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]

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...

Or make make sure anybody who can prove you were playing both sides has done something you could blackmail him/her/with then convince them that its their best interests for both you and them to keep quiet

 

[S'mon]

That's given me a idea

Maybe he can stay neutral without betraying either country by agreeing that his 1 domain will provide as much free healing as possible to civilians, soldiers, none combatants and mercenaries from both sides of the conflict , he will do so without the need to be paid, but if someone offers to pay he will accept the payment, and will do with no charge, chance of any prejudice, bias or favouritism

This wouldn't work IMC - as noted above, he'd be seen as a weakling and traitor by both sides.

The most obvious tactic would be to fulfil his minimal feudal obligations to both sides, and otherwise stay out of it. Another obvious tactic is to throw his weight behind either the stronger side, or the side from whom he expects to profit most.

I run my Forgotten Realms: Damara campaign as pretty much medieval, albeit a bit nicer than real life or Game of Thrones, so this kind of thing comes up a fair bit as the various Duchies & Baronies jostle for position with a weak central monarch. Although IMC the major nobles do try to prevent their vassals taking on titles & territories that would lead to conflicts of interest. They'll even forbid cross-border marriages, for the same reason. Otherwise, marriage to an heiress is a great way to add holdings.

Machievalli in The Prince recommends choosing one side and sticking with it. He strongly recommends against staying neutral, which will result in contempt from both sides.

 

[JMISBEST]

Interesting scenario! Here are a few possible outcomes that could happen:

1. The noble decides to remain neutral and not take part in the war, in order to maintain his oaths to both kings. This might be a difficult position to maintain, especially if one or both sides demand that he choose a side.

2. The noble tries to play both sides, offering his support to each king in turn. This could work for a while, but eventually, one or both sides may become suspicious of his loyalty and turn against him.

3. The noble chooses one side and breaks his oath to the other. This could have serious consequences, including losing his title and lands in one country, or even being hunted down as a traitor.

4. The noble attempts to negotiate a peace between the two countries, using his position and influence to broker a deal that would satisfy both sides. This would require a lot of diplomatic skill and might not be successful, but it would be a noble and honorable approach.

Ultimately, the decision the noble makes would depend on his character and values, as well as the political and military realities of the situation. It's an intriguing dilemma that could make for a fascinating story in a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.

Can I ask you 3 questions that relate to this and despite being different are very similiar

The 1st is which 1 of those 4 possible outcomes do you think is most likely to succeed?

The 2nd is which 1 of those 4 possible outcomes do you think will most benefit the noble?

The 3rd is which 1 of those 4 possible outcomes do you think will be the easiest to pull off?

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm seeing a lot of people fire back at the OP to "study history" which is fine and all, but this isn't actually a history question. It is a gaming narrative question.

I think most of JMISBEST’s questions are really just “This has been on my mind and I wanted to discuss it with someone” questions.

 

[Inglorin]

Can I ask you 3 questions that relate to this and despite being different are very similiar

The 1st is which 1 of those 4 possible outcomes do you think is most likely to succeed?

The 2nd is which 1 of those 4 possible outcomes do you think will most benefit the noble?

The 3rd is which 1 of those 4 possible outcomes do you think will be the easiest to pull off?

Certainly! I'd be happy to answer your questions:

1. Which one of those four possible outcomes do I think is most likely to succeed?

Considering the complexity of the situation and the potential consequences involved, I believe that the most likely outcome to succeed would be situation 4, where the noble attempts to negotiate a peace between the two countries. This option gives the noble an opportunity to use his influence and connections in both countries to foster a dialogue and find a mutually beneficial resolution. It requires diplomatic skill and a willingness to navigate difficult political waters, but if successful, it has the potential to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

2. Which one of those four possible outcomes do I think will most benefit the noble?

In terms of benefiting the noble, situation 4 also seems to be the most advantageous. By successfully brokering a peace between the two countries, the noble would establish a reputation as a skilled diplomat and peacemaker. This would likely enhance his standing and influence in both countries, potentially leading to increased respect, support, and opportunities for him and his family. It could also help solidify his position as a trusted advisor to the respective kings, furthering his political power and stability.

3. Which one of those four possible outcomes do I think will be the easiest to pull off?

The easiest outcome to pull off would likely be situation 1, where the noble chooses to remain neutral in the war. This option avoids direct involvement in the conflict and doesn't require taking sides or making difficult decisions. However, it also carries the risk of being seen as indecisive or lacking loyalty by both kings and their respective supporters. While it may be the simplest course of action, it might not lead to significant benefits or a favorable outcome for the noble in the long run.

 

[Starfox]

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...

Dumas uses this theme in the Three Musketeers. One of the musketeers' servants explains his background, his father was a zealot for both the Huguenots (protestants) and Catholics. Whenever he met a Catholic on the road, he was a zealot Huguenot and robbed the man, and vice-verso.

 

[Starfox]

Interesting scenario! Here are a few possible outcomes that could happen:

1. The noble decides to remain neutral and not take part in the war, in order to maintain his oaths to both kings. This might be a difficult position to maintain, especially if one or both sides demand that he choose a side.

2. The noble tries to play both sides, offering his support to each king in turn. This could work for a while, but eventually, one or both sides may become suspicious of his loyalty and turn against him.

3. The noble chooses one side and breaks his oath to the other. This could have serious consequences, including losing his title and lands in one country, or even being hunted down as a traitor.

4. The noble attempts to negotiate a peace between the two countries, using his position and influence to broker a deal that would satisfy both sides. This would require a lot of diplomatic skill and might not be successful, but it would be a noble and honorable approach.

Ultimately, the decision the noble makes would depend on his character and values, as well as the political and military realities of the situation. It's an intriguing dilemma that could make for a fascinating story in a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.

I think all 4 are very risky - sometimes there just is no safe choice. It is a bit like the prisoner's dilemma, actually.

1 is pretty safe. Whoever wins will punish you, but not severely. Guaranteed loss, but small loss. I would recommend playing dumb. Perhaps pretend to be ill or go on a pilgrimage. I actually think this is the safest option of all, but could cost some reputation.

2 is much like 1 but with a wider spread of risk: whoever wins this can lead to a variable outcome.

3 is the calculated risk. If your side wins, great. If it looses, bad. Just pick the right side. Also the most "manly" option, likely to be most common and seen as most honorable. I speculate that this was part of the reason royal power slowly increased over time - by absorbing the land of such "traitors".

4 Is much like 1, but appropriate to another style of noble. Costlier (peacemaking involves feasting and gifts) but perhaps even safer.

Kings in this period were more first among equals. This means that they may have no means of punishing a powerful baron, making 1 and 4 safe for a powerful noble.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Can I ask you 3 questions that relate to this and despite being different are very similiar

The 1st is which 1 of those 4 possible outcomes do you think is most likely to succeed?

The 2nd is which 1 of those 4 possible outcomes do you think will most benefit the noble?

The 3rd is which 1 of those 4 possible outcomes do you think will be the easiest to pull off?

Context, context and context. Which side is likely to win, how much pull do you have, and what are the mores of this specific feudal society and the specific kings involved?

The safest is to fulfil your oaths to both lords where possible, leaving you sending levies to both kings and getting some of your people killed either way. Both kings will be absolutely aware of what you are doing. Regardless of who wins you lose a little influence with both sides (more with the losing side) and get very little in the way of spoils. But you keep your lands. It's not about choosing sides, it's about fulfilling your oaths.

The most risky is to go all in on one side - and a lot of how that turns out depends on your lord and the nature of the feudal society. You may be richly rewarded - but even if you backed the winning horse you may be seen as an oathbreaker.

 

[JMISBEST]

I've just thought of something

What if A Noble has titles in 3 countries and the 3 countries end up in a 3 way war

In case your wondering this idea is inspired by The Game Sid Meiers Pirates were even though their are times when England, France, Space and Dutch are involved in a 4-way war its possible to hold A Title in all 4 countries

PS in the game The 4th country in the war is referred to as Dutch and if I'm right that's what it was called in the time period the games set in but in modern times its called Holland

 

[dvstig]

Probably the biggest deciding factor for the strategy is going to be the geography of the nobel's domain. If its a flat farmland area on the border, odds are that both armies want to control/conquer/pillage, no matter what the noble tries to do. If they are made up of difficult terrain in a remote location, the noble can probably get away with much more.

Another possible complication is third parties, can the noble get protection or support from other nation or powerful organisations?