Meat and potatoes

Ok. We've had a lot of discussion about what's wrong with the Freehold. Let's start working on what the pledge should have so we can move forward.

I see three main issues here: duration, bonuses, laws.

Please keep posts here constructive; there are plenty other threads to complain about it. If you're wanting to address a certain part, please put that in caps (DURATION, BONUSES, LAWS) above the paragraph that's talking about it so it's easier to figure out exactly what you're talking about.

There is a thread with a poll for both duration and bonus packages, so make sure you vote there. Both seem to be basically 50/50 at this time.

For those who enjoy pledgecrafting (I know there's an example posted in another thread), type up your version of it, so we can all look. Don't know who gets to pick the pledge we use, but the point is to get the majority of people to agree on something.

It seems like as far as the oath itself is concerned, there is an even split on the packages as to who wants to keep them and who wants to toss them away.

With regard to Duration, Seasonal has won out in majority so far, so I think it's safe to say we can assume that will continue.

Ok, so.

DURATION:
Seasonal since the majority of people wanted it.

BONUSES:
Might as well since keep them since there's an even split.

LAWS:
Don't work for the Gentry. Don't kill fellow Freeholders.

I'm more ok with hurting, so long as you don't kill. If you beat someone so badly, then leave and they die, you still killed them.

I'd like to see the law require that conflict between Freeholders be resolved either by the Crown (or a duly appointed representative of the Crown, so that the Monarch can just point at a Counselor if it's an intra-Court matter and say, "Deal with it"), or by a challenged and accepted duel.

This leaves plenty of room for people who want to resolve stuff themselves. A duel, according to the books, doesn't even have to be violent. Art duels, music duels, crafting duels, whatever, they're all acceptable. But if people really want to go out and beat the hell out of other Freeholders, then they can, as long as it's a duel. No ambushes, no jumping someone with six of your buddies. And since, traditionally, the challenged gets to set the weapons, it should keep people on their toes...that guy you want to get in a gunfight with because of your awesome 18 dice pool might just accept your challenge and make it an oneriomachy battle instead. Or a knitting competition.

And you think your opponent is a dirty coward who would never accept a challenge, /or/ you fear that the guy who keeps challenging would not fight honorably, then you can seek out the Crown's ruling on the matter, which would be binding. And, depending on who the Crown is, possibly snarky for having this nonsense brought to him or her.

Ok Thomas, but what happens if someone breaks that rule? That's why I went all the way to killed, because if you leave it at injure unless it's some sort of honorable duel, we'll right back where we are now.

If the idea of the Freehold is to provide useful protection for its members, then 'anything short of death' should not be the standard we set. Because all that does is set up a situation where the strong can terrorize the weak, but the weak are restricted from dealing with the situation in a permanent manner. It's worse than useless.

Why is there such a focus on physical actions? You can easily ruin someone using other means, but this seem to be largely accepted. You can slander, use social contracts (Spring contracts someone?!), really mess up the life of someone, but throw a punch and this is the ultimate crime.

Keep the micromanaging out of the oaths and laws. And instead have a solid functioning organisation in the courts or otherwise that keeps things in check. Have a secret police! Have an enforcer organisation! Have a meet and greet group!

If you try to run the freehold via the laws, everything gets stale. People don't do anything cause there's nothing to do. Make conflict possible. And the Crown shouldn't have to sit down and listen to petty little arguments.

If someone is moving about beating up people randomly and being a bully, then gather a group and get right back at them. Show them that they can't get away with it. This creates RP and action and fun. The laws just /hinder RP/.

Which is why I suggested it be worded 'conflict' and not 'fighting' or 'physical harm'. If someone has a problem with another Freeholder, and rather than challenge them to an honorable duel, they set fire to their house, or send them nightmares, or try to talk them into killing themselves, whatever, then they'd still be in violation of the oath. If they /really/ think that another Freeholder is a threat to the Freehold, then they should definitely be either taking care of it through a duel, or talking to the Crown about it.

This isn't micromanagement. This is actually pretty much the exact /opposite/ of micromanagement, since it sets a broad directive that has a hell of a lot of freedom underneath. It doesn't say that the Crown has to rule anything other then 'Suck it up'. The Crown can appoint any representatives it likes, so it can tell people to go to their Counselors, or a Sheriff, or Random Guy On The Street for arbitration of conflicts. And if players want to handle things themselves, they can literally set the stakes and the venue however they want. They can resolve things through juggling contests, or poetry slams, or 'who can seduce this nun first', or whatever.

The only thing it does is prevent people from attacking others unfairly, without warning, or without giving the defender options to turn the table. That is, in my opinion, the /least/ one should be able to expect a Freehold to offer: the security of knowing that your 'brethren' aren't luring you into an ambush. Without that security, I don't see why anyone should feel that the Freehold offers even the basics that warrant their time and energy.

Ok, revised.

LAWS:
Do not work for the Gentry. Do not kill your fellow Freeholder. If you feel you have been slighted (in any way), you bring it to the Crown/Council to decide.

In this case, only the first two would be an auto breakage of the oath and getting bitchsmacked by the Wyrd, and the last would give people who have been assaulted or otherwise insulted, there is a way to deal with that. If the Crown decides it's bad enough (attempted murder, for instance), they can rule with banishment/imprisonment.

"I know where your family/loved ones live (or precisely how to get you fired from your mortal job/evicted from your house). Do /exactly/ as I say, or I guarantee that...while you might make it to the Crown, by the time you do? It won't matter."

If you put the onus on the victim, then you create a strong incentive for blackmail, threats, and extortion.

This would all be easier if we had an idea what Staff's vision for the game/changeling Sphere was, I think. It feels like we're striving towards different things here, and there shouldn't even be a question to begin with; there should be a feel and mood set from start. I'd like to hear staff's opinion on what their idea for the sphere was or is. Did they deliberately leave it to players to form?

Quoting +news mood & feel:

Greed, preservation, and desperation. Before the discovery of oil off of
the coast the city of Port Angeles was in desperate measures. The failing
economy of the country was hitting the city hard, even the export of
Dungeness crab, fish, and other products was not saving the city.
Employment was becoming a scarce commodity, incomes were being cut back.
Businesses were going bankrupt. The city was slowly but surely drowning.
This all changed with the oil however. Now it seems like there is no
poverty at all within Port Angeles (a pretty lie). Everyone has a job,
everyone has money, everything is good. Just please over look the crime
rate, please over look the pollution, over look..

Some people will say that the city of Port Angeles sold its soul to the
Devil for wealth and power, and perhaps it did. A sickness is spreading
throughout the city like oil spilling over the water. Greed, rage,
selfishness. It's every man for himself. Loyalty is now as scarce as
employment was before the oil companies came. The lower class is downright
violent, while the upper class engages in high society like never before.
Backstabbing, black mailing, high stakes. Gangs have sprung up in the
city, that were never there before. The peaceful city turning into a true
Big City.

Darkwater is a game of desperation, do you keep your pride and fight for
every step you take? Or do you give yourself away and sink into the greed
and chaos of wealth?

The following is the Violence in the Freehold law currently up for ratification by the Crown, however it may be held to be implemented in Spring.

The use of lethal force against freehold members is forbidden. Death as a result of accident, self-defense, training, sanctioned dueling or law enforcement may not be considered a violation of this law, but is subject to the review of the Crown and may be subject to requiring reparation and/or punishment depending on the circumstances. Such incidents as may be the result of insanity (including those determined to be of exceedingly low Clarity) are subject to the review of the Crown, with an assessment of the perpetrator's Clarity required by either a Bishop of Blackbirds or person of appropriate training and experience as designated by the Crown. In all cases, the issues of reparation to the victim and punishment will be addressed.

That doesn't really address Brand's objections (about the use of non-physical force or attacks against other Freeholders), or mine (about the use of physical force short of death), though. And why bother with reparations, when the victim is going to be dead and so not so much with the caring, and considering the nature of the Lost, is unlikely to have family or dependents who need to be protected?

Reparations would be for those that lived, not the ones that died. If someone did something to cause you to lose your job or housing, the Crown would find you new housing, a new job, and punish the other by taking theirs from them, for example.

For those that die, the punishment should be along those lines. Unless circumstances would justify imprisonment (someone getting in the way of someone in Red Rage, for example, or an accident while dueling), off with their head.

Reparation is also a point of concern where violence was attempted but failed.

I was asked to draft something that addressed physical violence. Once I try to draft something that takes other forms of assault into consideration, I have little doubt that a new complaint will arise that the freehold is "micromanaging" its people.

I don't like to railroad. This is why a lot has been left up to the players.

Personally from a staff point of view on what would cause the least headaches of judging when the oath is broken or not:

"You may not kill another member of the freehold. If you attack someone and leave them to bleed out or accidentally kill them, that is still killing them."

Thomas wrote:

That doesn't really address Brand's objections (about the use of non-physical force or attacks against other Freeholders), or mine (about the use of physical force short of death), though. And why bother with reparations, when the victim is going to be dead and so not so much with the caring, and considering the nature of the Lost, is unlikely to have family or dependents who need to be protected?

I don't want any such law. I want the law to be what Cobalt described above. There's a disconnect between those that want everyone to get along, and those that wants to allow inter-sphere conflict.

Either or, the law as suggested bars my character from joining the Freehold, just as the current law. But, I'll roll with it. It hasn't hindered me so far, nothing will change for me.

Felony and misdemeanor. The oath is broken if you commit a felony. The crown could appoint someone to hear about misdemeanors, like someone causing you to lose your job/place of residence. Something that wouldn't break the oath, but still would be frowned upon.

There's a very big difference between 'wanting everyone to get along' and 'wanting a Law that actually accomplishes something'. If you restrict the Law to simple murder, then there's absolutely nothing stopping an infiltrator from using the Freehold 'trust' to kidnap fellow Freeholders and sell them to the hobs, as long as he's not /directly/ selling to Gentry. You can utterly ruin another Freeholder, even using Freehold resources to do so, and as long as the Monarch never finds out...assuming that the Monarch is around or even cares...then you're free and clear by your Oath and a Freeholder in good standing.

What actual protection does this provide to any member of the Freehold? Why would anyone agree to pledge to give their time and skills to an organization that doesn't care if another pledged member abuses them and ruins their lives, as long as they don't /actually/ kill them, and can keep them tied up somewhere to keep from reporting it. Particularly characters as notoriously paranoid and sensitive to loopholes in pledges as Changelings.

What, exactly, does this version of the Law offer them that they can't get by simply not trusting anyone, not exposing themselves to the Freehold, and carrying a big gun?

Thomas wrote:

There's a very big difference between 'wanting everyone to get along' and 'wanting a Law that actually accomplishes something'. If you restrict the Law to simple murder, then there's absolutely nothing stopping an infiltrator from using the Freehold 'trust' to kidnap fellow Freeholders and sell them to the hobs, as long as he's not /directly/ selling to Gentry. You can utterly ruin another Freeholder, even using Freehold resources to do so, and as long as the Monarch never finds out...assuming that the Monarch is around or even cares...then you're free and clear by your Oath and a Freeholder in good standing.

What actual protection does this provide to any member of the Freehold? Why would anyone agree to pledge to give their time and skills to an organization that doesn't care if another pledged member abuses them and ruins their lives, as long as they don't /actually/ kill them, and can keep them tied up somewhere to keep from reporting it. Particularly characters as notoriously paranoid and sensitive to loopholes in pledges as Changelings.

What, exactly, does this version of the Law offer them that they can't get by simply not trusting anyone, not exposing themselves to the Freehold, and carrying a big gun?

And you don't think that arbitrary rulings by crown/other person isn't setup to be abused? Take conflict to crown/other person - they decide. How can we know they decide justly, or rather in favor of their friends?

The less complicated the law, the more fair and less likely to be abused.

Edited to add:

Maybe it's just me, but the Fealty part of the pledge already contains all there is that is needed. Fealty means protecting the Freehold. If you sell another Freehold member to hobs, you've broken the oath, cause then you're no longer protecting the Freehold - and the Freehold is its members, not some location.

Quote from the book:
Page 180
The fealty pledge is a powerful and unique pledge task. Only an oath involving an aknowledged lord of a freehold may incorporate the fealty task. In this, the lord binds the one taking the oath to obey the laws of the freehold and to work according to his talents and abilities to defend the freehold in all ways.

And from page 189 (where there are examples of Freehold pledges):

It is assumed that those who have taken this oath will work not simply on behalf of the liege, but to aid one another - the skilled weaponsmith may provide his finest work to those who defend the freehold, while the changeling skilled with computers makes sure the networks setup on behalf of the court are secure and working properly.

Revised.

1) Do not aid anyone who works against the Freehold. This can be hobs that kidnap, privateers, Gentry, or even other changelings who are anarchist and says f*ck the system.
2) Do not kill your fellow Freeholders. Do not use your powers and abilities to cause undo stress upon them. If a problem is there, bring it before a Crown appoited advocate.

I agree with Brand in that the less complicated the better. The Fealty Pledge is great as is. We're trying to solve the idea of what the laws are now.