I don't actually think that the second case even in the modern case would get away scot free or with anything less than, like, a considerable jail sentence?

All of the "self defense" stuff would fall to pieces in context, as it does here. It wouldn't be execution, and certainly not the death sentence, but he would likely--if his clever lawyers didn't get him off because he was rich--spend a good chunk of most of the rest of his life in prison, I believe, in an American system... which is admittedly a system which is sometimes 'sentence heavy' (for crimes that everyone does, as opposed to crimes that only rich people do.)
 
[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. Also decree that the first claim on the traitor merchant's estate will go to pay customary damages for wrongful death to the survivors of each of the three dead men. If there is anything left for the merchant's heirs to inherit after the wrongful death damages have been paid, then they can have it.

[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
 
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you will find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you will 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.

Both houses have been vouched for, but I trust the Starks' judgment more than the Boltons'.

[X] [Second] Execute Him.

Inciting and killing three men is an extremely serious crime. Given that the merchant was able to kill three, I assume that, unlike the others, he had a weapon. Accordingly, he is guilty not only of provocation but also of the fact that the brawl turned into a stabbing. Drinking doesn't make it any better.

[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall.

In fact, this is probably the most merciful of the options. A man joining the Watch will invalidate his marriage, and his wife will be able to find a new husband while she is supported by Winterfell due to the blight on the crops. If a man goes to the Gift, he will still not be able to provide for his family, because they will be far away, and he will not be able to provide for them if they follow him as a farmhand who also has to pay a portion of his earnings as a fine in addition to taxes. The worst thing is of course the confiscation of land - in this case, not only the man himself pays for the crime, but his family for generations to come. So the difference between having land and not having it during this period of time is huge.

It is a hard decision, but it is what is expected in the North.

[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.

Not exactly what I want, but it might work.
 
Last edited:
The settlers on the Gift pay their tithes and taxes to the Watch but they're not a part of the watch in the same way.

The men of the watch are sworn not to have families or wives, their only family left to be their fellow watchmen.

Random peasants farming on the land and paying taxes to the watch are, essentially just ordinary peasants and they can have wives and family's. So he'd actually be able to keep his family and feed his wife and child. Both of whom have committed no crime of their own and so shouldn't be punished.
Pretty much this. Sentencing the poacher to the Wall breaks up the family and, by dissolving the marriage, may have deleterious effects on the daughter's legal status. Relocating the family to the Watch's lands doesn't do that, though it means a harder life.

* * *

Adding the following approval vote to my slate posted earlier, for the sake of the advisory opinion "don't make it harder for me to do my job:"

[] [First] Side with the Whitehills and keep the tolls in place. Make it clear to the court that by torturing the sabotager to death the Forresters denied the court the ability to assess his testimony, thus both foiling the court's ability to examine potentially valuable evidence as well as leaving the foresters with no evidence to their claims, forcing you to rule against them.
 
Last edited:
For those concerned about the proportionality of the Wall as punishment for various cases, the Wall is an alternative to the ordinary punishment, and is available if the accused asks for it. The murderer has not asked for it, and indeed has not asked for clemency at all, or demonstrated remorse or abjured his opinions. He has presented a defense of his actions on the facts and the law. We would be going out of our way to offer him the Wall. The poacher has not offered a defense, but has asked for clemency, has demonstrated remorse and sworn he will not repeat his offense. He is asking for an alternative to the ordinary punishment. That is what the Wall is for.

An advantage of sending the poacher and his family to the Gift is that it looks quite a lot like sending him to the Wall and thus hewing closely to custom: he's going to basically the same place, and given his skillset if he did become a brother of the Watch he'd likely be made a steward and made to farm the land rather than a ranger, so he's doing basically the same thing he'd be doing. It just doesn't break up the family and dissolve the marriage.
 
Last edited:
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall.


[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.
 
Last edited:
Changing my vote since it was pointed out to me that the argument of the Whitehills was changed and that they do dispute that the saboteur was one of their armsmen. With no proof from the Forresters on that matter except their say-so, there's no basis to rule against the Whitehills. The right to toll roads on your land that you maintain is a very basic one and curtailing it out of a misguided attempt to find a middleground makes no sense.

[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall


Approval voting my original write-in since the runner-up makes little sense. If the Whitehills don't concede that the man was their armsman, it's up to the Forresters to prove that allegation. It's insane to rule that they are guilty until proven innocent.

[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. Also decree that the first claim on the traitor merchant's estate will go to pay customary damages for wrongful death to the survivors of each of the three dead men. If there is anything left for the merchant's heirs to inherit after the wrongful death damages have been paid, then they can have it.
[X] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch

Bit disappointing that the early write-ins and standard votes are winning but they're not terrible options so I guess I'll survive if they win.
 
Changing my vote since it was pointed out to me that the argument of the Whitehills was changed and that they do dispute that the saboteur was one of their armsmen. With no proof from the Forresters on that matter except their say-so, there's no basis to rule against the Whitehills.
Which isn't even to say that the Forresters' word isn't good. Both Houses' words are unimpeachable, so say their overlords. But since the Forresters killed their witness, all the actual evidence, on both sides, is the parties' word. If the evidence on both sides is equally good, then the decision must come down against the party seeking relief, since that party must prove more than equality of evidence; they must prove a preponderance of the evidence, however slight. If their witness was alive, the Forresters could perhaps do that. But since he isn't, they can't.
 
Last edited:
[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.

Knowing the meta chances are that the Whitehills are full of shit but the Forresters really shot themselves in the foot by torturing the saboteur until he died. We cannot call any of them liars to their faces however because they were both described as honorable and in a medieval society one's word and reputation is everything.

[X] [Second] Execute Him

My dude if half a dozen witnesses said you threw the first punch and that you killed 3 guys them sorry not sorry your ass is going to the block.

[X] [Third] Remove his Hand

If we send him to the Wall I think that he is going to try to escape back to his family, better to let him, who seems a good man, stay with his family and try to take care of them, even with just one hand, than to send him to life in prison. There is no guarantee that the wife can find a new husband and that the new husband will take care of the daughter with as much dedication that this man has.

Mutilation is barbaric, yes, but I do think it's the lesser evil here.

[X] [Third] Give him the choice; the hand, or the wall.

Approval voting.
 
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
 
I dunno, I think Stark might think the Forresters have no evidence but appreciates that having Rhaenyra make the judgement prevents him from having to rule in favor of the Bolton vassals, his traditional rivals, which would annoy the Glovers, his wife's family.

I'm pretty sure the last update said she was a Glover right?
 
The settlers on the Gift pay their tithes and taxes to the Watch but they're not a part of the watch in the same way.

The men of the watch are sworn not to have families or wives, their only family left to be their fellow watchmen.

Random peasants farming on the land and paying taxes to the watch are, essentially just ordinary peasants and they can have wives and family's. So he'd actually be able to keep his family and feed his wife and child. Both of whom have committed no crime of their own and so shouldn't be punished.

Ah so you're suggesting to send him *and his family* to farm on the gift (though the family is free to not follow/leave)? Yeah I guess I can see that. I'm not sure how feasible of a suggestion it is though.
 
I dunno, I think Stark might think the Forresters have no evidence but appreciates that having Rhaenyra make the judgement prevents him from having to rule in favor of the Bolton vassals, his traditional rivals, which would annoy the Glovers, his wife's family.

I'm pretty sure the last update said she was a Glover right?
Lord Stark, being an honorable man, might also look down on such a blatant quid pro quo from the bench.
 
Yeah I don't think Lord Stark care overly much about ruling for/against a Bolton vassal or for/against a vassal of his wife's family. Convenient for him that he doesn't have to either way, though.
 
"I have no desire to abandon White Harbor," Lord Manderly admitted. "My family are Stark men until the end of times and these shores may be cold, but they are mine. My family built this city and I would not stand to see it passed to another. But I have more than one son, and my family has been slighted for far too long. Tell me, princess, are you familiar with house Peake?"

"Vaguely," you voice was uncertain as you wracked your brain for various houses. "They're in the Reach, are they not?"

"Correct," Lord Manderly said darkly. "A wretched lot. Always have been. For centuries now they have squatted on my family's ancestral lands, claiming Dunstonbury castle as their own, and for centuries they have mocked us in our exile. Even now, their heir, some oaf named Unwin, has arrived in my city, seeking to humiliate us by earning glory in my son's Tourney."

"I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do here," you said a bit bewildered. "I can't return your castle to you."

"No," Lord Manderly agreed, "but your father can. The king is a good man with a good heart and he's friends with the Hightowers. When you return to King's Landing, please bring this issue to your father. If your family can return Dunstonbury to my family, our debt to you and yours would be as great as our debt to the Starks."

This may not happen during our father's reign, but we should probably do this if we win the Dance of Dragons. Give the Manderly's Dustonbury and give the other two Peake castles (Starpike and Whitegrove) to people who impress us/need to be bribed.
 
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.

[X] [First] Side with the Whitehills and keep the tolls in place. Make it clear to the court that by torturing the sabotager to death the Forresters denied the court the ability to assess his testimony, thus both foiling the court's ability to examine potentially valuable evidence as well as leaving the foresters with no evidence to their claims, forcing you to rule against them.

If the saboteur had taken his own life, I'd like the currently-winning first option, but he was tortured to death, forcing the Court to trust only the word of each House.

can judgements have moratoriums pls

[X] [Second] Execute Him
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
 
[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] [Third] Send him to the Wall
 
This may not happen during our father's reign, but we should probably do this if we win the Dance of Dragons. Give the Manderly's Dustonbury and give the other two Peake castles (Starpike and Whitegrove) to people who impress us/need to be bribed.
You will note that houses in Westeros have kept their core holdings for centuries, even millennia. The Manderly's exile is really a bit of an outlier, and came as the apex of at least a literal millenium of Manderly/Peake enemyship in the Reach, when those were the two most powerful families below the King. That means that even after wars, failed rebellions, outright treason and so on, nearly no House is ever completely expropriated. Even the Peakes were not after they were on the wrong side of the Blackfyre Rebellion in canon; they were merely reduced to their ancestral caste (Starpike) and lost the other two.

(of course then suddenly in the main story houses fall and are replaced left and right, but that is indeed a sort of contradiction with the background)

So. A King or a Queen regnant who goes around randomly expropriating houses thousands of years old will create backlash. Even people who don't like the Peakes will take note. After all, it it happened to t he Peakes, it could also happen to them. Randomly reassigning lands and seats is exactly how we will win a reputation as a tyrant. Aegon IV did this, and I think people could have looked past his debauchery if he hadn't also been, in their view, tyrannical.

And just... in general, we should try to be as un-Aegon IV as possible, I guess. Randomly expropriating and reassigning land should be a big no for us. That will only kill our reputation and make us enemies, even beyond the expropriated houses.
 
[X] [First] Side with the Whitehills and keep the tolls in place. Make it clear to the court that by torturing the sabotager to death the Forresters denied the court the ability to assess his testimony, thus both foiling the court's ability to examine potentially valuable evidence as well as leaving the foresters with no evidence to their claims, forcing you to rule against them.
 
The whole reason to vote to punish the poacher at all is because not doing so would look soft to the nobility of the realm, and going out of our way to help out the wife and daughter because we were affected by his story is also going to look weak, at which point, why not spare him?
Because a criminal judgment is a balance between multiple interests for someone in our position. If you want the pure political argument:

Being seen to punish poaching harshly is important for our relations with the nobility of the Seven Kingdoms collectively because they take it as a signal that we will look out for their interests and their perceived rights in a political system that both privileges them and greatly empowers them.

Being seen to exercise mercy for the dependents of the man we are punishing is important for everyone, because a monarch who is persistently cruel or indifferent to the consequences their policies will have for other people generally turns out to be bad for everyone, including the nobility and the smallfolk alike. Maegor the Cruel, Rhaenyra's great-great-uncle, was so named for a reason, and he's still just barely within living memory (there being at least a few octogenarians and nonagenarians kicking around in Westeros).

From the political argument, these two needs both co-exist and are balanced. While a few of the most 'conservative' of the nobles may grumble that a proper monarch wouldn't worry about the poacher's family and how if the poacher wanted his family to be provided for he shouldn't have poached and if his daughter starved he should just beget another...

[spits in disgust after trying to get into the headspace of someone comparable to Randyll Tarly]

...Anyway, while some of the nobles may grumble about this, nearly all nobles will on some level respect a decision that balances upholding their rights with trying in good faith to limit the impact of the judgment to the man who committed the 'offense.' The commoners, meanwhile, take it as a signal that we at least care and aren't actively going to crush them into jelly without even noticing, which is important, because some kings and nobles genuinely do that.

In the North, where the social contract between nobles and commoners is a bit stronger and places higher obligations on the nobles to administer and maintain social welfare via shows of generosity (note that the Starks appear to have just such a system in place at Winterfell), provision for the survival of the poacher's dependents signals to everyone that we are able and willing to uphold such a North-style social contract, which is probably (I hope) going to win us respect up here.
 
Back
Top