- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Anything involving a legal argument will entail literal lawyering and there will always be a period of questioning and brainstorming.
The Heir of the Dragon: A Rhaenyra Targaryen Quest
- Location
- Canada
As Rhaenyra herself notes, if it was just words then she knows her father would be inclined to mercy
But he's being held responsible for the deaths of 3 people
It's the murder that's the main sticking point, rather than sedition
And claiming that the Royal family are all thrice damned abominations who's blood should not be allowed to pollute the north is sedition, not some idle chatter
Also, he says it was self defense and that he didn't throw the first punch
But we only have the words of a man who was drunk at the time that this was the case
And the testimony of half a dozen others who are saying that he's lying (or incorrect because he was drunk)
I can't see a reason to not execute him honestly
Besides the thread shying away from stress
But Rhaenyra getting used to killing people is something she has to do if she's going to be a knight
[X] [First] Write-in: House Whitehill as a vassal of House Bolton is allowed to levy tolls on the road given their previous maintenance work and the lack of documentation provided by House Forrester. However, the levy must be set at a reasonable level that is comparable to other road tolls levied in the North. House Whitehill is responsible for the actions of its armsmen and must provide recompense to House Forrester. The recompense shall be set at half the cost of repairing the dam. Any further actions against the dam or similar infrastructure by House Whitehill or servants of House Whitehill will face significantly more harsh punishments as decided on by House Stark.
[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
- Spain
It depends mostly on the kind of vote...
If it is like the previous Update, in which we only have to choose between a few option no moratorium works fine... But a vote like this one, in which Write-ins are very encouraged I think that a 24-48 hour moratorium would help us
- Location
- United States
Idk this line of thought seems to be rather weirdly vacillate between treating the fact that kings who have ruled over Westeros have wanted to fuck their sisters as something that puts them in some kind of protected minority group when they literally rule Westeros, while also admitting that the whole thing is insane but pretending that we desperately need to murder people about it to maintain our power because otherwise it might possibly be a problem generations down the line.
There's a really obvious way to not have any sort of generational building issue on this which is just to quit it with the incest. Seriously, in a generation or two of it just not happening, nobody is going to care, and the targs intermarrying with the noble families of westeros who in turn all intermarry with each other would mean that everyone has a stake in saying to let the past lie.
Rhaenyra's internal monologue seems to take him at his word, which leads me to believe that he did not actually throw the first punch (and that it was actually self defense, and not murder), and that everyone else is lying because he's clearly going down for the treason thing, and this just makes the case cleaner and makes sure they won't get stuck with a slap on the wrist for breach of peace or something.
And again (and this is to @Simon_Jester as well) I'm not saying to let the guy go or declare him innocent - we're still sending him the Wall, which is an alternative for a capital offense and levying a fine on him on top of that and declaring that regardless of the truth officially he started it and is at fault. That's not letting him off with a slap on the wrist or the kind of thing that would encourage others to feel free to say similarly. It's just not being maximally evil about the whole feudal lord thing.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
[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
The logic of sending him to the Wall is implicitly stating that the crimes of him and the Poacher are equal.
If that vote goes through it's gonna look like this
Poacher: "Please, the rot took my farm and my brother! I didn't want my family to starve, my daughter is only 8 years old!"
Merchant: "Fuck you and your entire family line. Your father, the King, is an abomination and his dirty blood runs through you. Also I'm responsible for the death of three people but I was drunk lol."
Rhaenyra: "Yep, these two are about equally guilty."
Also, the fine is meaningless, pretty sure if he gets sent to the wall as punishment all of his items are repossessed anyway.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Uh, no, because the problem here is that what the guy actually said wasn't "it's fucked up how the Targaryens kept marrying brother and sister and they should just never do that again."
It was "because the current Targaryens are children of incest, their blood itself is tainted and they are unfit to rule/be present."
That's not a potential problem for generations down the line- well, it is, but it's also a problem right now. There have already been major revolts against the Targaryens where "as children of incest they are unpersons who don't deserve to rule or even be around" was a primary argument advanced by the rebels.
Even if the current Targaryens stop the incest right now (note that Viserys I is now married to someone outside the family), that doesn't change the fact that Viserys I, the currently reigning king, had parents who were brother and sister, or that Rhaenyra's parents were first cousins. If, by this guy's actual direct if drunken argument, being born of incest makes you "tainted" and invalid as a person or as a potential ruler, that affects Viserys and Rhaenyra right now, and it affects anyone descended from them too.
Rhaenyra, being a teenager, does not have a ton of experience with figuring out when people are making lame excuses to her. Especially with people who probably have more experience with lying and not getting called out on it than she does.
The thing is, by Westerosi standards it's normative to send people to the Wall or execute or mutilate them for, basically, armed robbery or other crimes of similar severity.
This is the kind of thing that a state that's going to go on being ruled by Targaryen monarchs has to treat more seriously than it would normally treat, say, "I'm a persistent serial poacher." Because it's not only that this guy started a riot more or less, it's that he started it by saying something that if everyone were saying it would probably force the Targaryens to hop on their dragons and kill tens of thousands of people if they even wanted to stay alive, that or flee Westeros entirely and hope nobody came after them with a navy.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I should note from Rhaenyra's prespective the man confessed to slandering her father but insists he didn't throw the first blow. so he's basically admitting to Sedition but denying Murder, which is not how most would handle it.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Honestly yeah, that's weird.
Yeah, I'm actually really nervous about us coming across looking like a loony over this, and to make matters worse, a loony who is forgiving of attempts to subvert her throne.
This is the kind of thing that might make Viserys seriously nervous about us being his heir, because he may be wondering if we'd be able to keep the Iron Throne for any real length of time. That may be paranoid of me, but I come by the concern honestly.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Though, do First Cousins even count as incest in Westeros?
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I don't know, but the level of sedition we're dealing with here is "it doesn't matter if they do or don't, because your dad's parents were brother and sister, which means you are tainted just from being descended from him!
- Location
- United States
We don't actually have the evidence of "he confessed under torture" though. All we actually know is that the Forresters say he confessed under torture. It's not just that evidence gained by torture can be inaccurate, it's that he might not have even confessed and the Forresters could be lying about that, and have killed him to make sure he couldn't contradict this.
Like, hell, if the Forresters took a totally random peasant off their own lands, dressed him up in some armsmen getup, murdered him and then claimed he was a Whitehill armsmen who totally confessed to sabotaging the dam and also confessed that he was a Whitehill armsmen... what actually looks different?
Regardless, I'm not sure what proof that he wasn't a Whitehill armsmen would look like.
This does not count as incest in Westeros, Tywin was first cousins with Johanna and it was a nonissue. It is disingenuous to be bringing this up.
It is also normative to send people to the Wall for treason. It happen very frequently, and very repeatedly, and we literally just personally did that as a punishment for treason.
There are characters like "Biter" and known murderers in the people going to the Wall in ASOIAF. This is not a punishment that is reserved only for lighter crimes, it is a generally recognized alternative to execution for crimes that are of sufficient severity to warrant execution.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I will say the Forrester Maester was there for the confession. Even Lady Whitehill does not dispute that they acquired the confession, just that it has any truth.
- Location
- United States
Thanks for that clarification.
I think my broader point holds that even if medieval law is confused about where burden of proof falls, that doesn't actually change how it works, and I'm straight up not sure what people think proof that he wasn't a Whitehill armsman looks like, unless it's running through their finances and seeing if they have him on payroll. But like if he isn't, that's not proof he wasn't a Whitehill armsman, since they could have just kept him off the books.
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
A part of Targaryen incest is also limiting the proliferation and spread of Dragons outside of the family, IE don't give other people nukes. Which the fact that multiple lines of children are going to have Dragons is a major cause for why the Dance is going to occur. Additionally Viserys being a huge Old Valyria weeb, makes him a bit more likely to continuing the incest streak with his coming children with Johanna, like he allowed in the Original Timeline. Though also it just seems many of the Targaryen's are just quite into the practice, which I'm for trying to counteract as much as we reasonably can.
If it does then no one seems to care since Ned Starks parents were first cousins.
prometheus110
Join Cayman-Global & be part of the 1E-9 percent!
- Location
- La Ballena City Raft
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[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
[x] [Second] Execute Him
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
- Pronouns
- He
[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
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
When we're queen we can just forbid people who are not our heir from trying to claim dragons. Or keep everything between a main and a cadet branch. The "we need to keep the dragons in the family" and all of the other rationales for Targaryen incest are not actually good reasons, they're post-facto rationales mostly made up by fans who missed the point and for whom it is their magical realm or who like the idea of the "the dragon does not mate with beasts of the field." The actual in-universe reason the Targaryens practice incest is because Aegon wanted to fuck his sister, and then later Jaehaerys also wanted to fuck his sister. This is not Chesterton's Fence, we know why it is there and it is not a good reason.
But I'm not trying to relitigate Targaryen incest right now. My point is just that we do not literally have to murder someone about it.
This is actually a very bad argument for the death penalty. It would be a decent argument that the poacher deserves a more lenient punishment - something I'd hope most of us think - but unfortunately the poacher is the one on which our hands are the most tied. The legal precedent is the most clear there.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
To be clear, Targaryen Incest was the norm well before Aegon, it was apparently something regularly done by Dragon riders in the Freehold because the Freehold was full of weirdos who did messed up stuff.
- Location
- Who knows?
Yeah but in my defense I will gesture towards show!Laenor deciding to fuck off of from Westeros and that Laena technically has more material reason do say "screw your political ambitions dad," due to the whole "could and hypothetically did die from bad pregnancy," thing.
[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.
[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.
Meta says the Whitehills probably did do Some Shit, but at the same time I like setting "dude try to keep the dude alive???" precedent for how to submit Torture as Evidence. Unfortunately I don't think we'd can somehow overturn how accepted it is but "don't just kill them and say they totally said XYZ favorable for you," seems to be a small step in the right direction.
[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.
I like the Wergild. Also I agree giving him and the poacher the same punishment (since Wall is winning there) is kinda eh and authorizing people saying "you shouldn't rule due to your dirty.blood," seems like a real bad idea. Even if I think the incest should die in a fire.
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
[X][Third] Write-In: 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.
We can maybe have some relative softness here as a treat?
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Well, it wouldn't be out of the question for the Whitehills to have an actual list of everyone who's their armsman, and be able to confirm that they're all still alive. Such a claim could be fabricated, but it could also be investigated, and conceivably a matter for perjury accusations that would at least ruin their reputation and potentially do much worse if Rhaenyra or the Starks ever find out.
If nothing else, the Forresters really ought to be able provide the name of the guy they tortured to death- if they got him to confess to being a Whitehill armsman they must have SOME name for him. And it could be followed up on- either the Whitehills are or are not known to have such a man, either he is or is not dead.
If the Whitehills aren't even trying to do any of this, or can't make a beginning of it, then it means one of two things. One possibility is that they'd be hard pressed to provide convincing proof that their armsmen are all accounted for. Say, they'd have to say something like "oh yeah, there's that one Jocko, who, uh, totally deserted a week before the dam broke and we have no idea where he is..." and it turns out that Jocko is the one who sabotged the dam.
The other possibility is that they came to court woefully underprepared to support their own case. They presumably knew the nature of the accusation and have had at least a reasonable length of time to gather evidence, given the way the Starks operate. If they had the chance to do so and haven't been able to put together anything that would at least weaken the Forresters' claim to have caught one of their armsmen sabotaging a dam... Then frankly, they deserve to forfeit a money pile, for stupidity if nothing else. Because that's what happens when you show up with no evidence in your defense in a civil claims court when someone has levied a claim against you. Which fundamentally is what this is- the Forresters are triyng to sue the Whitehills for damages.
[shrug]
It's not disingenuous, I just forgot. Or are you trying to tell me you have a perfect memory?
And it doesn't address my actual point, which is that the actual claim being made by this guy is that descendants of the brother-sister marriages of the early Targaryen Dynasty are inherently tainted, regardless of whether they themselves engage in incest. Note that I haven't called you disingenuous for not addressing this.
The underlying problem here, the real reason we can't just send him to the Wall, is that the guy openly said something that, if it became a common socially acceptable thing to say, would mean NO member of the Targaryen dynasty has a right to rule or even to be present in the Seven Kingdoms.
It depends on who you're sending. We might send someone to the Wall for treason if it would be politically damaging to execute them.
But if we're going to use the Wall as a punishment for treason we cannot turn around in the same breath and use the Wall as our punishment for comparatively petty crimes as well. What this guy did, I know it doesn't come across this way if you live in a republic with freedom of speech but in the context of his society, what this guy did was both to cause three homicides and to raise what amounts to a banner of revolution against the Targaryens, and his only defense is "I was drunk and I'm sorry" now that he got caught.
At this point the only reason to commute his sentence to the Wall is ideological opposition to the death penalty, and we're not going to be able to play Rhaenyra sustainably as someone who's that opposed to the death penalty.
If "I had to feed my starving daughter after our crops failed" can't keep you off the Wall and off the chopping block at the same time, then "I was drunk" really, really shouldn't be able to.[/I]
BoSPaladin
The Paladin
By that logic the next time a cattle thief steels a sheep the whitehills could torture him and have him confess to being a forrester man. Or a targaryen man. And while they're at it why not have him confess to stealing a whole flock of sheep and a batch of dragons too.
Ultimately, torture doesn't get reliable confessions.
[X] [First] Write-in: It's clear that the 'evidence' obtained at the point of a knife from a bandit is suspect. No doubt once the brigand was put to the question he would claim anything in the hopes that it would end the questioning. Were such flimsy evidence reliable it would be cause for war, given Lord Forrester has started no war he clearly sees how such flimsy claims from a bandit are less than reliable and has chosen to limiting himself to claiming coin for the damages wrought. Damage with no proven responsible party. Still. A bandit did the deed of destroying the dam which caused damage to Forrester land. Damage for which they deserve recompense. The road was allegedly built for the use of both houses, but no evidence or records of such exist. Despite this the road lies on Whitehill land and they are responsible for it's upkeep, thus a toll for it's use seems reasonable. What is not however reasonable is raising the toll to take advantage of ones fellow nobles plight. The tolls charged to House Forrester Stand. They will pay them. And the coin shall go directly to The Lord Paramount of the north to go towards the reconstruction of the dam. Thus forth, the Lord Stark and his house Shall be responsible for the upkeep of the whitehill road and the levying of any fair tolls for their use. Until and unless that he or his duly appointed representative is convinced that it can managed fairly. We suggest their fair and honourable conduct be reviewed in two years. (Subject to QM approval)
The whitehills may or may not have the right to levy tolls on their roads. Assuming that they do they clearly took advantage nonetheless.
Forrester will be out the cost of the tolls so he'll complain, but at the same time the whitehills will lose access to the tolls (but also the responsibility of maintaining it) for a suggested span of 2 years. End result is that the whitehills get the road back and are more reasonable in the fees they charge in future. Further, if it was them that ordered the dam be damaged they don't benefit from it.
Maybe it was whitehill. Maybe the forresters just assumed it was them and tortured the guy until they got the answer they wanted. There's no real way of knowing. But both deserve a rebuke and to be told to be kinder to one another.
Second case.
"I said what I said, but I never wanted a fight. I tried to calm things down. They threw the first punch."
... Then he's a fool. Words are wind. And the charge of treason alone might see him dead in our fathers court or if our honoured uncle were there to hear his own parents insulted so. but putting aside the charge of treason. And even accepting that others threw the first punch. But it's not unreasonable to say it was his words which started the brawl. Once could be an accident. Twice bad luck. But now three men lie dead at his hands. And a half a dozen witnesses to say it was not self defence.
[X] [Second] Write-in "With three men dead at your feet do you have anything else to say in your defence?"
-[X]If he pleads for the Wall then allow it. Otherwise execute him.
The wall is traditional, if one requests it, any man may be spared the gallows or executioners axe. And yet with three men dead, any repentence from him short of serving the realm can only be met with death for the three murders he carried out. A drunken brawl might lead to an accident. But thrice and with witnesses saying otherwise means the claim of self defence is dubious. One so skilled at such ought have pulled his punches, or been more disciplined than to start the fight in the first place, and he did start it, despite others throwing the first punch. Men owe loyalty in a chain up to their king. And any man defending the honour of their liege would have reasonable cause to throw a punch.
True, if punched, one might also have reasonable cause to respond to such. Obligated, in fact in the case of knights. But to end the matter with not one, not two, but three deaths is beyond the pale and can only be considered murder.
[X] [Third] Write-in "The punishment is intended to ensure you don't steal again. Your farm is blighted, easy enough to return that to the Lord Paramount for him to bestow it on another. Congratulations on hunting the buck. You'll serve your lord with both hands as an archer, until your service has paid off the worth of the buck. And the rations the soldier spared you. Your wife can't handle the farm alone and your daughter can't be allowed to starve. Your wife and child will be employed by the lord Stark, to serve his guests, work in his kitchens, cook and clean. (Subject to QM Approval)
The third case is simple in my opinion. An emergency and immediate threat to life. Extreme action is justified. One cannot be punished for the criminal act since he acted to prevent greater harm. But Lord Stark is entitled to the value of the buck. The farm is worthless and blighted. And he can't run it with one hand, nor his wife alone, thus it's clear he cannot remain a farmer, else he or his wife no doubt would steal again to prevent their daughter from starving.
And so. The only option is for him to repay the lord stark with Service. Wife and daughter for them they've got no repayments to make so they'll have work to ensure they're fed .
- Location
- Up ya bum!
Taking land from poaching seems pretty extreme to me. This could set a precedent, we are a princess with the backing of a Great house. This could give nobles the excuse to fake poaching crimes against the peasants to increase their lands. Or other ideas.
Last edited: