"I don't think we should give nobles special rights about how they get executed! If there's crimes where the punishment is beheading for everyone, that's fine, but there's no good reason to have it just for nobles if it's a crime where you'd normally do something worse."

“Speaking of beheadings, do we want to ask for the final blade too? I’m still not sure about it, but the queen seems to like it, and the church might have an answer on how evil it is.”

"Does it do any harm if we let nobles go get their heads chopped off? That's not exactly a right I want to myself."

"...well, if you'd normally do something worse than beheading, I don't think you should go lighter on them just because they're a noble. I guess it's okay if you're using it to be stricter on nobles, like how the paladin said Lastwall does it."

She hesitates. "...And probably it makes sense to have the Final Blade for at least some crimes," she says uncertainly. 

"Many of the nobility will be angry if we forbid execution by beheading, and nothing here requires that it be reserved for them. It is not worth fighting about a right which is, if we've promised clean quick deaths to all, slightly about perceived dignity and otherwise basically symbolic. Also, yes, the Final Blade, that should probably be stated separately."

"If you just meant beheading should be on the list I don't have a issue with that."

"That is indeed all I mean. Any further objections to, make it this?"

All citizens of Cheliax have the right, if convicted of a crime, to be punished only by means which are no more torturous than necessary for public safety and public order. Any sentence not permitted by Iomedae's nation of Lastwall at the time of adoption of this right is considered in violation of this right unless and until consultation with the Church of Iomedae confirms otherwise. The convicted may accept other punishments if the court offers one and the criminal prefers it.
This right shall take effect with the adoption of the constitution and the convention and Queen will, before that time, specifically seek out consultation with the Church for the punishments of lashing with a scourge rather than horsewhip, imprisonment, beheading, and the Final Blade, to confirm the proper methods by which these traditional punishments may be permitted.

"...I mean, I'm voting against it, but — for reasons we've already talked about, not for reasons where you could just change something small and I'd be fine with it. I don't have, like, more changes I think we should make that you'll agree to, except I think you should put the list of Lastwall punishments in the law so that people know what they're voting on. ...And I've heard a bunch of different things about who counts as a citizen and who doesn't, could we maybe make it just... apply to everyone, even if they aren't technically a citizen?"

She feels kind of sick. She doesn't understand how everyone here can just decide it's okay for people to get off easy from horrible crimes, as if it doesn't matter what they did. But explaining it hasn't been helping, and — it really seems like it ought to help, but that doesn't mean it is—

"It is my understanding of constitutions," carefully presented for political expediency, "that they are meant as, essentially, agreements between the citizens and the government, where the citizens claim rights and describe the shape of the government, then agree to obey that government as long as it respects those rights. Those who are not citizens are not included in that agreement. I would prefer to pass this, and separately consider how broadly we want to try to draw the lines of citizenship, which I expect will be contentious in both directions, whether it comes from us or from the Slavery committee or from Forests."

Is that how constitutions work? She didn't think they were saying it was okay for anyone to rebel against the entire government if they got tortured during an interrogation, that sounds really unlikely. She's still not entirely clear on how constitutions are different from just regular laws, Archmage Cotonnet read them some constitutions yesterday but they included plenty of things that weren't just rights and who was in charge of the government.

"We voted today on a law against killing people who are trees, though, even though they live in the forests? So I don't see why we couldn't write this law the same way. And, I mean, I wasn't imagining anything we wrote applied to forest-monsters, or anything like that, but I don't think it would've been okay for someone to... torture a slip to death for stealing, or something, even if they did that before we passed the slavery law. And I've seen — I don't know which of these are right, but — I've seen people say only humans are citizens, or that only people born in Cheliax are citizens even if you'd normally count them as subjects of the Queen, or that only Lawful Good people are citizens, or that diabolists aren't citizens. And for the rights I agree with, I wouldn't want to say that, like, Liushna doesn't have them because she's a bird-person, or that Delegate Requena i Cortes doesn't have them just because he was born in Molthune, or that the leftover slaves who aren't slips" (she'd thought they voted to get rid of slavery, but apparently not, or at least that's what today's arguments made it sound like) "don't have them, or, uh, that I don't have them just because I'm not Lawful Good, only I'm pretty sure most people thought that one was wrong. Or even that diabolists don't have them, there's still some things that are wrong to do to diabolists."

This feels - sloppy. For censorship they came in with a proposal and slapped some extra exceptions on to make it workable, and she's proud of that work now that she knows that the alternative was banning practically all books. But this plausibly disallows half of her own plans, and does so just because they're trying to pass something in a single committee period. She's kind of getting attached to democracy, but having to write all laws in a single hour-long session before someone else beats you to it seems insane. The reasonable thing to do would be to consult with the Church first, and then pass a law based on what they say, but apparently if they wait some other people are going to try to bring back flaying people, or something.

....maybe it'll be easier to talk the Church around on indenturement-for-fines than to talk the convention around on not flaying people. Sure, fine, just add 'convince the church of Iomedae of things' to her to do list. That sounds impossible, but so does everything else.

"I do think it should list the punishments we know are allowed."

The worst thing is they agreed this last week and punted on the details. This isn't that rushed, she was going to do this today anyway. And Jilia would actively prefer to leave this for consultation with them as an ongoing thing, not preemptively; if the government needs a new punishment, better to have them have to go ask the Iomedans than pass a new law.

"I suppose once we're listing the ones to ask about, we might as well also list the ones it will allow immediately. And Ferrer, I appreciate your goal, but I think this is a poor way to achieve it. Actually, a vote: For to amend this proposal from 'citizens' to, what was the president's phrase, 'reasoning beings res- living in Cheliax'. Against to keep it as 'citizens of Cheliax'."

Almost included Lady Eriape. That would be bad, and also stupid.

"A baby's not a reasoning being but is a citizen, I reckon."

"Ugh. True, cancel that and give me suggestions for what to say instead."

"People"?

"I read the transcripts of the Slavery committee from the first day. There are plenty of people who deny that halflings or orcs are people."

"Citizens and mortal residents?"

"I think this should say citizens. If citizens are the people who get rights, then defining them is our job anyway. Just - a different job. We can decide what citizens are and what protections non-citizens get later."

"Mortal residents seems likely to include that plant thing that tried to take a seat in the convention, and the dragons in the swamps and hills, and manticores and... you see the problem? I'd rather do as Miss Tallandria says and say 'citizen' and later we can fight over the bounds of where citizen ends and monster or foreigner begins. But if the committee wants an expansive definition for this right I will respect that request."

Also she's hoping not to draw attention to this, and avoid combining the fight to this right with the one over who should get rights at all.

Theopho would really prefer the pretty expansive definition for most things. ...Probably not for this one, adventurers can't follow this kind of rule. No one could take down a lich while restricted to a set set of punishments.

...Actually, "'Citizens and residents not outlaw.' Which explicitly excludes all undead by what I think is universal custom, and implicitly other clear monsters like manticores and dragons. Should exclude tribal orcs in the mountains but not ones enslaved in the foothills, which is probably what it needs to do." Also leaves open the possibility of allowing an outlaw back in by separate law, which probably won't be used but he likes it.

"Covers babies, too." A nod for Theopho.

"With the exception of Avenger Ferrer, we do not want judges naming men outlaw and then breaking them on the wheel."

"I don't want judges — calling every random criminal an outlaw so that they can do whatever they want to them? That's not what I've been saying, I don't think everyone who's ever broken the law deserves to be tortured." 

"I am corrected. It was my mistake."

Would that cover Nidalese recpature-raiders? She's not really sure, and it doesn't really matter.

"I have very little idea what legal customs are in sane nations for how and by who outlawry can be declared. It's not among our listed punishments and I do not know if that would be sufficient to ban doing as the archduke said."