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

[Paul Farquhar]

Seems like most schools these days think history started in the 1600's...

History starts at 1900 for GCSE.

But my KS3 history went Romans in Britain - Noman Conquest - Tudors and Stewarts. So hundreds of years, including most of the medieval period, skipped over. Probably to sanitise it and make it more child friendly. Real history is "unsuitable for children" so you aint going to learn it in school!

Fortunately, there are lots of books, TV shows and even computer games where you can learn it.

 

[Starfox]

Better than what Edward II got in the end.

I couldn't find a reference for this, what happened?

 

[jasper]

During the Hundred Years war this did happen. The noble send 30 mens at arms to the English side. I think 5 knights to French. And stayed home himself.

 

[Zardnaar]

I couldn't find a reference for this, what happened?

One story is red hot poker inserted up his behind. May not be true.

 

[Inglorin]

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

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.

 

[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.

I think situation 4 is the most likely to end well for both countries and the noble in question

The main reason I think that situation 4 is the most likely to end well for both countries and the noble in question is that I forgot to mention that despite the fact that both countries have heavily disliked each other for centuries he holds A Noble Title in both of them

 

[Professor Murder]

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.

The answer is: What are your narrative goals? Follow those.

Is the noble one of honor? Play up their internal conflict. Are they a schemere or a pragmatist? Have them play both sides against the middle, or perhaps lay low, waiting to see who will win.
More importantly, is this a PC or NPC noble? Are those whom they owe fealty to PCs or NPCs?

It's why I wouldn't randomly determine which army wins a battle for example. Unless the PCs' actions swing events one way or another, the winner should be which is the best narrative choice for your story goals.

 

[Starfox]

During the Hundred Years war this did happen. The noble send 30 mens at arms to the English side. I think 5 knights to French. And stayed home himself.

Often feudal obligations were very specific. Say a particular noble has feudal obligations to two kings, obliged to send 30 infantry to one king and 5 knights to another, he could satisfy both obligations like this.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

One story is red hot poker inserted up his behind. May not be true.

Indeed, this was the common gossip at the time, but there is no coroners report to confirm cause of death (there rarely is).

The suggestion was it was either intended as a homophobic insult, or to leave no visible wounds on the body, or both.

Officially, his cause of death was "natural causes" but when you are imprisoned in your enemy's castle at the time, assassination is a natural cause.

 

[Zardnaar]

Indeed, this was the common gossip at the time, but there is no coroners report to confirm cause of death (there rarely is).

The suggestion was it was either intended as a homophobic insult, or to leave no visible wounds on the body, or both.

Nope thats one if the stories though.