Handing over regions over sea zones

[Anaris]

Wouldn't this be abuse?

More likely, we'll just be forced to orchestrate a peaceful religious takeover of either regions.

Because that's less of an abuse than the aforementioned method...??

[Chenier]

Because that's less of an abuse than the aforementioned method...??

Why wouldn't it be? No false swearing of allegiance. No realm-hopping. I can just claim the region I'm destined to be lord of anyways, via a religion that I intend to be dominant anyways. I could just wait for their troops to leave and do it to the same effect.

If that's abuse, then pretty much all possible uses of the mechanic are abusive. I don't even need to pretend it's anything it's not: the locals love their former lord (me, the elder priest) so much that they accept to put him back into his seat, displacing whoever was there first. It's not like Machiavel cares in any way for whoever's the current lord of the region, either.

[Indirik]

Why wouldn't it be? No false swearing of allegiance. No realm-hopping. I can just claim the region I'm destined to be lord of anyways, via a religion that I intend to be dominant anyways. I could just wait for their troops to leave and do it to the same effect.

Of course it's an abuse. An RTO is a noble causing a religious uprising of a peasant mob to violently overthrow the existing government, and replace it with a government and lord of their choosing. There is nothing "peaceful" about that. It's the equivalent of declaring war on your ally, TOing one of their regions unopposed via prior agreement, then going back to an alliance. The fact that you have to "wait for their troops to leave" should be the big clue that tips you off to this.

[Chenier]

Of course it's an abuse. An RTO is a noble causing a religious uprising of a peasant mob to violently overthrow the existing government, and replace it with a government and lord of their choosing. There is nothing "peaceful" about that. It's the equivalent of declaring war on your ally, TOing one of their regions unopposed via prior agreement, then going back to an alliance. The fact that you have to "wait for their troops to leave" should be the big clue that tips you off to this.

So what if it's potentially violent? He's not the rightful lord, he can't aspire to peacefully lord over the region forever. If he stands in my way to reclaiming my old region back, then he deserves any of the beating that might come his way.

In any case, blocking the handing over of regions peacefully as a ruler, while all of the other means of region transfers remain possible, is just inviting for a whole bunch of questionnable/debatable behavior to take place. Adding a distance limit would be completely reasonnable, though. Giving Paisly to D'Hara or Eidulb to Astrum (should it lose it) should be perfectly fine, and I can understand why we might not want to be able to give Paisly to Morek, for example.

[Penchant]

Of course it's an abuse. An RTO is a noble causing a religious uprising of a peasant mob to violently overthrow the existing government, and replace it with a government and lord of their choosing. There is nothing "peaceful" about that. It's the equivalent of declaring war on your ally, TOing one of their regions unopposed via prior agreement, then going back to an alliance. The fact that you have to "wait for their troops to leave" should be the big clue that tips you off to this.

So in other words, the only way for D'hara to get the region if Terran gets it is for a noble of Terran who doesn't want to join D'hara, must join D'hara by changing allegiance which feels like more of an abuse as its characters going around role play to do something that they should be able to do.

[Penchant]

In any case, blocking the handing over of regions peacefully as a ruler, while all of the other means of region transfers remain possible, is just inviting for a whole bunch of questionnable/debatable behavior to take place. Adding a distance limit would be completely reasonnable, though. Giving Paisly to D'Hara or Eidulb to Astrum (should it lose it) should be perfectly fine, and I can understand why we might not want to be able to give Paisly to Morek, for example.

+1

[Indirik]

So what if it's potentially violent?

This:

More likely, we'll just be forced to orchestrate a peaceful religious takeover of either regions.

You cannot have a "peaceful violent takeover". An auto da fe is a forceful, violent act. It is not, and cannot be, "peaceful". That's like saying you're going to have a "peaceful war".

So in other words, the only way for D'hara to get the region if Terran gets it is for a noble of Terran who doesn't want to join D'hara, must join D'hara by changing allegiance...

Hell if I know. Ask Tom. He's the one that made the system. For my part, if Terran doesn't want to keep the region, they shouldn't TO it. Or they should take it from Provincia de Flor-something to kill the realm, then let it go rogue, and then let D'Hara take it. Or find someone from D'Hara to go to Terran, get appointed lord, and bring it back to D'Hara. RP some oath or other that will let you do that, if you feel it necessary.

[Penchant]

This:You cannot have a "peaceful violent takeover". An auto da fe is a forceful, violent act. It is not, and cannot be, "peaceful". That's like saying you're going to have a "peaceful war".
Hell if I know. Ask Tom. He's the one that made the system. For my part, if Terran doesn't want to keep the region, they shouldn't TO it. Or they should take it from Provincia de Flor-something to kill the realm, then let it go rogue, and then let D'Hara take it. Or find someone from D'Hara to go to Terran, get appointed lord, and bring it back to D'Hara. RP some oath or other that will let you do that, if you feel it necessary.

To clarify, your last idea of sending a D'haran to be appointed after joining Terran with the intent to then have the lord change allegiance is not abuse?

[egamma]

To clarify, your last idea of sending a D'haran to be appointed after joining Terran with the intent to then have the lord change allegiance is not abuse?

It's precisely what I proposed. If you like, the noble joining Terran can say, "I pledge to do my duty to Terran by faithfully returning the region entrusted to me to D'Hara" as his oath, if that makes you all sleep better at night.

[Indirik]

Why would it be abuse? What part of what you are doing does not agree with game mechanics? What are you doing that is contradictory to the intended use of the game function, or a work-around of game mechanics? How does it contradict established RP?

[Penchant]

It's precisely what I proposed. If you like, the noble joining Terran can say, "I pledge to do my duty to Terran by faithfully returning the region entrusted to me to D'Hara" as his oath, if that makes you all sleep better at night.

There a plenty of RP reasons for this situation. It cold be a special ceremony done this way purposefully representing some random role play reason that fits like appreciating Terran's aid in bringing back Paisly to D'hara but a D'haran must finish it or something.

[Chenier]

If it's been considered abuse to switch realms in order to use another's RCs, such as for colonization efforts, then I don't see how switching realms just to switch allegiance back is any better.

This:You cannot have a "peaceful violent takeover". An auto da fe is a forceful, violent act. It is not, and cannot be, "peaceful". That's like saying you're going to have a "peaceful war".

Forceful, but that doesn't mean that everyone needs to intentionally stand in the way. It's not because there is some violence involved that it means it's absolutely bad. Hanging rebels is violent too, but more often than not it doesn't get you banned. If the peasants can recognize the priest as the legitimate lord, why couldn't the nobles?

[egamma]

If it's been considered abuse to switch realms in order to use another's RCs, such as for colonization efforts, then I don't see how switching realms just to switch allegiance back is any better.

I haven't seen that on the rules and policies page, but it does seem like it should be contrary.

There's nothing against doing something one time--for example, before you form a colony, it's fine to stock up on troops at the parent realm's RC's. Joining another realm to return a region to your own seems to be a similar thing.

[Vellos]

So in other words, the only way for D'hara to get the region if Terran gets it is for a noble of Terran who doesn't want to join D'hara, must join D'hara by changing allegiance which feels like more of an abuse as its characters going around role play to do something that they should be able to do.

Tom just said you can't take the region like that– you can't do transfers across the water.

Somebody correct me, but, as I understand it, there is no way for, in this example, D'Hara to expand, except for takeovers? No duchy can up and change allegiance to join them, nor a ruler hand a region over. Correct or incorrect? I don't care for a suppositional response to this either. This should be a simple point of fact.

[egamma]

Tom just said you can't take the region like that– you can't do transfers across the water.

No, that's not what he said. He said that the "give away region" button won't be present for regions that aren't touching, terra firma to terra firma.