(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.
Mortals aren't signatories. Pretty sure ANG doesn't apply. Mortals (99%+) know nothing of the supernatural factions.(click to show/hide)
Oh, and I'd have the proprietor ban him from the place too. Just on general principles.
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.
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.
Just for additional clarification, if he is buying the drinks, spiking them, offering them to people, and they accept, then I don't believe there's any violation. If he's spiking the drinks the patrons ordered themselves then he's in violation against the owner of the establishment and against those who's drinks he spiked.
Unless he pulls the same 'recreational' excuse that Bianca employed, saying something along the lines of, 'Here, this one's got a little extra kick; I think you'll like it,' as he hands his victim the drink. At which point he can, narrowly, claim that he informed them of the intoxicating effects of the beverage, and thus that they accepted it 'knowingly'.
I'm pretty sure Neutral Ground does not provide more protection than the Laws of Hospitality. Supernatural nations tend to take those rather seriously, too. And with all of those guests (everything from the White Court's black sheep to a Dragon) at Bianca's little shindig, not one of them raised a formal complaint about an unannounced 'recreational drugging' of the beverages.
As for the person 'running' the Neutral Ground, they can declare you unwelcome in their establishment entirely independently of any breach of the Accords. And any breach of the Accords is entirely independent of what they deem acceptable in their establishment.
And that's even assuming that someone in-the-know 'runs' the Neutral Ground, and that it's not merely Central Park, or a local sporting stadium with an oblivious management.
I'm fairly certain Bianca's place was not Accorded Neutral Ground. It was her place, which meant it was her territory. But the accords never officially made it a neutral ground. As such, there was really nothing the accords could do that would keep her from doing anything, since everyone technically had made a choice to go there.
Accorded Neutral Ground means that everyone agrees "we do not pull any shit there, ever, and expect serious repercussions if we do".
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?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.
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 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?
If you have written a version, I'd like to see it!
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.
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.
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.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. ;)
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.
The Wyldfae? Did they sign on? I don't think so.
It does not, however, matter when deciding whether an 'incident' occurred...I'm tempted to quote someone and say this is just speculation... ;)
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.
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.
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"?) - UmbraLuxMy 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.