Council Power

[De-Legro]

Name a classical monarchy, tyranny, or republic where the ruler does not have the right/ability to remove cabinet-level members of the government.  Even in modern republics this is a standard thing.  Pretty sure in modern monarchies most monarchs have the right as well, even if it's not practiced (due to possible protests against -them-). 

The ruler should not have to call on the general membership to protest a person out of a position.  The person could do an adequate enough job, but the purpose of a cabinet/council is historically to be a trusted group of advisers.  i.e. a privy council.

Indeed, In Australia the Governor General, who is the Queens Representative has the power to dissolve the government, or more accurately dismiss the Prime Minister. It has happened only once in our history. In fact when you read their full powers they can appoint the Prime Minister as well, but by tradition they just give the position to the leader of the party that has the lower house majority.

[fodder]

yeah well only thing is as said before. rulers are not just rulers.. they are also dukes, etc... which they aren't in the game.

they solve problems with armies, which they can't in the game.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Haha, anti-rebellion. The opposite of a rebellion: Only this time it's the ruler taking his army and curbstomping any who oppose him.

Not gonna happen for real though. That would probably lead to a whole ton of bigger problems.

[fodder]

well it's easy enough to happen when the ruler is a duke.. so in essence it's a duke who go around stomping other dukes/counts.. just as it can be a bunch of counts who whack a duke.

[Chenier]

Name a classical monarchy, tyranny, or republic where the ruler does not have the right/ability to remove cabinet-level members of the government.  Even in modern republics this is a standard thing.  Pretty sure in modern monarchies most monarchs have the right as well, even if it's not practiced (due to possible protests against -them-). 

The ruler should not have to call on the general membership to protest a person out of a position.  The person could do an adequate enough job, but the purpose of a cabinet/council is historically to be a trusted group of advisers.  i.e. a privy council.

In monarchies, the default title for the judge is Arch Priest. In ancient times, whenever the arch priest and the king were not the same person, the arch priest had the power to appoint the ruler (or crown him, otherwise) and was otherwise untouchable by the king. As for modern republics, supreme court judges are usually completely protected by law from the government in power.

I know I personally RPed along these lines as Arch Priest of Fwuvoghor, was loads of fun. Independent judges in conflicted realms are awesome, if you ask me.

Imo, the best way to deal with this was if the council powers were actually used, so that a weak ruler could not dismiss a strong judge, but where a strong ruler could dismiss a weak judge. As long as council powers are only modifiable following rebellions or anarchy.

[Carna]

The old Pian en Luries on Dwilight was a great way to look at this question, as there each member of the Realm Council was clearly a powerful and self-interested character (I mean that as a compliment :)) It actually led to a weird sort of balance where no one was really eager for a rebellion. Ultimately though, the answer is simple enough.

If you include Dukes, as members of any Realm Council, it goes to them. Once you're in place, you're untouchable. A good portion of the realm is loyal to you. You have the ability to leave the realm and join another, or start your own. You rake in the gold (and can rake in more through inventive use of the Duchy tax system) while never having to face reelection, or if you do, having the best recognized claim.

After that, it goes to the Rulers. The biggest part of that is appointments, not just to Imperial Regions and Cities, but to Realm Council positions for life, if the Ruler so chooses. Easy answers, if you ask me.

Finton.

[Vellos]

Name a classical monarchy, tyranny, or republic where the ruler does not have the right/ability to remove cabinet-level members of the government.  Even in modern republics this is a standard thing.  Pretty sure in modern monarchies most monarchs have the right as well, even if it's not practiced (due to possible protests against -them-). 

The ruler should not have to call on the general membership to protest a person out of a position.  The person could do an adequate enough job, but the purpose of a cabinet/council is historically to be a trusted group of advisers.  i.e. a privy council.

England.

Note the propensity for controversial assassinations of high ecclesiastical authorities. Easier to kill than to remove in some cases.

[Munro]

England.

Note the propensity for controversial assassinations of high ecclesiastical authorities. Easier to kill than to remove in some cases.

Actually, as far as I am aware the monarchy can indeed dissolve parliament, which is in effect the equivalent of the councils in BM.  Although it is currently debated whether she could do so legally without the permission of Parliament.

[Iltaran]

yeah well only thing is as said before. rulers are not just rulers.. they are also dukes, etc... which they aren't in the game.

If we wanted to make monarchies function more like the historical examples (England and France in particular), that'd actually be the best way imo. Have the King also be Duke of the Capital.

[Carna]

If we wanted to make monarchies function more like the historical examples (England and France in particular), that'd actually be the best way imo. Have the King also be Duke of the Capital.

I agree. Put those two together and you have the security to face down opposition and actually lead your country as a true monarch, rather than a figurehead or Ambassador with a nicer title. It is being done too, in some realms, but I do feel that it would be better were it a more common trend.

Finton.

[Chenier]

I agree. Put those two together and you have the security to face down opposition and actually lead your country as a true monarch, rather than a figurehead or Ambassador with a nicer title. It is being done too, in some realms, but I do feel that it would be better were it a more common trend.

Finton.

If I can pull it off in a republic, then people just aren't trying hard enough! ;)

[Bedwyr]

And then we run up against the issue of wanting more positions available for people who don't already have positions.  That's an old, old fight and I've argued the issue from both sides at various times.  I still think the best solutions are to:

1. Actually implement some way for Ruler/Council to impose taxes on cities.
2. Bring back auto-bans (or grant the Judge some way to impose a ban in some period afterwards) for those who defect with regions.

That second one is totally going to screw up some plans of mine, but I still think it's necessary.  Committing high-treason with no possibility of actually getting banned is bull!@#$.  Ruler/Council gets a lot more power if those Dukes are courting death or deportation when they secede or defect.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I can think of a really strange idea about secessions. You know how control actually refers to realm control? Well, so long as the control is Main or above, that technically means the realm has a fairly strong leash on the region. I'd say don't let a duke secede while control over his city is at Main or above. Add to that the ability for taxes on the city.

So how to balance these? Let those council-imposed taxes decrease realm control slightly for every day they are in effect, with the control lowering effects scaling with the tax rate imposed. This means evil tyrants can't keep dukes imprisoned within their own city unless they seriously dedicate a lot of police and the judge keeps holding harsh courts there. Even then it's not guaranteed to keep the region at above Main. On the flipside, this would mean that the duke needs to consider more the trade-off. Is it really that bad in the realm that they should sacrifice some stability in order to sever with the parent realm? Are they really that intent on being their own realm as opposed to keeping their current position?

I'd say that the stats penalty after secession would still apply, such that a recently seceded city would be at around Occupied control immediately after secession, meaning you better hold courts and do police work. It shouldn't be that easy to pull off. You should have a good plan post-secession. As of now, for some duchies, it's all too easy just to click the link and let your new realm sort it out on its own with estate coverage.

[De-Legro]

I can think of a really strange idea about secessions. You know how control actually refers to realm control? Well, so long as the control is Main or above, that technically means the realm has a fairly strong leash on the region. I'd say don't let a duke secede while control over his city is at Main or above. Add to that the ability for taxes on the city.

So how to balance these? Let those council-imposed taxes decrease realm control slightly for every day they are in effect, with the control lowering effects scaling with the tax rate imposed. This means evil tyrants can't keep dukes imprisoned within their own city unless they seriously dedicate a lot of police and the judge keeps holding harsh courts there. Even then it's not guaranteed to keep the region at above Main. On the flipside, this would mean that the duke needs to consider more the trade-off. Is it really that bad in the realm that they should sacrifice some stability in order to sever with the parent realm? Are they really that intent on being their own realm as opposed to keeping their current position?

I'd say that the stats penalty after secession would still apply, such that a recently seceded city would be at around Occupied control immediately after secession, meaning you better hold courts and do police work. It shouldn't be that easy to pull off. You should have a good plan post-secession. As of now, for some duchies, it's all too easy just to click the link and let your new realm sort it out on its own with estate coverage.

My only thought here is that the realm control in the mind of the minor nobility and peasants is represented in the person of the Duke/Duchess. They owe their loyality to the realm via their liege and not a direct oath to the realm itself.

[Perth]

I haven't kept up with this topic much, but skimming some of the posts...

Why are we looking for a way to discourage secessions, rebellions, etc.?

It isn't like they are all that common, and successful ones are even more rare. Personally, I think we need more of them, not less. People already complain enough about entrenched council members in positions and realms that hardly ever change. I don't think we need to do anything to make changes to these structures (new realms via secession, change in leadership via rebellions, etc.) more difficult.