Lord or Tyrant?

[Elf Witch]

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.

That is how it is in your campaign but the DM in this one has not said that this is the way it is in his world.

I would like to adress ome of your points.

Logically This is one of the big problems I see with DnD and that is how impossible it is for a much lower level character to have any impact on a higher level character. So because of this we allow PCs to behave the way they want to because who is going to stop them. Sure you can bring in some more powerful NPC but that usually has the PCs screaming DM Fiat unfair. This NPC is the captain of the guards trusted by his lords to defend the keep and there should be some respect due to him because of his postion but because he is not the same level as the PCs he does not get it.

And I have seen PCs behave this way with a noble born knight who was a lower level. The OP brought up the question of the difference between a lord and a tryant. To me a tryant is someone who pushes around thoses weaker than him. But history and literature are full of the little guy who stood up to tryants and so I don't find it illogical at all for a lower level NPC or PC to stand up to a higher level NPC or PC.

Structually See this where I think it gets muddy from what I am reading they did listen to the priestess and stop firing ,words were exchanged between the priestess and the captain after that.

Socially This is really a campaign specific thing. In my Kalamar game one PC I played was a member of the Black Foot Society whose sole purpose was to over throw the nobles. In my homebrew right now guilds members who may have started as commoner have as much right to expect respect as those noble born. I can see it making sense in your world that a commoner would not do this and I don't think you would have an NPC behave this way because it would not make sense. But it sounds like it is different in this world and that being a lord does not automatically make everyone bow to you. And it seems to me that might me an issue between the OP and his DM a difference of views on how lords should be viewed and treated in the DMs world.

i do have a question how do you handle paladins in your world? Can they only come from the nobility? Because I have a hard time seeing one of these powerful agents of good being treated beneath a noble just because they are not of noble birth.

 

[Fenes]

i do have a question how do you handle paladins in your world? Can they only come from the nobility? Because I have a hard time seeing one of these powerful agents of good being treated beneath a noble just because they are not of noble birth.

I took a page for that from "The War God's Own" and "Oath of Swords". Paladins are agents of a God, personally chosen by the God/Godess they serve. That means the church of said God/Goddess stands behind them, backing them with power and authority - which translates into quite a lot of influence depending on the chruch in question, and the people adressed. Most if not all would also be members of a knightly order, and therefore nobility. Not that there are that many paladins.

Basically, a paladin's status is directly granted by a god - one of the highest authorities in the world there. So, there are not many characters not of the higher nobility and/or clergy that would consider themselves above a paladin, and even most powerful nobles will give them a lot of respect and deference for this - not to mention the respect due to a knight.

Same goes, although to a lesser grade, for clerics (there are much more of them, they are not that special, and lack the knighthood implied in most paladin orders). The more powerful a cleric is, and the higher his/her standing in the chruch, and the higher the church's power is, the more respect the cleric gets. It's a sort of second noble class that way. Lesser clerics would be more or less equal to poor knights in standing, cardinals and high priests would be treated like dukes and such.

I have to add too that fame and fortune and the reputation of heroic deeds plays an important role in my campaign - the more a characer has done, the more he/she is generally known. So, a militia member facing a level 10 character would not be trying to tell some vagrant with fancy airs off, he'd be trying to order Sir Galear, Hero of the Battle of King's Mountain, Defender of Riveroaks, the man who commanded the Iron Duke's vanguard during the crusade against the orc horde, around. Most commoners - and some PCs - in my campaign flock to those characters for help, tales, and support, they don't try to push them around. Even nobles can gain standing by associating with well-known heroes.

That is, of course, not limited to PCs. NPC heroes/nobles are in the same category.

(I can't help thank that some answers would be different if instead of an NPC disobeying a PC it had been a PC of not big standing or experience trying to order a hero NPC around.)

 

[kigmatzomat]

There's also the question of what "Lord" means in the giving setting. In most societies, the titles were really military in nature, at least for the first half dozen generations or so. A "Count" was a commander assigned by the king to administer a "county." Not a whole lot of difference between a Count and colonel.

Afterwards, when the local lords started to style themselves as the hereditary nobility, officers in the military were somewhere between the nobility and the commoners, in part because officers were essentially agents empowered with the authority of a given noble. The captain of a Duke could often ignore the orders of a baron, just as today a captain on a mission from a general can often ignore the orders of a major. More importantly, Dukes couldn't be everywhere so the instructions to their vassal lords were carried by officers and were expected to be obeyed.

The one thing any "lord" should do is be painfully aware of the chain of authority. Failure to respect the rightful path of authority is one of the few unforgivable sins to the nobility as it leads down the path of rebellion. If the PC lord has not only interfered with, but contradicted, the explicit orders of the local authority then he may be facing censure by the nobility.

Personally, I'd find it a fitting scenario for the local lord to return with the Duke or King and a group of undead slayers, led by higher ranked NPC clerics of the PCs faiths. Then the comeuppance can be delivered with panache. Nothing so gauche as stripping titles or rank but instead the next mission the PCs go on they will be in a subservient position on a diplomatic mission to a country that doesn't recognize nobility, where their ability to deal with a nation of commoners is the challenge.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

(I can't help thank that some answers would be different if instead of an NPC disobeying a PC it had been a PC of not big standing or experience trying to order a hero NPC around.)

And still another set of responses if it had been a group of 3rd level PCs assigned to guard a keep by their lords and a bunch of 11th level npcs come in and take over.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

On the general subject of duels proving who is right, trial by combat and such - IMO it is in any setting pretty much "might makes right" dressed up to go to the dance, and in a world with as massively disparate power levels as D&D it's that much worse. Combined with "honorable" ideas about fighting one on one with no ranged weapons and never stabbing in the back, it's just a fancy way of saying "I'm bigger than you so I can do whatever I want and feel noble about it." No thank you, not in any marginally good kingdom of my game, though a brutal region of warlords would be right at home with it.

Someone will say this is anachronistic. It's not the medieval era, and attempts to make it socially so look as silly to me as "modern" ideas do to you, so let's skip that one today.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The one thing any "lord" should do is be painfully aware of the chain of authority. Failure to respect the rightful path of authority is one of the few unforgivable sins to the nobility as it leads down the path of rebellion. If the PC lord has not only interfered with, but contradicted, the explicit orders of the local authority then he may be facing censure by the nobility.

Exactly.... to treat the ranking officer in a keep that had been purposely left by its lords* as "just a commoner" makes no sense in any setting. It's as if the king's chamberlain said "I shall ask His Majesty if he can see you" and a noble PC said "You're just a commoner, I'll ask him myself!" A commoner with a direct command from the king outranks anything except a countermanding command from the king.

*If the lords had been killed in an attack in the intervening time, it would be a very different and diplomatically tense situation.

 

[Numion]

Exactly.... to treat the ranking officer in a keep that had been purposely left by its lords* as "just a commoner" makes no sense in any setting. It's as if the king's chamberlain said "I shall ask His Majesty if he can see you" and a noble PC said "You're just a commoner, I'll ask him myself!"

It doesn't make any sense that a commoner ordered to defend a keep would think it wise to give lip and backtalk to a lord. It's even in the vested interest of the noble class to have all commoners respect all nobles. And in some cultures this was just so.

 

[Phlebas]

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…

Hmm, Barons aren't particularly high up the noble pecking order normally. though it might be different in your world. However the fact that your from the neighbouring barony and have been around for 2 years means that your group will have gained their own reputation in the area (for better / for worse). That should have coloured the NPC's reaction.... but only you / madewithletters can say wether that was a fair response

It doesn't make any sense that a commoner ordered to defend a keep would think it wise to give lip and backtalk to a lord. It's even in the vested interest of the noble class to have all commoners respect all nobles. And in some cultures this was just so.

But not all cultures....
Even pre-medieval there was a massive gulf between serfs bonded to the land (who weren't that far off property) and freemen. Since freemen make up the bulk of most medieval armies (its only fantasy where scythe wielding serfs rout armoured knights) they would expect a certain amount of respect from the noble born. They also made up the professional classes (smiths / merchants etc) and have their own rights / obligations in a quasi-feudal setting. Since the standard D&D setting seems to place most PC classes in the 'professional' category I suspect that this would be more pronounced in an average fantasy world.

Regardless, in the lords absence the 'captain of the guard' has authority here, regardless of wether he's of noble or common birth. The idea that if you don't have a coat of arms you need to be groveling only apples when you have some real large gulfs in class (if the queen comes to visit) or a seriously oppressed society - (which is a viable setting, but not the impression i'm getting here).

My take on this is even if commoners are normally very subservient to nobles, a commoner who's working with his lords authority will not / should not be completely subservient to an outsider, though equally if the outsiders been given hospitality by his lord that cannot be withdrawn for no good reason.

Now wether it was the wisest reaction is a whole other argument and one where i'd agree that the captain might have some explaining to do on his lords return....

 

[haakon1]

In my game my players know that there are consquences to their actions both good and bad. In my games NPCs are as important as PCs and PCs who abuse and bully NPCs will eventually find themselves without allies and sometimes facing some retribution. But sp far my players play there PCs as heroes and because of their actions they have made many allies. Right now they are wanted in the killing of a druid. It was in self defence. One of the towns in the druids area of power knows the PCs and have out and out lied to the druids and hidden the PCs from them risking bringing down the wrath of the druids on themselves all because the PCs treated the twon folk well and helped them out without lording it over them.

Nod, Elf Witch and I seem to think alike on these issues. Allies and enemies make an interesting world, and it's fun to bring them back from earlier episodes, like a story arc on Bablyon 5 or Stargate Atlantis would do ("previously on Swords of Killing Stuff . . .").

 

[Voadam]

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.

. . .

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

The point of the duel is to attain satisfaction for insults to honor. You duel to defeat someone who has insulted your honor. You do not duel to challenge and test your own skill. Being a good duelist does not mean dueling poorer swordsmen is not an honorable duel, it means the good duelist generally wins.