COMMUNITY - FORUMS - GENERAL DISCUSSION
ownership

A while ago there was a post asking about whether it's possible to provide a basic income for your citizens by contract. Even if it was downvoted quite a bit if I remember correctly there was an interesting discussion for a bit about alternatives to capitalism and neoliberal thinking in CoE. I'm gonna relate to that. It may sound a little philosophical here and there but if you're not interested in discussions like this feel free to stop reading here! :)

When I recently played Divinity: Original Sin it struck me how games simulate the concept of "ownership" in a different way than in reality. If you're walking around in a RPG you usually come across a lot of items. Some of these (like herbs) are free for all to pick up, others "belong to someone" (sometimes indicated by red font) and the owner will react unpleasantly if you take it. This is to simulate the reaction we'd have in reality if someone stole our belongings. However in games this is done by adding an attribute to the item: it is either free to take or not. In reality there's no such attribute - it's just in our heads. If I came and took your phone and insisted it was mine you'd probably have a hard time proving me wrong. Even if you had the receipt I could just insist it was mine too, as long as it doesn't have your name on it. And if it had it'd be similar to a contract in CoE.

This got me thinking. We know that the Soulbound Engine tracks a lot so it probably tracks what items etc. belong to whom. But I was wondering HOW it does this? Does it add an attribute in the code like "now this item belongs to player xy"? Is it done only if the player get's the item with a contract or also when he finds it and takes it (and has it for a certain time)? And more importantly, could a contract abolish this?

In reality without the attribute added to the item one could at least think of a society without the concept of ownership. (Beware that this is different from socialism with the attempt that everyone ownes the same of everything belongs to the public.) Imagine a city where everyone could take (not own) everything for a while as long as it isn't used by someone else at the same time. I played Minecraft with friends on a server where we agreed to a common warehouse with chests where everyone could take whatever he needed and store whatever he didn't need. And with limited inventory space you had to store things anyway. It worked fine. And it works as long there is enough for everyone. Sure, if two players want to use the same item at the sime time the concept of ownership is helpful to define who can use it and who not. But if there was enough of everything for everyone you wouldn't need this. You wouldn't need to buy (=excange for money; apply a contract) to own it, you could just take it when needed and leave it for someone else to take when you don't need it anymore. And with statistcs about census and how many players live in a certain area I guess it could be possible to adjust professions just the way that you have enough for everyone. This is basically what you do in most city building strategy games like Anno etc - you try to adjust the number of professions in your city according to your inhabitant's needs. As long as you don't always try to grow you could maybe acieve this.

What would you think about a communty/city/barony like this? Is anyone even planning on running one? Do you think it's possible with CoE's mechanics and would you consider it attractive? I'm curious about your opinions and thoughts!


6/20/2019 10:33:33 AM #1

.... Waerd....


6/20/2019 11:51:03 AM #2

Actually, CoE simulates feudalism and not capitalism.


6/20/2019 12:52:21 PM #3

A system of communal ownership becomes exponentially more difficult to manage the more people you add to the community. For it to function you either need everyone to agree to and abide by specific guidelines of appropriate use, or you need clear boundaries defined by laws which are upheld by the larger community. For either of these things to work, there has to be a strong sense of responsibility to the community. Online Gaming is not very conducive to this because of the dehumanizing nature of online interaction, which often leads to people being more self-centric than they are in the real world. While there are exceptions to this, generally speaking, not having a face to face interaction makes it easy for people to think of another player as objects for their amusement rather than thinking, feeling, humans.

That said, I think the contract system in CoE has the potential to create some unique conditions which will allow for experimentations with social norms. We might see some interesting dynamics not present in the "real world".


6/20/2019 1:14:47 PM #4

I think the success of such a thing would require it to be done on a duchy level to have every roll needed filled, unless you planned on it being extremely export heavy to collect money to import what the community isn't producing, dependent on if you could force the NPCs to go along with it. If you can force the NPCs, then it has potential at the city level to work.

However, there are way more questions that need to be asked about the subject that weren't touched on in the original post that would be huge factors in whether or not there is an interest, at least for me. What is done about those whom produce/contribute nothing, but take more than necessary for survival? Is it okay for outsiders to come in, fill up a pack, and leave with it? How can that be stopped if it isn't okay? What do you do when Jim Bob doesn't want to stop being a glass blower, when the need is no longer there, to instead become a farmer or whatever is needed? Is this all avoided by having every citizen under contract? If there is no currency exchange, how are taxes paid higher up the political food chain? While yes, it's easy for a few friends, who are likely working toward a common goal, to share in this capacity, it becomes a completely different beast when it's a group of 15+ individuals plus however many NPCs that have to also work under larger governments in the form of counties, duchies and kingdoms.

I do think the idea has some potential, but I think it would need to be fleshed out a bit more fully before any real interest is shown.


6/20/2019 8:17:45 PM #5

Perhaps, rather than a guaranteed universal income or a "free for all" system of stuff lying about, the better way to handle this is for nobility and aristocrats to establish commons -- both traditional commons (common farmland) and crafting commons -- which can be worked or used by citizens. Locks for crafting buildings with keys distributed to citizens would work. Perhaps there will be locking gates and the farmed commons could be walled and gated.

This could produce problems -- such as it did historically (the tragedy of the commons and the hardship of the enclosure movement). However, it would not be a continuing drain on revenue in the same way that guaranteed payments would be.

That said -- I think the OP's post is similar to how the Waerd are already (sometimes) described. So that is already in game -- if you are Waerd. But public commons can be more widely implemented because it is essentially a way for nobles to own land in a productive way.


Count of Frostale, in the Duchy of Fioralba, in the Kingdom of Ashland, by the Grace of Haven. The above opinions are mine alone and do not reflect those of my Kingdom or Duchy.

https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/17117/naw-the-duchy-of-fioralba https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/14124/naw-kingdom-of-ashland https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/30605/of-contracts-and-commerce-a-tldnr-post https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/31835/on-taxes-rents-and-ancestral-lands

6/20/2019 8:24:58 PM #6

I agree to what all of you say. @Kambien: It will be difficult and @DesiDoll: there are more questions to be answered. However I think 25 people in a village are rather managable so maybe if the villagers devote themselves to the idea an autonomous common-goods village could work.. (it also couldn't :D) At least if it's supported or at least tolerated by a baron/duke. Still, even if it works, I don't say this system would necessarily be better than the feudalistic one, even though it could be in terms of productivity because with access to shared goods everyone in the system benefits from not needing to get/buy/contract acces to certain goods. I mean, in feudalism most of the population was terribly poor. So I think CoE will probably not attempt to simulate all the not-so-fun aspects of Feudalism and thus some interesting alternatives could emerge. At least if the Souldbound engine supports the option to individually adapt those rules...

edit: Haven't actually so much a thought of playing Waerd but if they indeed have a different concept of ownership it'd be interesting...


6/20/2019 9:29:27 PM #7

Not to wax too technical, but I thought this might be useful to your considerations:

CoE uses a Rights-Based system for determining things. That is, we don't just mark a thing as belonging to one person or another, we also say, for example "This is Caspian's and he has exclusive rights to hold, own, use, recycle, dismantle, and place this object in the world." -- All or some of those rights can also be granted and they can be granted at a "locational level."

For example, you could configure the rights on an item like so: "That Offset Hammer belongs to Snipehunter, but he has granted the rights to hold and use that hammer to anyone while they are in his forge." (This is how the Waerdic communal property sharing works - you own what is yours, but by default you grant your fellow waerd in your settlement the rights to hold and use your stuff on your property)

These rights can be applied at multiple levels too. It's possible to grant rights to everyone of your tribe, or everyone of your kingdom, or everyone on the continent, etc. etc. This means that the system should allow you to simulate quite a few different models of "ownership" within the bounds of your own domains, be that someplace small like your home, or someplace grand such as your kingdom.

Hope that helps! :)


  • Snipehunter
6/22/2019 9:27:14 PM #8

Thanks a lot, @Snipehunter! This information is very helpful, as usual! If there is a "use while in someone's forge"-right I assume you could also allow villagers to take/use every item in the city as long as they don't bring it outside the city walls. If in addition to that there was an option do differentiate between usable items that are still existent in the world after being used and consumable items that are gone after being used it'd allow some interesting models of ownership indeed! Sounds great!


6/23/2019 4:28:29 PM #9

@Gnox

If you haven't already, check out the full writeup for The Waerd. A lot of their particular social mores align with what you are describing. They value the community above the individual, and have a loose set of boundaries around personal property rights (as Snipe has described).


6/23/2019 4:59:08 PM #10

YAY anarchist collective time!!!!


Lady Maria Wythermoor, Mayor of Lundlochheim, County of Grua'caladh, Duchy of Luxspring, Kingdom of Aranor

Friend code: 7F39A1

6/23/2019 9:39:22 PM #11

Posted By Kant at 9:51 PM - Thu Jun 20 2019

Actually, CoE simulates feudalism and not capitalism.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

6/24/2019 6:40:40 PM #12

@Bombastus: Thanks!


6/25/2019 1:24:39 AM #13

An interesting topic! (thank you @Gnox)

From what Snipehunter has said it sounds like rights work in a similar way to group based access, which can be nested at multiple levels. Access rights can be inherited across all those levels, which is easy enough to conceptualise if rights are cumulative, but I'm curious (I'm a database guy who has to worry about this also at times)...

@Snipehunter ...how are "deny" rights handled? Does deny take precedence over "grant"? Can a top level deny be cancelled by a lower level grant and/or vice versa? Both are possible, but generally rights need a certain order of precedence to be predictable and reliable.

Just curious how this is structured.


6/28/2019 6:24:52 PM #14

Posted By Snipehunter at 2:29 PM - Thu Jun 20 2019

Not to wax too technical, but I thought this might be useful to your considerations:

CoE uses a Rights-Based system for determining things. That is, we don't just mark a thing as belonging to one person or another, we also say, for example "This is Caspian's and he has exclusive rights to hold, own, use, recycle, dismantle, and place this object in the world." -- All or some of those rights can also be granted and they can be granted at a "locational level."

For example, you could configure the rights on an item like so: "That Offset Hammer belongs to Snipehunter, but he has granted the rights to hold and use that hammer to anyone while they are in his forge." (This is how the Waerdic communal property sharing works - you own what is yours, but by default you grant your fellow waerd in your settlement the rights to hold and use your stuff on your property)

These rights can be applied at multiple levels too. It's possible to grant rights to everyone of your tribe, or everyone of your kingdom, or everyone on the continent, etc. etc. This means that the system should allow you to simulate quite a few different models of "ownership" within the bounds of your own domains, be that someplace small like your home, or someplace grand such as your kingdom.

Hope that helps! :)

How on earth do you plan on rendering that into a useable UI?

Does literally every item in my inventory/the world have some kind of context menu with a dropdown menu of cascading complex arrangements?

Like Right Click > Manage Ownership > Hold/Own/Use/Recycle/Dismantle/Place > Only Me/Only My Family/Only My Tribe/Only My Town/Only My County/Only My Kingdom/Only My Guild/All...?

How does that not end up being ridiculously cumbersome and confusing?

What does having permission to hold something but not use it even mean?


6/29/2019 7:15:16 AM #15

LordDarkwolfe, I think that the ownership will be preset for every object, and you change it just if you want, when you want.


Respect and trust!