03-11-2015, 10:07 AM
Being as vampires are dangerous, and I would rather we not be fighting all of them, my plan was to target the ones we know are out being active menaces.
The one we met at the Orchid elected not to kill us, and seems to prefer feeding without killing. Which I asked it after I was scrying and saw it let its victim go after it fed. Do I think vampires drinking people's blood is awesome? No. But a few pints of blood loss is not something I'd want to fight a thing like that over. More people are in danger of a few pints of blood loss from texting and driving. I'm not saying he's in need of a medal, just that as risk to effectiveness goes, he's not a target.
Similarly with Wesley, assuming that my read on him is wrong (I'm good at these evaluations and I was shielded against their tricks, but he could be better), we'll assume he has absolutely no qualms about killing anyone and is just careful about that, and elected to save Arionna from Grayson because he didn't want him fucking up in his territory. He's still going to be exercising some restraint. And that's if I am catastrophically wrong about my read on him.
And assumes that the fact that the two vampires we've met who don't feel like an icy funeral dirge are also the two vampires that scan as probably not monstrous has nothing to do with being less monstrous. (It could be tricks, yes. But fooling all of us all of the time is unlikely, and so far these observations of their energy remain constant.) They still have to drink blood to survive. Killing may be optional, but that is not. They're predators and they are dangerous.
But one should not pick any fights with dangerous undead creatures one does not have to. My observations about their war were less to indicate we should choose the proper side, and more to indicate that if all the vampires we are running into causing active problems are on one side, we probably don't have to fight the other side if we leave them alone. Not fighting every vampire in Denver at once sounds like an excellent plan if it is an option. It may be that we should take it if we can.
And it may be that we look at this, we do a surgical strike for that shadowmancing one, and if that club isn't the most horrible thing ever we don't actually start a war with an international vampire crime organisation. We have the option to pass on what we know to contacts where the clubs actively involved are and not invite a potential perpetual stream of reinforcements from an organisation bigger than we are. I'm not holding my breath on that club being something any of us can let go, but perpetual vampire war is going to make it difficult to save the world.
And yes. We have. Once definitely and twice perhaps that I know of. In the year and a half that I've been here. Just saying, for those of us new to the stakes we play for, depending on what we find prioritizing what we do and do not fight is a real thing. (Read as, please don't think I'm lecturing you about priorities, Kiara. This is just a general note related to your notes on both sides of a vampire war still being vampires. In which I basically, if perhaps not entirely, agree.)
The one we met at the Orchid elected not to kill us, and seems to prefer feeding without killing. Which I asked it after I was scrying and saw it let its victim go after it fed. Do I think vampires drinking people's blood is awesome? No. But a few pints of blood loss is not something I'd want to fight a thing like that over. More people are in danger of a few pints of blood loss from texting and driving. I'm not saying he's in need of a medal, just that as risk to effectiveness goes, he's not a target.
Similarly with Wesley, assuming that my read on him is wrong (I'm good at these evaluations and I was shielded against their tricks, but he could be better), we'll assume he has absolutely no qualms about killing anyone and is just careful about that, and elected to save Arionna from Grayson because he didn't want him fucking up in his territory. He's still going to be exercising some restraint. And that's if I am catastrophically wrong about my read on him.
And assumes that the fact that the two vampires we've met who don't feel like an icy funeral dirge are also the two vampires that scan as probably not monstrous has nothing to do with being less monstrous. (It could be tricks, yes. But fooling all of us all of the time is unlikely, and so far these observations of their energy remain constant.) They still have to drink blood to survive. Killing may be optional, but that is not. They're predators and they are dangerous.
But one should not pick any fights with dangerous undead creatures one does not have to. My observations about their war were less to indicate we should choose the proper side, and more to indicate that if all the vampires we are running into causing active problems are on one side, we probably don't have to fight the other side if we leave them alone. Not fighting every vampire in Denver at once sounds like an excellent plan if it is an option. It may be that we should take it if we can.
And it may be that we look at this, we do a surgical strike for that shadowmancing one, and if that club isn't the most horrible thing ever we don't actually start a war with an international vampire crime organisation. We have the option to pass on what we know to contacts where the clubs actively involved are and not invite a potential perpetual stream of reinforcements from an organisation bigger than we are. I'm not holding my breath on that club being something any of us can let go, but perpetual vampire war is going to make it difficult to save the world.
And yes. We have. Once definitely and twice perhaps that I know of. In the year and a half that I've been here. Just saying, for those of us new to the stakes we play for, depending on what we find prioritizing what we do and do not fight is a real thing. (Read as, please don't think I'm lecturing you about priorities, Kiara. This is just a general note related to your notes on both sides of a vampire war still being vampires. In which I basically, if perhaps not entirely, agree.)