The Accords and the Black Court

[zenten]

So I'm going to be having a Master Black Court Vampire doing some things that would be violating the Accords.  Thing is, the Black Court doesn't seem to have enough of an internal structure to enforce consequences on it's own members, so what reason would this vampire have to care about them at all?

[UmbraLux]

If you want a reason, I'd say it's simply that pissing off the surviving Black Court may be a bad idea.  Primarily because the survivors are the canniest and strongest of the court.  That said, I agree with you.  A narcissistic vampire (and they're all narcissistic  ) will care far more about his personal goals than about a semi-mythical master vampire who may or may not care about the accords.

[zenten]

Yeah, this guy used to kill Russian mob bosses for a living, and escaped from several Russian prisons, including a very high security one, all when he was mortal.  I don't think other vampires would scare him much.

[mithrandirthewhite]

Vampires breed fast.  They could crush him.  Plus, i dont know the BC of the RPG, but we dont know everything they can do.  I think that a Vampire as new as one who killed mob bosses wont scare someone like Mavra.

[Richard_Chilton]

I haven't seen any mention of them signing the Accords.  There wasn't any mention when Harry was being blackmailed to find a book or before Harry hit a nest of Black Court Vampires.

The Accords only cover the major supernatural nations.  It doesn't cover the Society of St. Giles or any of the other minor groups that get mentioned in passing.  The Knights of the Cross and the church group that supports them - they aren't part of the Accords.

My thoughts is that after Stroker's book got the majority of them killed they were no longer an important enough nation to be part of the Accords - which means they are neither restrained or protected by the Accords.

Richard

[Tedronai]

When were the last set of Accords finalized?
When was Stoker's book published?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Last set of Accords were supposedly finalized about the time Harry moved to Chicago.  I'd have to check the timeline to get any more accurate.

Stoker's book was published in 1897.

[Tedronai]

So, at the rate some of those groups adapt to change, the fall of a major signatory to the previous Accords (ie. the Black Court), could well have played a significant part in the re-negotiation.

[spac3_pop3]

IIRC, the Black Court is still a nation recognized.  I believe Mavra actually used the Accords as leverage to force Harry to stay at Bianca's masquerade when he was trying to leave.  Regardless of whether or not they are or are not, said Blampire who is violating the Accords not only has to worry about other members of his nation punishing him for his misdeeds, but if he directly interferes with the affairs of another signatory (which will happen if a violation of the Accords occurs), they can take it upon themselves to administer reprimands.

[Richard_Chilton]

IIRC, the Black Court is still a nation recognized.  I believe Mavra actually used the Accords as leverage to force Harry to stay at Bianca's masquerade when he was trying to leave.

I don't think you do.  The scene with Mavra was about old world hospitality rather than the Accords.  A  truce had been declared and accepted by all in attendance - but one that had nothing to do with the Accords.  Otherwise Micheal wouldn't have been included in it or able to break it - he (as a "normal" human) is only considered food or property under the Accords.

The only wording we have is:
"The safety of all invited guests is assured, by word of the assembled court, of course."
- which doesn't reference the Accords but personal honour.

More:
When Mavra meets Harry by his grave she doesn't reference the Accords - nor does him.  Everything about that meeting is old world hospitality in action rather than a treaty between nations.  During that time the White Court is technically at war with the White Council but the Black Court? It's a non-entity.  To quote Thomas:
"Well. Only two, for all practical purposes. The Black Court has fallen on hard times of late, the poor darlings."

Richard

[spac3_pop3]

Ah, Richard is right.  That was based more around hospitality than anything to do with the Accords.  Though with the vague wording and lack of any definitive proof, I would assume a nation stands until the entirety of it is defeated.  I tend to think of the Accords as the supernatural UN, if one of the countries is currently crippled and recovering from one disaster or another, the other nations won't take it upon themselves to collectively cut them out from the bylaws.  Not to mention the fact that a BCV can reproduce rather easily (even if the offspring aren't as powerful as their progenitor) and repopulating their nation shouldn't be much of a feat if they decided to do so.

[Tedronai]

Not to mention the fact that a BCV can reproduce rather easily (even if the offspring aren't as powerful as their progenitor) and repopulating their nation shouldn't be much of a feat if they decided to do so.

Except for the fact that the original cause of their collapse remains an ongoing condition of modern life: too many people are aware of their weaknesses.

[polkaneverdies]

Woj states that the other powers had grown worried about how powerful the blampires were becoming. I would imagine that now that they have been knocked down nobody plans on letting them stand back up again.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Woj states that the other powers had grown worried about how powerful the blampires were becoming. I would imagine that now that they have been knocked down nobody plans on letting them stand back up again.

Congratulations, you've just stuck Tubthumping in my head.

[polkaneverdies]

At first I smiled evilly at that, but then it got stuck in my head. Curses!