Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?

[UmbraLux]

Gogoth's objections from way back in Restoration of Faith tell a little bit of a different tale as to 'hunting rights' as they relate to the Accords.

That may have more to do with the class / status of the troll than anything else.  He wasn't a noble...he may well have been the next thing to a runaway serf as far as Faerie is concerned.  After all, he didn't have a home in the Nevernever and didn't claim a noble's protection. 

I suspect the Accords are like Animal Farm...some are "more equal" than others.   

[Tedronai]

That may have more to do with the class / status of the troll than anything else.  He wasn't a noble...he may well have been the next thing to a runaway serf as far as Faerie is concerned.  After all, he didn't have a home in the Nevernever and didn't claim a noble's protection. 

Almost wholly speculation.  Most especially the 'runaway serf' bit.
As for the location of his home, it could just as easily have been located in the Nevernever right where it intersected with 'under the bridge'.

[UmbraLux]

To clarify, I wasn't speculating the troll was a runaway.  I'm simply pointing out he had little or no status within the fae community - at least no status relative to the story or situation.  Whatever his situation with the accords and whether or not Harry broke them, he couldn't count on a signatory to back him up.

[Tedronai]

Whatever his situation with the accords and whether or not Harry broke them, he couldn't count on a signatory to back him up.

Still more speculation, though.
We know he wasn't one of the Sidhe.  We don't know much of anything else relevant to his standing within Faerie's political community.

[UmbraLux]

Still more speculation, though.

Not at all.  You neglected to note the "relative to the story" qualification.  We know what happened in the story.  He didn't threaten the scary wizard with someone else, the wizard took him down with impunity, and no one backed up the poor troll.   

[Tedronai]

He couldn't count on a signatory to back him up within the timeframe of the story, sure, but, then, that consisted of a bare handful of scenes, in game terms, and is not really relevant to a discussion of consequences for any game substantially more long-term.

[Richard_Chilton]

The Summer Court has signed on.
The Winter Court has signed on (duh, it's named after them).

The Wyldfae? Did they sign on? I don't think so.

It depends on how the Accords are worded, but if it says "Naughty children who cross bridges can be eaten by trolls" then a Wyldfae troll could exploit that - but he wouldn't have a signatory behind him if something went wrong.

Or maybe there's a self defense clause in the "trolls eat kids" bit that allows them a champion.

Or maybe the troll was living in exile because he pissed the wrong lord off.

Or maybe (and this is the most likely bit) Jim didn't have the accords all worked out when he wrote that story.  That he had a broad outline but not the details.

Those are four valid options and there's no way to tell which is true... Other than asking Jim.

Richard

[UmbraLux]

He couldn't count on a signatory to back him up within the timeframe of the story, sure, but...

I really let myself get derailed over a minor example, didn't I?     Whatever the troll's status, my point stands.  When it comes to the accords, social status matters.

[Tedronai]

The Wyldfae? Did they sign on? I don't think so.

And even this implication is speculation.
We have no information regarding his Court affiliation (or lack thereof).

There was a reference buried in the books somewhere to Faerie (as in the whole of the realm, and not merely one of the Courts, or even both of them) potentially taking action on a violation of the Accords.  I believe it was in reference to the RC incursion into Unseelie territory, but I could be wrong, there.



@Umbralux:
Yes, social status matters when calculating the appropriate response to an incident.
It does not, however, matter when deciding whether an 'incident' occurred (though it might render the incident so miniscule that it is ignored in favour of continued passable relations).

[UmbraLux]

It does not, however, matter when deciding whether an 'incident' occurred...

I'm tempted to quote someone and say this is just speculation...    

Accords discussion is always going to be a combination of extrapolation and personal points of view.  Call it speculation if you prefer.  If details are ever published we'll have more, until then I'll extrapolate and speculate away!   

Back to the subject of what the Accords may mandate, we have:

• Follow "Old World" courtesy & hospitality conventions.  (Would this actually be part of the Accords?  Or would it simply state something along the lines of "don't break your given word"?)
• Mutual non-interference.  This would cover theft, including rescue of 'prey' or servants.  It may be detailed enough to cover what is and what isn't legal prey.
• Penalties are set, i.e. weregild.  This is very status dependent. 
• Each group is expected to police / control their own.  When they can't (or don't), the group takes responsibility for an individual member's actions. 

Given the disparate signatories and mutually opposing goals, I don't think it would be much more involved.  However, there is at least one area where agreement might have been found:  dealing with Outsiders.  Other possibilities include: keeping humanity ignorant, controlling / policing associate groups, and some form of sanctuary.

[zenten]

About the PC in the OP, I think it's interesting that no one mentioned the most important point, the PC would have to be caught.

As to the Accords in general, how I run things is that I go based off of explicit examples in the books, and I assume that the Accords are very Byzantine, with the letter being all that matters.  If a rule needs to be brought up that hasn't come up before I handle it with Lore Declarations.

[devonapple]

About the PC in the OP, I think it's interesting that no one mentioned the most important point, the PC would have to be caught.

"Don't get caught" is a mantra which should not be forgot, of course!

However, this is a magical game, with supernatural powers, retrocognition, thaumaturgical research, people who automatically know whatever is written anywhere at any time, the White God sending Knights of the Cross places, and Ineffable Things Struggling to Break Into the World: not getting caught can be a bit of a challenge.

[zenten]

OK, but most of those aren't going to care about the PC's plan.  It's not like a Knight of the Cross is likely to show up and start checking to see if the drinks are spiked.

[devonapple]

OK, but most of those aren't going to care about the PC's plan.  It's not like a Knight of the Cross is likely to show up and start checking to see if the drinks are spiked.

Depends on the plot. Perhaps not this particular caper, but depending on who was potentially going to be harmed by such a scheme, I can see the White God directing one of His Knights into such a situation. But I mention it only for the sake of completion.

[SunlessNick]

Follow "Old World" courtesy & hospitality conventions.  (Would this actually be part of the Accords?  Or would it simply state something along the lines of "don't break your given word"?)  -  UmbraLux

My immediate reaction would be to think it's extremely likely that there would be specific hospitality rules.  It squares with the kind of cultures many of the signatories are drawn from, and with a setting where (human) thresholds can be supernatural phenomena in themselves.

On the other hand, when Harry went to visit Maeve that first time, I find it hard to believe that her actions would not have constituted the breaking of any likely version of such rules.  Granted, it's Maeve, and perhaps Mab punished her afterwards.