Faeries, their Knights, and a couple vampire questions

[Dlanaan]

I've looked through the threads before and found answers to most of my questions, although some of them are still murky. I am just about to start GMing a Dresden campaign and had some questions about the Faerie Courts, the duties of their Knights, and then a couple random vampire questions. For background information, I have read through Summer Knight, but am not concerned with spoilers if they have the information I am looking for.

First, anything a faerie says is the truth, but probably not the whole truth and questions are not really truth. Harry mentions that if you ask a faerie something three times, the faerie must answer truthfully. I have made a couple of assumptions as to this, but need to make certain they are correct. The first assumption is that the three times only applies if the faerie actually originally answers the question with some semblance of truth. So if a faerie answers with either a question, or a statement that the faerie will not answer the question, or an attempt to bargain for the answer, the questioner cannot suddenly ask the same question two more times to compel an answer. Is that correct? The second assumption is that if the faerie does answer after the third question, the answer must be entirely truthful with no attempts to evade or mislead (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth). Is that also correct?

Second, faeries, in general, can kill whomever they want, if it is in their nature, except for the Queens. Is that generally correct, or are there exceptions to this?

Third question is related to the Summer and Winter Knights. There was a statement to the effect that the duties of the Knights to each Queen differ. So, the Winter Knight has a specific set of responsibilities to the Winter Lady, the Winter Queen, and Mother Winter. Is there anything that states what these different duties are and how they differ?

Fourth question is also about the Knights. From a game perspective, how much control do the Sidhe Queens have over their charges? When Mab wants something from her Knight, and the Knight does not want to do it, is this a compel against the Knight's high concept?

Fifth (and final) question is about White Court Virgins and Red Court Infected. Both have a condition, that if fulfilled, will burn a lot of refresh, specifically killing someone while feeding. If a WCV, for example, goes into a feeding frenzy, does that frenzy have to kill? Is this a discipline issue such that the players can reasonably resist if they got that far? If the player does not want his/her character to turn, as a GM, what options could I reasonably provide?

Thank you for any answers you can provide. I may have more questions if they pop up.

[Mith]

As far as I know, your assumptions in your first question are all true.

I would say that Faries in general can kill anyone except for the Queens, who cannot directly kill a mortal not associated with their Court (Not sure if killing a mortal directly associated with the other Court is seen as poaching or not).  A Queen can however, still make your life generally not worth living if she chooses (Turn you into a stag, drop you in a snow bowl to freeze and starve, or a jungle to be eaten, etc.).  The only exceptions I can think of is any fae that, by their nature, cannot kill.

Thus far, there is nothing that differs the responsibilities of the Summer Knight and the Winter Knights to their respective Queens.  I suspect that traditionally, the one who chooses the Knight is the one who is their primary handler, although since Mother Winter cannot move about much, and Maeve was a traitor, we haven't seen much about that on page.  I cannot really say how duties would differ, since they would usually boil down to the Knight serving as the Queen's Hand in the mortal realm.  Although Harry is likely also Mab's Consort, should she desire it.

I would say that the Knight would have a strong compulsion to obey the Queen, and could not really disobey a direct order/geas from one of thier Queens.  So I would say that the compulsion would be against the Knight's High concept.

For your last question, I personally feel that playing a character like a half-vampire carries the risk of turning your character into a vampire, and if you do not like the risk, you shouldn't play as one.  As for what the frenzy is like, I would say that one needs an extreme act of discipline (natural 20 to use D&D terms) to regain control without killing, since by definition there is no control to begin with.

So these are my answers, although I haven't actually played the RPG, so I cannot say what degree my ideas should be accepted as advice for GMing a game.  Hope it helps!

[Haru]

1) Depends a bit on where you're coming from. I understood this kind of like a binding spell, that by asking something 3 times you force the answer out of them. Since they don't really like that, you might end up dead doing so, that's why nobody does it too often.

2) That's true. The only exceptions would be easily explained by their nature.

3) I don't think there is. Other than the queens having a hierarchy in which they can command them. So the Queen could overwrite the Lady and the Mother could overwrite the Queen.

4) That highly depends on the deal between the Knight and his Queen. Harry has much more freedoms than someone like Slate might have had. At the end of the day, the Queen can push herself around as she likes, but in the case of Harry, she wouldn't get what she wants.

5) I feel like forcing something like this on a player character would be a bad move. It's beyond a compel, really, as it can easily make a character unplayable. It might just be that something special happens and the kill isn't really a kill.
You can do a take out any way you like. Now if a player were to abuse this, I would talk to him them first, you can't keep shoving grenades into people's faces and expect them not to die.

[jackbythesea]

1. I agree with everything you have to say up until your last point. I don't think that you they have to give the whole truth. They are under a stronger compulsion than usual to answer the question and will therefore probably offer up more information but they can still exploit the way that the question is worded. Remember isn't not that the Sidhe don't recognize the spirit of the question and choose to adhere to the letter, its that they only understand the letter of the question. Also, I think you need some fraction of the creature's name in order to do this.

2. That's right, but that in their nature thing is really stressed. Fetches might go around killing people willy nilly without repercussion but I'd if Lea just iced someone flat out, without provocation, she would probably take on a the price of a weregild because of it.

3. Well the hardest is part is we don't know the duties of each of these stations. It's specifically stated Maeve has duties which she needs to attend to, one that are crucial for Mab to be able to fulfill her's. Largely I think its more of a matter of power, the Knight can choose to disobey any order. In Summer Knight, Maeve has to put in a great deal of effort to place a geas on Lloyd Slate. So in a battle of wills, you have a chance to win against the Lady of your Court, but if you are talking about a Queen or a Mother you have little to no chance. That is why Harry is so flippant with Mab, he knows if she wanted to she could make him do something he didn't want.

4. Kind of answered that in the last response. I would personally discuss it with the player, it would be a compel mechanically speaking, but the difference in the consequences of resisting Maeve and Mab are exponentially different. That could lead to an interesting campaign though. Generally, even though it may be in the nature of a powerful NPC to extort a character in this manner, its best not to let that bleed over into mechanical side of things. Fate and DFRPG are more about collaborative story telling than that.

5. Yeah this is a really hazy line. This kind of choice should be made with the player and GM but the mechanics of the game make it so it is possible for it to happen accidentally. If a RCI pushes their hunger stress too far and have a huge check to make without that aid of fate points you can: let them make declarations to help, allow other players to maneuver/spend FP on their behalf or give them fate points in exchange for auto compels down the line. Mechanically this is what happens when Susan almost turns, it is Harry's player who stops her from turning. So its certainly possible to prevent this kind of thing from happening. I think it would be a really cool thing for a party actually for them to come together after an intense fight to bring one of their fellow combatants back from the brink of losing themselves.

[Taran]

Second, faeries, in general, can kill whomever they want, if it is in their nature, except for the Queens. Is that generally correct, or are there exceptions to this?

My impression is this exactly what the Knights are for.  Queens can't directly kill mortals, but they can indirectly - through their Knights or any other pawn.

Fourth question is also about the Knights. From a game perspective, how much control do the Sidhe Queens have over their charges? When Mab wants something from her Knight, and the Knight does not want to do it, is this a compel against the Knight's high concept?

My impression from Ghost Story is that Knights have free will.  They have every right to refuse anything the Queen asks them to do.

That said, the Queens have a lot of leverage.  Sex, torture, bribery etc...

I think the goal for a Queen is to have a knight that can't say no.  I think Harry has more leeway because he's so stubborn and Mab knows it - a lot of the usual tactics won't work on him.  He's also too useful to kill.

It would be a compel on the knights high concept.

[WadeL]

I could be totally out to lunch on this, but for some reason I'd come to the conclusion that the prohibition against lying only applies to the Sidhe. So the Sidhe can't lie at all (although boy can they evade). But Toot-Toot or other lesser Fae? Lying is within their power.

Unless you make them say something three times. In which case, anything they say three time has to be true. Basically, the Sidhe are just under greater restriction there - lesser Fae can lie twice, the Sidhe can't lie at all.

I'm not sure what caused me to come to this conclusion, except possibly that "why have the three times thing if the Fae can't lie in the first place?"

[Theogony_IX]

The three times thing isn't really about lying.  It's about binding actions. 

"It's a binding," I murmured in reply. "Faeries aren't allowed to speak a lie, and if a faerie says something three times, it has to make sure that it is true. It's bound to fulfill a promise spoken thrice."

There's room for evasion and omission in casual conversation, but if spoken three times a faerie is bound regardless of evasion or omission.  Things like "We didn't shake on it," or "You failed to meet this requirement," don't hold up.

[Lawgiver]

If a WCV, for example, goes into a feeding frenzy, does that frenzy have to kill? Is this a discipline issue such that the players can reasonably resist if they got that far?

From the stories I'll give Thomas and Justine as the prime example that killing is not an absolute -- Thomas did stop himself if only barely and Justine suffered at least one Extreme Consequence as a result. I would think Discipline would be very important to this. But, I would limit such an action to situations similar to theirs -> lovers, family members, extremely close friends (like the other party members?) Others just don't hold enough of a place in a WCV's mind to keep the Hunger from taking over.

Short version... possible but very rare.

[Shaft]

I think in game terms, it boils down to whether the character has refresh left for "free will" or not.  A vampire with no free will would sucuumb to its nature.