Old World Order: The Accords (Part 2)
There Is No Spirit Of The Law
The Accords were set up by one of the most notorious manipulators in the supernatural world; furthermore, the legalistic bent of the faerie mind, along with their important concepts of favor and debt, has a strong influence on the letter of the law.
Much like the Code of Hammurabi, everything is spelled out extremely clearly. Vicious as it seems to us in retrospect to claim an eye for an eye or a life for a life, it prevents one supernatural tribe from murdering all of another tribe in response to a single death or other faux-pas.
However, nobody’s going to respect “the spirit of the law” of the Accords, because there isn’t one. See above regarding Mab’s legalistic thinking (in gamer terms, she’s the consummate “rules-lawyer”). The supernatural nations all abide by the Accords, because the possibility of all-out mystical warfare is so much worse—as the current Vampire War between the Red Court and the White Council demonstrates.
Getting Screwed By the Letter Of The Law
In the ad hoc supernatural courts that judge these things, plenty of precedent has been established that there is only the letter of the law to protect you under the Accords, and each letter has a razor’s edge. It doesn’t matter what your sentimental excuses were, how many innocents were going to die, or that your true love’s life was on the line. If you break the Accords, then you are neck-deep in trouble.
The best thing that you can hope for is that your side will try to find some loophole to get you out of it, or work a behind-the-scenes deal to persuade the other side to drop their reasons for offence. Unfortunately, by far the most likely thing is that you’ll be served up on a platter with a set of apologies tied around your neck. There will always be people on your own side who will consider their own continued peace and safety far more important than your skin. And after all, what is one man compared to the prospect of supernatural war? These people may regret the political necessities, but that won’t stop them from gift-wrapping Accords-breakers and delivering them to the aggrieved parties.
At times, the letter of the law can actually be helpful. There are cases where people use the legalisms to their advantage. It is a clear and definite fact that someone who reads the Accords and plans their actions before doing something precipitous (like burning down a houseful of bad guys) is the person who is most likely to get away with it.
HARRY: You know, under the Accords, naughty children found on bridges are still lawful prey for trolls.
Tune in two weeks from now as we begin to delve into Supernatural Factions.
Very cool! It’s nice to see things like this, as this will lend the book to being far more than just a “game book”, but, as has been said several times, this will make the rulebook also a “primer” on most things Dresden. It does make me wonder (and hope), will there be a sample listing of some of the Accords? I’d hate to see everything codified, but a sampler would certainly be entertaining, as well as helpful, for readers, players, and gamemasters alike.
@Sean, we’re more than a bit stuck in terms of listing out the accords themselves. For one, we have the perspective that to the extent the accords should be codified, they should be laid down in service of the story of someone’s specific campaign. And from another perspective, if we spell out the accords, we’re spelling out something that Jim Himself hasn’t spelled out yet — which we’re trying to avoid. We don’t want to assert things that will put handcuffs on his ability to change his mind before the details get revealed in his stories.
Y’know, that makes perfect sense…still, I’d be lying if I weren’t a tad disappointed, but it does make perfect sense in both regards. Neither do you don’t want to define someone’s campaign, nor could you bind Butcher’s writing. Who knows, maybe it can become a community project to list out “common sense” Accords as well as campaign-specific Accords. Regardless, your stance, both creatively and business-wise, are perfectly valid…and thanks for the response, Fred! To state again…I cannot wait for this release!!
@Sean, that’s a great idea for a post-release project, some kind of “What’s in YOUR Accords?” everybody-weigh-in thing.
Maybe some mention of those aspects (heh, heh) that have already appeared in the books. Like the concept of Hospitality, or the Duel. And of course, how the Letter of the Law might be circumvented.
It’s not exactly appropriate in-game, but I think that an “Unseelie Accords Wiki” is probably the way to go. It would offer a compromise between references to what Jim has included to this point (i.e., “canon” Unseelie Accords text as well as general concepts that have been discussed in service of the stories), while leaving other game groups the freedom to come up with their own codicils and addenda.
Trying to imagine the time and effort Mab invested in the Accords makes my brain hurt. Trying to replicate her mindset (to capture the “look and feel” of the Accords’ structure and loopholes) hurts even more. Still, I look forward to some fascinating discussions about various fine points…
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I agree that an accords wiki or similar thang is an attractive way to go with this.
The accords seem to make it clear that humans are the Nuclear Option for the supernatural community and Neutron Bomb being Lawyers. Someone who can argue the letter of the law it’s utmost stretching point and in doing make it easier to stretch the next time.
But I’m more wondering what happens when two letters of the law collide. Like say that naughty child on the bridge is the apprentice of a warden. Or if someone attempts a John Constantine and gets both the winter and summer court to try to claim the exact same thing.
@Gdex, those are the moments that duels to the death are made of.
And remember, even if the Accords are clear, you still have the laws of your own people to deal with.
Sure, there is an simple solution to this problem with the Accords. All you need to do is open the gates of beyond and…
At my table, with enough shifts in a Lore-based declaration, the Accords will say whatever the PC needs them to say.
Heh, good idea. Here’s a further (rather obvious) suggestion: assign each rule in the Accords a rating, which must be beaten to find a rule that contradicts it. If you try to contradict multiple rules, you need to beat them all. The rating of the new rule can be chosen by the player anywhere between the next rating above that of the original rule and the effort that was rolled.
There is a bit of strategy involved in choosing between narrow or sweeping rules, and between lower and higher ratings, though th GM should probably make sure sweeping rules have a lower rating than narrow ones… (spend shifts to broaden the rule?)
The opponent could, in turn try to contradict the new rule with a better roll.
Of course, all the rules so generated should be permanently recorded for later use.
Is there any particular reason for using the British spelling for ‘offense’ in that write-up? Is this going to be in the final book?
I can’t stand it when people mix versions of English.
So were you going for an Old World feel, or what?
@XavierDLH, the author of that part, Genevieve Cogman, is from the UK. I’ll make sure our editors know about it.