- Pronouns
- He/Him
...On who's land. Because this is basically asking him to make up for the deer he took from Lord Stark, by killing two more deer that belonged to lord Stark.
The Heir of the Dragon: A Rhaenyra Targaryen Quest
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Just idle thoughts after catching up and considering where I want to place my votes.
For the third individual,would a punishment where (given a hunt is about to occur) that he be tasked with gathering greater payment to his Lord than he has taken, IE participate in the hunt and should he succeed in acquiring greater deal of game for House Stark than he has stolen his punishment can become lessened? I could see this being seen as taken less well outside of the North but in the North I don't see it being too bad an option. Though I don't dislike some of the more recent write in on the matter.
Participation in the Hunt is still an honor not a good solution.
For the third individual,
Participation in the Hunt is still an honor not a good solution.
Last edited:
- Location
- Your pantry
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Clearly the farmer must be compelled to go forth unto a glorious expedition north of the wall, so that he may plunder all the deer of the Free Folk to pay off his debt to the ever so merciful Starks! 
Last edited:
Godwinson
"Well, I've got nothing."
The lands of even House Umber and the northern Hill Clans are considered particularly harsh by Northern standards, and those are south of the Gift. The Hill Clans even migrate to Winterfell to live in Wintertown from Autumn to Spring.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Again, literally asking to make up for what the realm sees as Lord Stark's deer by asking him to take more of Lord Stark's deer.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
[X][First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
Dear Lord the write in's just get longer.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
While I don't believe its a good option, the act of obtaining the deer for the purpose of Lord Stark's usage is different than taking them for himself. Though adding him to the hunt wouldn't be considered a proper punishment as being invited to a hunt is an honor itself. (But, killing a deer with a bow or traps is no simple feat let alone obtaining multiple within a set amount of time, but really the idea was more to give them a task to perhaps gain a lighter sentence than the laws would standardly dictate, and other options people have made are much more viable and feel less weak.
Godwinson
"Well, I've got nothing."
The cooks will not be satisfied until they have had a chance to piss in the pot.
Hey look as long we execute the second guy i'm content.The cooks will not be satisfied until they have had a chance to piss in the pot.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
TO be fair this was a vote where I very much expected to have a lot of write-ins.
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X] [Second] Send him to the Wall for inciting the fight and have a wergild paid to the families of the dead from his possessions.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [Second] Send him to the Wall for inciting the fight and have a wergild paid to the families of the dead from his possessions.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X][First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X][Third] In recognition of the poacher's unusual and desperate conditions, and that he may remain able-bodied and capable of supporting his daughter, the court will allow him to compensate Lord Stark by forfeiting all his land. The land is now Stark property, to rent to tenants or otherwise to do with as they see fit.
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X][Third] In recognition of the poacher's unusual and desperate conditions, and that he may remain able-bodied and capable of supporting his daughter, the court will allow him to compensate Lord Stark by forfeiting all his land. The land is now Stark property, to rent to tenants or otherwise to do with as they see fit.
Last edited:
Regarding the first case, how does Forrester even know that sabotage was truly the cause of the Dam collapse? The only proof we have of sabotage is a supposed confession acquired through dubious methods. The alleged saboteur is too dead to be presented as a witness and evidence.
CharlieKing
Pure of Heart, Dumb of Ass
- Pronouns
- They/Them
i will admit: i don't want Rhaenyra to be seen as too harsh in her rulings because I'm still holding out hope we can get a "The People's Princess" style reputation with the smallfolk. Achieving Lady Diana levels of beloved would be a great milestone.
so i might be looking too hard for ways to be lenient without being too soft.
however, i do acknowledge that's an uphill battle against sexism. we cannot risk seeming a even a little bit too soft or we'll start fielding serious accusations of being unfit to rule because of a woman's "sentimental heart" or other such nonsense.
so i might be looking too hard for ways to be lenient without being too soft.
however, i do acknowledge that's an uphill battle against sexism. we cannot risk seeming a even a little bit too soft or we'll start fielding serious accusations of being unfit to rule because of a woman's "sentimental heart" or other such nonsense.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
This is "fair" only within very specific concepts of what "fairness" means that, unfortunately, effectively no one in Westeros shares.
Given that the probable yield of his land is doubtful (right now it's got a blight that makes it a very bad idea to grow rye there and rye may be the only grain that even grows this far north), while I had basically your idea...
Well, the amount of grain that would be generally considered 'fair compensation' is very high indeed. To the point where you're effectively saying "this guy owes the Starks rent for a long, long time."
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X] [Second] Send him to the Wall for inciting the fight and have a wergild paid to the families of the dead from his possessions.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
Generally agree with all of this.
I will say I find the second much more sympathetic than most seem to. I think he's straight up right about the incest, and it's very weird how much of the fandom excuses or pretends that's normal, and that's something I'd honestly like Rhaenyra to get away from and drop entirely. Yes it was remarkably stupid of him to say, but he was drunk, and yes it is stupid to get drunk if you're the kind of person who says true things that will probably get you executed when drunk, but stupidity does not warrant death.
Are people assuming that he said that intending to start a fight for fun or something? Because that doesn't seem necessarily true.
However, it is remarkably stupid and obviously while he's right about incest, that cannot be our IC position because it completely undermines our own claim, and isn't something Rhaenyra would think. But I'd like a level of mercy here.
His farm is tainted.
[X] [Second] Send him to the Wall for inciting the fight and have a wergild paid to the families of the dead from his possessions.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
Generally agree with all of this.
I will say I find the second much more sympathetic than most seem to. I think he's straight up right about the incest, and it's very weird how much of the fandom excuses or pretends that's normal, and that's something I'd honestly like Rhaenyra to get away from and drop entirely. Yes it was remarkably stupid of him to say, but he was drunk, and yes it is stupid to get drunk if you're the kind of person who says true things that will probably get you executed when drunk, but stupidity does not warrant death.
Are people assuming that he said that intending to start a fight for fun or something? Because that doesn't seem necessarily true.
However, it is remarkably stupid and obviously while he's right about incest, that cannot be our IC position because it completely undermines our own claim, and isn't something Rhaenyra would think. But I'd like a level of mercy here.
His farm is tainted.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The write-in is long, in this case, because we're specifically trying to chide the Forresters for torturing the alleged saboteur to death and thus making it considerably more complicated to settle the case based on anything except the two noble houses' say-so.
It's a judicial bench opinion; explaining why you're doing the thing is part of the job and is part of how others interpret your decision.
Frankly I think this would have gone better with a 24-hour moratorium or something so we could establish some measure of consensus and get the facts straight before people started voting.
Last edited:
- Location
- Spain
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X][First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X][First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
Last edited:
Dyeus
The Crazed Spear of Writes o.O
- Location
- England
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It's only right. Write-Ins are the stranger's fruit for somehow there may be fun consequences. With that in mind...
[X][First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
- Location
- United States
Seems to me that the burden of proof is on the Forresters (or us) to prove that he was one of Whitehill's armsmen, I'm not sure what proof that he wasn't one of their armsmen would look like.
I was going to ask if we can like, just ask the Whitehills divulge their ledgers on what armsmen they're paying - it kind of sounds like they were trying to have it both ways on "you can't prove he's one of ours, and if he was we didn't ask him to do it."
Now if the Whitehills did ask him to do it, they might have hired someone who wasn't one of their normal armsmen and kept him off the books. However, Tywin Lannister was using his household knights and bannermen as his wetworks people, so maybe that level of sophistication isn't common in Westeros.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Uh, remember, he's not just saying the incest is bad, he's saying "because of the incest, the Targaryens are polluted human beings who shouldn't set foot in the north."
Like, it's in no way Viserys' fault that his parents were brother and sister, and it's not Rhaenyra's fault her parents were first cousins. If we don't treat the argument "the Targaryens are children of incest and therefore have no right to rule or even to set foot in the Seven Kingdoms" as treason, then that doesn't just affect Viserys I. It affects everyone in the royal family, including Rhaenyra herself and including her future children even if Rhaenyra's children are fathered by someone comfortably out of the family tree.
Basically, the price of "being a Targaryen and wanting to rule Westeros some day" is that you absolutely cannot tolerate any suggestion that your ancestors' incest invalidates who you are as a person or invalidates your right to rule. If you accept the premise that Rhaenyra actually should be queen some day, then that's pretty literally treasonous talk right there.
________________________
*(Viserys I, Rhaenyra's dad, who, you will note, is absolutely willing to rip people's tongues out for saying sufficiently hostile or subversive things about Rhaenyra's future right to rule)
The problem is that if you start letting relatively unimportant people get away with saying it because they were drunk, soon you have to deal with important people saying it "because they were drunk and just being honest," and within a generation or two (that is, within the timescale of Rhaenyra's reign) it starts getting out of control.
It's not great, but we're RPing as a feudal monarch or someone who intends to live long enough to become one, y'know?
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Second] Execute him and have a wergild paid to the families of the dead from his possessions.
mercy will kill more people.
Don't think Westeros is concerned about double jeopardy.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Second] Execute him and have a wergild paid to the families of the dead from his possessions.
mercy will kill more people.
Don't think Westeros is concerned about double jeopardy.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
From the point of view of Westerosi law, the Forresters have at least moderately strong evidence of the form "he confessed under torture." It's obvious to us that this is really dumb, but at best all I think we can do is say "because your evidence was gathered by torturing the witness to death, I slap you over the head with reduced damage award."
That's actually common for defense attorneys. Rephrasing the argument a bit more sympathetically, it would go "you can't prove he's one of ours, and you can't prove we asked anyone to do it, least of all him!"
This is why my own (long-ass) write-in specifically includes a clause for the Whitehills to have an opening to prove that this wasn't their armsman. Because unfortunately, saying "evidence gained by torture is invalid" isn't really a jump we can take in Westeros without being seen as a pampered princess who doesn't know how the law works, dammit.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Admittedly everytime I've tried a moratorium here it's felt unneeded but I will definitely keep this in mind for future judgements