> If someone demands taxes and someone else refuses to pay taxes then
> there is a conflict. Period. Who actually issues the ATTACK command
> is in the end irelevant and should be done in the way which is the
> most simple to implement.
Er, it makes a big difference to my character whether or not he
ATTACKs someone. Might not to you, but it does to me. As for
implementation, it's just as easy to put in an attitude that says
whether or not you're willing to pay taxes to entity [XXX]. No muss,
no fuss, and no unexpectedly paying taxes in provinces you didn't
think had a ruler.
> Just don't expect to become province ruler without having to do
Good attitude. Now make the rules reflect that, instead of the
> Where are all the people who claimed that there have to different
> ways of playing this game to suit different tastes now that we need
> them ? You want to be a trader, an adventurer, an archmage aso. ?
I can be a leader right now, in fact I am. You're adding the position
of "tax man" to the game. My objection has little to do with the label
of "leader" and everything to do with the ability to coin money, which
can be exceedingly destabilizing to an economic system which still has
a big hole in the market system. Where's the compelling argument for
If you want to keep the Orcs out of Chardia and charge fees to the
players there, go ahead and do it TODAY. Attack anyone who refuses to
pay. The system is all set up for you to do this. You don't have to be
able to tax the peasants to do that.