Freehold Protection Against Violence

As I've endeavored to clarify our freehold's laws concerning violence and other harm to its members, I've discovered that obviously not everyone's going to be happy with what is come up with. Please discuss, maybe we can figure out what the majority favors!

Noooooooo!

If you have a no harassment clause, Gobli cannot join the Freehold. The no violence thing is bad as well.

Issue: the entire purpose of a freehold is to protect its members from harm. When I proposed a law concerning violence in general, there were complaints that it was too restrictive. When I propsed a law concerning lethal force, there were complaints that it left out all the other ways that people could be harmed.

People complain that the freehold isn't safe - and it's meant to be, but then complain that when there's a proposition to make it more clearly so, it's "to restrictive".

OOCly people want choices. ICly they want security.

A happy medium needs to be found.

I had to vote for the first. ICly, it just makes sense that security trumps all and it isn't fair for combat sorts to be singled out. OOCly, I'd like the flexibility to show my ass to another Freehold member if the whim struck, but. Hey. I won't aim my guns (or my allies' bank accounts and contacts) at those who are also pledged, that works.

If there were external threats that /felt/ threatening, I think it would be easier for more people to deal with a higher level of internal security. ICly, folks do need to band together against the very real big nasties out there. But...well, given the pace that plot advances (or the rate at which one-shot threats appear, strike and disappear, ono!), it's hard to maintain that sense of threat.

P.S. Crown-sanctioned Hedge dueling option, plz.

There is going to be conflict, that's kind of the point.

Setting up the laws merely states the time and place and what rolls that conflict is going to take.

I have no gripe against forcing conflict into the realm of legit duels and things of that sort. I have no gripe against making an IC police force to enforce order. These things are playable.

I do have a gripe against wording the oath so that they Wyrd simply says 'NO' to certain forms of RP. I gripe even more when the primary means of conflict resolution is decree from the pillowfort.

I don't think it's impossible for the players to look at other peoples arguments and come up with a reasonable compromise that is playable and fun for everyone. This requires clear goals however. You can't have a popular freehold that everyone wants to join and at the same time have a strict freehold which has complete control over behavior.

People have choices. What they don't want is restrictions. The point of the freehold is to protect members of the freehold. You give up the right to attack your fellow Lost in exchange for being protected from them and others. As was pointed out in previous post, there hasn't been much reason lately to give up that exchange. Most people feel safe without the freehold. They feel safe in the Hedge, they feel safe in the real world. So when you're trying to figure out how much protection from violence Freeholders should have from each other, you have to remember that the perception of what you're giving up, versus what you're gaining has a lot to do with that decision. Right now, the prevailing perception seems to be that there's not a whole lot of safety to be gained from joining the Freehold. Not from PCs. Not from NPCs. Exploring the Hedge always goes really well, no one is trying to kidnap you, not one is trying to hurt you for no reason, hob creatures are never more than you should be able to handle, and PC maiming and deaths come as close to 0 as possible. As a result, there's not going to be a whole lot of restriction that people are currently willing to accept in exchange for safety. Safety from what?

Kailin has a good point. It might be more productive to ask what people would like to see a Freehold provide in exchange for whatever freedoms they're willing to give up. What does the Freehold /offer/ people that would make it worth giving a character's trust? Whether that's OOC (Freehold-exclusive plots, items, etc.) or IC (Access to meaningful things, crafters who won't take commissions outside the Freehold, etc.), it doesn't really matter, as long as it's good 'value' for the the time and concessions.

Several of the story squibs include violence, even murder, of one Freehold member to another.

I agree with Thomas' suggestion that people consider what they are willing to give up, but I would like to add a footnote to that:

Pledges are judged on the letter, not the spirit, of the law. If the Freehold Pledge precludes "harm", staff may include emotional harm. If the Freehold Pledge precludes violence, that could include a slap on the cheek. Are these things you are prepared to become a pledge-breaker and banished from the Freehold over?

Well okay, then.

What do people want to see the freehold provide? What freedoms are people willing to give up in exchange for what they receive?

Thenomain wrote:

Pledges are judged on the letter, not the spirit, of the law. If the Freehold Pledge precludes "harm", staff may include emotional harm. If the Freehold Pledge precludes violence, that could include a slap on the cheek. Are these things you are prepared to become a pledge-breaker and banished from the Freehold over?

What the staff judges as a breaking of a pledge seems to be beyond all of us. It really is. And to be quite certain, without clarification from staff, this is all really pointless. I think this is being made to be much more difficult than it has to be and much more difficult than it should be. But to say someone could get banished over emotional harm is -really- frustrating considering the 'violence' portion of this debate all got started cause one character shot another character in the face without breaking the oath. Vevery few people seem to really know why either - and those who know aren't saying. Is a pledge inclusive or exclusive? Does a character break a pledge only by doing something specifically stated in the pledge as something they cannot do or does the list of banned behaviors include everything not specifically stated in the pledge that is somewhat related? Or is does it just depend on the player or character? Is there any standard by which breaking oaths are judge that the players can know about so that every action or word isn't a pledge-breaking crapshoot?

As much as I appreciate Olivia trying to get things together and make it work, the truth is this failed through no fault of the players and can't be fixed by them either, especially after reading the above comment.

All Theno is saying is that pledges need to be specific. The problem here is really the IC desire for safety vs the OOC desire for conflict.

Really, it sounds like staff should just say what they feel would be a reasonable, enforceable Freehold pledge, put it in place along with how they plan to interpret it, and then let people join or not. At it stands, there's no real benefits for being part of the Freehold, and no real penalties for not, so from a functional sense of 'who do I get to RP with' and 'what do I get to do', it's a pretty minor matter either way.

Is the Freehold there to protect Changelings from Gentry, or Changelings from other Changelings? I was under the assumption that it was there for Changelings to band together against Them.

How about if the Freehold law had a tone that stated, if two Lost want to test themselves against each other in any way, then they are allowed to. If one party doe snot wish to, both may not. In that way, it would follow the mutual sparring sort of rules. Where two can choose to act dangerously toward one another, but none can act against those who don't want to be acted against and those who don't want to be acted against can't in turn act against others.

Though that might be a bit too complex.

Alexander wrote:

Is the Freehold there to protect Changelings from Gentry, or Changelings from other Changelings? I was under the assumption that it was there for Changelings to band together against Them.

When forming an alliance against a greater force, it would be logical for that alliance to not disrupt itself from within with too much in the way of inner conflict that weakens the alliance. So by its very nature, the alliance should protect its members form each other on some level if only to protect its own power.

Lawless wrote:

How about if the Freehold law had a tone that stated, if two Lost want to test themselves against each other in any way, then they are allowed to. If one party doe snot wish to, both may not. In that way, it would follow the mutual sparring sort of rules. Where two can choose to act dangerously toward one another, but none can act against those who don't want to be acted against and those who don't want to be acted against can't in turn act against others.

Though that might be a bit too complex.

That's pretty much dueling, isn't it? One party can challenge, the other can accept and they can deal with their issues, or the other party can refuse, and while there are certainly social consequences to that, how severe those are might be determined by the circumstances, or the challenger can take their grievance to the Crown, if it's something that they feel /must/ be resolved.

Yeah, pretty much dueling. Just on a scale that[s different from what one usually considers a duel or a sparring match. One might caveat that any such duels, be they social, business or physical not expand to the point of threatening the stability of the Freehold, but I would assume that's already covered by Fealty?

From what I've read, the Lost have an element of ingrained paranoia and tendency toward distrust; oaths are an act of mutual assurance of safety. Someone who swears a freehold oath is less likely to be a Loyalist and likewise less likely to stab you in the back, presumably both figuratively and literally.

If we keep nitpicking on the fringe elements this will just drift into an endless gripe.

Thomas has a point, I feel he extends the point to far but I agree with his initial premise.

Those who chafe against a needlessly restrictive oath have a point as well.

The Freehold oath should protect a Changelings person from intentional violence enacted by other freeholders. If freeholders have a conflict that requires force then they should have a legitimate dual.

The idea that the Freehold oath protects property, feelings or reputations is ridiculous and will lead to the kind of stagnation that Gobli and others are bitching about. The force of the Wyrd does not need to be trifled with property and reputation concerns. A Freehold oath that prevents physical retaliation outside of a sanctioned duel is enough. If someone burns down someone's place of business, the offended party can call for a duel...even if they don't have proof that the challenged party is the offender, they can still call a duel.

Duels are the solution to our problem. If Kailin is still butthurt about the shot in the head affair, he can ask for a duel. Changelings are a paranoid 'culture of honor' and dueling is how those sort of cultures fix things.

tl/dr, A freehold oath that prohibits freeholders from intentionaly harming another freeholders body outside of a sanctioned duel. Dueling and/or trial by ordeal as the source of justice and satisfaction for all offenses. Fuck using the Wyrd to protect property or face or reputaition, if you are butthurt call for a duel.

I rather like Polly's take on it, here. The only thing that really concerns me about the Freehold Oath is that it allows Changelings to trust that if they go into a dangerous situation with other Freeholders at their side, those other Lost aren't going to take the opportunity to ambush or attack them. While, ICly, Thomas typically requires an alliance pledge from anyone he goes into something like that with, when he doesn't trust them, it'd be nice if the Freehold oath covered that so that Freeholders could automatically count as 'trusted' in battle or tight spots. I.e. the overriding instinct in a Freehold battle should /not/ be "I don't have to run faster than the enemy, I just have to run faster than YOU".

Also, on an OOC level, I shamelessly admit that I want to see more dueling. The game has been up for over a year, and no one has ever gone through with a duel, to the death or otherwise. It's a major part of Changeling society that has just been completely...absent. It's very sad.

Warfare is hazardous. David killed Uriah by sending him to the worst part of the fighting in order to fuck Bathsheba. (actually he was allready fucking Bathsheba but you get the drift.) The Pledge allready covers aiding the freehold.

There is a danger to pledging. A pledge that protects you from everything also protects everything from you. Pledges are like the old Wishes in D&D, the wording will fuck you over if you try to get all anal retentive with them.

Lets cover the important bases, insurance against loyalists and privateers and basic order. Of course there are places where someone can get away with murder. A pledge that absolutely prevents all possibilities of abuse would be unplayable gamewise.