Results 31 to 40 of 41
Thread: Seizure and law holding level
-
06-15-2007, 08:34 AM #31
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).
-
06-15-2007, 05:17 PM #32
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Posts
- 165
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.
-
06-15-2007, 05:29 PM #33
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Posts
- 165
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.
-
06-15-2007, 05:34 PM #34
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 100
- Downloads
- 7
- Uploads
- 0
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.
Last edited by Gwrthefyr; 06-15-2007 at 05:37 PM.
-
06-15-2007, 08:18 PM #35
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?
-
06-15-2007, 09:16 PM #36
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.
-
09-29-2007, 09:12 PM #37
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...
-
09-29-2007, 10:21 PM #38
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.
-
09-30-2007, 07:49 AM #39
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?
-
09-30-2007, 12:41 PM #40
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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).Duane Eggert
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
How do I establish a holding
By Bryon in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 1Last Post: 06-09-2007, 02:57 PM -
Create holding.
By Question in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 9Last Post: 12-05-2005, 04:41 PM -
Low level vs high level
By Endrin Helrick in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 28Last Post: 02-09-2004, 02:50 AM -
Contest Holding
By Arius Vistoon in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 2Last Post: 08-05-2003, 08:31 PM -
The Loyalty Holding.
By Birthright-L in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 2Last Post: 04-24-2002, 03:15 PM
Bookmarks