What do you people think about this matter?Have you read Cold Days yet? It goes into the Sidhe courts' motivations in some depth. Simply put:
Taran has a really good point, is it legal to off the Rukh in the proposed manner? If no you could always back down for now and maneuver to set her up like Bianca did to Harry.
So in short, Yea, wipe them out. The only repercussion i can forsee are those dealing with your own Court, if Titiana did not want them wiped out or something but i highly doubt she cares
In addition in Cold Days.(click to show/hide)
Uh...no. Just no.(click to show/hide)
I will say what I said in the other thread. Just kill em all and by all I mean the bcv, there is nothing doing your character from dropping a fire nuke into the grave
I actually am enjoying the fact that this is causing tension among your PC's. The players seem to be playing as their characters not as players who are running a character. Ultimately it MIGHT be in everyone's best interest to kill The Rukh but emotions are getting away from people.
It makes for interesting stories and better games.
"A war [between the Courts] could start the next ice age, or set off an era of rampant growth."The idea that every species matters is a distinctly human one, and I doubt the Summer Sidhe care. They're not conservationists. In fact, if anything, that would fall under the kinder aspects of Winter - Stasis.
"That last one doesn't sound so bad."
"No. Not if you're an Ebola virus. You'll have lots of friends."
@TedronaiThe setting at hand would seem to do so, and most certainly does from the perspective of certain individuals and groups within it.
That is only if you subscribe to the idea of moral absolutism or unambigious evil.
Unless I missed it, it seems like the GM is dropping the ball a bit.
Hey MagicPockets, What are your skills? As in what are you stated at for them. You could make a couple declarations and easily get everyone on your side. For instance a rapport declaration to say that you saw this BCV with other people when she is supposed to love the Werewolf. or a deciet declaration to say that this BCV is planning on wiping out all the RCV's and thier Infecteds.You may have missed the earler post he made. Apparantly the GM doesn't want the outcome to be decided by dice rolls. Which in my opinion is bogus, when a group can't agree on a path the dice are exactly what should decide things.
You may have missed the earler post he made. Apparantly the GM doesn't want the outcome to be decided by dice rolls. Which in my opinion is bogus, when a group can't agree on a path the dice are exactly what should decide things.
From the sound of it the GM has basically hamstrung the players. Forcing them to either all agree one way or the other. Or the GM will make an executive decision and go with majority rules. Which again in my opinion, defeats the entire purpose of playing.
Not a gripe so much as an observation regarding the continued discussion - no matter the tools available (like concessions) it seems that issue always circles back round to the GM. And I am glad it isn't my game...very, very glad...
Alright people, yesterday's session happened, here's the update on the situation:1) Exterminate the FAE? Good luck with that.
My character received a couple of visions via Cassandra's Tears (first time that happened since the campaign started!). They were:
-The Venatori cell leader gathering together with a couple of agents, and speaking about the need to exterminate all supernaturals, including vampires, fae, changelings and wizards. A person attempting to leave the meeting was shot.
-A gathering between the 5 leading Black Court Elders, including our Rukh. My character didn't get a good look at the other's faces (everyone was wearing a black robe). They were discussing a peace treaty to be presented to the White Council. Catherine was accused of making too many concessions.
-A scene with our werewolf and the Rukh making out. There seemed to be no sign of coercion.
Based on the new information, I made a declaration that my character intentionally lured the Umbrorum leader to the site, in order to stall the execution for the others to arrive. It's a major arsepull, but quite frankly, I was tired of all the infighting. We decided to take him hostage and use him as leverage to free the Rukh, who was still trapped and weakened. A fight ensued, revealing the Umbrorum as a Red Court Vampire, not just an infected (which we previously assumed). With the sun rising, he fled, and we overwhelmed the opposition. We brought the Rukh back to her home, where we brought her up to speed on the situation (after she fed). My character deduced that her human guise was some kind of flesh mask. We went back to Alcatraz, and searched some of their leftovers, which we used for a tracking spell. We found the new hideout, and that's where we stopped with the session.
All in all, it turned out ok, I guess. Not quite happy about it (it's an almost 180° turn in my character's personality), but at least it goes on.
Well, I had to spend 2 Fate points to get the visions (one for each person it related to), because the DM said he wouldn't be giving me Fate points for what he considered an advantage for my character. Therefore, the encounter cost me a total of three FP (one for the Retcon, two for Cassandra's tears).
4) Hope your character had a strong stomach watching WW and BCV make out. Just can't get pic of Mavra making out with Loup Garou out of my mind...ewwwww.
@Deadmanwalking
While the end of the arc is, to me, believable the GM really needed to communicate and set those expectations. Kinda key.
@Deadmanwalking
Was it the Venatori or the Venatori Umborum? It is less believable for the former and not really so much for the later (there are "bad" apples everywhere).
And a Black Court Vampire being a horrible monster is mostly perspective - I have no issue with the way the Catherine the Great character was handled.
My problem would be that all of this wasn't laid out in some manner ahead of time. The expectations were clearly more in-line with your statements Deadman versus the vision of the GM and like you said as well needed to be discussed. I hope Magicpocket at least brought this to his GM's attention.
@Deadmanwalking
#Venatori: I would have to dig up the post regarding this, but my impression from my memory of reading said post would point to The Archive not having an iron-hand on The Venatori. She directs them in their purpose yes, but she isn't this visible supreme leader or what not.
To your other point - I believe it was one "crazy leader" of one cell that decided to stir the pot (hence why said leader shot one of his own operatives). It's plausible from where I sit (though it can be debated if it was used compellingly or not).
#Monsters: Says the sheep to the wolf eh? I bet if cows or a stalk of corn could talk they would claim humans are horrible monsters that must be wiped out as well. I'm not saying I like the idea of sitting at a table with another being that thinks of me as food but I'm also not going to stand up on the table and call it a monster through my mouthful of steak. My hypocrisy only goes so far. :P
@Deadmanwalking
But only if they wrote it down! :P
Well...I'm just trying to give some benefit of the doubt based on what we're being told. As I said, it just might not be that compelling of a plot point, but it isn't entirely off base.
Eh...I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on that point. We cannot judge a being as monstrous simply because of its dietary needs. If they could live any other way and CHOSE to eat people then I would agree with you.
I'm not saying we can't murder them on the basis of their dietary needs - survival of the fittest and such. I'm just saying we shouldn't obfuscate the issue by calling them monstrous evils that just HAD to be expunged from existence. Humans want to kill them - to preserve our place as the dominant species, for vengeance's sake, or simply because we can.
You had to spend fate points to get visions that coerced you into doing something neither you nor your character wanted to do?...Honestly have to agree. It feels like your GM has a plan for where he wants to take the plot, and is going to push you into it.
Your GM just utterly abused a power to railroad you into something you yourself said is a 180 from your character's personality, and then made you pay for it from your own Fate Points.
I'm starting to think you have a really bad GM.
@Deadmanwalking
I like The Archive...I like her gooood.
Oh totally. We can sit back here and look at it objectively and see what COULD have been, but ultimately what matters is what happened at their table. And what happened was, as the saying goes, is a failure to communicate!
But, as I alluded to earlier this is subjective and a matter of perspective. We're all monsters to someone. Thus I feel we should be careful about bandying around such terms if we're to be objective.
I know you weren't making a moral judgement. Ultimately what I was saying there is that people come up with all kinds of reasons to do what they want to do. I just like to be clear that is all those are, justifications for actions and not objective truths.
"I killed the monster because they ate my brother" is a great justification for the action, but just because it ate your brother doesn't make it a monster objectively.
As an aside to this, and I'll put this out to Magicpocket, did the GM delve into this type of debate? What makes a monster, what is human nature, and dealing with alternative perspectives are great themes that I think urban fantasy and the Dresden-verse makes great settings for.
I think they or any other vampire are perfect to have it about. Just look at our debate here.
Again though, I think we're just not going to agree on our perspective on what makes a monster. That's fair to say ya?
There are certainly truths that seem to be objective - like the sky on Earth being blue. I disagree that there are moral statements that are objectively true - the example of torture you used is subjectively true to you. To someone else, especially a being of alien intelligence, that might just be what they call Tuesday.
@Deadmanwalking
Evil is a moral judgement and is subjective. I can't argue that you're wrong in your subjective belief on that but I can disagree with the idea of you saying its an objective truth. So we'll agree to disagree - but this was fun!
Objectively - no, there aren't.
Oh of course - I was just restating my position on that divide while demonstrating where we have common ground on such issues. I think that's good for us to know since we'll soon be playing together eh? ;D
The topic has devolved to Hitler. As soon as it gets to drugs or Hitler, that's symptomatic of a thread that is about to die (or at least *should*).
I think the points being raised about the relative values of good and evil have merits on either side of the argument. It's a big, complicated issue--you can tell, because we've all been arguing about it since we got a larynx, and a huge chunk of people on the planet /still/ don't pay much more than lip service to "good."
There's something to be said for identifying good and evil as tags applied to someone else--beauty is in the of the beholder, after all. It stands to reason that therefore ugliness is as well. We see something, and we make a judgment. Is this pretty? Is this hideous? We pick an answer, and label it "pretty" or "not pretty." But not everyone can agree on what is and isn't pretty. It's subjective to an external viewpoint.
On the other hand, I don't subscribe to the "world of all grays" philosophy, either, because I have Photoshop. You can make any shade of gray that you want--but as you start changing those RBG values around, take a look at what happens. Grey goes black WAY before you get to the actual "value" of black. Technically, yeah, it's grey. But looking at it, it's as close to black as makes no never mind.
Evil's out there. People walk into it all the time. Some of them do it with their eyes open, but the majority just sort of drift down the gradient into the dark. They're like a lobster being cooked in a slowly heated kettle of water--they begin to lose their sensitivity to the increasing intensity, and before they know it they're breathing through a plastic helmet and choking people to death with their brain.
Apparently, I get philosophical when I'm sleep-depped.
Jim
Hell, Grevane is cartoonishly evil. It'd be amusing if he wasn't so horrifying. Like if Cobra Commander suddenly broke into Joe's base and slaughtered them. The episode ends with Destro and Dr. Mindbender playing soccer with Scarlett's head.
Hell, Grevane is cartoonishly evil. It'd be amusing if he wasn't so horrifying. Like if Cobra Commander suddenly broke into Joe's base and slaughtered them. The episode ends with Destro and Dr. Mindbender playing soccer with Scarlett's head.You ever seen GI Joe Resolute? It's exactly that. ... Well, not exactly, but it starts with one of the Joes being found murdered, then Cobra Commander destroys Moscow while saying, basically, "The gloves are off, assholes."
You had to spend fate points to get visions that coerced you into doing something neither you nor your character wanted to do?
Pardon my language, but that's bullshit.
I think maybe your GM misunderstands just what Cassandra's Tears is supposed to do. It's visions of the future, yes, but visions that nobody else believes. It should have been a monumentally difficult task for your character to convince the others that any of those things were true.