police, we don't usually consider any cops they kill to be in 'self defense', even if both sides are shooting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but she knew for a fact that dan wasn't a being, and thus would be (relatively) fine, since he just told her his mother is a "tamed" creature.

Plus it's pretty clear demons have Hilariously strong flight or fight responses, and quite tilted to fight at that, so walking up behind one that's clearly agitated and touching her is like sneaking up on and poking a lion and expecting not to get you insides, outside.

And I'm pretty sure the adventurers are completely unofficial correct? As in they have no legal jurisdiction to try to kill her.

Edit: I'm not saying Regina is faultless, but there are mitigating factors at work.

She knew one of Dan's parents was a being, and being/creature crossbreeds are notably weaker then their pure creature counterparts (excepting Cubi, as Cubi don't really do halfbreeds so much as fully one or the other). If he's a cubi, he's headwingless and so as weak as a normal being. If he was a half-angel or the like, he would be bar weaker then her. ANd again, he was not reaching for her, not starting to cast a spell, not attacking her in any way. Given this strength discrepancy, this would be like asking how badly a child would have to yell at you for it to be OK to cut up their arm with a knife (what she did with her claws). He was both not threatening and of no threat to her. And she didn't appear at all surprised that Dan went down like a sack of potatoes, so seems like that's the way she saw the situation too.

If Regina was not clearly sentient, then the analogy with the lion would be more apt. She is a thinking being, and responsible for her actions.

As for the adventurers, they absolutely seem to be official, organized, and an established part of the being communities as well as part of the fundamental framework of being/creature relations. Remember all of the talk and negotiation when the adventurers came for Abel. We don't really have a fully correct analog for them in normal society, as we don't have setups where one set of laws applies to one group, who are tried and sentenced by their peers, and another group likewise doing the same, and as a result one group routinely and casually slaughters the other for little to no reason. One way or another, whether you map them onto the police, the military, or a neighborhood watch group, "Well, they're angry I killed someone, so I'm justified killing more of them." is never an acceptable justification. If someone came into my house and killed my husband, they would't be able to justify then killing me as self-defense.

I'm sorry if I seem to be being overly harsh here, but I consider the mitigating factors brought up to be irrelevant. If "I got uncomfortable, then angry" can be considered at all justification for assault, manslaughter, and murder... well, that's the kind  of thinking that gets adventurer's guilds created.

Quote from: Shakal on June 17, 2018, 04:50:54 AM

I'm sorry if I seem to be being overly harsh here, but I consider the mitigating factors brought up to be irrelevant. If "I got uncomfortable, then angry" can be considered at all justification for assault, manslaughter, and murder... well, that's the kind  of thinking that gets adventurer's guilds created.

Well said.

Quote from: Shakal on June 17, 2018, 04:50:54 AM
She knew one of Dan's parents was a being, and being/creature crossbreeds are notably weaker then their pure creature counterparts (excepting Cubi, as Cubi don't really do halfbreeds so much as fully one or the other). If he's a cubi, he's headwingless and so as weak as a normal being. If he was a half-angel or the like, he would be bar weaker then her. ANd again, he was not reaching for her, not starting to cast a spell, not attacking her in any way. Given this strength discrepancy, this would be like asking how badly a child would have to yell at you for it to be OK to cut up their arm with a knife (what she did with her claws). He was both not threatening and of no threat to her. And she didn't appear at all surprised that Dan went down like a sack of potatoes, so seems like that's the way she saw the situation too.

If Regina was not clearly sentient, then the analogy with the lion would be more apt. She is a thinking being, and responsible for her actions.

As for the adventurers, they absolutely seem to be official, organized, and an established part of the being communities as well as part of the fundamental framework of being/creature relations. Remember all of the talk and negotiation when the adventurers came for Abel. We don't really have a fully correct analog for them in normal society, as we don't have setups where one set of laws applies to one group, who are tried and sentenced by their peers, and another group likewise doing the same, and as a result one group routinely and casually slaughters the other for little to no reason. One way or another, whether you map them onto the police, the military, or a neighborhood watch group, "Well, they're angry I killed someone, so I'm justified killing more of them." is never an acceptable justification. If someone came into my house and killed my husband, they would't be able to justify then killing me as self-defense.

I'm sorry if I seem to be being overly harsh here, but I consider the mitigating factors brought up to be irrelevant. If "I got uncomfortable, then angry" can be considered at all justification for assault, manslaughter, and murder... well, that's the kind  of thinking that gets adventurer's guilds created.

Pretty sure if random strangers try to kill you for no other reason than you've got some blood on you and aren't the same race you've every reason to defend yourself, because you're miss-representing things there with Regina.  They weren't 'angry I killed someone' they were 'oh look a demon with blood on them, that's good enough reason to kill it without finding out what happened.'  In the face of people looking to kill her without any idea what had happened Regina certainly had a right to defend herself, because we know the Adventurers generally have a 'just kill it' attitude towards demons and other creatures with no care at all whether or not they actually deserve it.  The adventurers that Destania set on the inn had no problems talking about finding any excuse to kill the cubi that they heard about, later we saw their response to a loving, devoted family man cubi being murdered was to shrug and circular file it because he wasn't a being.  Neither side is sweet and innocent here, certainly the 'eh who cares what happened just kill them' attitude doesn't encourage demons or other creatures to want to trust beings.  You also have the unreasonable idea that Regina should have just let herself be killed (because she had NO option defend herself in any kind of court besides vigilante court) rather than defend herself, because that's what she did defend herself at that point.  However much she did wrong she deserved a trial not vigilante execution.

I'm not saying Regina is blameless, she definitely deserves to be convicted of manslaughter, but it was a bad situation in pretty much every possible way.

1st: Dan dragged her to a strangers house, then started preaching at her, and choosing his words... poorly, to say the least.

2nd: Regina DEFINITLY overreacted, but I'm pretty sure she knew it wasn't going to kill him.

3rd: Wildy's mum startled her while she was hopped up on adrenaline(which effects sentient being just as much as non-sentient) and had the misfortune of being short enough regina's likely intended to be chest height slash caught her in the face.

4th: Regina panicked and tried to cut and run instead of owning up to her actions.

5th: She ran into a group of adventurers, who would almost certainly have tried to kill her on sight, considering the blood.

In short everything that could have gone wrong, did, short of a dragon coming and sitting on the house, or Kria having shown up and ate everyone.

 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.

Quote from: Genesis on June 17, 2018, 11:05:35 PM
I'm not saying Regina is blameless, she definitely deserves to be convicted of manslaughter, but it was a bad situation in pretty much every possible way.

1st: Dan dragged her to a strangers house, then started preaching at her, and choosing his words... poorly, to say the least.

2nd: Regina DEFINITLY overreacted, but I'm pretty sure she knew it wasn't going to kill him.

3rd: Wildy's mum startled her while she was hopped up on adrenaline(which effects sentient being just as much as non-sentient) and had the misfortune of being short enough regina's likely intended to be chest height slash caught her in the face.

4th: Regina panicked and tried to cut and run instead of owning up to her actions.

5th: She ran into a group of adventurers, who would almost certainly have tried to kill her on sight, considering the blood.

In short everything that could have gone wrong, did, short of a dragon coming and sitting on the house, or Kria having shown up and ate everyone.

1. 100% in agreement here, Dan created an awkward and unnerving situation, Regina had every right to leave.

2. I've never posited she was trying to kill him, the way she reacted after Dan went down indicates the outcome was exactly what she wanted and expected. Hence violent assault, not attempted murder when it comes to Dan.

3. This is the definition of manslaughter, accidental, unintentional murder. She meant to hurt whoever was behind her, certainly (unless you're arguing she was literally insane and in no control of her actions). She didn't mean to kill Wildy's mom, and that's the only reason it's manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder. And just in case to jump ahead, if the argument then moves to 'Demons do go insane on adrenaline and can't control themselves, the discussion then has to move to whether we hold them accountable anyway, or if we don't, what is the reasonable response to defend yourself, your family, and your community upon seeing a demon that appears to have 'gone wild', as they apparently are unable to keep themselves from murdering at that point.

4. Regina running when she did is completely understandable. Would it have been more ethical to turn herself in to the authorities, certainly, but trying to just flee and NOT HURT ANYONE ELSE would have been completely reasonable (though the law still catching up with her is reasonable too).

5. Here we don't have all the details, but many previous questions come to a head here. As Regina is clearly angry, is she not in control of her actions, and as such the adventurers are completely within their rights of self and community defense to slaughter the mindlessly rampaging demon? We don't even know who in this altercation threw the first blow. We see the one of the adventurer's in drawing a sword, and another pointing, but Regina's dialogue indicates she was neither intent on de-escalating the situation, or just running, she was going to fight her way out. At that point as much as anything the Adventurers could be considered to having fought in their own defense. Especially considering that we only see 2, and from previous information we know she kills around a dozen in total in this 'rampage'.

Quote from: Dishonored on June 17, 2018, 11:35:23 PM
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.

And even if a demon isn't faster on foot then adventuers, those wings aren't just for show. When one side of a fight is forced to work on the ground, just flying away is wonderfully effective at getting noone killed.

Quote from: Dishonored on June 17, 2018, 11:35:23 PM
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.

Atleast one of them has a bow, possibly even a crossbow from the looks of those arrows, and they could both have magic at their disposal(not to mention the wings on the avian one), plus we don't know if there were more of them, or if she even had a path to run. Not to mention they were pretty clearly gearing up to attack her on sight.

Her killing wildy-mum was wrong, her defending herself from "adventurers" who attack her on sight? Short sighted perhaps, but not wholely unjustified.

Also we're all forgetting that Regina isn't exactly the brightest torch in the bundle.

Quote from: Shakal on June 18, 2018, 12:18:56 AM

Quote from: Genesis on June 17, 2018, 11:05:35 PM
I'm not saying Regina is blameless, she definitely deserves to be convicted of manslaughter, but it was a bad situation in pretty much every possible way.

1st: Dan dragged her to a strangers house, then started preaching at her, and choosing his words... poorly, to say the least.

2nd: Regina DEFINITLY overreacted, but I'm pretty sure she knew it wasn't going to kill him.

3rd: Wildy's mum startled her while she was hopped up on adrenaline(which effects sentient being just as much as non-sentient) and had the misfortune of being short enough regina's likely intended to be chest height slash caught her in the face.

4th: Regina panicked and tried to cut and run instead of owning up to her actions.

5th: She ran into a group of adventurers, who would almost certainly have tried to kill her on sight, considering the blood.

In short everything that could have gone wrong, did, short of a dragon coming and sitting on the house, or Kria having shown up and ate everyone.

1. 100% in agreement here, Dan created an awkward and unnerving situation, Regina had every right to leave.

2. I've never posited she was trying to kill him, the way she reacted after Dan went down indicates the outcome was exactly what she wanted and expected. Hence violent assault, not attempted murder when it comes to Dan.

3. This is the definition of manslaughter, accidental, unintentional murder. She meant to hurt whoever was behind her, certainly (unless you're arguing she was literally insane and in no control of her actions). She didn't mean to kill Wildy's mom, and that's the only reason it's manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder. And just in case to jump ahead, if the argument then moves to 'Demons do go insane on adrenaline and can't control themselves, the discussion then has to move to whether we hold them accountable anyway, or if we don't, what is the reasonable response to defend yourself, your family, and your community upon seeing a demon that appears to have 'gone wild', as they apparently are unable to keep themselves from murdering at that point.

4. Regina running when she did is completely understandable. Would it have been more ethical to turn herself in to the authorities, certainly, but trying to just flee and NOT HURT ANYONE ELSE would have been completely reasonable (though the law still catching up with her is reasonable too).

5. Here we don't have all the details, but many previous questions come to a head here. As Regina is clearly angry, is she not in control of her actions, and as such the adventurers are completely within their rights of self and community defense to slaughter the mindlessly rampaging demon? We don't even know who in this altercation threw the first blow. We see the one of the adventurer's in drawing a sword, and another pointing, but Regina's dialogue indicates she was neither intent on de-escalating the situation, or just running, she was going to fight her way out. At that point as much as anything the Adventurers could be considered to having fought in their own defense. Especially considering that we only see 2, and from previous information we know she kills around a dozen in total in this 'rampage'.

I wasn't saying demons descend into some kind of blood rage when agitated, just that it severely increases the fight or flight response, and combine that with the fact Wildy's mum snuck up behind her(albeit unintentionally) then shouted, that's a recipe for getting slashed. I'm sure has she been infront of Regina in clear few she would have been fine.

And even if they did, they would make killing them Less justified, as it's something beyond their ability to stop. In that case some method or tranqing them would be the appropriate response.

Only comment I have (other than congratulating both sides on being coherent and polite and reasonable, even if we're all disagreeing here) is to point out we don't know what the adventuring party was going to do.

Perhaps they were merely looking to contain her until they could get some backup, because they weren't up to taking on a rampaging demon. Perhaps they were looking to defend themselves from the rampaging demon, and simply weren't up to the task. Perhaps they were on the "it's a demon, kill it on sight" group. We really don't know.

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. :-(

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on June 18, 2018, 07:58:40 PM

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.

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?

Quote from: keybounce on June 18, 2018, 11:46:21 PM
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!'

Quote from: Dishonored on June 17, 2018, 11:35:23 PM
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.

Quote from: keybounce on June 18, 2018, 11:46:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Nightmask on June 19, 2018, 12:34:49 AM

Quote from: Dishonored on June 17, 2018, 11:35:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Dishonored on June 19, 2018, 10:35:29 AM

Quote from: Nightmask on June 19, 2018, 12:34:49 AM

Quote from: Dishonored on June 17, 2018, 11:35:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Genesis on June 19, 2018, 03:08:48 PM

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.

Quote from: Dishonored on June 19, 2018, 04:09:16 PM

Quote from: Genesis on June 19, 2018, 03:08:48 PM

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.

Quote from: Dishonored on June 18, 2018, 11:32:32 PM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on June 18, 2018, 07:58:40 PM
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? ;-]

Quote from: Dishonored on June 19, 2018, 10:35:29 AM

Quote from: Nightmask on June 19, 2018, 12:34:49 AM

Quote from: Dishonored on June 17, 2018, 11:35:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Jasonrevall on June 19, 2018, 12:40:47 AM

Quote from: keybounce on June 18, 2018, 11:46:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Nightmask on June 19, 2018, 10:35:21 PM


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.

Quote from: Dishonored on June 19, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Genesis on June 20, 2018, 12:20:35 AM

Quote from: Dishonored on June 19, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Dishonored on June 20, 2018, 12:49:50 AM

Quote from: Genesis on June 20, 2018, 12:20:35 AM

Quote from: Dishonored on June 19, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Nightmask on June 19, 2018, 10:43:00 PM

Quote from: Jasonrevall on June 19, 2018, 12:40:47 AM

Quote from: keybounce on June 18, 2018, 11:46:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Dishonored on June 20, 2018, 12:49:50 AM

Quote from: Genesis on June 20, 2018, 12:20:35 AM

Quote from: Dishonored on June 19, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
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).

Quote from: Genesis on June 20, 2018, 01:23:56 AM

Quote from: Dishonored on June 20, 2018, 12:49:50 AM

Quote from: Genesis on June 20, 2018, 12:20:35 AM

Quote from: Dishonored on June 19, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
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.

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'. (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php) Exactly what 'the worst' here is and what actions they would take is not known.

2: Regina attacks Dan (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php) and from Dan's memory, seems to have gotten the reaction to her assault that she expected. (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1841.php) 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. (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1842.php) 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. (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1843.php) 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.

Quote from: Shakal on June 21, 2018, 05:46:37 AM
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'. (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php) Exactly what 'the worst' here is and what actions they would take is not known.

2: Regina attacks Dan (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1840.php) and from Dan's memory, seems to have gotten the reaction to her assault that she expected. (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1841.php) 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. (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1842.php) 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. (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1843.php) 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.

Quote from: Genesis on June 21, 2018, 08:49:08 AM

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  (http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php/topic,11268.0.html) has no replies at all. Funny that.

Quote from: Genesis on June 21, 2018, 08:49:08 AM

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?

Quote from: Shakal on June 21, 2018, 06:44:06 PM

Quote from: Genesis on June 21, 2018, 08:49:08 AM

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.

Quote from: Genesis on June 21, 2018, 06:54:12 PM

Quote from: Shakal on June 21, 2018, 06:44:06 PM

Quote from: Genesis on June 21, 2018, 08:49:08 AM

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?

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.

Quote from: Genesis on June 21, 2018, 06:54:12 PM
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.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on June 21, 2018, 08:23:41 PM
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?

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.

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.

Quote from: Genesis on June 22, 2018, 01:47:08 AM
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.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on June 21, 2018, 08:23:41 PM
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.

I am going to interject with a thing that the comic 972 was unfortunately outdated and something I overlooked (aka: forgot) when I was tightening the notes of the event.  The strip has been edited to reflect the smaller number. That one was a my bad and an unfortunate byproduct of "Ambaaargh forgot a strip she wrote 9 years ago".  Regina's bodycount does end at 3 (Wildy's mom and the two adventurers)

I will also mention that general school in DMFA only goes to our equivalent of grade 8 since after that most kids are expected to pick a profession to apprenticeship under. So Dan/Regina would have been around 14-15 in the flashback.  In the end I don't think that necessarily makes that much difference but I figured I'd at least clarify that they were not full fledged adults by society when this event took place.  (One's first rampage is usually the demon equivalent of their sweet 16)

I do appreciate that while intense, the debate has been pretty civil even though its touching base on some pretty heavy and hot notes.  And I can understand the need that some may need to step back and out, which is also admirable since the alternative is risk it getting too frustrating and personal.  Ya'll are good level headed beans and I appreciate ya.

Quote from: Nightmask on June 21, 2018, 09:19:40 PM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on June 21, 2018, 08:23:41 PM
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?

http://clockworkmansion.com/main.php?page=rules#rule05a

The rules that YOU agreed to when you signed up. They haven't changed - although I'll admit that the link at the top of the page has gone missing, and I'll be looking into fixing that this weekend, and that makes it harder to find them, so some leniency is acceptable.

MSpears, if you post twice in a row, then yes, you're breaching that agreement. And yes, Nightmask isn't alone - but I'll admit I didn't see Genesis the first time around. That doesn't mean Nightmask gets off free, it means both of them are being watched.

Nightmask, there are rules,  clearly stickied in the welcome section of the forum. Reading them is also a requirement of registering since you literally have to answer "yes" that you read them.  If you didn't read them then I have no sympathy for your plight.

Llearch is one of the nicer admins here.  Listen to him when he tells you something.  You're better off with him than having to deal with me.

First, with regard to the question of whether or not the early comics are still canon, other than that one comic (972) which as Amber just mentioned was a case of "I forgot", as far as I can tell/remember every early comic has turned out to be canon. Even the cheap black and white Q&A of "your dad is alive, and your mother is working for Biggs in Twink's territory" has turned out to be accurate.

I want to point out something from psychology experiments. I was just reading about this today, but it's something that I first learned many years ago. Imagine half of the class being shown a sketch of a pretty young woman, with her face turned; and the other half of the class being shown a sketch of an old lady, with her face looking down. Then, the entire class being shown a single composite sketch that embodies both of them. One half of the class will see a detailed picture of a young lady; the other half will see a detailed picture of an old lady.

The facts -- where the black is, where the space is -- is the same in both parties observation and interpretation. But the interpretation of what the black means, what the space means, differs. And I think in many cases,  we're seeing that same effect here in this thread.

I'm also reminded (from Harry Potter methods of rationality) that instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to defend those conclusions, Real discussion requires actually discussing what has happened without making any conclusions.

I know I have been guilty of at least the 2nd, if not the first.

We have 2 entirely different societies, 2 entirely different decade and a half of upbringing, 2 entirely different decade and a half of "what you should expect from of the people around you".

From the viewpoint of beings, breaking the law means that you should be arrested, and given a fair trial; we've already had some idea as to what their idea of a "fair trial" is like and the inherent bias against creatures.

From the viewpoint of demons, "synthetic certainty" -- being able to make your declarations into the truth, the reality --  being able to kill those that are threatening you, and then return home alive is itself a trial by combat.

By the standards of the environment in which she was raised, Regina is very much noncombatitive, and really does not seem like a bad person (excluding 972, which does now seem to be a non-Canon/inaccurate narrative), and the question of whether or not she is a good person according to the being standard seems like the wrong question to be asking.

So do you think she is a good person according to the demon standard?

Quote from: keybounce on June 22, 2018, 04:51:23 PM

We have 2 entirely different societies, 2 entirely different decade and a half of upbringing, 2 entirely different decade and a half of "what you should expect from of the people around you".

From the viewpoint of beings, breaking the law means that you should be arrested, and given a fair trial; we've already had some idea as to what their idea of a "fair trial" is like and the inherent bias against creatures.

From the viewpoint of demons, "synthetic certainty" -- being able to make your declarations into the truth, the reality --  being able to kill those that are threatening you, and then return home alive is itself a trial by combat.

By the standards of the environment in which she was raised, Regina is very much noncombatitive, and really does not seem like a bad person (excluding 972, which does now seem to be a non-Canon/inaccurate narrative), and the question of whether or not she is a good person according to the being standard seems like the wrong question to be asking.

So do you think she is a good person according to the demon standard?

It's an excellent question, thought some what we've seen of demon culture? Probably not. She seems quite brainless and surprisingly cowardly, which in what appears to be a survival of the strongest culture is probably seen as weak.

A more interesting question though, is if it's even possible for demons and beings to coexist. Both seem to dismiss/hate each other respectively, so I'm not really sure how they could reconcile those difference, without nearly wiping each other out.(though if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the demons winning an outright war)

Quote from: Genesis on June 22, 2018, 05:39:07 PM
A more interesting question though, is if it's even possible for demons and beings to coexist. Both seem to dismiss/hate each other respectively, so I'm not really sure how they could reconcile those difference, without nearly wiping each other out.(though if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the demons winning an outright war)

Yes.  They coexist in Zinvth, and apparently other Creature-run cities.  They act as the security force.  You can hire them out as bodyguards.  People within the city (unless they break the law in some way) are a protected class.  The fact that they need the Demons to protect them could be considered kudos for the Demons - you don't usually hire a security force that's weaker than you are.  Once you've got it set up, it's kind of self-reinforcing since if someone else comes along and kills the people you're protecting, you've failed big so the Demons have a vested interest in keeping the others alive and therefore proving themselves.

It's worth pointing out that in Zinvth they have various Mythos races to act as a go-between, so a pure Being/Demon environment might be hard to establish, at least with the present Demon culture.
And that is another point - most of the problems seem to be a result of their beliefs rather than an innate feature of the race.  If might be that if you could instead bring Demons up to believe that Beings are fragile and need to be protected as a matter of honour, then you might be able to create a synergistic relationship rather than an antagonistic one.

Quote from: Jasonrevall on June 21, 2018, 09:47:55 PM
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.

While you're mostly right about Kria it was later revealed her ex, Lorenda's father, wasn't just cheating on her he was making plans with his lover (an adventurer) to kill the pregnant Kria and turn it into a bonanza for them by bragging how they killed a demon.  So that particular instance doesn't actually count against her (and we've plenty in the comic that do).

Also nobody's been saying the adventurers/beings are completely in the wrong, they've only been called on their 'if it's not a being kill it' mindset.  Keep in mind that Dan is NOT a being, he's ONLY still alive because people THINK he's one, because Cubi have about the same reputation as demons do (and Dan's clan in particular the reputation for killing an entire city's population and starting the dragon/cubi war).  Without people thinking him a being adventurer other adventurers would have killed him or at least tried to plenty of times by now.  As I noted previously Mink's mother, a member of one of the most non-violent and compassionate and loving clans there is, was murdered in the midst of trying to set up a clinic to help the beings in that village and her killer was praised for it.

Both sides are in the wrong, instead of holding people accountable for their actions and just their actions they're blanket targeted for the actions of others in their race.  Mink's mother died, not for her actions but for the actions of cubi like Destania.  That same kind of blanket response is what led to the deaths of all the people Regina defended herself against, because those on the being side in her case ONLY saw the stereotype of her kind and moved to kill her and once she killed them all the rest that arrived could see her as a 'rampaging demon' and react accordingly to get revenge.

Rectifying that situation seems to be Mab's long-term goal in this particular fantasy universe, balance things so that with equality the creature side like demons no longer see beings as harmless prey and will recognize them as equals, something that would considerably reduce the conflict between the two groups.

Quote from: Tapewolf on June 22, 2018, 06:18:16 PM

Yes.  They coexist in Zinvth, and apparently other Creature-run cities.  They act as the security force.  You can hire them out as bodyguards.  People within the city (unless they break the law in some way) are a protected class.  The fact that they need the Demons to protect them could be considered kudos for the Demons - you don't usually hire a security force that's weaker than you are.  Once you've got it set up, it's kind of self-reinforcing since if someone else comes along and kills the people you're protecting, you've failed big so the Demons have a vested interest in keeping the others alive and therefore proving themselves.

It's worth pointing out that in Zinvth they have various Mythos races to act as a go-between, so a pure Being/Demon environment might be hard to establish, at least with the present Demon culture.
And that is another point - most of the problems seem to be a result of their beliefs rather than an innate feature of the race.  If might be that if you could instead bring Demons up to believe that Beings are fragile and need to be protected as a matter of honour, then you might be able to create a synergistic relationship rather than an antagonistic one.

Ah yes, I had forgotten Zinvth has a being population as well. My bad.

Though you raise an interesting point, since the issues seem to be completely cultural, how do you even fix that in a species that can live thousands of years?

Quote from: Genesis on June 22, 2018, 07:03:35 PM
Ah yes, I had forgotten Zinvth has a being population as well. My bad.
Though you raise an interesting point, since the issues seem to be completely cultural, how do you even fix that in a species that can live thousands of years?

With difficulty.  Though it's interesting to note that according to the Being entry in the demonology, "Recently though the cold gap between the creatures and Beings has been warming up as more and more are finding benefits to being allies. Problems still occur quite often though and old grudges die hard." so this is something that should sort itself out in the long run, assuming no interference from powerful entities such as Hizell who have a vested interest in dividing and conquering other races.

Don't forget that Creatures only live for thousands of years in potential.  If adventurers kill a rampaging Demon in their 20s or late teens, the fact that they might have stayed young until 1000 counts for nothing.  It may also be the case that the older demons tend to settle down more than the very young ones.  That doesn't mean they're not dangerous, but it does seem to make them less wanton.
If, particularly with improved weapons and techniques, it becomes easier for adventurers to take out irresponsible Demons, you'll have a Darwinian selection for Demons who get on decently with Beings.