Punishing a fellow Player's character

[Ancient1]

I would as Lord of the House, take the family member apart preach a little about how he could have ruined everything for their House, and if another such incident might happen he would be stripped of rank.....that should humble him enough (and keep it behind closed doors).

Perhaps i would sent him on a petty mission which is needed to be done, which is beneath his station...just to show him who leads this House

[Parker]

vonpenguin, your nephew, the captain of the guard, told you what happened or he openly told to everyone at the court? If that was managed in private, the punishment most fitted it's the one mentioned before: penance and demotion. He's a nobleman, the guard was in his hand, his fault was to your persona, the Lord, for acting without your consent.

As a result of his action, two things happened: 3 guards were dead (this is not a big concern: he's the captain of the guard, it's expected that soldiers will die defending the land. If he has to give reparations to their families it has to be a small one. The disobedience it's his real fault) and a 'guest' could be offended. The guest, he raise a case against you or your house? He knows what really happened? Honor bound, you may feel like reparations are at hand, but his religious practice incite this kind of things on the hearts of your men. Honor bound, you can't make the priest responsable for the deaths (if you weren't, I'll make the priest prove his words). If I were you, I'll give reparations in ways that he doesn't want: make your nephew pray for him and for the dead guards and their families to the seven at the sept, every night for the next month. And give your word that this will never happen again.

R'hllor it's an enemy of the faith to many septs. Dont give great reparations to the priest or your people will turn against you. He's a guest and nothing else. Put a few men of the guard to protect the red priest for now on (protect AND watch every of his movements), and make your nephew to prove his loyalty to you on a future ocassion (he owns you a favor for not being to rash on your punishment: remember him that you could have make him to wear the black).

By the way, a trail to combat with a man that could easily defeat three men its NOT a good idea.

[coldwind]

Spambot reported.

[DaimosofRedstone]

vonpenguin, your nephew, the captain of the guard, told you what happened or he openly told to everyone at the court? If that was managed in private, the punishment most fitted it's the one mentioned before: penance and demotion. He's a nobleman, the guard was in his hand, his fault was to your persona, the Lord, for acting without your consent.

As a result of his action, two things happened: 3 guards were dead (this is not a big concern: he's the captain of the guard, it's expected that soldiers will die defending the land. If he has to give reparations to their families it has to be a small one. The disobedience it's his real fault) and a 'guest' could be offended. The guest, he raise a case against you or your house? He knows what really happened? Honor bound, you may feel like reparations are at hand, but his religious practice incite this kind of things on the hearts of your men. Honor bound, you can't make the priest responsable for the deaths (if you weren't, I'll make the priest prove his words). If I were you, I'll give reparations in ways that he doesn't want: make your nephew pray for him and for the dead guards and their families to the seven at the sept, every night for the next month. And give your word that this will never happen again.

R'hllor it's an enemy of the faith to many septs. Dont give great reparations to the priest or your people will turn against you. He's a guest and nothing else. Put a few men of the guard to protect the red priest for now on (protect AND watch every of his movements), and make your nephew to prove his loyalty to you on a future ocassion (he owns you a favor for not being to rash on your punishment: remember him that you could have make him to wear the black).

By the way, a trail to combat with a man that could easily defeat three men its NOT a good idea.

Why would somebody who slew a bunch of ones own people have any right to reparations?

[Kajani]

Perhaps because he was send by the wife of the oldest brother of the king (a high lord himself)...? Wanting not to anger Stannis is a motivation which I could very well understand .

[DaimosofRedstone]

Well, but is not a legal title to reparations but a political incentive.
The only thing i see here that has legal standing would be 'Wergeld', e.g. payments made for damages to other peoples serfs or soldiers. But those apply to the Home House, not the Priest.
Is there any law which would entitle the Red Priest to any reparations?

[Kajani]

Only if the lord is deeply convinced that indeed his men started the fight without reason. Than they had try to murder the priest, his defence was just, and perhaps he deserves a compensation for that the lord failed to guarantee what it his duty - that his men not running around and attacking people without order or justification. Some lord may think that this is a source of shame to them, and that the victim (also this victim was hardly defenseless) need a little payback... I mean, nobody could know that the man could fight so good.

[Eisen]

Wow quite a reaction to this question. Keep your eyes peeled as I've manage to con..er talk my players into posting up a campagin log of the advetures that have partially been discribed here. Stay tuned folks!

[Carriker]

There are ways of "rewarding" nobles as a punishment. Remember Tyrion describing being put in charge of the plumbing at Casterly Rock? It's power, of a sort, due a noble, but the job was basically shit (especially if he isn't given sufficient men or funds to avoid doing the dirty work himself).

[DaimosofRedstone]

It was not quite as bad.
He was in charge of the drainage and the cisterns, a step above shit and all that.

[Parker]

Carriker, the case of Tyrion, as many other "punishment" in disguise work well when you want to manage things in private. It's a way to say: "I don't want to kill you, but we both know that you're not in my grace...". Works well when you dont really have a motive to punish someone (for example, when he dissapoints you).

If the Captain of the guard did this and tell only to the Lord in private what really happened (and the Lord weren't Honor-bound ), making the Captain clean the shit pits for a month could make hin re consider his position.

To Daimos: the problem is that given the nature of the Lord, a guest of the King's brother was attacked by his men: if word of this come to Selyse Baratheon ears, she could take this as an offense to her and ask Renly for compensation. Renly could take lands, money or title as a way of punishment to the Lord himself if his suspect that he's anything to do with the incident. It's even worse if the Lord has given him hospitality. Once again, to avoid that, the Lord could talk to the priest, explain him that the soldiers went rogue following their strict sense of religious morale and put two or three of his most trusted guards to safeguard the guest while he's on his territory (and watch for his every move). The Honor-bound part it's the only thing that makes things so complicated (now, a Lord with this flaw sounds like a short-lived one ).

[DaimosofRedstone]

@Parker:
I think you overstate.
What we have are five (or was it three?) murder.
The Red Priest claims he acted in self-defense and the fact that the soldiers were in disguise is suspicious, but that alone does not force a lord, even an honor-bound one, to conclude that his people are to blame.
This also goes for reparations.
Sure, Selyse could pressure Stannis who could pressure Renly (though these two are not exactly on friendly terms). But then it would be more a political necessity than a judical.
In fact the lord would be completly within his right to send his soldiers to run of a heretic and only the fact that the Red Priest claims the protection of Selyse saves him from the gallows or the pits.
Guilt is not so clear-cut here, neither is political expediency.

[Legate]

Actually, DaimosofRedstone, Parker does make a good point regarding the duty of a host under the rules of Hospitality. Once accepted as a guest in your household you are responsible for the safety of said guest for the duration of his stay, weather the danger is expected or not. It is kind of like a ship's captain; the host is responsible for the actions of his household if something befalls the guest while under his roof. Now this assumes the assault took place in the confines of the residence, if it happened in say a village that was near by then the argument would be null-and-void.

If it is found that the Lord did not offer reasonable protection to the Priest while a guest under his roof he could well be on the hook to make reparations to the Priest. Now, this also assumes the DM is using something similar to an historic medieval "legal" code. It really is hard to come up with a clear cut answer to this. The law is one of the things (like Banking and the economy) that Martin doesn't even hint at.

[DaimosofRedstone]

But the Red Priest was no guest.

[Canarr]

Definitely not under the Lord's roof, no. But he was living on the Lord's lands - albeit only tolerated due to Lady Selyse's patronage. That does give the Lord the obligation to extend to him the same protection all the smallfolk on his lands enjoy - in theory, at least.

Personally, I'd go with the whole "penance" idea of punishment for the captain - and try to use the excuse to get rid of the priest. After all, he does seem to cause trouble; the men didn't have the order to attack him (that's what the captain said, and he certainly wouldn't lie to his lord) and wouldn't disobey their captain, so the priest must have attacked them first. Ergo, he killed three of the Lord's men, and should be punished accordingly; banishment would be the most lenient punishment for him, IMO.

[DaimosofRedstone]

But the smallfolk does not enjoy any protection as such.
They only enjoy protection under the oath of vassalage and the feudal compact.
The Red Priest falls under neither.

[Legate]

I am not sure how it works with the Red Priests, but in the Medieval era of history the Church would expect their represntatives be taken care of and kept safe while staying at a Lords home while on their travels (I'm talking Fathers and such.) Are the Red Priests a recognized Religion or are they lay clergy?

[Flagg]

I am not sure how it works with the Red Priests, but in the Medieval era of history the Church would expect their represntatives be taken care of and kept safe while staying at a Lords home while on their travels (I'm talking Fathers and such.) Are the Red Priests a recognized Religion or are they lay clergy?

It's already been specified that he wasn't staying in the Lord's house, so the guest right does not apply. As to whether worship of R'hllor is a "recognized religion", I guess the question is, "by whom"? In most of Westeros, I'd wager that the only "legitimate" religious institiution is the Faith of the Seven. I'm not sure even Drowned Men would be tolerated in the heart of the realm.

Thoros of Myr got by in Robert's court mostly because he was only nominally religious, and liked to fight and drink as much as Robert himself. He never went around proselytizing.

[Legate]

"It's already been specified that he wasn't staying in the Lord's house, so the guest right does not apply."

Ok, I missed that somehow.

[Parker]

I never care about the "judicial" problem: if the Lord weren't honor bound, a Red Priest that kills 3 of my men its a priest that suddenly trips over a bunch of lossens swords...

But he's honor bound. And thanks to the Captain he knows that their men provoked the fight, and the priest its telling the truth: he's acting on self defense. The honor-bound flaw, at least on my opinion, keeps him on blaming the Priest. And, rethinking it, if the priest ask for trial by combat, better have a pretty damn good knigth, because this guy just killed three soldiers on a 3 to 1 fight.

On the other hand, ok, he's not a guest at his household, but it's a political issue anyhow. The lady of another region says: "This is my guest, I send him with my best regards...". Results:

- The guest is murder on your lands = you're in trouble.
- The guest is murder on your lands by YOUR soldiers = you're in big trouble.
- The guest is murder on your lands by YOUR soldiers and the lady is Selyse Baratheon = Better be an EXCELLENT liar if you want to dodge this bullet.
- The guest is murder on your lands by YOUR soldiers, the lady is Selyse Baratheon AND you're Honor-bound = You're screwed.

Do you see my point?

[DaimosofRedstone]

No, he does not know that his soldiers provoked the fight.
He could come to that conclusion, but being honor-bound does not mean that he always has to come to the least advantageous and most damning opinion about his house.

Also:
He is no guest.
Let me repeat that:
He is no guest of the House of Stav.
He was on their land but he had neither asked for hospitality nor had he shared salt and bread.

He would however have been under the lords peace, that is he would have been under protection from harm or theft.
In exchange however he would also have to observe the rules and laws of the land and not spread unrest or heresy.
Even honor-bound one could argue that the soldiers did not break the lords peace by attacking the priest but aimed to preserve it.
It depends on how the lord is pious. In a charitable or a zealous way.

In my opinion the problems lies in another detail.
The soldiers were masquerading.
To me that is the important point because that it is without doubt dishonorable.
If you kill an intruder upon your land, you do it. You do it so everybody can know it and will know it. If you had wanted to hide it you would not have tried in the first place because the desire to hide it alone would have told you that it was dishonorable and thus not something you could do.
The problem of the Red Priest murdering the soldiers is second rank.
The MAIN problem is that your nephew despoiled the honor of your house by acting in such a dishonorable way.

After you solved this in a way not heaping more dishonour upon your house (and it is arguable whether or not you would have to make amends to the Red Priest) then you can deal with the problem that somebody talks heresy on your land and killed your soldiers.
Unless you offered him hospitality.
If he were to preach heresy again, against your expressed wishes, the compact of hospitality would be broken and you would be free to exact the vengeance upon him honor demands. And no, honor does not necessarily demand a trial by combat. Those are for nobles and are not to be squandered upon thieves, poachers or heretics.