New food system -- inalienable?

[Patrick]

Based on the new food system, is food meant to be considered an inalienable right of the region lord?  Or are we just to roleplay it as such?

A message regarding food prices, trades, selling, etc:

Under the new trade system, food is considered to be the property of the region lord.
I have already seen bankers, rulers, etc. order lords to sell specific amounts of food for a specific price. Take note that if you are a region lord, you are under absolutely no obligation to follow that. The banker can't take your region away, nor can he punish you in any other way for not doing as he says. If you want to, you can take his advise, but if you don't - well, selling your food for a proper amount will put gold directly into your pocket, something to consider.
Likewise, it is not your job to feed the nearest city. It is the job of that city's lord to do so, for example by issuing buy orders for a fair price.

This is a bif of a change from the old trade system, with its ox carts and automatic transfers which did rather create the impression that rural regions only exist to feed cities. That is no longer the case. If you trade well, a rural region can have a very competitive gold income.

[Tom]

I try to keep the Inalienable Rights to a very small basic set. Food simply isn't important enough, plus you don't really need any protection. What's the banker going to do if you sell your food for 15 instead of the 10 gold he "demands" ? Cry into his pillow?

[D`Este]

Ask the dukes to increase taxes

[Zakilevo]

I try to keep the Inalienable Rights to a very small basic set. Food simply isn't important enough, plus you don't really need any protection. What's the banker going to do if you sell your food for 15 instead of the 10 gold he "demands" ? Cry into his pillow?

or make judges fine region lords for not selling food cheap enough.

[Chenier]

I don't think it should be an IR.

In the realms I've played in, I've always been able to deal with my food as I please, and given the lords I command much freedom in this regard.

However, sometimes, people are just lazy, and they have 3000 bushels rotting away in their 1-warehouse rural while the adjacent city, the capital, is about to starve. In these cases, we need to be able to tell the lazy lord to wake the hell up, without fearing for a bolt.

Let people fight for power over food. The lords can easily do as they wish, don't give them metagame protection.

[Penchant]

I agree with Chenier. The point is not that Bankers or other lords/dukes can't boss you around its that they have no power over it so if they demand you sell it for 10 gold per 100 bushels but you don't want to, then don't. Sell it for 30 gold per 100bushels. Its a poltical risk, if you are constantly being selfish then someone who the the duke or banker will be able to boss around much easier might be who votes for in an election. If its the ruler who is also duke they might not reappoint you if you are captured.

[Anaris]

I thought this looked much more like the restrictions on giving orders that accompanied the introduction of the present army system. It's a push to get people to change the way they use the system because now there's a new system and a better, more appropriate way to use the system.

[Carna]

A few questions:

1) Does this non-IR prevent Rulers/Bankers/Judges/Dukes from enacting consequences for failure to uphold expectations, legislation, instructions and so forth?
2) On the matter of Ducal tax as a consequence and actually somewhat off-topic, can Lords have their estates in other regions or is doing so a bug?
3) "The banker can't take your region away, nor can he punish you in any other way for not doing as he says" - What if he takes the matter to the Judge?
4) "Likewise, it is not your job to feed the nearest city. It is the job of that city's lord to do so, for example by issuing buy orders for a fair price" - Cities have been intentionally starved before. Does this statement have any effect beyond clarifying what is already the case?

I'm guessing this is just laying out what we already know, but I do have some concerns that this will have the effect of an IR, whereby lords have the right to deny food and the duke of the city does not have the right to send an infiltrator or raise Duchy taxes (though with non-specific Duchy taxes, that's halfway impossible already) or Bankers can't go to the Judge to fine a region lord for causing problems with trade agreements. That is a woeful amount of power to hand to every rural lord when their supposed fealty in most realms is to their Duke or their King.

A fair agreement can usually be expected and Lords can already and have already made use of their power of production, but the statement issued implies that Bankers and Duke's can't do anything about it. That is a big change, and I'd like to be certain if that is the intent more than clarification for those who are unaware.

Finn.

[Indirik]

1) no.
2) its a bug.
3) then its an IC power struggle. Good.
4) no.

[Carna]

Tim,

Thanks. I had concerns but your answers have dealt with them. Back to IC

Finn.

[De-Legro]

A few questions:

1) Does this non-IR prevent Rulers/Bankers/Judges/Dukes from enacting consequences for failure to uphold expectations, legislation, instructions and so forth?
2) On the matter of Ducal tax as a consequence and actually somewhat off-topic, can Lords have their estates in other regions or is doing so a bug?
3) "The banker can't take your region away, nor can he punish you in any other way for not doing as he says" - What if he takes the matter to the Judge?
4) "Likewise, it is not your job to feed the nearest city. It is the job of that city's lord to do so, for example by issuing buy orders for a fair price" - Cities have been intentionally starved before. Does this statement have any effect beyond clarifying what is already the case?

I'm guessing this is just laying out what we already know, but I do have some concerns that this will have the effect of an IR, whereby lords have the right to deny food and the duke of the city does not have the right to send an infiltrator or raise Duchy taxes (though with non-specific Duchy taxes, that's halfway impossible already) or Bankers can't go to the Judge to fine a region lord for causing problems with trade agreements. That is a woeful amount of power to hand to every rural lord when their supposed fealty in most realms is to their Duke or their King.

A fair agreement can usually be expected and Lords can already and have already made use of their power of production, but the statement issued implies that Bankers and Duke's can't do anything about it. That is a big change, and I'd like to be certain if that is the intent more than clarification for those who are unaware.

Finn.

My reading is this is a OOC announcement to prevent people from OOC claiming that regions MUST send food to the specified regions under the specified conditions. IC conflict between Bankers/Realm and Lords about food is fine. It also helps establish what should be the "default" attitude towards food. Given this message I would hope that in the case a banker is trying to force a Lord to provide food for free or at too small a price the general attitude of other Lords, knights, the Judge etc would be to uphold the Lords right, so long as he/she isn't being unreasonable in return.

[Geronus]

I think it's a good idea in principle, but I suspect that in practice things won't change much in most realms over the long term. This is kind of an example of one of those areas where Tom wishes the game was one way, but the players just don't play it that way. I'm sure the announcement will make some people think, but the fact is that there's a fair amount of go-along-to-get-along pressure in most realms, particularly when it comes to food. If you're the guy who suddenly puts his foot down and starts unilaterally charging higher prices for food, you're potentially branding yourself as that greedy bastard lord who's selfish and puts his own needs above those of the realm, and there goes any chance of you ever becoming a Duke or Councilor. Most players would rather play nice.

Incidentally, this whole concept really short-changes the lords of city regions, who under the New Estate System are not even necessarily Dukes anymore. They alone are basically going to be subject to extortion by rural lords, while townsland lords (who are almost as wealthy now that Tom has rebalanced populations and gold statistics) are totally self-sufficient. For my money, I'd *much* rather rule a townsland now for any reason other than pure prestige. There's this change, and then also the New Estate system has dramatically reduced the normal income of a city lord anyway, at least of one who doesn't levy something like 50% taxes on his knights (and has enough knights to keep his estates efficiently sized).

[fodder]

food is still dirt cheap (50 gold/100 bushels max for trade) and cities still earn lots of gold.
if it's a tiny city, then they are a bit screwed, but i wouldn't lose much sleep over them

though its true that townsland earn a fair amount of gold, it just means townsland lords can, you know.. pay their own knights a ton.. rather than the rich lord hoarding the gold and then giving it out to any and everyone pretending to be generous, as is usually the case.

in a way, the only "bad" thing with trade is that the money goes to the lord only

[Tom]

or make judges fine region lords for not selling food cheap enough.

Notice the seperation of powers there? Yes, he can do that, but he can't do it on his own. And besides, I as an impertinent region lord would in response jack up my prices even more, publicly explaining that I need the additional gold to pay off the fine, and if there are any more fines, prices will go even higher. If the city doesn't want to starve, it shouldn't try to put pressure on the people who feed it.

Guess how quickly the fining would stop. People have no guts in this game.

[Tom]

That is a woeful amount of power to hand to every rural lord when their supposed fealty in most realms is to their Duke or their King.

Remember that the duke is not necessarily the lord of the city anymore.