Remove ads

The Heir of the Dragon: A Rhaenyra Targaryen Quest

Reader mode
Imperious said:
Why would it look weak if we're still punishing the poacher? So long as the poacher is punished, what do the nobility care of how we spend a tiny bit of our money? It's not like giving alms to the poor is some unknown or frowned upon act in Westeros.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The nobilities' line if we spare the poacher is that we're an emotional girl affected by the sob story, and so we let the poacher go, and this is going to tell poachers that they are free to poach as long as they have a sob story.

The nobilities' line if we go out of our way to help the wife and child is that we're an emotional girl affected by the sob story, so we gave the poacher's wife and child more than they deserve, and this is going to tell any peasants that they can secure a stipend for their wife and kid by poaching + having a sob story.

They've got enough of the same shape that anyone who was expecting to be using the first line is going to be happy to use the second, and it'll sound reasonable enough because while charity is hardly unheard of, right now we're adjudicating a punishment, not giving alms, seeking to combine them is going to look weird.

That said, that's just my 2 cents, and I'd prefer if you were right.
 
hailcapital said:
The nobilities' line if we go out of our way to help the wife and child is that we're an emotional girl affected by the sob story, so we gave the poacher's wife and child more than they deserve, and this is going to tell any peasants that they can secure a stipend for their wife and kid by poaching + having a sob story.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The thing is, is that said would be poacher would have to be selfless enough to accept being subject to a heavy punishment in order to get their wife and kids a stipend they won't themself enjoy. Furthermore, the issue could probably be solved by just making sure that the stipend is smaller than what they would have had if they continued to have the poacher's labor. Its one thing to engage in a crime in order to get your family money, its another thing to commit a crime that even with the stipend will leave your family with less money thay they would have if you'd have been able to just stay at home working your job.
 
Right, now that I have time to spare

Teen Spirit said:
You were a bit unsure if House Whitehill even had the right to impose a toll in this situation. The nuances of the situation were rather unknown to you.

If you believed Lyanna and house Whitehill, then this was one house trying to use you to get out of a reasonable toll and score a political victory against a rival. If Brandon Forrester's claim was true than this was a clear act of sabotage if not outright warfare between two houses. But House Forrester's claim had no proof, only their word.

Both houses were held in respect. Both houses had reason to lie.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You know...

This is the sort of situation that Trial by Combat was made to resolve

Whether the arms man was actually one of Whitehills is effectively unknowable
Both parties are considered reputable and neither has ironclad evidence
All very "he said, she said"

Is there any particular reason we can't just tell them to put forward a champion to settle the matter of whether the armsman was one of Whitehill's or not @Teen Spirit?

While being careful to phrase this as not outright determining if Lyanna ordered the attack

The goal would be to try to settle the matter conclusively, but hopefully without escalating things
It's important then, to leave them both a bit of room

If the TbC determines Forrester is in the right then there's still room for this to be interpreted as a rogue actor rather than an act of war between House's, though Whitehill will have to pay some recompense for the actions of their armsman
And if Whitehill is in the right then Forrester aren't necessarily playing silly buggers to frame a rival, they may just have pointed the finger at the wrong guys

And then from there we can rule whether Whitehill needs to pay for damages or not
 
Last edited:
Teen Spirit said:
How Do You Rule in the Third Case
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I figure, we should sent this guy to the wall, but we should also do something to help this man's family.

[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.

I'm not sure about the third case.
 
Last edited:
Right, morning after, some good arguments and more info from OP, let me just update my entire voting slate:


[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.
OR
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.

EDIT: I have added an alternate I'd except for vote 1 based on not liking what is actually currently winning, yay for approval voting

[X][Second] Execute him.
OR
[X][Second] Write-In: 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: 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.
OR
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
 
Last edited:
Imperious said:
This is why I prefer the quests who have a moratorium on voting of several hours after the update hits. It allows some more time to talk things out about the votes rather than compelling players to immediately vote on something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Normally it's not needed because I've seen this thread change it's mind mid vote and I've rarely felt that an option won purely because it was out first. But this I will freely admit has been a learning experince because you guys, and I thank you for this, have been way more engaged with this particular vote then I expected.

So definitely going forward Judgements and a few other things are gonna have short Moratoriums.


CrimsonOddball said:
Is there any particular reason we can't just tell them to put forward a champion to settle the matter of whether the armsman was one of Whitehill's or not @Teen Spirit?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You could but generally the norm is the accused demands a trial by combat. Only reference I see to a ruler calling for a trial is well, King Joffery. But it does make sense in this situation so I'll allow it for a write-in.
 
Teen Spirit said:
Normally it's not needed because I've seen this thread change it's mind mid vote and I've rarely felt that an option won purely because it was out first. But this I will freely admit has been a learning experince because you guys, and I thank you for this, have been way more engaged with this particular vote then I expected.

So definitely going forward Judgements and a few other things are gonna have short Moratoriums.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
With how scattered the votes for the judgements are along with how a lot of the votes were made without full knowledge of the finer details, could it be possible to hold a revote that shows all the possible write-ins so far?
 
Here is where things currently stand

Adhoc vote count started by Teen Spirit on Jan 9, 2025 at 3:45 AM, finished with 215 posts and 54 votes.
[second] [first] [third]
  • 51
    [X] [Second] Execute Him
    [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][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][Second] Write-In: 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] [Second] Execute him and have a wergild paid to the families of the dead from his possessions.
    [X] [Second] 5 lashes with a whip
    [X] [Second] Remove his Tongue for High Treason and send him to the Wall for Murder
    [X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
    [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.
  • 50
    [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] [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.
    [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] [First] Side with neither, Reduce the Tolls by half
    [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.
    [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)
  • 50
    [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
    [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.
    [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] [Third] Give him the choice; the hand, or the wall.
    [X] [Third] The father is sent to the night watch, the daughter can become a servant at Winterfell or another castle if her mother agrees. The mother can follow her daughter, or stay on the farm.
    [X] [Third] Send him to the Wall. However claim that you will provide his daughter and wife with an appropriately sized stipend out of your own pocket to ensure they do not go hungry in the absence of his labor. Make sure that the stipend is not so large as to give the impression of rewarding poaching despite the harsh punishment set on the man himself.
    [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.
    [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)
Click to expand...
 
That seems fine to me, First is the worst off I think but most likely a lot of votes have a anti Whitehill and Boltons bias anyway.
 
Teen Spirit said:
You could but generally the norm is the accused demands a trial by combat. Only reference I see to a ruler calling for a trial is well, King Joffery. But it does make sense in this situation so I'll allow it for a write-in.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Asoiaf may treat Trial by Combat differently
The wiki saying that nobles and knights can always demand Trial by Combat and may never be refused really raises my eyebrow, for instance

Historically, Trial by Combat existed to resolve matters when a guilty party couldn't be readily determined
It wasn't really intended to be a "get out of jail free card" for nobles to employ when brought to court by a higher authority
If your guilt was considered obvious then you generally couldn't weasel your way out of it by demanding Trial by Combat
You could request it, but the person presiding over the trial determined whether to grant it or not

I don't know if "Trial by Combat is a thing that nobles and knights always have access to as a last ditch effort to avoid punishment" is really a thing in Westeros either, in practice
I feel like I could go searching for cases where the accused ought to have tried to go for Trial by Combat if that option really was available to them and something they had control over rather than the guy presiding over the trial

Like if a lord attempts a failed coup and gets formally tried for treason, it'd be really strange if they could demand trial by combat for something they are very obviously guilty of, and then potentially win and get off scot free to presumably do it all over again later
No ruler is going to entertain the idea of letting someone who just tried to overthrow them walk away, surely

Granted, Arnold basically just tried to do exactly that recently
But I saw that more as him managing to dangerously sway public perception due to Rhaenyra's inexperience giving him too much control over the narrative in the courtroom
She could have denied him Trial by Combat, but it would have risked making him a martyr at that point
Because he managed to weave a narrative that he was a doomed hero acting in the interests of the Vale
So we ended up in a position where the move was to entertain Arnold's demand for trial by combat, so that we could personally crush him and take all the wind out of the sails of his rhetoric

Plus Rhaenyra was furious to the point that she wanted to grant the request just so she could put him down herself


At any rate
[X] [first] Suggest that Whitehill and Forrester each put forward a champion to determine whether the armsman belonged to house Whitehill or not in trial by combat. If he is determined to belong to Whitehill then they have a responsibility for the actions of their armsman, even assuming Lyanna did not order it of him, and so must pay for the reconstruction of the dam. If he is determined to be unrelated to house Whitehill then they owe Forrester nothing.

I think this works, unless anyone notices anything I missed
 
Last edited:
I just really don't like the idea that litigants can be allowed to kill key witnesses before trial and receive no censure for it. For all we know the Forresters could be lying about what he actually said during his confession, and we wouldn't even be able to know because now we can't even question him to check because the Foresterrs killed him before the trial. It also means open season on witnesses who you can expect to make a testimony that's damaging to your case. For the Forresters and other would be litigants, If they think the saboteur might actually say that the Whitehills had nothing to do with the damage to the dam, then the Forresters have an enormous incentive to kill him before they can testify before the court. Same with litigants who witnesses may make a testimony that's damaging to their case. There's a reason why witness protection programs are a thing IRL.
 
CrimsonOddball said:
I don't know if "Trial by Combat is a thing that nobles and knights always have access to as a last ditch effort to avoid punishment" is really a thing in Westeros either, in practice
I feel like I could go searching for cases where the accused ought to have tried to go for Trial by Combat if that option really was available to them and something they had control over rather than the guy presiding over the trial
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Cersei's trial by the faith. She tries to request trial by combat but the high septon rules lawyers her by essentially saying her guilt has already been determined by an inquest and the confession of a sworn knight and they're moving directly to sentencing.

But that's treated as unusual. If not outright trampling on her rights.
Or Ser Duncan. He punched a prince in front of a crowd of witnesses and multiple kingsguard and he's able to claim a trial by combat.

Though in that instance the trial wasn't over whether he'd actually done so. But rather whether he'd been justified in doing so.

The prince couldn't refuse either. The most meaningful objection he could make being to demand it was a trial of seven as he was royalty.

Some minor legal tricks aside however. Once dunk demanded it he was practically guaranteed a trial by combat.
 
BoSPaladin said:
Cersei's trial by the faith. She tries to request trial by combat but the high septon rules lawyers her by essentially saying her guilt has already been determined by an inquest and the confession of a sworn knight and they're moving directly to sentencing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

She confessed to some of the crimes, she had committed (mostly fornication with the Kettleblack and Lancel) so she had to do the walk of shame.

Her upcoming Trial by Combat at the start of Winds of Winter is for the crimes she was accussed of but didn't confess to.
 
Last edited:
Thoughts on the rulings:

- confessions under torture are worthless, people will say whatever you want to hear, so the proof of sabotage is nonexistent
- the road might have been built by the kings of winter but it's clearly not currently handled as a Stark road, otherwise they would be the ones collecting tolls to pay for maintaining it
- the road still need maintained and I expect that duty has fallen to the houses it goes through, so zero tolls is unsustainable
- on the other hand, the clearest way to establish you haven't engineered a disaster is to not profit from it overly much. Reducing tolls to support your neighbours until they can rebuild from it rather than profiting from their misery would quell any doubt

Probably reduced toll until the dam is rebuilt in exchange for an apology for the unproven accusations?

Edit: apparently the Boltons maintain the road? If so it's up to them who gets tolled on it.

Anyway I think the current top votes are wrong headed, there's zero proof beyond a convenient story and a confession under torture, which we can't even verify because the witness is dead. It's just as convenient to assume the dam failed naturally and they grabbed a random vagrant to accuse.

Deny us evidence? Make our job harder? Sucks for your case.

Edit: updating to the main vote against the "evidence"

[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.

- not sure how trustworthy the witnesses are considering they would also have witnessed the insults and be on the edges of the brawl
- but this guy clearly fished for a fight, first punch or no
- kill 3 men with just your fists also doesn't really happen by accident. One on a lucky strike, yeah, but 3? Bit much for self defense.
- I don't think we can send him to the wall because this is the north and it's a honorable duty there, not a vile punishment
- 3 men are dead, I don't think we can just punish him for the speech. Even if he didn't throw the first punch they would be dead defending our house's honor, it's not nothing

I think we have to kill this guy, team.

[X] [Second] Execute Him

- this sucks
- anti poaching in this era is dumb noble privilege rather than good nature management anyway
- but we just can't do our royal job and not sentence him
- without the issue of the dependent family, the wall wouldn't be that harsh, northerners should be fine there and poaching isn't a crime that'll make you a problem for the watch
- but damn with how harsh farming in the north is it's brutal on the family

Could we send him to the wall but only after he has seen to his family's recovery maybe? They'll still struggle but at least they might be through the worst of their current situation.

I don't think I'll win a write in at that point though.

[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
 
Last edited:
I love how people keep bringing up the fact that confessions brought on by torture are useless as if the medieval society that has specific people whose whole job is to torture people believes that at all.

Torture is a perfectly valid and legitimate way to get a confession in this society, pretending otherwise is not only kind of dumb but also could completely delegitimize our point if we try and bring it up given everyone agrees that it's fine.
 
Last edited:
Annatar said:
I love how people keep bringing up the fact that confessions brought on by torture are useless as if the medieval society that has specific people whose whole job is to torture people believes that at all.

Torture is a perfectly valid and legitimate way to get a confession in this Society pretending otherwise is not only kind of dumb but also could completely delegitimize our point if we try and bring it up given everyone agrees that it's fine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doylist objections to torture aside, the Watsonian problem with what the Forresters did isn't that they tortured him, it's that they tortured him so hard that he actually died, making it so that we wouldn't be able to hear his testimony first hand or question him. If nothing else it means that Rhaenyra lost her chance to inflict her own torture on him in order to try to find the truth, and is now basically forced to take the Forresters own self serving description of the captive's interrogation at their word if she is to rule in their favor. Again, this would provide litigants with an enormous perverse incentive to kill witnesses whose testimony before court they think could be damaging to their case.
 
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.

[X] [Second] Execute Him

[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall

Pretty much being simple and to the point with the last two cases, but A LOT more of thought must be put by assuming both are speaking the Truth but having lacking Evidence to make their respective positions superior to the other.

Pretty much neither gets a W

PS: Well, Whitehill only gets forced to pay Half the Dam. Have Forrester not killed the subject, Whitehill would have been forced to pay full with some extra.
 
Last edited:
Annatar said:
I love how people keep bringing up the fact that confessions brought on by torture are useless as if the medieval society that has specific people whose whole job is to torture people believes that at all.

Torture is a perfectly valid and legitimate way to get a confession in this Society pretending otherwise is not only kind of dumb but also could completely delegitimize our point if we try and bring it up given everyone agrees that it's fine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's why I approached it from the other end. 'Torture works, except it works too well and they'll confess to anything.'
 
BoSPaladin said:
It's why I approached it from the other end. 'Torture works, except it works too well and they'll confess to anything.'
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's the same thing as saying it doesn't work and is exactly why we, in our modern understanding of the world (something these people lack), don't torture people anymore.
 
BoSPaladin said:
It's why I approached it from the other end. 'Torture works, except it works too well and they'll confess to anything.'
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Torture is Lawful in Westeros. Besides, there are lots of minor houses even in the North. To put forward the name Whitehill must be because is truth. Is just a matter we have no Evidence against that claim
 
F.I.M.M.98 said:
Torture is Lawful in Westeros. Besides, there are lots of minor houses even in the North. To put forward the name Whitehill must be because is truth. Is just a matter we have no Evidence against that claim
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We have no evidence one way or another. Torture being legal and torture being a good way to acquire evidence are two completely different things. All we have is their word that the guy confessed before they killed him. He could be a random bandit they grabbed to pin a natural collapse on for all we know. It's not like we can cross examinate him.

Do they even have any other evidence it was sabotage and not natural failure? Because I think they're just bullshitting, personally.
 
[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] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
 
I don't get what we get from sending him to farm for the watch rather than serve in it. We look weaker to the lords and he still won't be able to help his family, so everyone loses.
 
[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] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
 
Nyvis said:
I don't get what we get from sending him to farm for the watch rather than serve in it. We look weaker to the lords and he still won't be able to help his family, so everyone loses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top