PDA

View Full Version : Crime and Punishment in Pseudo-Medieval Games - Disobeying Orders



hymer
2016-07-24, 06:49 AM
Hello fellow Playgrounders!

Last session, my players' characters were ordered to hold a particular ford over a river. They are pretty high up in the social and military ranks, one being a baron, the rest prominent members of various factions in the Alliance, and one of them the popular commander of the force the PCs have raised for the war.
The man giving them the order was the military commander of the Alliance forces in the theatre, a hard man called Lord Ragor.
Lawful brutal is probably the best description of his disposition; too unselfish to be LE, and he lacks political guile and ambition, but he makes up for that with directness, intimidation, and military genius. Ragor is someone who has sponsored the Baron into his title and generally worked well with the PCs in the past, where they have reined him in a little, because he listens to their counsel. He gave the PCs command of the strategically important ford, where another fifty or so troops were stationed. Their orders, repeated a few times and underlined because they've ignored their orders before, was to hold the ford until proper forces could arrive and take over.

Arrived at the ford, there was soon a probing attack from an enemy advance unit, which the PCs repellled - though not without some losses to their side. Then the invaders decided the PCs were personally too formidable to deal with directly, so they attempted to pull the PCs away. This was in aid of letting a scouting force cross the ford, the first serious look at the lie of the land for the invading armies. The enemy took some heavy casualties in elite mooks to do it, but the PCs very obligingly left the ford and pursued far, using magic to speed their chase.
Returning to the ford having killed the elite mooks they could find, they see that their troops are slain, and tracks show enemy cavalry in considerable numbers have passed the ford. The PCs will now have to report their disaster to Lord Ragor (and their errand riders are killed, too, so they'll have to think of something), and allusions to Captain Needa have been offered by the Baron's player, as he intends to assume full responsibility and apologize to Lord Ragor.
As mentioned, the group has also raised and led a force of some consequence to the Alliance, and their paladin is the commander of that force. So that may also weigh on his deliberations.

TLDR: The PCs disobeyed orders from their tough cookie of a commander; allowed themselves to be outmanoeuvred on the battlefield; lost fifty troops under their command; took no casualties amongst themselves; and failed in their mission to hold an important ford. Their commander is apt to take a dim view of this.

Now, I could use someone to bat this around a little. It would certainly not be out of character for Lord Ragor to execute the Baron at least (and he'd likely do it personally, too). On the other hand, he would be executing a game-mechanically powerful ally and something of a friend, and could probably be persuaded not to go to such extremes.
I'm thinking he could send the PCs to do garrison duty somewhere a little away from the front lines, taking the troops they raised with them. This, obviously, doesn't make for very interesting gameplay, when there's a war to be fought.

So, any comments, thoughts, ideas, etc. are very welcome! :smallsmile:

Spiryt
2016-07-24, 07:40 AM
Dunno what kind of society you're trying to pull off.

In all kind of feudal(ish) settings, execution would be probably unlikely.

Loss of honour and position would be likely most probable, he simply wouldn't be commander and trusted man anymore.

If he is a leader of an actual force, that's important for the whole faction, punishing him in such way obviously can become difficult/costly too!

That's why people having their personal little armies were troublesome elements in army. Hard to punish them without losing not only them, but a lot of people.

comicshorse
2016-07-24, 08:22 AM
As above its hard to punish Nobles particularly ones leading their own factions.
The fact that the PC's realize they screwed up and have worked well in the past with the Commander would argue for some sort of atonement to make up for their mistake.
Which means its the perfect time for the Commander to break out the plans for the near suicidal mission against the enemy he'd shelved because he didn't have anybody who he disliked enough to saddle with it
This levels punishment on the P.C.s and still gives them something exciting to do rather than RP'ing being bored on garrison duty and makes more sense than wasting some of his most combat capable people on a job any militia could do.

Berenger
2016-07-24, 08:41 AM
If you try to emulate a "typical medieval" society, executing, punishing or humiliating those commanders would be an excellent move for Lord Ragor if he wants to foster feuds and treason among his own nation, unless their families and allies are so totally insignificant in power and prestige that it would beg the question why the characters were given command of anything important in the first place.

hymer
2016-07-24, 09:21 AM
Dunno what kind of society you're trying to pull off.

In all kind of feudal(ish) settings, execution would be probably unlikely.

Loss of honour and position would be likely most probable, he simply wouldn't be commander and trusted man anymore.

If he is a leader of an actual force, that's important for the whole faction, punishing him in such way obviously can become difficult/costly too!

That's why people having their personal little armies were troublesome elements in army. Hard to punish them without losing not only them, but a lot of people.

My thoughts run along similar lines. It is possible that the paladin could be ordered to calm her troops down before she reports for execution, and would, due to her nature, follow that order meekly... :smalleek: But let's hope we can come up with something better for the long term.
Thanks for your thoughts!


As above its hard to punish Nobles particularly ones leading their own factions.
The fact that the PC's realize they screwed up and have worked well in the past with the Commander would argue for some sort of atonement to make up for their mistake.
Which means its the perfect time for the Commander to break out the plans for the near suicidal mission against the enemy he'd shelved because he didn't have anybody who he disliked enough to saddle with it
This levels punishment on the P.C.s and still gives them something exciting to do rather than RP'ing being bored on garrison duty and makes more sense than wasting some of his most combat capable people on a job any militia could do.

This makes a lot of sense, although it also separates them from their troops. The obvious suicide mission, unfortunately, is best executed some months ahead, just after the harvest has been brought in. And the PCs have been looking forward to it for a while now. :smallsmile:
Thanks for the thoughts!


If you try to emulate a "typical medieval" society, executing, punishing or humiliating those commanders would be an excellent move for Lord Ragor if he wants to foster feuds and treason among his own nation, unless their families and allies are so totally insignificant in power and prestige that it would beg the question why the characters were given command of anything important in the first place.

Lord Ragor is not a political animal. If he was, he could be made king right now, since he recently won a stunning and unprecedented Cannae-like victory, cementing his reputation as the only one who can save the realm from the invaders.
Unless he gets some advice from someone before making his decision, fear of rebellion will only play very vaguely into his deliberations. The army's morale will be much more important to him, and the PCs are heroes - for now, anyway. Once their failure becomes public, this may change, depending on the manner it becomes public.
As for the question begged: Ragor and his allies put them there. This was both as a favour to them (as mentioned, he considers them allies, even friends), and to capitalize on their big names (they helped raise troops). The PCs have tried to avoid factionalism, but Ragor considers them to be in his camp. He'd be appalled if he knew how close they are with his main nemesis.
And thanks for your thoughts!

Gensuru
2016-07-24, 01:33 PM
The morale-effect of punishing great assets: can he really afford to NOT punish them? Bad enough they disobeyed orders often enough in the past to get these ones repeated multiple times but this time they really screwed up. If he doesn't punish them, that basically encourages every other member of their military to ignore their orders whenever it suits them. If he's really supposed to be lawful then orders are orders, period. It's a military. If orders were merely suggestions they wouldn't be called orders in the first place. And I don't care how noble and prestigious you are, if you lose an important fort in a war that could mean defeat or high losses for your side so whoever is responsible for this mess automatically loses a great deal of prestige. The commander is not a political animal, as you said, so military concerns should be his priority. Well, soldiers under his command failed to follow his orders, screwed up and lost an important fort in the process which may lead to a significant strategic disadvantage they now have to compensate for. The morale of the troops he is so concerned about is in peril. Their "heroes" have shown themselves to be fallible, their side has suffered losses and will continue to suffer losses, meaning the brutal deaths of them and/or their comrades. If he doesn't punish them he is sure to suffer loss of prestige himself seeing how he's the one who put them in charge in the first place. He may suffer loss of prestige anways depending on how costly this loss ends up being.


Now I can see them being too powerful to just execute them (bad from a gameplay perspective, too) but you can't just let them off the hook without some form of punishment. The atonement mission might be an idea. Something to show that, despite being unreliable screwups, they are still useful. From a gameplay perspective, maybe take away their titles and subordinates and use them as a small squad of elite soldiers instead. And make sure they either follow their orders or are put in situations where the orders are highly flexible. E.g. "prevent the enemy from moving through that valley, I don't care how."

In this particular case the easiest thing might be to give them (and their surviving troops) the order to retake the fort they lost in the first place. If they can somehow manage that before their commander is even informed of their failure (no messengers alive, you said?) they might not even need to report that this ever happened. Assuming their troops are either all dead or all loyal enough to keep quiet.

From a lawful perspective: what good is a powerful "ally" if he/she is unreliable? Either distance yourself from them, get them to be more reliable or plan for their unreliability as best you can.


Since they did screw up I don't really like this idea but here is it anyways: The PCs' failure was anticipated by their superior. You said that he's some sort of military genius so maybe he expected them to fail and the real plan is already in progress. Depends on that characters relationship with the PCs, though. As well as their own attitude towards this failure. Are they contrite? Do they plan to change their behaviour? Again, they disregarded their orders before, why was that allowed to continue? What's different about this instance?

BayardSPSR
2016-07-24, 02:26 PM
I'm thinking he could send the PCs to do garrison duty somewhere a little away from the front lines, taking the troops they raised with them. This, obviously, doesn't make for very interesting gameplay, when there's a war to be fought.

Maybe he could instruct them to volunteer for something dangerous, like leading the first wave up the walls in a siege? After all, if Ragor's such a competent leader, at this point he's realized that the PCs aren't suitable for any missions that require caution. That doesn't mean there aren't any missions they would be well-suited for.

RazorChain
2016-07-24, 02:53 PM
A month of latrine duty?

Slipperychicken
2016-07-24, 02:55 PM
Send the PCs on insane suicide missions with inadequate resources, the success of which would probably reverse the disaster. The conversation might go like, "You personally lost that ford and let the enemy cavalry pass by disobeying my command. If you ever hope to reclaim your honor, then follow this order: destroy the cavalry and take back that ford yourself!" Basically their prior failure and disobedience would be used as leverage to get them into the suicide missions despite not having much to work with.

And of course, since the PCs are obviously bad at doing anything requiring thought or patience, then he can treat them like frothing-at-the-mouth berzerkers, simply hurling them at problems until they succeed or die.


If they somehow succeed, then it's okay. If they fail, then they did the guy's work for him. It's a win-win from his perspective: either lose some incompetent losers, or get back what was lost. It's also more fun from a gameplay perspective than executing the PCs or sticking them behind a desk.

Keltest
2016-07-24, 03:30 PM
Send the PCs on insane suicide missions with inadequate resources, the success of which would probably reverse the disaster. The conversation might go like, "You personally lost that ford and let the enemy cavalry pass by disobeying my command. If you ever hope to reclaim your honor, then follow this order: destroy the cavalry and take back that ford yourself!" Basically their prior failure and disobedience would be used as leverage to get them into the suicide missions despite not having much to work with.

And of course, since the PCs are obviously bad at doing anything requiring thought or patience, then he can treat them like frothing-at-the-mouth berzerkers, simply hurling them at problems until they succeed or die.


If they somehow succeed, then it's okay. If they fail, then they did the guy's work for him. It's a win-win from his perspective: either lose some incompetent losers, or get back what was lost. It's also more fun from a gameplay perspective than executing the PCs or sticking them behind a desk.

I agree with this, except make sure that theyre sent on missions where success is a plausible outcome. If he just wants them dead, he can execute them or stick them in the vanguard of an attack force somewhere. If theyre being sent on actual missions for a chance to redeem themselves, then they need to be missions where success is both possible and beneficial.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-24, 04:22 PM
He would do well to remember that he is naught but a filthy NPC, lest the PCs kill him for his impudence.

RickAllison
2016-07-24, 04:22 PM
As has been noted, a typical punishment for people who can neither be trusted to perform well or be drummed out is to condemn them to an unattractive garrison. Somewhere excessively cold, hot, or constantly stormy. Somewhere that is rarely attacked (so little chance for glory), needs to be defended (they need to have some force so it isn't worth the enemy's time to attack), and preferably with undisciplined forces.

Naturally, the players being there means they will hear from scouts of a massive army approaching. They have to then figure out how to defeat the army when they are completely outmatched. Hooray!

awa
2016-07-24, 11:22 PM
medieval armies are kinda famous for not following orders well, their are tons of examples of knights charging out of position and like others have said you really cant punish them without causing even bigger problems. Of course medieval is a big time period some of those late medieval monarchs had a lot more ability to punish nobles then the earlier ones.

Though the fact that the pcs are decisively more powerful then 50 men such that they needed to be lured away indicates that he has to make sure any punishment is not so bad as to cost him accesses to their power.

hymer
2016-07-25, 03:35 AM
Wow, lots of responses. Thanks for all the thoughts, guys!

@ Gensuru: I agree heartily that some form of punishment is needed. As for the idea you don’t really like, I’d also prefer to allow the players to screw up. They’re supposed to shape the campaign, after all, and it’s always more impressive when you work without a safety net.

@ BayardSPSR: Being PCs, they volunteer for that sort of thing routinely. I doubt they’d see it as a punishment. :smallsmile:

@ RazorChain: That’s being very tough on the pally and the elves, though, isn’t it? :smalltongue:

@ Slipperychicken: There’s certainly a lot to be said for sending them on a penal mission or seven.

@ Keltest: Agreed.

@ Koo Rehtorb: These PCs aren’t murder hobos, though. As mentioned, Lord Ragor’s military genius is required to save the realm from invasion. Killing him would explode their problems, and be very much out of character.
Anyway, they’re pretty scared of him, though they’re actually individually tougher than he is, mechanically speaking.

@ RickAllison: Good thought, of course.

@ awa: All good points.

Berenger
2016-07-25, 04:51 AM
[...] It's a military [...] I don't care how noble and prestigious you are [...] soldiers under his command [...]

I think here lies the problem: if this is a "pseudo-medieval" setting, concepts like "the military" and the classification of those characters as "soldiers" are totally not appropriate. There really was no notion of "the military" as a discrete organization with clearly established ranks, elaborate command structures and neatly separated subdivisions and "soldiers" are common men that fight for pay, more or less mercenaries. The term doesn't cover the mentioned characters by any stretch of imagination, those are portrayed as nobles, landholders and political figures.

"The military" of the middle ages consists of major political players (lords, bishops, councils of free cities...) that support the leader of the campaign with their own forces. Imagine this: In a modern war, you have some Colonel Smith from, say, Iowa. If he screws up, you can demote him, discharge him and give command of the brigade to someone more competent. Now imagine this: That same Colonel Smith personally selected all the officers in his brigade (mostly from his buddies and relatives) and is also the one who is responsible for the enlisted mens pay and upkeep. The entire brigade is sworn to the Smith family, not the United States. The Smiths also rule Iowa and are totally capable of withholding further troops, taxes and provisions from there. They are also best friends with the Duchy of Missouri, the Diocese of Colorado, the Free City of New York and the colonels favorite sister just married into the ruling council of New Orleans and now excuse me, I need to make notes for a new campaign setting.

Martin Greywolf
2016-07-25, 05:33 AM
My post will pretty much be based in how actual medieval armies worked, circa high to late middle ages. Most of what you think you know about them is completely wrong or has major inaccuracies.

First off, because of how they were called into action and organized, your PCs have total and absolute command of their troops. If they want to straight bugger off and not fight in this war, then they can do so. There were a few exceptions to this (defensive wars are usually mandatory), but those were as often as not ignored by some.

High commander of the army may have plans, but he is just more equal among peers. He can say that he has a task for a PC, but it's the PC's decision to go and do it or not, and how to go about it.

Now, this paints a very disorganized picture, and that was a case to a degree. Thing is that high commanders were people with huge personal wealth and power (appointed there for a short time by the king) - you can tell them to bugger off, but then untoward things will happen to your political career. High commanders were also often generally respected for their skill, so their not-quite-subordinates were motivated to listen by the desire to not be killed by the opposing forces.

In extreme cases, someone could get accused of treason, but one goof isn't enough for that - that requires either real treason or continued disobedience.

Now, your PCs done goofed. That much is clear. Thing is, they will not be punished in the modern sense of the word, mostly because they can't be. A noble can't just spank another noble, or give him truly demeaning duties, you need a lengthy trial for that, with the king as judge (rare exceptions exist, like Hungarian palatine).

What will happen is that the PCs will loose favor - doors that were previously wide open will begin to close, favors and sponsorships will go away, and rewards will shrink. The commander of the army will want to punish them, so he will do so based entirely on his own power and influence. Making them sit out on the lucrative, glorious action, only assigning demeaning military goals ("Go requisition some supplies and guard the grain."), hitting their fiefs economically (increase tolls, change trade deals) and so on.

Since that is boring from the storytelling point of view, you can go one of two ways: the commander gives them a series of dangerous as hell tasks (redeeming themselves in his eyes), or they decide to strike out on their own within the boundaries of the commander's orders to get some of glory for themselves (getting into conflict with the commander). Which way you go depends on how proactive your players are and how you want their relationship with the commander to evolve.

Gensuru
2016-07-25, 05:48 AM
@Berenger

And interesting point, but I'm not entire sure if it's applicable.

OP stated that the 50 or so troops they lost in the ford weren't theirs. They were stationed there to begin with, the PCs and their troops were merely ordered to go there, reinforce them and take command. The result being insubordination, the complete loss of those 50 troops that weren't theirs, little to no loss of their own, personal troops as well as the loss of an important strategic location.

Just from the fact that they were given command of troops that they didn't recruit or pay this doesn't quite fit into this medieval system you described, I'd say.

And while at least one PC has a noble title, he/she got that title by being sponsored by the very same commander who put them in charge of holding that ford. This catastrophe reflects as much on him as it does on them. Even more so since they have a history of insubordination.


In fact, given that, another possible consequence might be to punish their friend Lord Ragor instead. He sponsored them, he trusted them and the result was a catastrophe. Possible rivals on their own side may try to use this to bring him down (after his earlier, spectacular victory elevated him above them perhaps) . The enemy might even attempt to use this to disgrace Ragor to the point that he is neutralized as a threat (assuming they have agents in place). Depends on whether or not the GM and the players want to work on uncovering a conspiracy while also attempting to fix the damage to their friends reputation they've caused. And really, if one is paranoid or out to discredit them, suffering pretty much no personal losses while losing the ford and the 50 troops assigned to it is somewhat suspicious.


I am not all that well informed about the workings of medieval "military" but I'm fairly certain that ancient Rome did have clear ranks and structure in place. And a lot of what Rome put in place, Europe is affected by even to this day. I'm also fairly certain that, regardless of the time period you're in, anyone who's responsible for a massive loss for your side suffers, at least, a considerable loss of prestige. Just like how Lord Ragor's brilliant victory gave him a lot of prestige, causing such a massive failure will cause one to lose a lot of prestige and trust. In that regard it doesn't even matter whether the troops are your personal ones. Even if you're the one footing the bill, how many people would want to follow you after you've displayed blatant incompetence? Money is no good to you if you're dead and incompetent leaders tend to get you killed. Same goes for allys, I'd think. What good is an ally whom you can't trust?

hymer
2016-07-25, 06:34 AM
It's a very interesting discussion. I'll just add some stuff about the specific instance, in case anyone's interested:

The troops at the ford were Ragor (http://dark-was-the-dawn.wikispaces.com/Baron+Ragor)'s own. The PCs were ordered to take command mostly because they are able to travel very fast. The soldiers at the ford were not aware that the invasion threat had grown suddenly in their region (nor were they on their own enough to prevent expected forward units from passing the ford), and word could be gotten to them no faster than at the speed the PCs could travel.
Being the heroes they are, the PCs would act both as command and reinforcements, until other troops could arrive to relieve them.

All the nobles of Lucem (as the realm is called) have sworn loyalty to the temporary office of Grand Duke, created in response to the invasion threat at a general summit (http://dark-was-the-dawn.wikispaces.com/Bridgetown+Summit). This office is pretty much the equivalent of king, except it is to end with the invasion threat. The Grand Duke himself (http://dark-was-the-dawn.wikispaces.com/Duke+Greyor) is a highly competent politician, and an old benefactor and boss of Ragor's. The Grand Duke, being an elderly man, has delegated all military responsibilities to Ragor, knowing him to be very able and very loyal. Ragor's fearsome reputation is also useful in keeping other nobles in check and cooperating. But at the same time, the Grand Duke has given protection to Ragor's nemesis (http://dark-was-the-dawn.wikispaces.com/Concinnus), by letting one of his sons marry the nemesis' sister.

It's funny Greywolf mentioned spanking, by the way: When Ragor first met his nemesis, they took an immediate disliking to each other, and this escalated very quickly. Ragor ordered his men to find him a birch rod, as he intended to give the young pup a lesson in how you address Lord Ragor. Only the PCs' intervention stopped this from getting beyond diplomatic repair.

Segev
2016-07-25, 10:46 AM
A fitting punishment for this kind of thing that suits most medieval and similar cultures would be to hold the PCs (and whoever is the commanding officer PC in particular) personally responsible for the deaths of those they abandoned on the battlefield. It becomes their duty to personally pay the weregild to the families in question, and to do so out of their personal wealth. Make it clear that this is not because the men died, but because they died due to a foolish mistake that was in direct disobedience to orders.

Play out the PCs visiting one or more of the families, and having to deal with the pain of those who've lost fathers, brothers, and sons to their foolish mistake. That emotional gut-punch for the players will help them both "feel" the punishment and give them, hopefully, some measure of catharsis for any vague guilt they're feeling. It will also give them emotional impetus to make it up to these people, potentially giving you plot hooks in the future.

Making the PCs pay it out of their personal wealth will ensure that power-gamers who don't get into the RP aspect still "feel" it. It also is fitting, and will be felt by the RPers, too.

And then, even after this, they still need to recoup their reputations. This will not be an official punishment, but taking on one or more dangerous tasks to win new honor to replace their lost face will not be remiss.

dps
2016-07-25, 04:57 PM
As above its hard to punish Nobles particularly ones leading their own factions.
The fact that the PC's realize they screwed up and have worked well in the past with the Commander would argue for some sort of atonement to make up for their mistake.
Which means its the perfect time for the Commander to break out the plans for the near suicidal mission against the enemy he'd shelved because he didn't have anybody who he disliked enough to saddle with it
This levels punishment on the P.C.s and still gives them something exciting to do rather than RP'ing being bored on garrison duty and makes more sense than wasting some of his most combat capable people on a job any militia could do.

I agree. Aside from the meta consideration of not wanting to waste game time on boring garrison duty, this simultaneously punishes the PCs and gives them a chance to redeem themselves.

Beleriphon
2016-07-25, 05:15 PM
Though the fact that the pcs are decisively more powerful then 50 men such that they needed to be lured away indicates that he has to make sure any punishment is not so bad as to cost him accesses to their power.

I'm fairly certain Charlemagne or Saladin just had to give their commanders dirty looks and they drop dead from fear.

Martin Greywolf
2016-07-26, 02:17 AM
A fitting punishment for this kind of thing that suits most medieval and similar cultures would be to hold the PCs (and whoever is the commanding officer PC in particular) personally responsible for the deaths of those they abandoned on the battlefield. It becomes their duty to personally pay the weregild to the families in question, and to do so out of their personal wealth. Make it clear that this is not because the men died, but because they died due to a foolish mistake that was in direct disobedience to orders.

No. No, no, no, no.

As a DM, you can go for this, but don't pretend for a second this is medieval. What the PCs would be required to do, at most, is to go pay the dead soldier's salary to the families, and even that is more of a personal integrity thing, and was or wasn't done depending on the nobleman's whim (or more often, financial situation).

Weregild is a concept that is 1) not the right medieval for this (early period, this setting is high/late period) and 2) different thing entirely. It's money paid for injuring or murdering someone, and a part of criminal law, it just doesn't apply to this situation. If the commander tried to bend the law this way, there'd be a massive s**tstorm over it - attempts like this lead to civil wars, outside threat or not.

That said, PCs can have problems at home because of these guys missing. A grieving widow is not a pretty sight, and noblemen (most of them, anyway, high echelons like dukes not so much, most nobles with two villages definitely yes) were in a very close contact with people under them. If wife or daughter of one of those soldiers is your maid, you'll have to look her in the eyes every day, knowing what you did.

Also, one of those soldiers could well be someone important for governing the place, like a captain of local troops, or maybe he knew local woods really well and kept bandits at bay. If the PCs didn't know that, well, that's what you get for not knowing your own men. Remember, what makes a nobleman rich are people who serve him - take poor care of them, and your income dries out.

RickAllison
2016-07-26, 02:35 AM
No. No, no, no, no.

As a DM, you can go for this, but don't pretend for a second this is medieval. What the PCs would be required to do, at most, is to go pay the dead soldier's salary to the families, and even that is more of a personal integrity thing, and was or wasn't done depending on the nobleman's whim (or more often, financial situation).

Weregild is a concept that is 1) not the right medieval for this (early period, this setting is high/late period) and 2) different thing entirely. It's money paid for injuring or murdering someone, and a part of criminal law, it just doesn't apply to this situation. If the commander tried to bend the law this way, there'd be a massive s**tstorm over it - attempts like this lead to civil wars, outside threat or not.

That said, PCs can have problems at home because of these guys missing. A grieving widow is not a pretty sight, and noblemen (most of them, anyway, high echelons like dukes not so much, most nobles with two villages definitely yes) were in a very close contact with people under them. If wife or daughter of one of those soldiers is your maid, you'll have to look her in the eyes every day, knowing what you did.

Also, one of those soldiers could well be someone important for governing the place, like a captain of local troops, or maybe he knew local woods really well and kept bandits at bay. If the PCs didn't know that, well, that's what you get for not knowing your own men. Remember, what makes a nobleman rich are people who serve him - take poor care of them, and your income dries out.

"You killed my husband."
"Based on how you look, I can see why that man's outpost fell so quickly."
"My son will grow up without a father."
"And I shall spend the next few days without a gardener. We all must make our sacrifices in war."
"What shall we eat?"
"I had intended to burn him with the rest to save on funeral expenses, but you can dispose of the body however you wish."
"You are a cruel and evil monster!"
"Your husband called me worse when I dumped my pipe on his dying head."
"So much pain and war, and you revel in this bacchanal? You are a drunk!"
"And you, my good wench, are ugly. But when I wake up I shall be sober, while you shall still be ugly."

I kind of want to make a character like this...

Segev
2016-07-26, 12:40 PM
You're right in that weregild was for wrongful death. So don't apply the term, if "disobeying orders in a manner that led to the wasteful and senseless death of these men" doesn't count as "wrongful death" in this context.

But the concept remains: make the PCs pay the widows and orphans and parents a fee for each of the dead soldiers. Make it come out of their own pockets, and make it personal to some degree.

If possible, lay plot hooks out as potential side quests they can take on to make it up, in some small way, to these bereaved families. Maybe one family's oldest son - a boy barely into his teens - has just vanished the other day, along with the family flocks, and now the news that his father is dead has the family facing utter ruin AND the pain of losing two members in as many days. The party might be able to track, find, and rescue the shepherd-boy and his flock, though, from the harpies and their pet roc that flew off with them.

Mister Tom
2016-07-27, 03:30 PM
If all that had happened was the deaths of their own soldiery that that might be the end of the matter.

But other nobles will have suffered losses of their own as a result of the PCs actions ( won't they?) and they'll be pissed. (won't they?). That's probably the best driver for whatever nasty fate you choose to line up.

(What formal sanctions might be available, in theory or in practice, would depend upon the terms under which the PCs had joined forces with the rest of the army. Often there would be no compulsion upon them whatever, as above. In some circumstances nobles could, and did, suffer as a result of their actions on the battlefield; for example in 1163 the Constable Henry of Essex was accused before the King by another noble of cowardice during the attempted invasion of Wales. He was subsequently defeated by them in trial by combat by his accuser and his lands made forfeit.)

TheYell
2016-07-28, 05:11 AM
Well medieval people certainly liked the dramatic. so if you want a medieval feel:

The PCs should be arrested and brought before the Grand Duke bound and wearing halter nooses around their necks. Ragor should be there to demand they be hanged.

Let the PCs argue that one awhile, then the Duke will tell Ragor that is too harsh.

Then Ragor will demand in succession they be imprisoned, flogged, fined their wealth, and finally banished. Let the PCs argue against each one --unless they plead out to a punishment! After argument the Duke will tell Ragor it is too much.

Finally though the Duke agrees to banishment. The PCs are set to leave the kingdom. Then three days later the Duke pardons them and calls them back.

Satinavian
2016-07-28, 06:00 AM
Require the PCs to field 50 additional men of their own to fill the gap for the rest of the war.

Vinyadan
2016-07-28, 06:55 AM
50 pushups each! That'll teach them! They're in the Army now!

Anyway, you have 2 options. Option 1 is following story instincts and simply creating a situation which appears like a downturn and actually is the setup to an unexpected glorious action (put them in the garrison). Option 2 is following another story in a cop movie fashion, like "you goofed up bad, here's your last assignment"... and send them do some non standard war operation as a party of adventurers, like "infiltrate, kill, retrieve". Option 3 is being realist, having Lord Commander think about his own ruined reputation and the fact that he now needs strong people more than ever, and using them to win the war and restore his own honour and prestige. They travel fast, right? And there is a large cavalry force there, plus they weren't cowardly or traitorous, they simply were outsmarted.