Relations between Summer Court and Black Court

[Vairelome]

"Genocide" is a rather heavily loaded term.  In general usage, it has extremely negative connotations; the real-world events labeled "genocides" were uniformly horrific and evil events.  It follows that applying the word genocide to a particular event implies that the party responsible for causing it has done a terrible thing, morally speaking.

Given that, "genocide" is a totally inappropriate description when applied to the events in Changes or the theoretical elimination of the last bits of the Black Court.  According to the author and the most reliable sources inside the text of the books, both the Red and Black Courts consist of inhuman monsters that feed on the suffering and death of humanity without pity or remorse.  It is standard practice for RCVs to enslave entire towns of people--men, women, and children--by addicting them to RCV saliva so that the vampires may feed and kill at will without fear of resistance.  BCV routine is worse; see any of the descriptions of Renfields, for example.

Killing the monsters that prey on humanity is not wrong.  Finishing the job on the Red or Black Courts is not genocide.

[Tedronai]

More abstractly, the context that creates the connotations of the term 'genocide' (ie. our morally ambiguous world) is fundamentally dissimilar to the one in which it is being used.
The connotations inherent to the term in a morally ambiguous world, then, must similarly be fundamentally dissimilar when the term is applied to a world where unambiguous evil demonstrably exists, and those connotations become inapplicable when the term is applied to a group embodying such evil.
The strict definition of the term, insofar as it CAN apply to non-human groups, however, does apply to these unambiguously evil groups.

tl;dr:  Just because it's genocide, doesn't mean it's wrong...at least not from the perspective of moral absolutism in the face of unambiguous evil

[Lavecki121]

That was a lot of big words to simply say that Genocide can simply refer to destroying an entirety of a certain race/species/creature

[Dr.FunLove]

@Tedronai
That is only if you subscribe to the idea of moral absolutism or unambigious evil.

[Tedronai]

@Tedronai
That is only if you subscribe to the idea of moral absolutism or unambigious evil.

The setting at hand would seem to do so, and most certainly does from the perspective of certain individuals and groups within it.

[Dr.FunLove]

The setting, i.e. the Dresden-verse is flexible-ish in that regard. A lot of what we see in the setting is of course seen through the eyes of an arrogant man with a fairly inflexible world-view. Groups and individuals are going to have their own viewpoints, which is fine and they can of course use that to justify whatever actions they want to take. Doesn't make killing or not killing this Black Court vampire right in an absolute sense; only in a relative sense to the parties in the situation.

[Tedronai]

That would be why I included those qualifiers.
'From the perspective of moral absolutism and the existence of unambiguous evil, which seem to be the perspectives of at least a few groups and powerful entities within the system'

In-character, in-setting, it is entirely reasonable, all else being equal, for an individual to come to the conclusion that the wholesale destruction of a group such as the Black Court would be a Good act.  In-character, in-setting, other individuals may very well disagree.
Out-of-character, out-of-setting, the perspectives of the various players are not actually all that relevant except insofar as they influence what sorts of issues those individuals are comfortable with exploring, and to what degree.

[Dr.FunLove]

So while the players/characters can use whatever logic or morality they want to justify their actions, the issue at hand in the party is that there is no bridge to build. Everyone thinks something different. None of them are wrong or right, but no one can be expected to be made to agree just because "it's obvious, she's bad we're good" when everyone is of a different point of view.

The GM really needs to take ownership of his role in this scenario - does he want to guide the players down a certain path, does he want to help arbitrate this dispute, or does he want it to be a free-for-all. Unless I missed it, it seems like the GM is dropping the ball a bit.

[Tedronai]

Unless I missed it, it seems like the GM is dropping the ball a bit.

That's the sense that I got, starting with the skipping of the social conflict that could plausibly have averted this entire impasse.

[Dr.FunLove]

Aye - it also sounds like there is a conflict of expectation at the table. The players are playing their characters out as they should be it almost seems like the GM wasn't expecting that. THEY were making the moralistic assumption that, if he brought his players to this point that their CHARACTERS would all make have the same judgement as they did/are.

Long and the short of it: communication is the key!

[Lavecki121]

Yea i really dislike that the GM said that he would not use the dice to determine the outcome, and instead will just decide with the majority, which excludes the OP

[Dr.FunLove]

Agreed - that is against the spirit of DFRPG and role-playing games in general. The table sounds like it could use greater communication overall. In this case, I think the character in question needs to play it out and the player needs to communicate that "Hey, you are all doing what you have to/want to do, and so am I" IF a better arrangment can't be reached.

Communication, communication, communication!

[Mr. Death]

I'm with the OP, yeah. According to Jim and the books, it seems that nobody gets along with the Black Court, including the other vampires. It makes no sense to me that the Summer Court would be against wiping out the Black Court for the stated reason of "life is life" because the Black Court are, by definition, not life, but instead walking, talking, death.

[JDK002]

I know this is based off very limited information, but it seems like your GM ignored basic core game mechanics to railroad the story in the direction he wanted.  It seems you threw him off his story planning.  Despite this it sounds like he is continuing to ignore mechanics, or rather flat out not allow them, to push his own story agenda.  There's many many game mechanics he could of used to prevent your current impass, a simple compel may have been able to avoid the entire thing.  But for some reason chose not to employ any of them.

Your GM needs to either A. Start adjusting his story based on what you as players are doing instead of disallowing mechanics whenever it suits him.  Or B. Be very transparant regarding the situation.  By that I mean if he really needs the NPC alive, he needs to tell all of you that and ask that you work with him on this.

[Dr.FunLove]

If anything, taking out a powerful vampire is one less possible threat to Summer's power. Preemptive strikes for the win!

@JD
Here, here!