KOTF OOC Thread

[Braden]

I've intermated in my IC post that if the IC ruling comes via an OOC clarification from Zim I'm happy.

Mainly as I had the same understanding of the rule as econ21 and that an "independant" Duc was one without a feudal chain below him, which seems more logical to me, the King picks up the property as there is no senior Baron of that Feudal chain to pick it up and maintain it.

[Ituralde]

Yeah I'd also like to hear the reasoning. Because I remembered that passage to be in there to prevent exactly the thing that is happening now. The possibility of Duchies falling into the hand of the King.
Also it seems we do need a definition of "independent" and "feudal chain" then as I understood them differently just from reading the Rules.

Either way I'm not against following sound reasoning. The consequence of this whole thing seems to be: If you're a Duke you better have a will. If that's the only consequence I'm alright with that.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[Braden]

On this subject has anyone had contact with Zim of late?

[_Tristan_]

I've not had any contacts with Zim either on the forums or on MSN of late and as such do not have an official ruling... I'll be okay to go either way... Do not forget I'm not an born English speaker and that some nuances may get past me when trying to make sense of the rules...

I find the situation rather interesting IC but wouldn't want to break any OOC rules...

All the more reason to keep the save as it is (not that I could have it any differently...)

Once again, thanks for your support and your patience...

[Braden]

Worrying that Zim is out of contact currently. Perhaps we ought to just put this to a simple OOC vote of players for now to clarify the rules in question in the absence of our GM?

1 – Definition of “independent land owning Noble”:

a) An Avatar with ownership of one or more provinces but who is without vassals AND does not have a ratified Duchy.
b) An Avatar with ownership of one or more provinces but who is without vassals with a ratified Duchy.
c) An Avatar with ownership of one or more provinces, with vassals but does not have a ratified Duchy.
d) An Avatar with ownership of one or more provinces, with vassals AND has a ratified Duchy.

**Personally, I feel the term refers clearly to option “a” but could also include option “b”, however, these are the possible combinations of what it could entail, I’d like your opinions on them.**



2 – Proposed Amended wording to Rule 39(d):

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land and/or Duchy goes to the Avatar(s) specified in his valid Will. A will is valid only if posted on the relating Dukes SoT entry prior to his IC death. Inheritance of Land is separate from Succession of Title and each will, should contain two clauses to cover both land and title. Hence, it is possible for a Duke to specify one Avatar to inherit his land holdings but a different one to become his Successor in Title. Also note that a Duke can nominate ANY avatar and they need not be only those within their own Feudal Chain, including the King.

Land Inheritance without a valid will: Upon the death of a noble who has no valid will (either none posted on his SoT’s or one that has become invalid due to death of relating avatars), his lands pass to the highest ranked Count or Baron within his Feudal Chain.

Title Succession without a valid will: Upon the death of a noble who has no valid will (either none posted on his SoT’s or one that has become invalid due to death of relating avatars), the King picks the successor from among the Nobles in the Duchy Feudal Chain.

3 – Proposed Additional sub-clause (g):

(g) Default Inheritance Rule: Upon the death of a noble, if a Duke is independent (as decided with above addition #1) and has no valid will (either none posted on his SoT’s or one that has become invalid due to death of relating avatars), all Lands and Titles immediately go into the King.


**I have amended this to detach the Kings involvement and to make it clearer that the King is the person land goes to by DEFAULT if there isn’t a Count or Baron within the Duchy Feudal chain for it to go to. I have also specified that there is a difference between inheriting land and being the Successor of the Duchy. Land inheritance is via the Duchy Feudal Chain automatically but the Successor of the Duchy itself is still decided by the King from the Duchy Feudal Chain, hence the two could be differing Avatars though in practice this would be unlikely.**

[Tamur]

Great idea Braden, I'm all for resolving it and moving onward. The IC ramifications are splendid to play with, regardless of the choice. We just need to choose the choice to be chosen!

*wanders off to say ch- words at his co-workers... or is that cho-workers?*

[Braden]

I can put a couple of voting threads up tonight if I manage to get onto the PC. One for the vote on what “independent” means and the other for the Rule amendment.

[Ferret]

Land Inheritance without a valid will: Upon the death of a noble who has no valid will (either none posted on his SoT’s or one that has become invalid due to death of relating avatars), his lands pass to the highest ranked Count or Baron within his Feudal Chain.

I think the land should go to the duchy/duke if a noble dies. If it is the duke that dies then the land should go to his successor imo.

[Braden]

I think the land should go to the duchy/duke if a noble dies. If it is the duke that dies then the land should go to his successor imo.

Hmmm…I haven’t considered Baron’s death in this matter. I hope I don’t have to add more regarding that, do you think I do? The opposite would work of course for a Count or Baron’s death and their lands would move UP the Feudal chain automatically.

However, we’re in danger of making a complex thing even more complex as we “could” allow Counts and Barons to have wills…they could therefore specify Vassals to inherit…it could be endless but I suppose there would be no grey areas about who gets what.

Remember that the clause you highlight is only IF no will exists and therefore there is no named Successor as well.

EDIT - how does this revision sound?

Land Inheritance without a valid will: Upon the death of a noble who has no valid will (either none posted on his SoT’s or one that has become invalid due to death of relating avatars), his lands pass to the highest ranked member within his Feudal Chain.

[Ituralde]

1 – Definition of “independent land owning Noble”:

a) An Avatar with ownership of one or more provinces but who is without vassals AND does not have a ratified Duchy.
b) An Avatar with ownership of one or more provinces but who is without vassals with a ratified Duchy.
c) An Avatar with ownership of one or more provinces, with vassals but does not have a ratified Duchy.
d) An Avatar with ownership of one or more provinces, with vassals AND has a ratified Duchy.

The way I understood it from the curren Rules is that any avatar that has not joined a House/Duchy is independent.

So this would be c) in this case. Just because you have a vassal does not make you part of a House. That has to come with a Codex Amendment. So only Houses/Duchies have special rights, i.e. the right to retain their provinces even when the Duke dies.

2 – Proposed Amended wording to Rule 39(d):

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land and/or Duchy goes to the Avatar(s) specified in his valid Will. A will is valid only if posted on the relating Dukes SoT entry prior to his IC death. Inheritance of Land is separate from Succession of Title and each will, should contain two clauses to cover both land and title. Hence, it is possible for a Duke to specify one Avatar to inherit his land holdings but a different one to become his Successor in Title. Also note that a Duke can nominate ANY avatar and they need not be only those within their own Feudal Chain, including the King.

Land Inheritance without a valid will: Upon the death of a noble who has no valid will (either none posted on his SoT’s or one that has become invalid due to death of relating avatars), his lands pass to the highest ranked Count or Baron within his Feudal Chain.

Title Succession without a valid will: Upon the death of a noble who has no valid will (either none posted on his SoT’s or one that has become invalid due to death of relating avatars), the King picks the successor from among the Nobles in the Duchy Feudal Chain.

3 – Proposed Additional sub-clause (g):

(g) Default Inheritance Rule: Upon the death of a noble, if a Duke is independent (as decided with above addition #1) and has no valid will (either none posted on his SoT’s or one that has become invalid due to death of relating avatars), all Lands and Titles immediately go into the King.


**I have amended this to detach the Kings involvement and to make it clearer that the King is the person land goes to by DEFAULT if there isn’t a Count or Baron within the Duchy Feudal chain for it to go to. I have also specified that there is a difference between inheriting land and being the Successor of the Duchy. Land inheritance is via the Duchy Feudal Chain automatically but the Successor of the Duchy itself is still decided by the King from the Duchy Feudal Chain, hence the two could be differing Avatars though in practice this would be unlikely.**

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the land owning issue. Your definition of a feudal chain seems to be only people that have a province in the game. I always thought that any noble who swears an Oath belongs to a feudal chain, regardless of land ownership. And that's the way I read the rules right now. Your Amendment would shift that focus towards land owning nobles. We could get there easier if we just redefine the term feudal chain to only contain land owning nobles, if that is what we want.

Also do I read your Amendment correctly in that the King can become Duke? This goes against the penalties described in 3.f) where it says that any rulings within 3.f) supercedes other rules. So even if the Amendment passed it still wouldn't work and shouldn't actually. The Kings the King and can not be Duke. There's several pieces in the rules that refer to this.


Personally I don't think a Rule Amendment is necessary. We just need to decide on the two things:
A) What is an independent avatar?
You already covered that.
B) What is a feudal chain?
A and B are in a feudal chain if:
a) A is a vassal of B. A and B are Members of the same House and A and B own land.
b) A is a vassal of B. A and B are Members of the same House.
c) A is a vassal of B.
I always thought that b) was the case. a) is nice to have but not necessary. c) is not enough as you need a House.

After that we should get along fine with the rules we have.

[Braden]

Thinking I've over-thought it to be honest.

In my first proposal I agree that a), b) or c) could be applicable to greater or lesser extents as "independant".

I was trying to seperate Land ownership from the actual titles held...such as Baron, Duc or Count. I thought that it might make things more interesting and flexible for the players.

However I totally agree that a Vassal is as much a part of the Feudal Chain as the others although without specific title or land. I didn't mention vassals specifically as they are effectively the final link in the chain...with perhaps the exception of relatives by blood or marriage (and then its getting quite complex indeed).

The intention is they are included in the phrase but if you didn't think so then I've failed to pose that correctly.

The King cannot become a "Duc" in title, he is always the King but he can obtain a Duc's full lands if the Duc has no other to leave them too or chooses to leave them to the King in his will. Again, I mush have rushed this at work more than I wanted.

The first thing is the key however and that's what needs to be decided mainly. My amendment was just a thought but I may have gone "off on one" with that.