Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Talvara]

I am against any bold rescue attempt, and merchant arrest.
Not that I am against the very idea of it (I would be for it), but that could easily put us in a very difficult situation. As in, the count could brand us as a criminal and traitor. He IS the highest authority there (short of the Duke), so if we kidnap the merchant, he'll call us criminals and we're utterly and definitively screwed.

The only way to do anything that won't allow the count to put a price on our head is to publicly denounce the merchant (if we have enough evidence). That will force the count to either defend him (and put himself in a suspicious position), or get rid of his cover. Win-win.
"But that will show us we're aware of his intentions" you say? No. We are not incriminating him. We show that we are aware that the merchant is up to something. For all he know, his cover worked.

After that, he'll do it again, sure, but so will we. And the more merchants (or whatever) he'll use, the more suspicion there will be on someone being behind them.

I agree with not doing anything that the count could use to brandish us a criminal. I think the count is probably well aware by now that we know hes after us. we havent spoken to him about the matter at all. and he knows we've survived two attempts.

I think though... considering the information the woolmerchant was gathering the count might be gearing up for some sort of warfare. the duke might want to intervene to avoid a miniature civil war in his backyard.

also... if we just have enough to get the woolmerchant in court. we should use mercy *aka not chopping his head off* as a bargining chip to get the hostages. and perhaps his conection to the count.

anyway... With the threat of armed conflict we need to get this over with. which is why I suggested we spend some time getting all the evidence we have. getting info from the rat.. have sir denton and percivalt hear out our latest prisoner... those sort of things. and build a case to bring before the duke. (go over the counts head since he is involved.)

[kaian-a-coel]

The wool merchant is a commoner, but not a serf. The count doesn't own him, or have a right to file a suit for him. Arresting him with a signed confession witnessed by other lords is solid gold proof as far as the lofty standards of this time, and ain't no treason. Treason against whom? The wool merchant's guild? He ostensibly is not connected to the Count.

Piers Gaveston, Abelard, and many other nobles met a rough kind of justice. A commoner is even less protected under the law. If we continue being a doormat, chasing after a 21st century notion of due process, it'll catch up to us eventually.

How would we react if the count snatched one of our peasants and threw him/her into custody, or even outright beheaded him/her?
What's more, we are the vassal here. Getting in his city and imprisoning one of his citizens is not something we should do...
A famous (cant remember his name) noble did this in real life.
He got executed.

[Gervassen]

Criminal isn't a medieval social stigma with any meaning. Chaucer raped a girl, his aunt kidnapped his father and paid a fine for it. They paid and went on living well.

The punishment for kidnapping is just a fine. All crimes are either fines or capital. Long-term imprisonment as a punishment is unknown to this age. Jail is a temporary place, where you keep people until they have paid their adjudged fines.

On the surface, abduction of a commoner is a matter that has an outside chance of risking a fine at the most; but possibly leads to digging up a hidden connection between the wool merchant and the count. In any court, we show the confession of the prisoner, and say we were arresting him. No problem.

also... if we just have enough to get the woolmerchant in court. we should use mercy *aka not chopping his head off* as a bargining chip to get the hostages. and perhaps his conection to the count.

That won't happen. Filing with the court without having him in our safe keeping is his death. He will die. He is a front. The Count will dispose of him, the moment that he is attainted.

[Gervassen]

A famous (cant remember his name) noble did this in real life.
He got executed.

Doubt it. I've got names that I remember.

[tryrar]

again I'm in agreement with Gerv here. Stop being pansys guys

[kaian-a-coel]

A famous (cant remember his name) noble did this in real life.
He got executed.

Doubt it. I've got names that I remember.

Gilles de Rais.

You may remember him for all kinds of atrocities and various heresies, but it all really begun when he got pissed after a guy that forgot to pay the land he bought, and went and snatched him right under the nose of his neighbour, and threw him in prison.
The fact that it was a priest played no small part in the following shitstorm, but he was in his right there: the priest was indebted to him.
It was when and where Gilles decided to arrest him that bite him in the ass.

[Talvara]

...

also... if we just have enough to get the woolmerchant in court. we should use mercy *aka not chopping his head off* as a bargining chip to get the hostages. and perhaps his conection to the count.

That won't happen. Filing with the court without having him in our safe keeping is his death. He will die. He is a front. The Count will dispose of him, the moment that he is attainted.

that actually makes sense. I feel uneasy kidnapping the guy without the dukes consent though. We'll need the duke to deal with the Count.

[Gervassen]

Gilles de Rais.

"After 1432 Gilles engaged in a series of child murders, his victims possibly numbering in the hundreds."

*Visor-gauntlet*

See what I did there, guys? Visor-gauntlet. Get it? Get it?

[kaian-a-coel]

"After 1432 Gilles engaged in a series of child murders, his victims possibly numbering in the hundreds."

I don't get the "visor gauntlet" and that accusation was based on thin air and proved with typical inquisition methods. From a modern point of vue, the whole trial was the Church bullshitting its way to the treasure chest. (Gilles excommunication and death lead to the people that bought his land keeping it and not paying a cent for it).
I am not saying that Gilles wasn't a complete asshole, I'm saying that the whole child-raping/killing thing was bullshit that the inquisition pulled out of nowhere.

[Mlamlah]

The wool merchant is a commoner, but not a serf. The count doesn't own him, or have a right to file a suit for him. Arresting him with a signed confession witnessed by other lords is solid gold proof as far as the lofty standards of this time, and ain't no treason. Treason against whom? The wool merchant's guild? He ostensibly is not connected to the Count.

Piers Gaveston, Abelard, and many other nobles met a rough kind of justice. A commoner is even less protected under the law. If we continue being a doormat, chasing after a 21st century notion of due process, it'll catch up to us eventually.

How would we react if the count snatched one of our peasants and threw him/her into custody, or even outright beheaded him/her?
What's more, we are the vassal here. Getting in his city and imprisoning one of his citizens is not something we should do...
A famous (cant remember his name) noble did this in real life.
He got executed.

which is why we make a stink about it instead of just doing it, it's not so much the action as the appearance of the action that we need. If we demand justice, as a noble we have a right to an investigation, and anyone who attempts to deny us that request, liege-lord or no, looks bad. We have a legal right to demand proper investigation.

[Gervassen]

"After 1432 Gilles engaged in a series of child murders, his victims possibly numbering in the hundreds."

I don't get the "visor gauntlet" and that accusation was based on thin air and proved with typical inquisition methods. From a modern point of vue, the whole trial was the Church bullshitting its way to the treasure chest. (Gilles excommunication and death lead to the people that bought his land keeping it and not paying a cent for it).
I am not saying that Gilles wasn't a complete asshole, I'm saying that the whole child-raping/killing thing was bullshit that the inquisition pulled out of nowhere.

Face-palm. Visor-gauntlet.

There's some controversy, but it's worth noting that wikipedia reports most of his history as fact and puts your view as a separate section on the bottom. Gilles only went to trial because his Duke dropped his patronage of him. Politics will always be a concern, but we are marrying the Duke's niece in this case. We are the ones with airtight patronage this time, and the count is a fat surly drunkard.

[Gervassen]

--

[10ebbor10]

Also, in your point, you're saying we shouldn't arrest the wool merchant, not because you fear the actual fine if it is found unlawful, but because you're afraid that it will earn us the hatred and dirty tricks of a Count, who... hates us and plots dirty tricks against us already.

Bravo.

Doing so, would
A: Give the count a reason to attack us (illegitimate attack on one of his citizens)
B: Force him to act immediatly. Ie, probably by storming our town and declaring we rebelled
C: Even if we succeed, will most likely cause the destruction of all evidence

[Gervassen]

A: It's a legal matter. Wars do not happen because random merchants go missing. It is not justification for attacking our fief. Not to say that it would happen anyway, but...

B: Let him attack if he wants. We're keeping Alan, the majority of our standing forces, all of our peasant reserves, and our neighbor Knights with their forces behind. Let him attack.

C: What evidence? There's only one piece of evidence that matters. We have the evidence with us. The wool merchant is the evidence. The only evidence, and he dies if we breath that we've got proof of his involvement in the attack,

[Talvara]

A: Well.. he is connected to the count via family he married a niece of his or something? It seems a little distant. but hes not exactly a random merchant.

B: We dont exactly have the forces to stand up to the count. Our lordly friends can back us up. but I doubt they can react fast enough. (besides war is something to be avoided.)


edit: my C actually didnt make sense to the context, sorry.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

C: We don't know what the Rat has dug up. We have 2 agents for 2 different transgressions in our hold.

I think you do raise a valid point He should be taken before word gets out he needs to show before whatever form of court there is. making a mess behinds the count and dukes back wont do us any good. lets present what we do have to the Duke and suggest kidnapping the woolmerchant so the Count cant 'off' him.