autoban for switching sides in war

[Anaris]

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.

If there were a region-ban for knights, or a duchy-ban for lords, I would advocate for it to be applied in these cases, too, and leave it up to the lords and dukes whether or not to let those autobans stand.

However, there is no such thing in BattleMaster right now, so there's no way to punish oathbreaking at the sub-realm level.

If you break an oath in such a way that you leave the realm, however, there is something already in place to deal with it: a ban.

If you want to argue that the realm shouldn't care about regions and knights leaving it, you're welcome to try, but I think that ship has sailed.

[Chenier]

Bans are on the realm level, therefore it's logical only to have them over realm-level issues. Break your lordly oath? Well then that duke can "ban" you from his duchy if he likes. Won't be via game mechanics.

There's no harm done when an automatic ban is removed. However, to not even have a ban on your most despised traitor is aggravating. It is better to autoban more people and to have those bans lifted by the judged than to autoban nowhere and leave the judges powerless.

[De-Legro]

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.

Instead of a Auto Ban, would it not be possible to code in a special case for these actions, that lets the Judge Ban the oath breaker even once they have left the realm. Say give the Judge 5 days in which to use this feature before the option is removed. Without seeing the code I would guess it would be more work, but I've always disliked Auto Bans, to me they conflict with the decision making process of the Judge.

[Chenier]

Instead of a Auto Ban, would it not be possible to code in a special case for these actions, that lets the Judge Ban the oath breaker even once they have left the realm. Say give the Judge 5 days in which to use this feature before the option is removed. Without seeing the code I would guess it would be more work, but I've always disliked Auto Bans, to me they conflict with the decision making process of the Judge.

Why? What happens then if the judge position is vacant? If he gets stabbed right after and remains wounded for a week? If it coincides with him going inactive?

There's nothing wrong with removing autobans. I don't see what your issue with them is. If truly you had the realm's blessings, or were on even remotely friendly terms with the judge (and aren't joining an enemy), he'll remove it.

By default, it should be poorly viewed to break your oaths to change allegiance to another sovereign. RP can dictate exceptions, and that's why the judge can remove these bans.

[De-Legro]

Why? What happens then if the judge position is vacant? If he gets stabbed right after and remains wounded for a week? If it coincides with him going inactive?

There's nothing wrong with removing autobans. I don't see what your issue with them is. If truly you had the realm's blessings, or were on even remotely friendly terms with the judge (and aren't joining an enemy), he'll remove it.

By default, it should be poorly viewed to break your oaths to change allegiance to another sovereign. RP can dictate exceptions, and that's why the judge can remove these bans.

My problem is this, who is issuing the auto ban, a faceless bureaucrat rather then a actual player character. As for what happens if the Judge cannot act and do his duty, why the same thing as it stands now if they aren't online or are wounded when they want to execute a infiltrator, or ban a Duke while the Duke is wounded to prevent a succession or any of the other situations where being wounded means you just plain MISS OUT.

[Chenier]

My problem is this, who is issuing the auto ban, a faceless bureaucrat rather then a actual player character.

The ban is de-facto, it's not announced by a bureaucrat or anyone else. If you shoot your governor, you can always ask for a presidential pardon, but otherwise people will not decide whether they want to punish you or not (once guilt is proven). Same applies here. The judge has the authority to grant you pardon, but it's an exception. It doesn't need to be bureaucracy. It's just social norms. If you go back to the lands of the people you ditched, the people might not be nice to you.

[De-Legro]

The ban is de-facto, it's not announced by a bureaucrat or anyone else. If you shoot your governor, you can always ask for a presidential pardon, but otherwise people will not decide whether they want to punish you or not (once guilt is proven). Same applies here. The judge has the authority to grant you pardon, but it's an exception. It doesn't need to be bureaucracy. It's just social norms. If you go back to the lands of the people you ditched, the people might not be nice to you.

Then why not auto bans against captured infiltrators and the like? If you shoot your Governor you still need to go through a trial and be convicted by a Jury presided over by a judge you know. They don't just convict you of a crime on the spot even if they caught you just as you committed the offense.

If you are going to have auto bans for one case of "social norms" then be consistent and implement them across the board.

[Chenier]

Then why not auto bans against captured infiltrators and the like? If you shoot your Governor you still need to go through a trial and be convicted by a Jury presided over by a judge you know. They don't just convict you of a crime on the spot even if they caught you just as you committed the offense.

If you are going to have auto bans for one case of "social norms" then be consistent and implement them across the board.

The difference is that infiltrators are in prison when you can ban them, and are released when you ban them. If they are banned and kicked out of jail as soon as they are captured, then the judge can't steal them or torture them, and that keeps the infil out of action for a very little period of time. If they are banned but not freed upon capture, then that just means you can execute them on the first capture.

Balance reasons, really.

[De-Legro]

The difference is that infiltrators are in prison when you can ban them, and are released when you ban them. If they are banned and kicked out of jail as soon as they are captured, then the judge can't steal them or torture them, and that keeps the infil out of action for a very little period of time. If they are banned but not freed upon capture, then that just means you can execute them on the first capture.

Balance reasons, really.

That still doesn't change the fact that in all other cases, the guilt of a character is decided by the Judge BEFORE punishment or verdict is declared, where an Auto Ban reverses that just so people can "ensure" someone is punished, when again no other time in the game, with the exceptions of advies leaving their realm do you get such certainty.

So far the only concrete reason to Auto Ban rather then provide Judges with the option is to ensure that the Ban can't be avoided, so then why provide so many options for Bans to be avoided in other serious cases? Why insist that is this one case of treason the game mechanics should prevent what is possible in so many other cases?

[egamma]

That still doesn't change the fact that in all other cases, the guilt of a character is decided by the Judge BEFORE punishment or verdict is declared, where an Auto Ban reverses that just so people can "ensure" someone is punished, when again no other time in the game, with the exceptions of advies leaving their realm do you get such certainty.

So far the only concrete reason to Auto Ban rather then provide Judges with the option is to ensure that the Ban can't be avoided, so then why provide so many options for Bans to be avoided in other serious cases? Why insist that is this one case of treason the game mechanics should prevent what is possible in so many other cases?

...because it's Treason, the one crime that every nation in the history of the world has said is punishable by death? (okay, I don't have any research on that)

[De-Legro]

...because it's Treason, the one crime that every nation in the history of the world has said is punishable by death? (okay, I don't have any research on that)

Stabbing a ruler is also treason, got a Auto Ban for that? And no treason was not always punished with death, depending on the standing of the noble and their power, life in prison was also an option, and in some cases they were even pardoned.

[Chenier]

Stabbing the ruler is only treason if you do it to your own. And those people risk far more than an auto-ban, they risk immediate execution.

Also, a ban isn't a "punishment". It's just a "you aren't welcome here" waiver, which means that if you go against those wishes for you to stay away, nasty things might happen to you.

Keep in mind that we area talking about nobles who already left the realm of their own will, here, who therefore become foreigners. The auto-ban doesn't inflict anything else than the act of leaving the realm does by itself. It just allows for other actions to be taken should you ever be captured in the future.

[De-Legro]

Stabbing the ruler is only treason if you do it to your own. And those people risk far more than an auto-ban, they risk immediate execution.

Also, a ban isn't a "punishment". It's just a "you aren't welcome here" waiver, which means that if you go against those wishes for you to stay away, nasty things might happen to you.

Keep in mind that we area talking about nobles who already left the realm of their own will, here, who therefore become foreigners. The auto-ban doesn't inflict anything else than the act of leaving the realm does by itself. It just allows for other actions to be taken should you ever be captured in the future.

Indeed, and if it is so easy for some NPC to issue the writ in this case, why the hell do we have to capture a infiltrator that has been spotted committing crimes dozens of times before someone can sign a piece of paper banning them? They decided to commit those actions of their own free will, and are either traitors or dirty foreigners, why should they enjoy greater protection?

[Chenier]

Indeed, and if it is so easy for some NPC to issue the writ in this case, why the hell do we have to capture a infiltrator that has been spotted committing crimes dozens of times before someone can sign a piece of paper banning them? They decided to commit those actions of their own free will, and are either traitors or dirty foreigners, why should they enjoy greater protection?

Plausible deniability, in most cases.

In the cases where they actually are identified... Balance. Can't have them banned on the spot, as then they might be stuck behind enemy lines with a ban and high chances of capture, wouldn't be fair. If you could be banned without going in a dungeon first, then the odds of you being both banned and executed for the same act dramatically increase.

In some cases, I'd admit it'd be nice to be able to ban a hated enemy, such as their ruler or their judge. But gameplay demands that this not be possible, or it would too easily be exploitable. Mind you, the option to execute a government member of a realm you declared hatred on, without a ban and at a much higher prestige and honor drop, would be interesting. I believe I've suggested this before.

[De-Legro]

Plausible deniability, in most cases.

In the cases where they actually are identified... Balance. Can't have them banned on the spot, as then they might be stuck behind enemy lines with a ban and high chances of capture, wouldn't be fair. If you could be banned without going in a dungeon first, then the odds of you being both banned and executed for the same act dramatically increase.

In some cases, I'd admit it'd be nice to be able to ban a hated enemy, such as their ruler or their judge. But gameplay demands that this not be possible, or it would too easily be exploitable. Mind you, the option to execute a government member of a realm you declared hatred on, without a ban and at a much higher prestige and honor drop, would be interesting. I believe I've suggested this before.

Only if the ban took instant effect, which currently is only the case with bans administered from prison. It is completely possible to treat banning an enemy infiltrator the same as banning one of your own nobles and grant a 3 day grace, and to be honest, there is nothing unfair about a infiltrator getting banned behind enemy lines at all, it is a risky class, it would just be an added risk.