Easy thing to code - does it make sense?
If you change to a realm your current realm is at war with, you receive an autoban as a traitor in the realm you left
I used to be an automatic ban just for leaving the realm, no matter who to.
I personally never really agreed with the change.
Yes, I think something like that would be useful. We can later refine it, but for war and hatred - definitely.
Who should this apply to?
Imagine a lowly knight who finds himself in the old capital at the moment of a secession he was not aware of. He is forced into a battle, gets captured, gets executed, all before he can even log in.
Now, if this applied to the region Lord or Duke only, then that character know what's coming and can prepare accordingly.
I remember reading somewhere that you can only get killed if you put yourself in a dangerous situation, such as entering an enemy realm while banned, and that no one should be able to kill you if you don't knowingly put yourself in this situation. I think this is a good principle that should be taken into account.
Personally, I don't believe it should apply to Knights following their Lord changing allegiance. In that case, isn't the Knight simply upholding his Oath to his Liege? That is no true offence. The only offence is the Lord changing Allegiances to the enemy and thereby betraying his Oath to his Duke, the Knights honouring their Oath are not at fault.
Same with Dukes. Dukes should be banned for betraying their Oath to their Ruler, Lords and Knights that follow their Liege shouldn't.
Obviously, auto-bans would affect the one who actually does the switch. Everyone switching with him is not a traitor but an honorable man following his oaths.
Quote from: Telrunya on October 05, 2011, 03:19:40 PM
Personally, I don't believe it should apply to Knights following their Lord changing allegiance. In that case, isn't the Knight simply upholding his Oath to his Liege? That is no true offence. The only offence is the Lord changing Allegiances to the enemy and thereby betraying his Oath to his Duke, the Knights honouring their Oath are not at fault.
Same with Dukes. Dukes should be banned for betraying their Oath to their Ruler, Lords and Knights that follow their Liege shouldn't.
Like secessions work, in other words. The one responsible gets a ban, not the others.
Quote from: Tom on October 05, 2011, 03:22:35 PM
Obviously, auto-bans would affect the one who actually does the switch. Everyone switching with him is not a traitor but an honorable man following his oaths.
Indeed. Best punish the ones taking the decisions, not their vassals. So if a knight switches by himself, then it's a ban.
Bans are easy to lift, but few occasions allow to give them. As such, I'd personally tend towards banning nobles who switch to neutral realms as well. After all, secessions start out as neutral, so if someone quickly joins a seceded duchy despite not having been part of it, he should be banned.
I would be against banning for joining a neutral. There is no implied hostility there that would warrant a banishment.
Also, secessions are not automatically hostile, either. So thus not warranting an autoban.
Quote from: Indirik on October 05, 2011, 05:55:06 PM
I would be against banning for joining a neutral. There is no implied hostility there that would warrant a banishment.
Also, secessions are not automatically hostile, either. So thus not warranting an autoban.
Secessions *do* have autobans right now, and rightfully so.
As I said, bans are easy to remove. If you did so in a friendly way, you will have your ban removed. I did.
Hostility or not, it's still treason, and should be up to the realm you abandon whether it's forgiven or not.
Quote from: Indirik on October 05, 2011, 05:55:06 PM
I would be against banning for joining a neutral. There is no implied hostility there that would warrant a banishment.
Also, secessions are not automatically hostile, either. So thus not warranting an autoban.
Who cares for hostility?
You're breaking your oath.
Also: it's trivial for the Judge to remove a ban on someone who left and was autobanned.
It is
impossible to ban someone who has left your realm.
Quote from: Anaris on October 05, 2011, 06:00:23 PMWho cares for hostility?
You're breaking your oath.
Can you guarantee that? Maybe you have your liege lord's permission. Maybe the terms of your oath to your lord have been fulfilled, and the oath is no longer binding. Autobans fail to account for all kinds of things like that.
But if you're going to claim that any allegiance change to another realm is breaking your oath and deserving of a ban, then you have to extend that to all realm allegiance changes.
Quote from: Indirik on October 05, 2011, 06:03:25 PM
Can you guarantee that? Maybe you have your liege lord's permission. Maybe the terms of your oath to your lord have been fulfilled, and the oath is no longer binding. Autobans fail to account for all kinds of things like that.
But if you're going to claim that any allegiance change to another realm is breaking your oath and deserving of a ban, then you have to extend that to all realm allegiance changes.
If you're saying "changing your oath within the realm should get a ban," that doesn't make sense. There is currently no region-ban or duchy-ban, and the oath
to the realm has not yet been broken.
But if you're saying "changing to another realm should always get a ban", I'm OK with that.
The game
cannot figure out what kinds of RP oaths people make with each other.
The game
cannot know whether a secession is friendly.
The game
cannot, in general, know what the players are thinking, and therefore must make certain assumptions.
The players, on the other hand, can both know what they are thinking and take actions to compensate for inflexible game assumptions.
One of those actions is lifting autobans.
Thus, I submit that autobanning in
every case is significantly better than autobanning in
no cases.
I would, however,
prefer autobans only if the realm being joined is at neutral or lower relations—possibly peaceful relations too, not sure about that.
Quote from: Anaris on October 05, 2011, 06:34:53 PMBut if you're saying "changing to another realm should always get a ban", I'm OK with that.
The game cannot figure out what kinds of RP oaths people make with each other.
The game cannot know whether a secession is friendly.
The game cannot, in general, know what the players are thinking, and therefore must make certain assumptions.
That was exactly my point. The game cannot know the exact circumstances behind someone changing allegiance. And do we really want to start banning people because they *might* have done something?
QuoteThe players, on the other hand, can both know what they are thinking and take actions to compensate for inflexible game assumptions.
One of those actions is lifting autobans.
Thus, I submit that autobanning in every case is significantly better than autobanning in no cases.
Why were they removed in the first place?
QuoteI would, however, prefer autobans only if the realm being joined is at neutral or lower relations—possibly peaceful relations too, not sure about that.
If it's the fact that you're
possibly betraying your oath, then what do realm relations have to do with it? Is it somehow not possibly betraying your oath if you leave to go to an allied realm? Seems to me that so far as honor is concerned, you're betraying your oath regardless of the diplomatic status of the two realms involved.
I agree. Even switching to an allied Realm could be considered betrayal. Any switch to a different Realm should be followed by a ban then. The Judge can then always lift the ban in case the Realm takes no offence at this action.
Quote from: Anaris on October 05, 2011, 06:34:53 PM
If you're saying "changing your oath within the realm should get a ban," that doesn't make sense. There is currently no region-ban or duchy-ban, and the oath to the realm has not yet been broken.
but as a lord, you are switching oath from 1 duke to another. that it happens to be a different realm is neither here nor there. your oath is to the duke, not the realm.
though... i imagine the other argument is that you have 2 oaths.. 1 to your lord/duke/king, the other to the king
Quote from: fodder on October 05, 2011, 08:42:07 PM
but as a lord, you are switching oath from 1 duke to another. that it happens to be a different realm is neither here nor there. your oath is to the duke, not the realm.
If there were a region-ban for knights, or a duchy-ban for lords, I would advocate for it to be applied in these cases, too, and leave it up to the lords and dukes whether or not to let those autobans stand.
However, there is no such thing in BattleMaster right now, so there's no way to punish oathbreaking at the sub-realm level.
If you break an oath in such a way that you leave the realm, however, there is something already in place to deal with it: a ban.
If you want to argue that the realm shouldn't care about regions and knights leaving it, you're welcome to try, but I think that ship has sailed.
Bans are on the realm level, therefore it's logical only to have them over realm-level issues. Break your lordly oath? Well then that duke can "ban" you from his duchy if he likes. Won't be via game mechanics.
There's no harm done when an automatic ban is removed. However, to not even have a ban on your most despised traitor is aggravating. It is better to autoban more people and to have those bans lifted by the judged than to autoban nowhere and leave the judges powerless.
Quote from: Anaris on October 05, 2011, 06:34:53 PM
If you're saying "changing your oath within the realm should get a ban," that doesn't make sense. There is currently no region-ban or duchy-ban, and the oath to the realm has not yet been broken.
But if you're saying "changing to another realm should always get a ban", I'm OK with that.
The game cannot figure out what kinds of RP oaths people make with each other.
The game cannot know whether a secession is friendly.
The game cannot, in general, know what the players are thinking, and therefore must make certain assumptions.
The players, on the other hand, can both know what they are thinking and take actions to compensate for inflexible game assumptions.
One of those actions is lifting autobans.
Thus, I submit that autobanning in every case is significantly better than autobanning in no cases.
I would, however, prefer autobans only if the realm being joined is at neutral or lower relations—possibly peaceful relations too, not sure about that.
Instead of a Auto Ban, would it not be possible to code in a special case for these actions, that lets the Judge Ban the oath breaker even once they have left the realm. Say give the Judge 5 days in which to use this feature before the option is removed. Without seeing the code I would guess it would be more work, but I've always disliked Auto Bans, to me they conflict with the decision making process of the Judge.
Quote from: De-Legro on October 06, 2011, 03:57:07 AM
Instead of a Auto Ban, would it not be possible to code in a special case for these actions, that lets the Judge Ban the oath breaker even once they have left the realm. Say give the Judge 5 days in which to use this feature before the option is removed. Without seeing the code I would guess it would be more work, but I've always disliked Auto Bans, to me they conflict with the decision making process of the Judge.
Why? What happens then if the judge position is vacant? If he gets stabbed right after and remains wounded for a week? If it coincides with him going inactive?
There's nothing wrong with removing autobans. I don't see what your issue with them is. If truly you had the realm's blessings, or were on even remotely friendly terms with the judge (and aren't joining an enemy), he'll remove it.
By default, it should be poorly viewed to break your oaths to change allegiance to another sovereign. RP can dictate exceptions, and that's why the judge can remove these bans.
Quote from: Chénier on October 06, 2011, 04:23:40 AM
Why? What happens then if the judge position is vacant? If he gets stabbed right after and remains wounded for a week? If it coincides with him going inactive?
There's nothing wrong with removing autobans. I don't see what your issue with them is. If truly you had the realm's blessings, or were on even remotely friendly terms with the judge (and aren't joining an enemy), he'll remove it.
By default, it should be poorly viewed to break your oaths to change allegiance to another sovereign. RP can dictate exceptions, and that's why the judge can remove these bans.
My problem is this, who is issuing the auto ban, a faceless bureaucrat rather then a actual player character. As for what happens if the Judge cannot act and do his duty, why the same thing as it stands now if they aren't online or are wounded when they want to execute a infiltrator, or ban a Duke while the Duke is wounded to prevent a succession or any of the other situations where being wounded means you just plain MISS OUT.
Quote from: De-Legro on October 06, 2011, 04:36:31 AM
My problem is this, who is issuing the auto ban, a faceless bureaucrat rather then a actual player character.
The ban is de-facto, it's not announced by a bureaucrat or anyone else. If you shoot your governor, you can always ask for a presidential pardon, but otherwise people will not decide whether they want to punish you or not (once guilt is proven). Same applies here. The judge has the authority to grant you pardon, but it's an exception. It doesn't need to be bureaucracy. It's just social norms. If you go back to the lands of the people you ditched, the people might not be nice to you.
Quote from: Chénier on October 06, 2011, 04:43:44 AM
The ban is de-facto, it's not announced by a bureaucrat or anyone else. If you shoot your governor, you can always ask for a presidential pardon, but otherwise people will not decide whether they want to punish you or not (once guilt is proven). Same applies here. The judge has the authority to grant you pardon, but it's an exception. It doesn't need to be bureaucracy. It's just social norms. If you go back to the lands of the people you ditched, the people might not be nice to you.
Then why not auto bans against captured infiltrators and the like? If you shoot your Governor you still need to go through a trial and be convicted by a Jury presided over by a judge you know. They don't just convict you of a crime on the spot even if they caught you just as you committed the offense.
If you are going to have auto bans for one case of "social norms" then be consistent and implement them across the board.
Quote from: De-Legro on October 06, 2011, 04:49:02 AM
Then why not auto bans against captured infiltrators and the like? If you shoot your Governor you still need to go through a trial and be convicted by a Jury presided over by a judge you know. They don't just convict you of a crime on the spot even if they caught you just as you committed the offense.
If you are going to have auto bans for one case of "social norms" then be consistent and implement them across the board.
The difference is that infiltrators are in prison when you can ban them, and are released when you ban them. If they are banned and kicked out of jail as soon as they are captured, then the judge can't steal them or torture them, and that keeps the infil out of action for a very little period of time. If they are banned but not freed upon capture, then that just means you can execute them on the first capture.
Balance reasons, really.
Quote from: Chénier on October 06, 2011, 05:13:03 AM
The difference is that infiltrators are in prison when you can ban them, and are released when you ban them. If they are banned and kicked out of jail as soon as they are captured, then the judge can't steal them or torture them, and that keeps the infil out of action for a very little period of time. If they are banned but not freed upon capture, then that just means you can execute them on the first capture.
Balance reasons, really.
That still doesn't change the fact that in all other cases, the guilt of a character is decided by the Judge BEFORE punishment or verdict is declared, where an Auto Ban reverses that just so people can "ensure" someone is punished, when again no other time in the game, with the exceptions of advies leaving their realm do you get such certainty.
So far the only concrete reason to Auto Ban rather then provide Judges with the option is to ensure that the Ban can't be avoided, so then why provide so many options for Bans to be avoided in other serious cases? Why insist that is this one case of treason the game mechanics should prevent what is possible in so many other cases?
Quote from: De-Legro on October 06, 2011, 05:20:54 AM
That still doesn't change the fact that in all other cases, the guilt of a character is decided by the Judge BEFORE punishment or verdict is declared, where an Auto Ban reverses that just so people can "ensure" someone is punished, when again no other time in the game, with the exceptions of advies leaving their realm do you get such certainty.
So far the only concrete reason to Auto Ban rather then provide Judges with the option is to ensure that the Ban can't be avoided, so then why provide so many options for Bans to be avoided in other serious cases? Why insist that is this one case of treason the game mechanics should prevent what is possible in so many other cases?
...because it's Treason, the one crime that every nation in the history of the world has said is punishable by death? (okay, I don't have any research on that)
Quote from: egamma on October 06, 2011, 05:29:20 AM
...because it's Treason, the one crime that every nation in the history of the world has said is punishable by death? (okay, I don't have any research on that)
Stabbing a ruler is also treason, got a Auto Ban for that? And no treason was not always punished with death, depending on the standing of the noble and their power, life in prison was also an option, and in some cases they were even pardoned.
Stabbing the ruler is only treason if you do it to your own. And those people risk far more than an auto-ban, they risk immediate execution.
Also, a ban isn't a "punishment". It's just a "you aren't welcome here" waiver, which means that if you go against those wishes for you to stay away, nasty things might happen to you.
Keep in mind that we area talking about nobles who already left the realm of their own will, here, who therefore become foreigners. The auto-ban doesn't inflict anything else than the act of leaving the realm does by itself. It just allows for other actions to be taken should you ever be captured in the future.
Quote from: Chénier on October 06, 2011, 06:36:32 AM
Stabbing the ruler is only treason if you do it to your own. And those people risk far more than an auto-ban, they risk immediate execution.
Also, a ban isn't a "punishment". It's just a "you aren't welcome here" waiver, which means that if you go against those wishes for you to stay away, nasty things might happen to you.
Keep in mind that we area talking about nobles who already left the realm of their own will, here, who therefore become foreigners. The auto-ban doesn't inflict anything else than the act of leaving the realm does by itself. It just allows for other actions to be taken should you ever be captured in the future.
Indeed, and if it is so easy for some NPC to issue the writ in this case, why the hell do we have to capture a infiltrator that has been spotted committing crimes dozens of times before someone can sign a piece of paper banning them? They decided to commit those actions of their own free will, and are either traitors or dirty foreigners, why should they enjoy greater protection?
Quote from: De-Legro on October 06, 2011, 06:51:59 AM
Indeed, and if it is so easy for some NPC to issue the writ in this case, why the hell do we have to capture a infiltrator that has been spotted committing crimes dozens of times before someone can sign a piece of paper banning them? They decided to commit those actions of their own free will, and are either traitors or dirty foreigners, why should they enjoy greater protection?
Plausible deniability, in most cases.
In the cases where they actually are identified... Balance. Can't have them banned on the spot, as then they might be stuck behind enemy lines with a ban and high chances of capture, wouldn't be fair. If you could be banned without going in a dungeon first, then the odds of you being both banned and executed for the same act dramatically increase.
In some cases, I'd admit it'd be nice to be able to ban a hated enemy, such as their ruler or their judge. But gameplay demands that this not be possible, or it would too easily be exploitable. Mind you, the option to execute a government member of a realm you declared hatred on, without a ban and at a much higher prestige and honor drop, would be interesting. I believe I've suggested this before.
Quote from: Chénier on October 06, 2011, 07:01:38 AM
Plausible deniability, in most cases.
In the cases where they actually are identified... Balance. Can't have them banned on the spot, as then they might be stuck behind enemy lines with a ban and high chances of capture, wouldn't be fair. If you could be banned without going in a dungeon first, then the odds of you being both banned and executed for the same act dramatically increase.
In some cases, I'd admit it'd be nice to be able to ban a hated enemy, such as their ruler or their judge. But gameplay demands that this not be possible, or it would too easily be exploitable. Mind you, the option to execute a government member of a realm you declared hatred on, without a ban and at a much higher prestige and honor drop, would be interesting. I believe I've suggested this before.
Only if the ban took instant effect, which currently is only the case with bans administered from prison. It is completely possible to treat banning an enemy infiltrator the same as banning one of your own nobles and grant a 3 day grace, and to be honest, there is nothing unfair about a infiltrator getting banned behind enemy lines at all, it is a risky class, it would just be an added risk.
Quote from: Chénier on October 06, 2011, 04:23:40 AM
Why? What happens then if the judge position is vacant? If he gets stabbed right after and remains wounded for a week? If it coincides with him going inactive?
I see nothing wrong with a Duke paying for the Judge's stabbing prior to his secession to avoid these kind of problems and make his secession easier. That's shrewd thinking.
As for inactivity.... it will always happen, and it should not matter. Think of the character, not of the player.
I have no issues with giving the judge a 3-day option to ban; I suggested "auto ban" because it is how it happens to advies so the code already exists, and I didn't think there would be any real issues with it.
as for the other arguments, I think you are mixing up game mechanics with IG reality too much. The bans that can be levied against "criminals" is set up that way to provide some balance in the game.
if you prefer a 3-day max period so the defector has a chance to plot some scheme to avoid the ban, I'm all for it.
Quote from: De-Legro on October 06, 2011, 03:57:07 AM
Instead of a Auto Ban, would it not be possible to code in a special case for these actions, that lets the Judge Ban the oath breaker even once they have left the realm. Say give the Judge 5 days in which to use this feature before the option is removed. Without seeing the code I would guess it would be more work, but I've always disliked Auto Bans, to me they conflict with the decision making process of the Judge.
Certainly, it would be possible.
But the autoban code is already in place, and I can't see any compelling reason to go to the extra work of doing what you suggest at this point when it would, in practical terms, provide exactly the same thing.
I actually think we need to consider the player level too for these things. For as we know, not all realms were born equal. I remember it being a real hassle before when autobans were given to anyone leaving except if it was to an allied realm.
For if you join another realm, then you risk getting executed later and the only reason you might have left is because you as the player thought the first realm was boring.
The character himself wouldn't have left but the fun of the game must take precedence sometimes.
Quote from: Kain on October 06, 2011, 01:59:28 PM
For if you join another realm, then you risk getting executed later and the only reason you might have left is because you as the player thought the first realm was boring.
I thought about that part, but leaving your realm does not equal leaving your realm to go to the enemy. plenty of options if your realm is boring
Quote from: Jens Namtrah on October 06, 2011, 02:26:36 PM
I thought about that part, but leaving your realm does not equal leaving your realm to go to the enemy. plenty of options if your realm is boring
No that is true, and it makes it okey with autoban if you go to an enemy realm, but I rather not have it like before where you got it for neutral and peace aswell.
Quote from: De-Legro on October 06, 2011, 07:14:30 AM
Only if the ban took instant effect, which currently is only the case with bans administered from prison. It is completely possible to treat banning an enemy infiltrator the same as banning one of your own nobles and grant a 3 day grace, and to be honest, there is nothing unfair about a infiltrator getting banned behind enemy lines at all, it is a risky class, it would just be an added risk.
An extremely important risk. Because even if that ban takes 3 days to take effect, what happens if you get captured on the next day? 2 days later, you are banned and still in their dungeons. Execution is therefore possible.
Quote from: vonGenf on October 06, 2011, 08:54:39 AM
I see nothing wrong with a Duke paying for the Judge's stabbing prior to his secession to avoid these kind of problems and make his secession easier. That's shrewd thinking.
As for inactivity.... it will always happen, and it should not matter. Think of the character, not of the player.
It should indeed not matter: he should be banned regardless. Nothing is stopping the duke from bribing the judge to remove the ban afterwards.
Quote from: Anaris on October 06, 2011, 01:14:02 PM
Certainly, it would be possible.
But the autoban code is already in place, and I can't see any compelling reason to go to the extra work of doing what you suggest at this point when it would, in practical terms, provide exactly the same thing.
Especially since, by the time they switch allegiance, they will already be in safe territory. The 3 days grace for when you ban someone in your realm is to allow that person to escape immediate capture, the way I see it.
Quote from: Kain on October 06, 2011, 03:24:35 PM
No that is true, and it makes it okey with autoban if you go to an enemy realm, but I rather not have it like before where you got it for neutral and peace aswell.
Why not? I certainly didn't let that stop me when I was new to the game. I got a ton of bans and changed realms a ton of times until I got comfortable anywhere. Odds are, if you didn't piss everyone off, the worse you face if you get captured in battle two years later by that same realm is deportation. Executions cost a lot of h/p, judges typically only do them if you've deserved it.
Quote from: Chénier on October 06, 2011, 06:50:54 PM
It should indeed not matter: he should be banned regardless. Nothing is stopping the duke from bribing the judge to remove the ban afterwards.
What I meant is that there are plenty of things in the game that require the Judge to press a button. He may not be pressing it because he truly doesn't want to, because he's lazy, or because he's inactive. It doesn't matter.
Or would you also want an auto-execute code for banned prisoners, just in case the Judge happen to be inactive?
Would it be better to give the Judge the ability to ban anyone at anytime, but just make it so he has to push a button first? It's the only way to be truly fair. And realistic in regards to arch-traitors who truly hurt the realm but manage to escape being banished by the Judge due to poor mechanics.
Or would you rather stick with the auto-ban idea? :)
Quote from: vonGenf on October 06, 2011, 08:31:35 PM
Or would you also want an auto-execute code for banned prisoners, just in case the Judge happen to be inactive?
It's not the same thing at all. If you miss an opportunity to execute someone, you will still be able to execute him next time he get captured.
However, if you miss your opportunity to ban someone, you will *never* get that opportunity again unless he does illegal things in your realm and gets caught because of it.
Quote from: Chénier on October 07, 2011, 01:12:58 AM
It's not the same thing at all. If you miss an opportunity to execute someone, you will still be able to execute him next time he get captured.
However, if you miss your opportunity to ban someone, you will *never* get that opportunity again unless he does illegal things in your realm and gets caught because of it.
So all banable offenses need to be reworked for auto banning then. Cause it would totally suck if you missed the chance to ban that infiltrator, and then they changed class. Yeah missing the chance to ban someone would totally ruin everything.
Quote from: De-Legro on October 07, 2011, 02:06:07 AM
So all banable offenses need to be reworked for auto banning then. Cause it would totally suck if you missed the chance to ban that infiltrator, and then they changed class. Yeah missing the chance to ban someone would totally ruin everything.
Uhm, no. The amount of damage caused by an infiltrator is nowhere near comparable to the damage that a duke can do by switching allegiance to the enemy. If he stops being an infiltrator, then who cares, as the point of being able to ban him is so that he can't continue operating in your lands forever without limit. If he continues being one, then you'll get a chance next time he gets captured.
The system, when autobans were present, was perfectly balanced imo.
Personally, I'd prefer a system where the judge was given an option to place the ban within, say, a two or three day window, rather than for the ban itself to be automatic. Put the onus on the players to take action, rather than allow the players to sit back idly and let the game do it for them. An autoban by a faceless bureaucrat does not provide any option for interaction or personal choice. Having the judge actually place the ban puts a personal name on that ban. And having a judge refuse to place the ban forces the judge to step up and weather the storm.
And if there happens to be no judge during that time, or the judge is wounded? Too bad for you. Just like it's too bad for you if your judge is wounded and that infil escapes before he can be banned/executed. Deal with it and move on.
If autobans are put back in, I'd think they would be appropriate only for war/hatred relations. If they get expanded any farther, it should be all the way, for every realm change.
Quote from: Chénier on October 06, 2011, 06:50:54 PM
Why not? I certainly didn't let that stop me when I was new to the game. I got a ton of bans and changed realms a ton of times until I got comfortable anywhere. Odds are, if you didn't piss everyone off, the worse you face if you get captured in battle two years later by that same realm is deportation. Executions cost a lot of h/p, judges typically only do them if you've deserved it.
I hate to break it to you Chenier but not everyone reasons like you do ;) I personally thought bans were awful so when I didn't like it somewhere I deleted the chars or emmigrated to another island. I see on my family history that it took me 7 months before I actually changed realms within the same island, and I believe I wasn't autobanned then because I went to an ally.
If you're new and you hear you can die after you've been banned, I think you'll do well to shy away from it. I would call it rational anyway.
Then as you become experienced, you learn how things work and you learn which rules to bend or break.
Quote from: Kain on October 07, 2011, 02:54:52 PM
I hate to break it to you Chenier but not everyone reasons like you do ;) I personally thought bans were awful so when I didn't like it somewhere I deleted the chars or emmigrated to another island. I see on my family history that it took me 7 months before I actually changed realms within the same island, and I believe I wasn't autobanned then because I went to an ally.
If you're new and you hear you can die after you've been banned, I think you'll do well to shy away from it. I would call it rational anyway.
Then as you become experienced, you learn how things work and you learn which rules to bend or break.
My logic was always "well, I just won't go back to these lands then, good riddance!" 8)