How do you feel about multiple characters?

[vonGenf]

I like the 'one noble per island', but after reading the different opinions here... well... I hadn't change my mind, but I understand the others people reasons.

Well, I still prefer to have one noble per continent. However, I don't feel the need to impose it on everyone. I'm fine with the idea of having some continents with limitations and other without.

[Azerax]

Well, I still prefer to have one noble per continent. However, I don't feel the need to impose it on everyone. I'm fine with the idea of having some continents with limitations and other without.

+1

[Chenier]

Well, I still prefer to have one noble per continent. However, I don't feel the need to impose it on everyone. I'm fine with the idea of having some continents with limitations and other without.

I don't like imposing restrictions on people that didn't use to have them, in places that didn't use to have them.

[Vellos]

I have no qualms about any impositions of any kind.

And I'm always in favor of anything that hacks away at the power of OOC clans and BM's golden-oldies (myself included), and a 1-character-per-continent rule would do that.

That said, this:

One noble per continent?  Yeah, congrats on killing most donations to BM.  I'd have more nobles than continents I would want to play on.  Not a huge fan of AT, Dwilight, or the Colonies.

Is a fair concern, with an easy solution.

Make two-characters-on-a-non-Dwilight-continent possible... for donors (but maybe keep a 1-character-per-realm restriction, though with big alliance blocks that still isn't much of a restriction).

I predict a significant uptick in donations with such a rule, as the benefits to donating would be relatively bigger, and present donors would be relatively unaffected.

[Velax]

I think a rather large number of people would not appreciate something - something rather big - being taken away from the majority of players and given solely to those who donate.

[Chenier]

I think a rather large number of people would not appreciate something - something rather big - being taken away from the majority of players and given solely to those who donate.

Indeed.

Not to mention that this would give significant advantages to realms with large proportions of donors...

[Perth]

Indeed.

Not to mention that this would give significant advantages to realms with large proportions of donors...

Hm, I wonder what realms have a large proportion of donors?

[Poliorketes]

Hm, I wonder what realms have a large proportion of donors?

I'd say: Are realms with a larger proportion of donors? 

[Chenier]

Hm, I wonder what realms have a large proportion of donors?

Hell if I know.

However, other games have shown us that many people are willing to pay cash to gain in-game advantages. This would certainly qualify.

[feyeleanor]

I prefer to keep my characters paired in realms as it gives a better sense of a family association with a realm when one of them dies. It also better suits my playing style as I like to have one focus on military adventure and the other on governance and trade.

I'm also trying to tell a story with my characters of a noble family striving to defend its interests in a hostile world, and I don't think forcing each character to live on a separate continent or in a separate realm would really reflect that. The characters would to my mind become rootless mercenaries rather than land-obsessed nobility, an outlook which is already prevalent.

[Ender]

I personally prefer 1 noble per continent (I tried 2 once and didn't like it), but I have no problem with people having multiple characters per continent. In that I have a preference for one per realm, multiple per continent.

However, I've seen plenty of players separate characters with opposing interests very well, so I see no reason to limit those people who enjoy that, even if there are those who would abuse it.