Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?

[sinker]

I believe we're talking about a Red Court Infected, being that Red Court Vampires are not usually a playable template. I'm not even sure how the politics of being Infected work.

[Tedronai]

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. 

At this point I'd like to point out that Knights of the Cross are not signatories.  And wouldn't necessarily roll over and die the way some minor talent or other minor player would.
Moving on.

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.

Here, I'd personally agree with you, but as I understand it, the GM of that particular game has decreed it (or allowed it to be decreed) otherwise.


@sinker
I would imagine they work rather similarly to those of Minor Talents (technically under the protection of the White Council, but it rarely comes up and folks rarely really care unless things are really hitting the fan), but that would just be my guess using the closest known equivalent.
Although, there may have been talk of how the Accords view Changelings mentioned in passing in Summer Knight, but it's been too many months since I read that last to recall details (I think it's similar to the above re: minor talents with added complexity from the Fae parent's allegiance within the Courts).

[Raidensparx]

At this point I'd like to point out that Knights of the Cross are not signatories.  And wouldn't necessarily roll over and die the way some minor talent or other minor player would.

Very true, I didn't consider Knights of the Cross under the non-signatories.  Though considering who they are...well, dang near all supernaturals know who they represent, and pretty much treat them with respect unless they have the upper hand.  Plus, with their power, they probably wouldn't be involved in a conflict on Accorded Neutral Ground unless they were meant to be there to stop one.  That whole "you'll be where you're meant to be" power.

[Tedronai]

If a KotC was 'supposed' to oppose a particular evil, by physical conflict if necessary, I don't think it would matter to them that that evil claimed the 'protection' of Neutral Ground.
I think the Knight's response to that would be something along the lines of, 'There is no neutrality in the war against Evil.'
But I was really only using them as an example to demonstrate that there are non-signatories who can hold their own in a fight, even against some serious heavy-hitters (true dragons, for instance).

[Raidensparx]

If a KotC was 'supposed' to oppose a particular evil, by physical conflict if necessary, I don't think it would matter to them that that evil claimed the 'protection' of Neutral Ground.
I think the Knight's response to that would be something along the lines of, 'There is no neutrality in the war against Evil.'
But I was really only using them as an example to demonstrate that there are non-signatories who can hold their own in a fight, even against some serious heavy-hitters (true dragons, for instance).

I agree, not contesting that.  They're just usually the ones who already have the backing of a powerful faction, just one that may not have signed the Accords.  Where as the character in the example given was apparently not backed by them, and in fact would be in just as much danger from the faction he would have belonged to.

[devonapple]

I've been thinking about the Accords lately, and what I really want is a list of hypothetical situations and answers. Such a desire may be counter to the Unseelie Accords' potential as a plot wildcard, and remove some of its narrative flexibility (or is it narrative oozibility?).

In short, it may be something we just aren't allowed to have, for narrative freedom. But I still want to know, because even if the Accords are themselves supposed to be incredibly inscrutable without serious legal translation, I as a GM want a framework for its use. Would that mean I have to answer these questions for myself? Or am I really missing the "spirit" (ha ha) of the Accords: that they are truly supposed to cut one way on one day, owing to extenuating circumstances, but cut another way the next time because of a new context?

For example: under which of the following circumstances can the White Council Wizard attack the Red Court Vampire and rescue its victim, without provoking war between the White Council and the Red Court? Ditto if the victim is being instead victimized by a Fairy or a White Court Vampire?

White Council Wizard, walking down a public street, sees a Red Court Vampire feeding on some guy.
White Council Wizard, walking down an alley, sees a Red Court Vampire feeding on some guy.
White Council Wizard, at a Red Court Vampire's house, sees the RCV feeding on some guy.
White Council Wizard, at a Red Court Vampire's house, sees the RCV enslaving some guy.

White Council Wizard, walking down a public street, sees a Red Court Vampire feeding on a child.
White Council Wizard, walking down an alley, sees a Red Court Vampire feeding on a child.
White Council Wizard, at a Red Court Vampire's house, sees the RCV feeding on a child.
White Council Wizard, at a Red Court Vampire's house, sees the RCV enslaving a child.

White Council Wizard, walking down a public street, sees a Red Court Vampire feeding on a friend of the Wizard.
White Council Wizard, walking down an alley, sees a Red Court Vampire feeding on a friend of the Wizard.
White Council Wizard, at a Red Court Vampire's house, sees the RCV feeding on a friend of the Wizard.
White Council Wizard, at a Red Court Vampire's house, sees the RCV enslaving a friend of the Wizard.

[wyvern]

For reference, the PC in my game decided to do something else, and thus there is no actual further accords issue there.  Yay!

Now, to address Devonapple's question.

Note that - given the lack of info on the accords - I make no claim that these answers are anything more than just my opinion.

The scenarios you've listed: Depends first on witnesses.  If you destroy the RCV, and nobody saw you, the Red Court can't start a war because they don't have proof.
Depends secondly on the rank of the RCV; it's plausible that a non-"nobility" RCV would not be enough to justify war, even if killed for "no reason".  However, in that instance, you would still have to offer some form of reparation, most likely a weregild paid in gold.

However, there are some things that would change that.
For example, if the victim was operating under your orders, then you could come to that person's defense - and would be justified to destroy the RCV if it pushed the issue, though doing so would also obligate you to pay a weregild.
Alternatively, if the victim was someone who - according to the accords - was affiliated with the white council - then you could defend them as above.  (I.E. the victim is a minor talent or another wizard.)

Of course, in either of those cases, you'd best hope the victim hadn't already done something to provoke action under the accords (such as sneaking into the vampire's house, or attacking them first) - because if they have, then the RC has its excuse for war the instant you claim responsibility for said victim.

[devonapple]

Good comments!

My examples (in my mind) assumed no malice on the part of the victim - simply being a victim (no trespassing or obvious crime against the supernatural entity which would logically evoke a "self-defense" option).

Basically, I want to know whether or not a human member of an Accord Signatory (White Council) is expected to, all things being equal, turn around and walk away if they happen upon a predator from another Accord Signatory preying upon an "innocent" human?

Does a predatory from an Accord Signatory have a right to feed without retaliation?

Does that right wane a little if they are being overt about it? Is the rival Signatory supposed to request parlay with the local Red Court Baron and say "hey, your d00dz are feeding with a little less discretion than we feel is ideal for our Accords, so you better fix it or I'm going to have to act on it"?

[UmbraLux]

For example: under which of the following circumstances can the White Council Wizard attack the Red Court Vampire and rescue its victim, without provoking war between the White Council and the Red Court? Ditto if the victim is being instead victimized by a Fairy or a White Court Vampire?

White Council Wizard, walking down a public street, sees a Red Court Vampire feeding on some guy.
White Council Wizard, walking down an alley, sees a Red Court Vampire feeding on some guy.
White Council Wizard, at a Red Court Vampire's house, sees the RCV feeding on some guy.
White Council Wizard, at a Red Court Vampire's house, sees the RCV enslaving some guy.

As far as the Accords are concerned, who the victim is only matters if the victim is part of one of the signatory groups.  It's not going to make a distinction between stranger / child / friend.  Only between signatory & non-signatory. 

As for war, that's dependent on three questions:  1) Does the offended party want war?  2) Can the offended party come up with enough of a justification to keep third parties out?  (This is easy as far as the Accords go - if the letter of the agreement was breached, third parties have no excuse to interfere.)  3) If the offended party doesn't want war, was the offense enough a strike at their prestige to force a response?

In the books case of Red Court vs White Council, it's made clear the RC was looking for an excuse and had been planning war for decades if not centuries.  All they wanted was an excuse. 

[devonapple]

As for war, that's dependent on three questions:  1) Does the offended party want war?  2) Can the offended party come up with enough of a justification to keep third parties out?  (This is easy as far as the Accords go - if the letter of the agreement was breached, third parties have no excuse to interfere.)  3) If the offended party doesn't want war, was the offense enough a strike at their prestige to force a response?

Ultimately, I want my White-Council-Savvy sorcerer to be able to confidently point to an Accord-protected supernatural predator enjoying a meal of tasty human, and say to his mortal friends either:

A) "Yes, this is atrocious, but it must be tolerated in order to keep a greater peace - these creatures have secured the right to hunt and feed according to a great Accord between their kind and many other supernatural factions, including the White Council of Wizards, which I have told you, governs mortal spellcasters like me. But if they touch one of you, I'll kill'em."

B) "Yes, this is atrocious, but it must be tolerated in order to keep a greater peace - these creatures have secured the right to hunt and feed according to a great Accord between their kind and many other supernatural factions. But if they touch one of you, I'll protest very strongly for reparations."

C) "That's not good. Okay, look. You: flank him on the left. Kid: you run him down the middle. I'll cover that exit - whatever you do, we can't leave any evidence or witnesses: if we get caught, it's going to cost us seriously, or worse: it could lead to war. Let's do this."

[UmbraLux]

Sure, I can understand that.  Problem is, the Accords haven't been articulated.  Even if they were, I think a big dose of self interest will decide any declaration of war.  But without the specific rules you're really stuck with just self interest.

Have you tried writing your version of the Accords yet?  If not, I suggest something like the following:

• Follow "Old World" hospitality conventions.
• Mutual non-interference.
• Anything else involving non-accord signatories is between the individuals alone.

If you have written a version, I'd like to see it!

[devonapple]

If you have written a version, I'd like to see it!

I have nothing close to a written version, but it is a good idea, if for no reason other than my own reference. And your line items seem fairly sound.

[Richard_Chilton]

There's a good example of how the Accords work in the short story Even Hand.  Since that is one of the rarer stories I'll put the rest in spoilers.

(click to show/hide)

So after doing some mob related business (killing bound men in cold blood) Marcone is kicking back when someone tells him there's accords business to take care of.  Enter Justine with a small child (boy? girl? whatever - at that age it doesn't really matter).  A small child - and a tale of woe.

Justine had been sent by the White Court to negotiate with a group that (until then) we'd never heard of - one that signed the accords.  Anyhow, as she was in the underwater lair of these Fomorians (yes, this is the first story they appear in) she stumbled across a prison where they were keeping humans.  Justine saw the child and decided she had to help it so freed all the slaves to create a diversion and left with the kid.  Problem is, she can't make it back to any White Court holding before a cantrev lord of the fomor catchs up with her - she's asking for sanctuary under the Accords.  In short, she's asking for a favour on her sponsored behalf.

Gard translate that as ""The fomor are an ancient folk,” she said. “Water dwellers, cousins of the jotuns. Extremely formidable. Sorcerers, shape changers, seers.""

Unlike us, Marcone has read the accords (and was looking for loopholes) and he doesn't do favours.  Then the idiot comes in and smashes a Dresden ready door (i.e. one designed to be smashed if Dresden shows up and wants to smash his way in).  After a bit tussling, you've got Marcone saying:
“As a freeholding lord of the Unseelie Accords,” I said, “it would be considered an act of war if I killed you out of hand, despite your militant intrusion into my territory.” I narrowed my eyes. “However, your behavior gives me ample latitude to invoke the defense of property and self clause. I will leave the decision to you. Continue this asinine behavior, and I will kill you and offer a weregild to your lord, King Corb, in accordance with the conflict resolution guidelines of section two, paragraph four.”

After he goes, Marcone tells Justine:
“you are property. You have no rights in the current situation, in the eyes of the Accords – and more to the point, I have no right to withhold another’s rightful property. Mag’s behavior provided me with an excuse to kill him if he did not depart. He will not give me such an opening a second time.”

After a bit you've got:
“I did my best,” came Mag’s voice. “I gave you a chance to return what was mine. But no. You couldn’t keep yourself from interfering in my affairs, from
stealing my property. And so now you will reap the consequences of your foolishness, little mortal…”

Which leads to Marcone telling a dying Mag:
“Idiot,” I said coldly. “It will be well worth the weregild to be rid of you.”
Afterwards:
Mag’s body had been bagged and transferred, to be returned to his watery kin, along with approximately a quarter of a million dollars in bullion, the price required in the Accords for the weregild of a person of Mag’s stature.

So that's basically it.  There are times when you can fight (and possibly kill) a member of a different Accord Nation, but you have to plan things carefully and be ready to pay (sometimes in cash) afterward.

There are a couple other examples of handling an "act of War" in the books including:
- give us the criminal and we'll call it even (Summer Knight)
- Honest duel between champions to settle things (Death Masks)

Can anyone else name other examples?

Richard

[UmbraLux]

Good example Richard, I'd forgotten Even Hand.   

It does bring up a couple of points:

• Non-signatories have no rights unless they 'belong' to a signatory.  (And then it's presumably more about theft or damage to property than to a person.)
• Old World courtesy matters as much as hospitality.  (You can kill someone as long as you follow "proper" forms - i.e. challenge or catch them being discourteous.)
• Weregild is owed even for a "justified" killing.  (Though probably not for a challenge.)
  
• "Class" matters.  You may get away with killing a foot soldier in situations where you wouldn't get away with killing a noble.  Even if you have to pay weregild, it will be cheaper. 

[Tedronai]

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.

(click to show/hide)

There, Gogoth, a rather classic bridge troll, vehemently objects to Dresden's protecting of a young runaway girl caught crossing Gogoth's bridge, because, as Gogoth asserts, naughty children are still fair game for bridge trolls.
Dresden doesn't challenge that assertion, nor the assessment of the child that renders it relevant.  He does, however, proceed to defend the child, eventually 'killing' the troll.
Now, any consequences or reparations Dresden is forced to endure happen after the story ends, but he obviously didn't spark a war with Faerie over the incident, nor did any of Sidhe Lords/Ladies come to crush the life out of him for his insolence.