Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?

[Richard_Chilton]

Which can only mean that 'recreational drugging' didn't count as 'shit being pulled'.

No - that was explained during the novel.  The Red Court position was that Dresden, through his own carelessness, accidentally drank something designed to heighten the flavour of the blood the Red Court would be drinking.  He wasn't even attacked - he merely did something that not even the most consciously host could have conceived him doing.  And what does he do? He breaks the guest law by attacking his host for doing something that she was legally entitled to do.

If the poison had killed him then they probably would have had to pay a fine.  Or maybe Bianca would have to been turned over to the White Council for Justice.  There wouldn't have been a war over a low ranking member of the White Council dying... Now if it had been a Warden, then I could maybe see a war, just as there was a war over the death of Red Court Noble.

And it's the Accords that matter more than guest law because the invitation never promised safe passage.  Blanca's house wasn't neutral ground but the party was happening under the Accords.  Dresden was the White Council representative - invited under the accords - which is why he was thinking of going there even before the crap started to happen. 

Bianca was just going to twist the wording of the accords to kill Dresden (White Council rep), kill Thomas and claim Justine (insulting White Court rep), trap Lea with an unbalanced gift (Winter Court rep), impress the Dragon (Accords freeholder), all under the eyes of the two cloaked figures (who might have represented another accord faction).  If she was able to legally do all of that then she would have declared herself a Major Player.

Richard

[Raidensparx]

No - that was explained during the novel.  The Red Court position was that Dresden, through his own carelessness, accidentally drank something designed to heighten the flavour of the blood the Red Court would be drinking.  He wasn't even attacked - he merely did something that not even the most consciously host could have conceived him doing.  And what does he do? He breaks the guest law by attacking his host for doing something that she was legally entitled to do.

If the poison had killed him then they probably would have had to pay a fine.  Or maybe Bianca would have to been turned over to the White Council for Justice.  There wouldn't have been a war over a low ranking member of the White Council dying... Now if it had been a Warden, then I could maybe see a war, just as there was a war over the death of Red Court Noble.

And it's the Accords that matter more than guest law because the invitation never promised safe passage.  Blanca's house wasn't neutral ground but the party was happening under the Accords.  Dresden was the White Council representative - invited under the accords - which is why he was thinking of going there even before the crap started to happen. 

Bianca was just going to twist the wording of the accords to kill Dresden (White Council rep), kill Thomas and claim Justine (insulting White Court rep), trap Lea with an unbalanced gift (Winter Court rep), impress the Dragon (Accords freeholder), all under the eyes of the two cloaked figures (who might have represented another accord faction).  If she was able to legally do all of that then she would have declared herself a Major Player.

Richard

Which, when compared to this scenario, differs quite a bit.  This character intends to knowingly spike drinks that he fully intends for minor talents; innocent people in a neutral ground that DOES guarantee safety from the factions who agreed to the accords. There's a reason anytime something is about to go down between wizards or vampires and such, the minor talents know to head to Mac's pub.  Because they won't drag their fight into that place, and will leave the people inside it alone.  Plus, he intends to use the narcotic saliva to control them into attacking what the editted first post claims is a Drake, and a Winter Emissary.  Again, on the Neutral Grounds.

In short, the character is breaking the neutrality of the neutral grounds by purposefully performing a mental stress attack and causing addiction in neutral individuals, with the intent of sicking them on a much more powerful entity that they likely have little chance against and would likely end in their deaths, and said entity is also a powerful servant of Winter and Mab, the one who mainly pushes for these accords.

Yes, this character is heavily boned.

[wyvern]

Hm.  Definitely some good thoughts here.  My conclusions at the moment:

1) What he's planning on doing does constitute a violation of accorded neutral ground.  He might be able to find a way around that, if he had a copy of the accords on hand and a good lawyer - but neither of those things is true.
2) Consequences will depend on who reports said violation, who it's reported to, and whether or not the character tries to further escalate the conflict when some existing power takes an interest.  (While I'm not entirely pleased with the situation, it'll at least give me a nice demonstration of why the concession rules are in the game...)
3) At a minimum, we're looking at the character being permanently banned from that particular neutral ground, and being harassed by fae whenever the opportunity presents itself.  (And when all the pixies in the area are told it's open season on one target... you can be sure that there will be opportunities aplenty.)  At a maximum, an extreme consequence along the lines of "owned by Winter" or "hunted by assassins" or... etc.  Depends on how things go down, but it's unlikely to be pleasant.

[Becq]

I'd take it a step further.  In affect, by violating the terms of the Accord, he is withdrawing himself from the Accord and thereby losing all protections thereof.  This, unless of course his faction backs his actions or tries to negotiate an alternate resolution.

Regardless of what you decide the ramifications are, you should make them clear to your player before the player's final decision is made, just as with Lawbreaking.

[sinker]

I would ask again. Is he technically a member of an accorded faction? If someone goes up to a red court noble and asks if he's under their protection/fealty what would their response be? Has he been actively fighting against them?

If he isn't part of the red court (or some other accorded faction I suppose) then he simply has none of the protection of the accords at all and anyone is already free to screw with him in any way they please.

[wyvern]

The character is definitely not an official member of any accorded faction, though there's likely to be some legal wrangling involved in anyone figuring that out for certain.

[Tedronai]

Disagreements as to the nature of the Laws of Hospitality aside, if he's not a member of any Accorded faction, then he can't violate the Accords.

[sinker]

He can definitely piss off the members who might desire the neutrality of that space, but that's another matter.

[Becq]

The character is definitely not an official member of any accorded faction, though there's likely to be some legal wrangling involved in anyone figuring that out for certain.

Then the point is probably moot.  Any faction can do to him as they will regardless of his actions (though they cannot themselves normally violate ANG to do so).  By his violation the terms ANG, he makes himself a fair target anywhere, any time, including an ANGs, since he initiated the conflict.

This is not to say that the offended party or other parties would automatically start sending hired killers after him; they might respond with more subtlety ... or not at all, if they don't really care about the incident.  Regardless, I would say that giving the violator an appropriate aspect.  If you'd rather stick to mechanics, you could even run the response as a large-scale social conflict as the leadership of the victimized faction denounces the player, spreading knowledge of his dishonorable act.  This could result in (social) consequences, or even a (social) take-out or concession.  An extreme consequence, thus altering one of his aspects to reflect that he is considered a pariah by some or all Accord signatories, is one possible result.  For example, the character might go from Former Red-Court Vampire to Accord-breaking Former Red-Court Vampire.

[wyvern]

Disagreements as to the nature of the Laws of Hospitality aside, if he's not a member of any Accorded faction, then he can't violate the Accords.

Were the location anywhere other than accorded neutral ground, I'd agree with you, and the repercussions would be limited to whatever the victim(s) could arrange for.

But I see ANG as being more general than that; at least by my interpretation, the accords don't say "and there shall be no conflicts between members of the accords on ANG"; it says something more like "all members of the accords shall be responsible for enforcing the neutrality of ANG".  Not being a member of the accords doesn't give you a free pass to ignore ANG.

[Becq]

Disagreements as to the nature of the Laws of Hospitality aside, if he's not a member of any Accorded faction, then he can't violate the Accords.

You could look at it that way, and be right.  You could also look at it this way: signatories of the Accords can't start any conflict on the premises (even against non-signatories).  But once the conflict has been started (by the player) the offended party could certainly claim that the conflict never ends, thus allowing them to legally attack the player in any ANG.  And for that matter, any other faction could legally attack the player in any ANG, so long as the offended party chooses not to end the conflict.

Thus, the person loses all ANG protection until the offended party decides otherwise.  (Which makes it no different than saying that the player was bound by the ANG rules and lost protection by violating them.)

Edit to add: Ask yourself how a Fae would interpret the rules of the Accord/ANG, having been the victim of the attack?

[sinker]

Actually what wyvern is saying sounds accurate, and if true then all accorded members would actually be bound to not have conflict within ANG (and furthermore, prevent conflict). They would be within their rights to boot the character out (under the pretense that the character would disrupt the neutrality) and would be free to do whatever once outside.

[Becq]

Actually what wyvern is saying sounds accurate, and if true then all accorded members would actually be bound to not have conflict within ANG (and furthermore, prevent conflict). They would be within their rights to boot the character out (under the pretense that the character would disrupt the neutrality) and would be free to do whatever once outside.

Change the italicized word "have" to "start".  And there's no rule binding them to prevent conflict; the Red Court has tried to push Dresden into starting conflicts on ANG at least once or twice.

[Tedronai]

There are two stipulations with regards to ANGs explicit in the canon.
The first, that no signatory start conflict within.
And the second, that any signatory that finds themselves in a conflict within take that conflict outside.

ie. even if a non-signatory starts a conflict within an ANG territory, signatories cannot simply claim that 'he started it' and commence with the pummeling (except in the case where that pummeling is expressly to the purpose of moving the conflict out of ANG).

[Raidensparx]

There are two stipulations with regards to ANGs explicit in the canon.
The first, that no signatory start conflict within.
And the second, that any signatory that finds themselves in a conflict within take that conflict outside.

ie. even if a non-signatory starts a conflict within an ANG territory, signatories cannot simply claim that 'he started it' and commence with the pummeling (except in the case where that pummeling is expressly to the purpose of moving the conflict out of ANG).

If a non-signatory starts a conflict within an ANG territory, they're going to die.  Horribly.  Or something just as bad is going to occur.  Because the only hope Minor Talents and someone who is apparently Red Court but not Red Court has to survive in that world is to not be noticed or to not make yourself more trouble than you're worth.

If a guy not protected by the accords tries to convince a bunch of innocent people to attack a Drake, he's going to die.  Or at least wish that was it.

Plus, I find it hard to believe that a Red Court vampire, short of a member of St. Giles', would not be under their protection, or would ever consider themselves not a part of it.  Even if THEY don't, they technically, physically, are.  The Red Court is more than just some masquerade, it's a race.  You're a red court vampire, and what you do as a red court vampire affects all of their standing.  And a lone red court going around breaking the accords reflects very poorly on them.  Hell, knowing the vampires they may kill him themselves and offer up his body as retribution, especially if he refuses to be a member of their organization.