In History almost all Rulers /were/ Dukes/Duchess'. In BM if you want to be a Ruler and /not/ a Duke you absolutely have to have loyal Dukes. I think the position of Ruler used to be more powerful. It was probably nerfed for a reason. Was anyone around way back in the day? Are the reasons for reducing the power of the Ruler still valid today?
But that doesn't work in BM, because the mechanics work against ruler/dukes i.e. Being elected Ruler strips your titles and the ruler can't appoint himself as duke.
I don't think I'm a big fan of these. Especially if it is some kind of checklist where candidates just click checkboxes from a set of pre-generated options. I think game mechanics criteria would lead to gaming the system, where people will do things that don't make sense for their character/realm/situation just to meet some mechanics-based trigger point. I really don't like things that promote that kind of play.
I tend to agree.
1) It would constrain government somewhat
2) The BM playerbase is just not active enough, goals won't make them act necessarily, just piss people off and maybe make people leave the game
Besides we shouldn't be forcing people in hyper-activity. BM is meant to be kind of slow paced.
