Oh, also - if I were the judge in a tricky situation, I would ban them over time, starting with one where you can find a reasonably good reason and the chance that they can rally others to their course is minimal. Then the next one, then the next...
Erasmus did this in Terran. Didn't turn out well for him, despite his having a much bigger power base and less clear evidence of treason apparently. Banning all at once is a much better strategy.
Nonsense. You can still ban Sir Trouble and his gang. If they have enough followers to protest you out of office, then good for them and bad for you and they likely won't get the bans become active - which IS the proper reaction of the game.
Why? In a feudal system, dissent
should cause mass chaos, loss of positions, and a period of reconstruction. Bloodless changes in power were not the norm, especially in instances where changes were forced by large-scale disagreement. It seems far more medieval to me that total chaos would ensue.
(on a sidenote: can banned nobles join rebellions?)
