From e-mails with Tom:
QuoteHey Tom,
So Terran, on Dwilight, has broken apart into pieces via secession. The realm was formerly a republic.
It has been kept alive by the generosity of Astroist lords and realms. And now, Hireshmont has pretty well purged the non-believers and declared a theocracy, and is getting material aid in this from theocratic realms.
The government system, including titles and laws, are all changing to be a theocracy. The people in power are cycling to be religiously exclusive. Major secessions have pulled all the republicans and non-Astroist out of the realm.
Is there any chance we can get a manual change to theocracy, given the above circumstances?
-Lyman Stone
QuoteAm 02.05.2013 um 20:18 schrieb Lyman Stone:
QuoteIs there any chance we can get a manual change to theocracy, given the above circumstances?
I'm not much in BM at the moment. Can you post that to the forum and ask the dev team (Tim, etc.), please?
----
Dev team, any chance I can get a manual change? It's changed in all but name (prevented by bug 0007729, which I have reported), and no nobles in Terran have expressed any opposition to the changes.
A manual government change would be nice, especially since I can't change the formal name yet due to a bug.
Despite how it sounds, this is not a simple question, with no easy answer. Maunual intervention has always been explicitly against dev policy.
Out of curiosity, why don't you change it yourself? If everyone is onboard, then step down from rulership, let the election fail causing anarchy. Then claim the rulership and reform the government.
Quote from: Indirik on May 03, 2013, 07:15:40 PM
Despite how it sounds, this is not a simple question, with no easy answer. Maunual intervention has always been explicitly against dev policy.
However, there is precedent, as in the case of Arcachon, when it was changed from monarchy to theocracy for RP reasons.
Well, the simple reason is that anarchy already happened.
When 80% of the realm secedes, you're down to three nobles, and you're having periodic starvation, it's anarchy in all but name. I don't see why it should be necessary for me to step down. We've already done the anarchy thing. Plus, if anarchy does happen, the peasants will get pissy, and the last region may revolt, so I can't really step down. But theocracy won't piss of the peasants, who are majority Sanguis Astroism anyways. It's just anarchy that would mess up the peasants.
Plus, my prestige is low-ish after lots of tortures. If I step down, I could be close to the range of being ineligible: which makes no sense, because proclaiming a theocracy should increase Hireshmont's prestige, not decrease it, as it increases his personal sway and power.
In sum, the dynamics of anarchy mean that transition wouldn't be very possible, and, furthermore, would contradict plenty of standing RP.
My understanding of Tom's e-mail (I guess I misread) was that he was suggesting that a dev do it, not so much that it's unclear if it should happen or not.
Quote from: Indirik on May 03, 2013, 07:15:40 PM
Despite how it sounds, this is not a simple question, with no easy answer. Maunual intervention has always been explicitly against dev policy.
Out of curiosity, why don't you change it yourself? If everyone is onboard, then step down from rulership, let the election fail causing anarchy. Then claim the rulership and reform the government.
Seems a little gamey for Dwilight--the dev solution is actually more SMA.
Quote from: Vellos on May 03, 2013, 07:34:38 PM
Well, the simple reason is that anarchy already happened.
And at the time you chose not to change. Having been in Anarchy at some point in the past doesn't give you carte blanche to change at any time in the future.
Quote
When 80% of the realm secedes, you're down to three nobles, and you're having periodic starvation, it's anarchy in all but name.
Names are important (if they weren't, then you wouldn't be here trying to get it switched), and game mechanics trump RP. Since your government state isn't Anarchy at this moment, you don't get to freely swap to a new style. So far, I personally see no compelling reason to change it, simply because it would be more convenient for you.
Quote
I don't see why it should be necessary for me to step down. We've already done the anarchy thing. Plus, if anarchy does happen, the peasants will get pissy, and the last region may revolt, so I can't really step down. But theocracy won't piss of the peasants, who are majority Sanguis Astroism anyways. It's just anarchy that would mess up the peasants.
Plus, my prestige is low-ish after lots of tortures. If I step down, I could be close to the range of being ineligible: which makes no sense, because proclaiming a theocracy should increase Hireshmont's prestige, not decrease it, as it increases his personal sway and power.
Sorry, but I'm still not seeing a compelling reason to do it. All I see is that doing it would be personally inconvenient for you to do it with the completely valid method at your disposal.
Quote
My understanding of Tom's e-mail (I guess I misread) was that he was suggesting that a dev do it, not so much that it's unclear if it should happen or not.
If Tom wanted a dev to do it without debate, he would have said so, or he would have told you to tell Tim to do it, or he would have forward your email to Tim with a "Do it, please" attached.
The game has a long-standing policy of NOT doing this kind of thing. In the more than 7 years that I've been playing, I don't think I've seen more than two name changes, and never a government style change. (Did someone maybe mention that it happened in Arcachon some time in the distant past?) You have the tools to do it yourself, in a completely IC way.
The anarchy requisite can be explained.
The government and realm of Terran does not simply consist of several players. There are, of course, assumed to be petty nobility, merchant houses big and small, influential citizens, guilds, a clergy, lesser bureaucrats and other types not represented by player characters but, still, through their numeracy, in hold of substantial power. Many of those sorts would stand to lose from such a major change in governance, while others would simply be content under the current system and not inclined to dramatic and possibly dangerous changes. These sorts, who would comprise the majority of their kind, would oppose change through determined refusal to co-operate, or even outright rebellion towards a supposed ruler who's all too blunt with his methods. The intricate web of power could prevent a quick and easy theoretical government change from being a remote possibility, so it would obviously need to be upset first. Hence, the need for anarchy.
Quote from: Indirik on May 04, 2013, 03:49:55 AM
And at the time you chose not to change. Having been in Anarchy at some point in the past doesn't give you carte blanche to change at any time in the future.
No, there wasn't game-mechanics anarchy, which isn't anarchy at all. There was actual anarchy. Game-mechanics anarchy is just a little stat hit. What we had was actual anarchy,
So what you're suggesting is that it's BETTER RP for me to have a fake rebellion? That the dev-preferred solution is "friendly rebellion"?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was actually under the impression that such rebellions weren't even allowed, given how obviously abusive they are. The rebellion and anarchy mechanics aren't designed as methods of planned, centralized government change: hence why you can't change government type after a rebellion if the sitting ruler abdicates (or at least you used to not be able to, maybe that's changed)., because you're not supposed to be able to have peaceful rebellions to reform the government.
The government is reformed. The players have all changed. The players in Terran support the theocracy. The church recognizes the theocracy. We are governed theocratically. I really don't see the big deal here with making the change.
A centrally organized-rebellion is a misuse of the rebellion mechanic: that's not a valid tool. Rebellions aren't intended to be tools for sitting governments to change their game-mechanic name.
Quote from: Kwanstein on May 04, 2013, 04:28:07 AM
obviously the issue here is that we need to protect the interests of NPCs against players. That's a major concern.
The major concern is just
represented by the NPCs. Don't eat the menu and don't drive on the map, please.
What these NPCs represent is that a government system is more than the label on the palace entrance. Changing a country from communism to capitalism is messy. From monarchy to democracy, usually bloody. From democracy to dictatorship, often twice as bloody. It's not something that happens in the palace, or even in the capital. It involves not just the government and the nobles, but everyone working for the government, from the ministers down to the lowest clerk.
A government system is a lot more stable than any particular government. A monarchy easily survives a hundred kings, and a democracy can go through a civil war with nobody questioning the democratic principles
per se.
That is what we simulate in the game by simply not having a "change your government system here" button. The government in BM is only reformed after breaking down entirely. Throughout real-world history, that has been the normal case, with the peaceful changes like east germany being the exceptions.
I won't rule out exceptions entirely. But they need to be exceptional and that's why I asked this to be brought to the attention of someone who actually knows what's going on in-game, because I haven't played BM at all for a few months now.
I'm just jealous that you were able to change the official name of Terran. I've been trying to do the same in Phantaria since its inception but I get an error every time. :( (I did file a bug report for it though a while back so I assume it'll be fixed at some point).
Quote from: Vellos on May 05, 2013, 11:05:16 PM
Oh my gosh, you can come up with an imaginary situation to justify a mechanics situation?
I'm so impressed; you should pat yourself on the back! Clearly I was struggling to come up with an RP reason; obviously the issue here is that we need to protect the interests of NPCs against players. That's a major concern.
Aren't you doing the same with trying to justify the state of Terran as reason to get a manual government change? Anarchy is a game mechanic, your realm has not been through it. Terran has had a government this whole time, and thus there has been no anarchy.
Quote from: Vellos on May 05, 2013, 11:05:16 PM
Oh my gosh, you can come up with an imaginary situation to justify a mechanics situation?
I'm so impressed; you should pat yourself on the back! Clearly I was struggling to come up with an RP reason; obviously the issue here is that we need to protect the interests of NPCs against players. That's a major concern.
You are asking to have your government changed on the basis that the alternative (changing it yourself) conflicts with verisimilitude. I am telling you otherwise; that it is actually more justifiable for there to be conditions and consequences for a government change than for it to be done with the wave of a wand, figuratively speaking (or literally, with the click of a button), as the former more accurately represents the weight of such a decision.
Quote from: Vellos on May 05, 2013, 11:03:51 PM
No, there wasn't game-mechanics anarchy, which isn't anarchy at all. There was actual anarchy. Game-mechanics anarchy is just a little stat hit. What we had was actual anarchy,
So you haven't even had the "little stat hit" of official Anarchy in order to satisfy the game mechanics requirements of changing your government?
But just a post or two ago you didn't want to go through anarchy because you were afraid it might be bad enough that your last region would revolt.
So is anarchy "a little stat hit" that is so insignificant as to be irrelevant in the overall scheme of chaos caused by government change, or is it so bad you're afraid of doing it because it might destroy your realm?
Quote
So what you're suggesting is that it's BETTER RP for me to have a fake rebellion?
I never suggested any such thing. If you check, you'll find that I never even used the word "rebellion". You're the one that suggested a fake rebellion. (Which, I agree, is an abuse of the game mechanics.)
What I suggested is that your realm refuses to participate in your failed Republican government. Step down as ruler and don't elect a new one. The government will spiral down in anarchy, and you can reform it. Think of it as proof positive that everyone in your realm agrees that the republic is dead, and that it's time for a change. Do the anarchy thing (after all, it's just "a little stat hit") and change it yourself.
Quote
The government is reformed. The players have all changed. The players in Terran support the theocracy. The church recognizes the theocracy. We are governed theocratically. I really don't see the big deal here with making the change.
So you've RP'd some stuff, and maybe some other players think you did a cool RP. But lo and behold, the game mechanics don't agree with your RP, so you want the devs to change the game mechanics so it matches your RP? I'm sorry, but things just don't work that way. Game mechanics trumps RP, not the other way around.
Niselur got their name change, as did Xinhay/Morek...
I'd really like to hear more about this previous case of manual government change that was mentioned earlier, though...
Quote from: Indirik on May 06, 2013, 12:04:58 AM
So you haven't even had the "little stat hit" of official Anarchy in order to satisfy the game mechanics requirements of changing your government?
But just a post or two ago you didn't want to go through anarchy because you were afraid it might be bad enough that your last region would revolt.
So is anarchy "a little stat hit" that is so insignificant as to be irrelevant in the overall scheme of chaos caused by government change, or is it so bad you're afraid of doing it because it might destroy your realm?
It's a little state hit when you're a stable realm with lots of people and a food supply. It's a big deal when you're teetering on the edge of destruction already. But this is ultimately not very relevant one way or another.
Quote from: Indirik on May 06, 2013, 12:04:58 AM
I never suggested any such thing. If you check, you'll find that I never even used the word "rebellion". You're the one that suggested a fake rebellion. (Which, I agree, is an abuse of the game mechanics.)
True: you suggested abusing anarchy, not rebellion, my mistake. Again, engineer anarchy done by a sitting government is misuse of the feature. And this would mean that one character who wanted to play spoiler, who has no power, could veto the whole realm's interests.
I'm duke, ruler, banker, general, lord of the city and almost only region, and can be judge too if I want it. Titles are changed, laws are simply what Hireshmont declares them to be: how on earth is it reasonable to suggest anarchy should be required? Again, anarchy has pretty well already happened. The anti-theocrats are gone.
Quote from: Indirik on May 06, 2013, 12:04:58 AM
What I suggested is that your realm refuses to participate in your failed Republican government. Step down as ruler and don't elect a new one. The government will spiral down in anarchy, and you can reform it. Think of it as proof positive that everyone in your realm agrees that the republic is dead, and that it's time for a change. Do the anarchy thing (after all, it's just "a little stat hit") and change it yourself.
So you've RP'd some stuff, and maybe some other players think you did a cool RP. But lo and behold, the game mechanics don't agree with your RP, so you want the devs to change the game mechanics so it matches your RP? I'm sorry, but things just don't work that way. Game mechanics trumps RP, not the other way around.
Now you're just being an ass to be an ass.
The devs have already done this for other realms and, guess what, it was fine! It didn't mess anything up! Players liked it! What, you think Niselur should still be called Iashalur too, and Morek Empire called Xinhai? Should Arcachon still be a monarchy?
Sure, mechanics trump RP. And the mechanics say Terran is a theocracy and also not a theocracy. Because the mechanics say that Terran's official name has been changed to Occidental Theocracy of Terran, and Terran's official titles are all indestinguishable from theocracies, and Terran's ruler is a ranking priest. There is one place in the game that still has the word "republic" (well two, if you count the bug that Perth and I have reported and that has yet to be fixed): and I'm asking that it be moved into harmony with the rest of the game mechanics and established RP. This is not unique or new: this has been done before. It's not unreasonable. It's not even, AFAIK, particularly difficult.
You could call the realm Frank's Democratic Tyranny of the Kingdom of Evilstani, and it wouldn't be a Democracy, Tyranny, or a Kingdom. It still says "republic" in the only place that counts, so far as game mechanics counts.
The difficulty has nothing to do with it. There are lots of things that are easy to do, that are not done due to the policy of non-interference in the game, except in dire emergencies. Heck, every time someone loses a region, or a unit, or even a point of honor due to a bug, it's all a matter of seconds to fix it. But we don't. We play through it.
This situation is no different.
I personally don't consider letting the realm go into anarchy to be an abuse. If I did, I wouldn't be suggesting it. It seems to me to ba perfectly legitimate way in which to peacefully change your government style. Just refuse to participate in the government. It collapses, you reform it as something else.
If someone steps in and takes leadership, then obviously not everyone wanted to change. At that point, since he's the government, you can legitimately rebel against him (should be pretty easy to win), and reform however you want. Sounds like no matter what, you win and get your new government.
Quote from: Indirik on May 06, 2013, 03:33:23 AM
You could call the realm Frank's Democratic Tyranny of the Kingdom of Evilstani, and it wouldn't be a Democracy, Tyranny, or a Kingdom. It still says "republic" in the only place that counts, so far as game mechanics counts.
The difficulty has nothing to do with it. There are lots of things that are easy to do, that are not done due to the policy of non-interference in the game, except in dire emergencies. Heck, every time someone loses a region, or a unit, or even a point of honor due to a bug, it's all a matter of seconds to fix it. But we don't. We play through it.
This situation is no different.
I personally don't consider letting the realm go into anarchy to be an abuse. If I did, I wouldn't be suggesting it. It seems to me to ba perfectly legitimate way in which to peacefully change your government style. Just refuse to participate in the government. It collapses, you reform it as something else.
If someone steps in and takes leadership, then obviously not everyone wanted to change. At that point, since he's the government, you can legitimately rebel against him (should be pretty easy to win), and reform however you want. Sounds like no matter what, you win and get your new government.
I wouldn't really see why yes to Niselur and others, and no to this. You think he should pass by anarchy first? Then could you manually bring Terran into anarchy, so that he may then IC reform it to a theocracy?
The manual government change happened in Arcachon, in end 2011 (IIRC, could not locate my mail trail with Tom), shortly after the gazillion rebellions/ protests. At the end of it, Arcachon was left a monarchy, much to the chagrin of those who were left standing at the end of the civil war.
However, Arcachon had a long standing religion, most characters devoted to it, and had history of a theocratic government. The strong RP reasons were given due consideration, and Arcachon was changed back to a theocracy.
Also:
Name change =/= government system change. Lets not start using apples to justify oranges.
Quote from: Stabbity on May 06, 2013, 07:13:26 AM
Also:
Name change =/= government system change. Lets not start using apples to justify oranges.
What's different about them? Seems to me they're identical circumstances. Actually, name changes are an even higher standard of intervention than government changes: government changes are at least intended to be possible somehow; name changes aren't.
Quote from: Indirik on May 06, 2013, 03:33:23 AM
I personally don't consider letting the realm go into anarchy to be an abuse. If I did, I wouldn't be suggesting it. It seems to me to ba perfectly legitimate way in which to peacefully change your government style. Just refuse to participate in the government. It collapses, you reform it as something else.
Except it's not anarchy.
You're suggesting an engineered, controlled process of centrally-planned government reform: which is not what anarchy is supposed to be. Anarchy isn't "transitional government." Rulers don't just go, "Well, hey, let's go into anarchy today so that we can change our laws tomorrow!"
No, that's clearly an abuse.
Quote from: Vellos on May 06, 2013, 08:25:06 AM
Except it's not anarchy.
You're suggesting an engineered, controlled process of centrally-planned government reform: which is not what anarchy is supposed to be. Anarchy isn't "transitional government." Rulers don't just go, "Well, hey, let's go into anarchy today so that we can change our laws tomorrow!"
No, that's clearly an abuse.
It's not unrealistic to expect a group of conspirators (which is what your gang of four are) seeking to undermine the structure of their government to have to do so through use of force (rebellion) or else through the underhanded means of orchestrating anarchy and enacting their nostrum while the power structure is disorganised and unable to resist.
Again, it is less realistic to expect this to be done automatically and without pain than for it to be a cumbersome process which requires some sort of coup or subterfuge. As I have stated, the entire society (which is medieval and thus conservative --not prone to change) would by nature resist your changes. Not only that, but those who have achieved power under your current government structure (plutocrats, citizens, etc.) could only stand to lose from change, and so would utilize what power they have to maintain the status quo. Other groups which would be hostile to your sanguis astroist theocracy in particular would be religious minorities, who would obviously fear persecution from a religiously minded state under the dominion of another religion. So many groups would be aligned against you and the only support you could rely upon would be those who stand to gain from change, and they would be outnumbered by those who stand to lose, those naturally inclined tradition, those with rational fears of what change might bring. So, given the unpopularity of your positions, you could not hope to bring change to your realm through co-operation, but only, as I stated, subversion or the use of force.
Name change is nowhere near equivalent to a government style change. And in any case, you have none of the long-standing RP that would lead to a strong case for doing it. Arcachon had years as a theocracy before that series of rebellions (three or four in a row, combined with mass bannings, both sides claiming to be the "loyalists").
And I'm not trying to rude here, but what Terran has is a week of trying to buy the favor of SA so they can survive by being gifted knights and food from the church. That doesn't equate to years of IC RP and history of being a theocracy that got messed up up by a series of bizarre, chaotic, violent events that ended up giving you a different goverment style than it should have been.
Nothing you've said has even begun to convince me that Terran deserves manual dev intervention here. But that's just me. The two people who can do this are Tom and Tim. And neither of them have stopped by to give their opinions yet. Maybe they will see it differently than I do.
Kwanstein, everything you have said is completely illogical due to the fact they don't give a !@#$ about any government changes except for a label that has some behind the scenes affects but otherwise does nothing to how the government is ran. Republic means nothing about how the realm is ran (every position but ruler could be appointed). How the government is ran is not what Vellos wants to change, he has already done that, he wants to change a label that makes no sense.
Quote from: Penchant on May 06, 2013, 02:42:22 PM
Kwanstein, everything you have said is completely illogical due to the fact they don't give a !@#$ about any government changes except for a label that has some behind the scenes affects but otherwise does nothing to how the government is ran. Republic means nothing about how the realm is ran (every position but ruler could be appointed). How the government is ran is not what Vellos wants to change, he has already done that, he wants to change a label that makes no sense.
The government type is intended to be more than an arbitrary label, it is intended to represent the style in which a realm is governed in order to encourage players to keep in line with established canon. Changing the government type without hassle undermines established canon for the reasons I have listed. Therefore the requested change is indefensible from an RP perspective.
Quote from: Kwanstein on May 04, 2013, 04:28:07 AM
obviously the issue here is that we need to protect the interests of NPCs against players. That's a major concern.
The major concern is just
represented by the NPCs. Don't eat the menu and don't drive on the map, please.
What these NPCs represent is that a government system is more than the label on the palace entrance. Changing a country from communism to capitalism is messy. From monarchy to democracy, usually bloody. From democracy to dictatorship, often twice as bloody. It's not something that happens in the palace, or even in the capital. It involves not just the government and the nobles, but everyone working for the government, from the ministers down to the lowest clerk.
A government system is a lot more stable than any particular government. A monarchy easily survives a hundred kings, and a democracy can go through a civil war with nobody questioning the democratic principles
per se.
That is what we simulate in the game by simply not having a "change your government system here" button. The government in BM is only reformed after breaking down entirely. Throughout real-world history, that has been the normal case, with the peaceful changes like east germany being the exceptions.
I won't rule out exceptions entirely. But they need to be exceptional and that's why I asked this to be brought to the attention of someone who actually knows what's going on in-game, because I haven't played BM at all for a few months now.
I think you may have modified one of Vellos' posts, Tom, instead of quoting it. Took me a second to figure out why there were two posts exactly the same.
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4225.msg106017.html#msg106017
Quote from: Velax on May 06, 2013, 07:00:06 PM
I think you may have modified one of Vellos' posts, Tom, instead of quoting it. Took me a second to figure out why there were two posts exactly the same.
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4225.msg106017.html#msg106017
You are right. It says at the bottom of the post.
What's that? The state of the realm is out of sync with what actually happened in character and game mechanics are frustrating your plans?
no haz tears
Quote from: Scarlett on May 07, 2013, 01:08:18 AM
What's that? The state of the realm is out of sync with what actually happened in character and game mechanics are frustrating your plans?
no haz tears
No need to troll.
So what about a manual change to drop Terran into anarchy? Have everyone lose their government position while you are at it, and put a GM event report of the NPCs rising up against the change.
That way, nobody gets a free pass, the change will be messy, but it will be able to let the game and RP harmonize itself to each other.
Quote from: Chénier on May 07, 2013, 02:39:04 AM
So what about a manual change to drop Terran into anarchy? Have everyone lose their government position while you are at it, and put a GM event report of the NPCs rising up against the change.
That way, nobody gets a free pass, the change will be messy, but it will be able to let the game and RP harmonize itself to each other.
Can't they just step down from their positions, OR change the election method to elected-monthly, and then get what they want?
That part of the process is both the easiest, and the trickiest. All you have to do is fail a ruler election, and you're there. But this process also allows someone in the realm a chance to sabotage the process, if they desire, and get elected.
Quote from: Indirik on May 07, 2013, 03:57:29 AM
That part of the process is both the easiest, and the trickiest. All you have to do is fail a ruler election, and you're there. But this process also allows someone in the realm a chance to sabotage the process, if they desire, and get elected.
Is it still possible to make it dukes vote only, after the code change? Or only dukes eligible for the post? That might simplify matters.
Yes, that is still possible.
Quote from: Tom on May 06, 2013, 05:56:12 PM
The major concern is just represented by the NPCs. Don't eat the menu and don't drive on the map, please.
What these NPCs represent is that a government system is more than the label on the palace entrance. Changing a country from communism to capitalism is messy. From monarchy to democracy, usually bloody. From democracy to dictatorship, often twice as bloody. It's not something that happens in the palace, or even in the capital. It involves not just the government and the nobles, but everyone working for the government, from the ministers down to the lowest clerk.
A government system is a lot more stable than any particular government. A monarchy easily survives a hundred kings, and a democracy can go through a civil war with nobody questioning the democratic principles per se.
That is what we simulate in the game by simply not having a "change your government system here" button. The government in BM is only reformed after breaking down entirely. Throughout real-world history, that has been the normal case, with the peaceful changes like east germany being the exceptions.
I won't rule out exceptions entirely. But they need to be exceptional and that's why I asked this to be brought to the attention of someone who actually knows what's going on in-game, because I haven't played BM at all for a few months now.
I agree.
But let's take stock here. Every single non-Astroist left the realm. Astroists who left have returned. New Astroists have arrived. The ruler is an Astroist priest. The Triunists seceded to form two Triunist realms. Terran has been legally a Triunist/Astroist realm for years. With all the Triunists seceded, it's logical to say we're Astroist (which we've done).
We haven't just changed a label. We've gotten rid of all the republicans and Triunists. We've dropped 90% of the realm. We've brought in new people. We've even had street-fighting between various factions in Terran during Quintus' last days.
The government system of Terran has failed. Everyone in game knows it. It's been renounced by literally everyone who has the ability to do so. I really don't see why we should have to RP a theocracy, as Indirik says, for years to get a change that has clearly already happened now.
See, here's the thing. You're right: government change involves more than the palace. Usually. But Terran
does not exist beyond the palace. We're one city (well, just conquered a townsland, but it'll probably starve itself rogue. Literally every single position is held by one man (Hireshmont). Many of the city officials have already been purged due to Quintus' treachery. Others would have fled with the Saffalorons and the Phantarians. We've had bloodshed and messiness: it just didn't have the game label "rebellion."
You obviously didn't get rid of all the republicans, because the every day government worker is still a republican, working for a republic. All the guys who still make everything happen, who run the warehouse, who run the bank, who deliver your mail, etc etc are still there. Terran's government may have failed to do anything but maintain a city state, but it hasn't collapsed.
Quote from: Vellos on May 07, 2013, 07:14:34 AM
I agree.
But let's take stock here. Every single non-Astroist left the realm. Astroists who left have returned. New Astroists have arrived. The ruler is an Astroist priest. The Triunists seceded to form two Triunist realms. Terran has been legally a Triunist/Astroist realm for years. With all the Triunists seceded, it's logical to say we're Astroist (which we've done).
We haven't just changed a label. We've gotten rid of all the republicans and Triunists. We've dropped 90% of the realm. We've brought in new people. We've even had street-fighting between various factions in Terran during Quintus' last days.
The government system of Terran has failed. Everyone in game knows it. It's been renounced by literally everyone who has the ability to do so. I really don't see why we should have to RP a theocracy, as Indirik says, for years to get a change that has clearly already happened now.
See, here's the thing. You're right: government change involves more than the palace. Usually. But Terran does not exist beyond the palace. We're one city (well, just conquered a townsland, but it'll probably starve itself rogue. Literally every single position is held by one man (Hireshmont). Many of the city officials have already been purged due to Quintus' treachery. Others would have fled with the Saffalorons and the Phantarians. We've had bloodshed and messiness: it just didn't have the game label "rebellion."
Damn. We really need a good written history of the split of Terran, 'cause you made it sound really cool.
Quote from: Stabbity on May 07, 2013, 07:17:24 AM
You obviously didn't get rid of all the republicans, because the every day government worker is still a republican, working for a republic. All the guys who still make everything happen, who run the warehouse, who run the bank, who deliver your mail, etc etc are still there. Terran's government may have failed to do anything but maintain a city state, but it hasn't collapsed.
No, the republican officials are gone. They fled, along with many of the Chateau's people. There's no republic. No voting except where Hireshmont wants it, no republican titles, no republican laws, and oaths to the Bloodstars have been received by the lower-ranking officials.
They aren't republicans, and there isn't a republic. There's a game label (which, AFAIK, actually does absolutely nothing– republic and theocracy have the same game effects, don't they?) which is defunct because the realm is in fact, in every way, a theocracy.
You can't claim that just because the game has the label "theocracy" that we're wrong in RPing OUR NPCs as theocratic.
Quote from: Vellos on May 07, 2013, 04:40:51 PMThere's a game label (which, AFAIK, actually does absolutely nothing– republic and theocracy have the same game effects, don't they?)
No.
Quote from: Vellos on May 07, 2013, 04:40:51 PM
No, the republican officials are gone. They fled, along with many of the Chateau's people. There's no republic. No voting except where Hireshmont wants it, no republican titles, no republican laws, and oaths to the Bloodstars have been received by the lower-ranking officials.
They aren't republicans, and there isn't a republic. There's a game label (which, AFAIK, actually does absolutely nothing– republic and theocracy have the same game effects, don't they?) which is defunct because the realm is in fact, in every way, a theocracy.
You can't claim that just because the game has the label "theocracy" that we're wrong in RPing OUR NPCs as theocratic.
Game mechanics trump RP. RPing yourself winning a battle where none took place doesn't net you prestige and neither does RPing yourself transitioning to theocracy when no transition took place get you a free government change.
Quote from: Vellos on May 07, 2013, 04:40:51 PM
No, the republican officials are gone. They fled, along with many of the Chateau's people. There's no republic. No voting except where Hireshmont wants it, no republican titles, no republican laws, and oaths to the Bloodstars have been received by the lower-ranking officials.
They aren't republicans, and there isn't a republic. There's a game label (which, AFAIK, actually does absolutely nothing– republic and theocracy have the same game effects, don't they?) which is defunct because the realm is in fact, in every way, a theocracy.
You can't claim that just because the game has the label "theocracy" that we're wrong in RPing OUR NPCs as theocratic.
No a theocracy has more in common with a monarchy than a republic.
Quote from: Indirik on May 07, 2013, 05:19:40 PM
No.
Truly? Out of curiosity, what game mechanics change does it make? I honestly wasn't aware of any.
Quote from: Kwanstein on May 07, 2013, 07:18:19 PM
Game mechanics trump RP. RPing yourself winning a battle where none took place doesn't net you prestige and neither does RPing yourself transitioning to theocracy when no transition took place get you a free government change.
Except a transition did take place. Check our titles. Check our official name. Check our government election system. Check our territory. Check our stats color. I'm working on a new banner. Check our noble list.
There HAS been a government change; a total break.
Quote from: Vellos on May 07, 2013, 08:19:12 PM
Truly? Out of curiosity, what game mechanics change does it make? I honestly wasn't aware of any.
Except a transition did take place. Check our titles. Check our official name. Check our government election system. Check our territory. Check our stats color. I'm working on a new banner. Check our noble list.
There HAS been a government change; a total break.
The only thing you haven't replaced is the beaucracy, which needs more than some fancy titles xolors and elections to change how it works.
Quote from: Vellos on May 07, 2013, 08:19:12 PM
Except a transition did take place. Check our titles. Check our official name. Check our government election system. Check our territory. Check our stats color. I'm working on a new banner. Check our noble list.
There HAS been a government change; a total break.
You lost the nobles and territory for unrelated reasons. Title changes can be made at whim. Same as banner changes, although you've yet to even change that. None of those things are indicative of a government change.
Ultimately, you are roleplaying a situation that isn't represented by game mechanics and so demanding that the game mechanics be thwarted to conform to your roleplaying because otherwise there exists dissonance between the game mechanics and your roleplaying. It would be impractical for game mechanics to be thwarted whenever a roleplayed circumstance contradicted them, so your demands are unreasonable. You must play by everyone else's rules and bring your roleplays into line with what you can accomplish mechanically, so that there exists no contradiction.
Quote from: Stabbity on May 07, 2013, 08:29:55 PM
The only thing you haven't replaced is the beaucracy, which needs more than some fancy titles xolors and elections to change how it works.
No, I have replaced the bureaucracy. The ducal offices were all purged with Quintus' fall. New people were brought in from other theocracies.
Quote from: Kwanstein on May 07, 2013, 09:05:59 PM
You lost the nobles and territory for unrelated reasons.
LOL. Wow. You're funny. I think you don't get what's going on.
Quote from: Kwanstein on May 07, 2013, 09:05:59 PM
Same as banner changes, although you've yet to even change that.
Banner changes to a newly uploaded banner require Gm approval before updating.
Quote from: Vellos on May 07, 2013, 10:39:12 PM
No, I have replaced the bureaucracy. The ducal offices were all purged with Quintus' fall. New people were brought in from other theocracies.
LOL. Wow. You're funny. I think you don't get what's going on.
So you're rping a game mechanic function and wondering why the game hasn't bent to it yet is what I'm getting.
Quote from: Vellos on May 07, 2013, 10:40:07 PM
Banner changes to a newly uploaded banner require Gm approval before updating.
Sad. That Terran banner is freaking awesome. Though it doesn't come across as such on the icon level.
Quote from: Stabbity on May 07, 2013, 07:42:41 PM
No a theocracy has more in common with a monarchy than a republic.
No, more with a tyranny than any other. Monarchs can't appoint themselves, theocrats and tyrants can.
Quote from: Perth on May 07, 2013, 11:49:57 PM
Sad. That Terran banner is freaking awesome. Though it doesn't come across as such on the icon level.
Oh, I'm not discarding the banner. I'm... Bloodstarifying it.
Indirik, as has been said, manual Government changes by Devs do happen. It happened with Arcachon. So if it can happen, then perhaps it would be valuable to know the specific requirements that must be met before it can happen. "Years of RP" is not very specific.
Quote from: Velax on May 08, 2013, 06:14:27 AM
Indirik, as has been said, manual Government changes by Devs do happen. It happened with Arcachon. So if it can happen, then perhaps it would be valuable to know the specific requirements that must be met before it can happen. "Years of RP" is not very specific.
There is no pre-determined checklist of specific requirements. We decide on a case-by-case basis.
Sounds to me like Vellos' "demands" are "we would like consistency between everything the game has enabled us to do up to this point and what the game is now telling us."
It isn't accurate to dismiss this kind of thing as 'some RPed event should trump game mechanics.' Most of the "RPed events" here, just like Saffalore's formation, were done via game mechanics. If this were a bunch of pithy RPers posting pages and pages about their little BM world that nobody else understood that would be different. This is Vellos. He ain't like that. If he got here, it's because BM let him get here.
Obviously this happens from time to time and plenty of people get by without being upset, but ask yourself why people would care about this sort of thing in the first place.
The best thing about a game like BM is the intangible atmosphere of the story or the narrative. It isn't that the "game board" is the most awesome thing ever, or that the political hierarchy by itself is the most awesome thing ever; it's more than the sum of the parts. That's the very reason why people are usually happy to put up with broken individual systems - there are enough other things that work that the game can overcome some temporary inconveniences. It's like a broken set piece in a play. It detracts but it doesn't ruin the show.
Cases like this, though, are like leaving Faust at intermission and coming back to see the second act of King Lear. What you've seen up until now does not connect correctly with what you're seeing today. The resistance to doing anything about it seems to be rooted in "well, the game mechanics say this and the game mechanics are there for a reason, so QED." There are a lot of game mechanics in place to prevent characters from making significant changes in realms, but by now it has been shown repeatedly that there are a lot of use cases where small groups or even individual characters ought to be able to make precisely those changes. The discussion of whether a manual intervention is warranted is a red herring: I didn't ask for one with the Saffalore/Terran Chateau problem because that's just a band-aid when you need systemic repair.
The take-away here is that there are cases where small groups of characters ought to be able to do things to their very small realm, and the argument that "all of the government bureaucrats think otherwise" is very weak. There were not a lot of what wew would think of as government bureaucrats in Medieval Western Europe (compared to Rome or Byzantium) and even if there had been, a monarch or even a Duke with total political or military control would roll over them without batting an eyelash. Most of the "bureaucrats" would be minor nobility and minor nobility did not dictate what happened. So if you don't want to consider code changes, that's fine, it's certainly your prerogative - but don't pretend that this kind of thing "makes sense" because some bean-counters say it does.
In the future, there will probably be a way for realms to modify their government systems, and possibly even a complete removal of the strict types. But that's for the future.
Right now, we have what we have. It's a functional system that Terran can use to change it themselves. Yes, it involves some risk. But in that way it gives other people in the realm the opportunity to participate and advance plans and schemes of their own, rather than have one player unilaterally, and without risk, make that decision for the realm.
For some reason the players in Terran (or the only one we've heard from so far) don't want to use it. Instead we hear "we've already RPd that it happened, so please change it for us".
You've got a system. Use it.
Quote from: Indirik on May 08, 2013, 06:22:53 PM
For some reason the players in Terran (or the only one we've heard from so far) don't want to use it. Instead we hear "we've already RPd that it happened, so please change it for us".
There's only 4 or 5 of us (and 2 too new and low H/P to hold any offices), and I'm the only one who's very active on the forum. That's why you've only heard from me. Players shouldn't have to be active on the forum to demonstrate suitability for something like this.
I think Scarlett's assessment of it is fair: the game has let us make ourselves into a theocracy in every functional sense except one. It should let us do the last step too. I understand that current coding doesn't, hence the request for a manual change.
I understand that there is a way I can abuse game mechanics to get what I'm asking for, as you've explained. And as you mentioned in our private messages, there's a way I can structure that abuse so that nobody else can participate. If worst comes to worst, I'll consider taking that (abusive) route.
But it'd be way simpler if the devs just made the change I can unilaterally make anyway, and din't make me set an abusive precedent for government changes.
And it totally is abuse to have centrally planned anarchy.
I disagree. I don't see any abuse of the system by doing it that way. If I did, I wouldn't have suggested it.
Also, if the players in the realm don't come here to make their desires and opinions known, then there's no way their opinions can be taken into account, or for them to "demonstrate suitability". Speak up, or you're not going to get heard.
Quotea monarch or even a Duke with total political or military control would roll over them without batting an eyelash.
Maybe, but why would a ruler with absolute power risk destabilising the establishment and tradition that supports him in the first place.
Also, for all the power afforded to the ruler by institution, he is still reliant on others co-operating with him. A ruler who works himself into bad graces with the lower rungs of the power ladder could find himself poisoned one day, being vulnerable as he is to his servants... not a possibility in BM, but it still speaks of the need for prerequisites and possible consequences to government change. Otherwise it lacks the weight that it should in reality, creating a strong dissonance.
QuoteMaybe, but why would a ruler with absolute power risk destabilising the establishment and tradition that supports him in the first place.
Also, for all the power afforded to the ruler by institution, he is still reliant on others co-operating with him.
The establishment in this scenario is the nobility as represented by player characters. Your fictional "every other person in Terran" is a game design lever that can and should serve specific, intentional purposes, but it is not a catch-all to dispel criticism. Otherwise you end up in a scenario where in realms with, say, 20 people, you are comfortable anointing a majority of those twenty with the power to pull every lever in the game, but in realms with five people they are suddenly at the mercy of ... the butler?
You are trying to ascribe to in-character functionaries non-existent power to explain away limitations of the current game mechanics. It's bad history and irrelevant game design. Servants' capacity to poison somebody has got nothing to do with political systems in the real universe or the BM universe.
The only thing that can be achieved here is for the developers to consider scenarios like this the next time they revisit the relevant systems. There isn't a quick fix here.
QuoteSpeak up, or you're not going to get heard.
This is a convenient dodge. You're a developer. You need players right now more than players need you, or else so many of them would not have voted with their feet. You can rely on accounts from those of us who have reason to know what at least a couple dozen people here or there think, or you can plug your ears. I certainly don't have a stake in which you choose, but BM would be better served if the developers treated criticism in the same way you'd treat a customer criticizing your company's product (i.e. you have a connection to it but it's not like they're insulting your family) rather than adopting the defensive stance that is all over these forums and was all over the d-list before that. You are obviously doing your constituents a favor by investing your time into a volunteer role, but they are doing you a favor by investing their time into talking about it. If they didn't very much approve of the job you were doing on the whole, they wouldn't bother to do those things. Yes it's an unfair double standard. If everybody thinks I'm a jerk, nothing happens. If they think you're a jerk, your product suffers. No two ways about it.
Quote from: Scarlett on May 08, 2013, 11:00:20 PM
The establishment in this scenario is the nobility as represented by player characters. Your fictional "every other person in Terran" is a game design lever that can and should serve specific, intentional purposes, but it is not a catch-all to dispel criticism. Otherwise you end up in a scenario where in realms with, say, 20 people, you are comfortable anointing a majority of those twenty with the power to pull every lever in the game, but in realms with five people they are suddenly at the mercy of ... the butler?
You are trying to ascribe to in-character functionaries non-existent power to explain away limitations of the current game mechanics. It's bad history and irrelevant game design. Servants' capacity to poison somebody has got nothing to do with political systems in the real universe or the BM universe.
The only thing that can be achieved here is for the developers to consider scenarios like this the next time they revisit the relevant systems. There isn't a quick fix here.
This is a convenient dodge. You're a developer. You need players right now more than players need you, or else so many of them would not have voted with their feet. You can rely on accounts from those of us who have reason to know what at least a couple dozen people here or there think, or you can plug your ears. I certainly don't have a stake in which you choose, but BM would be better served if the developers treated criticism in the same way you'd treat a customer criticizing your company's product (i.e. you have a connection to it but it's not like they're insulting your family) rather than adopting the defensive stance that is all over these forums and was all over the d-list before that. You are obviously doing your constituents a favor by investing your time into a volunteer role, but they are doing you a favor by investing their time into talking about it. If they didn't very much approve of the job you were doing on the whole, they wouldn't bother to do those things. Yes it's an unfair double standard. If everybody thinks I'm a jerk, nothing happens. If they think you're a jerk, your product suffers. No two ways about it.
He's not the one being defensive Scarlett. You and Vellos are the ONLY ones in this entire thread that have suggested that the devs should change Terran's government manually. Everyone else has repeatedly said that if he wants to change government, let it go into anarchy first.
Personally I think the only reason I believe Vellos is fighting so hard for it is that if he does get it changed to Theocracy by the devs he'll be able to call the entire church to protect his 1 region 7 noble realm.
QuoteYou and Vellos are the ONLY ones in this entire thread that have suggested that the devs should change Terran's government manually.
I'm not suggesting that at all - that is the 'band aid' solution and I wouldn't do it either if I were a dev. They're reluctant to do so because once you start manually changing !@#$ in the database, you will get asked to do so a dozen times a week.
My only interest in this topic is that it is an example of a particularly thorny problem that is difficult to get a handle on but which has been present for years. The only way I can explain it is that you sum up a bunch of players' contribution to BM in the form of "what is going on in a realm" and that sum is greater than the individual parts; but it relies on the same consistency of narrative, the same suspension of disbelief, that a film or a play relies on to keep you coming back to see the sequels. Game mechanics regulate that narrative but when they
control it, particularly in a manner contrary to what characters in power ought to be able to achieve, you just had Hugh Laurie start speaking in his native accent during an episode of House. It's like being right in the middle of a good book and then your cat throws up in the corner and you have that jarring invasion of reality that interrupts the escape into which you'd invested your time.
Some of it is inevitable. Cats throw up. Some of it is manageable. I certainly don't give two !@#$s what happens to Terran, though.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on May 08, 2013, 11:27:45 PM
He's not the one being defensive Scarlett. You and Vellos are the ONLY ones in this entire thread that have suggested that the devs should change Terran's government manually. Everyone else has repeatedly said that if he wants to change government, let it go into anarchy first.
Personally I think the only reason I believe Vellos is fighting so hard for it is that if he does get it changed to Theocracy by the devs he'll be able to call the entire church to protect his 1 region 7 noble realm.
I can change it without a manual change. You do know that, right?
We could always annex your city and eventually let you secede. ;)
Quote from: Vellos on May 09, 2013, 04:27:48 AM
I can change it without a manual change. You do know that, right?
Vellos, that is exactly the dev's point. At first I thought they should, but the more I think about, like you said you can already do it without a manual change, so do it. You could have had all of this done with by now if you would have just done it IG instead of trying to tell the devs to do it for you. Losing your region is kind of a BS excuse when all you need to do throw down some harsh courts and you are fine.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on May 08, 2013, 11:27:45 PM
He's not the one being defensive Scarlett. You and Vellos are the ONLY ones in this entire thread that have suggested that the devs should change Terran's government manually. Everyone else has repeatedly said that if he wants to change government, let it go into anarchy first.
Personally I think the only reason I believe Vellos is fighting so hard for it is that if he does get it changed to Theocracy by the devs he'll be able to call the entire church to protect his 1 region 7 noble realm.
Actually, I proposed that his realm be manually put into anarchy, and all government members removed from their positions.
What's the point of that? It is, literall, the easiest part to do? Vellos can, all by himself, put the realm in anarchy in exactly three days with no one able to stop it.
Quote from: Vellos on May 07, 2013, 10:39:12 PM
No, I have replaced the bureaucracy. The ducal offices were all purged with Quintus' fall. New people were brought in from other theocracies.
No, you have not. That's like saying, "I have killed him. I RPed that he was crushed under the collapsing tunnel as he tried to get away," and then asking that we manually change a character's status to "dead."
It doesn't matter what you RP. Until you change the government type of the realm in the DB, you have not replaced the bureaucracy. Period.
As Indirik has said, failing a ruler election and letting the realm fall into anarchy is not only not an abuse, it is almost a tailor-made way of declaring, "We want no more of this Republican heresy!" and forming a new, Theocratic government.
So either go ahead and do that, or just live with being a Republic, because there is absolutely no compelling reason for a manual change here.
Quote from: Indirik on May 09, 2013, 01:47:22 PM
What's the point of that? It is, literall, the easiest part to do? Vellos can, all by himself, put the realm in anarchy in exactly three days with no one able to stop it.
You mean, by changing the government so that only dukes can vote, then stepping down, then waiting for anarchy, then getting elected again, then reforming the government, and then changing the government again?
Sure, I guess he could. But it'd be messy and would make no RP sense.
To put a GM message about an NPC revolt sending the realm into anarchy would reach the goals he desires, without being a free pass, and while avoiding extremely gamey RP.
A person flexing his political muscle since he controls the entirety of the government to make the system fall apart isn't gamey, and makes a lot more sense than an NPC revolt that dissolves the government and spares the life of the head of the government.
I propose the following: If its an NPC revolt with a GM manual intervention, Hireshmont dies in the revolt. These sorts of things are bloody and end poorly for those on top.
Quote from: Stabbity on May 11, 2013, 12:18:26 AM
A person flexing his political muscle since he controls the entirety of the government to make the system fall apart isn't gamey, and makes a lot more sense than an NPC revolt that dissolves the government and spares the life of the head of the government.
I propose the following: If its an NPC revolt with a GM manual intervention, Hireshmont dies in the revolt. These sorts of things are bloody and end poorly for those on top.
Stepping down to re-elect yourself is
not gamey? And that's what you call "flexing muscle"? Stepping down and not bothering to vote when the referendum takes place?
Yea, its called withdrawing your support from the government system. The muscle flexing comes from the government falling apart after you withdraw your support. As long as you hold positions within the government system, you are legitimizing it.
Quote from: Chénier on May 11, 2013, 12:12:38 AM
You mean, by changing the government so that only dukes can vote, then stepping down, then waiting for anarchy, then getting elected again, then reforming the government, and then changing the government again?
Sure, I guess he could. But it'd be messy and would make no RP sense.
Hireshmont rejects the government and refuses to participate. He abdicates the titles and refuses to have anything more to do with the republic. What's so nonsensical about that?
Messy? Hell yes. Of course it will be messy. You don't change the entire fundamental structure of the government of a realm without getting a little dirt under your fingernails.
Quote
To put a GM message about an NPC revolt sending the realm into anarchy would reach the goals he desires, without being a free pass, and while avoiding extremely gamey RP.
Mrh? Random NPC revolt throwing the realm into anarchy? Yeah, because we do that sort of thing all the time.
Look, Tim has already weighed in about how there will be no dev intervention, and clarified the dev's position that intentional anarchy to change government styles is not an abuse of game mechanics. If a player wants to change government styles using that method, then the onus is on the player to find RP that fits with the game mechanics. It is not the responsibility of the dev team to bend game mechanics to fit the RP created by the player.
At some indeterminate time in the future, there may be some game mechanic to allow players to more easily change their government style. It will not be a simple click-here-to-change button, and will incur some as-yet-unknown penalties. However, that system does not yet exist. Therefore, players will need to use the existing system for the foreseeable future.
Given that not a single member of the dev team feels that there is any extenuating circumstance that would justify interference and manual intervention in the game at this time, the chances of getting the manual change enacted hovers somewhere between zero and none. You can continue the discussion if you want, but I really don't see the point in it.
Quote from: Indirik on May 11, 2013, 01:11:21 AM
Given that not a single member of the dev team feels that there is any extenuating circumstance that would justify interference and manual intervention in the game at this time, the chances of getting the manual change enacted hovers somewhere between zero and none. You can continue the discussion if you want, but I really don't see the point in it.
Neither do I.
Question:
To make anarchy happen, is it just the rulership that needs to be vacated, or every council post?
Quote from: Vellos on May 15, 2013, 10:13:16 PM
Question:
To make anarchy happen, is it just the rulership that needs to be vacated, or every council post?
Having a ruler election fail should, without anything else required, result in anarchy.
If it does not, then I believe that to be a bug.
Quote from: Anaris on May 15, 2013, 10:29:26 PM
Having a ruler election fail should, without anything else required, result in anarchy.
If it does not, then I believe that to be a bug.
Sounds good.
The ruler election failed. We got this message:
Quote
Election Failed! (13 hours, 54 minutes ago)
The referendum "Vote for the Ruler" has ended. Here is the final tally:
8 abstentions
20 votes were not cast.
There were no valid choices for this referendum, so there was obviously no winner.
With the failure of the Ruler election, your realm is spiraling down into anarchy. The functioning of government is almost completely disrupted. Elections will begin shortly in the capital for a new ruler.
As a reminder, the full text of the referendum was:
This is an election for the position of Ruler (Grandmaster), initiated automatically because the position was vacated.
Only dukes will vote, representing their duchy.
So far, no election for ruler has begun, and I don't see an option to claim the rulership.
Any advice?
Quote from: Vellos on May 16, 2013, 08:12:38 PM
The ruler election failed. We got this message:
So far, no election for ruler has begun, and I don't see an option to claim the rulership.
Any advice?
OK, so...I could have sworn that when I reimplemented "spiraling down into anarchy" a year or so ago, I also implemented the referendum that goes along with it.
However, I can't find it at this point.
I'm afraid that right now, I'm about to be busy for the rest of the day, but I've made myself a note to get it working first thing tomorrow.
Sorry about this. Anarchy isn't something that happens often, so those parts of the code are much more likely to have holes in them.
Quote from: Anaris on May 16, 2013, 08:26:24 PM
OK, so...I could have sworn that when I reimplemented "spiraling down into anarchy" a year or so ago, I also implemented the referendum that goes along with it.
However, I can't find it at this point.
I'm afraid that right now, I'm about to be busy for the rest of the day, but I've made myself a note to get it working first thing tomorrow.
Sorry about this. Anarchy isn't something that happens often, so those parts of the code are much more likely to have holes in them.
lol.
And people wonder why I was hesitant to do this and wanted a manual change...
Maybe because this has, to my knowledge, never actually been done before.
Sure it has. How do you think Enweil's big crusade for democracy worked?
Quote from: Lorgan on May 17, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
Sure it has. How do you think Enweil's big crusade for democracy worked?
By rebellions I thought. Did you really do the spiral to anarchy? That's way less efficient than a rebellion.
ALSO:
A new referendum for ruler has been started. If a dev could please advise what I should do.
Quote from: Vellos on May 17, 2013, 04:52:27 PM
A new referendum for ruler has been started. If a dev could please advise what I should do.
Huh.
I advise you to run. This should allow you to reform the government, as you desire.
However, I believe it should also be considered a bug; no regular elections should run while the realm is in anarchy.
I'll tidy that up once I'm finished implementing the proper anarchy ruler election (which I've got about 3/4 done now).
Quote from: Anaris on May 17, 2013, 05:11:19 PM
Huh.
I advise you to run. This should allow you to reform the government, as you desire.
However, I believe it should also be considered a bug; no regular elections should run while the realm is in anarchy.
I'll tidy that up once I'm finished implementing the proper anarchy ruler election (which I've got about 3/4 done now).
If it does not allow me to reform the government....
Do I have to go through this whole rigamarole again after you fix the code?
Quote from: Vellos on May 17, 2013, 09:15:02 PM
If it does not allow me to reform the government....
Do I have to go through this whole rigamarole again after you fix the code?
I've looked through the relevant code, and unless something breaks in the referendum process itself (which isn't impossible, but I think is unlikely), you will be able to reform the government.
Basically, the logic of the game says, "If you're ruler, and the government system is Anarchy, you can reform the government."
That particular bit of code doesn't care how you got to that point.
Quote from: Anaris on May 17, 2013, 09:17:00 PM
I've looked through the relevant code, and unless something breaks in the referendum process itself (which isn't impossible, but I think is unlikely), you will be able to reform the government.
Basically, the logic of the game says, "If you're ruler, and the government system is Anarchy, you can reform the government."
That particular bit of code doesn't care how you got to that point.
Sounds good.
Theocracy in t-minus 3...
Well, Hireshmont is ruler now.
Unfortunately he's also wounded now.
Meh.
And, for posterity, let it be known:
This method of changing government type works.
Especially with the rulership established by a vote instead of by random claiming. In a one-duchy realm where the ruler is the duke, the ruler can change the government system basically at will (change ruler voting to dukes only, step down, wait for anarchy, run for office, vote for self, win, change government).
With multiple duchies or less concentrated power it'd be trickier.
Quote from: Vellos on May 24, 2013, 03:20:58 AM
And, for posterity, let it be known:
This method of changing government type works.
Especially with the rulership established by a vote instead of by random claiming. In a one-duchy realm where the ruler is the duke, the ruler can change the government system basically at will (change ruler voting to dukes only, step down, wait for anarchy, run for office, vote for self, win, change government).
With multiple duchies or less concentrated power it'd be trickier.
Be aware that once the proper anarchy vote is committed (it's implemented, I just didn't want to screw things up for you further by committing it while you were still working out the government), the anarchy ruler election will be among all nobles in the capital. Whoever is in the capital (and part of the realm) will be eligible to run, and eligible to vote. Leaving the capital will drop your name out of the running and cancel your votes.
So you won't have complete control even if you originally set the voting to Dukes-only.
Quote from: Anaris on May 24, 2013, 03:48:52 AM
So you won't have complete control even if you originally set the voting to Dukes-only.
Sucks because this is how he won, otherwise Kale's loyalists inside Terran would've kept Hireshmont from re-election.
Not that the Church cared about the theocracy status in the end anyways, I guess. :-\
Of course they did. If there hadn't been a planned change to theocracy, none of it would have happened.
Still a crock of bull!@#$ in my opinion. We now know that the Church supports putting realms into Anarchy, a very anti-sma action for them to take.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on May 24, 2013, 03:25:11 PM
Still a crock of bull!@#$ in my opinion. We now know that the Church supports putting realms into Anarchy, a very anti-sma action for them to take.
Um...no.
The Church supports rejecting non-theocratic forms of government in favour of Astroist theocracy.
That's perfectly SMA.
Quote from: Anaris on May 24, 2013, 03:28:13 PM
Um...no.
The Church supports rejecting non-theocratic forms of government in favour of Astroist theocracy.
That's perfectly SMA.
So anarchy is an acceptable means of this in a realm that is friendly to SA in the first place? So ridding a realm of the rule of nobles over peasants and making them effectively equal makes perfect sense to you?
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on May 24, 2013, 03:39:27 PM
So anarchy is an acceptable means of this in a realm that is friendly to SA in the first place? So ridding a realm of the rule of nobles over peasants and making them effectively equal makes perfect sense to you?
Anarchy is the
only means of changing the government type
anywhere in BattleMaster. (Rebellions that change the government type do it by going through a period of anarchy.)
This is like calling someone un-SMA because they insist on transferring funds to you through a bank rather than handing you gold. Yeah, it's not the way it might work in the real world, but this is a
game, and you have to be able to accept that.
Also, where the hell did you get the idea that the "anarchy" government type means that peasants and nobles are equal? That's just ridiculous.
I've always taken rebellions to be in-fighting between nobles on a massive scale. Meanwhile the government label of Anarchy is when there is no control whatsover, not even a contested rulership. Anything could happen during that. The peasants could form their own government for all we know IC.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on May 24, 2013, 03:53:02 PM
I've always taken rebellions to be in-fighting between nobles on a massive scale. Meanwhile the government label of Anarchy is when there is no control whatsover, not even a contested rulership. Anything could happen during that. The peasants could form their own government for all we know IC.
Rebellion is, indeed, nobles fighting against each other.
However, when a rebellion succeeds without the ruler stepping down,
there is a period of anarchy. This is what allows the new ruler to change the government type.
And no, the peasants bloody well cannot form their own government. Any more than a message can be forged. Or a noble can die from an infiltrator attack.
Anarchy is not "no control whatsoever". It's a lack of a cohesive central government. The nobility are still broadly in control of the realm, there just isn't all the usual bureaucratic infrastructure to get things done.
Anyway, like I said, twice now,
the only possible way for any player to change government types in BattleMaster is to go through a period of anarchy. So objecting to anarchy as "an acceptable means" of changing a realm to a theocracy is really...not very sensible. Basically, by your logic, no realm on Dwilight should be allowed to voluntarily change their government.
A rebellion really isn't a voluntary change of government... it's being forced to by the new rulers.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on May 24, 2013, 04:21:32 PM
A rebellion really isn't a voluntary change of government... it's being forced to by the new rulers.
Voluntary, as in, the realm or some significant subset of it decides to change the government type. As opposed to some outside group comes in to take over, or the ruler election fails for some unexpected reason.
And, again, by your logic, Sanguis Astroism could not
ever support a realm that is not currently a theocracy
becoming a theocracy, because that would require a period of anarchy.
It's obvious you and I aren't going to agree on our definitions, so I'm just going to drop it.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on May 24, 2013, 04:55:12 PM
It's obvious you and I aren't going to agree on our definitions, so I'm just going to drop it.
You know, it can be a problem when you are trying to use different definitions for important game terms than the game uses.
Quote from: Anaris on May 24, 2013, 04:57:29 PM
You know, it can be a problem when you are trying to use different definitions for important game terms than the game uses.
+1 on that.
I've seen LOTS of problems when people insist that terms used by the game mean something other than what the game means them to be, or insist on using different terms for things than the game uses. (Doubly confusing when the terms they insist on is actually used by the game somewhere else.) It is essential for the players to understand the terms the game uses,
as the game intends them to be used. Expecting the terms to be used in a different way always causes confusion and resentment all around. This may require the players to slightly redefine their own perception of things. This is important to do, though.
"Anarchy" does not, in any way, imply that peasants are equal to nobles. No more than "Democracy" implies that peasants get to vote in elections. Anarchy means the absence of government. By refusing to participate in the government, you remove the government. Hence: anarchy.
The fact that we have a game means that we have to do things in slightly "gamey" ways. No matter how we define the mechanics, they will still be somewhat "gamey" to someone. What we have now is a system that is both easy to use and easy to code, as well as providing some uncertainty and risk in the process. A more detailed system may eventually be implemented, but it's not high on The List.
Quote from: Indirik on May 24, 2013, 01:26:50 PM
Of course they did. If there hadn't been a planned change to theocracy, none of it would have happened.
"Planned" being the operative word.
If this method had failed, it wouldn't have mattered much. Hiresmont would just disband militia and launch a rebellion. He had the nobles available to do it.
Quote from: Vellos on May 24, 2013, 07:01:17 PM
"Planned" being the operative word.
If this method had failed, it wouldn't have mattered much. Hiresmont would just disband militia and launch a rebellion. He had the nobles available to do it.
If you had disbanded the militia, we would've had no problem taking the city though.
Quote from: Perth on May 24, 2013, 07:41:28 PM
If you had disbanded the militia, we would've had no problem taking the city though.
I was already beginning this process before you took Saffalore. :P