autoban for switching sides in war

[Jens Namtrah]

Easy thing to code - does it make sense?

If you change to a realm your current realm is at war with, you receive an autoban as a traitor in the realm you left

[Chenier]

I used to be an automatic ban just for leaving the realm, no matter who to.

I personally never really agreed with the change.

[Tom]

Yes, I think something like that would be useful. We can later refine it, but for war and hatred - definitely.

[vonGenf]

Who should this apply to?

Imagine a lowly knight who finds himself in the old capital at the moment of a secession he was not aware of. He is forced into a battle, gets captured, gets executed, all before he can even log in.

Now, if this applied to the region Lord or Duke only, then that character know what's coming and can prepare accordingly.

I remember reading somewhere that you can only get killed if you put yourself in a dangerous situation, such as entering an enemy realm while banned, and that no one should be able to kill you if you don't knowingly put yourself in this situation. I think this is a good principle that should be taken into account.

[Telrunya]

Personally, I don't believe it should apply to Knights following their Lord changing allegiance. In that case, isn't the Knight simply upholding his Oath to his Liege? That is no true offence. The only offence is the Lord changing Allegiances to the enemy and thereby betraying his Oath to his Duke, the Knights honouring their Oath are not at fault.

Same with Dukes. Dukes should be banned for betraying their Oath to their Ruler, Lords and Knights that follow their Liege shouldn't.

[Tom]

Obviously, auto-bans would affect the one who actually does the switch. Everyone switching with him is not a traitor but an honorable man following his oaths.

[Chenier]

Personally, I don't believe it should apply to Knights following their Lord changing allegiance. In that case, isn't the Knight simply upholding his Oath to his Liege? That is no true offence. The only offence is the Lord changing Allegiances to the enemy and thereby betraying his Oath to his Duke, the Knights honouring their Oath are not at fault.

Same with Dukes. Dukes should be banned for betraying their Oath to their Ruler, Lords and Knights that follow their Liege shouldn't.

Like secessions work, in other words. The one responsible gets a ban, not the others.

Obviously, auto-bans would affect the one who actually does the switch. Everyone switching with him is not a traitor but an honorable man following his oaths.

Indeed. Best punish the ones taking the decisions, not their vassals. So if a knight switches by himself, then it's a ban.

Bans are easy to lift, but few occasions allow to give them. As such, I'd personally tend towards banning nobles who switch to neutral realms as well. After all, secessions start out as neutral, so if someone quickly joins a seceded duchy despite not having been part of it, he should be banned.

[Indirik]

I would be against banning for joining a neutral. There is no implied hostility there that would warrant a banishment.

Also, secessions are not automatically hostile, either. So thus not warranting an autoban.

[Chenier]

I would be against banning for joining a neutral. There is no implied hostility there that would warrant a banishment.

Also, secessions are not automatically hostile, either. So thus not warranting an autoban.

Secessions *do* have autobans right now, and rightfully so.

As I said, bans are easy to remove. If you did so in a friendly way, you will have your ban removed. I did.

Hostility or not, it's still treason, and should be up to the realm you abandon whether it's forgiven or not.

[Anaris]

I would be against banning for joining a neutral. There is no implied hostility there that would warrant a banishment.

Also, secessions are not automatically hostile, either. So thus not warranting an autoban.

Who cares for hostility?

You're breaking your oath.

Also: it's trivial for the Judge to remove a ban on someone who left and was autobanned.

It is impossible to ban someone who has left your realm.

[Indirik]

Who cares for hostility?

You're breaking your oath.

Can you guarantee that? Maybe you have your liege lord's permission. Maybe the terms of your oath to your lord have been fulfilled, and the oath is no longer binding. Autobans fail to account for all kinds of things like that.

But if you're going to claim that any allegiance change to another realm is breaking your oath and deserving of a ban, then you have to extend that to all realm allegiance changes.

[Anaris]

Can you guarantee that? Maybe you have your liege lord's permission. Maybe the terms of your oath to your lord have been fulfilled, and the oath is no longer binding. Autobans fail to account for all kinds of things like that.

But if you're going to claim that any allegiance change to another realm is breaking your oath and deserving of a ban, then you have to extend that to all realm allegiance changes.

If you're saying "changing your oath within the realm should get a ban," that doesn't make sense.  There is currently no region-ban or duchy-ban, and the oath to the realm has not yet been broken.

But if you're saying "changing to another realm should always get a ban", I'm OK with that.

The game cannot figure out what kinds of RP oaths people make with each other.

The game cannot know whether a secession is friendly.

The game cannot, in general, know what the players are thinking, and therefore must make certain assumptions.

The players, on the other hand, can both know what they are thinking and take actions to compensate for inflexible game assumptions.

One of those actions is lifting autobans.

Thus, I submit that autobanning in every case is significantly better than autobanning in no cases.

I would, however, prefer autobans only if the realm being joined is at neutral or lower relations—possibly peaceful relations too, not sure about that.

[Indirik]

But if you're saying "changing to another realm should always get a ban", I'm OK with that.

The game cannot figure out what kinds of RP oaths people make with each other.

The game cannot know whether a secession is friendly.

The game cannot, in general, know what the players are thinking, and therefore must make certain assumptions.

That was exactly my point. The game cannot know the exact circumstances behind someone changing allegiance. And do we really want to start banning people because they *might* have done something?

The players, on the other hand, can both know what they are thinking and take actions to compensate for inflexible game assumptions.

One of those actions is lifting autobans.

Thus, I submit that autobanning in every case is significantly better than autobanning in no cases.

Why were they removed in the first place?

I would, however, prefer autobans only if the realm being joined is at neutral or lower relations—possibly peaceful relations too, not sure about that.

If it's the fact that you're possibly betraying your oath, then what do realm relations have to do with it? Is it somehow not possibly betraying your oath if you leave to go to an allied realm? Seems to me that so far as honor is concerned, you're betraying your oath regardless of the diplomatic status of the two realms involved.

[Telrunya]

I agree. Even switching to an allied Realm could be considered betrayal. Any switch to a different Realm should be followed by a ban then. The Judge can then always lift the ban in case the Realm takes no offence at this action.

[fodder]

If you're saying "changing your oath within the realm should get a ban," that doesn't make sense.  There is currently no region-ban or duchy-ban, and the oath to the realm has not yet been broken.

but as a lord, you are switching oath from 1 duke to another. that it happens to be a different realm is neither here nor there. your oath is to the duke, not the realm.


though... i imagine the other argument is that you have 2 oaths.. 1 to your lord/duke/king, the other to the king