Lord or Tyrant?

[Elf Witch]

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.



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.



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 ..



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).



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



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?



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

In my game a duel of honor can only be fought among people of the same rank. What would have happened in my world is that the captain of the Guard would have the right to postpone the duel until he got get a champion to fight on his behalf or they would have waited until the lords of the keep came back and let them say what is to be.

It depends on the noble. Some of mine would have cut the poor guy's tongue out, some would have told him to shut up others might have relieved him of duty. It would really depend on the situation and who had clear command. If the Lords of the keep put the PC Lord in command then I think the PC Lord had a right to expect the guard to follow his orders. Though I still think he could have tried to smooth the waters over the friendly fire. And he would have the right to discipline the guard if he disobeys.

Now if the Captain was left in charge then this PC Lord overstepped the bounds of hospitality.

As a DM I might make this fellow have an ego problem or he had an abusive lord and he had enough so he goes down the path of evil to fix what he sees as wrongs. And no in no way do I think that slapping an NPC is in the same league as vampires.

I don't like players who play their PCs as bullies or antagonistic towards lower level NPCs and expect that there will not be any repercussions just because they are PCs. So that maybe coloring this for me.

 

[Numion]

In my game a duel of honor can only be fought among people of the same rank. What would have happened in my world is that the captain of the Guard would have the right to postpone the duel until he got get a champion to fight on his behalf or they would have waited until the lords of the keep came back and let them say what is to be.

That's probably the sensible action - in a battle against vampires it might not be a good idea to spend your shots fighting duels (on the PCs or NPCs part). That might've been stupid, but it's still within the PCs right.

Now, PCs do stupid things all the time. This might've been one. A duel to preserve a priestess honor doesn't make his actions tyrantical.

I don't like players who play their PCs as bullies or antagonistic towards lower level NPCs and expect that there will not be any repercussions just because they are PCs. So that maybe coloring this for me.

Sometimes there should be consequences. Usually not, though. There would be no room in the world for all the evil if every commoner mope had the power of consequences on his side. Or it is my assumption on most D&D worlds that the life of a low level dudes is basically hard, and that's why heroes are needed.

Not that I had played a PC that punked low-level NPCs around just for the fun of it (since I was 15, anyway). But I would never let anybody get away with disrespecting my character, if it was in my power to do something. In this case a duel would've been appropriate, but if I had played a character that was incapable of dueling (wizard, archer, for example) I would've done something else. A mind control spell, intimidation, etc..

In D&D I've seen both sides of these problems: PCs who think they own the world because of couple of levels. And the DMs who play every NPC as hostile, with always higher-level NPCs backing every other NPC in case PCs try talk back or take action. Some DMs seem to think that any disrespect toward his NPCs is personal disrespect to him (not the case here).

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

A british lord (e.g. "House of Lords") will get all the lip I feel like giving him in my home town (in the U.S.). The brits didn't exactly give two shakes about the Zulu king. Same goes in D&D. "Furniners" titles aren't necessarily respected. Heck, in many regions of the world, your most likely problems were the hooligans from the next town over. Look at fun and games like the War of the Roses in England, where people who were not only countrymen but were vaguely related, waged war for more than a century.

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

Actually, he probably couldn't have refused the duel without losing the respect of his men. However that commander now has the full respect of his troops. Why? Because he backed them up, literally facing death, against those powerful outlanders.

Besides, the PCs are really the lesser threat if the lord is a PC-like tyrant. The guard captain knows his boss is not going to like having his authority usurped by outlanders. He's in a catch-22 situation where if he obeys the outlander then his boss (10th level) will feel betrayed and punish him, and if he doesn't obey then the outlander (11th level) will punish him.

Regardless, the PCs are probably in for it when the local lord arrives.

if the local lord is a tyrant like the PCs, he's going to be mondo ticked at the party. Why? Because the PC almost killed one of his men! The militia are his toys and who are you to break them?

If he's a noble lord then he's going to be mondo ticked that you almost murdered his trusted lieutenant who was only doing his job.



There are multiple sayings that many people should not only memorize but actually understand.

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

"Wield an iron fist but in a velvet glove."

"Noblesse oblige"

 

[Elf Witch]

That's probably the sensible action - in a battle against vampires it might not be a good idea to spend your shots fighting duels (on the PCs or NPCs part). That might've been stupid, but it's still within the PCs right.

Now, PCs do stupid things all the time. This might've been one. A duel to preserve a priestess honor doesn't make his actions tyrantical.



Sometimes there should be consequences. Usually not, though. There would be no room in the world for all the evil if every commoner mope had the power of consequences on his side. Or it is my assumption on most D&D worlds that the life of a low level dudes is basically hard, and that's why heroes are needed.

Not that I had played a PC that punked low-level NPCs around just for the fun of it (since I was 15, anyway). But I would never let anybody get away with disrespecting my character, if it was in my power to do something. In this case a duel would've been appropriate, but if I had played a character that was incapable of dueling (wizard, archer, for example) I would've done something else. A mind control spell, intimidation, etc..

In D&D I've seen both sides of these problems: PCs who think they own the world because of couple of levels. And the DMs who play every NPC as hostile, with always higher-level NPCs backing every other NPC in case PCs try talk back or take action. Some DMs seem to think that any disrespect toward his NPCs is personal disrespect to him (not the case here).

I played a high born noble in a Kalamar game so high born I was the niece of Emperor Kabori so I was not just noble I was of royal blood. And there were times I player her arrogant but I also played her with the attidue that as a high born she had an inborn duty to protect those weaker than her.

If my character had been in this sitaution I would have first tried to use diplomacy to smooth the ruffled feathers because from what I saw it was more frayed nerves than lipping off. If I was not able to sway the NPC with diplomacy I would then have switched to intimidate to bring the guard under control.

I also would have made sure that I was left in command. And I would not have hesitated if my character had been in command and I could not bring this guard under control to have had him thrown in the dungeon.

In my world everything is controlled by guilds and they are powerful in someways as powerful or more powerful as the leaders of countries. There is a dueling guild that has very set rules for duels you break those and you have to deal with the guild something you don't really want to have to do.


I will agree that I aslo dislike DMs who make every NPC unfriendly and abrasive to the party. I have played with a DM like that and it got old really fast. I don't do that as a DM sure there are NPCs who are not helpful usually because they are evil or greedy. But I also populate my world with helpful freindly and grateful NPCs.

As for consquences it really depends on the situation. Sometimes they happen and I think they make the game richer and bring a sense of continuity to it. Consquences don't have to be bad things either. I played in another game where my character let go a merc who had been working for an evil half dragon he himself was not evil he was just working for pay. I let him go and gave him money with the advice to choose is next employer more wisely. A year later we ran into him he was now the captain of the guards of a small hamlet and was trying to protect them from evil undead he became a good ally.

In another game our party wizard got into a duel with another wizard and threw fireballs which set the town on fire. The party became hunted after that by a group of paladins hired by the people of the town to bring justice to those who had perished.

 

[Numion]

Actually, he probably couldn't have refused the duel without losing the respect of his men. However that commander now has the full respect of his troops. Why? Because he backed them up, literally facing death, against those powerful outlanders.

So losing a duel is now advantageous? He lost, so he's in the wrong - losing was his apology for his insolent actions towards the priestess.

Regardless, the PCs are probably in for it when the local lord arrives.

if the local lord is a tyrant like the PCs, he's going to be mondo ticked at the party. Why? Because the PC almost killed one of his men! The militia are his toys and who are you to break them?

In that case the PCs were 100% right in usurping command - the guard was looking out for a tyrants interests.

If he's a noble lord then he's going to be mondo ticked that you almost murdered his trusted lieutenant who was only doing his job.

I don't think anyone would consider a honorable duel a murder. Besides, a duel was more than he reserved, from wiki: "If a gentleman was insulted by a person of lower class, he would not duel him but would beat him with a cane, riding crop, or whip or have his servants do so."

"Noblesse oblige"

"Noblesse bitch slappeth thee"

 

[kigmatzomat]

So losing a duel is now advantageous? He lost, so he's in the wrong

Losing a duel is normally fatal. It does, however, prove that the guard captain is both honorable and willing to face death square in the face. That has a lot of cachet to most fighting men.

Plus your confusing duels with trial by combat. Duels were for "satisfaction" while trial by combat proved right and wrong.

I don't think anyone would consider a honorable duel a murder.

In a situation where the challenger so thoroughly outranks the challenged that they felt foolish and regretful, would anyone call that an honorable duel?

"Noblesse bitch slappeth thee"

Ahh, the KoDT attitude. I love having one of those kinds of players in a new group. It's always good to have a example of what not to do.

Lacking that, I'll have an appropriately boorish NPC of minor rank make life difficult for the PCs before ultimately getting an appropriate comeuppance, preferably with minimal PC intervention.

Cautionary tales are wonderful things.

 

[boolean]

2) Seriously, were these magical arrows of slaying? This is a D&D world, and if that cleric was even fazed by a couple arrows hitting him (and, really, how the hell did they hit him? His AC must suck!) he's a wuss.

When in Gaseous Form (which Wind Walk refers to) you lose most of your AC (non-Force armor, shield, and natural armor bonuses don't apply IIRC). The spell does give DR/magic, but the soldiers may have had magic bows or arrows. They are prepared to fight vampires (who have DR/magic and silver) after all.

If the soldiers are using magical arrows, which are individually relatively cheap, then the Wind-Walking cleric is also responsible for them wasting a limited and valuable resource.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

First up – there isn’t a big problem. This was just one of those encounters where a couple of expectations clashed. Madewithletters and I have differing views of how a lord should and can act and be treated. This I think is part of a greater issue of what type of game we want, and clearly we can find an acceptable common ground. So this is why I wanted to drum up some debate to get all the angles into view. Thanks all

I’ll give a few more clarifications but really, we’re starting to get into detail and some of this may bore.

The details:

This is not random smacking of npc’s.

The party has been on the receiving end of similar behaviour. When a queen was displeased with them they were dressed down (with only Priest complaining). Also when Maugrim faced a socially senior (suspected) villain, he showed proper respect even though they were clearly moving towards confrontation.

‘Bad’ decisions did happen, and we enjoy this because our characters are not perfect, and make bad (but not unforgivable) decisions at time. We do expect repercussions, that is the type of game we’re after.

We have not fleshed out the rules of dueling, so this is something that we need to discuss. The militiaman was given the option to shut up and show respect - or fight. My initial thought was to model dueling on where you put your life on the line if you accept, but my PC’s merciful reputation probably backfired as it likely emboldened him.

Regarding my understanding and assumptions of lordship. My character (in particular) comes from a neighbouring Barony and is a 3rd younger brother to the current Baron. I have developed my character very much on historical medieval assumptions married to more traditional D&D ‘traditions’. That’s why he acts like a medieval lord, has leadership, knowledge nobility/diplomacy, and has strived to build a following from level 6+. When we entered the township 2 years prior, he did the intro’s etc…

The lords’ did invite us in and we used the keep as our base for the forays on the Vampires. After the 1st excursion, we were scattered and regrouped at the keep. We found the local lords had left with no letter of explanation, but one can ‘teleport’ so no big deal. We cannot spare the extra ‘sending’, the 1st foray taught us that.

Oh yeah, this is a campaign built around RttToEE. Thanks Monte

 

[Numion]

Losing a duel is normally fatal. It does, however, prove that the guard captain is both honorable and willing to face death square in the face. That has a lot of cachet to most fighting men.

Plus your confusing duels with trial by combat. Duels were for "satisfaction" while trial by combat proved right and wrong.

It depends on what is agreed. Duels could be to first blood, serious injury or death. And I don't mean this was a trial by combat - I mean that the guard had the options of refusing the duel which amounts to an apology, or duel and lose which also amounts to an apology (or duel and win, which would've been the best option for the guard).

In a situation where the challenger so thoroughly outranks the challenged that they felt foolish and regretful, would anyone call that an honorable duel?

But that would mean that a lord that was really good in duelling wouldn't by able to restore his honor in any way. If he challenged somebody it would be dishonorable by your standard, and if he didn't, he'd have to take the hit on his honor anyway. How does that make sense?

Ahh, the KoDT attitude. I love having one of those kinds of players in a new group. It's always good to have a example of what not to do.

Lacking that, I'll have an appropriately boorish NPC of minor rank make life difficult for the PCs before ultimately getting an appropriate comeuppance, preferably with minimal PC intervention.

Cautionary tales are wonderful things.

So, you'd have an NPC use his rank to show how wrong the PCs were for using their rank? The mind boggles. NPCs can dick around with their precious noble rank, but if a PC does the same it's an infraction which begs the DM to teach a lesson on them?

EDIT: Oh, I had some reading comprehension difficulties. Strike that last paragraph, you meant the exact opposite of what I read.

 

[Fenes]

I think this is a case of "21st century society". Unless otherwise specified, I'd consider the militia leader in the wrong in just about all matters.

Logically - the leader is threatening a much more powerful character that can save or lay waste to the entire keep.

Structually - the milita man does not even listen to the priestess.

Socially - the militia man, a commoner from what it seems, is messing with a noble.

The last point alone would be enough in my campaign to make characters look up, and check for signs of corruption or treason - commoners don't do such stuff, unless something is up, and while it may be just the stress, or some ego, it could be treason in the making or something else.

In my campaign, the social order is established - people consider following orders from the aristocracy as the right thing, there's even a goddess for this. Commoners (with some exceptions) don't consider themselves equal to nobles. Even my non-noble player character does not consider herself equal to the noble player character in the party, and follows orders.

Now add in player character power, and it becomes a no-brainer for any commoner militia not to mess with the PCs there.