BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: fodder on January 31, 2013, 07:06:15 AM
-
So, we know exile is a bit nerfed/more painless nowadays with how taxes work. so... any suggestions?
personally i still prefer there to be an option for characters to decide whether taxes come in bonds or gold whilst within realm... so if there's such a flag, an exiled character could have it flagged to bonds automatically. thus restoring the effect of the bank bar.
-
So, we know exile is a bit nerfed/more painless nowadays with how taxes work. so... any suggestions?
personally i still prefer there to be an option for characters to decide whether taxes come in bonds or gold whilst within realm... so if there's such a flag, an exiled character could have it flagged to bonds automatically. thus restoring the effect of the bank bar.
How about exiled characters just don't get taxes? That was effectively how it worked back when you always got your taxes in bonds since you could no longer use the banks. Seems less complicated than having a setting.
-
How about exiled characters just don't get taxes? That was effectively how it worked back when you always got your taxes in bonds since you could no longer use the banks. Seems less complicated than having a setting.
Where does that gold go, though?
-
How about exiled characters just don't get taxes? That was effectively how it worked back when you always got your taxes in bonds since you could no longer use the banks. Seems less complicated than having a setting.
I don't like this. Lords collect taxes from their regions. So long as they remain Lords, they should be able to collect taxes.
-
I don't like this. Lords collect taxes from their regions. So long as they remain Lords, they should be able to collect taxes.
And Dukes collect taxes from Lords.
I don't think it's so very unreasonable if the taxes of someone who gets exiled get confiscated entirely by the person next up the chain.
-
And Dukes collect taxes from Lords.
I don't think it's so very unreasonable if the taxes of someone who gets exiled get confiscated entirely by the person next up the chain.
I don't quite like it either.
What if all gold they get is received in bonds instead, then apply the standard old penalties? That way, if the lord wins, he gets to cash in all of his pretties.
-
And Dukes collect taxes from Lords.
I don't think it's so very unreasonable if the taxes of someone who gets exiled get confiscated entirely by the person next up the chain.
Lords send a portion of the taxes collected to the Duke, but the Duke doesn't stand between that Lord and the taxes of his region. The crown's purse isn't filled before the Duke's.
I could see giving Lords the option to pay their Duke's share directly to the King, if that Duke is exiled.
-
I don't quite like it either.
What if all gold they get is received in bonds instead, then apply the standard old penalties? That way, if the lord wins, he gets to cash in all of his pretties.
Because the Lord can't win. Exile is not reversible. In the old system, all those bonds would eventually go to the realm when the character paused or switched realms. There was no other possibility. I'd say the tax gold should simply go to the next person up the chain, as Anaris suggested. That or it should sit in the tax office until someone comes along to collect it (possibly an infiltrator, but most likely the next lord of the region).
-
Because the Lord can't win. Exile is not reversible.
It is, if ruler steps down or otherwise loses his title.
-
And Dukes collect taxes from Lords.
I don't think it's so very unreasonable if the taxes of someone who gets exiled get confiscated entirely by the person next up the chain.
The problem with that train of thought is that the entire point of the new estate system is that it emphasizes how each portion of the hierarchy is important. Rulers couldn't just confiscate taxes from their Dukes. Dukes would be the ones giving taxes to the rulers. Sure, Rulers can ask for higher taxes, but that doesn't mean they automatically get the gold.
I like the idea of simply making them bonds as it is and preventing the exile from gaining the gold. That way if the ruler wins, the bonds go to them, but if the exile wins they keep the bonds.
-
Well, exile is basically trying to remove someone from that hierarchy, so I don't really see your point Dante.
-
The thing is, if the Lords want to step sending their taxes to their Dukes, they can switch duchy easily. Those who stay make a conscious choice to keep their allegiance to an exiled Duke (and, frankly, should be banned). All the gold he gets is either from his own region or from people who want to send him gold.
Even before the change, I believe you received your tax in gold as long as you were within your own Duchy, right? All the new system does is that it doesn't restrict the exlie's freedom of movement so much.
-
Well, exile is basically trying to remove someone from that hierarchy, so I don't really see your point Dante.
Trying to remove someone from the hierarchy and actually doing so are two different things though.
If someone owns land and has lords who give him their fealty, then they get their taxes. No ruler ever could simply say, okay you're gone, and expect it to stick 100% without any dissent if a Lord had such popularity. (In this case, assuming Royal = popular, because the royalty thing never really existed IRL)
-
Even before the change, I believe you received your tax in gold as long as you were within your own Duchy, right? All the new system does is that it doesn't restrict the exlie's freedom of movement so much.
depends on how far back you go. once upon a time, all taxes came in bonds after all.
chenier did raise a point about trade being all done in bonds. so presumably it should also kill off access to markets (within realm anyway). do exiled people moving outside realm geographically go rogue? that's the thing i'm a bit confused about.
-
Exile is the removal of all benefits of that society.
I would think the region loyalty might affect that, so perhaps an exiled person would find max 30% of the taxes - but that would quickly shrink if their region has a new lord.
Historically exile meant leaving the lands, or going to some backwater place, thus removing any chance of receiving income.
-
Exile is the removal of all benefits of that society.
I would think the region loyalty might affect that, so perhaps an exiled person would find max 30% of the taxes - but that would quickly shrink if their region has a new lord.
Historically exile meant leaving the lands, or going to some backwater place, thus removing any chance of receiving income.
But, the whole point is that exile comes from the ruler, so any benefits from being associated with the realm should be withdrawn. However, anything derived not from the realm but from their feudal position CAN'T possibly be withdrawn in any manner that makes sense.
Remove trading for the "in-realm only" trades, but allow them to still access all other market trades.
Remove their access to banks, because banks are realm focused.
Remove access to recruitment because recruitment is realm focused.
If they are a lord you can't remove the taxes from their region, because it is their region. You can deny their ability to cash the bonds.
If they are a duke, and retain loyal lords, the same applies.
-
There is no geographical component to exile. But, an exiled lord would be an idiot to stray too far from his region, as it would make sabotage by diplomats/ambassadord way too easy.
-
There is no geographical component to exile. But, an exiled lord would be an idiot to stray too far from his region, as it would make sabotage by diplomats/ambassadord way too easy.
His proximity in no way hinders diplomats or ambassadors. At least he can arrest priests, though, if he has a unit.
-
His proximity in no way hinders diplomats or ambassadors.
It does if the Lord is in the region to hold courts and undo the diplomats' work.
-
What Velax said. A court can easily undo most or all of the effects of a diplomat.
-
What Velax said. A court can easily undo most or all of the effects of a diplomat.
To his own realm... true. Unless a bunch of them work together. On the bright side, you force him to stay at home, making it harder for him to find food.
-
Can't get food without bonds.
Hmm... since an exiled character can't use bonds, and all food trades are done with bonds, shouldn't they be locked out of the marketplace? After all, they can't use banks, and using bonds takes a bank. That would make exile very powerful against the lord of a city region.
-
um.... that's the thing. this thread is about all taxes go in bonds instead of gold for an exiled character.
equally, a character could pop outside of the borders to get taxes in bonds
---
thus yeah.. taxes go in bonds and ban from marketplace of own realm
-
What about his Stewart? They could trade
so remove the Stewart and ability to appoint one
-
What about his Stewart? They could trade
so remove the Stewart and ability to appoint one
How would the realm be able to remove some lord's steward? It is the lord who gives the steward the authority so only the lord could take it away.
-
It is that Lord who has been exiled and the locals won't associate that anyone associated with that Lord, such as the Stewart, in fear of punishment.
Historical example is Sir Thomas Moore. After he was exiled, most of his staff quit because they were too afraid to be associated with him.
-
It is that Lord who has been exiled and the locals won't associate that anyone associated with that Lord, such as the Stewart, in fear of punishment.
Historical example is Sir Thomas Moore. After he was exiled, most of his staff quit because they were too afraid to be associated with him.
If the lord is still lord then the locals are listening to him so your logic doesn't really apply. That and they do associate with him because he can still do everything else in the region.
-
The exiled Lord cannot be banned. The Steward (and any other knights he has) can, if they refuse to leave his service.
-
The exiled Lord cannot be banned. The Steward (and any other knights he has) can, if they refuse to leave his service.
So what's the logic behind not allowing some that's been exiled to be banned?
-
So what's the logic behind not allowing some that's been exiled to be banned?
Originally, it was because we didn't think anyone would ever exile someone they could ban.
Then, after we thought about it, we decided to leave it that way because the point of exile is the power struggle.
Basically, if you can ban someone, you're a moron to exile them. But we don't try to prevent you from being a moron.
-
Exile was seriously nerfed over the years. Not intentionally, but still. And it was rather weak to begin with...
-
Originally, it was because we didn't think anyone would ever exile someone they could ban.
Then, after we thought about it, we decided to leave it that way because the point of exile is the power struggle.
Basically, if you can ban someone, you're a moron to exile them. But we don't try to prevent you from being a moron.
I agree that exile is a last ditch effort almost. Though it looks like that you can not fine somone in exile either? I can understand not being able to ban but what is the logic behind not being able to fine?
-
Originally, it was because we didn't think anyone would ever exile someone they could ban.
Then, after we thought about it, we decided to leave it that way because the point of exile is the power struggle.
Basically, if you can ban someone, you're a moron to exile them. But we don't try to prevent you from being a moron smart.
So in other words there is no reason. Perhaps the ruler wanted to disgrace the exiled for awhile then after being properly disgraced, have him banned.