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

[TotallyNotEvil]

@Azel @TalonofAnathrax @Skjadir @One Autumn Leaf @Duesal @LonelyWolf999 @Goldfish @Takesis @Absylon Quilby @Artemis1992

Can you guys reread what you are voting for?

The first option is setting predecent that a competent manager gets to ask the state to all but forcibly seize and sell to them, and even loan the money, a place they worked at when the owner dies.

Aka, inheritance is meaningless.

For the marriage, I agree that this isn't enchantment. It's just fraud. Simple solution: pass into law one has to divulge, and the partner has to sign a document stating they are aware of this, that they are under temporary Charisma-enhancing abilities of any sort.

 

[DragonParadox]

Very true.

That being said you wouldn't marry a pretty woman you literally just met if you were thinking with the head on your shoulders.

Pretty is pretty, and that's all well and good, but at some point you've got to look at yourself and say "is this a tactically sound decision to make?"

Especially when you've got money and responsibilities resting on your shoulders.

Click to shrink...

Remember this is the guy who lost limbs pocking a dinosaur. Common sense is not his strong suit.

 

[Azel]

Adjustment to votes after reading the discussion:

[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.

Spelling out that this isn't impacting noble titles, just property.


[X] Second Case: It is self-evident that Glyllo was not bespelled as he claims, thus he has no right to an annulment on that basis. The use of magic to improve the self is inherently no reprehensible act, not dissimilar form buying fancy clothing, using make-up or dying your hair. All of these things also change the way a person appears to others, yet no one would ask for an annulment for discovering a wrinkle or mole on his bride. However, the marriage was done hastily and while Glyllo may or may not have been mentally impaired due to the effects of his wounds. Therefore, we are willing to grant the annulment, based on the assumption that Glyllo was not of sound mind at the time of the wedding. However, to prevent future cases like this, the law will be amended so that before a marriage, both partners have to state all permanent or temporary magical effects they possess. Failure to do so is a valid reason for an annulment, though not in of itself a crime. It can be however used as evidence to prove malicious intent and fraud.

Going for an anullment based on him being impaired.


[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?"

Unchanged.

 

[TotallyNotEvil]

As the case sounds the lord has not been running his lands at all for the majority of his life.

Click to shrink...

It was noted he could barely leave his house.

It's establishing that if you for a prolonged time don't attend to your estate, then the person you have doing it for you have the right to buy you out, it's not against the people who actually manage their estate, it's against the kind of people, who inherited an estate, and just put someone in charge, and tell them to send the earnings to you while you travel and party.

Click to shrink...

So you can't hire a manager anymore? Because that person is suddenly entitled to your stuff.

 

[Azel]

Can you guys reread what you are voting for?

The first option is setting predecent that a competent manager gets to ask the state to all but forcibly seize and sell to them, and even loan the money, a place they worked at when the owner dies.

Aka, inheritance is meaningless.

Click to shrink...

Could you cut down a bit on the histrionics? I will gladly debate my reasoning here with you, but not like this.

For the marriage, I agree that this isn't enchantment. It's just fraud. Simple solution: pass into law one has to divulge, and the partner has to sign a document stating they are aware of this, that they are under temporary Charisma-enhancing abilities of any sort.

Click to shrink...

That's a good suggestion. Adding.

 

[TotallyNotEvil]

Spelling out that this isn't impacting noble titles, just property.

Click to shrink...

Still a terrible, terrible idea.

You are forcibly seizing her property and selling it to the manager on the basis he was competent at his job.

Inheritance becomes meaningless, managers are fired overnight.

 

[Artemis1992]

Aka, inheritance is meaningless.

Click to shrink...

She gets the full value of the land.
She can simply buy new land, not like we aren't creating lots of secure, arable land right now this month.

 

[DragonParadox]

On the matter of divorce, @DragonParadox, would the divorce give her any money? Some here assume it does, I personally assume it doesn't.
As for me, I think she should get nothing. The marriage is definitely legal under current laws, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been made under false assumptions.

Click to shrink...

She would get money under the law though to be honest he is more concerned with being a laughingstock pushing for a divorce than the money he might lose.

 

[Artemis1992]

Still a terrible, terrible idea.

You are forcibly seizing her property and selling it to the manager on the basis he was competent at his job.

Inheritance becomes meaningless, managers are fired overnight.

Click to shrink...

On the basis that he was doing the entirety of the steward's and lord's work for the span of a full generation.

That sounds a lot more reasonable than your version.

 

[Algalon]

Here you are making a rule whereupon people have no incentive in building a lasting legacy, as a competent servant will get an estate-approved loan and you will be forced to sell it.

Bad move.

Click to shrink...

Things is, she's inheriting her father's legacy, and her father had no interest in building one. She's essentially inheriting the Steward's legacy, all the hard work he invested into improving the estate.

She's getting the value her father invested into the estate plus interests, i.e it's market value, while the Steward inherits everything he did for the estate.

It encourages land owners to actually care and develop their estates. If they don't, then they still get to receive the rent throughout their lifetime and see their investment returned upon death. If you want a legacy, then go build one. If you only want money, then you'll only get money.

 

[TotallyNotEvil]

She gets the full value of the land.
She can simply buy new land, not like we aren't creating lots of secure, arable land right now this month.

Click to shrink...

1) Doesn't mean we aren't forcibly seizing her property for no good reason.
2) Doesn't mean there automatically are equivalent properties on sale. Aka, there are things money can't buy.
3) It might have value beyond the material for which a person would like to hold onto it.

On the basis that he was doing the entirety of the steward's and lord's work for the span of a full generation.

That sounds a lot more reasonable than your version.

Click to shrink...

For the lord who virtually couldn't leave his house for medical reasons.

And it doesn't matter if he was doing it or not, the man did not break the law, he died, his daughter is his legal heir and she, too, did not break the law.

 

[DragonParadox]

Going for an anullment based on him being impaired.

Click to shrink...

A note here, while the courtship definitely too place while he was impaired, he was of sound mind and body on his wedding day since he had been healed with magic. Otherwise he would have gotten an annulment without coming to Viserys.

 

[Tomcost]

She would get money under the law though to be honest he is more concerned with being a laughingstock pushing for a divorce than the money he might lose.

Click to shrink...

This just went from socioeconomically relevant problem to meaningless for me.

He kinda deserves being the laughingstock, and it wouldn't matter if he actually got married or not. He had to come to bother the king to solve this for a matter of ego. He will be mocked anyway.

 

[TotallyNotEvil]

Things is, she's inheriting her father's legacy, and her father had no interest in building one. She's essentially inheriting the Steward's legacy, all the hard work he invested into improving the estate.

She's getting the value her father invested into the estate plus interests, i.e it's market value, while the Steward inherits everything he did for the estate.

It encourages land owners to actually care and develop their estates. If they don't, then they still get to receive the rent throughout their lifetime and see their investment returned upon death. If you want a legacy, then go build one. If you only want money, then you'll only get money.

Click to shrink...

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, so the stewart got one too many days on the job and now owns it.

 

[zxzx24]

Could you cut down a bit on the histrionics? I will gladly debate my reasoning here with you, but not like this.

That's a good suggestion. Adding.

Click to shrink...

tarrangar also came up with that idea sorry, im just gonna go.

 

[Azel]

Still a terrible, terrible idea.

You are forcibly seizing her property and selling it to the manager on the basis he was competent at his job.

Inheritance becomes meaningless, managers are fired overnight.

Click to shrink...

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.

Secondly, this is a vitally important ruling for the long-term survival of our realm and I'm glad that it came up here without us having to manufacture a incident to do this. This is the Methuselah argument again. If we allow infinite acquisition of land, we will soon be in a situation where a few nobles own half of Essos. This is a bad state to be in. With this ruling though, we open up a way for people to buy land from centralized landholders, making sure it stays in the market.

 

[Artemis1992]

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 shrink...

Oh no, the children of nobility might actually have to work to increase their wealth. The horror.
And even then they'd start with the market value of the estate their father build up.

Aka "with just a small gift of a million dollars I had to work up my way from the very bottom".
So sad, so inspiring.

 

[DkArthas]

....I am not in support of granting Annulement now. The idiot deserves this.

 

[T_of_A]

Can you guys reread what you are voting for?

The first option is setting predecent that a competent manager gets to ask the state to all but forcibly seize and sell to them, and even loan the money, a place they worked at when the owner dies.

Aka, inheritance is meaningless.

For the marriage, I agree that this isn't enchantment. It's just fraud. Simple solution: pass into law one has to divulge, and the partner has to sign a document stating they are aware of this, that they are under temporary Charisma-enhancing abilities of any sort.

Click to shrink...

1. Now IRL I have no issue with banning inheritances, so...
Of course my political opinions aren't important here, this is about Viserys ruling his fictional kingdom and he certainly can't be abolishing inheritances in his position. That'd be even worse than ending slavery actually (at least that brought him supporters), and it would hurt his own legitimacy.
Still, please quit it with the hysterics.

@Azel, how about ruling in his favor based on his support to our army? It'd establish a very different kind of precedent (and one that's probably better for us in the long run): we seem less reliable to the nobility, but it incentivizes people to cooperate with the administration. I'd specifically say that we're doing this because we're the king and so can make that ruling (thus making it far harder for this to be used as official precedent by local judges who could use this case to cover up corruption). I think that the trade-off may be worth it.

2. Eh, sure. This feels a little too "nanny state" to me (people shouldn't be marrying on a whim, and they should be making sure they know who they're marrying before they jump the gun! Wait a few weeks/months to get to know her, the buffs will wear off and all the IRL advantages of not marrying on a whim will still happen. And anyone capable of self-buffing all day for weeks/months on end can just keep the buffs going all her life, anyway ).

 

[Tomcost]

Here we have a law that if you care for someone else's property for 25 years and they never claim it back then you could do the legal stuff to own it. It encourages that abandoned houses get occupied with people that really care about them instead of belonging to someone who died 30 years ago.

Then there is the usual mafia that ruins everything here, but the idea is good.

 

[TotallyNotEvil]

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?

Secondly, this is a vitally important ruling for the long-term survival of our realm and I'm glad that it came up here without us having to manufacture a incident to do this. This is the Methuselah argument again. If we allow infinite acquisition of land, we will soon be in a situation where a few nobles own half of Essos. This is a bad state to be in. With this ruling though, we open up a way for people to buy land from centralized landholders, making sure it stays in the market.

Click to shrink...

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?

 

[T_of_A]

Oh no, the children of nobility might actually have to work to increase their wealth. The horror.
And even then they'd start with the market value of the estate their father build up.

Aka "with just a small gift of a million dollars I had to work up my way from the very bottom".
So sad, so inspiring.

Click to shrink...

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.

 

[tarrangar]

It was noted he could barely leave his house.

So you can't hire a manager anymore? Because that person is suddenly entitled to your stuff.

Click to shrink...

He's not entitled to your stuff, merely entitled to the right to buying it, if you have him be sole manager long enough.

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, so the stewart got one too many days on the job and now owns it.

Click to shrink...

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.

 

[TotallyNotEvil]

He's not entitled to your stuff, merely entitled to the right to buying it, if you have him be sole manager long enough.

Click to shrink...

He is clearly entitled to your stuff as the estate is taking what's rightly his descendant's property and forcing them to sell it to you.

You can refuse it, doesn't mean it wasn't forcibly taken away and then just let go.

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

Click to shrink...

What bank won't jump at the opportunity of indebting him for three generations?

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 shrink...

Again, are you saying you are not entitled to more than you can personally manage?

There are an enormous amounts of loopholes to be considered here.

This is clearly a bad precedent to set.

 

[Azel]

@TotallyNotEvil, I will not further discuss this with you as you keep acting as if this would kick people out on the street without a penny. This nonsense.