Questions from a couple of players have made me think about politics within my Campaign Rules. Not the grand political machinations of Kings and Courts, but rather the Local politics of how towns, cities and strongholds are run.
The rules, as they stand, are set up to build well-balanced holdings that function well – landowners and Councils are pushed towards maintaining a balance of Economic and Social developments, to provide adequate policing and reasonable management. It started out based on a semi-feudal system of personal holdings, with noble titles and fairly ’traditional’ obligations to state and over lord. It developed into a system that can support Free Cities overseen by a Council of Burghers – who have the same status as minor nobles – and it has a ‘Joint-Hold’ option where two (or more) people can operate as a team.
So currently we have :-
- Midmarch – Semi-Feudal – run by an NPC noble.
- Tusk – Free City, run by a council of PCs.
- Old Keep – Half way house with very limits obligations to an over lord.
- Southern Region – an almost federal organisation that covers all of the above.
- Ringbridge – a ‘Joint Hold’ (well it started out like that but one of the players left)
- V&A – a merchant house financed by three PCs.
- WSM – another merchant house jointly owned by two PCs.
So not a bad range of options, however, they all fall into that nice ‘well-balanced’ bracket that was described earlier. Sure, there is some opportunistic developments and building – and some PCs are more interested in making money than others – but overall, everything stays in balance.
However, there are other types of settlement – not every city or stronghold is nice, well-balanced and well-organised. In Paizo’s Kingmaker AP (The setting for the game) both Restov and Mivon are ‘chaotic’ cities while other cities are heavily regulated or under the thumb of a military dictator. And I want to start by looking at those.
One of the things that strikes me about both Mivon and Restov is that very little of the policing in under central control. Mivon is, effectively’ run by a group of squabbling warlords, each with their own private army and each out to benefit themselves. They compete for the tight to police parts of the city, and they are led by the best Aldori Duellist – who proves their fitness by (literally) fighting their way to the top. Restov has a more formal council, with merchants and religious leaders – but also leaders of a number of different factions. In my version of Restov there are the merchants, the Church, three different duelling traditions and the dwarves. While there is a city and local ‘police’ force, most of the policing is devolved to the various factions. Dwarf Town is patrolled by Dwarves, the Duelling Factions patrol their own districts, private guards look after the merchant’s houses.
In Mivon, the more Chaotic city, there is little central control, and minimal expenditure on Community Developments that support the population generally (although I suspect the wealthy are well catered for). Gangs roam the streets and Aldori Houses have a crackdown when they feel like it. If you want to achieve anything in Mivon, you need to grease palms or convince an Aldori House that your plans are good for them, possibly by greasing palms …
Restov is less Chaotic and the council has some control over spending and development – but it is always a tough negotiation between the factions on the council, who want the best for their own district and their own people. Some factions have other goals as well – the Dwarves want good stuff for Dwarves generally, the merchants want better trade routes, some religious houses want respect for the common folk – among others.
That is quite easy to handle within the Campaign Rules. Rather than have a central ‘police’ force, have privately owned militia with little overall control. Allow the settlement to run ‘Out of Balance’ and take the random ‘Bad Things Roll’ to represent the chaotic nature of the place. The less central control, the more chaotic it becomes.
There are a couple of examples of Lawful Holdings in the Kingmaker AP, although I am not going to detail them in the same way, because my players haven’t really discovered them yet – however, they have something in common as well. In each case the ‘police’ are heavily armoured and powerful, more like an army than a police force, and are capable of enforcing the laws of the city. If the Laws of the settlement are designed to benefit one individual, or group, at the expense of the general population (Bogside was an example) it is Lawful Evil, of the laws are for the benefit of everyone – it is lawful evil. *shrug* again that is a role-play thing, possibly even allowing the settlement to run out of balance, and crushing any disturbances with the force of the law.
Tusk, the PC managed Free City in my campaign, is probably edging into the Lawful Neutral category. Laws to be followed with the ability to enforce them, but well-balanced and not too exploitative. It recognises the rich and wealthy, encourages them to invest and make money for themselves – but makes sure that basic societal needs are met for everyone. It is a well role-played and balanced city.
The Campaign System is based around personal ownership. Each PC gets a few Build Points to start with, and the system encourages them to go away and invest those BP, to make themselves richer and more powerful. That fits well with the Semi-Feudal and Burgher philosophies that are written into the system. It supports personal ownership and joint ownership, and it is possible to set up a non-profit organisation (Such as Three Ladies School) where income from the venture is reinvested to build more schools. Some religious organisations, such as the Church of Pharasma with the graveyards, provide social support for the population – but that is a side effect of following the teachings of their chosen deity. Other faiths will provide fewer societal benefits, as the follow their deity’s teachings.
Overall, it is a very ‘capitalist’ system with limited possibilities to create charitable organisations.
That said, the rules (as they stand) to model the more extreme versions of Communism which (in many ways) is similar to the more extreme forms of capitalism. Both are based on the concept that one group of people know best and that they deserve the beast of everything. In the case of an extreme communist society you have the wealth invested in posts – and the post holder gets to enjoy all the benefits and power that go with controlling that particular post or office.
However, the Campaign Rules don’t support a middle ground between those two systems.
While the rules allow the modelling of charitable organisations they still need managing and are, potentially, open to abuse. The Three Ladies School, has a set of accounts, and grows slowly by developing new schools – when it has the money. It was set up with small contributions by three wealthy Ladies making small donations (and an interest free loan) – but they could, potentially, choose to take the income from it, rather than reinvesting it in more schools. They won’t, because the DM won’t let them – BUT it is possible. I want something that is easier to manage and less open to the possibility of abuse – Common Hold might be the solution.
Common hold is based on three RL business types. Mutual Societies were set up in the UK (and possibly many other countries) as a way of providing insurance and personal loans for those without access to the financial system. They were owned by their ‘investors’ and the profits were redistributed back to them, and there are still a few Mutual Building Societies left in the UK, that provide banking and financial services to their members. Co-operatives were primarily set up to provide cheaper food and basic supplies for the common people. In many places the shops were owned by the local landowner and charged high prices to their resident-workers so the co-operatives set up shops and stores to buy in supplies and sell them on at lower profit margins. Again, there are still Co-operatives operating in the UK. Now-a-days they are generally non-profit organisation who give a dividend to members – and anyone can join. In Italy, I came across community winemaking businesses. The local small farmers bring their grapes to the community winery, to be pressed, fermented and bottled – when the wine is sold, each farmer gets their share of the profit, while some is used to benefit the local community as a whole.
All three examples are community enterprises, run by the community for the benefit of the community. No profit is shared with wealthy owners, but the wealth generated is redistributed directly to the local community, by the local community. All ways that have been used to boost the living standards of the local community as a whole.
There are a couple of developments that start to model this in the Campaign Rules already. The Community Hall is generally run for the community, by the community with no benefits, apart from helping to maintain a balance, for anyone else. The Public Jetty with the same stats as a military of commercial jetty – however part of the jetty is reserved for community vessels. Individual ‘slots‘ can be used for fishing boats or military boats – however, unlike a commercial jetty, boats here pay tax to the local community. Both of those developments give some element of control to the local community. The Public Jetty also has the benefit of offering opportunity for small investors, perhaps even community owned fishing boats.
A community owned Serai could provide a similar service for mule trains, and an Alms House that takes up space in a settlement but provides no benefits at all (cost 1bp – Econ+0, Loy+0,Stab+0 – Size 1) might make a suitable charitable donation to a settlement.
To take things further, any suitable economic development can be declared as Common-Hold, and given over to Community management. Perhaps a Mill, a Winery or a Fish processing plant (all, basically, Craft Workshops) they would be run by the local community, for the local community and profits redistributed automatically to the community. These probably have to cost 2bp and be balanced (Cost 2 – Econ+1, Loy+1, Stab+1 – size 1). These are all fire and forget developments – while the economy is shown against the settlements balance, no one takes any profit from them – not even the local council or the local lord.
Within the game rules, Taxes are set at 0.2bp per point of Econ. While part of that tax is collected from the business, a large proportion of it is collected from the ancillary business and workers the business supports. The business itself makes 0.5bp (per campaign round) for each point of Economy. However, that tax rate can be adjusted, to take more (or less) from the business directly.
For example, tax rate could be set at 0.3bp per round taxes, and take the extra 0.1 directly from the business, which would mean that the business would take 0.4 in profits each campaign round. If that tax was taken by a community oriented council it makes for a way of financing local community buildings.
A wealthy council might go the other way, reduce tax to 0.1 and increase business profits to 0.6 per campaign round. There is nothing in the Campaign Rules to stop a settlement varying its taxes whenever it feels like it. Note, however, that the balance must still be maintained (or face the ‘Bad Things’ roll :} ). Note that suddenly raising taxes is going to irritate your investors – and you should probably give them advance warning.
Investing in a High Tax area, where the extra tax is used for community benefit could well be seen as a ‘Good Act’ by anyone needing to maintain and alignment stance.