Lord or Tyrant?

[Numion]

That works to and when the high level lords of the keep get back from talking to their allies then they can kick the crap out of the PCs who mistreated their miltia. After all they are either the same level or higher than the PCs and it is their keep.

So the lords would not respect the PCs lordhood, and would take the word of a commoner over the word of a lord, huh? I consider that a bit strange, since the PCs are defending the other lords keep, to which end the commoner was after the incident doing nothing. Actually, he was shirking his duties in defence of the keep, which at a time of war would surely be punished by death.

Do you think the lords would really be ready to go to war with the PCs after one of their commoner subjects gave lip to another lord, got straightened out, and after that abandoned his post? Seems somewhat unrealistic to me.

It never ceases to amaze me that people think having a high level in a game gives you the right to mistreat other people.

It doesn't give a right, but it gives the possibility to straighten people up. The specific situation gives the right, which it did in this case. The guard leader was obviously losing it under the pressure, judging by his actions. His later actions proved the assessment right - he's a coward for hiding in the basement.

 

[Voadam]

That works to and when the high level lords of the keep get back from talking to their allies then they can kick the crap out of the PCs who mistreated their miltia. After all they are either the same level or higher than the PCs and it is their keep.

Actually the two local lords were lower level than the PCs.

 

[robertliguori]

Is this the same robertliguori who starts flame wars on ATT like every other week about why the only moral and rational form of governance in a comic book universe is the domination of normals by superbeings?

Yo!

Yes, that's me. And it's not the only sane form, especially if you lack certain essential kinds of superbeings. It is not the case in D&D, for instance; you don't have a class of beings that default to super-powerful, super-knowledgeable, and super-benevolent.

However, you do have something similar in D&D. It's not government; it's crisis management. In times of crisis, in a D&D or comparable universe, if you are a commoner, you do what the adventurers tell you. They know more than you. They are more experienced than you. They might be callous SOBs sacrificing you for the good of all, or heck, even just for kicks, but there are relatively few actively malevolent adventurers. There are lots of crises.

Again, look at this specific case. The guards made the best call they could given their limited information. Their call was wrong. Their call was very wrong. Their call was the polar opposite of right.

And that's alright. They don't have knowledge(religion) as a class skill; no one expects them to know that Wind Walk is one of the preferred methods of adventurer travel. It was a perfectly rational response, given their knowledge at the time, which was incomplete.

But the guards are obligated to take responsibility for their ignorance. The guards are obligated to know that when someone who knows more than them tells them to stop, they better damn well stop, because when it comes to clerical magic, the guards are not competent to make military decisions.

Now, here's where things get a bit complicated. In an egalitarian society, in which all men are equal in potential and opportunity, the arrogant stranger who comes onto the scene, demands respect and obedience, and responds with physical force when he is not immediately granted it is in the wrong.

D&D is not that society, and said stranger is not in the wrong. In fact, in the general case in a D&D universe, the bunch of random arrogant strangers showing up and making pronouncements are your best hope for survival. Ignoring them or being hostile towards them is like starting a political revolution in our world; the local power may suck, but you should think long and hard about what will replace it before you decide to try to get rid of it. Sure, the milita are welcome to be abrasive to the PCs. The PCs are likewise welcome to leave, wait for the vampires to acquire a scroll of unhallow, storm the keep, and horribly murder the guards. When the guards are rude to the PCs, they are increasing the odds of this happening. There is no circumstance in which pissing off the PCs is a win condition for the guards.

Is this necessarily poor roleplaying on the DMs part? Of course not! In reality, people, especially people under stress, take actions that are objectively foolish and not in their best interests. This was one of them.

 

[Elf Witch]

So the lords would not respect the PCs lordhood, and would take the word of a commoner over the word of a lord, huh? I consider that a bit strange, since the PCs are defending the other lords keep, to which end the commoner was after the incident doing nothing. Actually, he was shirking his duties in defence of the keep, which at a time of war would surely be punished by death.

Do you think the lords would really be ready to go to war with the PCs after one of their commoner subjects gave lip to another lord, got straightened out, and after that abandoned his post? Seems somewhat unrealistic to me.



It doesn't give a right, but it gives the possibility to straighten people up. The specific situation gives the right, which it did in this case. The guard leader was obviously losing it under the pressure, judging by his actions. His later actions proved the assessment right - he's a coward for hiding in the basement.

I think it depends on how the Lords of the keep feel about their people. If they treat their people with respect then they would not be pleased at how these strangers treated the guards in their absences. If they believe that lords have the right to mistreat people and bully them then it will be another matter all together.

As for going to war over it no I would see them after the crisis is past asking the PCs to leave and not come back to their lands as one possible outcome. I might do that as a DM or I might take the one guard who had been bullied and beaten and make him vengeful enough to go out into the world to gain power of his own and one day have him show up a powerful warrior in his own right with powerful allies of his own ready to bring down the hammer of vengence on the party.

Or I might even have him make a deal with the vampires.

There is so many outcomes that could come from this. And as DM I would use the drama a situation like this creates.

Yes he was losing it they faced a stronger enemy their supposed allies were doing nothing to help situation. This whole situation should have been handled with diplomacy calm the situation down. And the man is no coward he stood up to a duel and did not back down even though he knew that he could not win and could die.

I don't view the guards going to cellar as a sign of being a coward I view it more as we can't trust these people they don't give a hoot about us and in the end will get us killed. What possible reason do these men have at this point to trust these PCs they have done nothing to inspire trust in these men.

And neither side has said if the Lords of the keep left the PCs in charge. That aslo makes a difference in this. If the PCs were not in charge thay should have been asking what can we do to help and giving advice based on their experience not just taking over.

 

[Squire James]

Nothing unforgivable has happened here... it's even possible the militia is more likely to survive in a single "secure" location... though most D&D campaigns drift more toward "more likely to be turned en masse into vampire spawn". In a "points of light" scenario, it's probably a bad idea to act in a way that results in the points in question to dim!

 

[Elf Witch]

Actually the two local lords were lower level than the PCs.

Not by much the party is 11 and the mage and priestess who run the keep are 10 so it could be a pretty even match. Not like the situations which the miltia.

 

[Numion]

I think it depends on how the Lords of the keep feel about their people. If they treat their people with respect then they would not be pleased at how these strangers treated the guards in their absences. If they believe that lords have the right to mistreat people and bully them then it will be another matter all together.

Do you think it would ever be right for a noble to defend his honor / his mistress honor in a duel in case someone of lower background gives him lip? It was expected in the ye medieval times, but your D&D might be modelled after something else.

How would you have a noble resolve a situation of someone giving him lip and being generally disrespectful? I would think that physical punishment was the way of the land back then.

As for going to war over it no I would see them after the crisis is past asking the PCs to leave and not come back to their lands as one possible outcome.

That's one reasonable outcome. As a PC who had just saved the lords keep, I would be expecting, nay, demanding, a hefty compensation for the heroic deed / unthankful response combo.

I might do that as a DM or I might take the one guard who had been bullied and beaten and make him vengeful enough to go out into the world to gain power of his own and one day have him show up a powerful warrior in his own right with powerful allies of his own ready to bring down the hammer of vengence on the party.

Now this is something I might do myself. While I believe the PCs actions were justified, it's always a nice idea to use recurring characters, and this might be a logical thing for the guard to do - after all, the 'secret' of gaining personal power shouldn't be really a secret in D&D-land (kill, loot, rinse, repeat). But it's quite clear who the villain in this scenario would be ..

Or I might even have him make a deal with the vampires.

The guard sounds a bit messed up. He'd abandon his post and refuse to serve the good guys after a bit of a scuffle, but then would serve the vampires. Again, a good idea (something I might do), but this is again casting the guard as a villain (which he might well be, I mean, they've gotta pop up somehow).

And the man is no coward he stood up to a duel and did not back down even though he knew that he could not win and could die.

I thought the duel wasn't to the death. If it had been, the guard would, well, be dead.

I don't view the guards going to cellar as a sign of being a coward I view it more as we can't trust these people they don't give a hoot about us and in the end will get us killed. What possible reason do these men have at this point to trust these PCs they have done nothing to inspire trust in these men.

Except exhibiting much greater martial prowess than the guards and actually fighting the vampires. Or does slapping some sense into a backtalking, friendly-fire-shooting guard make the PCs worse than the vampires?

And neither side has said if the Lords of the keep left the PCs in charge. That aslo makes a difference in this. If the PCs were not in charge thay should have been asking what can we do to help and giving advice based on their experience not just taking over.

Probably the bad showing the guards gave made this a foregone conclusion.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Do you think it would ever be right for a noble to defend his honor / his mistress honor in a duel in case someone of lower background gives him lip? It was expected in the ye medieval times, but your D&D might be modelled after something else.

How would you have a noble resolve a situation of someone giving him lip and being generally disrespectful? I would think that physical punishment was the way of the land back then.

Actually, the last time I did a poll on the "social setting" of D&D games, "ye Medieval times" was not at the forefront (at all). Assuming that the game being discussed is actually modeled on a world where lords were entitled to deal out physical punishment for 'insult'... in another lord's keep... to the man left in charge by that other lord.... Actually I can't think of any game where that would be a safe assumption including medieval reenactment.

The player has refered to how he behaved "In the land of his birth". He isn't even a member of the local nobility and neither he nor the DM has indicated if his nobility was acknowledged by the lords of the keep. I see no actual evidence to support your conclusion that the captain of the guard owed him deference or that the lords of the keep will automaticly discount the captain's testimony compared to some wandering pretentious bully....

 

[Kahuna Burger]

One thing - while I feel the PC actions were entirely in the wrong, and the npc far more justified, that doesn't completely address the game situation. In the game, the DM could have been more helpful in guiding the player. A sense motive, diplomacy or know : nobility check could have been called for in order to give some "reality check" hints to the player/s involved and give him a chance to continue playing a bully or play the nobility he says he wants the character to be. (and if the player is envisioning a world where any noble outranks any non noble, that could have been dispelled out of character as it's something the PC should be aware of.)

 

[Numion]

Actually, the last time I did a poll on the "social setting" of D&D games, "ye Medieval times" was not at the forefront (at all). Assuming that the game being discussed is actually modeled on a world where lords were entitled to deal out physical punishment for 'insult'... in another lord's keep... to the man left in charge by that other lord.... Actually I can't think of any game where that would be a safe assumption including medieval reenactment.

So, if it's not your local noble, the assumption would be that you're free and clear to talk back and give lip? Somehow that makes the whole 'lord' title a bit meaningless.

And that's without considering the fact that it was a duel, and not a punishment. I would've preferred straight up slapping some sense to the man, or maybe a couple of lashes, but a duel is what happened. The guard could've just said no to the challenge :\

The player has refered to how he behaved "In the land of his birth". He isn't even a member of the local nobility and neither he nor the DM has indicated if his nobility was acknowledged by the lords of the keep. I see no actual evidence to support your conclusion that the captain of the guard owed him deference or that the lords of the keep will automaticly discount the captain's testimony compared to some wandering pretentious bully....

I would consider in a setting where there are nobles, disrespect and talk back to them at your own risk. I'm pretty sure that PCs who did that at low levels would get dealt with in a similar way.