Helping with Adventurer Party Management - Chapter 367

Others may not understand why the two clergymen are troubled by this.

However, having two of the six new managers opposed to the new management method poses a risk for future governance. This resistance could become a recurring problem when expanding the method to other church territories.

To address this, I decided to engage with them thoroughly—on their own terms.

If it meant getting the two clergymen to truly understand, spending some time in debate was well worth it.

I wrote the debate topic on the wall—my makeshift blackboard, painted black with lime chalk.

The topic was: What are faith and justice in governing acts?

First, I presented the topic and opened the floor for debate.

“Do you believe there is justice in the church’s governing actions?”

“Yes,” Paperino answered immediately.

Perhaps due to his background in legal education, he seemed comfortable with the debate format. His answer carried confidence.

“What guarantees justice?”

“Faith and law.”

“Hmm.”

This must be the most fundamental teaching in church education. His answer came without hesitation.

I shifted the conversation slightly to guide it forward.

“Let’s apply this to real-world scenarios. Is charity to the church just?”

“It supports faith, so yes, it can be considered just.”

I continued.

“Is it just for a governor appointed by the church to collect taxes?”

Perhaps sensing where the conversation was heading, Paperino’s answer lost some of its certainty.

“I can say it is just… as long as it’s not for personal gain.”

I pressed further.

“Is it just for a merchant appointed by the church as a governor to collect taxes?”

“It is just,” Paperino answered quietly.

With that, I had established that my actions—serving as governor while being involved in trade—were legally just according to church law.

“So, in legal theory, it is right for merchants to collect taxes as governors. But in reality, it’s true that harsh governance often occurs in territories where merchants hold power, and peasants suffer poverty. So, I can understand Paperino’s concerns.”

Personally, I’m not particularly drawn to theological debates. Regardless of whether the government is considered just or not, my priority is improving the lives of the peasants.

However, for those who rely heavily on theory, presenting a solid foundation is crucial.

Since my intention wasn’t to undermine the clergy, I steered the conversation in a different direction once I felt the conclusion was near.

“Let’s go back to the basics. Is collecting taxes just?”

“It is just.”

“Is it just to reduce taxes?”

“You could say that is just.”

“On the other hand, what about taking all the harvest as tax?”

“That’s not just.”

“So, where is the line between justice and injustice when it comes to taxation?”

Paperino paused to think, then answered, “Half, I think.”

This concept—five parts for the lord and five for the people—is a common reference point when discussing the balance between ruler and subject. This simple notion of splitting resources evenly likely stems from that.

I continued, “As a clergyman familiar with tax records, you know the truth, don’t you? Are the taxes really half?”