Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GladiusNP" data-source="post: 815812" data-attributes="member: 10574">Okay, I just want to clarify one or two things that seem to have caused confusion.1.  Some noble houses hold no estates at all.  They own houses in the city, but do not have any holdings of note outside of the city, and the city itself is part of the Lady Kelvins estate, so none of them have sovereignty over their homes.  House Palmora is the best example.  They own their homes as any citizen would, but have no jurisdiction over the enforcement of laws.  I can see how the wording was a little awkward, so sorry for that.  2.  Harrowdale isn't a population centre.  It's basically the residence of House Harrowdale, and has only the workers, a small household guard, and the extended family.  Max one hundred people.3.  Estates aren't necessarily anything worthwhile.  Most are just grazing lands, with some shepherd's huts, a small manor, and some flocks.  Granted, the term estate is probably misleading, so apologies for the confusion.  I'd intended these to be the steddings/ranches of the herders.  JDavis has it right (or rather, uses the same assumptions I did/have). 4.  Private guards vs. standing army.  If I ruled a city, anyone who has any sort of group of warriors is going to need to have a charter.  If some guy starts pulling together mercenaries or training troops, I'm coming down hard on him.  The nobles do have the right to maintain troops.  Citizens do not.  The wordArmy may be misleading as to the size.  Remember that Enheim isn't particularly densely populated, so any standing armies are very small (forty men being the absolute maximum).5. I stand by trade rights.  Landholders should be able to tax people who use their rivers, especially if they station guards or other amenities on the banks.  I didn't actually mention roads, since those are built and maintained by the city.  6.  Duke = Lady Kelvin.  This title was used in the history thread.  Sorry for the confusion.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> To weigh in on the topics of debate...I think the Landholders still should be considered the nobles.  They've been there the longest, were part of the founding, and have a lot of money.  Granted, not every shepherd is a noble, which I should have made clearer, indeed few of the nobles probably do any sort of work in the fields, but the main point is that at one time, they did.  Not every Landholder is a noble either, that was the point of removing this stricture, to stop people from buying twenty acres of the swamp, and gaining a title.Cor Mahael.  Happy to change that.  Do people feel he should have a title at all?  Or happy just to leave him isolated entirely from the city?Representative council.  Ok, if people think this is too americanized, that's probably fair (I lived in the US for 11 years, from when I was 7).  I don't feel it is particularly representative in many ways, since the commoners get no say - the military, which is only 1 or 2% of the population, has more influence! I'm happy with whatever is decided with regard to the legislation.  Again it is the city of chaos, and the proposed system may not reflect that as well as it should.  That said, if Lady Kelvin is the only law-maker, then why bother with a council?  She could have a court of advisors, yes, but going to all the bother to create a council, and have it do nothing but give advice seems sort of silly.  Again, my opinion only, YMMV, IMHO, etc., etc., ad nauseum.</blockquote>

Verification