Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 816108" data-attributes="member: 7240">Gladius NP saysAgreed. But that shouldn't necessarily mean that they're part of the same governance body.If people go with that, that's fine but that isn't what I said. All I wanted to say is that Lady Kelvin can make some kinds of laws and council can make other kinds of laws. The kinds of laws the two groups can make should be different but potentially overlapping, in which case the issue is not who has the right to make the laws but who is capable of enforcing the laws. Let's clarify what's meant by "representative." A representative could be someone selected by the group they're representing or they could simply be a person chosen from that group by the individual with the power to appoint. I can tolerate either model but I personally favour the latter option or a mixed system where some representatives are one kind and some the other.Agreed.I don't care what the division is as long as it's somewhat unclear and the bodies exist in parallel rather than in series.I'd prefer advisory but would be happy to go either way. If it is legislative, I'd favour a 100% threshold for agreement.I'd hope no council members would be nobles and that nobles' powers would come from the fact that all the land in the city is within the feif of one noble family or another. Thus, a noble with title to southgate could levy taxes on the people living there or make other rules for them but would not be part of any kind of central decision-making structure.In my ideal model, the castellan (I'd still prefer the title mayor) would choose council members but would be bound by the charter to choose them from certain groups. I can certainly live with some or all being selected by the group they represent but if they are, they should not be elected by popular vote but should be chosen by the individual governing structures of the groups they represent. Thus, the representative of the glazers might be a person chosen by lot, or by heredity, or through some kind of rotation system, etc. while the representative for the merchants might be the person nominated by the head of the merchants' council or...If counsellors are not "elected", they should be either appointed collectively by the whole council or chosen by the castellan. If they're "elected", I think they should be chosen based on the rules of the group that chooses them; the constitution of the city should be silent on how they're chosen.Here's where my gibberish about how the nobles' authority should work actually cleans things up. Nobles' lands should extend outside the city because they're nobles of Enheim not nobles of the city. They should have more power on their lands outside the city because their powers there won't be curtailed by the city charter. But if a noble sets a poll tax of 1sp per year on each household in their lands, everyone on their lands should pay it regardless of whether they are within or outside the city.It depends on whether they nobles are created as urban nobles; I would argue that there is are few medieval models for urban aristocracy. Aristocracy should be inherently rural; now, the nobles might spend all their time in the city but their primary residence/seat should still be the rural steading.Sounds great.Anyway, there's my input. Take what you will.</blockquote>

Verification