In my campaign's core area, individuals might "own" land, but they cannot sell it. Any farmland, pasture, forest, etc. is owned in common. One only "owns" ones house. Even nobility cannot sell or buy land. Lands "owned" by a King or noble are always "owned" by that King or noble line. However, lands can be shuffled as a result of warfare, clan marriages, etc. If somebody wants "new" land, they have to take it from someone else. There is no "price" put on land other than the price of kicking its current occupants out.
How do you deal with Real Estate in your campaign?
- Thread starter Kealios
- Start date
arnwyn said:
Any chance you can email that to me at kealios@sbcglobal.net please? I've got most of these other books coming to me (having ordered them online recently), but would like to see your ideas, if possible.
Thanks,
Kealios
Dogbrain said:
More common in other eras than you might think, at least in periods of stability and among the upper classes. In ancient Rome it was a mark of the patrician classes.
Even in the classic medeival world of Europe there was ongoing sales of properties, though the rights of property ownership conveyed would make us think more of modern renting or subletting. Rent or taxes would still have to be paid to the local lord, and often a transfer tax was charged and his permission might be required as well. A primary difference in owning land was its ability to be inherited.
kigmatzomat
Legend
Dogbrain said:
Yah, something I had to get into my head in the beginning was "the King owns everything." Now land is a reward given from a noble, though rarely can someone less than a Count afford to do so (using baron/ count/ marquis/ duke/ prince/ king).
I've also been known to have "treasure" come in the form of tax exemptions. Untaxed passage into a city seems pretty minor at 6th level but later when you're a small trade caravan with tens of thousands of gps worth of merchandise it suddenly becomes quite valuable. (I generally just cheat and treat it as a 2-3% increase in the value of their items, not so much on a single trip, but it constantly gets more valuable.)
jgbrowning
Hero
kigmatzomat said:
Well, now you can get it out of your head...
The reality of the situation was that outside of England (where the King claimed to own all land-but not in reality ) most feudal/medieval societies had large tracts of land held allodially by the powerful dukes and barons with even smaller pieces being held allodially by lesser men. It was one of the major reasons why both France and Germany were less "unified" than England and helps explain how England managed to survive warefare-wise against others: England was more "efficient" in the feudal sense in that it could turn a greater % of its resources into defense/agression than other states.But that's the very simplified version.
joe b.
kigmatzomat
Legend
jgbrowning said:Well, now you can get it out of your head...
But.... I *need* that in my head! Really! IMC the "kings" are really dragon overlords that for all intents and purposes *do* own everything since no one else can challenge them. (yet....) The legacy nobles run the nations but on more than one occassion a dragonlord (and his/her brood) destroyed a county just to prove a point. Tore out every bridge, burned every hamlet, field & barn and ate as many people and animals they could find. Generally happens about once a century, continent wide. (sucks to live in a world where magic stopped working....)
I do allow allodial holdings of a sort, but they are functionally allodial with no requirements of the landowner at the moment but no guarantee of that status from the "crown" so it can be revoked at any time by a higher ranked noble.
Besides I didn't say that lesser nobles couldn't award land, but that most couldnt afford to give away land.
jgbrowning
Hero
kigmatzomat said:
Well, um... yeah I don't think anyone would want to annoy a dragon king then!..
Ah, my bad, sorry for the misunderstanding.
joe b.
kigmatzomat
Legend
jgbrowning said:Well, um... yeah I don't think anyone would want to annoy a dragon king then!..
Well, except for heroes. Ahhh, bless the heroes, for they are stupid enough to charge willfully into perdition.
Actually, it was good. My games are generally this amorphous blob of potentiality that doesn't get actualized until challenged in some way. Now that I've decided that allodial land ownership is more often a social contract with a lord who is making up the difference out of his own pocket instead of a covenant guaranteed by the crown, those people with land becomes that much more wealthy in comparison.
It should have no impact at the ground level since I don't see much functional difference between paying rent to a lord and taxes to a lord since failure to pay either results in your lawful eviction.
Now that I think about it, it also gives me a few extra plot hooks since a new lord could return someone to feuldal status in an attempt to bankrupt them and claim the properties as their own. Hmmmmm. That has potential.....
Similar Threads
