D&D General If A Noble holds 1 title per country in 2 neighbouring countries what can he do if those countries go to war?, after all no matter what he lose's

[JMISBEST]

I've had A unlikely but plausible Idea for Dungeons and Dragons that will never get used but I want to know what people think would happen

So A Noble holds 1 title per country in 2 neighbouring countries and those 2 countries go to war, what does he do?

The main reason I'm asking is because no matter what he does he will end up betraying at least 1 of the kings that he has sworn allegiance to

 

[Immeril]

Given your that most of your questions usually concern various nobility issues, have you ever considered playing Green Ronin's A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying?

 

[delericho]

I've had A unlikely but plausible Idea for Dungeons and Dragons that will never get used but I want to know what people think would happen

So A Noble holds 1 title per country in 2 neighbouring countries and those 2 countries go to war, what does he do?

That's not actually particularly unlikely - historically Scotland and England warred frequently, with some nobles holding titles on both sides of the border (or otherwise wanting to play both sides).

The standard approach is for the head of the family to throw his lot behind whichever king they think is more likely to win, but have a son or other heir back the other side. Then whichever wing loses quietly drops out of public life until the reprisals are over, before coming back to the fore.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Have you considered studying history?

 

[Sparky McDibben]

This happened a lot, actually. See Sire de Coucy in Tuchmann's Distant Mirror.

 

[Clint_L]

Was going to say, this was a fairly typical occurrence throughout feudal history. Inevitable, really. For example, William the Conqueror was also a vassal to Philip I of France, which caused all kinds of complications in relations and allegiances between many nobles in those countries, lasting for centuries.

It gets super complicated and nuanced, but pretty much boils down to: pick a side. Try for the one that will win. Or be powerful enough to stay out of it altogether.

 

[Mad_Jack]

The standard approach is for the head of the family to throw his lot behind whichever king they think is more likely to win, but have a son or other heir back the other side. Then whichever wing loses quietly drops out of public life until the reprisals are over, before coming back to the fore.

It's like the scene in The Outlaw Josey Wales where the ferryman talks about being able to sing both Northern and Southern war songs with equal fervor depending on who's within earshot...
Tell one side one thing, tell the other side the opposite, and make sure anybody who can prove you were playing both sides dies in the war...

 

[Tonguez]

Just a quick look at the Royal houses of Europe will tell you that they are all related in an incestuous web of power, privilege and perfidy.

one of the best things in movie The Kings Man was having the same actor playing the three roles of King George, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nicholas

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends on the situation. Nationalism is more of a modern idea.

Feudal society its pick a side or stay out of it. Just because you're a vassal doesn't mean they'll support their lord.

A vassal might let it be known they'll stay out of it as long as their lands snd titles are respected so won't be asked to participate anyway.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

So A Noble holds 1 title per country in 2 neighbouring countries and those 2 countries go to war, what does he do?

Usurp power in both.