Would be nice if curtiers could get paid for the work they do.Payment would depend on the actual improvments they bring to a region.No change to region status means no payment.
Maybe the region lord could place some gold to be given out for curtier work on their region.Just like the monster and undead bounties are placed for adventurers.
Nobles being paid for actual work? Bah! Paid work is for commoners.
Is that the reason why we deleted the paid work option? I remember we used to be able to work for some gold when we had no gold.
I guess so :)
And if you're a courtier in need of money, just work for your own Lord and ask a raise :) or money transfers :) or get your own Lordship :P
Quote from: Zakilevo on November 07, 2011, 10:01:01 PM
Is that the reason why we deleted the paid work option? I remember we used to be able to work for some gold when we had no gold.
Yes and that was seen as very disgraceful and cost you honour and prestige :)
This is called a reward for active courtiers. Basically the region lord encourages courtiers.Managing an estate is the same.Knight manages an estate in the region and region lord pays him.Also region lord can kick out knight as he pleases.The region with everything in it belongs to the region lord.A knight is merely hired help.
Quote from: mikm on November 08, 2011, 09:33:37 AM
This is called a reward for active courtiers. Basically the region lord encourages courtiers.Managing an estate is the same.Knight manages an estate in the region and region lord pays him.Also region lord can kick out knight as he pleases.The region with everything in it belongs to the region lord.A knight is merely hired help.
No, the knight is in a feudal contract of mutual obligations, though game mechanics aren't perfect in relaying this. It is completely different to the modern concept of paid work. For a courtier part of their obligation can be assumed to be courtier work, the details of which are left to the realm. To pay them a "reward" would be the same as posting some sort of gold pot for the region that warriors would get paid from every time they were part of defensive force in the region.
Also the Lord doesn't PAY anyone. The knight is entitled to the produce and wealth of the estate he holds. This is seen better in the new system where an estate is defined as a abstract percentage of the wealth of the region, which the knight collects and then pays tax on to his Lord as part of his obligation. Money goes UP the chain, Land and the wealth it can produce moves down the chain.
Quote from: De-Legro on November 08, 2011, 10:57:47 AM
No, the knight is in a feudal contract of mutual obligations, though game mechanics aren't perfect in relaying this. It is completely different to the modern concept of paid work. For a courtier part of their obligation can be assumed to be courtier work, the details of which are left to the realm. To pay them a "reward" would be the same as posting some sort of gold pot for the region that warriors would get paid from every time they were part of defensive force in the region.
Also the Lord doesn't PAY anyone. The knight is entitled to the produce and wealth of the estate he holds. This is seen better in the new system where an estate is defined as a abstract percentage of the wealth of the region, which the knight collects and then pays tax on to his Lord as part of his obligation. Money goes UP the chain, Land and the wealth it can produce moves down the chain.
The region belongs to the lord.The knight doesn't really own anything.He just administrates an estate for his liege.Also the lord can "fire" him if he is not satisfied.
Quote from: mikm on November 08, 2011, 11:56:56 AM
The knight doesn't really own anything.He just administrates an estate for his liege.
Not really; the knight swore fealty to the Lord. However, part of this oath gave him a status as a Knight; this is completely different than the status of commoner, who were in servitude, and freemen, who are paid for their work.
"Firing" a knight should always be a dishonour for both the fired and the firee (which does not mean it does not happen). Firing a worker is normal.
Quote from: vonGenf on November 08, 2011, 01:27:59 PM
Not really; the knight swore fealty to the Lord. However, part of this oath gave him a status as a Knight; this is completely different than the status of commoner, who were in servitude, and freemen, who are paid for their work.
"Firing" a knight should always be a dishonour for both the fired and the firee (which does not mean it does not happen). Firing a worker is normal.
Misunderstandings can hapen considering how easily oafs are given and accpted.From what I've seen a lord will hire just about any noble that comes along.Would more intresting if knighthood was earned rather the given to any newcomer noble.
What about a knight simply leaving his liege?It hapens more often then the other situation.
Instead of being paid to do courtier work, what about the option (random and increasing with the amount of improvement you've accomplished) to embezzle some of the region's monies? It could be used to represent taking of bribes by the small nobility and merchants while you "cut the red tape" to their benefit. If you take the bribes, there's a chance you get caught and your later work in the region will be less effective (as you've been undermining the improvements).
Just an idea.
Quote from: acrandal on November 16, 2011, 06:55:27 PM
Instead of being paid to do courtier work, what about the option (random and increasing with the amount of improvement you've accomplished) to embezzle some of the region's monies? It could be used to represent taking of bribes by the small nobility and merchants while you "cut the red tape" to their benefit. If you take the bribes, there's a chance you get caught and your later work in the region will be less effective (as you've been undermining the improvements).
Just an idea.
That's pretty much what infiltrators do.
Quote from: Indirik on November 07, 2011, 09:09:26 PM
Nobles being paid for actual work? Bah! Paid work is for commoners.
Says the player of the former General of Darka. ;)
Quote from: GoldPanda on November 17, 2011, 06:15:15 AM
Says the player of the former General of Darka. ;)
War isn't work, it is recreational.
Quote from: De-Legro on November 17, 2011, 06:21:50 AM
War isn't work, it is recreational.
Sex is recreational too. We still call them "sex workers".
:-[ ;D ::) :-* 8)
Quote from: GoldPanda on November 17, 2011, 06:28:11 AM
Sex is recreational too. We still call them "sex workers".
:-[ ;D ::) :-* 8)
Because it generally isn't recreational for THEM.
Quote from: De-Legro on November 17, 2011, 07:08:20 AM
Because it generally isn't recreational for THEM.
Some people are just !@#$ed....
GET IT!? ;D
..... :-[
I find offense with your statements, us prostitutes are a proud working class!
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on November 17, 2011, 01:19:55 PM
I find offense with your statements, us prostitutes are a proud working class!
Remember the appointment tomorrow!
Yes sir!
Quote from: GoldPanda on November 17, 2011, 06:28:11 AM
Sex is recreational too. We still call them "sex workers".
:-[ ;D ::) :-* 8)
War is work.If it wasn't why would your soldiers keep expecting salaries?
Quote from: mikm on November 18, 2011, 11:36:11 AM
War is work.If it wasn't why would your soldiers keep expecting salaries?
Its not work for nobles though, it is a opportunity to
1) Fulfil their Feudal duties
2) Prove their skills and prowess
3) Loot shiny stuff
4) Fulfill religious obligations
Courtiers often do not have a unit to pay and mantain...in general they become pretty rich because of taxes that they don't have to spend, so what's the point to give them other gold?
Quote from: Jhaelen Irsei on November 29, 2011, 03:11:24 PM
Courtiers often do not have a unit to pay and mantain...
I almost always had a unit as a courtier.
Quote from: Jhaelen Irsei on November 29, 2011, 03:11:24 PM
Courtiers often do not have a unit to pay and mantain...in general they become pretty rich because of taxes that they don't have to spend, so what's the point to give them other gold?
You can't perform police OR civil work without a unit.
Quote from: egamma on November 29, 2011, 08:17:46 PM
You can't perform police OR civil work without a unit.
A unit also lets you to quickly respond to small hordes as they spawn nearby, instead of waiting for the main army that is likely days away.
Quote from: vonGenf on November 29, 2011, 07:09:19 PM
I almost always had a unit as a courtier.
Yes, certainly often Courtiers have a unit but it's small, nothing compared to those you need as a Warrior during a war.
I played lot of time as a Courtier and often you can do you job unitless without problem.
Quote from: Jhaelen Irsei on November 30, 2011, 01:37:58 PM
Yes, certainly often Courtiers have a unit but it's small, nothing compared to those you need as a Warrior during a war.
I played lot of time as a Courtier and often you can do you job unitless without problem.
OK, I guess the points I want to make are more general.
The first is that you can't pigeonhole player actions. I play an infiltrator who carries large units. Why? Because I can, and it's none of your business; I also played a unitless warrior at some point.
The second is that what you think other people need as gold is only mildly related to what they should receive. If you, as a Lord, want to give smaller tax share to courtiers, that's fine, but don't expect to have swarm of courtiers come and take care of your region afterwards. Same goes for priests and infils. If you want one as a knight, give him a good enough share that he will accept to do your bidding, and that's it.
That being said, I don't actually think that having "courtier bounty pots" is such a great idea. I just disagree with your argument that "courtier don't need gold because they don't need troops". This thinking leads to other idea, such as limiting tax share for priests, that I think goes against the spirit of the game.
Quote from: vonGenf on November 30, 2011, 01:53:46 PM
That being said, I don't actually think that having "courtier bounty pots" is such a great idea. I just disagree with your argument that "courtier don't need gold because they don't need troops". This thinking leads to other idea, such as limiting tax share for priests, that I think goes against the spirit of the game.
Priests used to, for the longest time, be unable to receive an oath. How's that for limiting their tax share? ;)
Quote from: Chénier on November 30, 2011, 02:44:19 PM
Priests used to, for the longest time, be unable to receive an oath. How's that for limiting their tax share? ;)
I didn't play a priest then. If priests are nobles, then they are in the feudal system. If you kick them out, then they're commoners.
Quote from: vonGenf on November 30, 2011, 02:49:42 PM
I didn't play a priest then. If priests are nobles, then they are in the feudal system. If you kick them out, then they're commoners.
Not really. Remember the whole "three classes" stuff? Nobles, the clergy, and the serfs? The church was apart of the feudal hierarchy because they responded to god, and so forth, hence why church properties were not taxed.
I still prefer priests being in the feudal system, though, it's more fun.
Caste system notwithstanding, ordained clergymen could lead armies. They could own regions and tax them. They could fight wars. I think I remember that they couldn't swear actual oaths, but they generally acted as if they did.
The model for a BM priest is not the parish priest in the boondocks. It's the Cardinal of Richelieu or any Borgia.
Quote from: vonGenf on November 30, 2011, 01:53:46 PM
OK, I guess the points I want to make are more general.
The first is that you can't pigeonhole player actions. I play an infiltrator who carries large units. Why? Because I can, and it's none of your business; I also played a unitless warrior at some point.
The second is that what you think other people need as gold is only mildly related to what they should receive. If you, as a Lord, want to give smaller tax share to courtiers, that's fine, but don't expect to have swarm of courtiers come and take care of your region afterwards. Same goes for priests and infils. If you want one as a knight, give him a good enough share that he will accept to do your bidding, and that's it.
That being said, I don't actually think that having "courtier bounty pots" is such a great idea. I just disagree with your argument that "courtier don't need gold because they don't need troops". This thinking leads to other idea, such as limiting tax share for priests, that I think goes against the spirit of the game.
Well, Courtiers are limited in their recruit so you can't actually have large units.
I understand your other point but I didn't imply any restriction nor limitation. I just think that the idea of bounty pots do not fill any gap in the game, that's all.
Quote from: Jhaelen Irsei on November 30, 2011, 06:26:50 PM
I just think that the idea of bounty pots do not fill any gap in the game, that's all.
I agree with that.