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

BronzeTongue · Dec 22, 2019

egoo said:
I honestly still think the "new life - new everything" is a better/simpler way to do Reincarnation.
Have some basic capital given to anyone doing Reincarnation - the rest being distributed as appropriate between Imperium/heirs.

Simpler yes, but I don't think it's viable. The reason we want this is that it'll simply keeping power, but stuff like this needs to sound fair to people to remain a stable societal tradition. If it doesn't, and people see it as a thin fog leaf for a control mechanism, you don't have a law you have a societal fault line.

For the purposes of protecting government authority I think we should start by setting laws that limit the market share a single given entity can own is, to avoid corporate dynasties and immortals owning everything. Trying to force people to routinely give up most of what they have for the sake of a tradition that was created to maintain family prosperity in the race of mortality when it doesn't apply to the people in question anymore is a flashpoint waiting to burst into flames.

Crake · Dec 22, 2019

BronzeTongue said:
Simpler yes, but I don't think it's viable. The reason we want this is that it'll simply keeping power, but stuff like this needs to sound fair to people to remain a stable societal tradition. If it doesn't, and people see it as a thin fog leaf for a control mechanism, you don't have a law you have a societal fault line.

For the purposes of protecting government authority I think we should start by setting laws that limit the market share a single given entity can own is, to avoid corporate dynasties and immortals owning everything. Trying to force people to routinely give up most of what they have for the sake of a tradition that was created to maintain family prosperity in the race of mortality when it doesn't apply to the people in question anymore is a flashpoint waiting to burst into flames.

Or the Imperium could just routinely Trust Bust and then re-privatize after efficiently managing the industry in the manner which is deemed necessary for that time-frame, selling off the shares with an effective cap on how many one interest could purchase. This wouldn't even be perfect, unless you painstakingly found a bunch of disparate groups to sell the stock to who weren't just shell companies for another mega-corp.

T_of_A · Dec 22, 2019

Goldfish said:
Okay, here's a basic framework for us to work within for tomorrow's vote.

If 50% of assets going to heirs is too little or too much, we can adjust it. If 10% going to the state for Reincarnated folks who have no heirs is too little or too much, we can adjust it. Same goes for the maximum amount owed to the state after multiple Reincarnations with no legal heir.

As for marriage, I hope we can keep it simple, but I'm prepared to compromise if that's what it takes.

[] Marriage, Death, and Taxes
-[] Inheritance Taxes:
--[] Upon Reincarnation not sanctioned by the Imperium*, 50% of the value of one's estate is to be distributed to one's heirs after any outstanding debts have been settled.
---[] In instances where the Reincarnated subject and his or her heirs are unable to agree upon the division of non-monetary assets, an impartial mediator will by appointed by the Imperium to oversee arbitration between the involved parties. Mediators will have binding authority to divide non-monetary assets should arbitration fail.
---[] The assets a Reincarnated subject retains or accumulates after Reincarnation are not subject to further division among previous heirs, though any heirs produced following the latest Reincarnation do so benefit.
--[] Upon Reincarnation not sanctioned by the Imperium*, 10% of the value of one's estate is to be paid as a tax to the Imperium should the Reincarnated subject have no living heirs.
---[] Upon subsequent instances of Reincarnation without an heir, the rate of taxation will increase in 10% increments, to a maximum tax rate per Reincarnation of 50% of total assets.
--[] *State-sanctioned Reincarnation includes any instance of an individual being Reincarnated after falling in service to the Imperium as part of their assigned duties.
-[] Marriage:
--[] Marriage is defined as the legal union between two or more consenting parties, each of of whom is considered an adult of their species by Imperial law.
---[] In addition to being of age, to be considered capable of giving consent one must be free of magical compulsion or possession, and of sufficient intelligence (i.e. sentience) to comprehend the basic legal obligations inherent to the marriage contract.

@Goldfish, here is my previous collection of ideas on the matter. Thoughts?

Here are my proposed measures:

Reincarnation counts as death: pick a new name and your heirs inherit your wealth. This won't do for true immortals or Constructs, but it's a start.
Avoid monopolies and overly large private businesses. Break them up if needed. Set up state-run companies or subsidize private efforts to break up monopolies. Don't create monopolies unless it's utterly necessary, and if you do make then state-run.
Hard cap on how wealthy someone can be. If anyone is richer than the Sealord (or some other very very large number - this is just an example) then their wealth that goes over that sum is taxed very heavily and they are pushed to do stuff with it (sell it, spend it, keep the money moving). Simple and stupid, but technically works. This + the last one should limit accumulation of power and wealth in individuals, families, and businesses. People can still get very very rich, but not too rich.
Limit appointments to high-level posts in the administration: try to stop a single group from having too much influence in one area. I don't care how competent you are: there are always other choices, and this is a black mark against you.
Encourage the development of new colonies outside of the aegis of a single family (so don't do like the Shaitans do, where a single rich family sponsors a colony and takes it over). Use banks and government funding to get things together, don't rely on private interests to get colonization moving.
Guarantee a basic standard of living for all, so that the poor can't get angry that "people are dying of cold/hunger in the streets and the wealthy are billionaires!". Right now this means subsistence level, later (when we're richer and whatnot) try to keep most people able to afford basic comforts through sound economic policies (having a healthy economy is essential), and maybe government grants to the poor (that's not as good as keeping people working, but in some cases it may be necessary - see social security, help for the insane and the deeply handicapped...). The idea isn't to shower everyone with grants, it's to create conditions for everyone to have a decent life by keeping a healthy economy. A social safety net is necessary of course, but this also involves keeping the economy functioning and limiting unemployment without creating bullshit government jobs. Limiting how bad things get for the poor does a lot to limit social unrest.
And of course we'll be making it clear that heavens exist in our education system (to reduce the appeal of immortality). We'll probably be buying up the reagents for Reincarnation ourselves to raise prices (and using most of these reagents for other rituals, let's not waste them!). Ect, ect. EDIT : Okay, in hindsight this last one won't really work until we set up our own Heaven.

Your plan is missing the whole "stop long-term issues through a soft-cap crated with taxation". You have the whole "Reincarnation = inheritance", but without a progressive tax code that imposes an effective upper limit upon the wealth of a single person it fails to keep actual immortals in check (like the Scholarum initiates we're turning into Constructs...).
Furthermore, I would also vote to make it our long-term policy to do some of my other points. Points 2, 4, 5 and 6 could explicitly be ublicly known long-term goals, written into law. At least in France you can have "we're hoping to do this project at an unspecified date in the future" written into law (people do it all the time because it can be postponed indefinitely) so we should do it too. It lets people prepare, gets the idea out there, and is good OOC.

Crake said:
I like how you sneak in a comment about how the magical academia demographic would LITERALLY RIOT over this, under the grounds that it would be infringing on the exercising of benign magical abilities.

I have the heart warming and I'm sure would be extremely confusing mental image of LGBT people watching the eccentric-to-borderline-unhinged professors in wizards robes picketing with them out in the streets.

Remember, these aren't normal academics. They're a significant proportion of our military might! It's as if the protesters were riding fully-armed tanks and planes while waving rainbow flags!

Goldfish · Dec 22, 2019

egoo said:
I honestly still think the "new life - new everything" is a better/simpler way to do Reincarnation.
Have some basic capital given to anyone doing Reincarnation - the rest being completely distributed as appropriate between Imperium/heirs.

That's much too extreme, IMO, and basically encourages everyone to game the system, consequences of getting caught be damned.

I'm willing to adjust the percentages of what people pay, but not to the point of taking everything.

BronzeTongue said:
For the purposes of protecting government authority I think we should start by setting laws that limit the market share a single given entity can own is, to avoid corporate dynasties and immortals owning everything. Trying to force people to routinely give up most of what they have for the sake of a tradition that was created to maintain family prosperity in the race of mortality when it doesn't apply to the people in question anymore is a flashpoint waiting to burst into flames.

I think it's a bit too soon for this to be an issue that needs to be so their defined. Unlike marriage and inheritance, which can be relevant tomorrow, it should be years before we need to worry about virtual immortals controlling too much of the Imperium.

T_of_A · Dec 22, 2019

@Goldfish, I edited my post significantly. If you just read it, please refresh

EDIT :

Goldfish said:
I think it's a bit too soon for this to be an issue that needs to be so their defined. Unlike marriage and inheritance, which can be relevant tomorrow, it should be years before we need to worry about virtual immortals controlling too much of the Imperium.

Explicitly establishing our long-term priorities is good.

tarrangar · Dec 22, 2019

BronzeTongue said:
I don't think that how evil the people they handed over were really matters. I can get erasing someone for being too dangerous to allow to exist, or killing someone for similar reasons. I can even accept benefiting from those things as we do with sacrifice. I don't believe that torture as a form of punishment or as a fear tactic deserves any place in a legal code.

Doesn't Heaven making use of such tactics through a second party that they simultaneously decry for those acts strike you as hypocritical?

It do strike me as hypocritical, but you must remember the Pact Primeval was signed when the Multiverse was young, the forces of good has since seen that using such tactics hurt more than it helps, but back then they were young, they were desperate to save as many souls from being tricked by the Abyss as possible, and a charismatic angel that they fully trusted, told them that by allowing him to use the worst of the worst as examples, they could save 5 times the number they sacrificed, from just as terrible fates, and those saved, would be people who were much less deserving of such fates, than those sacrificed.

I don't think they ever liked the idea, but they were convinced that doing this would save more souls than it would damn, by someone they fully trusted.

It's still not right, but I wouldn't say it's ironclad proof the forces of good are hypocrites, it's just proof that the forces of good can be tricked, and that someone the forces of good can be convinced to be pragmatic, and sacrifice 1 to save many, which is what Asmodeus used to trick them.

DragonParadox · Dec 22, 2019

Good night, guys. See you tomorrow with the inheritance question. I'm sure reading what you come up with will be interesting and make for interesting discussion and a fun vote.

Goldfish · Dec 22, 2019

TalonofAnathrax said:
@Goldfish, here is my previous collection of ideas on the matter. Thoughts?

Here are my proposed measures:

Reincarnation counts as death: pick a new name and your heirs inherit your wealth. This won't do for true immortals or Constructs, but it's a start.

Avoid monopolies and overly large private businesses. Break them up if needed. Set up state-run companies or subsidize private efforts to break up monopolies. Don't create monopolies unless it's utterly necessary, and if you do make then state-run.

Hard cap on how wealthy someone can be. If anyone is richer than the Sealord (or some other very very large number - this is just an example) then their wealth that goes over that sum is taxed very heavily and they are pushed to do stuff with it (sell it, spend it, keep the money moving). Simple and stupid, but technically works. This + the last one should limit accumulation of power and wealth in individuals, families, and businesses. People can still get very very rich, but not too rich.

Limit appointments to high-level posts in the administration: try to stop a single group from having too much influence in one area. I don't care how competent you are: there are always other choices, and this is a black mark against you.

Encourage the development of new colonies outside of the aegis of a single family (so don't do like the Shaitans do, where a single rich family sponsors a colony and takes it over). Use banks and government funding to get things together, don't rely on private interests to get colonization moving.

Guarantee a basic standard of living for all, so that the poor can't get angry that "people are dying of cold/hunger in the streets and the wealthy are billionaires!". Right now this means subsistence level, later (when we're richer and whatnot) try to keep most people able to afford basic comforts through sound economic policies (having a healthy economy is essential), and maybe government grants to the poor (that's not as good as keeping people working, but in some cases it may be necessary - see social security, help for the insane and the deeply handicapped...). The idea isn't to shower everyone with grants, it's to create conditions for everyone to have a decent life by keeping a healthy economy. A social safety net is necessary of course, but this also involves keeping the economy functioning and limiting unemployment without creating bullshit government jobs. Limiting how bad things get for the poor does a lot to limit social unrest.

And of course we'll be making it clear that heavens exist in our education system (to reduce the appeal of immortality). We'll probably be buying up the reagents for Reincarnation ourselves to raise prices (and using most of these reagents for other rituals, let's not waste them!). Ect, ect. EDIT : Okay, in hindsight this last one won't really work until we set up our own Heaven.

Your plan is missing the whole "stop long-term issues through a soft-cap crated with taxation". You have the whole "Reincarnation = inheritance", but without a progressive tax code that imposes an effective upper limit upon the wealth of a single person it fails to keep actual immortals in check (like the Scholarum initiates we're turning into Constructs...).
Furthermore, I would also vote to make it our long-term policy to do some of my other points. Points 2, 4, 5 and 6 could explicitly be ublicly known long-term goals, written into law. At least in France you can have "we're hoping to do this project at an unspecified date in the future" written into law (people do it all the time because it can be postponed indefinitely) so we should do it too. It lets people prepare, gets the idea out there, and is good OOC.

Remember, these aren't normal academics. They're a significant proportion of our military might! It's as if the protesters were riding fully-armed tanks and planes while waving rainbow flags!

I am completely opposed to a Reincarnated individual losing all of their previous assets. That's too extreme and invites unnecessary corruption and potential strife. 50% was just my starting proposal. I can see adjusting that to keeping as little as 20% with the rest going to heirs.

I'm also iffy on establishing wealth caps. It's beyond difficult to enforce for those who such laws could actually impact, and just rubs me the wrong way. Also another issue which shouldn't be relevant for years.

EDIT: @TalonofAnathrax, As for points 2, 4, 5, and 6, I have no issues with them. You want to write up something I can add to the preliminary plan?

DragonParadox · Dec 22, 2019

Goldfish said:
I am completely opposed to a Reincarnated individual losing all of their previous assets. That's too extreme and invites unnecessary corruption and potential strife. 50% was just my starting proposal. I can see adjusting that to keeping as little as 20% with the rest going to heirs.

I'm also iffy on establishing wealth caps. It's beyond difficult to enforce for those who such laws could actually impact, and just runs me the wrong way. Also another issue which shouldn't be relevant for years.

The wealth cap is indeed probably one of those things that goes beyond what is strictly necessary planning wise. No one is going to get economy breaking amounts of wealth in the next few months or even years really.

BronzeTongue · Dec 22, 2019

Crake said:
Or the Imperium could just routinely Trust Bust and then re-privatize after efficiently managing the industry in the manner which is deemed necessary for that time-frame, selling off the shares with an effective cap on how many one interest could purchase. This wouldn't even be perfect, unless you painstakingly found a bunch of disparate groups to sell the stock to who weren't just shell companies for another mega-corp.

That'd work too, but the overall point I'm trying to make is that people aren't stupid and do think about their own societies and way of life. Trying to maintain traditions and practices created to address a condition that has changed is a bad idea long term. It bothers people, and the more they have on the line as a result of it the more they care about it.

People will pick up on the fact that the way we are doing this is mostly for our benefit, especially because people have a tendency towards optimism on this sort of thing. It's the reason America has an "inconvenienced Millionaire" problem instead of a poverty one if you go by our attitudes toward taxation.

We aren't going to have enough immortals running around to really matter for a while yet, what we need is to manage the impact of the idea. That means things that the average person who hears about this and reads the laws on the issue can envision themselves living with. Reseting every 60 years isn't going to fit that bill, especially if we take most of their theoretical earnings.

Duesal said:
When we're strong enough to have that meeting then fine, but realistically that's not going to be for a very long time.

My point was that literally every god in creation jealousy guards their slice of the pie, and that we can do the same thing. We don't have to be the only one in the room being "fair" because the scale we're operating bar doesn't matter to the health of the multiverse. If we get to the point that it does, then we'll also be at the point where we can reasonably bargain with the devil and figure it out. In the meantime we don't need to consign any of our people to that fate.

ThePrussian · Dec 22, 2019

Crake said:
So basically, Aerys executes Rickard and Brandon and a bunch of Northern Heirs/Lords and then sends a letter to Jon Arryn like "yo Jonny boy, hand over those crazy kids of yours", and Jon's like "fuck that Gay tyrant shit" and calls his banners.

House Grafton and House Corbray are like "oh fuck" and call their banners to hold the port against siege to prevent Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon from sailing to their lands and raising their banners. Jon organizes his Lords, Ned and Bobby go in deep for Gulltown. Bob kills Marq Grafton and basically Gerold Grafton's entire family and half his Household Knights mano a mano.

Lyn earns his Knighthood before the siege's conclusion, then Corbray switch sides, Grafton is forced to supplication even though Robbie the Wrecker smashed his Dad to bits, and told to like it.

Flash forward like five or six years and Viserys gets into contact with Brynden "Master Plan" Bloodraven, and makes a Pact with the OG Tree gangsters to extinguish or humiliate a bunch of Houses whom in ye olden days committed some Capital A Atrocities...including House Grafton.

Present day, Viserys is like "yo dawg das fucked up" and Bloodraven is like "figure it the fuck out!"

So Viserys is like "aight Uncle Bird, I got a plan".

And... here we are.

Have you ever considered writing a history book Crake?

T_of_A · Dec 22, 2019

Goldfish said:
I am completely opposed to a Reincarnated individual losing all of their previous assets. That's too extreme and invites unnecessary corruption and potential strife. 50% was just my starting proposal. I can see adjusting that to keeping as little as 20% with the rest going to heirs.

Fine. Total loss is a lot, anyway. I'm fine with keeping 20%-33%, something like that. Even 50% if that's what the thread wants.

Goldfish said:
I'm also iffy on establishing wealth caps. It's beyond difficult to enforce for those who such laws could actually impact, and just runs me the wrong way. Also another issue which shouldn't be relevant for years.

This issue could happen within a few decades, no problem. People aren't starting from an even footing, and the rich dynasties of Essos are now getting access to a pile of new advantages to try to make themselves unassailable. In a few decades/generations it'll start becoming an issue.
Establishing long-term priorities is good.
A "wealth cap" makes perfect sense. Just don't phrase it that way - make it a soft cap were if you're richer than the current (enormous) wealth of someone like Illyrio or the Sealord, you are taxed at 90% on your wealth beyond that (this was done IRL in the USA with a lower wealth cap and worked fine...). Something like this, to disincentivise excessive concentration of wealth.
Enforcing it is really easy, just have fewer loopholes in the tax code and actually have the political will to do this. IRL it isn't done because our leadership doesn't want to, not because it's a bad idea. Heck, strong tax laws enforcement on the super-rich is actually profitable IRL! The IRS made a profit last time they did it, and were then defunded and can now no longer afford the initial investment of an investigation on someone too rich. The problems with high taxes IRL (rich people fleeing the country, weak enforcement, etc) are basically non-issues here.

BronzeTongue said:
People will pick up on the fact that the way we are doing this is mostly for our benefit, especially because people have a tendency towards optimism on this sort of thing. It's the reason America has an "inconvenienced Millionaire" problem instead of a poverty one if you go by our attitudes toward taxation.

The "inconvenience millionaire" issue was deliberately created through very expensive media campaigns. We control mass media and education and explicitly use it for propaganda.

And I'm voting to clearly establish our long-term priorities and concerns in this law (in the preamble or something), publicly. Maybe not our "fix Heaven" plans, but the long-term economic and wealth concentration issues? Those aren't very sensitive, actually. Especially if we'll emphasize that we'll allow people to become incredibly stupendously rich (and even moreso if they do it as a family/clan of multi-billionaires that sticks together).

The wealth cap will have to exist. We can either establish it as a principle and just use taxation to make it happen, or have to manually fix the issue through irregular means whenever it pops up. I'm fine with the "make it happen through irregular means" option too, but then I'd like to vote to make it a (hidden) long-term decision now.

T_of_A · Dec 22, 2019

Goldfish said:
EDIT: @TalonofAnathrax, As for points 2, 4, 5, and 6, I have no issues with them. You want to write up something I can add to the preliminary plan?

Yes. It may take a few minutes, I'm halfway through another long post

BronzeTongue · Dec 22, 2019

Goldfish said:
That's much too extreme, IMO, and basically encourages everyone to game the system, consequences of getting caught be damned.

I'm willing to adjust the percentages of what people pay, but not to the point of taking everything.

I think it's a bit too soon for this to be an issue that needs to be so their defined. Unlike marriage and inheritance, which can be relevant tomorrow, it should be years before we need to worry about virtual immortals controlling too much of the Imperium.

If we don't care about immortals controlling the Imperium then why do we care?

Are we all assuming that people will cynically discard their children once they don't "need" an heir anymore? These people will likely still get training, positions, and help starting their own businesses from their parents. People can be stupid about a lot of things but I don't think they'll discard their kids or fail to consider what not inheriting will do to them.

If this isn't about the possibility of immortal hyper elites controlling the economy, then it sounds like we're mostly writing laws to protect the interests of people upset that their parents won't hurry up and die so they can have all the family money. Fuck those people. if we're going to be creating a complicated policing apparatus to manage this topic, why not focus it on those assholes?

Duesal · Dec 22, 2019

BronzeTongue said:
My point was that literally every god in creation jealousy guards their slice of the pie, and that we can do the same thing. We don't have to be the only one in the room being "fair" because the scale we're operating bar doesn't matter to the health of the multiverse. If we get to the point that it does, then we'll also be at the point where we can reasonably bargain with the devil and figure it out. In the meantime we don't need to consign any of our people to that fate.

The gods jealously guard their slice of the pie and are able to do so because they happen to be acting within the bounds of the Pact Primeval. Even R'hllor is merely collecting the souls of his worshipers. If he were brazenly acting against it he wouldn't have survived the onslaught of Hell, just like the Elder Gods couldn't.

The Imperial God, however, won't be a real god, and is outside of that pact, and making a move like messing with the flow of souls of people who are 1) rejected by whatever actual gods they worship for heinous crimes 2) have more than earned their place in the lower planes is guaranteed to get unwanted focus from the more powerful beings down below. This moves from, "Hey, that Red Dragon is getting annoying," to, "Okay, we need him dead yesterday, muster the Infernal Legions."

Prime Material is a lot more important in terms of concentrated mortal souls than you're making it out to be. I'm against starting this particular war without a lot of forethought and planning based off of IC intel.

TalonofAnathrax said:
Fine. Total loss is a lot, anyway. I'm fine with keeping 20%-33%, something like that. Even 50% if that's what the thread wants.

I support letting them keep 20%. What I'm definitely against is there not being taxes for this. Even if wealth accumulation won't be a problem in the span of the quest, it's a problem we will eventually be dealing with IC and should nip in the bud before it starts.

Crake · Dec 22, 2019

BronzeTongue said:
People will pick up on the fact that the way we are doing this is mostly for our benefit, especially because people have a tendency towards optimism on this sort of thing. It's the reason America has an "inconvenienced Millionaire" problem instead of a poverty one if you go by our attitudes toward taxation.

I think this has long since been a myth, most people who are referenced from suffering this malaise would admit they don't expect to join the economic elite, they are simply protecting their current status, based upon the belief that economic realignment would reduce their status from its current level of comfort by the various masses who are even one rung below them socially and economically.

People like this aren't concerned about their chances to become influential, which money basically is, but out of the notion that those with the authority to legislate and then arbitrate progressive tax reforms would be inherently selfish and prop up their own base (probably because of projection) while granting themselves higher status over those who they believe protect their current one.

We're getting a little off topic, though.

Takesis · Dec 22, 2019

Gahhh! Missed a lot of discussions due to last minute Christmas rush. Now what did I mis-

...

[] Joins the Natural Abilities Pride Parade

On a serious note:

BronzeTongue said:
Could we make the wagon itself a construct instead of putting one inside of it? Then it could use touch range SLAs on anyone inside it's storage compartment. We would need to give them an spell or item to make it so they can like normal lives off duty, but being a magical armored car isn't that bad of a deal otherwise.

Goldfish said:
A wagon to house the banner wouldn't be amiss, but making the wagon itself a Construct would be excessive. A solid box of Hardened steel and Adamantine, lined with lead and awarded against theft should be plenty, especially if we assign powerful Construct guardians to it.

BronzeTongue said:
If the wagon can be a construct, we could give he/she/it SLAs or 1/day items for spells like

40k got you, fam!

See those banners on the castle mast and the guns? Who says the banner bearer's useless now, bitches!

DragonParadox said:
Fixed, thanks.

Still not fixed, Dp.

[X] Find and deal with the wisps that caused you headaches in the Braavosi swamps
-[X] Offer them a new job in making the Tree of the Dawn Age interesting

I want to have the biggest Christmas tree in time for RL Christmas!

T_of_A · Dec 22, 2019

So I'm going through this post point by point, because it's alternatively full of really good ideas and also really terrible ideas.

BronzeTongue said:
I'd specifically like to point out that an afterlife run by mortals changes the equation on death enough that we should consider how it might be leveraged to make people want to stay dead after a reasonable period of years.

Most afterlives work as much as a forge for outsiders as they serve a karmic fate for the people who go there. We're already planning for imperial outsiders, but what if we put more effort into figuring out how to maintain a personality through such a transition?

This is a good thought. Not sure about maintaining a personality, but why not?

BronzeTongue said:
For most people, death would be a flat upgrade in base condition, and we could position them to move towards important afterlife/imperial affairs on the other side.

Why? You're basically saying "even death doesn't get you out of working for us", which is efficient but will certainly not be appreciated by people who want heaven, rewards, eternal rest and comfort... If you do want to do this I suggest you keep it secret, which would make your next point impossible :

BronzeTongue said:
One simple mechanism for controlling wealth would be to allow people to "advance" their position in the afterlife by donating to charities. So long as we keep it reasonable, allow other actions to weigh more than money, and actually keep our word, it would incentivize the movement of property out of a single person's hands.

This is viscerally horrifying to me and I am utterly against it. You're taking IRL problems and suggesting to copy-paste them into the afterlife? You're letting people buy indulgences, but for real?
All of my yikes. The long-term issues of this (socially, PR-wise, etc) will be crazy, and the ethics here seem wonky.

BronzeTongue said:
Honestly, whatever our solution is, I feel that maintaining the concept of inheritance in a society of immortals is silly. It's like maintaining the concept of money in a post scarcity society, or how we currently arrange school schedules around agrarian timetables most people don't live by anymore.

If our goal is to stop private actors from controlling everything we should put a regulatory body in place to enforce ownership caps on each industry and trade.

We're going to need to do something like that anyway since the obvious loophole to our inheritance law is to just not have kids,Unless we're planning to obligate people to have children or take almost everything someone owns every 60 years. That would be both screwed up and pointless since it'd still allow dynastic monopoly.

I technically agree, but remind you that we won't have a society of immortals. We'll have a society in which some elites will be immortal, but not most people.
Furthermore, most people are psychologically hardwired to want kids at some point... And we won't be "maintaining the concept of inheritance" : I don't think we can delete that concept.

BronzeTongue said:
In the near term, the people most likely to take issue with a "delayed" inheritance are also among the people most likely to get access to life extension. If they're too stupid or impatient to use their extra lifespan for something while they wait we're not missing out on much when they get shot down doing something stupid.

True, but saying so this bluntly is bad PR. This is why we're looking for a way to resolve the long-term economic issues of immortality for the rich in a way that also resolves the delayed inheritance "problem".

BronzeTongue said:
I realize that stuff like buy in afterlife upgrades aren't necessarily the best idea, but what I'm mostly trying to get at here is that trying to preserve a lifestyle after the fundamental forces that created it change is a bad idea.

It will cause resentment eventually because it functionally will be pointless for its purpose as stated. Generations that didn't grow up with the understanding that they would inevitably die will resent it because it will be a tradition grounded in something that they won't feel applies to them, enforced by old people that don't get that the world has changed.

We should be looking for new mechanisms to manage a society in the world as it stands, instead of trying to enforce rules to make it emulate the conditions we are used to.

This is a very good thought in theory. However in practice I don't think it will happen, because the masses of non-immortals will always be there as perspective.

tarrangar · Dec 22, 2019

TalonofAnathrax said:
This is a very good thought in theory. However in practice I don't think it will happen, because the masses of non-immortals will always be there as perspective.

Only until we begin building space habitats, once we can just endlessly build more land for our people to live on, I'm going to campaign for making Reincarnation accessible for all of our people.

Giving everyone access to Reincarnation early might backfire, but once we can make Dyson swarms, we can let all our people be semi-immortal.

And don't say Reincarnation is too expensive for our commoners to ever afford, we are going to be raising the efficiency of all industries a lot, which mean a corresponding increase in wages, so at the point where we can make Dyson swarms, even our commoners should be able to save up for a Reincarnation, in the course of their life time.

So the masses of non immortals wont necessarily be there forever, just until we have fully entered the space age.

Goldfish · Dec 22, 2019

Preliminary plan updated to change the distribution from 50/50 to 80/20 for heirs and those reincarnated, and increased the incremental taxation of those without heirs from 10% to 20%, with the maximum tax after four Reincarnations without heirs to be 80%. This is already pretty extreme, IMO, and hope we can avoid taking any more from those who Reincarnate.

[] Marriage, Death, and Taxes
-[] Inheritance Taxes:
--[] Upon Reincarnation not sanctioned by the Imperium*, 80% of the value of one's estate is to be distributed to one's heirs after any outstanding debts have been settled.
---[] In instances where the Reincarnated subject and his or her heirs are unable to agree upon the division of non-monetary assets, an impartial mediator will by appointed by the Imperium to oversee arbitration between the involved parties. Mediators will have binding authority to divide non-monetary assets should arbitration fail.
---[] The assets a Reincarnated subject retains or accumulates after Reincarnation are not subject to further division among previous heirs, though any heirs produced following the latest Reincarnation do so benefit.
--[] Upon Reincarnation not sanctioned by the Imperium*, 20% of the value of one's estate is to be paid as a tax to the Imperium should the Reincarnated subject have no living heirs.
---[] Upon subsequent instances of Reincarnation without an heir, the rate of taxation will increase in 20% increments, to a maximum tax rate per Reincarnation of 8% of total assets.
--[] *State-sanctioned Reincarnation includes any instance of an individual being Reincarnated after falling in service to the Imperium as part of their assigned duties.
-[] Marriage:
--[] Marriage is defined as the legal union between two or more consenting parties, each of of whom is considered an adult of their species by Imperial law.
---[] In addition to being of age, to be considered capable of giving consent one must be free of magical compulsion or possession, and of sufficient intelligence (i.e. sentience) to comprehend the basic legal obligations inherent to the marriage contract.

Crake · Dec 22, 2019

If we're giving people equal representation under the law (with the caveat that people do have granted and inherited status which gives them different rights and obligations), then ignoring the fact that the majority of people will not be immortals and that as people urbanize, they will also exchange ideas more and more, progressive sentiments will become a common trend. Unless we lean even harder on the authoritarian side of things, our current rather absolutist tendencies tend to revolve around control of inherently exploitable things and institutions, exploitation by fiends and similar vectors specifically.

The idea is that we are so effective at regulating and managing these institutions and resources that even with increasingly progressive legislators and voters, we maintain our own base of power while also holding public support.

Generally speaking, any system which takes it as granted that a very fractional number of people will maintain control over the world's economy will result in abuses of power, even assuming you have one singular entity above them that gets them to play nicely, I think the idea is to have it be the case that any one abuser does not have great potential to do harm by holding their stake hostage against the interests of the Imperium in exchange for further concessions. While that is a mess that can be resolved, people in general rather than in specific would be very nervous about our intervention, prompting many to revolt even if it's a bad idea in order to drive us to the negotiation table, something we can't really afford when surrounded by external enemies.

That's another caveat which is forcing us to legislate with the current state of the world in mind rather than what we imagine the ultimate end-state will be. We have other concerns, so we need something which reflects what we have in hand to deal out right now, rather than what we imagine we will possess in a few decades, or even a few centuries.

BronzeTongue · Dec 22, 2019

Duesal said:
The gods jealously guard their slice of the pie and are able to do so because they happen to be acting within the bounds of the Pact Primeval. Even R'hllor is merely collecting the souls of his worshipers. If he were brazenly acting against it he wouldn't have survived the onslaught of Hell, just like the Elder Gods couldn't.

The Imperial God, however, won't be a real god, and is outside of that pact, and making a move like messing with the flow of souls of people who are 1) rejected by whatever actual gods they worship for heinous crimes 2) have more than earned their place in the lower planes is guaranteed to get unwanted focus from the more powerful beings down below. This moves from, "Hey, that Red Dragon is getting annoying," to, "Okay, we need him dead yesterday, muster the Infernal Legions."

Prime Material is a lot more important in terms of concentrated mortal souls than you're making it out to be. I'm against starting this particular war without a lot of forethought and planning based off of IC intel.

I support letting them keep 20%. What I'm definitely against is there not being taxes for this. Even if wealth accumulation won't be a problem in the span of the quest, it's a problem we will eventually be dealing with IC and should nip in the bud before it starts.

By virtue of worshipping the imperial god wouldn't all citizens qualify as its followed for this purpose?

On the bit about taxation, I agree with the general idea of stopping wealth accumulation. I'm not trying to claim anything ridiculous like the idea that stopping people from collecting infinite money to the detriment of society is tyranny or something.

However, you guys are focusing on the wrong part of the mechanism and designing the tax code in a way that is highly likely to piss people off.

We shouldn't associate the taxation with reincarnation at all. We should stick with a progressive tax plan that effectively enforces a wealth cap without being explicit about it, and require nothing of parents except that they provide basic care and education for their kids.

Forcing inheritance as a mechanism when the purpose for which it was designed doesn't apply to the case in question makes no sense, and not getting gobs of money for being born isn't exactly a violation of the rights of the kids either. Almost all of them will be very well positioned by way of their parents actually caring about them.

If we're going to go all social engineer in this, we could even start making paying high taxes prestigious for the way it supports the empire. Simple things similar to how our captains hang broken slave chains outside their doors would work wonders for that.

We don't want a narrative of "taking" extra money for "no reason " to pop up. The basis for taxes is that you're paying for something you get as part of society. Being charged to die sounds bad and sticks with people whatever the truth is. We can accomplish the same thing with a progressive tax scheme and sales tax on reincarnation reagents without ever establishing that narrative.

TalonofAnathrax said:
So I'm going through this post point by point, because it's alternatively full of really good ideas and also really terrible ideas.

This is a good thought. Not sure about maintaining a personality, but why not?

Why? You're basically saying "even death doesn't get you out of working for us", which is efficient but will certainly not be appreciated by people who want heaven, rewards, eternal rest and comfort... If you do want to do this I suggest you keep it secret, which would make your next point impossible :

This is viscerally horrifying to me and I am utterly against it. You're taking IRL problems and suggesting to copy-paste them into the afterlife? You're letting people buy indulgences, but for real?
All of my yikes. The long-term issues of this (socially, PR-wise, etc) will be crazy, and the ethics here seem wonky.

I technically agree, but remind you that we won't have a society of immortals. We'll have a society in which some elites will be immortal, but not most people.
Furthermore, most people are psychologically hardwired to want kids at some point... And we won't be "maintaining the concept of inheritance" : I don't think we can delete that concept.

True, but saying so this bluntly is bad PR. This is why we're looking for a way to resolve the long-term economic issues of immortality for the rich in a way that also resolves the delayed inheritance "problem".

This is a very good thought in theory. However in practice I don't think it will happen, because the masses of non-immortals will always be there as perspective.

How much perspective do the ultra wealthy have on the lives of everyone else today? I think it would work out similarly for this.

I'm aware that letting people buy in to a better afterlife is a bad idea, I was mostly reaching for an example of an approach other than trying to force an old system into an environment it wasn't designed to work in. I maintain that as awful as it could potentially be, proper monitoring would make it manageable but it'd be about as dangerously radioactive as blood sacrifice is in terms of possible abuse. Almost certainly not actually worth it, but still decent enough to start the conversation.

Also, by enforcing inheritance by law at certain intervals you are by definition maintaining it. I think that people would still care for and support their children without being legally obligated to hand over half their stuff every 60 years to whoever their lucky inheritor is, but it wouldn't look the same at all.

On the PR note "punitive" taxes for dying will be the problem we have to manage with your system. The abrupt changes in wealth will make people upset. You already have progressive taxes in your list, why not just extend those and leave them with a smooth reasonable level of wealth the whole time?

The results are the same, but when, where, and why matter if we want people to accept this kind of stuff.

Crake · Dec 22, 2019

BronzeTongue said:
On the PR note "punitive" taxes for dying will be the problem we have to manage with your system. The abrupt changes in wealth will make people upset. You already have progressive taxes in your list, why not just extend those and leave them with a smooth reasonable level of wealth the whole time?

The results are the same, but when, where, and why matter if we want people to accept this kind of stuff.

I generally agree that punitive taxation is less necessary when progressive tax policy already effectively caps how greatly one can stockpile money and other tokens of wealth (such as property).

T_of_A · Dec 22, 2019

@Goldfish, thoughts?

This one has the 80/20 splits (nicely radical

) and a preamble setting out long-term priorities and explaining the reform. Furthermore, it states that tax codes should be progressive and soft-cap people at an incredibly high net worth.
However, neither of our plans has an inheritance tax. This is odd, as they existed IRL in medieval times (including for Lords apparently). Should we mention that it exists but not go into detail? Or just pretend it doesn't exist in-setting?

[] Marriage, Death, and Taxes
-[] Inheritance :
--[] PREAMBLE : In the public preamble of our law, we explicitly explain the long-term economic and social issues we're seeking to avoid and state the following long-term objectives :
---[] Long-term objective : Avoid monopolies and overly large private private businesses or trusts.
---[] Long-term objective : Taxation is to be progressive, to eventually soft-cap the net worth of a single person trying to get richer than the Pondmaster or Illyrio.
---[] Long-term objective : Limit appointments to high-level posts in the administration: try to stop a single group from having too much influence in one area if possible. Efficiency remains paramount.
---[] Long-term objective : Encourage the development of new colonies, avoiding the family domination of Shaitan colonies.
---[] Long-term objective : Guarantee a basic standard of living for all to limit unrest. This is to be done through sound economic policies as well as a government safety net for tasks that cannot be met by the market and htat currently rely solely on rather disorganized charity.
---[] Hidden long-term objective : Not indicated in the preamble, but shared with Companions. We hope to create an artificial Heaven and/or to fix the old one.
--[] Upon Reincarnation not sanctioned by the Imperium*, 80% of the value of one's estate is to be distributed to one's heirs after any outstanding debts have been settled.
---[] In instances where the Reincarnated subject and his or her heirs are unable to agree upon the division of non-monetary assets, an impartial mediator will by appointed by the Imperium to oversee arbitration between the involved parties. Mediators will have binding authority to divide non-monetary assets should arbitration fail.
---[] The assets a Reincarnated subject retains or accumulates after Reincarnation are not subject to further division among previous heirs, though any heirs produced following the latest Reincarnation do so benefit.
--[] Upon Reincarnation not sanctioned by the Imperium*, 10% of the value of one's estate is to be paid as a tax to the Imperium should the Reincarnated subject have no living heirs.
---[] Upon subsequent instances of Reincarnation without an heir, the rate of taxation will increase in 10% increments, to a maximum tax rate per Reincarnation of 80% of total assets.
--[] *State-sanctioned Reincarnation includes any instance of an individual being Reincarnated after falling in service to the Imperium as part of their assigned duties.
-[] Marriage:
--[] Marriage is defined as the legal union between two or more consenting parties, each of of whom is considered an adult of their species by Imperial law.
---[] In addition to being of age, to be considered capable of giving consent one must be free of magical compulsion or possession, and of sufficient intelligence (i.e. sentience) to comprehend the basic legal obligations inherent to the marriage contract.

T_of_A · Dec 22, 2019

BronzeTongue said:
By virtue of worshipping the imperial god wouldn't all citizens qualify as its followed for this purpose?

On the bit about taxation, I agree with the general idea of stopping wealth accumulation. I'm not trying to claim anything ridiculous like the idea that stopping people from collecting infinite money to the detriment of society is tyranny or something.

However, you guys are focusing on the wrong part of the mechanism and designing the tax code in a way that is highly likely to piss people off.

We shouldn't associate the taxation with reincarnation at all. We should stick with a progressive tax plan that effectively enforces a wealth cap without being explicit about it, and require nothing of parents except that they provide basic care and education for their kids.

Forcing inheritance as a mechanism when the purpose for which it was designed doesn't apply to the case in question makes no sense, and not getting gobs of money for being born isn't exactly a violation of the rights of the kids either. Almost all of them will be very well positioned by way of their parents actually caring about them.

If we're going to go all social engineer in this, we could even start making paying high taxes prestigious for the way it supports the empire. Simple things similar to how our captains hang broken slave chains outside their doors would work wonders for that.

We don't want a narrative of "taking" extra money for "no reason " to pop up. The basis for taxes is that you're paying for something you get as part of society. Being charged to die sounds bad and sticks with people whatever the truth is. We can accomplish the same thing with a progressive tax scheme and sales tax on reincarnation reagents without ever establishing that narrative.

How much perspective do the ultra wealthy have on the lives of everyone else today? I think it would work out similarly for this.

I'm aware that letting people buy in to a better afterlife is a bad idea, I was mostly reaching for an example of an approach other than trying to force an old system into an environment it wasn't designed to work in. I maintain that as awful as it could potentially be, proper monitoring would make it manageable but it'd be about as dangerously radioactive as blood sacrifice is in terms of possible abuse. Almost certainly not actually worth it, but still decent enough to start the conversation.

Also, by enforcing inheritance by law at certain intervals you are by definition maintaining it. I think that people would still care for and support their children without being legally obligated to hand over half their stuff every 60 years to whoever their lucky inheritor is, but it wouldn't look the same at all.

On the PR note "punitive" taxes for dying will be the problem we have to manage with your system. The abrupt changes in wealth will make people upset. You already have progressive taxes in your list, why not just extend those and leave them with a smooth reasonable level of wealth the whole time?

The results are the same, but when, where, and why matter if we want people to accept this kind of stuff.

Fuck, this is entirely correct.

@Goldfish, let's reframe what we have. Put more emphasis on the progressive taxation? Make it actually part of the law, but not the preamble?
No need to go into detail, by the way. Just way "we make sure our tax system is progressive, and create a progressive wealth tax that only touches the very wealthy and only soft-caps you once you reach Sealord level money".

Maybe we could keep the idea that partial inheritance is obligatory once you Reincarnate, but remove the fine?

Must go to sleep now, but will write out a full proposal in about 10 hours if you haven't (or if I disagree with it a lot).

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

I AM THE STORM THAT IS APPROACHING

Friendly Spider-Fish Abomination

Fat arctic chicken

Friendly Spider-Fish Abomination

I AM THE STORM THAT IS APPROACHING

Fat arctic chicken

Friendly Spider-Fish Abomination

I AM THE STORM THAT IS APPROACHING

I AM THE STORM THAT IS APPROACHING