Bundles of Sticks

In legal theory, property rights (including ownership rights) are frequently described as sticks, which people own in bundles more or less approximating complete and unrestricted ownership of all rights to a property. Most online games don’t approach ingame property that way – essentially giving the “owner” full ownership and letting them set up their own permissions. SBS (and I think this is cool) is doing something more like real life – allowing for a gamified experience of something very like real life property title, lease, profits, etc.

These “sticks” are frequently divided as follows:

Ownership (Although this can often be further divided between surface rights, mineral/subsurface rights, aerial/overflight rights, cotenancy (shared ownership), corporate ownership, etc. Further, many of these can be given away to others – who become owners, sometimes co-owners with the original owner, or tenants, with a temporary right based on contract and not ownership.) In America (the legal system I am familiar with), the Rights of Owners include (subject to alienation):

Entry (right to enter)

Possession (right to use and enjoy)

Title (official recognition of ownership)

Exclusion (right to keep people off – protected by trespass law)

Encumber (right to mortgage or otherwise subject to lien, sometimes involuntary result of voluntary actions (such as hiring a contractor and then not paying them))

Alienate (sell) (in whole or right-by-right). This includes subdivision -- both dividing the property into smaller pieces and selling or giving away all or part of it for some limited time or for some limited purpose, meaning that it would come back to the original owner or their heirs at the expiration of the time or if the purpose ceased to apply.

Lease (alienate a right provisionally and temporarily, usually in exchange for rents)

Subdivide (sell off part but not the whole of the land)

Covenant (agree to some contract limiting the use of the land – such as agreeing not to use it for some purpose or agreeing not to exclude someone from some part of it (called an “easement”))

Resource rights – including mineral rights, water rights, gathering rights, grazing rights, and hunting rights. Farming is not usually considered a resource right – but a use – because the products of farming are the result of labor rather than naturally occurring things extracted through labor.

Public rights (reserved to some or all of the public). (An example of “some of the public” often includes indigenous rights reserved by treaties with the native tribes that historically occupied the land):

Entry (for instance, some places (although not usually in the US) have implied roamer routes where the public have the right to walk even if on private property; this is a limited restriction on the right to exclude). In America, this often applies to beaches, with exceptions – and members of the public can usually walk along beaches (although some beaches are legally private).

Limited Possession -- Public rights of way and even some private (favored) rights of way (like railroad rights) fall under this. In COE, county roads could – and road expansion through a parcel may be something that could and should be reserved by the count. Public utility rights and routes also fall under here.

Emergency/Necessity (this is usually a right to shelter from a danger for a limited time, and is a limited restriction on the right to exclude)

Guest rights (some places (more historic than modern) have made housing and feeding guests a duty of property ownership)

Resource rights – in “open range areas”, there is a public grazing right on private and public land (for instance); indigenous people’s rights often fall under this category – including reserved fishing, shellfish harvesting, and hunting rights. (For instance, my family owns tideland, which has naturalized shellfish beds (of both native and non-native species), but which we do not use as a shellfish farm. We do not have the right to keep members of the local tribe (the tribe that historically harvested clams and oysters on our hand) from harvesting shellfish on our beach, and we don’t, even though we have a special kind of title (pre-statehood title) that allows us to exclude members of the general public from our beach out to the “lowest low tide.”) Hunting rights could be an interesting case for COE. I hope that there is a “royal forest” or “traditional hunting ground” mechanic through which, for instance, a swath of land can be designated as the reserved hunting ground of the Janoans and it could be restricted such that, even if owned by a player, that player cannot build on the land in a manner that interferes with the hunting or reduces the game population.

Reserved community or other contractual rights – for instance Homeowners Associations are often created (often must be created as a requirement of subdivision law) to provide contractual, quasi-governmental restrictions and rights on property. Another example is called a “profit” or “profit a prendre” – which allows a person to enter and harvest, mine, hunt, farm or graze another person’s land – often created by a contract allowing such limited use for a limited time but not allowing the extent of use and exclusion given to tenants.

Government rights (often implied by the very nature of government, rather than “reserved” to the government when government owned land (and all land starts as government owned in this theory) is sold or given to some citizen. (The idea is that the government has these rights because it is a government; but it may also have other rights because it was the original owner and it kept them when it gave or sold the other rights – and this distinction is a critical one when considering Ancestral Lands, however SBS has them work):

Right to Tax – the government can tax both real property (the ground) and personal property (crops or moveable things on the ground), and many different kinds of taxes have been tried. This is very different from rents – which is what I think is the default way for counts to get money from the land. In fact, it makes sense for the right to tax to be reserved to the king (or maybe to dukes), while counts have to generate revenue by reserving rents when they sell or give land to people. That’s not how many people seem to think it works in real life, but, as a legal matter, that is how it works. Cities and counties don’t have an inherent right to tax (usually). Rather, they are given that right by the state through a statute transferring some of the state’s power to tax to the local government. The Federal government has the power to tax through the “tax and spend” clause in the Constitution. States probably reserved the right to tax from their colonial powers through the 10th Amendment.

Right of Condemnation/Eminent Domain (This is arguable – and may be a reserved ownership right that acts like a reversionary interest in a property sale (when a person transfers ownership to another person as long as they meet certain conditions – often found in deed giving land to the government to build a park, which revert to the heirs of the giver “if the land is ever used for a purpose other than that of a public park”).) This is the right of the government to take private property away from its owner. The default is that is done without compensation – although the U.S. Constitution requires compensation. I think it would be interesting to have this in COE – as it raises the stakes of tyranny and the “overthrow the tyrant” gameplay. The adverse possession mechanic might get there – and condemnation might work by simply having the government occupy the private property and exclude the owner (or, if we have a prison mechanic, imprison the owner) until it is adversely possessed.

Right to foreclose – operates like a mortgage, but as an involuntary lien, often one that the owner did not do anything to bring about other than violating some background law (such as failing to pay taxes (tax foreclosure) or allowing illegal activities onsite (seizure and sale of drug properties)).

Police powers – this is the right of the government to restrict private action (including use of private property) for the benefit of the “health, safety, welfare, and morals” of the community or of individuals in the community. This includes laws against nuisance uses (noxious, dangerous, or criminal activities on land). It also is the basis for many environmental restrictions (protecting wetlands, endangered species, etc.).

Planning and Development restrictions – including lot size requirements preventing infinite subdivision of land into utterly useless “postage stamp” lots and preventing nuisances before they arise by keeping chemical plants away from elementary schools and such.

Tenant rights – an interesting hybrid.

Tenants are an interesting hybrid. They don’t own the land, but they generally have the right to exclude the owner from the land (possibly subject to some reserved right of the owner to enter and inspect to make sure the tenant is not damaging the property (committing waste) or engaging in some prohibited activity (something illegal, or a nuisance, or just something prohibited by the lease). Tenants generally receive something that acts a lot like ownership in exchange for payment of rents. Tenants usually receive all the rights of the owner (or some large part of them) other than title. (Tenants even can have the right to encumber or mortgage the property if the lease authorizes it – and they have the right to use their tenancy as security on a loan if it is transferable (although it usually isn’t transferable and is usually too easily terminated to be useful as security on a loan)). I think that most “ownership” of county lands and most “taxes” paid to counts will actually be better thought of as “tenancies” and “rents.”

TLDR -- brief summary of approximately 2/3 of a semester's worth of American real property law.

Presumably, what Snipehunter is talking about is that SBS is going to implement some simplified and gamified version of the bundle of rights, which will include some (but possibly not all) of the rights listed above. I also expect that it will be done in a way that avoids the tangled confusion of real life jurisdictional conflict. (For instance, trying to sort out what someone can do on a large piece of property outside city limits but inside an "urban growth boundary" and near a stream, lake or marine bluff is crazy -- and often not fun enough to play. But working out a deal involving hunting rights on a ranch is very fun.)

Gotta love those TLDR entry’s ;)

Really though thanks for documenting a good overview of defined differences between possession / purchase and ownership.

Should help clear up controversy on open ended property rights.

I don't really understand what AL brings to the table personally. Seems to just rustle jimmies where they don't really need rustling.

People are still gonna buy land and they're still gonna buy ep to buy land. Slapping on some potentially exploitative benefits to that land just seems to introduce more problems when normal land would do just fine.

I will describe and address tax and noble revenue sources and types in the High Middle Ages and the Late Medieval/Renaissance period. From this it should be clear that (1) nobles were paid rents not property taxes, just as SBS proposes, (2) it was not uncommon for certain properties to be exempt from rents and this caused conflicts and problems – which SBS might want (for good gameplay reasons) to replicate, and (3) the loss of the ability to collect rents from everyone in the county shouldn’t cripple any count or bankrupt any community.

In the High Middle Ages, nobles primarily earned revenue from “regalian sources” (for kings) and “ducal sources” (for dukes) and “comital sources” (for counts), rather than from “governmental sources” like tax levies. These were mostly revenues from the noble’s own lands (rents), feudal fees and rights, use fees, tariffs, and occasionally special levies (war levies or special levies to pay for a dowry). Only the last of these was like a modern tax – and they were rare and unpopular. For instance, Clause 12 of Magna Carta states, “No ‘scutage’ or ‘aid’ may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied. ‘Aids’ from the city of London are to be treated similarly.” (I think King John’s great offense was that he levied a tax once every three years rather than once every twelve years like his father.)

Thus, other than extraordinary levies, most revenue came in the form of moneys paid as a substitute for some duty or burden or as a fee for some service or infrastructure. For instance, most famously, “scutage” was the amount paid by a knight to their liege as a substitute for their duty to muster and fight for the liege – and it was usually used to pay for mercenary substitutes who probably fought better than the knight who paid the scutage. Similarly, “pavage” was a toll paid for the use of a road and used (at least in theory) for improvement and maintenance of the road. “Pontage” was the same for a bridge. “Stallage” was a fee for the right to maintain a stall at a fair or in a market area (a kind of rent). Nobles also imposed tariffs on imports and exports and imposed consumption taxes such as the “gabelle” tax on salt (like a sales tax, often a duty imposed on luxury items, like fine cloth, or on staples, like beer (which was a necessity at a time when the water was often not safe to drink)).

With regard to most folks, who worked in agriculture (peasants), there were similar taxes, but they were often more burdensome. “Heriot” was the amount a peasant (or serf) family paid to the manor when one of them died (on the theory that the family of the dead person had to pay the manor for the loss of the labor of the person who had the gall to die). Peasants and serfs often had to pay to marry someone other than a person selected for them by their manor lord. (This may have been the origin of the myth of lordly “first night” rights – which don’t appear to have been practiced anywhere and only occurs once in history that I can find, and in that case it was the reason for a peasant uprising and was often treated as one of the few examples in which the peasants did not act impiously in uprising.)

Peasants had a duty to work on the lord’s land as a condition of their right to farm their own land. This labor was divided carefully – but was often subject to continuing encroachment by the church, who kept creating new feast days on which work was not to be done without church dispensation, for which they charged the lord. This work duty was later, in cases of more wealthy peasants, transformed into a substitute for farm service similar to scutage – in which the peasant paid rent instead of performing labor in exchange for the right to farm their own land. This was not a property tax – it was a rent; and the peasant’s “own” land was often not actually owned by them, but was rather a part of the commons their family had claimed and traditionally farmed. Mixed with this, there were some ancient peasant freeholds – and these did not pay rent to the manor lord, but were still subject to the laws of the county and crown. This seems like what SBS is proposing with regard to “ancestral lands.” It’s rather a pity they used that term – rather than the more familiar legal term of “freehold” – but there it is. No one paid property tax. Peasants paid rents or worked on the manor land, unless they were “freeholders,” in which case they had no obligation to work for the lord or pay rent.

This revenue structure was not sufficient to support noble household and government in the Late Medieval and Renaissance periods because the cost of noble show and governance increased substantially by then. Nobles needed new revenue sources, and they found them. But they weren’t property taxes.

These varied widely – but among the most popular were the grant of monopolies (a lump sum payment for some commercial privilege providing for the official suppression of competition) or for foreign trade rights (a lump sum payment by a foreign merchant community for the right to trade in the domain, again excluding merchants from other areas). Another revenue source was to debase the currency – minting more money using less gold or silver to do so (the French were particularly prone to this, but only the English refrained from the practice). These should be available in COE – but are probably economically harmful. Other revenue sources included: (a) forced loans (called “prestanze” in Italy), which the noble would often not repay and that the lender could not enforce because the noble owned the apparatus of justice that was the only way to enforce them, (b) tax farming (often as security for a forced loan), where the noble states how much they expect to get in taxes, demands that someone pay them that amount in advance and then go out and collect the taxes as best they can (this often resulted both in predatory tax collection practices and losses to the tax farmer because, even with predatory practices, the amount collected usually was less than the amount paid for the “right” (properly duty) to collect), and (c) sale of guardianship rights for rich orphans (which was actually profitable – as the guardian could pay less than the amount of the inheritance of the child and then squander that inheritance before the child grew up (a practice we prevent now by requiring that guardians report to and justify themselves before a court)). These may also be available in COE, but would be tyrannical practices.

Less problematic sources of revenue included: (1) “Tailles” – sometimes stated to be a “property tax,” but was more a “wealth tax” at a time when most wealth was in land (essentially the tax collector would estimate the net worth of the person and then demand that they pay some percentage of that estimate), (2) loans based on real security (such as pledges of royal property), (3) the equivalent of sale of shares (sometimes forced purchase of share) in the community (called “monte”), which entitled the holder to dividends of a particular amount per year, which could be traded (usually at a discount, often a severe discount if the community was not paying the promised annual amount), and which could be redeemed at the option of the community (which rarely happened – because why would the community buy them back?), (4) a variant on the monte called the “monte delle doti,” which acted kind of like an annuity, purchased to fund a dowry for a daughter, in which the purchaser deposited a fixed sum (either at once or in installments) with the right to redeem it in a larger amount to fund a dowry when the daughter was to marry (and the payout was generally reasonable because it only paid out when the named beneficiary daughter married and was forfeit if she died before marrying or became a nun – allowing the fund to make profits while still making reasonable payouts when it was obligated to do so), (4) investments very like modern annuities, either life annuities (payment of a fixed sum in exchange for a guaranteed yearly payment for life) or heritable annuities (which were usually like life annuities, but for a defined term of two or three generations, terminating with the death of the heir), and (5) fines and seizures of property for illegal action or damages done to the community.

All these sources of revenue should be available in COE (under the contract system, especially given the probable noble monopoly on the courts and instruments of justice) in addition to rents or property taxes. Therefore, the loss of rent income from the necessarily small amount of land held as freehold or “ancestral” land should not bankrupt any count or community.

TLDR – There are lots of other ways, many tried, and some even good ideas, to raise money other than rents and property taxes. If counts use them, they should not even notice the lack of money from Ancestral Lands.

Posted By TheCheshireDragon at 10:14 PM - Thu Jul 25 2019

I don't really understand what AL brings to the table personally.

I don’t see it brings anything to the table for players.

For sbs it means they can sell EP by the 1000.00’s so individual players can then use it to buy land. If the player then had to PAY TAXES on all that land most of not all the mega EP stacks (without a title mind you) would go broke in game within the first week or two which would lead to wailing and gnashing of teeth cause sbs didn’t warn us Ext.

AL is in all honesty just a lazy way to code in EP land. Removing the need to pay taxes they remove the day 1 gold shortage. Instead of giving players who purchase that much land a set amount of currency. I mean their family must have money if they own half the county right?

Posted By Malais at 06:58 AM - Fri Jul 26 2019

Posted By TheCheshireDragon at 10:14 PM - Thu Jul 25 2019

I don't really understand what AL brings to the table personally.

I don’t see it brings anything to the table for players.

For sbs it means they can sell EP by the 1000.00’s so individual players can then use it to buy land. If the player then had to PAY TAXES on all that land most of not all the mega EP stacks (without a title mind you) would go broke in game within the first week or two which would lead to wailing and gnashing of teeth cause sbs didn’t warn us Ext.

AL is in all honesty just a lazy way to code in EP land. Removing the need to pay taxes they remove the day 1 gold shortage. Instead of giving players who purchase that much land a set amount of currency. I mean their family must have money if they own half the county right?

SBS has made it clear, based on other planned restrictions on land, that that is not how it works.

What AL brings to the table is: (1) the ability to use the bundle of sticks property right approach, which is interesting, new, and very fun (and would drive conflict when people own different interests in the same land, (2) another conflict driver that would motivate courtier play -- as counts lobby the king for the right to rents from ancestral land, while the holders of that land lobby the king to maintain their privileges (and this could cause there to be interactions with the king that would not otherwise exist and might even make the king matter to people who otherwise would have just ignored the political structure in COE, which is not what is supposed to happen ingame), and (3) as part of that conflict, there could be a faction conflict motivator between AL holders who want their "ancestral rights" and counts (and dukes and kings) who want to rule imperially.

I think this brings a lot to the table. What it doesn't bring to the table is anyone who is going to give SBS more money so they could buy a big patch of private wasteland in the middle of someone else's county. Given the level of misunderstanding (possibly willful misundertanding) of the dynamic and how it is created by the operation of a very cool system of property rights, it also doesn't bring SBS much community goodwill.

SBS is courageously (and properly) sticking by its plan here even though it would only benefit gameplay, even if some people don't or refuse to see that.

This is one of the best post in the forums in my opinion. Lots of info. I really hope everything here is available by governments to implement regardless if each different government wants to or not. Just having the options will be wonderful to see many different places trying different things. Bravo

@Beathan

Except this is the second or third time sbs has changed their minds about this topic.

During the KS all EP land was tax free in perpetuity. Their reason - causes conflict. Then it was well maybe it’s tax will be negotiated during exposition so it is and isn’t tax free. Then it was a flat tax based on the value of the land (which also changes its EP cost)

Bottom line they can spin the continued changes how they are fit but it’s not how a lot of folks see it.

You and everyone else is of course welcome to their own viewpoint but this is really just spin on a horrible idea from the KS days.

Tying a game mechanic to something from medieval economics sounds great on paper. But let’s be realistic. CoE is a game meant for consumption of those looking to have fun. With a few exceptions no one wants to have a compendium of history next to the comp so we can understand the archaic systems you describe. It’s not an attack you did a wonderful job explaining it but it simply doesn’t work well in a game setting.

This was explained at length by a few hundred folks the last time this came up and sbs backed off and changed their minds. A game should be fun not so overly complex that a loophole can be found and exploited by someone to ruin the experience of another.

@Malais --

As I posted in response to general forum topic on easy taxation, I think that the bundle of rights proposal, while complicated, could make many things easier. If title can be transferred for a renewable term and the owner has to pay to renew it or lose title, then shrewd use of the bundle of rights makes taxation simpler, more reliable, and more self-enforcing.

That said, a person who is delinquent on their taxes could become an adverse possessor. If a person can adversely possess county land, presumably they get all the rights (sticks) the count had -- and the land is essentially the rent-free equivalent of ancestral land. (That is one reason why I think it would be better to call such land "freehold land" rather than "ancestral land.")

Sometimes simple rules are more complicated in application than complex ones. They are almost always less flexible.

Posted By Malais at 06:58 AM - Fri Jul 26 2019

Posted By TheCheshireDragon at 10:14 PM - Thu Jul 25 2019

I don't really understand what AL brings to the table personally.

I don’t see it brings anything to the table for players.

I mean their family must have money if they own half the county right?

There are quite a few players that just want to own a piece of land without being beholden to count or duke, in order to just farm/hunt/mine in peace. There are groups of players that want AL to build a stronghold for themselves in the wild frontier that gives them a base of operations in order to explore.

There are some that want to own the Ponderosa and be cattle-barons raising the kingdom's supply of otter-bears, trison, horses or even real cattle without having to pay rent on such a large swath of land.

There are bands of deviants that want AL to build their secret strongholds in without interference from the "authorities"

Their is plenty that AL brings to the table for the "player of the game", their is little it brings to the "player of the meta".

Most AL was awarded by the kings of the past to the land owner's ancestors for services rendered. i.e. the hero of the battle of Doomed Gulch is given land within the gulch as a reward for service and a bribe to keep them nearby in case the Gulch needs protecting again. In this way rulers are betting that most AL will become settlements and then towns and perhaps the more ambitious will found a county of their own.

As always,

Jourfrend Jojo

One additional possible wrinkle that comes from the subdivision right of owners is that the owner can transfer something less than absolute, freely transferable, and permanent ownership. There can be transfers of real title (not just leases) that can restrict future transfers (although this is generally illegal in American real property law) or require that the land be returned or returnable if something happens or ceases to happen in the future, including just the passage of some future date.

Ownership without a duty to pay rent to someone else (holding of freehold title) can still be limited in other ways or it can be as unlimited and absolute as allowed by background law (the police power of the state, right to tax, etc. as described above).

The most enduring and complete form of ownership (which is what most people have when they own property, at least in America) is called “fee simple absolute.” It gives permanent (well, not “defeasible” – meaning the seller or their heirs can’t take it away), but freely transferable, title to the property (or to the bundle sticks – as it applies to each stick, so a person can have fee simple absolute to the land as a building lot without owning the mineral rights), subject only to the background laws and power of the state.

However, the ability to transfer land can be restricted (although this is illegal as against “public policy favoring land transferability” in the United States – with an exception for trust land in Indian Country, which can often be transferred only to a member of the tribe that is the beneficiary of the trust obligations relating to that land). The most famous (and historically common) example of such a restriction is the “fee tail.” That was the medieval title granted to noble families by the king – and the restriction was that the land could not be sold, but could only be inherited by an “heir of the body” of the original owner (no illegitimate children, requiring a single heir (no dilution of the land among multiple children), often no adopted children allowed to inherit (without royal consent)). This could be something that makes sense in COE with its use of bloodlines, families, and single heirs. Other restrictions, such as “no Kypiqs” (which would violate American civil rights law, but might be OK in COE) can apply.

While fee tails are sometimes considered “finite estates” – I think they are more usefully considered as restricting transferability. Finite estates are necessarily limited in time (as a fee tail is – limited to the time in which the bloodline persists). The most common finite estate is actually fairly common – and it is called a “life estate.” In such an arrangement, the person getting the land gets it only for as long as they live and thereafter it goes to another person selected by the seller (rather than the heir of the life estate holder), usually identified as the person who will get it (or whose heirs will get it) after the death of the life estate holder. This person is called a “remainderman” and their right to get the land on the death of the life estate holder is called a “remainder.” (Of course, this assumes that the life estate holder will die. Liches could mess up the whole concept, but in a fun way.)

A conveyance can be limited in time in other ways – such as for a stated term of years. I think that having such a capability could be very useful in setting up self-enforcing rents and taxes, as I have stated in another thread trending today. Presumably if title is lost this way, adverse possession begins and the count will have to expel the former owner who lost title.

The next category is called “defeasible estates.” In this case “defeasible” refers to “fee” which means “title” or “ownership.” So “defeasible” means “you own it now, but if something happens you can lose ownership of it involuntarily.” In a sense, adverse possession and eminent domain/condemnation means that all ownership is defeasible, but we lawyers usually don’t talk about that. The most easy to understand of the defeasible estates is called a “fee simple determinable.” That means that the person owns it so long as something doesn’t happen or something continues to happen. For instance, if the count Ulric gives Olaf land with the limitation that the land will be “owned by Olaf and his heirs and assigns (people who inherit or buy it from him) so long as no Kypiq ever spends the night on the property” then Olaf and his successors can own the land normally, but lose their ownership if a Kypiq ever spends the night. The loss of ownership happens automatically (as with the end of the time period for a finite tenancy) and adverse possession begins.

The next wrinkle on this is a variation called “fee simple subject to executory interest.” It acts like a fee simple determinable except that the person taking the property is some identified person (or their heirs) different from the original seller. For instance, if Count Ulric gives Olaf the land stating “owned by Olaf and his heirs and assigns (people who inherit or buy it from him) so long as no Kypiq ever spends the night on the property, in which case the land will go to Sven and his heirs” – then, if a Kypiq spends the night, Olaf or his successors lose ownership, but ownership goes to Sven or his heirs (leaving it up to Sven and not the Count to expel Olaf and his people to avoid adverse possession).

Finally, the way to do a defeasible estate that prevents the start of adverse possession is called “fee simple subject to condition subsequent.” This would arise if the deed said that the land will be “owned by Olaf and his heirs and assigns (people who inherit or buy it from him) so long as no Kypiq ever spends the night on the property, in which case the Count or their heirs may reenter and retake the property.” In such case, ownership is not automatically lost if a Kypiq stays the night. Rather, two things must happen – (1) a Kypiq must stay the night and (2) the Count must go to the owner of the land and say “Ah – a Kypiq stayed the night; give me the property back.” The land would remain owned by Olaf and his folks until the Count demanded it back (at which time they would lose ownership). Therefore, adverse possession would not begin until the Count demanded that Olaf and his folks get off the land.

I think all these should be implementable in COE -- but I certainly hope that they implement fee tails and finite estates (fee tails for immersion, finite estates because they could usefully aid in tax collection without automating it).

There are leasehold variations on most or all of these as well.

Yet another wrinkle would be shared ownership and the kinds of shared ownership. I am not sure that that makes sense to be implemented in the land ownership protocols for COE (as everything could probably be done by contract). Examples of this are “tenancies in common,” “joint tenancy with right of survivorship,” “corporate ownership,” “ownership by partnership,” “community property,” etc. I don’t think the complications of this kind of ownership (where more than one person share ownership in a single stick (right) rather than having different people own different sticks (rights in the parcel)) is really worth discussion here – as it is probably already too long and legal.

TLDR – brief summary of the remaining 2/3 of a semester’s worth of American real property law (yes, I know that adds up to 1 1/3 – but anyone who took real property in lawschool will understand why).

@Jourfrend_Jojo

Except those folks have been told by Caspian himself that’s not how the game is set up. From the lowest peasant to the highest double duke everyone is beholden to a king and is a citizen of their kingdom. There is no unclaimed land no free cities none of that nonsense. ... unless the player chooses to fight and make themselves free.

Your view on AL simply means someone with money can circumvent the current game design. Once more pointing out how this system can be exploited by those who choose to do so.

Posted By Malais at 1:11 PM - Fri Jul 26 2019

@Jourfrend_Jojo

Except those folks have been told by Caspian himself that’s not how the game is set up. From the lowest peasant to the highest double duke everyone is beholden to a king and is a citizen of their kingdom. There is no unclaimed land no free cities none of that nonsense. ... unless the player chooses to fight and make themselves free.

Your view on AL simply means someone with money can circumvent the current game design. Once more pointing out how this system can be exploited by those who choose to do so.

I rather think that raubritter gameplay would add a lot to COE and drive conflict. All ancestral land might belong to the king, but the king is far away, and I think the added element of having land subject only to a distant king rather than a local count is both exciting and within the spirit of the game.

As for “this favors people who pay” — so would rules favoring counts over freeholders. There isn’t much to choose between these rules on that point, but the ancestral land dynamic as proposed allows for a broader range of kinds of gameplay and I think that is good.

@Malais True, but then again how many times has the community surprised Caspian so far by doing things he told them not to do.

Every example I gave could and should be beholden to the king, but they do not need to go through the count to do so. Think of them as independent contractors and the deals king's will make with AL holders that prove to have resources or commodities the kingdom needs. At the very least I can see king's having AL holders providing the various resources to the baronies as part of keeping their rent-exempt status.