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