Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Beruin View Post
    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).

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    165
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    165
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Beruin View Post
    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.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Tiamat View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Gwrthefyr; 06-15-2007 at 05:37 PM.

  5. #35
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Beruin View Post
    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?

  6. #36
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Tiamat View Post
    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.

  7. #37
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    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...

  8. #38
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  9. #39
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    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?

  10. #40
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    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).
    Duane Eggert

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How do I establish a holding
    By Bryon in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 02:57 PM
  2. Create holding.
    By Question in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-05-2005, 04:41 PM
  3. Low level vs high level
    By Endrin Helrick in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 02:50 AM
  4. Contest Holding
    By Arius Vistoon in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-05-2003, 08:31 PM
  5. The Loyalty Holding.
    By Birthright-L in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-24-2002, 03:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.