Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KayentaMoenkopi]

Please vote yes or no. I intend this rule to serve for rogue Bijū in any situation, summons or hosted in order to keep uniformity throughout. If passed it will go in the summons Bijū clause as well as the general information section.

Rogue Bijū:
In the event a summoner or host loses control of the Bijū, the council members will appoint someone to GM the part of the beast until the match is over. Ex: [losing control of summons via severance of the summoners control or going over mastery of the Bijū by a host] The council will make the appointment of the GM, and the GM will conduct himself, based upon the agreed upon guidelines for such a condition [see Bijū Council Rules].

I vote yes.

[Bocchiere]

No. If a person dies and the bijuu is completely released than yes a gm should rp the unsealed bijuu. No they should not rp your character for you. If you are not rping yourself as a berserker than it can be brought up as meta gaming or whatever that would count as.

[Warren]

Yes. If going over mastery doesn't just kill you, it will get abused.

[Bocchiere]

If anyone is honestly concerned that someone could abuse the ability to COMPLETELY LOSE YOUR MIND in exchange in exchange for a decent speed and strength boost then I would question whether or not they know what a zone fight is. We already said they can't use tailed beast bomb outside tailed beast mode, so all they get is taijutsu and maybe their beasts passive element. Which is completely not worth it for the loss of the ability to think and plan. It is essentially an automatic loss to any decently strong person who can plan even one step ahead. I made rules for it because it is a thing that can happen, not because its something awesome to do. I doubt if it will even come up.

[Suishou Koji]

Yes

[Bocchiere]

If you guys honestly want to make it a rule that someone else has to rp your character for you then we  should just not allow people to lose control of the bijuu at all. Doing it that way would be really convoluted for no reason.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

I don't know. I was actually seeing the rogue bijuu situation for a host as a separate entity, but that doesn't make sense.

Perhaps this should be summons specific and leave over mastery as a separate issue with end game consequences. Kind of like how killing a host before extraction is achieved results in respawning. It is a flaw indicative of lack of control and failure to rp within your limits.

Or...maybe rather than end game it is X number of turns you have no control...and suffer X amount of damage for the  mandatory period of no control, and then X amount of extra damage per round until you regain control...if you regain control?

[Eric]

No.

 I honestly feel that a Council Member would be better suited to the task given the faith already in place. I'm down for having someone else control a rampaging beast (not gonna trust peeps to be responsible in doing that correctly) but I would really prefer it to be a Council Member doing the controlling.

[Bocchiere]

It should be for bijuu not sealed in someone yes. Otherwise there's no point in making rules for it because it will never happen. No ones going to let someone else rp their character.

[Mei]

Yes

[Ace]

No.

@Bocc
This is again a voting thread.
As always, please vote and provide an explanation if you want (one post).

You may create a discussion thread.

[Raifudo Oppa]

No.


On second thought, going apeshizzle is an easy power up that we need to consider repercussions for. I don't think a GM should post for you, nor do I think a person should post themselves as ultimately there needs to be a hell of a drawback. Like, the person can no longer use their KG/chakra affinity, etc. and only tailed-beast moves. This way, if they DO go berserk, they're powered up but also highly handicapped and can't abuse of this.

[Camel]

No.

 I honestly feel that a Council Member would be better suited to the task given the faith already in place. I'm down for having someone else control a rampaging beast (not gonna trust peeps to be responsible in doing that correctly) but I would really prefer it to be a Council Member doing the controlling.

[Asadi]

No.

[Hades]

No.