Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?

[wyvern]

Got a player who wants to attack someone on accorded neutral ground (using relatively subtle powers - but still, definitely an attack).  I've OOC pointed out that this is a bad idea, and that it's going to invite repercussions from things rather scarier than any of the PCs, but the player seems pretty well set on doing so anyway, and I'm not big on telling people (metaphorically speaking) "No, you can't poke the sleeping dragon with a pointy stick"* - especially when the character doesn't have the lore skill / experience to understand what they're messing with.

Of course, the fae will hardly consider ignorance to be a viable defense.

So what I'm looking for is thoughts on how neutral ground is enforced.  Who's likely to notice if it gets violated?  Who's likely to show up to punish transgressors?  What sorts of punishments are likely?  Is there any reasonable result that doesn't completely destroy the PC, or should I start preparing a darwin award?  This is stuff I had never really thought about before, because I'd just assumed that the situation wasn't going to come up...

To provide a bit more detail: I'm using a transplanted copy of the Neutral Grounds coffee shop from the Baltimore example city.  The PC has decided that he "needs" talented allies, and that the obvious way to acquire such is by using the addictive saliva power to spike drinks of various minor talents at said coffee shop.

*Footnote: this may actually be a bit closer to literal than it at first appears; the local winter emissary type entity is an ice drake with a rather vicious reputation...

[ways and means]

You could give the particular neutral grounds a guardian spirit to enforce the issue, also I think the consequences only happen if someone makes a complaint under the accords (Harry knocks someone out in a Neutral Ground).

[wyvern]

I'd always assumed that "didn't count" just because there was no magic / power involved in that attack...  but I could see it going the way you suggested, too.

[devonapple]

Ultimately, Neutral Ground is enforced by the threat of retaliation by agents of other Signatories.

It's all well and good for the host/proprietor to be able to maintain some order and civility, but it isn't the real deterrent, and it's not necessarily even a half-realistic expectation. If McAnally is found beat up in his place, it's not his failure at keeping the peace: he is just the mortal beneficiary of the ANG situation.

At the end of the day, you don't start trouble in ANG if you are under a Signatory faction because a) it is tacit permission for the offended faction to pulp the offender in self-defense/retribution, and/or b) it has the potential to pull your faction into an all-out war with that faction unless your own people decide to give you up.

[Ghsdkgb]

(Harry knocks someone out in a Neutral Ground).

Are you talking about Morgan in Storm Front? That doesn't count at all, because they're of the same faction (they're both White Council). It's only if one signatory attacks another that the violations occur, and then only if the offended party chooses to seek reparations. At least, that's how I'd always interpreted it.

[Silverblaze]

Who enforces it?

Other signatories...likely the offedned faction...with a mediator sometimes if such a thing is possible...

However...

They are Mab's Unseelie Accords.   Depending upon the nature and extent of the offense...it could be any minion of winter to...Mab.   That ice drake might show up and take an offending hand (extreme consequence time!)

As the GM you have to remember one thing though,  for a first offense, by an ignorant party, with a relatively minor attack.... I'd lean toward a semi - lenient consequence (not death or making the PC unplayable) with a firm and obvious caveat: Do this again...and the smiting will commence.  Also do not punish the whole party (unless they take appropriate actions to damn them as well) for one persons actions.

[wyvern]

Huh.  There's a lot more emphasis on faction than I'd expected.  I mean, if you attack someone of a different faction anywhere, then the accords cover what they're allowed to do in response.  I'd been assuming ANG was a flat-out ban on offensive use of powers, against anyone, regardless of faction.

Hm.  Would someone using magic to attack a mortal on ANG constitute a violation of ANG?  I'd have thought yes - but it seems that not many here agree with me.

[sinker]

One of my thoughts would be is this person technically a member of an accorded faction? You said they didn't have the knowledge that it was bad and usually all accorded factions make it a point to educate their members so that they don't get in trouble for what an uneducated member does. Additionally from the power set I assume this is a RCI? Could be a rogue member or more appropriately a rogue asset? These are all questions to ask because if the player in question isn't a member of the accords then nothing bad happens from an accords standpoint. Doesn't mean somebody isn't going to be mad though.

For the most part though I believe each faction polices itself. Any action Mab takes would be against the faction as a whole, so it behooves them to make sure all of their members stay in line.

[Silverblaze]

Mortals aren't signatories. Pretty sure ANG doesn't apply.  Mortals (99%+) know nothing of the supernatural factions.

(click to show/hide)

Murphy totally proved that when she was ready to shoot that gruff in ANG

Pretty sure KotC aren't signatories also...hence the reason:

(click to show/hide)

Ortega didn't want them anywhere near the duel, if he could avoid it.  Nicodemus just smokes them out of hand also.  There would be repercussions at some point if they were...maybe not to Nick...but to the Denarians. 

[wyvern]

Mortals aren't signatories. Pretty sure ANG doesn't apply.  Mortals (99%+) know nothing of the supernatural factions.

(click to show/hide)

Murphy totally proved that when she was ready to shoot that gruff in ANG

Hm.  I should go re-read that - but I'm pretty sure the gun wasn't relevant; the relevant thing was the "are you willing to declare war on Chicago?"  And I'd been under the impression that nobody there expected anything to happen until Harry left.
...But, again, haven't read that passage in a while, so I may be misremembering.

Yes, the accords in general don't protect mortals at all.  (Or protect from mortals, come to think of it.)  But there's certainly something that makes all those minor talents think ANG is safe...  [edit]And it's certainly not because they think the White Council, or any other accorded faction, is going to stand up for them.[/edit]

As for the duel with Ortega, and other events like that: they're totally not relevant - those events did not happen on ANG in the first place.  This, I think, shows one of the big disconnects between how I'm thinking about ANG versus others here: by some of the interpretations I've read in this thread, ANG is meaningless - you've put the emphasis on the "accorded" part, and totally ignored the "neutral ground" part.  If a person from faction A attacks person from faction B anywhere, the accords allow for repercussions, retaliation, weregilds, mediation, etc.  So, if that's already there, what's the point in declaring somewhere as accorded neutral ground, if it's no more "neutral" than anywhere else?

[Richard_Chilton]

There's a scene in one of the books where Mab talks about "MY accords" being violated.

And then there's the whole

(click to show/hide)

fate of the Red Court after they broke her accords by invading fairy

that goes to show that Mab gets upset when people break the deal they have made with Her.

That's important to remember.  They aren't the Fairy Accords or the Sidhe Accords - they are the Unseelie Accords.  Maybe she had to negotiate points with people, but they are her rules.  I'm not saying that she'll personally come by to handle things, but she will remember who did what.

Richard

[LordDraqo]

I think 'twould be perfectly acceptable for the Winter Emissary to walk up to the Player and let him know that he's attracted the attention of the Winter Queen, and then ask which Signatory Faction was willing to sponsor the poor sod for the Unseelie variation on The Doom of Damocles. That gives the character a new Aspect with which to replace their Trouble Aspect and the GM has a new handle on the character.

[sinker]

My thoughts are that just because you can't kill the other guy doesn't mean that you can't tussle, and since the accorded factions are mostly supernatural heavy hitters what happens when those guys tussle? Collateral damage (which I'm guessing is the affectionate title some of these factions have for mortals and minor talents).

Of course if you want to be purely technical minor talents are under the white council's skirt so to speak.

[Becq]

To my understanding, the applicable rules regarding ANGs per the Accords are:
* Certain places can be signed on as Accorded Neutral Territory. This means that signatories of the Accords do not start any conflict on the premises, and are bound by their honor to take any fights outside.
* There is no spirit of the law, only the letter of the law.
Note that the "letter of the law" states that starting conflict violates the ANG, without specifying anything regarding a target.  This means that instigating violence against a mortal is a violation.  Also, it means that anyone instigating violence is no longer protected in any way.  This means that while mortals and other non-signatories are protected by the ANG, they only retain that protection so long as they abide by the rules.

I see this as being a bit analogous to international treaties, such as the Geneva Convention.  In general, all signatories are expected to follow the treaty provisions, even when dealing with non-signatories.  And all non-signatories are expected to follow them, too, lest they incur the wrath of the signatories.

So how does enforcement work?  Well, we've seen some of that in the novels.  In general, the violator's faction is expected to make good in some way that is aggreable to the others.  This could include any of the following:
* the violator's faction punishing the violator in a way found satisfactory to the violated faction
* the violator being turned over to the violated faction for punishment (or the violator's faction could simply withdraw protection from them, which is largely the same)
* as a default, a duel is always considered an acceptable resolution so long as the proper rules are adhered to
* if the violator or his faction does not follow through with one of the above, then the violator's faction loses protection of the Accords and the offended faction is free to war against them.  This is often undesirable to the faction being warred against.

In the case of a mortal being attacked, then I imagine any of the factions could choose to take offense, should they have a grudge to bear.  For that matter, I imagine that even when the offense is between two signatories, a third party (who wanted to settle a grudge) could jump in 'in defense' of the faction that was attacked.

In your particular case, my suggestion would be to find a suitably fancy font and print out a nice card with the following written on it:
o Violator of the Unseelie Accords
Then show the card to the player and tell him that this new aspect will be his should he follow through with the attack -- permanently, until satisfaction has been had by any aggrieved parties.  Give him the choice, much the same as if he was violating the Laws of Magic, but leave the decision to the player.

Should he accept the aspect, you now have a new plot hook to compel whenever you deem it appropriate.  For example, any time the character might otherwise be protected by his faction, or whenever an entity might otherwise be reluctant to attack the player due to percieved protection by the Accords or the player's former faction.

[Sanctaphrax]

Giving the character an aspect is a good idea, I think.

Perhaps someone who violates ANG becomes an "outlaw" of sorts. Anyone is allowed to kill them or steal from them or whatever without repercussions. It'd make for a highly efficient method of enforcement.

Not sure if that fits with canon though.