Crime and punishment (discussing how to mete out punishment.

Theomore Tullison wrote:

Lady Corrine Marsten wrote:

Theomore Tullison wrote:Wait? The Dulvers executing prisoners?

Yeah. They're stealing your act.

I suppose people only gives a shit when it's Theomore doing nasty things

Well, it's a reputation you cannot deny cultivating, dear. :;
):

Kevan Lyras wrote:You should see the positive Theo: Your character is important enough for most of us to care about what you do, which is not the case for some upstart mercenary killing anyone :;
):

Indeed - there's also a question of style. With Theomore everyone suspects a plot or cunning scheme.

A mad old Dulver lopping off heads clearly didn't fill the PCs with the same brooding, considered menace.

To be fair, the Septon did try and stop him IC by having him promise not to kill anyone... That's why he handed the dagger to his whoreson to kill him lol.

Reader, if you wanted to move that thread to the iron mines that would be fine. Nothing we talked about in there is unknown information any more

Theo's exploits tend to directly involve people from other Houses.

Raynald was just a violent asshole, in a setting choking in violent assholes.

If Gwyn had even met him, she'd have hated him. But since his assholishness didn't affect her, or anyone in her circle, directly...she would simply hate him from afar.

That was, by the way, pretty much her intention towards Theomore too until he dragged her into things, though she didn't hate him.

btw, as a complete aside, everytime I read your name I read it was Gwyneth paltrow despite her having nothing to do with the situation

Hehe, I actually considered using her as a character model.

Reader wrote:Indeed - there's also a question of style. With Theomore everyone suspects a plot or cunning scheme.

A mad old Dulver lopping off heads clearly didn't fill the PCs with the same brooding, considered menace.

As I said to Prince Oberyn. If someone sets their hunting dog on a member of your family, you don't blame the dog, you simply kill it and move on to the master.

Septon Arlyn wrote:To be fair, the Septon did try and stop him IC by having him promise not to kill anyone... That's why he handed the dagger to his whoreson to kill him lol.

Reader, if you wanted to move that thread to the iron mines that would be fine. Nothing we talked about in there is unknown information any more

Can you link me up please, I'm lazy and have been posting all day.

And I'm trying to listen to a football match (British meaning) on the radio.

Any other secret threads that can become public are very welcome.

Nathaniel Mason wrote:

Reader wrote:Indeed - there's also a question of style. With Theomore everyone suspects a plot or cunning scheme.

A mad old Dulver lopping off heads clearly didn't fill the PCs with the same brooding, considered menace.

As I said to Prince Oberyn. If someone sets their hunting dog on a member of your family, you don't blame the dog, you simply kill it and move on to the master.

That's why ya gotta do your own dirty work, less loose ends.

Samurel Manderly wrote:I rather enjoyed his very brash, abrasive, abusive, rude, condesending, and down right evil character.

as did I

Ser Jorah Holt wrote:

Samurel Manderly wrote:I rather enjoyed his very brash, abrasive, abusive, rude, condesending, and down right evil character.

as did I

Thirded. And he was actually ok with Corrine once he knew who she was.

OOC I was fine with him. IC, I'd have treated him like decades-old nitroglycerin.

Gwyneth Drakeson wrote:OOC I was fine with him. IC, I'd have treated him like decades-old nitroglycerin.

Understandable.

I've dropped him a quick PM letting him know that while we understand he has his own game to run and this one may/may not have suited him, people enjoyed the PC.

Jon Cobb appreciated a similar message in the past and I hope that crazy old Dulver does too.

Gwyneth Drakeson wrote:OOC I was fine with him. IC, I'd have treated him like decades-old nitroglycerin.

As did Theomore

Reader wrote:I've dropped him a quick PM letting him know that while we understand he has his own game to run and this one may/may not have suited him, people enjoyed the PC.

Jon Cobb appreciated a similar message in the past and I hope that crazy old Dulver does too.

funnily, that game I mention has both of them in it now

First off: Great summary from Baelon, however, nitpicking incoming.
I underlined parts that I'm nitpicking on, for ease of refrense.

Baelon wrote:We the undersigned, acting upon the authority granted unto our represented houses by His Grace, King Viserys Targaryen, First of His Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Protector of the Realm, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Defender of the Realm, do hereby declare that the following is a true and accurate accounting of crimes committed by Houses Bracken and Blackwood, and a fair and just punishment to be meted out for the same.

Isn't Rhoynar what the king got from qonquering Dorne? In that case he is not yet king of Rhoyne, and saying that he is would be taken as a grievious slight to the dornish.

Baelon wrote:
Blackbuckle may be more heinous than the assassination in general, but from the perspective of Westerosi society, I think the murder of nobles would be considered worse than the massacre of smallfolk...

Or we could make a statement, starting from the worst and starting with Blackbuckle. That will appease the ones looking out for the weaker in the society. It will also send a clear statement that farmers should not be involved in powerplays.

Baelon wrote:Let it be known that these crimes were committed by members of House Bracken and House Blackwood:

there are several mentioned not from either house.

Baelon wrote:Ser Steffon Vance and Ser Rufus Bracken, with the aid of various lesser men, did plot and execute the assassination of Lord Bryan Blackwood and his lady wife.

Who? We should perhaps make a full list of conspirators, and mention whom is still alive for punishment.

Baelon wrote:Maester Arran of House Blackwood, without the knowledge or authorization of others, did poison the well of the village of Blackbuckle, ending countless innocent lives as well as the lives of various Bracken soldiers and torturers, for the purpose of ending the suffering of Blackwood soldiers held captive and tormented there.

House Bracken soldiers, acting dishonorably without the knowledge or authorization of their superiors, did attack a merchant caravan from Dorne for the purpose of personal profit.

Do we know that it happened without knowledge or consent? Both of those would be hard to pull off without anybody noticing...
Also should we mention purposes? The thought matters, but it's not something that we should be talking about, actions are done regardless of the logic behind it. Also torturers are rare, most likely it was just soldier treating each other badly. Torturers would have to be on the payroll of someone very high up.

Baelon wrote:
Ser Tyron Blackwood did lead a regiment of Blackwood Cavalry in the salting of fields in the vicinity of Warrior’s Seat.

Both House Bracken and House Blackwood did fortify their respective iron mines, depriving the crown of vital resources for the war in the Stepstones. Upon attack by House Bracken, soldiers of House Blackwood did fire the supports of the Blackwood mines in an attempt to render the Bracken attack profitless.

Perhaps add that both lord Blackwood and Bracken condemns these actions

Baelon wrote:


Both House Bracken and House Blackwood did violate the borders of their lands with House Darry, with House Blackwood using Darry lands as a point of refuge and staging ground for attacks and House Bracken, pursuing their attackers, did cause damage to Darry lands and holdings.

Lord Benjicot Blackwood, having recently been orphaned, did in his grief order an attack from under a flag of mourning upon Bracken troops.

Let it be noted that the sacking of the Septry at Battle Valley, previously thought to have been the work of House Blackwood, was found to have been the work of base brigands, operating under the auspices of Ser Olyvar Lucas.

It's uncertain whether this damage is of the magnitude of Darry claims. So when we know that we should probably add a clause of either damning Darry for abusing the situation for profit or applauding them for not abusing the situation.
Add that Benjicot regrets his actions.
We need to know how to include Olyvar. Setting in a third party will be another weakness to a already shambling report where we have taken way to big liberties, perhaps it would be best to add a part on how Olyvar lucas should be judged by the king, old Viserys will like being recognised as the power behind this all.

Baelon wrote:
For the second part, punishment, I intend to have four sub-sections:
Punishments applied to both houses
Punishments exclusive to House Bracken
Punishments exclusive to House Blackwood
Condemnations of other parties (Lord Gorman, Ser Olyvar, etc. suggestions welcome)

If someone wants to tot up some totals, that would be most helpful.

Perhaps avoid condemning third parties, it will only lead to more people opposing us.

So my suggestion for the draft:

We the undersigned, acting upon the authority granted unto our represented houses by His Grace, King Viserys Targaryen, First of His Name, King of the Andals and the First Men, Protector of the Realm, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Defender of the Realm, do hereby declare that the following is a true and accurate accounting of crimes committed by Houses Bracken and Blackwood, and a fair and just punishment to be meted out for the same.

Maester Arran of House Blackwood, did poison the well of the village of Blackbuckle, ending countless innocent lives as well as the lives of various Bracken soldiers.

Ser Steffon Vance and Ser Rufus Bracken, with the aid of (a whole list of men), did plot and execute the assassination of Lord Bryan Blackwood and his lady wife.

House Bracken soldiers, acting dishonorably, did attack a merchant caravan from Dorne. Haigh Bracken condemns these actions.

Ser Tyron Blackwood did lead a regiment of Blackwood Cavalry in the salting of fields in the vicinity of Warrior’s Seat. Benjicot Blackwood condemns these actions.

Both House Bracken and House Blackwood did fortify their respective iron mines, depriving the crown of vital resources for the war in the Stepstones. Upon attack by House Bracken, soldiers of House Blackwood did fire the supports of the Blackwood mines in an attempt to render the Bracken attack profitless. Both Haigh Bracken and Benjicot Blacwood condemns these actions.

Both House Bracken and House Blackwood did violate the borders of their lands with House Darry, with House Blackwood using Darry lands as a point of refuge and staging ground for attacks and House Bracken, pursuing their attackers, did cause damage to Darry lands and holdings. (Add a clause on Darry either abusing the situation or not, depending on what our investigation shows)

Lord Benjicot Blackwood, did order an attack from under a flag of mourning upon Bracken troops.

Let it be noted that the sacking of the Septry at Battle Valley, previously thought to have been the work of House Blackwood, was found to have been the work of base brigands, operating under the auspices of Ser Olyvar Lucas. As he is outside the sphere of influence the king Viserys in all his wisdom has granted us, we ask for the king himself to decide this man's fate.

Much of this is nitpicking, and your suggestion was much better written than mine :;
):

Fie on those who call it nitpicking: I say it's evidence of players engaging and caring about the setting.

Helping where I can here, but much of this is for players to debate and me to sit back and watch.

Nerd Alert: if we're to believe the "
World of Ice and Fire"
history book (as it's supposed to be a maester's account), the Targaryen Kings have always been styled as "
King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm"
. The text itself notes this is done pre Dorne's submission: the "
Seven Kingdoms"
and "
the Rhoynar"
elements aren't accurate in fact, but they're a claim. Medieval Kings did similarly at various points. [reference: p 45 of "
The World of Ice and Fire"
. Leaving this out isn't wise. :;
): The eagle eyed will notice I included the Rhoynar claim in the original letter from the king (I had to look it up to check how the Targaryens styled themselves at this point).

Who? question
Steffon Vance (Bracken master of arms, Ser Rufus Bracken was his alleged accomplice (both listed on NPC page). The latter is now deceased, his body presented to the Marstens as a scapegoat. Steffon Vance has been arrested, as have his co-conspirators (Sandor and Arthur, lowly guardsmen) in the Blackwood assassination. Don't worry if you missed this, lots going on.

"
Do we know that it happened without knowledge or consent?"
- that's the way the evidence you lot have recovered is pointing, but you're free to make accusations. Basically if you don't absolve the commanders and say (rightly or wrongly) "
we got the right man"
it's a dangerous loose end for people wanting to go higher up the food chain in future to claim high status scalps.

Darry claims on damages: good point Yoren. They may be lying. Ser Kevan and Ser Jorah have interviewed Wyll Bracken and are able to confirm/dispute the Darry estimate if desired. Damning/praising Darry I leave up to you lot, but right to bring it up.

Benjicot's regrets: good point. He made a formal apology that was recorded and witnessed.

Including Olyvar: a weakness or a strength, up to you lot. Judging Olyvar is definitely within the scope of your powers: his sins are noted in the original royal proclamation (but nobody knew it was him then!). You can still punt it to Viserys if you like and find out what he makes of it.

Other 3rd parties beyond Ser Olyvar Lucas: Lord Tully eh? Cackle. Many of you have IC reasons to leave it in/out. Enjoy fighting over it.

Well done again to everyone for devoting efforts to this.

Yoren longshore wrote:First off: Great summary from Baelon, however, nitpicking incoming.
I underlined parts that I'm nitpicking on, for ease of refrense.

Thanks, and I'm good with nitpicking. It's a necessary evil for crafting a high-quality product. Also thanks for the underlines, it makes things much easier.
I had actually thought about many these issues, so I can address them quickly and easily.

Yoren longshore wrote:

Baelon wrote:We the undersigned, acting upon the authority granted unto our represented houses by His Grace, King Viserys Targaryen, First of His Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Protector of the Realm, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Defender of the Realm, do hereby declare that the following is a true and accurate accounting of crimes committed by Houses Bracken and Blackwood, and a fair and just punishment to be meted out for the same.

Isn't Rhoynar what the king got from qonquering Dorne? In that case he is not yet king of Rhoyne, and saying that he is would be taken as a grievious slight to the dornish.

I had thought so as well, but:
1) I copied and pasted out of the King's Missive from Reader
and, more importantly,
2) GRRM used that style for Aegon II in The Princess and the Queen

I don't know why that style is used in this era, but it is (it may have been a copy/paste error by GRRM, for all I know).
Thus it would be a grave insult to the King to leave it out.

Yoren longshore wrote:

Baelon wrote:Blackbuckle may be more heinous than the assassination in general, but from the perspective of Westerosi society, I think the murder of nobles would be considered worse than the massacre of smallfolk...

Or we could make a statement, starting from the worst and starting with Blackbuckle. That will appease the ones looking out for the weaker in the society. It will also send a clear statement that farmers should not be involved in powerplays.

To be honest, the ones we need to appease more are the ones looking out for nobles (including, notably, those looking out for their own interests primarily). I don't think a document like this, being created ostensibly under the King's auspices, is a good place to make sweeping social commentary. None of us have the social/political capital (i.e. Influence/Status) to get away with something like that.

Yoren longshore wrote:

Baelon wrote:Let it be known that these crimes were committed by members of House Bracken and House Blackwood:

there are several mentioned not from either house.

I don't see any, except the note about Olyver Lucas. That was intended to be more of a postscript to the list rather than a part of it. I think bulletpoints might be in order to make that delineation clear. Or maybe I just am overfond of bulletpoints. Were you thinking of Ser Steffon Vance, Maester Arran, etc.? Though they are not members of the family, they are members of the house.

Yoren longshore wrote:

Baelon wrote:Ser Steffon Vance and Ser Rufus Bracken, with the aid of various lesser men, did plot and execute the assassination of Lord Bryan Blackwood and his lady wife.

Who? We should perhaps make a full list of conspirators, and mention whom is still alive for punishment.

I'm not sure that we really have a full list, and would not wish to imply that we hold any individual in particular to be innocent by failing to list them. Further, we should again keep our target audience in mind - notably, the King. He does not care about some nobody guardsman that was operating under orders, it is the nobles/ringleaders that matter here.

Yoren longshore wrote:

Baelon wrote:Maester Arran of House Blackwood, without the knowledge or authorization of others, did poison the well of the village of Blackbuckle, ending countless innocent lives as well as the lives of various Bracken soldiers and torturers, for the purpose of ending the suffering of Blackwood soldiers held captive and tormented there.

House Bracken soldiers, acting dishonorably without the knowledge or authorization of their superiors, did attack a merchant caravan from Dorne for the purpose of personal profit.

Do we know that it happened without knowledge or consent? Both of those would be hard to pull off without anybody noticing...

Perhaps I should change it to "
no foreknowledge, consent, or authorization"
- that's a bit closer to what I meant... and that is what the testimony we have received indicates. If you want to argue that the superiors in the respective houses did know (in advance), consent, or authorize, that is a significant charge and would need to be backed up with evidence.

Yoren longshore wrote:Also should we mention purposes? The thought matters, but it's not something that we should be talking about, actions are done regardless of the logic behind it. Also torturers are rare, most likely it was just soldier treating each other badly. Torturers would have to be on the payroll of someone very high up.

Hypothetical scenario: Lord A kills Lord B. With one set of intentions, it is murder. With another, it is a 'justified' battlefield killing. With another it is self-defense. Intentions are as important as the act - indeed, many philosophers hold that intentions are an intrinsic component of actions, and cannot be separated from them. More importantly, I know of no legal system that does not consider motivations.

Yoren longshore wrote:

Baelon wrote:Ser Tyron Blackwood did lead a regiment of Blackwood Cavalry in the salting of fields in the vicinity of Warrior’s Seat.

Both House Bracken and House Blackwood did fortify their respective iron mines, depriving the crown of vital resources for the war in the Stepstones. Upon attack by House Bracken, soldiers of House Blackwood did fire the supports of the Blackwood mines in an attempt to render the Bracken attack profitless.

Perhaps add that both lord Blackwood and Bracken condemns these actions

Well... they condemn them after the fact. Unlike Blackbuckle and Pennytree though, I'm not sure we actually have testimony or evidence that the respective lords did not have foreknowledge/authorize/consent.

Yoren longshore wrote:

Baelon wrote:Both House Bracken and House Blackwood did violate the borders of their lands with House Darry, with House Blackwood using Darry lands as a point of refuge and staging ground for attacks and House Bracken, pursuing their attackers, did cause damage to Darry lands and holdings.

Lord Benjicot Blackwood, having recently been orphaned, did in his grief order an attack from under a flag of mourning upon Bracken troops.

Let it be noted that the sacking of the Septry at Battle Valley, previously thought to have been the work of House Blackwood, was found to have been the work of base brigands, operating under the auspices of Ser Olyvar Lucas.

It's uncertain whether this damage is of the magnitude of Darry claims. So when we know that we should probably add a clause of either damning Darry for abusing the situation for profit or applauding them for not abusing the situation.

I intentionally did not include magnitude. Our findings are somewhat equivocal on what happened, so I am avoiding taking a hard stance on who is at fault or what the magnitude of the situation was. Either House Darry was welcoming of the Blackwoods or they were too weak to defend their borders. I doubt they want either in this document.

I will add a bit about Ser Tyron leading the raids from Darry lands, though.

Yoren longshore wrote:Add that Benjicot regrets his actions.

Whether or not he regrets it is immaterial to the crime itself. I can elaborate "
in his grief"
to "
in his grief and with the impulsiveness of youth"
or something like that.
Benji's regret is relevant in terms of appropriate punishment, but that's the next section. (I need to get on that...)

Yoren longshore wrote:We need to know how to include Olyvar. Setting in a third party will be another weakness to a already shambling report where we have taken way to big liberties, perhaps it would be best to add a part on how Olyvar lucas should be judged by the king, old Viserys will like being recognised as the power behind this all.

I don't think it is wise to tell the King that he should do anything. Actually, rereading the missive, we were charged to 'punish the guilty'. It does not specify only Bracken and Blackwood... Looks like Olyvar Lucas is back in the mix.

Yoren longshore wrote:

Baelon wrote:
For the second part, punishment, I intend to have four sub-sections:
Punishments applied to both houses
Punishments exclusive to House Bracken
Punishments exclusive to House Blackwood
Condemnations of other parties (Lord Gorman, Ser Olyvar, etc. suggestions welcome)

If someone wants to tot up some totals, that would be most helpful.

Perhaps avoid condemning third parties, it will only lead to more people opposing us.

Now that Lucas is back in the mix as a guilty party to be punished, that leaves Lord Gorman. Even then, we could consider him guilty of being negligent;
there's no way he could have been unaware of the feud, which means he did not do enough to prevent it from flaring up again. That would eliminate this section altogether... though punishment of Lord Gorman would be beyond our station - our houses are all (in theory) on the same social tier as the Blackwoods and Brackens (though of course the social reality is that they are more influential);
Lord Gorman however is a Lord Paramount.... and that is why we would be merely condemning him, not judging him.

Unless of course we want to start condemning each other for our deeds and misdeeds during the investigation, but I really don't think any of us want to go down that rabbithole, do we?

EDIT: and now I see Reader's comments. Largely in line with what I said.

Reader wrote:
Including Olyvar: a weakness or a strength, up to you lot. Judging Olyvar is definitely within the scope of your powers: his sins are noted in the original royal proclamation (but nobody knew it was him then!). You can still punt it to Viserys if you like and find out what he makes of it.

He does mention Olyvar could be included as it is part of the original royal proclamation and part of the official investigation, so I think some mention if it's even in passing should be made, of course it's up for discussion, but I doubt House Lucas will give much opposition and hang him out to dry for his sin.

Who? question
Steffon Vance (Bracken master of arms, Ser Rufus Bracken was his alleged accomplice (both listed on NPC page). The latter is now deceased, his body presented to the Marstens as a scapegoat. Steffon Vance has been arrested, as have his co-conspirators (Sandor and Arthur, lowly guardsmen) in the Blackwood assassination. Don't worry if you missed this, lots going on.

I have to add the servant traitor of house Blackwood who sold out his lord. He is in my custody and has to hang for his crimes (name escapes mw right now, will have to look it up)

Kevan Lyras wrote:

Who? question
Steffon Vance (Bracken master of arms, Ser Rufus Bracken was his alleged accomplice (both listed on NPC page). The latter is now deceased, his body presented to the Marstens as a scapegoat. Steffon Vance has been arrested, as have his co-conspirators (Sandor and Arthur, lowly guardsmen) in the Blackwood assassination. Don't worry if you missed this, lots going on.

I have to add the servant traitor of house Blackwood who sold out his lord. He is in my custody and has to hang for his crimes (name escapes mw right now, will have to look it up)

Terry. He has a son (Unforgiven style: "
I was building a house?"
.

viewtopic.php?f=175&
t=1939

Let justice be done.

Quick question, who deals with survivors from the Peacemaker's combats? Would they fall in our treaty/jurisdiction?

We could hand Ser Olyvar over to Lord Haig

Kevan Lyras wrote:

Who? question
Steffon Vance (Bracken master of arms, Ser Rufus Bracken was his alleged accomplice (both listed on NPC page). The latter is now deceased, his body presented to the Marstens as a scapegoat. Steffon Vance has been arrested, as have his co-conspirators (Sandor and Arthur, lowly guardsmen) in the Blackwood assassination. Don't worry if you missed this, lots going on.

I have to add the servant traitor of house Blackwood who sold out his lord. He is in my custody and has to hang for his crimes (name escapes mw right now, will have to look it up)

Oh absolutely agree that he should be hanged. Again though, we're not going to list out every single servant and soldier that participated in these crimes... but that doesn't mean that we aren't going to punish them.

Another point I meant to respond to but overlooked while writing my other various responses:

Yoren longshore wrote:Also torturers are rare, most likely it was just soldier treating each other badly. Torturers would have to be on the payroll of someone very high up.

Torturers are unfortunately far less rare than we might wish. In the sense of being a dedicated job title, perhaps they are as rare as you are indicating. I am instead using it in the original sense of "
one who performs the act of torture"
... and yes, in this case they were on the payroll of House Bracken.

There is no Geneva convention in Westeros. Prisoners of war are often mistreated in various ways, up to and including torture. Heck, even people accused and waiting trial are typically locked in a deep dark cell with little to eat and no opportunities for hygiene or dignity. If that's how potentially innocent people are treated, why expect any better for prisoners of war, unless they be of high enough status to warrant ransoming? Even that does not guarantee any sort of proper treatment. It may be cruel, despicable, and unjust, but it is neither uncommon nor illegal.