Remove ads

The Heir of the Dragon: A Rhaenyra Targaryen Quest

Reader mode
Zaki Badawi said:
Would sparing him but saddling him with free labor owed to House Stark until lord Stark feels the debt is paid be an acceptable compromise or still too lenient ?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was thinking along similar lines myself, since it sounds like he's a freeholder, not a tenant farmer. That means he owns land, which in turn means that that land can be taken away from him.

And setting the precedent "if you get caught poaching, we will consider taking your land instead of your hand, or if you have no land locking you into indentured servitude," while 'soft' in some sense, is not so soft that it will predictably make us look like a weakling to the nobles. I think.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
The Whitehills certainly dispute that he was their man. And I do not see [and am shutting my eyes to inadmissible] evidence that he was.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Also its just plain right to penalize the Forresters for killing an important witness. If it was just the case that they had no evidence because the armsman escaped and was nowhere to be found then that would be one thing. But in this case they both have no evidence and maliciously committed a severe obstruction of justice in order to benefit themselves. More than fine, I'd say its even required that they receive an outcome worse than that of someone who just has no evidence.
 
I do want to address the whole "torturing a key witness" thing. not cool dude.
but i do want the Whitehills to pay for rebuilding, if it was their dude either way.

how to word both of these sentiments?
 
I think we can give the poacher to Lord stark to punish, for the crime/insult that was committed against house stark. I feel that lord stark should get the to choose.
 
Last edited:
Imperious said:
Also its just plain right to penalize the Forresters for killing an important witness. If it was just the case that they had no evidence because the armsman escaped and was nowhere to be found then that would be one thing. But in this case they both have no evidence and maliciously committed a severe obstruction of justice in order to benefit themselves. More than fine, I'd say its even required that they receive an outcome worse than that of someone who just has no evidence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't disagree.
 
Teen Spirit said:
"A confession you only gained after hours of sharp questioning that left the man dead," Lady Whitehill sneered. "And all you could attain was that he served my house. I give my word before the old gods and new that I never ordered him to do this vile act."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can I just emphasise a part here - Lady Whitehill does not deny that the man served her house, merely that she denies ordering him to do so.

Her wording there is, to my eyes, very careful. It does not (from how our author has written this) seem to be disputed by either party that he was her armsman

EDIT: As I'm still getting insightful reactions this has been clarified by OP and Lady Whitehill disputes that he served her house too
 
Last edited:
TheBarrometer said:
Can I just emphasise a part here - Lady Whitehill does not deny that the man served her house, merely that she denies ordering him to do so.

Her wording there is, to my eyes, very careful. It does not (from how our author has written this) seem to be disputed by either party that he was her armsman
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even if, assuming arguendo and without admitting, the saboteur was a Whitehill armsman, the Whitehills aren't vicariously liable for all his acts, only those within the scope of his duties as their agent. Lady Lyanna called his act banditry, that is outlawry, and thus without color of legitimate authority. And she did expressly deny ordering him to trespass on or destroy Forrester property.
 
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall, but only after a set period whereupon it is ensured his wife and daughter are able to safely provide for themselves without his presence.
 
Lady whitehill did not deny that he wasn't her man. Only the act.

Drunk or not the merchant insulted the Targaryen family and more or less thrown the first punch and killed 3 men, so either death or cut out his tongue and send him to the wall and or pay for the 3 deaths.
 
Last edited:
FallenDawn said:
Lady whitehill did not deny that he wasn't her man.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And the Forresters did obstruct justice by torturing the man until death, AND until he said Whitehill sent him. It's unfortunately probable that he was a thief who sabotaged the dam, but the Forresters already had a grudge against Whitehill by that time, so they tortured the guy until he gave them the answer they wanted.
 
This is my "First" vote unless the Whitehills have specifically confessed that it was their armsman who sabotaged the dam or unless the evidence of this is otherwise incontrovertible. I'm not clear on that point.

[][First] Side with the Whitehills and keep the tolls in place. Since the Boltons are the ones maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. Make it clear to the court that if, as the Forresters allege, a Whitehill armsman had hypothetically destroyed the dam, then the Whitehills might hypothetically be liable, even if the sabotage did not occur at their orders. However, it appears that the Forresters have destroyed the evidence of their own claim by killing the only witness in the process of trying to torture a confession out of him. While the Forresters' own word is not in doubt, it is now impossible to determine whether the dead saboteur was lying or telling the truth. As such, the court cannot hold the Whitehills liable for the destruction of the dam.

As for my "Second" vote I think it's pretty clear-cut, perhaps regrettably but in this society we don't have much choice.

[][Second] Execute him.
[][Second] Execute him, and order that customary compensation for a death caused by negligence be paid from the estate of the merchant to the families of each of the three men killed in the fighting, at the expense of any heirs the merchant may have.

As for "Third," I'm kind of waiting on whether this peasant is a freeholder with his own land or not. If he owns his land, he has something of value to compensate the Starks with... something we can give punitive damages for, too, so that it comes across as a fair trade.

FallenDawn said:
I think we can give the poacher to Lord stark to punish, for the crime/insult that was committed against house stark. I feel that lord stark should get the to choose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think that would defeat the purpose. We're not supposed to foist things off on him.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
Even if, assuming arguendo and without admitting, the saboteur was a Whitehill armsman, the Whitehills aren't vicariously liable for all his acts, only those within the scope of his duties as their agent. Lady Lyanna called his act banditry, that is outlawry, and thus without color of legitimate authority. And she did expressly deny ordering him to trespass on or destroy Forrester property.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I feel like the Whitehills should have some liability even if they didn't order it. Inability to control their own subjects leading to the damage of other lord's properties is still a grievance worthy of financial compensation.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
Even if, assuming arguendo and without admitting, the saboteur was a Whitehill armsman
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
From our limited point of view, and I would welcome clarification from the author, I am taking the lack of disputing him being an armsman means it is an agreed fact of the case.
Zimmerwald1915 said:
the Whitehills aren't vicariously liable for all his acts, only those within the scope of his duties as their agent
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is not strictly true in a feudal society. I agree that in our society if say a shop worker on their time off robbed another supermarket their employer would not be liable unless they told them to do so, but this is not our society.
Zimmerwald1915 said:
And she did expressly deny ordering him to trespass on or destroy Forrester property.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Indeed - which is why, given a lack of proof from House Forrester, I do not think they should pay for full damages, instead I think they should
1. Receive royal confirmation that as the people maintaining the road (or the representatives of the people doing so) they can levy tolls on the road
2. Pay some damages for the actions of their armsman even though they did not order him to do so.

I'm aware the write in I'm voting for won't win so I might make a variant where we also order House Forrester to pay for any dependents of the man they tortured to death though.
 
@Teen Spirit , I'm sorry to keep pinging you, but I think that a few fairly simple pieces of information could help us resolve some of the thorny aspects of the first and third cases.

1) In the first case, to be clear, is it, or is it not in dispute whether the dam was sabotaged by a Whitehill armsman? The Whitehills clearly deny ordering the dam to be sabotaged, but do they deny that the sabotage was done by one of their own men?

3) In the third case, the poacher was motivated by his own fields having been infested by some kind of rot. This leads to two obvious questions:
3a) From experience with this blight, does land normally recover from it, or is that land now worthless?
3b) Does the poacher own those fields himself, or are they property of some noble or landlord?

I'm looking for an excuse to avoid crippling this guy or sending him to the Wall and screwing over his wife and daughter, so whether he actually owns valuable property (which the wife and daughter would normally inherit) is relevant.
 
Last edited:
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall

On the first two cases, I agree wholly with Zimmerwald1915. On the third case, I think that while the poacher's panicked responses are sympathetic, the nature of the social contract here, and that sending the man's family to the Gift means that much harsher of conditions for them to struggle in, it would be both less kind than simply sending him to the Wall and less respectable to the Northerners.
 
TheBarrometer said:
This is not strictly true in a feudal society. I agree that in our society if say a shop worker on their time off robbed another supermarket their employer would not be liable unless they told them to do so, but this is not our society.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
. . . We're talking the common law of agency here. It's a literal feudal relic.
 
Looking at canon punishments for poaching, there may be a third acceptable option? Aside from losing a hand or having to take the black, forced labor is also mentioned. In particular being forced to serve as a rower in the royal fleet.

So there might be some sort of precedent for a type of menial labor as punishment.
 
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
@Teen Spirit , I'm sorry to keep pinging you, but I think that a few fairly simple pieces of information could help us resolve some of the thorny aspects of the first and third cases.

1) In the first case, to be clear, is it, or is it not in dispute whether the dam was sabotaged by a Whitehill armsman? The Whitehills clearly deny ordering the dam to be sabotaged, but do they deny that the sabotage was done by one of their own men?

3) In the third case, the poacher was motivated by his own fields having been infested by some kind of rot. This leads to two obvious questions:
3a) From experience with this blight, does land normally recover from it, or is that land now worthless?
3b) Does the poacher own those fields himself, or are they property of some noble or landlord?

I'm looking for an excuse to avoid crippling this guy or sending him to the Wall and screwing over his wife and daughter, so whether he actually owns valuable property (which the wife and daughter would normally inherit) is relevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I edited the Forrester conversation because I realized it contradicted itself.

Whitehill claims the man isn't theirs but "Sharp questioning" is considered legitmate by basically everyone so Rhaenyra does think there's good evidence he worked for the Whitehills

The blight that infested his fields was Ergot Fungus which means he saw his brother eat a loaf of tainted bred, trip out hard in the worst way and then rot away and die so that uh, effected his judgement.

Land is his.
 
[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
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
. . . We're talking the common law of agency here. It's a literal feudal relic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In no particular order:
1. Feudalism is not monolithic and was not unchanging, which is something I skimmed over myself. I do not disagree that after a certain date in England you are 100% correct. But you are not correct before that point, and you are not correct for many other feudal systems at various points in time.
2. To not levy a fine on House Whitehill for their armsman's actions is to encourage other houses to have loyal armsmen / those they have heavy leverage over to carry out their sabotage against rivals because we, as The Crown, are setting a precedent that that is ok. Its to say that the Blackwoods can have a peasant with a dying mother poison some Bracken fields and face no consequences.

Annnnndddd during the time that I have spent writing this OP has clarified / changed the post slightly and I am going to change my vote anyway so I guess our disagreement doesn't really matter lol. To say that he worked for the Whitehills is to accuse Lady Whitehill of breaking an oath before the court at this point, which eh.

[X][First] Side with the Whitehills and keep the tolls in place. Since the Boltons are the ones maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. Make it clear to the court that if, as the Forresters allege, a Whitehill armsman had hypothetically destroyed the dam, then the Whitehills might hypothetically be liable, even if the sabotage did not occur at their orders. However, it appears that the Forresters have destroyed the evidence of their own claim by killing the only witness in the process of trying to torture a confession out of him. While the Forresters' own word is not in doubt, it is now impossible to determine whether the dead saboteur was lying or telling the truth. As such, the court cannot hold the Whitehills liable for the destruction of the dam.
 
Teen Spirit said:
Whitehill claims the man isn't theirs but "Sharp questioning" is considered legitmate by basically everyone so Rhaenyra does think there's good evidence he worked for the Whitehills
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Perhaps if he was alive to give her his testimony. She could weigh his demeanor and judge if the torture merely loosened his tongue or if it put words in his mouth. But I really struggle to see her taking his confession at hearsay.
 
Last edited:
[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
 
TheBarrometer said:
2. To not levy a fine on House Whitehill for their armsman's actions is to encourage other houses to have loyal armsmen / those they have heavy leverage over to carry out their sabotage against rivals because we, as The Crown, are setting a precedent that that is ok.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think this sort of policy consideration, and the levying of criminal penalties, goes well beyond the actual civil dispute before us.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top