How does a politically "neutral" power chose when and where to intervene?

[Logos&Eidos]

That question has been on my mind for some time and I am hoping that you'll be able to help me arrive at answerer.

In my WIP there is an ancient and respected order The Great Shamanic Lodge. The Lodge was was founded during the Divine war a cosmic conflict where the New Gods mortals Ascended to divinity and their mortal armies revolted against the Old Olds the first sapient beings in creation and their Daeva enforcers and subjects.

During those tumultuous centuries the Lodge was a martial organization and possessed a more grandiose name The Asura Host. The Asura gained the power to fight the Daeva by entering into a precarious symbiosis with nightmarish creatures from the twilight-beyond. After the war the Host demilitarized took and readopted their humble name of Shaman, swearing to devote their strength to helping the mortal world and all its peoples.

The lodge is wealthy powerful,and treated with a nigh religious level of deference, its missions statement is to preserver the mortal world and with no cosmic war ti fight they do this through humanitarian aids,peace keeping, and assisting law enforcement. The Lodge is neither a part of or beholden to any government , they are neutral power in the world.



What I have been having trouble with is figuring out how and when does the lodge intervene.

 

[Drakevarg]

Well, there are many different kinds of neutrality.

There's the Switzerland kind of neutrality, where it can basically be summed up as "we don't want any trouble, so you go ahead and have your big war and we'll stay quiet inside our giant fortress." In which case the 'when' would be "never, at least not until they're bodily dragged into the mess." If they DO act outside of simply staying out of the way, it'll probably be to follow their own agenda indifferent to the conflict raging around them. For example the Greybeards and Blades of Skyrim, who frankly don't give a toss about the Civil War waging around them and are more interested in the Dovahkiin and the dragons.

There's the neutrality practiced by Islas Carmesi in my setting, where the faction holds a monopoly on a precious resource that no side can do without, so they can stay out of a conflict by virtue of the fact that neither faction can risk antagonizing them. In which case the 'when' is "whenever someone makes the mistake of trying to bully a faction that can blackmail the entire world into protecting their neutrality." Also works for factions that are big enough to treat the conflict as beneath them, in which case replace "blackmail the entire world into protecting their neutrality" with "offhandedly squish the offending faction."

And finally there's the 'impartial judge' sort of neutrality, which I imagine is more what you're going for. In which case they'd most likely intervene in one of three ways:
1) CONSTANTLY. Maybe not in a military sense, but this route would involve sending out representatives to every conflict they hear of and offering up their own views as a sort of neutral arbiter. If they're almost universally respected this could be an extremely effective form of peacekeeping, but if they're not it can be quite impotent, being little more than a strongly worded letter telling the participants to play nice.
2) When asked. Perhaps they don't throw their own two cents into every conflict they come across, but just sort of sit back as a potential referee in case two factions are at odds but don't want to risk war - so they agree to approach the impartial judges together to have a settlement decided by a faction that has no personal stake in the matter.
3) According to their own internal politics. A bit less high-and-mighty than the other options, this is more the Team America: World Police approach. They'll intervene on whatever conflict they want according to their own private morals, usually with indifferent to what the actual conflicting factions feel on the matter. This is not a good way to make friends and could easily alienate the entire world from them as they enforce their own standards wherever they feel like.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I would consider looking at the spy MICE quotient, which stands for money ideology compromise ego. For a body of people the two biggest motivators would be money and ideology. Money could of course mean currency but it could also mean some thing like favors, I'm kind trades, and other less well used forms of payment. If one side is willing to pay the neutral party could join the fray. Drake covered ideology well enough that I won't cover it. Ego could also kick the neutral party imto gear if say one party insulted the group as a whole and the group decided it needed to teach the offending party a lesson in humility.

 

[Miskatonic]

When things escalate to the point where society as a whole is in danger and those currently involved int its conflicts are seen as unable to resolve the issues on their own without the need for intervention?

 

[glutton]

This topic makes me think of the relationship between the angels, demons, and humans in my WIP. The angels and demons have been locked in a world-spanning feud as long as anyone can remember while the humans hide in their cities protected by magical domes. When it looks like the demons might finally overcome the angels for good, however, the human leadership fearing the demons will turn their aggression against humanity if they win sent their strongest warrior (a 19 year old girl XD) along with a few others to kill the demon king and turn the tide of the war. Our amazing Mary Sue perfectly believable character succeeds of course and goes on to play big sister to the MC and friends during the events of the actual story 3 years later. XD

 

[Logos&Eidos]

Well, there are many different kinds of neutrality.

There's the Switzerland kind of neutrality, where it can basically be summed up as "we don't want any trouble, so you go ahead and have your big war and we'll stay quiet inside our giant fortress." In which case the 'when' would be "never, at least not until they're bodily dragged into the mess." If they DO act outside of simply staying out of the way, it'll probably be to follow their own agenda indifferent to the conflict raging around them. For example the Greybeards and Blades of Skyrim, who frankly don't give a toss about the Civil War waging around them and are more interested in the Dovahkiin and the dragons.

There's the neutrality practiced by Islas Carmesi in my setting, where the faction holds a monopoly on a precious resource that no side can do without, so they can stay out of a conflict by virtue of the fact that neither faction can risk antagonizing them. In which case the 'when' is "whenever someone makes the mistake of trying to bully a faction that can blackmail the entire world into protecting their neutrality." Also works for factions that are big enough to treat the conflict as beneath them, in which case replace "blackmail the entire world into protecting their neutrality" with "offhandedly squish the offending faction."

And finally there's the 'impartial judge' sort of neutrality, which I imagine is more what you're going for. In which case they'd most likely intervene in one of three ways:
1) CONSTANTLY. Maybe not in a military sense, but this route would involve sending out representatives to every conflict they hear of and offering up their own views as a sort of neutral arbiter. If they're almost universally respected this could be an extremely effective form of peacekeeping, but if they're not it can be quite impotent, being little more than a strongly worded letter telling the participants to play nice.
2) When asked. Perhaps they don't throw their own two cents into every conflict they come across, but just sort of sit back as a potential referee in case two factions are at odds but don't want to risk war - so they agree to approach the impartial judges together to have a settlement decided by a faction that has no personal stake in the matter.
3) According to their own internal politics. A bit less high-and-mighty than the other options, this is more the Team America: World Police approach. They'll intervene on whatever conflict they want according to their own private morals, usually with indifferent to what the actual conflicting factions feel on the matter. This is not a good way to make friends and could easily alienate the entire world from them as they enforce their own standards wherever they feel like.

One of my inspirations for the Lodge was the Aes Sedai
, a powerful ancient organization of magic-users respected and more than a little feared beholden to no one and with a nebulous mission statement of aiding the world.

Providing aid whenever requested is going to a part of the Lodge, the Shaman do not want be seen as reigning over the world nor do they wish to be entangled in national politics.

Though in choosing how,when and who to aid they can exercises a tremendous amount of influence. I see the Lodge as being reluctant to get militarily involved,picking a side in a war is full of complications. The most martial thing that the Lodge commonly
does is helping to capture criminals. The majority of what the Lodge does is equivalent to various real world humanitarian organizations.

I would consider looking at the spy MICE quotient, which stands for money ideology compromise ego. For a body of people the two biggest motivators would be money and ideology. Money could of course mean currency but it could also mean some thing like favors, I'm kind trades, and other less well used forms of payment. If one side is willing to pay the neutral party could join the fray. Drake covered ideology well enough that I won't cover it. Ego could also kick the neutral party imto gear if say one party insulted the group as a whole and the group decided it needed to teach the offending party a lesson in humility.

I wanted the order to be independently wealthy so that it could not be bribed, individual shaman are another story some people are just greedy/jealous always wanting more or what someone else has. It is not solely power that can corrupt weakness can do so aswell.

When things escalate to the point where society as a whole is in danger and those currently involved int its conflicts are seen as unable to resolve the issues on their own without the need for intervention?

The Shamanic lodge still has the right of martial-dominion but is only supposed to be invoked in the face of some calamity like extinction-event and existential threats.

Mundane disputes are tricky.

 

[K.S. Crooks]

In the real world Belgium became involved when Germany tried to pass trough their country to get to France. You could use a similar situation. Others could be if the weapons used by a warring country will constitute a danger to the neutral country/group or any other country not involved. In the real world this would be nuclear or biological weapons, in a fantasy world this could be high powered magic, some type of divine power or beings that would limit their destruction to a single target. Genocide- if the on of the warring nations is looking exterminate all of the other side and not simple beat them. If one or both sides were tricked by a third party into having their war. Hope this sparks a few ideas.

 

[Logos&Eidos]

In the real world Belgium became involved when Germany tried to pass trough their country to get to France. You could use a similar situation. Others could be if the weapons used by a warring country will constitute a danger to the neutral country/group or any other country not involved. In the real world this would be nuclear or biological weapons, in a fantasy world this could be high powered magic, some type of divine power or beings that would limit their destruction to a single target. Genocide- if the on of the warring nations is looking exterminate all of the other side and not simple beat them. If one or both sides were tricked by a third party into having their war. Hope this sparks a few ideas.

Yes however its far more applicable to nations than an NGO.

 

[vaiyt]

There's the Switzerland kind of neutrality, where it can basically be summed up as "we don't want any trouble, so you go ahead and have your big war and we'll stay quiet inside our giant fortress."

Fun fact, it was originally more like your second type - the resource in this case being Swiss mercenaries. Everyone else needed Swiss mercenaries to win wars, so nobody wanted Switzerland playing favorites or being the kingmaker in other nations' conflicts. On the other hand, anyone picking a beef with Switzerland would both be deprived of Swiss mercenaries AND incur the wrath of everyone else who also needed them.

 

[MiguelDHorcrux]

First of all, methinks the answer is in your own post haha.

through humanitarian aids,peace keeping, and assisting law enforcement

Anyway, in International Relations, neutrality is one tricky beast. There are IR theorists and practitioners who advocate that everything that does not alter the balance of power in any major way is still within the bounds of neutrality, or status quo if you will. For example, America's acquisition of the Philippines is not a neutral act, since it established the United States as the dominant power in the Pacific, replacing Spain and Britain, and overtaking France, the Netherlands and even Japan. America's acquisition of Alaska, at least during the time that it happened, did nothing to alter the status quo, so it is within the bounds of neutrality. Alaska is at least five times as big as the Philippines. No matter how grand an action is, if it does nothing to displace the current dominant powers-that-be, then it is neutral. No matter how small or seemingly irrelevant an action is, if it disturbed the status quo, then it is not within the bounds of neutrality anymore (like the assassination of a monarch paid for by your neutral body or handling out strategic weapons). Another example, fictional this time. If your lodge fed lunch once to a million people displaced by war, that grand act is neutral. If your lodge handed a few rebels a strategic superweapon, that single act is NOT neutral.

In your story, your neutral body can always claim likewise. They are merely maintaining the status quo by doing humanitarian projects and doling out small aids.

 

[Logos&Eidos]

First of all, methinks the answer is in your own post haha.



Anyway, in International Relations, neutrality is one tricky beast. There are IR theorists and practitioners who advocate that everything that does not alter the balance of power in any major way is still within the bounds of neutrality, or status quo if you will. For example, America's acquisition of the Philippines is not a neutral act, since it established the United States as the dominant power in the Pacific, replacing Spain and Britain, and overtaking France, the Netherlands and even Japan. America's acquisition of Alaska, at least during the time that it happened, did nothing to alter the status quo, so it is within the bounds of neutrality. Alaska is at least five times as big as the Philippines. No matter how grand an action is, if it does nothing to displace the current dominant powers-that-be, then it is neutral. No matter how small or seemingly irrelevant an action is, if it disturbed the status quo, then it is not within the bounds of neutrality anymore (like the assassination of a monarch paid for by your neutral body or handling out strategic weapons). Another example, fictional this time. If your lodge fed lunch once to a million people displaced by war, that grand act is neutral. If your lodge handed a few rebels a strategic superweapon, that single act is NOT neutral.

In your story, your neutral body can always claim likewise. They are merely maintaining the status quo by doing humanitarian projects and doling out small aids.

Without an existing model to look at it is hard to know if I am going in the right direction.

The closest organization to the Lodge are the Aes Sedai, but I at least didn't see or don't remember seeing how choses which causes or sides to support.

 

[Russ]

Without an existing model to look at it is hard to know if I am going in the right direction.

The closest organization to the Lodge are the Aes Sedai, but I at least didn't see or don't remember seeing how choses which causes or sides to support.

In fantasy fiction I might suggest that models are less useful than in many other forms.

In fact, I might respectfully suggest you might be asking yourself the wrong question.

The question is not really about how "neutral" countries or organizations might act or react, the question should be, what do I need for this organization to do for my story to work properly, and is that plausible?

You are not building a world simulation program, you are telling a story. I would ask myself "when does this story need the lodge to act and intervene?" and work from there.

That lack of constraints is one of the great joys of writing fantasy.

If I am writing a thriller set in the late 1950's I can't have Austria join NATO (even if it is clearly a alternate history) and remain credible for multiple reasons. But if I am writing a fantasy tale and my story will be better if the lodge intervenes in way Y at point X, I can just go back and tweek the history of the lodge so that seems perfectly fine.

Don't let the worldbuilding drive the plot, go at it the other way round.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Don't let the worldbuilding drive the plot, go at it the other way round.

Best advice anyone will read when it comes to fantasy writing.

 

[Logos&Eidos]

In fantasy fiction I might suggest that models are less useful than in many other forms.

In fact, I might respectfully suggest you might be asking yourself the wrong question.

The question is not really about how "neutral" countries or organizations might act or react, the question should be, what do I need for this organization to do for my story to work properly, and is that plausible?

You are not building a world simulation program, you are telling a story. I would ask myself "when does this story need the lodge to act and intervene?" and work from there.

That lack of constraints is one of the great joys of writing fantasy.

If I am writing a thriller set in the late 1950's I can't have Austria join NATO (even if it is clearly a alternate history) and remain credible for multiple reasons. But if I am writing a fantasy tale and my story will be better if the lodge intervenes in way Y at point X, I can just go back and tweek the history of the lodge so that seems perfectly fine.

Don't let the worldbuilding drive the plot, go at it the other way round.

For me I feel the need to know how the parts work before I put them into story, So this question is really for me.
Truth being stranger than fiction can lead a setting and a story into directions that were unconsidered.

 

[Russ]

For me I feel the need to know how the parts work before I put them into story, So this question is really for me.
Truth being stranger than fiction can lead a setting and a story into directions that were unconsidered.

I think that approach is compounding the problem for yourself, but I will leave you to it. There is no real world model that can really help you when you look at the history of your organization. Truth is, since you have created this group whole cloth, the only person who can tell you when they might intervene is "you". There is really no reason to believe that this organization would act anything like Belgium, Switzerland or Austria, or any other real world neutral.

The parts work how you make them work. You can't "discover" how these parts work because they don't exist. You can reason out how they might work in your unique world, but the only expert in that is you.

However, using someone else's fantasy organization as a model for yours (ie the Aes Sedai) is not an example of the "truth being stranger than fiction" leading you somewhere fresh, it is just an example of trying to "model" off of another fantasy writer.

 

[Logos&Eidos]

I think that approach is compounding the problem for yourself, but I will leave you to it. There is no real world model that can really help you when you look at the history of your organization. Truth is, since you have created this group whole cloth, the only person who can tell you when they might intervene is "you". There is really no reason to believe that this organization would act anything like Belgium, Switzerland or Austria, or any other real world neutral.

The parts work how you make them work. You can't "discover" how these parts work because they don't exist. You can reason out how they might work in your unique world, but the only expert in that is you.

However, using someone else's fantasy organization as a model for yours (ie the Aes Sedai) is not an example of the "truth being stranger than fiction" leading you somewhere fresh, it is just an example of trying to "model" off of another fantasy writer.

Truth being stranger than fiction Is why I am interested in real explanations for the fantastical, for example how a wormhole would really look is far more bizarre than the commonly depicted disc shaped hole in space.

I looked at Aes Sedai and every other fictional order that I knew of to see if somebody else had already solved my problem and if so use that solution for myself.