Manual Government Change - Terran

[Gustav Kuriga]

Still a crock of bull!@#$ in my opinion. We now know that the Church supports putting realms into Anarchy, a very anti-sma action for them to take.

[Anaris]

Still a crock of bull!@#$ in my opinion. We now know that the Church supports putting realms into Anarchy, a very anti-sma action for them to take.

Um...no.

The Church supports rejecting non-theocratic forms of government in favour of Astroist theocracy.

That's perfectly SMA.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Um...no.

The Church supports rejecting non-theocratic forms of government in favour of Astroist theocracy.

That's perfectly SMA.

So anarchy is an acceptable means of this in a realm that is friendly to SA in the first place? So ridding a realm of the rule of nobles over peasants and making them effectively equal makes perfect sense to you?

[Anaris]

So anarchy is an acceptable means of this in a realm that is friendly to SA in the first place? So ridding a realm of the rule of nobles over peasants and making them effectively equal makes perfect sense to you?

Anarchy is the only means of changing the government type anywhere in BattleMaster. (Rebellions that change the government type do it by going through a period of anarchy.)

This is like calling someone un-SMA because they insist on transferring funds to you through a bank rather than handing you gold. Yeah, it's not the way it might work in the real world, but this is a game, and you have to be able to accept that.

Also, where the hell did you get the idea that the  "anarchy" government type means that peasants and nobles are equal? That's just ridiculous.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I've always taken rebellions to be in-fighting between nobles on a massive scale. Meanwhile the government label of Anarchy is when there is no control whatsover, not even a contested rulership. Anything could happen during that. The peasants could form their own government for all we know IC.

[Anaris]

I've always taken rebellions to be in-fighting between nobles on a massive scale. Meanwhile the government label of Anarchy is when there is no control whatsover, not even a contested rulership. Anything could happen during that. The peasants could form their own government for all we know IC.

Rebellion is, indeed, nobles fighting against each other.

However, when a rebellion succeeds without the ruler stepping down, there is a period of anarchy. This is what allows the new ruler to change the government type.

And no, the peasants bloody well cannot form their own government. Any more than a message can be forged. Or a noble can die from an infiltrator attack.

Anarchy is not "no control whatsoever". It's a lack of a cohesive central government. The nobility are still broadly in control of the realm, there just isn't all the usual bureaucratic infrastructure to get things done.

Anyway, like I said, twice now, the only possible way for any player to change government types in BattleMaster is to go through a period of anarchy. So objecting to anarchy as "an acceptable means" of changing a realm to a theocracy is really...not very sensible. Basically, by your logic, no realm on Dwilight should be allowed to voluntarily change their government.

[Gustav Kuriga]

A rebellion really isn't a voluntary change of government... it's being forced to by the new rulers.

[Anaris]

A rebellion really isn't a voluntary change of government... it's being forced to by the new rulers.

Voluntary, as in, the realm or some significant subset of it decides to change the government type. As opposed to some outside group comes in to take over, or the ruler election fails for some unexpected reason.

And, again, by your logic, Sanguis Astroism could not ever support a realm that is not currently a theocracy becoming a theocracy, because that would require a period of anarchy.

[Gustav Kuriga]

It's obvious you and I aren't going to agree on our definitions, so I'm just going to drop it.

[Anaris]

It's obvious you and I aren't going to agree on our definitions, so I'm just going to drop it.

You know, it can be a problem when you are trying to use different definitions for important game terms than the game uses.

[Indirik]

You know, it can be a problem when you are trying to use different definitions for important game terms than the game uses.

+1 on that.

I've seen LOTS of problems when people insist that terms used by the game mean something other than what the game means them to be, or insist on using different terms for things than the game uses. (Doubly confusing when the terms they insist on is actually used by the game somewhere else.) It is essential for the players to understand the terms the game uses, as the game intends them to be used. Expecting the terms to be used in a different way always causes confusion and resentment all around. This may require the players to slightly redefine their own perception of things. This is important to do, though.

"Anarchy" does not, in any way, imply that peasants are equal to nobles. No more than "Democracy" implies that peasants get to vote in elections. Anarchy means the absence of government. By refusing to participate in the government, you remove the government. Hence: anarchy.

The fact that we have a game means that we have to do things in slightly "gamey" ways. No matter how we define the mechanics, they will still be somewhat "gamey" to someone. What we have now is a system that is both easy to use and easy to code, as well as providing some uncertainty and risk in the process. A more detailed system may eventually be implemented, but it's not high on The List.

[Vellos]

Of course they did. If there hadn't been a planned change to theocracy, none of it would have happened.

"Planned" being the operative word.

If this method had failed, it wouldn't have mattered much. Hiresmont would just disband militia and launch a rebellion. He had the nobles available to do it.

[Perth]

"Planned" being the operative word.

If this method had failed, it wouldn't have mattered much. Hiresmont would just disband militia and launch a rebellion. He had the nobles available to do it.

If you had disbanded the militia, we would've had no problem taking the city though.

[Vellos]

If you had disbanded the militia, we would've had no problem taking the city though.

I was already beginning this process before you took Saffalore.