Re: Crime and punishment (discussing how to mete out punishm

[Nathaniel Mason]

Apologies for any typos or formatting weirdness, this is a phone post.

You must have a blackberry. I hate to even tweet on my phone.

OOC: My objections are more philosophical or procedural than political. I too would like to see this shake out IC. I am only raising the red flag to note that the PCs do not have any more or power than their status would indicate by virtue of their 'special snowflake' status. As Master of Laws, Ironrod has immense power over legal proceedings, second only to the King. That should not be forgotten simply because he is an NPC.

IC: If the red comet were to suddenly appear and crash into the area (after we are gone) and wipe out both House Blackwood and Bracken (with the added bonus of Prince Aemond if possible), Nathan would shrug and say 'the Seven work in mysterious ways'. Even with the collateral damage of innocent smallfolk, Westeros would probably be much better off in the long run.

[Yoren longshore]

1 We should risk it if we don't want to be seen as blatantly over-punishing Ser Tyron. Seriously, a fine alone is not going to be enough to get him to take the black, and forcing him into exile/the wall would be far out of line with the normally expected leniency towards nobles.

So it is allright to send a random knight to the wall, but not right to punish wrongdoers? What is right about sending a random knight instead of someone who has legitimately done something wrong.
If you wish to not say somebodys name in the treaty can't we go even more specific and say that he has to have a name that rhymes with Byron?

2 To be clear, having either Haig or Wyl go to the wall is a benefit for long-term peace because it would lead to the next generation of these houses having been raised essentially as siblings in a relatively hate-free environment. IC I have no desire to see either of them go to the wall

So don't send them to the wall. If Tyron can be dealt with elsewise why start a mock guess who before sending him up there?

3 You are forgetting Ser Colyn.

Yes, I forgot about him... It is nice to be able to send him to the wall, regardless of the fact that we have found no dirt on him.

But perhaps it is best to end the OOC debate on this and move it to the IC realm where your suggested changes can be voted on, and I can stop being responsible for/tyrannical about the text. It's posted above, anyone can copy &
paste it in to the other thread. As I said before, Baelon-the-character has no authorial connection to this document.

Should we just say that Daveth has done it? Then there is still the cred going to you indirectly;
)

[Baelon Drakeson]

well technically the salting of the warriors seat was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak that lead to the peasant rebellion. Not to mention trying to involve a secondary house in the conflict through dishonorable tactics... I think that we have enough on him to exile him. Unless the Darries withdraw their claim.

But I can only argue OOC as the making of the treaty was set for EA... and I am at the answering the dulvers insult

I'm sure that was an oversight and one thread or the other can be moved, its been done before.
Tell me though- do you really want to mention the uprising and bring even more pain down on the smallfolk? We only barely got Prince Aemond to refrain from torching the place. Bringing it up again could undo that and lead to Blackbuckle several times over...

Apologies for any typos or formatting weirdness, this is a phone post.

You must have a blackberry. I hate to even tweet on my phone.

OOC: My objections are more philosophical or procedural than political. I too would like to see this shake out IC. I am only raising the red flag to note that the PCs do not have any more or power than their status would indicate by virtue of their 'special snowflake' status. As Master of Laws, Ironrod has immense power over legal proceedings, second only to the King. That should not be forgotten simply because he is an NPC.

I have a 2+ year old crappy LG 'smart'phone. I hate to type on it, but I am a 2hr drive from my computer with some time to kill and a power outlet.

As for ironrod, it's not that we are PC's and he isn't, it's that we are operating with the voice of the king - a double edged sword to be sure. Our proclamation carries the weight of the King's power, but if the King is unhappy with it, we will be getting a huge royal smackdown, likely in the form of massive influence hits.

1 We should risk it if we don't want to be seen as blatantly over-punishing Ser Tyron. Seriously, a fine alone is not going to be enough to get him to take the black, and forcing him into exile/the wall would be far out of line with the normally expected leniency towards nobles.

So it is allright to send a random knight to the wall, but not right to punish wrongdoers? What is right about sending a random knight instead of someone who has legitimately done something wrong.
If you wish to not say somebodys name in the treaty can't we go even more specific and say that he has to have a name that rhymes with Byron?

2 To be clear, having either Haig or Wyl go to the wall is a benefit for long-term peace because it would lead to the next generation of these houses having been raised essentially as siblings in a relatively hate-free environment. IC I have no desire to see either of them go to the wall

So don't send them to the wall. If Tyron can be dealt with elsewise why start a mock guess who before sending him up there?

3 You are forgetting Ser Colyn.

Yes, I forgot about him... It is nice to be able to send him to the wall, regardless of the fact that we have found no dirt on him.

But perhaps it is best to end the OOC debate on this and move it to the IC realm where your suggested changes can be voted on, and I can stop being responsible for/tyrannical about the text. It's posted above, anyone can copy &
paste it in to the other thread. As I said before, Baelon-the-character has no authorial connection to this document.

Should we just say that Daveth has done it? Then there is still the cred going to you indirectly;
)

1) Tyron is named. We can't force it without possible repercussions, but we can recommend it.

2) see point #1 (and my response to Nathan previous in this post) for why I wrote it in such a circumspect way.

3) I seriously doubt that Ser Colyn would volunteer to leave his young son behind and go to the wall, and that's even assuming that Ser Tyron decides to trust Lord Haig with his son's life... which I find unlikely.

Authorship - Daveth can claim credit if he so chooses. Gwyn as well. It's up to them though. They may not feel it is sufficiently in-character for them.

[Yoren longshore]

Perhaps Gwyn or Daveth could alter it slightly to give it a prope IC feel for them? Then we can simply vote the new document as we go.

[Septon Arlyn]

Well... If you feel like we are lacking the teeth in the document for exile we can bring in the rebellion being sparked by Tyron.

I'm just saying we have enough for exile, it just depends if we want to use it or not

[Baelon Drakeson]

[quote="
Septon Arlyn"
]Well... If you feel like we are lacking the teeth in the document for exile we can bring in the rebellion being sparked by Tyron.

I'm just saying we have enough for exile, it just depends if we want to use it or not[/attack]
I see your point, but then you are blaming him for the unforeseen and unintentional consequences, and its hard to really pinpoint any one event as the primary cause of the wildfire attack. It feels disingenuous to put it all on one person's shoulders.

Also, I may have missed it, but why are you so keen on exile? It's even rarer than the Wall as a punishment. I believe most of the exiled characters in the books fled from other persecution, not as a judgement for a crime.

[Septon Arlyn]

Prince Daemon targaeron was exiled frequently due to his inappropriate behavior towards the king. Exile is pretty common in westerous actually, it just is not used in the books frequently.


I think it is the cleanest solution we have for the Tyron problem. It gets him away from Lord Blackwood, Does not kill him, strips him of his status, and is not forcing him to go to the wall. If we combine exile with the "
threat"
of squiring his son to Lord Haig/ Ser Wyl, but say that he will be forgiven for his crimes and son will not be squired if he takes the black.

exile could also be termed as sending him on a mission to the stepstones/ or to go live among the brothers and learn to live in peace

its also pretty common his history, the romans even had specific laws about it [url:1lk7tz13]https:
//en.
wikipedia.
org/wiki/Porcian_Laws[/url:1lk7tz13]


From what I have ready most people want him to go to the wall, yet there is the thought that it is too harsh a punishment for a status 4 individuals who have committed the crimes he has. Exile, while depriving him of his family (what most of us want) is not permanent (like the wall) nor allow him to simply ignore it (like mere fines), Yet it also allows him to gain glory / wealth / influence for his house (from holdings / working for the king in the stepstones / as a diplomat ect.)

The exile is simply short hand for saying "
you can not come back for 10 years under pain of death"

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

There's a perfectly good IC thread for folks to argue in, by the way. :;
):

[Baelon Drakeson]

Prince Daemon targaeron was exiled frequently due to his inappropriate behavior towards the king.

That's really more like being kicked out of your brother's house for making offensive personal jokes about your brother's family at a house party. You can call it exile, but it wasn't a legal judgement for a crime, per se.

Exile is pretty common in westerous actually, it just is not used in the books frequently.

I'm not sure what basis we have other than the books to determine what the frequency and precedence of exile as a legal punishment is.

its also pretty common his history, the romans even had specific laws about it [url:36nc1roh]https:
//en.
wikipedia.
org/wiki/Porcian_Laws[/url:36nc1roh]

Oh sure, though history is mixed. In ancient Greece it was considered a harsher punishment than death.
Really though, real-world history (especially outside the middle ages that the setting is based on) has little relevance to Westeros.

I think it is the cleanest solution we have for the Tyron problem. It gets him away from Lord Blackwood, Does not kill him, strips him of his status, and is not forcing him to go to the wall. If we combine exile with the "
threat"
of squiring his son to Lord Haig/ Ser Wyl, but say that he will be forgiven for his crimes and son will not be squired if he takes the black.

exile could also be termed as sending him on a mission to the stepstones/ or to go live among the brothers and learn to live in peace
<
snip>

From what I have ready most people want him to go to the wall, yet there is the thought that it is too harsh a punishment for a status 4 individuals who have committed the crimes he has. Exile, while depriving him of his family (what most of us want) is not permanent (like the wall) nor allow him to simply ignore it (like mere fines), Yet it also allows him to gain glory / wealth / influence for his house (from holdings / working for the king in the stepstones / as a diplomat ect.)

Except I'm not so sure that exile is any more appropriate a punishment for his crimes than taking the black is. The precedent is that nobles typically only get fined for crimes that don't involve the death of other nobles, treason, or are considered particularly heinous (such as Ser Jorah Mormont selling people into slavery). For Ser Tyron's crimes, fines are the appropriate punishment (by precedent). Even the squiring of his son is a bit harsher than typical, but I'm hoping that it would be seen more as an element of a peace treaty, in which it would be appropriate. Actually, if we are going to force them into a peace treaty, it would be great in there (with an explicit clause nullifying it if he has taken the black).

The exile is simply short hand for saying "
you can not come back for 10 years under pain of death"

I'm honestly not so sure that ten years is long enough. It might be enough to spare Lord Benjicot, but that's just kicking the can down the road to the next generation.... and I doubt Ser Tyron would mellow in ten years of exile. If anything, he will blame the Brackens for his exile and become even more hateful.

There's a perfectly good IC thread for folks to argue in, by the way. :;
):

Very true! Though some of this discussion is explicitly OOC (particularly discussing whether or not exile is a common punishment) and thus is more appropriate here.

[Yoren longshore]

its also pretty common his history, the romans even had specific laws about it [url:2ob890ld]https:
//en.
wikipedia.
org/wiki/Porcian_Laws[/url:2ob890ld]

Oh sure, though history is mixed. In ancient Greece it was considered a harsher punishment than death.
Really though, real-world history (especially outside the middle ages that the setting is based on) has little relevance to Westeros.

I know we should shift the thread to IC, but I add this here as this is just a tangent of no relevance to the peace treaty: If you look up ostracism it was actually partially viewed as an honour and a necessity for the state. It has only gotten a negative connotation later down the line. Their ostracising was an exile, but though it tore you away from your loved ones, it was positive.

[Baelon Drakeson]

For ease of reference and a sense of where things stand, here are the strawpolls with human-readable links and current standings.
Polls with a clear majority (4+) have the winning option in bold.

1. [url=Require a member of both houses to take the black?][/url]
   
   No (4)
   Abstain (1)
   Yes (0)
   
   [/*2qud72xv]
   
2. [url=What revenue of the mines should be paid?][/url]
   
   All revenue to the crown (4)
   Revenue of the two mines that was fighting (0)
   Revenue should go to local rebuilding (0)
   Revenue to the houses (0)
   
   [/*2qud72xv]
   
3. [url=What to do with Tyron Blackwood][/url]
   
   Exile (4)
   Hefty fine (2)
   Take the black (0)
   Nothing (0)
   
   [/*2qud72xv]
   
4. [url=Should Haig pay for his men robbing the caravan?][/url]
   
   Parts of it, he should keep his men on a tighter leash (3)
   Yes (2)
   No (0)
   
   [/*2qud72xv]
   
5. [url=Should the Blackwoods pay for the salted fields?][/url]
   
   Yes (4)
   Partially, Tyron should have been kept on a shorter leash. (1)
   No (0)
   
   [/*2qud72xv]
   
6. [url=Should we go after Olyver Lucas?][/url]
   
   Yes (4)
   Yes, but we should do it separately from the treaty (1)
   No (0)
   
   [/*2qud72xv]
   
7. [url=25% of House Fortune income must be for Lands, Population, or Wealth (only if earmarked for the relevant holdings)][/url]
   
   Yes (5)
   No (0)
   
   [/*2qud72xv]
   
8. [url=Half income must either be used on law or on rebuilding constructive buildings][/url]
   
   Yes (5)
   No (0)
   
   [/*2qud72xv]
   
9. [url=Punishment for Steffon Vance][/url]
   
   Kill him (4)
   Exile (1)
   Send him to the wall (0)
   set him free (0)
   
   [/*2qud72xv]
   
10. [url=Punishment Maester Arran][/url]
    
    Kill him (5)
    Strip him of his chains in addition to the rest. (4)
    Send him to the wall (0)
    let him go (0)
    
    [/*2qud72xv]
    
11. [url=Humprey Piper will be removed from command and fined][/url]
    
    Yes to both (2)
    Killed. (2)
    Just fined (1) [3]
    Just removed from command (1) [3]
    Set free (0)
    
    [/*2qud72xv]
    
12. [url=Dorne should be kept out of the treaty][/url]
    
    Yes (3)
    No (1)
    Merchants from Dorne may be used, but not Dornish merchants (1)
    [/*2qud72xv]

Moving forward:
(1) I motion that the punishments that would be entailed by 4 &
5 (Bracken pays for Pennytree attack, Blackwood pays for salted fields) be considered covered by the clauses referenced in 7 &
8 (income to law/rebuilding). That keeps it simple and means we don't need to debate #4, which does not have a clear majority.

(2) We need to talk more about Pennytree. Notably, both Ser Humphrey Piper and the Dornish merchants need to be discussed, as neither 11 nor 12 have a clear majority.

If we can OOC agree to (1), then we can just discuss Pennytree, plus any non-crime &
punishment matters we want in the treaty (weddings, wardings, &
whatevers).

I will IC start the pennytree discussion, as someone has to. I am going to assume that there has been some general chatter about the issues and thus that we are all IC aware of the options being debated (i.e. those in the strawpolls, other options may be brought up as well). In the meantime, if anyone has any objections to the motion in (1), post it here so we can figure out if we need to hash it out IC or just move on.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Sounds fine to me.

[Kevan Lyras]

I have no vote IC, but I agree with Baelon

[Yoren longshore]

I'd want 4 and 5 to come in addition, if not it will be no punishment...

[Baelon Drakeson]

I'd want 4 and 5 to come in addition, if not it will be no punishment...

50% of their income for 10 years is no punishment?

In that case, Id like 50% of your income, please.

[Yoren longshore]

You get what I'm saying. It's no punishment earmarked for that one crime.

[Kevan Lyras]

That depends on the wording...

[Baelon Drakeson]

All that takes is to add something like "
For the destruction wrought by the attacks at Pennytree, the salting of the fields at Warrior's Seat, the battle at the mines and various other unlawful events, Houses Bracken and Blackwood shall ..."
into the clause about the income restrictions.

We want to punish these houses and force rebuilding, not drive them into the ground so the Strongs and others are inspired to start a new war.

[Yoren longshore]

No, the 50% is there to help them rebuild. The 50% is a guideline to help promote peace. The 50% benefit the house, looting a caravan should not benefit the house. That should be paid to the caravan master. Salting someones field should not benefit those that salts the field, it should be paid as reparation to the farmers whom lost their fields.

[Ereth Redwain]

The fields belong to House bracken, not the smallfolk that work them.

A rather decent repayment it should be for those lands.

[Septon Arlyn]

Or... We could have them both pay into a fund to help relocate small folk who have been hardest hit by the fighting, to help them rebuild their lives or move to a different Lord's lands...

Just a comment from the peanut gallery :8-):

[Baelon Drakeson]

No, the 50% is there to help them rebuild. The 50% is a guideline to help promote peace. The 50% benefit the house, looting a caravan should not benefit the house. That should be paid to the caravan master. Salting someones field should not benefit those that salts the field, it should be paid as reparation to the farmers whom lost their fields.

There's no one left to repay. All the fines you are talking about would end up going right back into the rebuilding effort, just like the 25% clause.
Fining extra would just increase the 25% for the first year - clunky and unnecessary, and quite possibly damaging to the houses.

[Yoren longshore]

It's not meant to help the houses, it's meant to help the people damaged. Bracken should pay to the merchants, or if the merchants are all dead it should go to their families. Same with Blackwood, only it should go to peasants.

[Septon Arlyn]

Or... We could have them both pay into a fund to help relocate small folk who have been hardest hit by the fighting, to help them rebuild their lives or move to a different Lord's lands...

Just a comment from the peanut gallery :8-):

It's not meant to help the houses, it's meant to help the people damaged. Bracken should pay to the merchants, or if the merchants are all dead it should go to their families. Same with Blackwood, only it should go to peasants.

Under "
normal"
circumstances large amounts of money only go to the "
ruling"
class as peasants are not allowed to own property. That is until the invention of charters for townships, then wealthy individuals could own parcels of land as divided out by the towns leaders.

One of my hair brained schemes I never got around to testing out is to have the village of blackbuckle become a chartered township from the king, releasing it from its oath to the Bracken's and ensuring that it was a free settlement (kinda like market town) but I just never got around to it.

Here is some in world information about towns that almost became cities thanks to charters

[url:1nw6jlkd]http:
//awoiaf.
westeros.
org/index.
php/Fairmarket[/url:1nw6jlkd]

[Yoren longshore]

Then it'll go to the Brackens and the Martells, they are the ones that deserves to be compensated, not the attacker.

[Sponsored content]