Remove ads

A Sword Without a Hilt: A Song of Ice and Fire/D&D 3.5 Crossover

Reader mode
TotallyNotEvil said:
Also, what's the limit? Are we implicitly saying people are forbidden from owning more than they can personally oversee?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you want to own it, do some of the work. Oversee the overseer or something. Have your family do it (get the kids involved).
This person seems to have done nothing at all and left the steward to manage it all. Hence why the thread seems prejudiced against the owning family: they seem to be pure parasites.

Still, in any case we should make sure that the steward doesn't end up penniless from this. If we rule in the lady's favor I expect him to get the boot - let's recruit him ourselves! He seems competent, and a little ambition isn't a problem.
 
TotallyNotEvil said:
Which is a fair point, but in this case, the lord literally couldn't come care for it personally.

Also, what's the limit? Are we implicitly saying people are forbidden from owning more than they can personally oversee?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

TalonofAnathrax said:
While I agree with you 100%, Viserys banning inheritance is shooting himself in the foot. It'd be an immensely unpopular move that would hurt his own legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

tarrangar said:
That's only if the Stewart can pay what it is worth, if he can't your children still own it.

And if your children had been involved in the management, the Stewart would not be able to buy it either, for the Stewart to be allowed to buy it, both you and your children, must have treated it as nothing but a cash cow for decades, doing nothing but occasionally collecting the proceeds.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So how do we actually go about this then?
 
@Azel, TNE isn't entirely wrong though. Sure he's taking it way too far (our kingdom does have inheritance laws after all, and most managers won't jump at the chance of crippling debt to own land), but if the nobles feel like they could lose their lands they'll lose their shit. The political damage is to be avoided.

How can we give people the impression that this won't happen to them?

Suggestions:
  • Make it clear that only the King can pronounce such a ruling
  • Make it clear that the family having some involvement (even just overseeing the overseers regularly) lets them keep the land
  • Make it clear that having several managers with clear responsibilities would have stopped one person becoming important enough to do this
 
Last edited:
TotallyNotEvil said:
Well, alright then, good look dealing with virtually infinite bullshit for the next forever as people alternatively milk this forever or try to avoid it.

Steward is now one of the most unstable positions in our realm. Can't rightly let them steal from your descendants, can you?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It isn't stealing, they have to buy the place.
TotallyNotEvil said:
Which is a fair point, but in this case, the lord literally couldn't come care for it personally.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Lord couldn't care for it personally, but the daughter seems in good health, so there's no reason she couldn't care for it, the fact that the Stewart was taking care of it instead of her and her husband is telling, that it's merely a cash cow for them not a beloved home.
 
@TotallyNotEvil , listen. Yes. We are seizing property, but only as long as it is compensated in its equivalent in cash.

If those properties were their legacy, they would be living there. As they aren't, it is a cash cow. Cash cows can be sold and bought around. There is no problem with that.
 
Last edited:
For fucks sake people...

Fine. I'm writing both an inheritance and a marriage law, because otherwise people won't stop screeching at me.
 
Azel said:
First and foremost, we are sizing nothing. We are giving him an option to buy the estate he cared for at it's value and suggesting him to take a loan for the money needed to do so. The only part of the Imperial Administration is to act as a neutral party to assess the value of the estate, which they do anyway, as they are taxing the place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, and we also don't grant the owner the right to refuse the deal if steward has money and desire to go with it. So the Imperial Administration actually forces the lady to sell her property, not "just acts as a neutral party". How is it any different from forcibly seizing land from someone and paying them compensation based on its value?
 
tarrangar said:
The Lord couldn't care for it personally, but the daughter seems in good health, so there's no reason she couldn't care for it, the fact that the Stewart was taking care of it instead of her and her husband is telling, that it's merely a cash cow for them not a beloved home.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except we don't know her circunstances.

Was she perhaps caring for another bit of property? Was she outright forbidden by her father from doing so?

Again we come to you saying you are not in any way entitled to owning more than you can personally oversee.
 
TotallyNotEvil said:
Nah, this will just cost us immense political capital.

Cash =/= property.

There's an opportunity cost to be considered that can't be put on paper, and must be analyzed every single time this comes up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also things like family heirlooms, legal documents, ect...

I agree with Azel about not letting the land and property go to dust, but she actually does have a right to the stuff she owned.

Maybe clearing out all the stuff and giving him the land and building?
 
TotallyNotEvil said:
So, you work for thirty years to make something for yourself, but decide to hire a good steward for your estate as to actually enjoy life.

Oh boy, would you look at that, your children now don't actually own it anymore, as you had the indecency of not keeling over and dying, to the stewart got one too many days on the job and now owns it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If he worked for thirty years at it, then he obviously improved and built on it. This is not the case here. Second, the steward doesn't simply get to own it. He has to buy it from you and get a loan for that. If he's not productive enough, then can't do that because he can't pay back the loan.

We reward productive stewards and punish negligent landowners. We do not want for dynasties of landowners to control everything merly by virtue of their great-ancestor actually being a productive member of society and then merely coast on his tailwind. This leads to social calcification.

TotallyNotEvil said:
Well, alright then, good look dealing with virtually infinite bullshit for the next forever as people alternatively milk this forever or try to avoid it.

Steward is now one of the most unstable positions in our realm. Can't rightly let them steal from your descendants, can you?

Which is a fair point, but in this case, the lord literally couldn't come care for it personally.

Also, what's the limit? Are we implicitly saying people are forbidden from owning more than they can personally oversee?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's no stealing. They are getting reimbursed at market value.

If you or your children aren't competent or motivated enough to develop land, then it's in society's interest to see that you do not own that land in the future. You get a lifetime to profit from it and then receive its market value at death. That is sufficient reimbursement for people who use land as a cashcow for easy milking.
 
Tomcost said:
@TotallyNotEvil , listen. Yes. We are seizing property, but only as long as it is compensated in its equivalent in cash.

If those properties were their legacy, they would be living there. As they aren't, it is a cash cow. Cash cows can be sold and bought around. There is no problem with that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
See my answer to Tarrangar, and also, does the property value account for the cost of opportunity of trying to buy rare things like large, productive, worked swathes of land?
 
zxzx24 said:
Also things like family heirlooms, legal documents, ect...

I agree with Azel about not letting the land and property go to dust, but she actually does have a right to the stuff she owned.

Maybe clearing out all the stuff and giving him the land and building?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
> Implying private ownership is a right


So funny, comrade!

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not advocating for magical communism in this quest. Even Marx would have wanted a bourgeois capitalist regime for a while (if only so that the workers could topple it and take over as a self-aware class). Although I hope that there won't be a communist revolution against Viserys, obviously. Surely he'll keep social pressure lowered with things like social security, social mobility, and good old capitalist/nationalist propaganda. Like most capitalist countries do IRL.
 
Last edited:
[X] First Case: The lady has clear and legal right to the inheritance and thus the estate. However, the steward made a good case for his work and that the estate was gravely neglected by previous owners, so he will receive the right to buy the estate from her at the market value, as determined by the office of taxation of the Imperial Administration. If he is willing to do this, the Iron Bank will certainly be willing to offer him a loan at a reasonable rate and if not, you have many positions in the realm where a man of his skill would be greatly appreciated. This does not in any way or form impact the noble titles of the widow or grant such to the steward. This is merely a property transaction.

[x] Find in favor of lady Nesora, she was legally wed and therefore the arrangement can only be settled with divorce

[X] Septon: "I take it then that you do not agree with the High Septon, for he has crowned the Ursuper in the name of your gods. I have heard from many Septons many different things. Some decry all magic as fiendish work, others even going so far as wishing to bring back the Faith Militant and seeking to put a High Septon on the Iron Throne to spreed the faith with the blade. Before I answer your question Septon, answer mine. What is it that you believe?"

Changing vote to default since the man was not in any questionable mental state during the wedding itself.
 
[X] First Case: The lady has clear and legal right to the inheritance and thus the estate. However, the steward made a good case for his work and that the estate was gravely neglected by previous owners, so he will receive the right to buy the estate from her at the market value, as determined by the office of taxation of the Imperial Administration. If he is willing to do this, the Iron Bank will certainly be willing to offer him a loan at a reasonable rate and if not, you have many positions in the realm where a man of his skill would be greatly appreciated. This does not in any way or form impact the noble titles of the widow or grant such to the steward. This is merely a property transaction.

[x] Find in favor of lady Nesora, she was legally wed and therefore the arrangement can only be settled with divorce

[X] Septon: "I take it then that you do not agree with the High Septon, for he has crowned the Ursuper in the name of your gods. I have heard from many Septons many different things. Some decry all magic as fiendish work, others even going so far as wishing to bring back the Faith Militant and seeking to put a High Septon on the Iron Throne to spreed the faith with the blade. Before I answer your question Septon, answer mine. What is it that you believe?"
 
I would suggest a law that forces people to renew and affirm that, yes the property is mine and yes it has been improved, and a law that limits how much land a person can hold. We don't want what happened in Rome to happen in our empire.
 
Azel said:
Fine. I'm writing both an inheritance and a marriage law, because otherwise people won't stop screeching at me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
First, come off that high horse. It's not in vogue.

Second, you are for some reason blinded to how both the nobility and the merchant castes, whose very soul is essentially built around dysnastically owning shit, will lose their fucking minds if we rule that, essentially, if you don't personally oversee your investment/land/business, your descendants aren't entitled to it.

Because that's what your brilliant ruling implies here, and people will take that and run with it as far as they can.

Not to mention how it's shallow enough there's an easy workaround: swap managers every five years or so. Bam, the ruling becomes meaningless and there's bucketloads of instability.

Unless it's clearly defined what counts as "overseeing" it, this is a time-bomb of a ruling.

And in this case, we don't know if the daughter could be there. Because the Lord literally couldn't, for medical reasons.
 
@Azel just to be clear does the lady have to sell the land? It could be possible she has no desire to do so, so maybe alter vote to ask her if she is willing?
 
Massgamer said:
@Azel just to be clear does the lady have to sell the land? It could be possible she has no desire to do so, so maybe alter vote to ask her if she is willing?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
See, this here is a reasonable ruling.

It fundamentally changes the dynamics here in a way that won't make our entire middle-upper and higher class lose their shit, or start firing off managers with long experience.
 
TotallyNotEvil said:
First, come off that high horse. It's not in vogue.

Second, you are for some reason blinded to how both the nobility and the merchant castes, whose very soul is essentially built around dysnastically owning shit, will lose their fucking minds if we rule that, essentially, if you don't personally oversee your investment/land/business, your descendants aren't entitled to it.

Because that's what your brilliant ruling implies here, and people will take that and run with it as far as they can.

Not to mention how it's shallow enough there's an easy workaround: swap managers every five years or so. Bam, the ruling becomes meaningless and there's bucketloads of instability.

Unless it's clearly defined what counts as "overseeing" it, this is a time-bomb of a ruling.

And in this case, we don't know if the daughter could be there. Because the Lord literally couldn't, for medical reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Soon noble/merchant class... sooooon.
 
People, the man married a woman he barely knew and then discovered that he didn't really like her. Whoop de doop.
Basically he's a dumbass and he deserves what he gets. I'm sure most nobles will back us up, too - especially is we say "hey, if he'd gotten to know her a little and thought things through he wouldn't have fallen for it!"
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top