Players hoarding positions - untouchable Dukes etc.

[PolarRaven]

Title:Removing title holders that do not live up to their duties in their realm.

Summary:Often players obtain a position and then "sit back" to enjoy the position while not living up to their responsibilities.
We have had many discussions of Dukes hoarding gold and doing nothing to further the cause of their realm mates.  Currently there is no direct way to remove a Duke who does not live up to their obligations.  Wounding and prison stays, that last long enough, will remove a Duke from their position, but often the Dukes that do not fulfill their obligations will sit in a city and avoid situations where they may be wounded or captured, further avoiding their obligations. 

Details:I propose that there be an option given to the Ruler and/or the Council members of a realm that would allow them to remove ANY noble from ANY position.  (ruler alone, or vote within the Council)  Any position that can be elected or appointed to.

Benefits:More accountability for those that take government/lordship positions.  If you take the position, be prepared to do what is required to keep it.  Also gives a more dynamic relationship with all the nobles in the realm.
Will allow for positions to change without need of wounding (allows for rework of how wounds system works) or capture/prison. 

Possible Downsides/Exploits:I believe that there is lots of room for exploiting this feature _in the short-term_.  That said, I believe that this also allows for dealing with any exploiting.  Ruler and/or Council are positions that can be protested out of office, they are accountable.  If they start abusing this feature, the nobles can protest them out of office (longer-term).  Titans are available as well for abusers.

[Gildre]

I think the current Gov system is pretty good. You need to evaluate who you are putting into those positions, make sure they are good to go, and then actually work with them. While an appoint and fire system would be more realistic, I think it would make the game more boring and prone to overbearing tyranny.

What I think would be a good thing for this scenario would be a protest option for Dukes. If they suck and sit hoarding gold, protest them out, like any other major position. They are really only second in power to the Ruler, and about equal to the Judge. They should have the same protest options.

[Zakky]

I think the current Gov system is pretty good. You need to evaluate who you are putting into those positions, make sure they are good to go, and then actually work with them. While an appoint and fire system would be more realistic, I think it would make the game more boring and prone to overbearing tyranny.

What I think would be a good thing for this scenario would be a protest option for Dukes. If they suck and sit hoarding gold, protest them out, like any other major position. They are really only second in power to the Ruler, and about equal to the Judge. They should have the same protest options.

I am actually against this. Most dukes are appointed by the ruler. They are not elected unless you are from a republic or a democracy. Maybe in rep and dem, they should have an option to be protested out. Then again, we have really outdated gov system that should really become unique and updated...

[Gildre]

My point was there should be some way to remove them in some sort of capacity, since the position has a long history of being held onto and hoarded over.

[Zakky]

My point was there should be some way to remove them in some sort of capacity, since the position has a long history of being held onto and hoarded over.

Rulers can now remove regions. If you are willing to bleed a bit, you can literally take out a whole duchy.

[Gildre]

Hm. That is a fair point.

[pcw27]

Are dukes not subject to bans?

[Tourmaline]

Are dukes not subject to bans?

They are, but then you risk the duke flipping the duchy, and dukes usually have a city as well that would be risked.