Helping with Adventurer Party Management - Chapter 368

What was really happening on the ground? As experienced clerks, they should have been able to recognize the truth from the records.

That’s why the clergy members couldn’t answer. Officially, taxes were supposed to be capped at half the harvest.

However, in reality, many territories imposed additional taxes beyond that — such as labor levies resembling corvée duties, poll taxes, and hearth taxes. Moreover, there was a common belief that the more tax an acting governor could extract from their territory, the more competent they were considered.

“That’s right. The reality is different. Even if the official tax is half of the harvest, there are still numerous unrecorded taxes. Only by identifying all of these and understanding what’s actually happening can we calculate the true tax burden on the people.

“For that purpose, let’s apply the concept of indicators. We can convert the harvest into monetary value, and similarly convert the poll tax, hearth tax, and labor duties into monetary terms. Doing so will reveal the actual percentage of the harvest being taken as tax. Don’t you think that would help assess whether taxation is being conducted justly?”

“Evaluating taxes to assess justice… You’re suggesting measuring it with numbers rather than relying on faith and law?”

“Exactly. If justice is defined as limiting taxes to fifty percent — half of the whole when the total is considered 100 — wouldn’t it be useful to know whether the real burden is 60 or 65? Even if we can’t reduce 65 to 50 immediately, if we bring it down to 60 next year, wouldn’t that still be moving toward justice?”

“Wouldn’t that amount to condoning the reality that the law is being ignored?”

“Hm…”

Continuing to debate the abstract concepts of justice and reality risked turning this into a fruitless theological argument — an endless back-and-forth with no conclusion. I decided to shift the direction of the discussion.

In debates like this, those unfamiliar with proper techniques can become so entrenched in their position that they reject not only their opponent’s ideas but also their character. Frustration takes over, and meaningful conversation breaks down.

To avoid this, the key lies in clearly identifying differences while patiently acknowledging points of agreement. Establishing that common ground — no matter how tedious it may seem — is crucial groundwork for productive debate.

Since I also wanted to demonstrate proper debate structure, I explained my intention to those present.

“I believe we now understand that our positions differ. To keep the discussion focused, I’d like to confirm what points we can agree on. Any objections?”

“No objections. I believe that’s necessary,” Paperino agreed.

With his consent, I began confirming the points we could align on.

“First, can we agree that there’s a reality in which tax laws are not being properly followed?”

“I agree.”

“Can we also agree that this situation should be improved?”

“I agree.”

“Can we agree that justice in taxation should mean taxes amounting to 50 out of 100?”

“I agree.”

“In that case, our disagreement isn’t about fundamental principles — it’s about how we identify and manage the actual burden placed on farmers. Essentially, it’s a technical difference in approach. Can we agree on that?”

“…I agree.” Paperino bit his lip so hard it seemed as if he might draw blood.

“What do you believe is the best way to represent the unrecorded burdens imposed on farmers?”

“…Logically speaking, converting those burdens into monetary or grain values would be appropriate. That’s true. But… does that mean everything I’ve learned at the church was wrong?”

Responding to his near-shouted words, I answered calmly.

“No. There’s no mistake. It’s simply that the old methods have areas that need improvement. So now, we’re considering improved methods and putting them into practice. There’s no absolute right or wrong here — this isn’t about winning or losing.”

Paperino closed his eyes, seemingly replaying the conversation in his mind. After a brief silence, he slowly opened his eyes and spoke in a careful tone.

“…Even so, my understanding was flawed. From now on, I intend to approach this with a new perspective. Please, I humbly ask for your continued guidance.”

With that, both Paperino and Claudio, the two clergy members, bowed deeply — so low that their heads seemed as if they might touch the floor.