Removing a royal duke

[fodder]

One requires a skilled Infil and the other a skilled Priest. Besides a temple in the region, faithful and the religion's approval. Still doesn't solve the fact he's still a Duke, though I suppose that is not so important..

forget the priest. don't think it works.

get ruler to change the rules. that should work, shouldn't it? if the dukes can't be arsed to appoint anyone, elect someone in

[Penchant]

forget the priest. don't think it works.

get ruler to change the rules. that should work, shouldn't it? if the dukes can't be arsed to appoint anyone, elect someone in

That sounds like a good idea, and can be changed back if they don't want to continue with electing.

[Indirik]

I think it could be a good idea, or a terrible idea depending on how it was implemented.

The problem with intra-realm warfare is that it destroys the team concept of the game. BattleMaster is a team-based game. You're part of a team from your first log in. The game defines the team as your realm. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Not only are our duchies are simply not big enough (in the majority of realms) to function individually as a team, but the entire game is structured around "realm as team". Intra-realm warfare would destroy that concept. And we have precious little of that concept still alive and kicking in the game as is.

It's a concept that may be fun and may work, but in a different game.

[Scarlett]

Just two points:

1) Tom's question about 'how does this impact fun' can be reduced to 'why is the game fun?' It's fun because a bunch of people pretend to be medieval lords and play together to either help or hinder other bunches of people pretending to be medieval lords. Fun comes from your role in either helping or hindering. If you're doing neither of those things and just occupying a hot seat, you are impeding both the help and the hinder role in the equation to a pretty significant degree, and that causes other players to resent the realm for permitting it to happen (because they don't read threads like these to know that there's very little you can do) and the game for enabling a non-entity. Where BM works is where it gives nobles on different levels of the ladder tools to push and pull on the giant power tug-of-rope that is always there -- but when somebody just really likes being called 'Duke of place' and can get away with contributing zero to the game, that has a negative-fun impact. If on the balance between that and the whole 'it's okay to not be very active' right that's acceptable, that's cool, but you are trading one for the other.

2) Pretty sure Kindara HAD an infiltrator...!

[Zakilevo]

Just two points:

1) Tom's question about 'how does this impact fun' can be reduced to 'why is the game fun?' It's fun because a bunch of people pretend to be medieval lords and play together to either help or hinder other bunches of people pretending to be medieval lords. Fun comes from your role in either helping or hindering. If you're doing neither of those things and just occupying a hot seat, you are impeding both the help and the hinder role in the equation to a pretty significant degree, and that causes other players to resent the realm for permitting it to happen (because they don't read threads like these to know that there's very little you can do) and the game for enabling a non-entity. Where BM works is where it gives nobles on different levels of the ladder tools to push and pull on the giant power tug-of-rope that is always there -- but when somebody just really likes being called 'Duke of place' and can get away with contributing zero to the game, that has a negative-fun impact. If on the balance between that and the whole 'it's okay to not be very active' right that's acceptable, that's cool, but you are trading one for the other.

2) Pretty sure Kindara HAD an infiltrator...!

I agree with this. People who do not do their roles properly should be removed. If you are an inactive duke, you should be removed to make a room for someone more active.

[Indirik]

If you are an inactive duke, you should be removed to make a room for someone more active.

Yeah, that would be true, if it weren't for that whole Inalienable Rights thing...

[Penchant]

Yeah, that would be true, if it weren't for that whole Inalienable Rights thing...

But if from what I am understanding its like the person isn't playing, just logging in once a week. If they did something, sent some people messages or something to show it was on purpose for spite against the realm or anything RP to show they are playing people wouldn't be complaining, but they are just logging in, not really playing.

[Indirik]

Fun comes from your role in either helping or hindering. If you're doing neither of those things and just occupying a hot seat, you are impeding both the help and the hinder role in the equation to a pretty significant degree

If they are negative impacting the realm in a severe manner, then that puts them pretty squarely in the "hinder" camp. The problem doesn't come in that people don't actively contribute, and hang onto positions, it's that people are afraid of taking direct action against them. They don't want to hurt their buddy, or they don't want to be confrontational in addressing the problem.

Like in this case: Velax didn't come here looking for ways to get rid of his non-contributing duchess and put in someone willing to help. He came here looking for ways to *work around* the inactive character. He didn't want to hurt the character/player by kicking them out of a position they no longer deserved, but to help the realm keep-on-keeping-on despite the fact that the duchess was a non-contributor.

IMO, you need to stay in-character and look at it from your character's point of view: Yes, Duke Kepler used to be a cool guy. We were drinking buddies, and he saved my ass in that one campaign against Evilstani. I owe him my life. But now Evilstani is attacking us, and Duke Kepler is on permanent vacation. He won't come out of his palace, and his duchy is falling apart. I've tried all the normal, friendly ways to deal with the situation. But Duke Kepler is still neglecting his duties. Personal crisis time! Do I stay loyal to Duke Kepler and stick by his right to drink mead in his palace all day while ignoring business as the realm crumbles? Or do I start plotting to get him removed and replaced by someone who hasn't had their brains turned to mush from too much drink? Perhaps if enough people start working against the duke in many different ways, then the duke will wake up and smell the coffee.

[Zakilevo]

don't know why people are afraid to get rid of inactive dukes... it is 100 times better to have an active duke even if he is not the most friendly guy. At least he will keep things interesting.

The duke Velax has to deal with sounds pretty close to quitting the game. shouldn't be afraid of a  secession IMO.

[Alpha]

The problem with intra-realm warfare is that it destroys the team concept of the game. BattleMaster is a team-based game. You're part of a team from your first log in. The game defines the team as your realm. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Not only are our duchies are simply not big enough (in the majority of realms) to function individually as a team, but the entire game is structured around "realm as team". Intra-realm warfare would destroy that concept. And we have precious little of that concept still alive and kicking in the game as is.

It's a concept that may be fun and may work, but in a different game.

I didn't consider that. So yea, I agree 100%.

2) Pretty sure Kindara HAD an infiltrator...!

Maybe. I think he was attacked by a Cathayan in our capital. After that he disappeared. Then some war broke out, so we haven't really had time to look for him.

[Indirik]

But if from what I am understanding its like the person isn't playing, just logging in once a week. If they did something, sent some people messages or something to show it was on purpose for spite against the realm or anything RP but they are just logging in, not really playing.

The IR protects their right to play at whatever pace they want. You can't act against Duke Kepler because he logs in once every four days. That's his business, you just have to deal with it.

HOWEVER...

The Inalienable Rights do NOT protect you from the IC consequences of your IC actions or inactions. If you are a rural lord and you're not selling your food, or an army sponsor not appointing marshals/filling the war chest, a judge not banning prisoners, etc., then you *can* and *should* be held accountable for the fact that *your character* is not doing their job. But this is completely unrelated to activity. The same standards should be held to *any* character, regardless of how often they log in,or not log in.

When you consider whether or not act against someone, then "activity" should never come into play. It's all about whether or not the character is doing their job. As a friendly player you do need to give a nod toward OOC considerations, and give them a chance to respond and react. But once a clear pattern of negligence is established, then nail 'em to the wall!

[Scarlett]

IMO, you need to stay in-character and look at it from your character's point of view

This is a non-choice. There is no mechanism to plot against a Duke who is also a Royal, and the only mechanism if they aren't a royal is banishment, which could run afoul of inalienable rights. Back in '05 and '06 the Titans didn't usually care too much when somebody high-up got the ax for never doing anything but perhaps that's changed. EDIT: just saw 'The Inalienable Rights do NOT protect you from the IC consequences of your IC actions or inactions' which is a more accurate description of how things were viewed back when I had any business viewing them. Not like 'you must login once every X hours/days' but 'is the job getting done.'

But if you were to look at it from an in-character point of view, a King whose vassal wasn't showing up or answering letters would arrive with an army to take back the land for himself. As you've already pointed out, intra-realm wars aren't a solution. So saying 'find an IC answer' is a little bit trite: if there were one that could amount to anything other than grumbling, it would've happened by now and Velax wouldn't be here complaining about it. It's like trying to play monopoly with your cat. Anybody in BM would prefer an active character who is actively opposing them rather than an inactive character whose player just won't admit 'you know, I don't have time to be Duke/King of blah.'

Ironically, Galiard used to get a lot of flak for having stepped down from being King on two occasions previously, like 'why don't you go back to your garden,' while it was very, very difficult to drum up support against a Duke in Toupellon who was a great character and who had (has) a great player but just didn't ever get involved in anything.

[fodder]

you don't have to get rid of the duke. what you are doing is making the duke a duke of 0 or 1 regions. (by removing his ability to be the only dude to appoint lords... in making lordships electable.)

Unless your realm has like only 1 town/city/stronghold and the duke is the lord of that... then you are stuck with him being duke of everything. (until you auto-de-fey or stick him... to vacate the lordship and ruler make new lord of that a duke)

[Bael]

Its a pity that my character is ready to pwn this Duke - everything takes so darned long in BM!

[Indirik]

This is a non-choice. There is no mechanism to plot against a Duke who is also a Royal, and the only mechanism if they aren't a royal is banishment

That's simply not true at all. There are several options you have. Some of them may or may not be possible in any particular case. Some depend on him being a lord, others on not being a lord. Some ideas off the top of my head:
* Have him assassinated. Repeatedly. I bet that will gt their attention. If you're lucky, they may lose the office due to long absence.
* Get all his vassals to swap to other duchies. This is especially powerful if he's not a region lord. He could end up as duke of an empty duchy.
* If he's a city lord, stop selling him food. If he's a rural lord, stop buying his food.
* Exile him. Especially powerful now that you get all your taxes in bonds.
* Get religion involved, and have him auto da fe'd. Works great for region lords. If you get him out of the region, then get all his lords to leave him.
* Have diplomats and ambassadors badmouth him in his own region, and maybe drive the region rogue. Get priests involved in it, too.
* Switch regional appointments to voting instead of appointing, and work around him.
* If he has a steward, work with the steward to buy/sell food.

Each one of these is a way to plot against a duke, royal or not. And if he's not royal then just banish his ass and be done with it.

which could run afoul of inalienable rights. Back in '05 and '06 the Titans didn't usually care too much when somebody high-up got the ax for never doing anything but perhaps that's changed. EDIT: just saw 'The Inalienable Rights do NOT protect you from the IC consequences of your IC actions or inactions' which is a more accurate description of how things were viewed back when I had any business viewing them. Not like 'you must login once every X hours/days' but 'is the job getting done.'

This is, and always has been, the policy. It hasn't changed. People just get hung up thinking that the inactivity IR protects them  as a 100% safe blanket from actions against them. That's simply not true.

So saying 'find an IC answer' is a little bit trite: if there were one that could amount to anything other than grumbling, it would've happened by now and Velax wouldn't be here complaining about it. It's like trying to play monopoly with your cat. Anybody in BM would prefer an active character who is actively opposing them rather than an inactive character whose player just won't admit 'you know, I don't have time to be Duke/King of blah.'

I agree that playing against an active player is more fun. But saying that you simply can't do anything about it is not correct. You can. It may not be clean or easy. In fact, it may leave a bit of a mess behind. But it can be done.

it was very, very difficult to drum up support against a Duke in Toupellon who was a great character and who had (has) a great player but just didn't ever get involved in anything.

Yes, people don't like acting against someone who doesn't do something blatantly wrong. Inactive people who don't make waves are likely to be difficult to target with any kind of IC campaign against them.