Sending someone to the wall, and the powers of a Lord

[HelgiBergmann]

I'm running a game set in 150 AL, in an alternate timeline, where two PCs who are bannermen of House Stark, yet have lands in the Riverlands, have come to Lord Stark to try to get him to join a plot to overthrow the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands. They failed to convince Lord Stark to join this venture. I have decided that Stark feels he cannot let them go, if anyone ever hears that he let them go freely after speaking treason against the crown the repercussions would be disastrous for House Stark. So Stark has decided that he must sentence his loyal, if ambitious bannermen to the wall, to shield himself against allegations of treason (Stark is in a precarious position, he lost against the King in a civil war, and the King holds Stark's heir as a ward, and has little reason to trust him to begin with).

So, how does one go about sending someone to the wall? Do you just proclaim it? "I, Bob, of House Stark, hereby sentence you to serve in the Night's Watch for all your days"? What if the person you're sentencing is a Lord, as in our case? Do you need to let his family know?

And how does a Lord's right to pit and gallows work against other nobles? I get that a Lord could, as I see it, sentence any commoner to any punishment, if it occurs on his lands, but what about other nobles? Can Lord Tannis send Lord Royce to the wall if Lord Royce misbehaves at a banquet? What are the limitations? In our game we decided that a knight who had behaved dishonourably at a Tournament could be sentenced by the Lord hosting the Tournament on his lands. And what about if a Lord hears about another Lord's treason against their common Liege Lord? Can the first Lord punish the other, or must he take it to the Liege Lord?

[DaimosofRedstone]

Pits and Gallows does not apply to nobles.
Nobles have a de jure right to court of their equals. So the Lord Stark would get some bannerman together, equal or superior in rank to those he is condemning, and preferable with no stake in the verdict.
Then the case is heard, the bannermen can defend themselves and then the verdict is passed.
But just 'sending them to the wall' is a thing you can do in war or emergency but if you at least try to keep up appearances you need a court.

[nakraal]

As I get it from the cultures/law section of the campaign book there is no written law. It's just the word of the lord. A man can just judge and convict another on the spot but its common sense he must have the power to carry out the punishment. His only restrain is the power of the convict. Joffrey can have this bard's tongue ripped off with no opposition, but when he will have lord Stark beheaded a civil war breaks out.

I'd say that typically a liege lord can force his personal law over his subjects and his vassal lords but even then can't a vassal lord force his if he has the power?

In your case lord Stark has can summarily convict the pcs to the wall and have them escorted by some guard's there or throw them to the dungeon's waiting the next recruiting train of the brotherhood to pass from Winterfell, and the only thing which could halt him would be if the pcs have power enough to cause him trouble.

[coldwind]

For the record, Tyrion, when acting as the Hand, sent a few men up to the wall, at least one of which was a Lord, without resorting to trial.

Sure, it was a bit shady, but there were no direct repercussions (although that may have been because 1. he's failry adept at what he does, 2. the lord in question was decidedly not, and 3. as the Hand, he was essentially acting with the King's authority, even if the King didn't know what he was doing (see 1. and 2.)

[DaimosofRedstone]

As I get it from the cultures/law section of the campaign book there is no written law. It's just the word of the lord.

There is no written law, but that does not mean that there is only the lords word. There is tradition and precedent.
Things are done as they have always been done.

I'd say that typically a liege lord can force his personal law over his subjects and his vassal lords but even then can't a vassal lord force his if he has the power?

He can force it over his peasants, but since he is never more powerful than all his vassals combined he cannot force them.
Once he forces something on one of his vassals he has potentially establish the first precedent to force it on ALL of them which will lead to blowback.

[Eisen]

For the record, Tyrion, when acting as the Hand, sent a few men up to the wall, at least one of which was a Lord, without resorting to trial.

Sure, it was a bit shady, but there were no direct repercussions (although that may have been because 1. he's failry adept at what he does, 2. the lord in question was decidedly not, and 3. as the Hand, he was essentially acting with the King's authority, even if the King didn't know what he was doing (see 1. and 2.)

The Lord Tyrion shanghaied had only been a lord for a short time (weeks, months?) No skill or powerbase at all to draw on. Plus I don't think Tyrion told anyone what he was doing untill Slynt was half way to the wall

[nakraal]

There is no written law, but that does not mean that there is only the lords word. There is tradition and precedent.
Things are done as they have always been done.

Agreed but in the end a lord can by pass traditions if he is strong enough. If his son for example rapes a peasant girl he can decide there is no punishment, but of course then the peasants might rebel and if they do not they may be agitated to rebel on the next provocation.

He can force it over his peasants, but since he is never more powerful than all his vassals combined he cannot force them.
Once he forces something on one of his vassals he has potentially establish the first precedent to force it on ALL of them which will lead to blowback.

The fact is that in most cases the vassals will not react, at least not all of them. Every lord has the law in his hands but he must judge the side effects of each of his decisions. Some might just have no opposition, some will cause some distress and a few will lead to a rebellion.

Regarding the "take the black " situation above I dont think that he will have to face a rebellion because he takes an unfair decision. On the other hand lord Stark (Eddard's grandfather I guess?) would more probably warn the pc's that "he will hear no more of traitorous words" and that the next time they will bring the issue back "they will be dressed in black and send to the wall", before just actually doing it.

[DaimosofRedstone]

The fact is that in most cases the vassals will not react, at least not all of them. Every lord has the law in his hands but he must judge the side effects of each of his decisions. Some might just have no opposition, some will cause some distress and a few will lead to a rebellion.

Regarding the "take the black " situation above I dont think that he will have to face a rebellion because he takes an unfair decision. On the other hand lord Stark (Eddard's grandfather I guess?) would more probably warn the pc's that "he will hear no more of traitorous words" and that the next time they will bring the issue back "they will be dressed in black and send to the wall", before just actually doing it.

There is a lot of space between doing nothing and raising up. The lord depends on his vassals for most of his taxes, for most of his troops. If the vassals adopt the time honored tradition of doing as little as they can still get away with, they can get the lord in pretty hot water without doing something illegal themselves.

[Gurkhal]

In the end the fact that lord Stark has more swords than the two rebellious bannermen should mean that he can do with them as he pleases.

[DaimosofRedstone]

In the end the fact that lord Stark has more swords than the two rebellious bannermen should mean that he can do with them as he pleases.

Only if he has more swords then them AND everybody who might take offense at his actions.

[Gurkhal]

In the end the fact that lord Stark has more swords than the two rebellious bannermen should mean that he can do with them as he pleases.

Only if he has more swords then them AND everybody who might take offense at his actions.

Only if those who take offense are so pissed that they will take to open rebellion to prevent self-declared traitors and rebels to go free. My guess is if that at least one major Houses would be ready to stick out its neck for them nothing will come of it.

By the way, what kind of bannermen are they? Major banner or or minor? I guess petty lords but you never know.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Only if those who take offense are so pissed that they will take to open rebellion to prevent self-declared traitors and rebels to go free. My guess is if that at least one major Houses would be ready to stick out its neck for them nothing will come of it.

By the way, what kind of bannermen are they? Major banner or or minor? I guess petty lords but you never know.

No, you are seeing that to black/white. Only because a vassal is not willing to storm your castle does not mean that they are happy and reliable.
Only because they don't attack you, does not mean that you should not be careful to annoy them.

If giving them a kangaroo court prevents both the embarrasment of sheltering traitors and molifys the vassal then why risking shipping them just off?

[Gurkhal]

Only if those who take offense are so pissed that they will take to open rebellion to prevent self-declared traitors and rebels to go free. My guess is if that at least one major Houses would be ready to stick out its neck for them nothing will come of it.

By the way, what kind of bannermen are they? Major banner or or minor? I guess petty lords but you never know.

No, you are seeing that to black/white. Only because a vassal is not willing to storm your castle does not mean that they are happy and reliable.
Only because they don't attack you, does not mean that you should not be careful to annoy them.

If giving them a kangaroo court prevents both the embarrasment of sheltering traitors and molifys the vassal then why risking shipping them just off?

Firstly I agree with you that just because the vassals are not in open rebellion the ground can quickly get shaky beneath the lord's feet, and many small streams can form a river.

But I think that the main problem for the lord Stark will remain. How can he make sure that he is not associated with these rebels, who are conspiring against Lords Paramount of the Riverlands, without taking a heavy punishment on them? If they agree with conspiring against lord Tully then what is there really to do except, at best, take away a significent ammount of lands from the Houses or exile the lords themselves?

As I see it the news about the conspiracy will make the lord Tully very interested in what happens and what is done and if its to obviously a smoothing over by lord Stark the lord Tully might be suspecious about it. Now matter how I would think that the traitors will need to be punished severely if lord Stark will avoid to get doubts thrown on himself.

And obvious kangaroo court could in my eyes be even more damning than just telling the lords to shut up, as a court like that will draw attention to itself.

[HelgiBergmann]

Hey, OP here.

A lot of really good posts.

The bannermen in question are a lord of a minor house, and the brother (and heir) of another minor lord. Their only significance to Stark is that they are his only bannermen stationed outside the North, we are playing in the Riverlands, and the Chronicle book set the precedent for having bannermen outside of your domain.

I agree with most of the arguments laid forth here. The reason I lean heavily towards Stark sending them to the wall is indeed that it would be disastrous if this news of his releasing potential traitors got out. If these bannermen were some of Stark's closest friends among lords he would perhaps trust them enough to keep this foolishness quiet. But he doesn't, and would rather risk the ire of two small banner houses than the wrath of Lord Tully and his friend the King.

The plot is thickened however by Stark himself having a plan in motion to get a former Stark follower, who is a lord sworn to Tully (another player character) to go to King's Landing to free Stark's son, who is the ward of the King.

So Stark is indeed plotting possible treason against the Crown. But he doesn't want it to leak out, and is playing his hand very close to his chest. He cannot afford to be seen as an enemy of the Crown at the moment.

Not yet.

[Lord Ben]

So, how does one go about sending someone to the wall? Do you just proclaim it? "I, Bob, of House Stark, hereby sentence you to serve in the Night's Watch for all your days"? What if the person you're sentencing is a Lord, as in our case? Do you need to let his family know?

You can't force someone to go to the wall and take vows, you can only provide it as an option in lieu of normal punishment. They mention this sort of in AGoT where Jon Stark is given a last chance to back out before taking his vows. He mentions he came there of his own free will and could go back if he wished but others who were there had the choice of taking the black or facing punishment for their crimes if they didn't join.

So you could say "Your penalty for instigating war is death, but because you have been faithful for so long you may choose to take the black." but you can't say "Your penalty is becoming a member of the Night's Watch." Easiest way to think of it as the Night's Watch being a way to avoid punishment, not a punishment itself.

[HelgiBergmann]

So, how does one go about sending someone to the wall? Do you just proclaim it? "I, Bob, of House Stark, hereby sentence you to serve in the Night's Watch for all your days"? What if the person you're sentencing is a Lord, as in our case? Do you need to let his family know?

You can't force someone to go to the wall and take vows, you can only provide it as an option in lieu of normal punishment. They mention this sort of in AGoT where Jon Stark is given a last chance to back out before taking his vows. He mentions he came there of his own free will and could go back if he wished but others who were there had the choice of taking the black or facing punishment for their crimes if they didn't join.

So you could say "Your penalty for instigating war is death, but because you have been faithful for so long you may choose to take the black." but you can't say "Your penalty is becoming a member of the Night's Watch." Easiest way to think of it as the Night's Watch being a way to avoid punishment, not a punishment itself.

Ah, good catch! One question though. What if a player uses a destiny point? Does being sentenced by a NC to death, and offered the chance to take the black count as being "defeated" for the purposes of using a destiny point to alter your fate? The rulebook says you can use a destiny point to: "When defeated, decide the consequences of your own defeat."

Could the player use a destiny point to avoid going to the Wall?

[Lord Ben]

Ah, good catch! One question though. What if a player uses a destiny point? Does being sentenced by a NC to death, and offered the chance to take the black count as being "defeated" for the purposes of using a destiny point to alter your fate? The rulebook says you can use a destiny point to: "When defeated, decide the consequences of your own defeat."

Could the player use a destiny point to avoid going to the Wall?

Like if they prefer execution? Sure!

Yeah, for a destiny point I'd probably let them go with a warning and docking their house some influence, etc.

[HelgiBergmann]

Ah, good catch! One question though. What if a player uses a destiny point? Does being sentenced by a NC to death, and offered the chance to take the black count as being "defeated" for the purposes of using a destiny point to alter your fate? The rulebook says you can use a destiny point to: "When defeated, decide the consequences of your own defeat."

Could the player use a destiny point to avoid going to the Wall?

Like if they prefer execution? Sure!

Yeah, for a destiny point I'd probably let them go with a warning and docking their house some influence, etc.

I see. I am myself inclined to a RAW reading of the rules, so that "defeated" means "defeated in an Intrigue or in Combat" but not "story defeated". So if the King decides to brand you a traitor, and that your are stripped of your lands etc, you could not use a destiny point to avoid that fate.

I am a harsh Game master.

[Lord Ben]

If you say Stark finds them guilty and wants to send them to the wall and strip them of their lands do you mean take it away from their heirs also? Or just take it away from the treacherous Lord and send him to the wall and have his Son take over.

Personally a destiny point should be a big deal. If the original penalty is to make "House Greenstark" disappear and have the Lord sent to the wall and his sons into sellswords a destiny point should maybe allow the sons to inherit the lands and the Lord to go to the wall.

[HelgiBergmann]

If you say Stark finds them guilty and wants to send them to the wall and strip them of their lands do you mean take it away from their heirs also? Or just take it away from the treacherous Lord and send him to the wall and have his Son take over.

Personally a destiny point should be a big deal. If the original penalty is to make "House Greenstark" disappear and have the Lord sent to the wall and his sons into sellswords a destiny point should maybe allow the sons to inherit the lands and the Lord to go to the wall.

Ah, I was just using the King thing as an example. I am still intending to have Lord Stark send them to the wall, and no more.

However I am considering having him sentence them to death-by-Ice and give them the opporunity to go to the wall if they have a destiny point.

[Lord Mormont]

Hmm, sounds you may have already decided to force a 'Nights' watch' campaign on your players. Considering you actually have two players who actually chose to be lords I would think very carefully before you choose to so drastically change the campaign.

Incidentally has Lord Stark caught these two bannermen upto no good before? If not I would suggest you give them a second chance on the feudal equivalent of probation.

"You both should know I should take your heads by the old gods & the new. What you plotted was treason, yet by misguidely trying to tempt me to join you, you allowed me to smother that treason in its cradle. You have loyalty to me if no one else... and that is the only reason I will allow you both to leave with your lives and lands. First though you will call your first-born to Winterfell - to take your place for long as my pleasure demands it. Know now if you ever act against my will again I will take a head from both houses both for this treason I forgive now and your own for the one you may enact later. That you will do and be most thankful for it; for I will hear no more of this."

Hostages is the appropriate way to go if you want to punish the players but not destroy a noble house campaign.