Stepping Down from Permanent Position

[Dante Silverfire]

Again: it's not punishment. Honour and prestige aren't "progress points" or in-game currency: they are an in-game representation of two important aspects of reputation. Certain things cause a noble's reputation to suffer. Stepping down from a position of power is one of them.

Based upon this interpretation, shouldn't such an appointment receive an automatic boost in prestige and/or honour? So, if you step down you lose what you gained. If you step down quickly you lose a lot more than you gained. But if you retain the position you've gained honor and prestige.

[Anaris]

Based upon this interpretation, shouldn't such an appointment receive an automatic boost in prestige and/or honour? So, if you step down you lose what you gained. If you step down quickly you lose a lot more than you gained. But if you retain the position you've gained honor and prestige.

That's possible. It certainly makes some sense.

Though it shouldn't be a huge boost.

[Dante Silverfire]

That's possible. It certainly makes some sense.

Though it shouldn't be a huge boost.

I agree.

I am sure that your formula has some sort of point that it levels out to after X amount of time in office, that you'll lose regardless when you step down. Set that as the automatic bonus upon receiving the position. That way if you stay in position for a long time, you have no net loss by stepping down later, but any sort of quick turnover is still a major sign of loss of honor and prestige. This should automatically balance it out.

Of course, any abuse of the situation can still be punished and reported, but I think it would be quite manageable.

[Scarlett]

Stepping down from a position of power is one of them.

No, it isn't.

Certainly the circumstances exist where it might be, but a similar number of circumstances exist where stepping down is the 'honorable' thing to do. The game has no way of knowing, and as a result the mechanism is ham-handed and arbitrary.

Stepping down might be the result of something that cost you honor or prestige, but even if you abdicate because you've been found out doing something embarrassing or illegal, the abdication is an effect of the loss, not the cause.

Neither honor nor prestige actually refer to how honorable or prestigious a character is, as both of those things, while not entirely subjective, are not easily quantifiable - and even if they were, in BM they are more properly a measure of valor, since by far the fastest way of achieving them is to fight in battles.

[Anaris]

No, it isn't.

Certainly the circumstances exist where it might be, but a similar number of circumstances exist where stepping down is the 'honorable' thing to do. The game has no way of knowing, and as a result the mechanism is ham-handed and arbitrary.

First of all, stepping down from a position of power might be due to circumstances that make doing so honourable. However, that doesn't change the fact that before, you're the King of Keplerstan, and after, you're not. That makes you both less well-known and less of a figure of public trust.

Secondly, I don't claim to be a student of medieval history, but the kinds of things you're talking about sound more like fantasy-novel fare than the sorts of things that I suspect to have been common in actual medieval Europe.

As to honour and prestige primarily being a measure of valour—I agree, and would be open to suggestions on how to improve the situation.

In the end, the game can't judge situations, and has to be set up to work one way or another across the board. That means that sometimes, it will be wrong. That is unavoidable. It doesn't mean we shouldn't let it make the decision in this situation or that situation just because you dislike the fact that it will sometimes be wrong.

[Scarlett]

That makes you both less well-known and less of a figure of public trust.

This is neither necessarily true nor necessarily implicating honor or prestige if it did. You don't gain honor or prestige when you become King of Keplerstan, do you? Nope.

Furthermore, your argument would be a better case for 'you shouldn't gain honor or prestige for stepping down even if doing so was honorable or prestigious' because the way it is now, stepping down is actively dishonorable rather than simply 'not additionally honorable.' You can easily lose more this way than from mugging nobles in your dungeon.

but the kinds of things you're talking about sound more like fantasy-novel fare than the sorts of things that I suspect to have been common in actual medieval Europe.

I'm not sure what you mean, but history is not a terrific guide for this issue because you are (quite understandably) trying to approximate some medieval-y metric of Important Stuff but you obviously can't know the context in which these things happen. You do assume, for instance, that stealing gold or torturing a noble in your dungeon is always dishonorable because even if you torture the universe's most dishonorable noble, you still have a pretty good case that that action will always be dishonorable.

I haven't run across many cases for abdication in medieval history, at least not in a manner analogous to BM. It was very common for a noble (particularly a highly ranked noble) to 'step down' from one or more lower titles, either because they'd effectively lost them or because they wanted one of their children to have it - Henry II did this with his three kids but outright abdication of your highest title is not something I can readily summon an example for. You lost titles because you were convicted of a crime or because somebody else took your castle, and even in the later case you'd probably still hang on to the title because you'd assume that you'd re-conquer it.

and has to be set up to work one way or another across the board.

I am not clear on why it has to work at all. If you gave people honor or prestige for assuming a title, I very much understand losing an identical amount when you give up that title, but in that instance the title is more like a unique item: you have it, so your prestige is +3 and it stops being +3 when you stop carrying it.

Especially as the Magistrates are happy to clobber anyone who blatantly abuses game mechanics these days, I am just not sure what you are purchasing with all this except to incentivize people to hang on to titles or else to pause rather than step down.

[Anaris]

This is neither necessarily true nor necessarily implicating honor or prestige if it did. You don't gain honor or prestige when you become King of Keplerstan, do you? Nope.

Did you read what Dante and I were saying? 'Cause I already said I thought you should gain honour and prestige for gaining a position, though no more than you'd lose if you stepped down after a long and illustrious career.

You can easily lose more this way than from mugging nobles in your dungeon.

Nope. Not unless you're stepping down within a very few days after gaining the position.

[Scarlett]

Why not just keep it simple? Treat it like it is a unique item.

Non-city region: +2 honor, +3 Prestige
City region: +2 honor, +5 Prestige
Duke: +4 honor, +7 Prestige
Councillor: +1 Honor, +1 Prestige
Ruler: +5 Honor, +10 Prestige

Step down, you lose 'em. Placeholder nobles get sent to the magistrates already, so are there any other abuses to keep in mind here?

If you want to reward long and illustrious careers (as you do now with fame and rulers, anyway) then give permanent bonuses to honor or prestige if you hold the same title for X number of days where X is pretty high.

[Zakilevo]

Why not just keep it simple? Treat it like it is a unique item.

Non-city region: +2 honor, +3 Prestige
City region: +2 honor, +5 Prestige
Duke: +4 honor, +7 Prestige
Councillor: +1 Honor, +1 Prestige
Ruler: +5 Honor, +10 Prestige

Step down, you lose 'em. Placeholder nobles get sent to the magistrates already, so are there any other abuses to keep in mind here?

If you want to reward long and illustrious careers (as you do now with fame and rulers, anyway) then give permanent bonuses to honor or prestige if you hold the same title for X number of days where X is pretty high.

An interesting idea. I remember something like this in a game called Romance of Three kingdoms. Titles would grant you bonuses ;)

[Alpha]

Why not just keep it simple? Treat it like it is a unique item.

+1

To me, it makes sense that a character would get a boost in prestige for holding a high office. A permanent boost for the first time holding a certain office level, and a temporary boost gained while holding that office.

[Phellan]

+1

To me, it makes sense that a character would get a boost in prestige for holding a high office. A permanent boost for the first time holding a certain office level, and a temporary boost gained while holding that office.

I'm with Alpha on this one, its a good idea with the titles granting bonuses until you lose them.

[Vellos]

I see potential for abuse here. A ruler or duke could appoint a noble to a position such as general or marshal and the noble would have no recourse except to accept the titles or to forsake them at the cost of honour and prestige.

This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Thinking of Ned Stark and the Hand of the King.

[Stabbity]

This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Thinking of Ned Stark and the Hand of the King.

Except in BM, having a position doesn't make you any easier to execute.

Oh you fiend, you arbitrarily appointed me Lord of Casterly Rock! What, a ban? !@#$ this, change realm.