Duke/Margrave Dynamic

[Eirikr]

Before I say anything else, I apologize if this has been a topic before. It's caused a huge backlash in my realm (Coria) recently and I'm curious to hear how other realms have received the change. I'm not trying to define which is right and which is wrong, but rather to hear what has been adopted in each realm. BattleMaster gives the freedom to do different things for a reason.

The two main views I've heard are as follows:

• The Old Paradigm - Quite simply this treats the position of Duke and Margrave as different titles, but both belong to one noble. This mimics the old system in that a duchy is considered to be based in a city (in the same way that a realm is based in a capital) and, as a result, the Duke should be Margrave of his city.
• The New Paradigm - This treats the two positions as distinctly different and neither one is a precursor to the other. A Margrave is essentially a glorified region lord under this system, the difference primarily consisting of the demands of a city (running a food deficit, having a larger income and being able to hold festivals and holidays).

If there are other methods people use, I'd love to hear them. My own realm has provided quite an extensive discussion of the logic behind each (directly or indirectly). I remember Tom releasing a rationale for the change... Once I have time to find it and quote it, I'll edit it into this post.

Edit: Related to http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3289.0.html

[Indirik]

I'm not in any realm that has conciously debated the system and adopted any realm-wide position. In fact, in the realms I am in, I think only one realm even has a duke that is not also the lord of the city/stronghold. (Also, I find that many people have no clue how the new system works, and don't really want to, either. They just want duke=city lord, thank-you-very-much!)

Unless you have lordship elections, I consider the appointment of lords to be the duke's business, and everyone should keep their noses out of it. That's why the duke has the appointment button.

[Eirikr]

Unless you have lordship elections, I consider the appointment of lords to be the duke's business, and everyone should keep their noses out of it. That's why the duke has the appointment button.

That, right there, is the crux of the problem in Coria right now. We do have lordship elections. The problem arose when the Margrave was considered a regional lordship. We even have ducal elections.

Regardless, in this forum topic, I'm also interested in what Monarchies and such have chosen. I know in the Barony, it's always been appointments unless a character decides to hold an election (usually replaced by duels anyway). Makes it really simple. Coria, as a Republic, has the "problem" that appointments are usually done under special circumstances.

[egamma]

When I was PM of D'Hara, I appointed myself duke of a region while the election for Margrave was going on. The noble running for Margrave thought I had bypassed the election process, forgetting that they were two separate positions. I took a lot of heat for that, and had several protests, and the noble saying "I do not recognize you as my liege."

[Indirik]

Well, Margrave is just a title that is given to the lord of a certain subset of region types. This includes cities, strongholds, and townslands. I imagine there was no problem over elections for lords of townslands, just for a city. Yes, it's semantics, but an important distinction. Make sure that when you define your realm's policies, you account for that, otherwise an enterprising duke in a realm that permits appointing Margraves may decide that he wants to appoint his townsland lords as well, even though the people that wrote the law only considered city lords as appointable.

Anyway... Darka appoints everything, as does Eponllyn, Sint, and Astrum. The only realm I am in that elects is Sorraine on FEI. Even though it is a theocracy, we elect lords. So far, we have not run into any situation where we have had a free duchy/margrave position available. (The realm is still fairly young.)

[Indirik]

...I appointed myself duke of a region while the election for Margrave was going on.

I assume you mean that you appointed yourself as "duke of the duchy".

[Chenier]

I assume you mean that you appointed yourself as "duke of the duchy".

Duchy of the same name as the region.

[Blue Star]

Interesting. ;D

To be honest the position should be separated as Tom had planned to do so. I think the thread is a page or so back maybe or here or on helpline.

Yet, I don't believe their are enough nobles in many realms and the old manner of thinking is still set in stone. I have nothing against it. I just don't see it coming into play in the majority of realms. Then again I could always be wrong. However, I have heard very little on the manner beside rulers getting less income because of the division of labor that would take place.

Another apple dropped from a tree, grab it before the squirrel does!

[Chenier]

While exceptional situations can justify it, it just feels wrong to have a lord of a rural boss around the lord of a city. The latter has a lot more wealth and power.

[egamma]

While exceptional situations can justify it, it just feels wrong to have a lord of a rural boss around the lord of a city. The latter has a lot more wealth and power.

But it is not the lord of a rural bossing around the lord of the city. It is the duke of the entire duchy, who commands all its lands, rural and city both.

[Chenier]

But it is not the lord of a rural bossing around the lord of the city. It is the duke of the entire duchy, who commands all its lands, rural and city both.

Yes.

That doesn't make him any wealthier than the lord of the city, unless his city is pretty damn big. And this wealth, along with some other perks, give him lots of power the rural duke will lack.

[egamma]

Yes.

That doesn't make him any wealthier than the lord of the city, unless his city is pretty damn big. And this wealth, along with some other perks, give him lots of power the rural duke will lack.

Unless the rural lord raises ducal taxes to 50%, in which case his income is quite a bit higher than the city lords.

[Chenier]

Unless the rural lord raises ducal taxes to 50%, in which case his income is quite a bit higher than the city lords.

In which case the city lord just swears allegiance to a less greedy duke.

[Bedwyr]

Yes.

That doesn't make him any wealthier than the lord of the city, unless his city is pretty damn big. And this wealth, along with some other perks, give him lots of power the rural duke will lack.

As opposed to the King who usually has no lands at all?

[Velax]

I wouldn't have minded separating more Duke and Margrave positions in Arcaea were the opportunity to present itself. To reward some more nobles with positions and so on. The issue is that by doing so, I cripple my own income. So it's a pretty big incentive for me to keep the positions together.