Maybe only with the caveat that if you remove them as a dependent from your Household, rather than them voluntarily leaving, they are obligated towards a partial inheritance?
It's explicitly a pseudodeity by design, so no, it shouldn't qualify.
Isn't it effectively a god we lobotomize by making its mindlessness part of the story that defines it? Seems like it'd be the same as a god to me.
Incrementally more progressive tax policies in stages? TBH most of the reforms we are interested in setting aren't necessary yet.
Would probably add some zeroes, but I understand the underlying point.
So you entirely agree with Duesal and I, but you want better defined numbers?
Putting an upper limit like that feels sort of weird to me in some ways as well, but it effectively does the same thing as the other option without slapping people in the face with how much they're being taxed.
Not really.
].
I'm not attached to any of the figures I used there. They were just an example.
Fair enough on what it actually qualifies as. How do you guys feel about finding something CN to add to the pantheon so that we can cover worshipers of all alignments?Not really.
Cases in Point:
Ymeri. Isn't technically a Deity - albeit has a power of lower-tier one, isn't bound by Divine constraints of "worship = change" (much).
Old Gods. Are a Deity made up of thousands of angry old men, so incoherent their rage transcends aeons, death, and Planes themselves [
Yet, if any are separated somehow from green Dream, those won't be a Deity anymore.
Green Dream. Isn't technically a Divine Realm in it's original function - but with Old Gods growing, reached similar function.
Imperial Deity would be us taking a basic concept of a Green Dream - an artificial afterlife - and slapping it onto our Empire and PoB in general.
Then, withing the Dream we coalesce a Divine-like battery, narratively and metaphysically bound to the entirety of the Empire, the concept we want it to embody, and the Gods we approve of - gaining protection and giving off constant growth for them.
With time, the battery grows - the Empire gets better metaphysical protection from things fucking with people's souls; the Gods get more energy; We get a larger pool of energy to draw from in case we need to do something stupidly energy-expensive (like closing the hole in Hellvens).
But, technically, that thing is still not a God.
Rather, a Landwarden to our "Fleshforge" of a soul-realm, at best.
I think Duesal is right about the fucked-up realms.
You severely underestimate the importance of Plane of Balance for them -
Of course, we can't know exactly how much without knowing whether the setting operates within the Crystal Spheres of dnd/Pathfinder, or regular cosmos -
But it had been pretty established so far, that everyone craves PoB for that exact reason.
Asmodeus was willing to halp Valyrians - just to get himself a LE Empire, who'd be sending souls straight to Hells.
We should be really careful about how we do things with Imperial Dream.
Best case, we just angry lots of Evil Gods barely present on PoB.
Worst case, we break flow of soulc and everyone is our enemy.
I'm honestly not sure what's reasonable here... I want people to reasonably be able to engage in the magic item economy without being PCs operating on the fringe, because its key to innovation in various industries and also personal comfort. Because the cost of items is weighted against a mostly static model that is hard to reduce without losing out on some features, and all of the other mundane overhead associated with running a business, the tax model either generally assumes smaller businesses and government controlled industries, or large businesses and intermittent trust busting efforts.
We could fiddle with the description all we want, but ultimately it is conceived as a Pseudodeity and not an actual god. It's basically a divine battery for the actual Imperial Gods and doubles as an afterlife.
This seems like a recipe for disaster for me. We shouldn't be planning the future of our realm on a gamble of either not being important enough to warrant malicious attention or being powerful enough that it wouldn't matter. We're always going to be somewhere in the middle and have to be appropriately paranoid or it will bite us in the ass.
So put a hard cap on how much a CEO can pay themselves based on the company's total income?
Pride cometh before the fall and all that.
It's easy to arrogantly assume that because we know the system is inherently corruptible, the only reason a "better system" has yet to be implemented is because they won't let it, but yeah, I sincerely doubt our ability to write policy is commiserate to the challenge presented by these new circumstances.I was thinking more on the individual end; if we do it based on a particular source of income it'll just encourage people to reach for another (like say stock dividends). Then we'd need to make another scale and double the work we have to do.
if we did it based on net worth relative to a standard set by current economic conditions we could get a rough approximation of what qualifies as too much wealth.
it wouldn't always be perfectly accurate, but ideally it'd sort of be like cutting someone off at a bar. You don't specify that everyone gets exactly two drinks, but you do stop serving someone who has clearly had too much. The point isn't to fund the government in this case since we are clearly managing that just fine, the point is to curb individual economic influence.
Just to pick some numbers, we could say that no one should own substantially more than half a percent of the gdp(or some market index if we think that'll be more accurate) of either the Imperium, or perhaps the region they live in, and then start a progressive tax scheme at say half that value that slowly increases until it takes everything above the cutoff. Those numbers are arbitrary, but we can pick better ones or just abstract it away to the job of the Imperial Revenue Service.
Strong anti trust laws would need to be in place to catch things like focusing all of one's net worth into a critical industry to gain disproportionate political or military influence, but we'd need those anyway.
Thoughts on the viability of such an approach? I'm not an economist, so I'm not exactly clear on all the failure modes for this kind of system. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that every theory on taxation that sounds decent to a non expert has already been tried and horribly failed somewhere on the planet at least once.
That was an unpleasant reminder of Darksisters conditional loyalty
Good point. I was thinking more in terms of finding any obvious failure points that made the concept unsound, like driving people to a particular form of fraud or something.
