Rejected: Assigning Heirs

[JeVondair]

• Summary: I'd like to see a system where characters can assign heirs to inherit their titles if incapacitated

• Details: My idea is for a new Ruler/Command option, maybe under government rules, where we can select who can assign heirs (Ruler, Duke, Lords, or NONE)

• Benefits: I believe this adds an official RP flavor to the game mechanics, particularly for non-republican realms that don't really do elections. Realms and regions whose rulers go inactive are automatically replaced instead of the drawn out election period, upcoming knights have something to look forward to (or if they are malicious actively work towards), and I like the idea of a game-supported line of succession. Maybe we can even add a generated title for the heir like Heir to Ruler/Country/Duchy/Town, etc. Which would lead me to my next posts about Judges and Ransom (for later :-). Maybe even a tool to use for adventurers, although that might be going too far

• Possible Downsides or Exploits: I can see how placeholders might try to exploit this, and also how "incapacitated might need further definition. Like instead of simply being captured or wounded, it only triggers if the titleholder goes inactive, is banned, or killed.

[Wimpie]

While I'm sure this will add to RP etc, I can't look past the downside of such a system encouraging groups of players to keep control over certain positions, meaning younger knights won't get a chance so easily.

[Constantine]

On the contrary, as of now all appointments are conducted by Kings and Dukes which offers a much stricter control of key positions. If there is a title-inheriting system that goes around those tiny cliques, it will actually make characters not in good graces with the powers that be more likely to get into positions of power.

[JeVondair]

On the contrary, as of now all appointments are conducted by Kings and Dukes which offers a much stricter control of key positions. If there is a title-inheriting system that goes around those tiny cliques, it will actually make characters not in good graces with the powers that be more likely to get into positions of power.

That was my thought, yes. And in traditional medieval society, the matter of heirship and inheritance was of massive importance My hope is that not only will this reinforce the feudal liege/vassal relationship, but also encourage younger knights. This leads me to want to pursue the heir-title system I mentioned, but I'll take what I can get!

[Vita`]

On the contrary, as of now all appointments are conducted by Kings and Dukes which offers a much stricter control of key positions. If there is a title-inheriting system that goes around those tiny cliques, it will actually make characters not in good graces with the powers that be more likely to get into positions of power.

What makes someone not in good graces with the powers that be more likely to get into positions of power by being appointed as one's heir than for someone not in good graces with the powers that be being appointed to a position? It seems much more likely that this would be used to solidify one's power clique even moreso.

[JeVondair]

In regards to powercliques, I am curious to know how the current dynamic would be adversely affected? I mean, if a realm has one, then regardless of the mechanics they will still solidify there power. Any player wishing to rise would have to play the game, be cunning, in order to get trusted enough with positions. Having the option to make an heir, in my mind, only adds a concrete, attainable goal for the incumbent.

[Gabanus family]

In regards to powercliques, I am curious to know how the current dynamic would be adversely affected? I mean, if a realm has one, then regardless of the mechanics they will still solidify there power. Any player wishing to rise would have to play the game, be cunning, in order to get trusted enough with positions. Having the option to make an heir, in my mind, only adds a concrete, attainable goal for the incumbent.

I like the idea of heirs, but there is no need for coding on this part. The reason I'm saying this is that devs have enough other things to do and Luria Nova did show quite well that such a system can work as long as it's honored within realm culture. If it's not, well their heir system wouldn't work anyway if people refuse the system.

In Luria Nova all Kings (Dukes) had an heir, although with the decrease in players this became more difficult to maintain which meant that some Dukes had no heirs anymore as the heirs left or went inactive themselves also.

In Oligarch we're also RP'ing quite heavily about the son of Catherine and Garas which in all rights should be the heir. Whether or not he is accepted depends on the culture (and yeah whether or not we survive I suppose).

But point is, this system you can already put in place pretty much, RP wise and cultural speaking without coding.

[Anaris]

Rejected. Frequently rejected, in fact.

As Vita says, this feature would be vastly too likely to increase concentration of power.

[Constantine]

That doesn't make sense. Right now only two or three people in a realm can appoint nobles to different positions of power. With this feature every person holding a title will be able to choose his own heir. How is this increasing concentration of power? Please explain.

[Anaris]

Because as it is now, if you have a clique that's in power, but another group manages to topple them, the new group will have some chance of putting their own people—which is to say, new people—into positions.

If, on the other hand, we instead let people appoint their own heirs, a) many of them would appoint their own family members (or, if we forbade that, would find someone to swap off with), b) the old clique in a situation like that above would be able to maintain their power even through a coup, as they could ensure that all the positions their people occupied remained within their group essentially forever, and c) in general, it would just be terrible for turnover, especially for positions which are presently elected, as even if you managed to wound, capture, or even kill the "old guard" guy holding the spot, rather than getting to replace him with someone new and fresh, you would be 100% guaranteed that his buddy, also part of the old guard, would be the one to get the position.

[Constantine]

a) many of them would appoint their own family members (or, if we forbade that, would find someone to swap off with),

Um.. Isn't it impossible because of the one character per continent policy? And swapping is punishable as per "no placeholders" rule. Nothing new here.

b) the old clique in a situation like that above would be able to maintain their power even through a coup, as they could ensure that all the positions their people occupied remained within their group essentially forever

If the old clique had all the position of power a coup would be impossible. If they had most of those positions, it's actually good if they get to keep them and remain a counter-balancing power, otherwise you'd essentially swap one clique for another.

c) in general, it would just be terrible for turnover, especially for positions which are presently elected, as even if you managed to wound, capture, or even kill the "old guard" guy holding the spot, rather than getting to replace him with someone new and fresh, you would be 100% guaranteed that his buddy, also part of the old guard, would be the one to get the position.

Firstly, we're talking about positions requiring appointment. Electable positions are.. well, electable. You can't hog them.
Secondly, once again I can't see how this makes it easier for the old guard to maintain control. Why do you keep insinuating that every lord setting his heir will lead to more corruption than only a single Duke making all the decisions? Can't you see this can not be right logically?

[JeVondair]

Rejected. Frequently rejected, in fact.

As Vita says, this feature would be vastly too likely to increase concentration of power.

I did not see this anywhere on the FR list?


Additionally, despite your explanation, i still don't see how diversifying the responsibility actually concentrates power. Could it be that I am reading it wrong? Because in my mind, A duke would only to be able to choose an heir that was beneath him in the hierarchy, for example, as opposed to a King or another duke. A margrave could only appoint a knight of his region, etc. no rotating titles that way.

[Chenier]

While I see risks in this and haven't thought it completely through, there also seems to be potential. Surely, there would be means to enact it so that it dissuades power from concentrating? Perhaps you can't be heir for more than one (similar) thing at a time, and take a hit for ceding it?

For example, realm X has two duchies. King Selfish doesn't really like Duke Rich, but Duke Poor is a staunch ally of his. By extension, Lord Loyal, Duke Poor's vassal, is quite loyal to the king and has been appointed heir of Duke Poor. But something happens! Duke Rich quits the game, or his character dies, or whatever else happens and he loses his duchy. With the current mechanics, King Selfish would just arrange for a few estate switches, at most, and make Lord Loyal the new Duke Rich, bypassing everyone else in the hierarchy and further concentrating power.

But if appointing anyone else than heir Rival would cause a h/p hit (for example) to both King Selfish and Lord Loyal (or one of either, directly or indirectly), then maybe King Selfish would consider accepting Heir Rival to become the next Duke Rich, or maybe Lord Loyal will prefer to pass this duchy opportunity and wait for the next, forcing King Selfish to select from a somewhat less loyal pool.

With something like this, power concentration could potentially be lessened. But the mechanics would need to be properly fleshed out, given how major this change could be.

[Gordy77]

Peoples memories are far too long as it is regarding who held what lands last and whoever they consider to be the traditional owners or holders of lands and titles. Adding lineage would just add more excuses to keep it in your circle of friends and exclude others. Sure there's opportunity for wars between families but this would work better

1. In m&f that tracks families and relationships
2. In its own island maybe
3. Where reigning royals are for Life, then you could have displaced heirs, wars between families etc.

Also you run into problems with only one character per realm. Also the suspension of disbelief when your baby goes to fast track college and comes back a fully fledged Knight ready to take the throne.

[Chenier]

Well new characters can't really run for rulership right away, nor do they have enough h/p for any position (though I don't know what's the max h/p one can start with), so that's mostly an issue with democracies (or any government with monthly elections), and I have a hard time seeing how heirs would make sense for democratically elected titles.

For elected once/appointed titles, though, I have a hard time seeing how it would concentrate power any more. The way I see it, it would help diffuse promotions, as each title would have its own aspirants, instead of the ruling clique having a years old hierachy where newcommers can't aspire to anything significant because people have already been waiting in line for years.