So get the judge's support. Or protest him out of office.
the main idea revolves about this - if you undertook bloody and risky action of rebellion, you should have some more option over ordinary ones.
imagine - after all hardship of rebellion, you have to start all over again by "gaining judge support". why someone who is violent usurper, after he succeeds in his usurpation, needs to beg someone else? "getting someone's support" is close to begging if you do not have anything specific to offer, or threat.
the same way you could seek for judge's support even without rebellion. you are, for instance, some old and respectable noble who "open judge's eyes" by pointing at some evil internal enemies. rebellion by itself should at least make
some difference over ordinary course of events.
So, appointing a new judge is tyrannical, but kicking all the dukes out of office to appoint your lackeys is not tyrannical?
that is my idea only, thought for consideration. i felt if ability of new ruler to reconfirm or dismiss claims would be formal discretion right immediately after rebellion, something like rebellion put all major claims in question and ruler needs to reconfirm them, that would not look so tyrannical.
Land claims and government styles are separate issues. You can question their land claims, if you have the power and influence. Just get the judge to ban them. And if you don't have the influence to have the judge ban them, I don't see any reason why we should give you a button to do it yourself. BattleMaster is not a single player game. It is a social multi-player game. If you want power, you need to work with other players to assemble your "team". Who you can get on this "team", and who you can convince to do what, determines how much power you have. Get the right people and you can do a lot.
for rebellion to succeed, you can hardly be alone, and that short-term button would only serve to provide more dynamics in social issues. if banning is one and the only way to dispute land claims, than we have exactly what you are advocating against - landed lords who do not actually need social interaction to retain their power (almost) forever.
the idea is that rebellion provides means for deeper changes within realm. it carries little logics that knights can summon and overthrow ruler, but to overthrow duke they need to pass so many more steps and hardships that it is almost never seen working with any success.
if it is "carved in stone" that rebellion should not have touch on land claims, than currently rebellion serves very little. Ruler can be protested out more safely and if usurpers have no enough voting power to complete protesting, they would likely not have enough influence to change anything significantly as well.
the only exception would be those who are very influential anyhow, but do not have raw votes for protesting - which lead us back to our dukes, as the only ones who can make rebellion with any significance.
this small deduction leads us to conclusion about some sort of ducal tyranny - they can play any kind of game, noone can play useful game against them. and that really does not contribute to social interaction, which both of us advocate though by different means.
this attempt was imagined to provide some alternative. maybe it is wrong, but in practice i simply do not see other ways that work, too often i only see that overly protected landed lords block all interesting interaction.
