Seizure and law holding level

[Sir Tiamat]

Seizure has been plaguing me for a week now. I find it defective, because the seizures are totally independent of law holding levels. Consequently, a level 1 law holding can seize as much as a level 7 law holding: 1d6 GB.

Eventually, I came to the conclusion that ¾ GB per holding level is a good average gain for a seizure (see below). After struggling some time with the correct method, I came up with to methods, both averaging ¾ GB income.

-The first: 1d2 * 0.5 GB/ law holding level

-The second: 1d4 - 2 GB with a minimum of 0 per die/ law holding level

The second is my absolute favorite for it allows a broader range of income especially for low level holdings. It better suits the uncertain nature of a seizure; a low level holding can strike gold or miss, while a larger holding will get a more balance income.

What say you?

Please shoot ;)


--------------| Calculating average income |-------------------------

1d6 averages 3.5 GB, I assume this to be roughly the correct seizure for a level 4 or 5 holding. This would imply an average of 0.875 and 0.7 respectively, which is roughly ¾ of a GB per level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[AndrewTall]

, I came up with to methods, both averaging ¾ GB income.

-The first: 1d2 * 0.5 GB/ law holding level


Hmm, that gives income similar to guild/priest holdings, which with the "aid/oppose any holding in a domain action" ability may over-power the holding type, although the change is an improvement in my view. The income is moderated by the fact it takes GB from another holding - which may have repercussions and discourage routine claims so I'd ok it - with the proviso that over-use have DM repercussions.

How do you allocate the law claim - is it against a set holding or random?

I'd put a cap of 50% of any target's income (including trade route income for guilds) being taken - the law holder can then nominate a second target for the claim for any residue.

An alternative cap would be dependent on relative holding levels, i.e:

Law < target holding level = max 25%
Law = target holding level = max 50%
Law > target holding level = max 75%
Law > 2* target holding level = max 100% (ouch, this will be very unpopular!)

[Dcolby]

I like the Law level vs the target level method yielding a precentage of profit...It seems a fairly smooth manner to resolve the collections while rendering the Larger non law holdings more resilient but not immune to a greedy rulers "Star Chamber".

[kgauck]

Let's not allow the late abuses of the Star Chamber to color our judgements. When the Star Chamber was introduced it was a reform to speed up otherwise interminable legal cases. The Star Chamber was staffed with professionals (not friends of the king) and was a court of appeal, designed to resolve cases the courts had been unable to resolve. Its the kind of thing I would like to see clever regents produce.

Its unhappy end under Charles I has more to do with the fall of Charles I than it does with any inherent abuses.

[irdeggman]

Good point on the income generated by seizure. We tried very hard to reduce the "randomness" of all income generation methods to keep more in line with the D&D core rules pattern of less randomness. This is one that caused a lot of trouble because of its very nature.

My rough opinion is something along the following:

1 GB plus 1 GB per difference in level of law holding versus target holding.

By applying RP a law regent can increase the "effective level" of his holding for this calculation by 1 per 2 RP spent.

The downside of this action is that the "attitude" of the province is immediately worsened by 1 step.

Likewise I would move it to being a domain action - a court action seems most appropriate to me. This would reflect the "activeness" required to execute a seizure as well as having to wait until the holdings/provinces have "generated" their income before being able to take it away.

What this does is remove the randomness (maybe not a totally good idea but still . . .) Help to keep the law holdings from merely "taking everything" being generated. Allows the law regent to apply his RP (i.e., his "influence") but has the ramifaction of introducing "fear" into the province. With a lower "attitude" subsequent actions in the province are made that much more difficult.

The affect on attitude will likewise help to "motivate" the province ruler to maintain control of the law holding to help prevent this.

[AndrewTall]

My rough opinion is something along the following:

1 GB plus 1 GB per difference in level of law holding versus target holding.

By applying RP a law regent can increase the "effective level" of his holding for this calculation by 1 per 2 RP spent.

The downside of this action is that the "attitude" of the province is immediately worsened by 1 step.


Hmm, should the 'victim' be able to spend RP to reduce the take? That could get interesting...

I'd have thought that the domain attitude shouldn't be affected - why should the attitude go down because the merchants finally have to pay their taxes? Now if the merchant agitates in 'vengeance' then by all means - but that is the downside of making claims in my view not some fixed mechanic...

The issue with 1 Gb + (Max(0,[law level - holding level]) as income is that it can utterly eliminate the holdings income - that may of course be fine in most parts but I foresee that causing major issues in 'rebel' type campaigns, similarly in rulers dealing with 'unhelpful' regents.

[irdeggman]

Hmm, should the 'victim' be able to spend RP to reduce the take? That could get interesting...

I would say no because it is not a "bidding" issue - more akin to a Realm Spell if you will.


I'd have thought that the domain attitude shouldn't be affected - why should the attitude go down because the merchants finally have to pay their taxes? Now if the merchant agitates in 'vengeance' then by all means - but that is the downside of making claims in my view not some fixed mechanic...

But this reflects the "shake down" of a normal holding's income. It is not the normal "taxes" that are paid. Those are already covered in the normal income from the province and law holdings themselves. Seizure is a way a law holding can "induce" more income than their share from collecting taxes.

If the local guilder is being shaken down by "force" then why wouldn't the populace be real afraid of the situation?


The issue with 1 Gb + (Max(0,[law level - holding level]) as income is that it can utterly eliminate the holdings income - that may of course be fine in most parts but I foresee that causing major issues in 'rebel' type campaigns, similarly in rulers dealing with 'unhelpful' regents.

Which is what it would actually do. But the down side is the attitude effect and subsequent difficulty in getting anything else done because of it. essentially "seizure" should not be used very frequently at all due to the ramifications it imposes.

Now the landed regent could send in troops to squash the rebellious law holder and attempt to restore peace. That is in essentially how a landed regent can attempt his equivalent of "seizure" - or use a decree to gain a few GBs.

[ryancaveney]

But this reflects the "shake down" of a normal holding's income. It is not the normal "taxes" that are paid. Those are already covered in the normal income from the province and law holdings themselves. Seizure is a way a law holding can "induce" more income than their share from collecting taxes.

I think it is exactly the normal taxes paid *by guild and temple holdings*. Province taxation represents money the province owner normally receives *from owning land*. Law claims from guild holdings and trade routes represent money the law regent normally receives in *tariffs, tolls and excise taxes*. Law claims from temple holdings represent money the law regent normally receives as his share of church lands and tithes, and the administration of ecclesiastical courts. This last is a distinct difference from medieval history, but that's because Cerilia is emphatically not monotheistic, and even the temple factions loyal to one of the gods regularly fight amongst themselves. The temples have a somewhat privileged position, socially and legally, but not so privileged that they can avoid regular taxation.

I have always applied law claims automatically, and incorporated the resulting additions and deductions into normal income without even telling players how much came from which source. It's just the way things are done -- part of the normal course of doing business. It's what law holdings do just by existing, in my opinion: seizure is inherent in determining their fair share. Law holdings produce no income by themselves; they produce income only by increasing the efficiency of property taxation (ignorable levels of loyalty reduction) and setting the percentage of income taxation (claims against guild and temple holdings).


If the local guilder is being shaken down by "force" then why wouldn't the populace be real afraid of the situation?

Because it's perfectly normal and natural and no force is required unless the guilder tries to protect his cash by force, which is going to go poorly (unless he already controls the realm, in which case it doesn't matter; he claims against himself, and no money is lost). In fact, to my way of thinking, suddenly *stopping* law claims will cause civil unrest, as people grumble about unfair favoritism being shown to the merchants: "Why don't they have to pay their fair share? Now we'll be forced to work even harder to make up the difference!"


Ryan

[irdeggman]

I think it is exactly the normal taxes paid *by guild and temple holdings*. Province taxation represents money the province owner normally receives *from owning land*. Law claims from guild holdings and trade routes represent money the law regent normally receives in *tariffs, tolls and excise taxes*. Law claims from temple holdings represent money the law regent normally receives as his share of church lands and tithes, and the administration of ecclesiastical courts. This last is a distinct difference from medieval history, but that's because Cerilia is emphatically not monotheistic, and even the temple factions loyal to one of the gods regularly fight amongst themselves. The temples have a somewhat privileged position, socially and legally, but not so privileged that they can avoid regular taxation.

Not in the BRCS - which is where this question was founded.


Base Law Holding income:


A law holding generates a base income per season equal to 1/3 its rating; law holdings are far less profitable than equivalent guild or temple holdings. A law holding represents the military might used to enforce the collection of taxes (if necessary), but the actual monies that pass through a law holding are destined for the province ruler (and might not, in fact, be collected by agents of the law at all).


Whereas seizure is taking "extra" money through brigandage, not the "normal" paying of taxes.



Seizures

A law regent has the ability to take additional portions of the incomes generated by provinces, temples, or guild holdings through brigandage. Seizures represent emergency measures (such as aides for ransoms or war expenses), draconian or unfair enforcement of the law, corruption and bribery, or outright banditry on the part of the agents of the law holding. Seizures reduce the income of one or more target holdings and/or the province itself. Seizures generate a total of 1d6 GB for the law holding. The gains are taken from the coffers of the target regent(s) and are distributed proportionally to the income of the targeted assets. The law regent's gains are obviously limited to the maximum collections of the target holdings. Fortified holdings are immune to seizures.

Seizures may have disastrous effects upon the law holding regent's reputation and upon his relationships to the aggrieved targets as well as other who may (rightfully) fear similar abuses in the future. For this reason, among others, the law holdings of most realms are usually held by the province regent or by a trusted vassal of the ruler.



Whereas in 2nd the "only" way a law could generate income was via seizure (or making claims against temple or guild holdings).

[ryancaveney]

Not in the BRCS - which is where this question was founded.

I hadn't noticed until you said that. As a change from the original rules, I like the addition of a small amount of regular income, since the administration of the courts was an important source of income for medieval rulers, but I don't like making claims against guild and temple holdings at all unusual.


Whereas seizure is taking "extra" money through brigandage, not the "normal" paying of taxes.

Brigandage is surely not the right word for extraordinary taxation! Robin Hood is a brigand, but the Sheriff of Nottingham is definitely not. His actions are unpopular, but entirely legal.


Ryan

[kgauck]

I can see it both ways. As I mentioned earlier, half of the income of the kings of England was from the crown's control of the law courts. Other kings didn't get quite as much, but its always a good source of income. But still further, kings did impose "extraordinary taxation" on both the Church and cities (which amounts to guilders) during extraordinary circumstances.

One could almost make the argument that law claims should have the same "light", "moderate", and "heavy" categories.

About the Church Tax. In England, Edward I got the pope to agree to the crown taking 8% of the Church's income. In France, the crown didn't get a normal share of Church income, but the crown could ask the Church for money, and starting with Philippe Augustus, the Bishops would gather and vote the crown a sum of money. Sometimes it was what the crown asked for, sometimes a little less, only rarely was the king refused. Kings generally don't ask when they expect a "no".

Always there was a notion that Church payments to the crown were contributions for the defense of the realm, not obligations the Church had to make to the state.

Extraordinary impositions on cities were generally enforced loans, not taxes, but the crown didn't neccesarily pay on time, or at all, and there isn't a lot of recourse.

The most glaring problem in the accounts of BR is that we lack loans.

[Gman]

I always wondered how a mixed law holding would be put together.

Courts - requests and "Loans" are would be how I saw seizure by Law holdings.

So something like this.

Lets say the Mhor has a Law holding level 2 in a Ghoere province.
Pop 6 and Ghoere has the rest of the Law.

What does this level 2 Law holding represent?

A Ranger troop? A local Lord that is on the border and normally pays tax to Ghoere while being allied with the Mhor?
I'd say something like both.

So In my mind in this senario the Mhor can make a "Seizure" of tax normally paid to the Ghoere.

It would probably be something like a request for additional funding for Rangers due to recent "Gnoll" incursions. i.e. the local population are protected more by the Ranger troop than by the army and the local population may even view this very favourably.

The local Lord sends a message to Ghoere apoligising for the pitiful tax he has paid - but due to local "gnoll" problems less revenue has been earned.

The Ghoere then decides whether to make an issue of it - to send more soldiers to the province or just a new Captain and tell the rangers that their services and no longer required as the local army will be dealing with the problem (raising law levels).

Or to just cop it sweet this time because it's not like it happens that often.

He could send orders to this particular Lord (requiring his son to "Study" at the capital or any of a dozen other methods used in feudal era's to gain more control over a minor lord (Hostage).

Is that how others see it?

[irdeggman]

Brigandage is surely not the right word for extraordinary taxation! Robin Hood is a brigand, but the Sheriff of Nottingham is definitely not. His actions are unpopular, but entirely legal.


Ryan

But the seizure ability (in the BRCS) is not "taxation" the text makes it very clear is is pretty close to brigandage as you can get.



A law regent has the ability to take additional portions of the incomes generated by provinces, temples, or guild holdings through brigandage. Seizures represent emergency measures (such as aides for ransoms or war expenses), draconian or unfair enforcement of the law, corruption and bribery, or outright banditry on the part of the agents of the law holding.

While Robin Hood is a brigand the excessive shakedown of the Sheriff (which would be beyond the desired "taxation" of the King) is due to corruption or more appropriately "unfair enforcement of the law".

The entire point of seizure in the BRCS was that it was a military (i.e., force) based collection of income beyond that which is the norm and expected.

When armed "police" come knocking on the doors of the guildmaster and temples then the people see them walking the streets more and their presence is more than just "protection". This will cause a feeling of unrest (to a lesser extent than being "occupied" will but it is still similar in nature).

One has to remember that a "holding" is not a single building it is a group of them within an area. So when the law holding is performing its shakedown it has to cover a lot of different locations - hence the greater visibility. The population "sees" this behaviour and "reacts" accordingly.

Well, that is my opinion anyway.

But the BRCS seizure and normal collection of taxes is not the same thing at all and was not intended to be.

[irdeggman]

The most glaring problem in the accounts of BR is that we lack loans.

Actually. . . .


BRCS-playtest pg 106


Finance [Court; 0 GB]
Regent gain money and treasure from a variety of sources –
taxes, tithes, trade routes, plying trade, adventuring – and they
need to keep careful track of their funds. This domain action
allows regents to convert coinage, jewelry, and other goods
(magical items, adventuring loot) to/from Gold Bars. This
conversion takes place at the ratio of 2,000 gp for 1 GB (and
visa versa). In each domain turn, a regent may convert as
many as 5 GB, plus 1 GB per level of guild holding he controls.

Regents should try to distinguish personal wealth from the
domain's treasury. Many subjects, particularly nobles, believe
that the treasury belongs to the realm, not the individual who
is currently its regent. Excessive spending of the realm's finances
may affect domain attitude or spark a domain event.

Realms that are in need of GB can obtain loans from anyone
with sufficient money to lend (including the regent's personal
funds). The terms of interest are subject to negotiation; an
interest rate of 10% for one year is fair.

[irdeggman]

Gman,

Interesting take. Works well in the "flavor" explanation.

A law holding could attempt a seizure of the province taxes themselves.

The rationalization of the resulting "attitude" is something that would have to worked out on a case basis really.

This case being more of the exception than the rule, IMO.

[kgauck]

Historical realms normally owed between two and five years worth of revenues, depending on how often they were at war. Guilders were made and destroyed loaning money to royals. I haven't heard of this going on.

[Gwrthefyr]

Historical realms normally owed between two and five years worth of revenues, depending on how often they were at war. Guilders were made and destroyed loaning money to royals. I haven't heard of this going on.

The Investiture/Contest & Destroy mechanisms make it quite hard - there's little room for, say, a prospective Fugger bank to expand.

[kgauck]

One of the things that say Renaissance to me is the rise of modern banking, the sale of bonds, and letters of account - the first paper money. Since I try to take a campaign through the process of the Renaissance, inheriting a medieval state, and leaving a modern one at the end of the game, this kind of stuff cries out.

[irdeggman]

Historical realms normally owed between two and five years worth of revenues, depending on how often they were at war. Guilders were made and destroyed loaning money to royals. I haven't heard of this going on.


But this isn't a matter of "mechanics" it is a matter of how players run their PCs.

The game-mechanics do allow for this to happen, the players on the other hand tend to not "over spend" or "over borrow".

So unless the DM "forces" the players to run a "historical" game then it will likely turn out the way it has been.

[ryancaveney]

But the seizure ability (in the BRCS) is not "taxation" the text makes it very clear is is pretty close to brigandage as you can get.

Well, that's one way to reinterpret the original rule, but I don't think it's the best one.


The entire point of seizure in the BRCS was that it was a military (i.e., force) based collection of income beyond that which is the norm and expected. ... But the BRCS seizure and normal collection of taxes is not the same thing at all and was not intended to be.

I can see that as something the rules should include as an option, but law holdings should definitely siphon off some of the guild and temple income purely by existing, with the option to take more if desired. However, the default income tax bracket for merchants should definitely not be zero percent.


Ryan

[irdeggman]

I can see that as something the rules should include as an option, but law holdings should definitely siphon off some of the guild and temple income purely by existing, with the option to take more if desired. However, the default income tax bracket for merchants should definitely not be zero percent.

Ryan

Ahh but the income generated via the BRCS rules is actually less than that from the 2nd ed rules and was designed to be a "simpler" system and to follow in the 3.5 pattern of less randomization and dice rolls. The maintence costs when combined with the income actually transfer into a slightly less income (IIRC) than could be done in 2nd ed. That is the best rolls in 2nd ed would yield higher income than the BRCS and the worst rolls would yield substantially less. The average I believe comes out to be slightly less (factoring in maintenance costs) in the BRCS than in 2nd ed.

So guilds don't really have a base 0 percent tax rate there is a "built in" rate that is already considered in the original number.

[Sir Tiamat]

-The second: 1d4 GB with a minimum of 0 per die/ law holding level

The second is my absolute favorite for it allows a broader range of income especially for low level holdings. It better suits the uncertain nature of a seizure; a low level holding can strike gold or miss, while a larger holding will get a more balance income.


I meant 1d4 - 2 GB per holding level

I omitted the -2 and I only just noticed it...

sorry :(

[Sir Tiamat]

Other considerations:

-Fortified holdings should be protected from seizures

-A limited seizure: deliberately seizing less than the maximum should also be possible in my view

[AndrewTall]

Hmm. Hadn't properly read the seizure text Irdeggman - thanks for pointing it out.

I'd say that the morale hit should be avoidable if the action is explicable. i.e. if a guilder does something wrong, the ruler oppresses the people etc, then the law holder can be seen as doing the right thing.

Possibly a diplomacy check? Failure indicating that the reason (read excuse) is insufficient in the eyes of the populous?

However the drop only hits the law holder if they are also the ruler (the norm admittedly) so the Mhor in the example above would be seizing taxes every round while Ghoere fumed at the rebellion it caused him and the Mhor waited for the province to fall into his hands...

One alternative is that each seizure has a 10 or even 20% chance to drop the law holding a level - cumulative with any other seizures since an unbroken period of a year with no seizures... That hits the law regent, and indicates the fact that as the law regent keeps taxing harshly they lose the support of the people, how to build your own great captain...

[kgauck]

[The ability to borrow ...] isn't a matter of "mechanics" it is a matter of how players run their PCs.

The game-mechanics do allow for this to happen, the players on the other hand tend to not "over spend" or "over borrow".

I would say its not so much that the mechanics allow it, but rather they don't prevent it. I'd like to see things like a mention in the Dipolomacy Action, that its used for contracting loans with from other regents, and back in 2nd edition when classes got free realm actions for certain holdings, I made rogues choose between the free espionage action or the free banking action. Plus there is no description of what loans look like, and I think players would normally be inclined to think in modern terms, which are much more complicated with interest and compound interest, where medieval and renaissance banking just tacked all the interest on in a balloon payment, which we would recognize as a bond. Roesone asks Spider River Traders for a 10GB loan, and pays them back 12 GB in two years. Done. During negotiations Spider River and Roesone would settle on the extra payment, basically to cover the risk that Roesone won't pay back the loan. No seasonal installments, no calculations of interest, or fractional GB, they settle on a period of the loan and a re-payment amount and they go. Quite simple.

When loans are mentioned as a normal part of doing business, then I think we can say the rules support an action. Otherwise its just a function of not disallowing it.


So unless the DM "forces" the players to run a "historical" game then it will likely turn out the way it has been.Well the DM always determines the pace at which players spend by controlling the pace of NPC spending. If the PC's get word that their great adversary realm has contracted for a loan of 25 GB, the players will respond somewhere in that ballpark. If the DM never has the NPC realms borrow money, then the PC's won't go looking for financial liabilities.

[kgauck]

-Fortified holdings should be protected from seizures
If seizures are only banditry, then sure. But what if seizures by law holdings also represent court suits? In my Baruk-Azhik campaign, the Overthane had at his disposal a Grand Judge who was min-maxed to win legal battles. He insulated the Overthane from law seizures and allowed the Overthane to seize against anyone else. Not by sending in bandits or soldiers (how undwarven!) but by going to court and suing other holdings for this, that or the other thing. Failure to pay a construction tax, collect tax, impose penalties, require fees. Exceeding the granted licence to herd goats by herding sheep as well, seek fines, impose punative penalties. Failure to display guild emblems in seven guild organizations, seek fines, require back fees.

[Beruin]

I can see that as something the rules should include as an option, but law holdings should definitely siphon off some of the guild and temple income purely by existing, with the option to take more if desired. However, the default income tax bracket for merchants should definitely not be zero percent.



Ahh but the income generated via the BRCS rules is actually less than that from the 2nd ed rules and was designed to be a "simpler" system and to follow in the 3.5 pattern of less randomization and dice rolls.

So guilds don't really have a base 0 percent tax rate there is a "built in" rate that is already considered in the original number.

I'd agree with Irdeggman that normal taxation is already built in, especially with the lowered income in the BRCS. The income rules in BR are abstract enough to assume this.

It might also be useful to bear in mind that the income rules only measure the amount of money that arrives at the top tier of any given hierarchy, the total revenue generated by provinces and holdings is in my view at least three times, more likely even four times that great.

This is can be easily shown with provinces and temples:


Provinces: the peasants pay most of their taxes (heriots, tallages whatever) to the Lord of the manor, who keeps a third for himself and transfers the rest to the count of the province who keeps another third and transfers the final third to the ruler of the realm - voila, our income.

Temples: In the same way, tithes go to the local priest who takes a third (his wage so-to-speak), delivering the rest to his bishop (or however you call the highest temple representative in a province) who once again pockets a part and then transfers the remainder to the head of his church.


For guilds, this is more difficult to describe, but here also there will be a number of middlemen taking their share of the profits. Taxes and tolls will be paid at all tiers of these hierarchies and will be deducted even before the income reaches the regent.

[Beruin]

However the drop only hits the law holder if they are also the ruler (the norm admittedly) so the Mhor in the example above would be seizing taxes every round while Ghoere fumed at the rebellion it caused him and the Mhor waited for the province to fall into his hands...

One alternative is that each seizure has a 10 or even 20% chance to drop the law holding a level - cumulative with any other seizures since an unbroken period of a year with no seizures... That hits the law regent, and indicates the fact that as the law regent keeps taxing harshly they lose the support of the people, how to build your own great captain...

I believe it's okay if the morale hit only affects the province ruler, even if he isn't the one responsible for the seizure. IMO, the morale hit reflects that the people fear that they or could be next once law seizures start, and after all, it is the duty of the province ruler to protect his people from unfair taxation or downright banditry.

I also don't see how to rationalize your alternative to the morale hit. A continuing streak of seizures might even lead to increasing the hold the law regent has on the province, i.e. could also raisethe holding a level. However, the loss of support could be perhaps represent by losing the RPs collected from the holding.

Speaking of banditry, as a DM I also often apply seizures from uncontrolled law holdings and these really represent the presence of brigands and bandits.

[Beruin]

-Fortified holdings should be protected from seizures



If seizures are only banditry, then sure. But what if seizures by law holdings also represent court suits?

Hhm, using the BRCS wouldn't court suits be represented by a law holding's income?

However, I also don't think that fortified holdings should be protected from seizures.
First, I see seizure as the little brother of the contest action, you are not trying to totally neutralize or destroy the target holding, but you try to take away its income. Fortified holdings also don't help against contests.

Second, to seize a holdings income it is sufficent if you have a certain control
on the traffic to and from the target holding, you don't really have to 'enter' it.

[Gman]

Technically you can hold more of the Law in a province than the supposed ruler. It makes it very hard for the ruler to rule if you don't want them to.

The term Seizure and its association with Brigandry seems to me to be a poor explaination of what is happening in a province when someone who holds part of the law decides to take some of the revenue.

If you hold part, lots or all of the "Law" in a province then you surely can't be doing anything that can be construed as illegal when you decide to take the revenue. After all a law holding means you have a grasp of the Legal authority in a particular place or at the very least the rubber hits the road Power.

If the local lord/ Mayor of a town/ Ranger troop/ Local militia/ another scion that possesses the local law holding does not send the gold to the "king" for whatever "legal" reason they have (or even semi legal) all the local population knows is that they (very probably) gave their tax to the normal person who collects it.

What happens to the gold after that is a problem of the "king" trying to get the gold he feels is legally his out of someone He does not have the total Law/legal power to control.

Uncontrolled law could be construed a brigandry and "Illegal" but Lord Kreug and his band of merry marauders never sweared No oath to NObody. In fact their ain't any judge to swear to where Lord Kreug lives.

If the king wants to give him a big box of gold to swear allegiance then he had bloddy better well send it.(rule up law) Make part of the system - make into a non "illegal" body or send somebody out there who is tough enough to change things.

This is without getting into - Local traditions, Hearth Lore, Karl lore, common lore, everymans right, unstated laws of different cultures that to me suggest that multiple different "legal" systems could exist in the same area.

So in summary - one mans brigand is anothers tax gatherer.

Whoever holds the Power of a law holding can take some of the revenue of the province if they exercise that law holding.

Whether they technically did something illegal would be a matter for the judges/armies/etc.

Without enough law Holding a ruler doesn't have the power to enforce their will.

Exercising a Law holding power to seize revenue will lead to repercussions especially if done all the time.
I would suggest that a formula something like "if 2x total normal revenue of province is lost over any year period then counter action of some sort will be attempted." If 3X then Ghoere is sending the army in "

[kgauck]

Hhm, using the BRCS wouldn't court suits be represented by a law holding's income?
If you're asking me, I'd say no, because law holdings don't make as much money as taxation. But that's just my answer. Depending on how you view any number of things, all of this can mean all kinds of things.

Me, I'm devoted to Haelyn and think that the law is really, really the sleeper holding, actually holding all the power. But that's just me (and Haelyn).

[Sir Tiamat]

If seizures are only banditry, then sure. But what if seizures by law holdings also represent court suits? In my Baruk-Azhik campaign, the Overthane had at his disposal a Grand Judge who was min-maxed to win legal battles. He insulated the Overthane from law seizures and allowed the Overthane to seize against anyone else. Not by sending in bandits or soldiers (how undwarven!) but by going to court and suing other holdings for this, that or the other thing. Failure to pay a construction tax, collect tax, impose penalties, require fees. Exceeding the granted licence to herd goats by herding sheep as well, seek fines, impose punative penalties. Failure to display guild emblems in seven guild organizations, seek fines, require back fees.

Surely seizures could represent court suits, but this is only part of the story.

A regent may sue or fine another regent However, were the other regent to refuse pay, no amount of court suits could force the other regent to pay if his/her assets were well-protected.

[Sir Tiamat]

Second, to seize a holdings income it is sufficent if you have a certain control on the traffic to and from the target holding, you don't really have to 'enter' it.

Especially with guild holdings I expect a fortified holding to be more than a simple fortress, but also include some manpower to defend assets and smuggling routes to protect income against foreign troops.

The same thing with temple holdings: how does one capture the traffic, seeing that temples may include walled lands. Will the law simply shakedown every commoner that visits the temple?

In my view if a fortified holding can protect its assets against military force, then it could protect against police force.

[Gwrthefyr]

Surely seizures could represent court suits, but this is only part of the story.

A regent may sue or fine another regent However, were the other regent to refuse pay, no amount of court suits could force the other regent to pay if his/her assets were well-protected.

The principle of the seizure works, I think, on the idea of pay up or else; there's no lack of religious leaders, prospective bankers, etc. to fill the boots of the recalcitrants. There were, by the time of the early renaissance, plenty of mechanisms by which princes could work (land seizures, benevolences, beds of justice) to impose their will on about anyone without resorting to chevauchees (which, on vassals, would look more than just a little bad). Reflecting fortification as a penalty might suffice: the regents cannot escape the government altogether - they still have to live as part of the realm's high society, otherwise they have to be ready to consider that, yes, their time on top is over.

[AndrewTall]

I believe it's okay if the morale hit only affects the province ruler, even if he isn't the one responsible for the seizure. IMO, the morale hit reflects that the people fear that they or could be next once law seizures start, and after all, it is the duty of the province ruler to protect his people from unfair taxation or downright banditry.

I also don't see how to rationalize your alternative to the morale hit. A continuing streak of seizures might even lead to increasing the hold the law regent has on the province, i.e. could also raisethe holding a level. However, the loss of support could be perhaps represent by losing the RPs collected from the holding.

Speaking of banditry, as a DM I also often apply seizures from uncontrolled law holdings and these really represent the presence of brigands and bandits.

A law holding represents a body of people who can influence actions across the province of almost all kinds, obtain income from other holdings, etc. They can be bandits who steal, blackmail, etc as easily as sheriffs who tax, ban/arrest etc. similarly they could be religious courts, merchant councils, etc - anything with the legal/moral/physical presence to command others - the law holding is a mechanic to describe a set of powers and income like any other holding type - not necessarily a rigid description.

If a regent is using seizures then the BRCS extract posted by irdeggman indicates that the regent is are going beyond the norm - the river bandits can milk 1/3 a Gb a round (mostly from 'little people' without making enough people mad to risk a counter action, if they start using seizure actions to raid the guilds trade, the temples tithes, etc then they 'cross the line' - if they do it often enough an vigilantes and victims will start striking back at them.

Similarly the sheriff can creatively interpret orders to tax the market both morning and afternoon rather than daily as per age old custom, but do it enough and the militia start turning up floating face down in the well, old father Grael convinces young Tomas to leave the 'band of bullies', etc.

Reducing the level of the holding is easily rationalised if seizure is seen as an 'excess' whatever seizure mechanism is used, Kenneth's judge for example may find that his brutal one-sided judgments so enrage his victims that his judge is unseated, the militia misinterpret his arrest orders, other judges start routinely over-riding his judgments as they are flawed, the nobles appeal to the king to rein in 'the hanging judge', etc.

Yes I suppose that if the seizing holding is making a killing it might attract enough of 'the wrong crowd' to grow but the RP gain indicates belief or fear so could also increase - is the dread pirate Roberts feared more or less if he is more active?

[kgauck]

Surely seizures could represent court suits, but this is only part of the story.

A regent may sue or fine another regent However, were the other regent to refuse pay, no amount of court suits could force the other regent to pay if his/her assets were well-protected.

Sure, but then the other regent is outside the protection of the law. The high guilder may not mind being an outlaw, but joe crafter and bob smith don't want their assets siezed. Once you thumb your nose at the law, your only friends are criminals and other outlaws. This may be a substantial group, but it may also be a very small, lonely group.

[AndrewTall]

Ok. Been thinking a bit on how to keep seizures down (on the assumption that they are much more than just taxes).

The morale hit stops the local ruler/law regent from seizing repeatedly so that works fine for them - and their vassals.

But a non-ruler needs something to stop them seizing too.

How about the seizure driving people to alternate law regents - so each seizure has a 20% chance per GB of increasing the level of another law holding / creating a L0 law holding (bandits rustle castle up and down the river, a dozen angry farmers turn up at each militia post to form posse's).

For 1 turn per 4 GB's seized in the last year the new/strengthened law holder can contest the seizing holder for 0 Gb base cost. Would a bonus of +1 per Gb or two taken by seizure in the last year to the contest be excessive?

The basic idea would be to have the seizing holder effectively build their own opposition by their actions.

This would be in addition to the normal diplomatic troubles of course...

[kgauck]

The middle ages had extraordinary taxes. These were taxes that were not customary or traditional, but were imposed in crisis. Generally people only were willing to pay them under conditions where need was obvious. These extraordinary taxes were generally levied on the church, cities and towns, guilds, and the conspicuously wealthy. Usually not all at once. These taxes were overall consentual, though as taxes on a group, only group leaders were the ones consenting to the tax. Those who paid were bound by the agreement struck by their leaders.

If siezures represent extraordinary taxes, they really can't be levied without the consent of those who are leaders of they payers (the regents of temple and guild).

The law states how much you can tax, and how it is collected. Medieval law did not allow innovations. There was no legal way to impose new taxes. So new taxes required the consent of those taxed, or they would take the issue to court where they would win. Generally, royals who tried to impose extraordinary taxes without consent were either in an upper hand position (and woe to them when they lost the upper hand) or they got their heads on the block.

[AndrewTall]

The middle ages had extraordinary taxes. These were taxes that were not customary or traditional, but were imposed in crisis.

Interesting. I'd mechanic these taxes not with seizures (which are in BRCs designed more as smash 'n' grab as far as I can see) but with opposed diplomacy with the realm/holding leaders - if the realm leader convinces the guild or temple to pay the tax (successful diplomacy DC 10+tax demand - law level + opposed holding level) then they can levy the tax. With modifiers for past taxation, current events etc. These taxes should then adjust the domain attitude DC check next season with a modifier of 2x the tax levied, and the season after with 1x the tax - again to stop the 'I am the god-king' type leaders over-taxing.


Not quite sure what that leaves seizures representing though, 'bandit' law holdings are no problem, but seizure from a 'legal' law holding?

My guesses are:

* 'interesting' interpretations of the law to claim money.
* 'overlooking' certain traditional rights of people to avoid taxes (like priests).
* the imposition of wildcat duties and tariffs on goods imported/exported.
* the imposition of much harsher fines and the like than usual for crimes.
* penalties levied for even trivial offences otherwise long forgotten (carrying more than 3 gromits of apples on a market day? 3 coppers!)
* forced donations to public works and the like.
* the requirement of service from the peasantry - 'x' days labour from all healthy men on the building of roads, etc. (This cuts the income of the guilds and temples rather than taking gold off them but with the same overall impact).

Any one have other/better examples?

[irdeggman]

Ok. Been thinking a bit on how to keep seizures down (on the assumption that they are much more than just taxes).

The morale hit stops the local ruler/law regent from seizing repeatedly so that works fine for them - and their vassals.

But a non-ruler needs something to stop them seizing too.

How about the seizure driving people to alternate law regents - so each seizure has a 20% chance per GB of increasing the level of another law holding / creating a L0 law holding (bandits rustle castle up and down the river, a dozen angry farmers turn up at each militia post to form posse's).

For 1 turn per 4 GB's seized in the last year the new/strengthened law holder can contest the seizing holder for 0 Gb base cost. Would a bonus of +1 per Gb or two taken by seizure in the last year to the contest be excessive?

The basic idea would be to have the seizing holder effectively build their own opposition by their actions.

This would be in addition to the normal diplomatic troubles of course...

Why not simply apply the morale hit to province level effects on that specific regent?

The BRCS is vague enough on how much detail you put into specific attitudes that if you break it down to non-ruler it should likewise follow that he gets the same "penalty" as the ruler would (in addition to some added attention from the ruler himself for "pissing off" the populace).

[kgauck]

Interesting. I'd mechanic these taxes not with seizures but with opposed diplomacy [...]

Cerilia is not Medieval Europe, I posted this example as an example of what siezures might represent, if the DM's view of things tended to the more restrictive regarding siezures.

But really, all a siezure is is a situation where money headed in the direction of one ruler, gets diverted to the income of another ruler. This could be sweet and gentle, or, as you say, smash and grab.

For instance, I may (as the holder of some law) have the social right to compel the great and the wealthy to sponsor public festivals, and this is understood by the public to be a display of my power and magesty. So that when I can compell guilder Kalien to sponsor the festival of Sarimaenum in November at the end of the fall season, I look good and great, and public duties that I am responsible for are compeleted with someone elses money. Further, what I can compel from Kalien, makes it easier to compel from those who would be Kalien, so that a season where I get a lot from him, I get a lot from the lower guilders in his organization who I task to similarly perform state functions as a gift to the state. So I get work done at a value of X GB though (as is the way with GB) I don't actually recieve any money at all. Other months I can get little from Kalien and little from his minions as well.

This would be an interesting and colorful bit of fluff for the game which could even introduce some role play hooks, but is really just an explanation of what a siezure is.

It could be legitimate law claims in the courts, it could be anything, because the meaning of a GB and the description of a law claim is so vague. I'll spend some time inventing some additional descriptions of what a law claim might be, distinct from extra-ordinary taxes, or the social right to compel state projects.