Keltham will remark back only that he didn't particularly say that it was any of the people here; he will also be talking to some women outside this courtyard, whose Intelligence scores he has already read.

So long as they're talking - what would this woman change about Osirion, had she the power to ask things of the government here?  Is there anything she'd say ought to change, about this country, before it should be made any mightier or richer than it is now?

Well, anything that should be changed will change easier when Osirion's richer, that's how things go. But if anyone asked her, she'd tell the government to ban alcohol.

...that stuff.  Yeah, Keltham has heard of that stuff.  Keltham already found it pretty weird that anybody would drink that despite knowing what it does; do people's decisions to drink that stuff often not work out well for them?

Well, lots more men beat their wives drunk than sober, and lots of men waste their family's money that way, and also if women drink too much the babies will come out wrong.

Keltham is not usually a fan of declaring things illegal, but it sounds like this is way above the danger threshold for being illegal compared to several other things that Keltham has been told are or ought to be illegal without any exceptions or competence tests.  Is there a story about why this isn't already illegal without a competence test, given that, apparently, women owning their own stuff is illegal, which Keltham would have thought was much less dangerous than alcohol?

There probably is, because the priests are very wise, but she doesn't know it. 

...women owning their own stuff isn't illegal, exactly, either, not that she could explain the difference to a priest of Abadar, but there is one; a wife isn't a slave.

Say more.

Well, she's never interacted with the government, herself. Part of being wise is knowing the limits of your wisdom, and that isn't hers.

But if she earns money, it's the family's money, and the family can spend it on clothes for whoever needs them most, or work boots for whoevers have a hole, or an expansion of the house. And it's her husband who'd go to the government, if something happened that involved the government, but that's never happened. He works the winter levy; they don't pay taxes. They give the church money towards a pilgrimage or an emergency. That's how it is in a healthy, harmonious household, and it doesn't sound right, saying that's it being illegal for a woman to have money. 

Of course, in some households, they all put their money in for the family and then the husband spends it on drink. And that's no good, and why she thinks drink should be banned. But husbands spending couldn't reasonably be banned, and it wouldn't be better if the wife could squander all the money on drink too; what you want is for no one to squander it.

Suppose you've got a trio-relationship, three people forming a household.  One man and two women, say, so there's no paternity questions.  If they had to spend money by majority vote, no single one of them could spend all the money on alcohol.

Or, in duo relationships, why doesn't the person in the relationship with the higher Wisdom get to control the money?

Well, there's an idea. Might work out well, except it's not as if people know what their Wisdom is.

Usually if a man has two wives he has two households, one with each wife. Trying to all live together doesn't work out well.

Why not let women control their own incomes when they haven't yet married somebody?  If they're old enough to earn their own money in the first place?

Well, children who haven't married yet - boys or girls - are part of their parents' households, and once they can work their money goes to supporting their family.

Would the world be a better place if they were allowed to leave, and own themselves?  If they asked to leave?

If no, why not?

Well, it'd be hard on a family, to go hungry and work themselves to the bone to feed and bring up a child who waltzed out the door and left their parents and younger siblings to starve as soon as they'd finished the education their parents put them through at great cost. Probably people'd invest less in their children's education, if their children were liable to do that. 

Suppose there was a maximum buyout price, or you checked what people said under Abadar's Fairness for rich families that wanted to make a case for greater investments being justly due repayment.

Well, that seems reasonable to her. Rather cold and economical but that's the church for you, and it's usually right, too.

Or actually, to maybe simplify - what if the rules about girl-children leaving to start and own their own businesses were the same as for boy-children?  Is there anything different about the two cases?

- well, girls marry at nineteen usually, and no boy-child is in a position to leave and start his own business at nineteen. 

So whenever Keltham has tried to make a case like this to other Osirians who're allowed to have their own money, such as for example a palace concubine, or a man, they've usually had some elaborate clever reason why there just can't be any exceptions to the rules for anybody, or women will end up making bad decisions and then starving.  Also why it would be a terrible terrible thing if women and men had some sort of symmetrical rules along the lines of 'Agree to there being a single person controlling household finances, who is not necessarily the man' or 'boys and girls follow the same rules about when they're allowed to leave their families and own their own stuff'.

Can she predict what those people are likely to say when Keltham presents this proposal to them, about a maximum buyout price for girls and boys alike, and can she say in advance why it'll be wrong and what errors in reasoning the other person will be making to cause them to say this wrong thing?

Well, the priests of Abadar are much wiser than her and if they think it's a bad plan then it probably is. ...she doesn't think they particularly pick the palace concubines for being wise. 

Wait, what sort of target is Osirion's leadership breeding itself towards, such that they wouldn't be selecting concubines on Wisdom?  Are they going all in on Intelligence?  That doesn't seem like a good idea at all!  Keltham notices confusion here.

Well, she doesn't really know anything about that, but she expects they pick girls who are pretty and graceful and well-behaved.

Do the children of concubines just become a future generation of concubines, rather than - inheriting power, management, family wealth?

....well in principle one of those children becomes the pharaoh, right.

And so long as the person who becomes Pharaoh is pretty, graceful, and well-behaved, Abadar can take him over and operate him like a puppet so he doesn’t need any Intelligence, Wisdom, or Splendour?