Too harsh?

[Name_Here]

So a big part of my campaign was the fact that my players preformed several acts of heroism for the king and were rewarded with titles of nobility and lands. Since then the country has been invaded and they have been thrown off their lands by the invading army.

Last session they approached the prince of Dawnstar (The general leading the invading army) under a flag of truce claiming to be carrying an invitation to the kings wedding. During the talks they broke the parlay and attacked the prince killing him before fleeing.

Now since they didn't coordinate this attack with the army which could have hit the invaders while they were still reeling from the assassination I don't believe that the loss of the prince would cause the army to turn tail and run. I do think that the general who steps up will take steps to raise moral, by executing every person from Samayod (the PC's country) that he and his troops can get their hands on.

But here is my question. I think that because they acted in such a way that left the king responsible for the action that the king would have no choice but to strip them of their peerage. Do you think this is a reasonable reaction from the king or should he just shrug his shoulders and get on with the war? I want them to know that what they did practically guaranteed that not only would their country lose the war but thousands will die because of their actions and I think that having a character they like and respect tear them a new one would make it clear.

Thoughts? Feel free to ask any questions that you think would provide further clarity.

[Urpriest]

Well, in reality the king's decision would likely depend on how much he needs the PCs around. So I'd think about how powerful they are in relation to the king, both politically and level-wise. If they're fairly minor, he might punish them, but if he's going to need them for the war effort he'd probably want to keep them on his side.

[Scow2]

Violating Parley is a serious offense that threatens the political structure of the world. That said, there are some extenuating circumstances - if the PCs can argue that they did not start the hostilities, they might get away with it. If the PCs are strong enough to pretty much win the war with their influence and power and restabilize everything after such a severe breach of trust, then they might also get away with it.

Make them understand just how important the sanctity of Parley is - it's NOT a French word meaning "Everyone else is unarmed and flat-footed."

[hymer]

He might do more than strip them of their peerage. He might turn them over to the enemy. But then, he might like them to win the war for him first, and just hand them over during peace settlement.
They've created a huge problem in misusing parley and white flag like that. The war will become much bloodier and probably much longer, as any negotiations for peace will be held in the shadow of this betrayal. So maybe turning the PCs over to the enemy will be the only way negotiations can be attempted.

I agree that he's likely to be pragmatic about it, but then, you know this king better than we do. If he likes what they PCs did, then maybe they can get off with a warning. If he is the stereotypical 'good king', he has to act effectively against this sort of behaviour.

[valadil]

I don't see how he could trust them to do anything responsible again after that. The only way he'd keep them around is if he got desperate.

[Hallavast]

I don't see how he could trust them to do anything responsible again after that. The only way he'd keep them around is if he got desperate.

The requisite desperation is not so deep when you think about it. If the PCs are important public figureheads, in command of a significant portion of the army, or are well respected/connected by other nobles, the King may not be able to afford stripping them of anything. Especially if it is likely to cause a civil war. A more calculating approach would be for the King to take the PCs' family members to the capital as captive hostages honored guests.

It's all about maintaining control... It's always about control

[Knaight]

Violating Parley is a serious offense that threatens the political structure of the world. That said, there are some extenuating circumstances - if the PCs can argue that they did not start the hostilities, they might get away with it. If the PCs are strong enough to pretty much win the war with their influence and power and restabilize everything after such a severe breach of trust, then they might also get away with it.

This is somewhat context dependant. Hymer's illustrated why it is potentially problematic quite well, particularly as the next step of using messengers is only one murdered messenger away from largely cut communication, but there have been historical cases where people violated truces all over the place, and it was somewhat accepted. Look at the migration period, particularly the Saxon takeover of Britain where Roman British officials were murdered during what were essentially parleys multiple times, among other instances.

[BRC]

Stripping them of their noble titles is the least he should do, especially since he was the one who elevated them in the first place. After that, it's all about how much he needs them.
Chances are he'll throw them to the wolves in the interest of maintaining good relations.

One option COULD be that he strips them of their lands and titles, and cedes those lands to Dawnstar as payment for the Prince's death. However, since Dawnstar has already conquered those lands, that might not be enough.

Really, the only way I can see this ending well for them is if they are able to make a credible case that the Prince attacked first, and that they defended themselves. Otherwise the King has to do whatever is in his power to distance himself from them.

[Totally Guy]

How about you ask the player how they deal with the king following this incident and put a dice roll to it. A success could mean the players get what they want whilst a failure means that king is pretty pissed off about it and does those things you mentioned.

Does the game that you are playing not give any sort of support for this kind of stuff?

[jseah]

It really depends. When they broke parley and killed an important figurehead, they ensured the war would go on longer and with less chance of peace until total victory. Basically, they just upped the stakes for the war.

Now, the reaction of other people besides the enemy would vary on the political climate. If say, it was a patchwork of countries where no one really holds a major advantage and lots of future diplomacy would be needed, then they will be punished harshly. Of course, if other countries have also done the same, then it would be more likely to be overlooked.
If it was a two country affair, and the enemy has shown signs of past hostility, the king (or his nobles) might just decide that now is the time to end things for good. After all, if you still have a chance to win the war (and PCs are kinda good at reversing bad situations), you may as well try to win it now instead of suing for an extremely expensive peace that will only ensure your future defeat when said enemy comes knocking again.

[Alabenson]

Frankly, I think the answer to how the king should deal with this depends on several variables:
How powerful are the PCs? Is their help a necessity to win the war? Do they have the ability, whether from class levels or political clout, to challenge the king after the war is over?
If the PCs are sufficiently powerful, the king may want to gloss over their actions in the name of political expedience, rather than risk angering a group of murder-hobos who could destroy his kingdom if they feel slighted.

How ruthless is the king? Is he a paragon of good and law, or does he believe the ends can justify the means?
Obviously, if the king is the sort who would play dirty anyway, then he may well feel comfortable looking the other way at the players actions.

How much do the two enemy countries hate each other?
If this war was likely going to end in either a grudging cease-fire or a campaign of mutual extinction anyway, the king might not particularly care about the political fallout of the PCs actions.

[Name_Here]

How about you ask the player how they deal with the king following this incident and put a dice roll to it. A success could mean the players get what they want whilst a failure means that king is pretty pissed off about it and does those things you mentioned.

Does the game that you are playing not give any sort of support for this kind of stuff?

Well the question was more if you were one of the players coming off of what you considered one of your biggest accomplishments and the GM as the king goes "nope you all f'd up beyond all reasonable expectations" would that be seen as bs or would you think "yeah I can see that. I didn't think of it at the time but we did mess up."

I mean it's my campaign but if the players aren't having fun...

As for the PCs and their power they haven't really used their positions to increase their power and influence. And their best commanders and troops had to be left as a rear guard as they ran from the army.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Without knowing more about the king personally, and the political climate of the region, predictable responses can vary anywhere between "Meh, they weren't going to make peace anyway," to "Your actions are nothing less than treasonous! Guards, dispatch these ingrates."

More information is needed.

[Totally Guy]

Well the question was more if you were one of the players coming off of what you considered one of your biggest accomplishments and the GM as the king goes "nope you all f'd up beyond all reasonable expectations" would that be seen as bs or would you think "yeah I can see that. I didn't think of it at the time but we did mess up."

This is why I think you should tell them that the king could go either way on the matter. Then you ask them what they are going to do about it. They'll know what's at stake from that point so if they fail they'll already be bought into the idea of the king becoming very upset with them.

The problem that you foresee comes up because all the consequences start to happen before the players have any consideration of the problem and an opportunity to choose their necessary action.

The players won't want the king to be pissed off and the king would want justification for their behaviour. That's a conflict. And what is an RPG if not a mechanism for resolving conflict?

[Slipperychicken]

Here's how I see it:

The King needs to maintain his Kingdom's legitimacy and trustworthiness. There are few ways he could go about this. The first, you've already mentioned, is cutting the PCs titles for violating the laws of war, and publicly condemning their actions, at least officially. This is best if the King needs more time to prepare for war. He can tell the PCs privately that his hands are tied, and he can't be seen violating parley.


One which you haven't thought of, is to spin the story: claim the Heroes didn't attack the Prince, but the Prince attacked the Heroes. The Heroes righteously defended themselves and slew the vile, parley-breaking Prince. And of course the evil Prince's minions claim otherwise, since they're the slimy bastards who attacked the PCs, after all! This could be some powerful war propaganda in the King's favor, attacking the enemy's legitimacy, and further aggrandizing the Heroes, and boosting his own standing by extension. Obviously, the King needs to have a little chat with the PCs about this; he was able to turn this to his favor, but the PCs should be more careful or else he might have to revoke their titles.

If the King is ready for war, and knows how to put a propaganda campaign together, this could be the justification he's looking for: he can say he's attacking the other side for their war crimes against the Noble Heroes.

EDIT: And when the General starts killing everyone from the PCs country, that's just more propaganda for the King.

[Cikomyr]

Even if they weren't disgraced and lost their peerage, they still effectively became the Gregor Clegane of their Kingdom, the King's dogs who do the dirty work and the despicable stuff for him.

They aren't traitors per se, but everyone see them as scumbags. Think how Jaime Lannister was considered for killing his King. He killed what was considered to be a crazy murderous king who deserved to die like a dog, yet everyone not his family looked down on him.

Your players might have done good, but they acted out of the rules of civilized society and everyone with any amount of self respect wouldn't give them a break about it.

[Jack of Spades]

So, this is assuming that the loss of our heroes' nobility wouldn't affect the morale of the kingdom at large in an extremely negative way.

I, for one, feel that the most interesting narrative option is the "friendly" exile.

The players receive two communiques from the capitol. The first is written on the official stationary and holds the king's seal. It holds a notification of the fact that the players have been stripped of all titles, land, and nobility, hereby exiled from the lands of the kingdom, in the name of the one true king, may his majesty live forever in the sight of the gods yada yada.

The other letter is sent by night, on plain paper, with no recognizable seal. It is written in the king's own hand, and tells them that the king understands that what they did was necessary, even if it wasn't particularly advisable. The gist of the letter is simple: You are going to fix this for me. The players and their men are to become the king's special operations company. They are to strike down their standards and take to the land as a "rogue" force, attacking the enemy in those ways that the king wouldn't dare to attempt. Furthermore, to hold up the illusion of a neutral force, they are to sack a few villages in the kingdom. Specifically, the villages who are most likely to turn coats on their rightful lord and king.

Make sure that they know the consequences. Their families are implied as captives. Their exile will be enforced by pain of death. Should they step out of line or confess to the enemy's leadership their darker motivations, they will be hunted down and destroyed by the kingdom's most skilled assassins. The war will be won. They can choose to be heroes, or they can choose to die in a gutter.

[Scow2]

Here's how I see it:

The King needs to maintain his Kingdom's legitimacy and trustworthiness. There are few ways he could go about this. The first, you've already mentioned, is cutting the PCs titles for violating the laws of war, and publicly condemning their actions, at least officially. This is best if the King needs more time to prepare for war. He can tell the PCs privately that his hands are tied, and he can't be seen violating parley.


One which you haven't thought of, is to spin the story: claim the Heroes didn't attack the Prince, but the Prince attacked the Heroes. The Heroes righteously defended themselves and slew the vile, parley-breaking Prince. And of course the evil Prince's minions claim otherwise, since they're the slimy bastards who attacked the PCs, after all! This could be some powerful war propaganda in the King's favor, attacking the enemy's legitimacy, and further aggrandizing the Heroes, and boosting his own standing by extension. Obviously, the King needs to have a little chat with the PCs about this; he was able to turn this to his favor, but the PCs should be more careful or else he might have to revoke their titles.

If the King is ready for war, and knows how to put a propaganda campaign together, this could be the justification he's looking for: he can say he's attacking the other side for their war crimes against the Noble Heroes.

EDIT: And when the General starts killing everyone from the PCs country, that's just more propaganda for the King.

I like this guy's solution, and suggest you go with it.

[NichG]

My take is that clever response is better than angry/knee-jerk response here. The king has been handed a really awful hand by the PCs - he could throw his cards down and stamp off, or he could try to make something out of it. I think that its absolutely necessary that the king respond in a way that shows the PCs their action was unacceptable, but he can do it in a sneaky way instead of an overt way.

Immediately going and taking away their titles kind of makes him look stupid actually, since he just gave them those titles. It sort of demeans the importance of the titles.

A sinister king might do something like this:
He sends a messenger to the PCs in private saying "You really screwed up. The good news is, I'm going to give you a way to make up for it. Pick one of you, I don't care which. He was responsible for the act. The rest of you can do as you like, but the one you pick will have this blamed on him. We'll send him to the enemy to be executed in reparations, but we'll plan a rescue mission and give him a few things to help him escape. You guys have to spring him or he'll be killed. If he dies, his family will retain the title and lands, so he doesn't have to worry about them." The king doesn't actually care if the guy is rescued or not, so won't dedicate any truly important resources to the cause.

Of course, in a case like that, there's also a chance the PCs will say 'screw that' and will act out against the king in some publically visible manner, at which point the king can easily have their stuff seized and do what he likes with impunity (as long as he has the power to actually do it of course). Or they may run from the country. In either case, the king can point to it and say 'It seems we had some traitors in our midst. This action was them trying to undermine the order of the world' and can attempt to disown them and recover from the broken parley.

A variant of this option:

"That was a disaster. They will kill everyone they come across. We need to negotiate now more than ever. I'm sending you back under a flag of parley. Fix this mess one way or another, and all will be forgiven. "

A more benign king might do something like:

"We need to end this war quickly. They will show us no mercy now. I want you out on the front lines. If we don't convince them to retreat now this will be the bloodiest war the world has seen, and you are our best warriors."

Its basically a death sentence, but its a 'nice' way to do it since they get to die as heroes and their families keep the lands/titles, and there's no public dishonor. Essentially this is the king saying 'Well, you lost us the chance for peace or more subtle plays. Go fight the battle you asked for.'

I don't see any king as saying "Um, well, that sucked. You're heroes so you're free to go and do whatever you like. Just make sure to put a flower on our graves every year, okay?"

Of course, you could have the bloodthirsty insane king:

"Hahaha! I've never had so much fun! That was great! Go, kill them all! I'm sending you into the heart of their territory. Make their families weep tears of blood! Kill their princess too, and the royal nursemaid, and their dog! Mwahaha!"

[kardar233]

So, this is assuming that the loss of our heroes' nobility wouldn't affect the morale of the kingdom at large in an extremely negative way.

I, for one, feel that the most interesting narrative option is the "friendly" exile.

The players receive two communiques from the capitol. The first is written on the official stationary and holds the king's seal. It holds a notification of the fact that the players have been stripped of all titles, land, and nobility, hereby exiled from the lands of the kingdom, in the name of the one true king, may his majesty live forever in the sight of the gods yada yada.

The other letter is sent by night, on plain paper, with no recognizable seal. It is written in the king's own hand, and tells them that the king understands that what they did was necessary, even if it wasn't particularly advisable. The gist of the letter is simple: You are going to fix this for me. The players and their men are to become the king's special operations company. They are to strike down their standards and take to the land as a "rogue" force, attacking the enemy in those ways that the king wouldn't dare to attempt. Furthermore, to hold up the illusion of a neutral force, they are to sack a few villages in the kingdom. Specifically, the villages who are most likely to turn coats on their rightful lord and king.

Make sure that they know the consequences. Their families are implied as captives. Their exile will be enforced by pain of death. Should they step out of line or confess to the enemy's leadership their darker motivations, they will be hunted down and destroyed by the kingdom's most skilled assassins. The war will be won. They can choose to be heroes, or they can choose to die in a gutter.

While this isn't necessarily the most likely (or player-friendly) manner for this to play out, I have to say that I would love to play in this campaign.

[Jack of Spades]

While this isn't necessarily the most likely (or player-friendly) manner for this to play out, I have to say that I would love to play in this campaign.

Heh, exactly. It'd piss off a good chunk of the players out there (including just about anyone who's playing a Good character but somehow figured breaking parlay was a Good act), and it would take a decent amount of preparation, but with the right players, world, and DM it would be pure awesome

[Exediron]

You have to show the players that their actions have consequences. If the players get the impression that the DM is soft and they can just screw up any way they want without repercussions, you've lost control. In this case, the consequences of their actions are likely to come from both their allies and their enemies.

As far as that goes, I see two main issues the heroes are likely to face - also known as consequences:

It depends somewhat on the exact nature of the world in question, but breaking a parley (which supposedly came straight from their king) to perform an assassination is likely to be viewed as a rather serious crime. If Dawnstar has any allies, or even friendly neutral countries, I think it would be a great rallying point to bring them into the war. No ally of theirs is likely to sit by and watch the prince of their neighbor country (who, depending on the world, may very well be related by blood to their own royal family) be murdered by agents of another sovereign under a false parley. Obviously, a new and potentially more powerful nation entering the war on the other side would be a severe consequence for the PCs.

The other consequences are likely to come from their own side. To prevent repercussions such as the possibility detailed above, the king may feel the need to distance himself politically from the PCs, either by turning them over for justice or simply punishing them to make it obvious that he was not in support of their actions. His only other option is to claim that they acted rightly, probably by implying that the prince was the one who broke the party. Dawnstar and their allies won't buy it, but his might - and the people of his own country surely would be likely to.

On the plus side, this provides you with a great opportunity to introduce any new elements you want to reshape the game. This could go practically any way. Personally, I'd probably use it to shift the focus to a new plot, since the PCs have screwed this one up. That way their actions are still important, just not in the way they expected. Without knowing more about the world in question, I can't offer anything more specific.

...

As to the suggestion of having the king hold the families of the characters as functional hostages with the understanding of their execution if the PCs stray again - careful with that. With some characters, that's a sure guarantee to them turning on him. Just be prepared for the possibility of the PCs going all out against the king if he threatens them too far.

[Jack of Spades]

As to the suggestion of having the king hold the families of the characters as functional hostages with the understanding of their execution if the PCs stray again - careful with that. With some characters, that's a sure guarantee to them turning on him. Just be prepared for the possibility of the PCs going all out against the king if he threatens them too far.

Played correctly, that too could make for an awesome, memorable campaign. PC's have a few thousand soldiers at most, against the entire army of the king, and have to convince them to go into battle against their countrymen? Or maybe their soldiers aren't along for the ride, and they have to use what allies remain within the kingdom, as well as sticking to small towns that haven't gotten news of the treachery yet. That kind of stuff is great for fleshing out the campaign world and the characters. It's also a source of near-constant tension. Don't know what to do this session? Soldiers are moving into the town where the PC's are hiding out, for one reason or another. The players will have to escape notice while still forwarding their plan of taking control of the kingdom. It also opens up a wealth of secondary villain NPC's in the form of the assassins, mercenaries, and bounty hunters that are all out to kill the PC's.

It's worth asking: how setting-conscious are the players? Obviously they understood the parlay thing, but do they understand its significance? The players might not have realized exactly how much of an evil, unlawful thing it is to call a false parley. If they don't realize the deference with which the "Rules of War" are held, then you may want to go the slap-of-the-wrist route and have them flogged, have the story twisted by the kingdom, or have their title stripped. But if they understand the severity of their crime, then I say let them feel the full force of whatever the king would do to them (probably short of execution).

Also, NichG's post. It's very good. Read it. Although I like my idea as well, heh

[Totally Guy]

One which you haven't thought of, is to spin the story: claim the Heroes didn't attack the Prince, but the Prince attacked the Heroes.

That's really good but a solution like that ought to come from the players. They have the opportunity to come up with it right after you ask "What do you do?" in my suggestion.

[Ravens_cry]

This kind of stuff really needs to be laid out beforehand.
These aren't values we exactly often have an opportunity into practice, though diplomatic immunity is largely a growth of it, but, like laws of hospitality, were held very sacred in the cultures that do and did.
In some games, the player character's behaviour might be considered downright heroic, See Aragorn and the Mouth of Sauron in the film as compared to the book, and players not aware of these values can understandably be less likely to follow them.

[TheOOB]

I'd say the party would likely keep their titles and what not during the war, but unless their kingdom wins the war and gains an unconditional surrender, they are screwed when the war is over. If the players country wins, they will likely be sacrificed as a good faith gesture to help make the peace treaty go over more smoothly. If the player's country loses, you can bet they'll be part of the surrender agreement.

The thing about war crimes is people are rarely charged with them until after the war.

[Andreaz]

Public image is important. Respecting codes of honor is very important. Only card-carrying villains and "barbarians" resort to those things openly!

So the gist of it is this: The players screwed up, bad, and the rulers can't maintain a good image and leave them unscathed. Important players will be removed from the fight, sent back to defend borders or live in a luxurious prison regime. Unimportant people are just given to the enemy to play.

But the story does not end here!

Under cloaks, what they did was risky, stupid, but triggers an effective potential. No matter how much you can inflame people using their own losses, eventually they lose too much and give up. Send them to strike from odd angles, make them the ugly monster that is the "consequence" of a war: banditry, raids, soldiers pillaging and burning even their own people to grab resources if it is necessary. Black Ops to the core, their job is to strike the enemy where it hurts and no one can do openly.

[Inglenook]

I'm surprised that people are referring to the PCs as "heroes" here. Breaking parley and surprise-murdering an unprepared person seems quite villainous to me.

If they're acting like villains, treat them accordingly. Assuming that the king isn't incredibly desperate or evil himself, I doubt he would tolerate his nobles possibly dooming the entire country and causing the unneeded deaths of thousands because they got a little sword-happy.

At best: have the king strip them of their titles. At worst: have him banish them, execute them, or turn them over to the opposing royal family as recompense. Give them the chance to escape death or imprisonment, of course, but make it clear how awful and shortsighted their actions were.

[Medic!]

If it was me, I'd be sending the PCs on a suicide redemption mission with slim-to-no-chance (meaning they should be fine, right?) of success.

As far as effects on the war, Nobility being murdered under a truce banner should be sufficient to elevate him to Martyr status. When a war turns into a Holy War, everything changes.

[Talanic]

So they left the prince's body behind?

Is resurrection available in this setting? If so, a murdered prince is one of the #1 candidates for it. Especially in a wartime setting, if deities are taking interest in the welfare of the respective peoples.

Edit: Just thinking of what was mentioned above regarding hospitality laws. A great number of deities would take personal umbrage with the players' behavior, possibly including their own. Normally this might not matter too much, except if one or more of them is a cleric, paladin, etc.

Breach of hospitality - which includes a guest attacking their host - was the kind of sin that would get you rolling a boulder for eternity, or a divine mandate to exterminate your people.