Relations between Summer Court and Black Court

[Dr.FunLove]

@Deadmanwalking
While the end of the arc is, to me, believable the GM really needed to communicate and set those expectations. Kinda key.

[Deadmanwalking]

@Deadmanwalking
While the end of the arc is, to me, believable the GM really needed to communicate and set those expectations. Kinda key.

Believable in universe? No. Not really. Considering who and what the Venatori really are (as per Backup)...the idea of them doing as described is pretty much impossible for me to believe.

And, in setting, so is a member of the Black Court being anything but a horrible monster. Any who did somehow wind up with a scrap of conscience would commit suicide given that they seem incapable of leaving those they feed on alive, and how often they need to feed.

Now, both these points are being strongly implied to be different in the GM's setting, which is fine...but a huge change from canon, and should thus probably be discussed or mentioned at some point.

[Dr.FunLove]

@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.

[Mr. Death]

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.

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]

@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).

The latter are a wholly owned subsidiary of the former (in a quiet way, but still). I suppose a rogue member is possible, but this sounded like an organizational directive, not one loony.

And considering the Archive owns the Venatori and would be unlikely to put up with that shit in her wheelhouse...

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.

No...anything that eats people as their sole source of nourishment is pretty much a horrible monster. You can argue the subjectivity of their evil, I suppose, since they have little choice in the matter, but not their monstrousness. That's a monstrous thing to do.

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.

This I agree with completely.

[Mr. Death]

Seriously, though, did the GM read either rule book? Because he seems to be getting a lot just plain wrong about the nature of several types of creature, the relationships between all the participating organizations, and even how the powers and compels are supposed to work.

[Dr.FunLove]

@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. 

@Mr. Death
Some of this might also just be getting lost in translation...but yea, I agree that the GM seems to have gone off the reservation a bit.

[Deadmanwalking]

@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.

Well, of course not. Still, she would instantly know if anyone was involved in a genocide scheme like this...and probably do things about it, since it's from people whose very existence she's responsible for to some degree.

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).

Eh...that wasn't the impression I got. Still, I suppose that's more plausible.

#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. 

Well, if they could talk, they'd be sapient beings, and completely right. Eating something non-sapient is not the same thing as eating a thinking being. This isn't hypocrisy, it's the difference between apples and oranges.

[Dr.FunLove]

@Deadmanwalking
But only if they wrote it down! 

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.

[Deadmanwalking]

@Deadmanwalking
But only if they wrote it down! 

Any of it. Or got it recorded in some way. Or just left certain gaps in the records she can divine it from. The Archive is scary.

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.

True enough, I suppose. Still, communication is important.

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.

That's a judgment on evil, not being a monster. I'm using a combination of the second and fourth definitions, mostly. There's no moral judgment necessarily implied. Mab's a monster, for example, as is Titania. So's Uriel. And so are the Black Court.

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.

Again, there's a moral distinction between killing non-sapient things and sapient things. And I never called the Black Court evil (I'd actually be inclined to say they are, but it has little to do with their dietary needs, and isn't what the discussion was about anyway).

[Dr.FunLove]

@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.

[Tarion]

You had to spend fate points to get visions that coerced you into doing something neither you nor your character wanted to do?...
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.

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. 

I'd be sceptical about this level of railroading in another RPG.  In FATE, it's pretty awful. 

[Dr.FunLove]

Just say NO to railroading!

[Vairelome]

Signing on to what everyone else has said: your GM is incompetent, and managed to rape both the DF setting and the DFRPG rules in one fell swoop.  Well done.  He must have gotten up very early in the morning to accomplish all that.

Naturally, YMMV, but I wouldn't play with someone like that.  The situation to begin with was bad enough, but damn, the resolution doubled down on everything that was wrong.  Abusing Cassandra's Tears on top of everything else?  Wow.

[Deadmanwalking]

@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!

True.

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 disagree. Many people aren't monsters to anyone. And even those of us who are, by some standards, monstrous, should just deal with that fact, not hide from it.

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.

There are objective truths, though. The sky appears blue, I exist, etc. And I'd argue that certain moral statements are objectively true as well: Torturing someone without their consent for your own amusement is wrong, for example.

"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.

Again, speaking objectively, I think eating exclusively other sapient beings makes one a monster. That's...pretty terrifying and dangerous however you justify it on a moral level. And being truly terrifying and dangerous makes something a monster.

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.

It's an interesting debate, yeah. I don't know if the Black Court are the right creature type to be having it about, though.