I don't think a former ruler should be so easily banned as any other character. Being completely immune from bans may not be the best thing, but I've never seen anything better proposed. Even if ruler status was removed, it probably wouldn't do what you're talking about in terms of position turnover. Plenty of non-royal dukes have held duchies for RL years.
And if you're planning on just banning nobles who've been in the realm and position for ages you will quickly bleed out the experienced characters because... Frankly, who'd want to stick around for that?
Experienced characters have, by definition, worked together for a very long time. They tend to become friends. Acting against one is likely to get your ass whooped by the rest of them.And what if he isn't liked? He could be logging in once a week so he doesn't lose his position and kill the game for everyone, which generally makes everyone their enemy.
And what if he isn't liked? He could be longing in once a week so he doesn't lose his position and kill the game for everyone, which generally makes everyone their enemy.
I don't think a former ruler should be so easily banned as any other character. Being completely immune from bans may not be the best thing, but I've never seen anything better proposed.My suggestion is any ruler protested out of office does not receive the royal status. I think there should be a way to strip someone of the royal title after they have left office too but I am do not yet have a suggestion for that.
You'd think so.I have seen it too. Usually as long as they aren't hurting anybody no cares. The main times it would come into play is when he/she is !@#$ing up his/her duchy when times are tough.
Unfortunately, no. I've seen dukes do exactly that, even without the royal rank, and have enough support to get away with it.
I have seen it too. Usually as long as they aren't hurting anybody no cares. The main times it would come into play is when he/she is !@#$ing up his/her duchy when times are tough.
He could be longing in once a week so he doesn't lose his position and kill the game for everyone, which generally makes everyone their enemy.Oh, so you're wanting to violate his inalienable right to play at his own pace by banning him for being inactive?
Oh, so you're wanting to violate his inalienable right to play at his own pace by banning him for being inactive?
Oh, so you're wanting to violate his inalienable right to play at his own pace by banning him for being inactive?I am not against playing at your own pace. I used the words I did for a reason. If someone logs in, clicks play character, logs out, every week that's not playing the game IMO, but either way that's not contributing to the realm which is grounds for banishment. They are allowed to play at their own pace but that does not mean they get a free pass either. Banning for low activity is against the IR, but punishment because they are not doing their job is not against the IR.
Banning for low activity is against the IR, but punishment because they are not doing their job is not against the IR.That is correct, but it's not what you said. Please be careful in what you advocate. We don't need experienced players advocating banning people from their realms because they have low activity rates.
That is correct, but it's not what you said. Please be careful in what you advocate. We don't need experienced players advocating banning people from their realms because they have low activity rates.If read the wrong way my statement could be seen differently but my first statement did say he was logging in just to keep his position, which I take as logging in solely to keep your position and doing literally nothing else, and if repeatedly done would be not doing their job. My statement could have been worded better but I don't believe it to be advocating something against the IRs.
Why not allow him to be banned, but require the ruler to consent to it? Or have it immediately force a succession?
Why not allow him to be banned, but require the ruler to consent to it? Or have it immediately force a succession?
Why not allow him to be banned, but require the ruler to consent to it? Or have it immediately force a succession?Perhaps a solution.
Do you mean "secession"?
And what if he isn't liked? He could be logging in once a week so he doesn't lose his position and kill the game for everyone, which generally makes everyone their enemy.Do you try infiltrator to assassinate the Duke, taking them out for many days, long enough to remove Dukeship from him? ::)
Well Chenier do you have a suggestion to solve that problem?Hmm, you do have valid point. We cannot wait long enough for old age to kill the old duke who previously was the Ruler, right? Then why do you appoint the Duke in the first place if you know you going have a hard time to remove her or him later on? 8)
I think its an important issue.
Long-timers SHOULDN'T have all of the fluff positions by default. They should be able to be competed over or allowed to turnover.
Hmm, you do have valid point. We cannot wait long enough for old age to kill the old duke who previously was the Ruler, right? Then why do you appoint the Duke in the first place if you know you going have a hard time to remove her or him later on? 8)
solution to lordship.... stab him. auto de fe him. give away the region (this bit sort of doesn't make sense)
solution to dukeship.... get everyone else to flip away from the duchy. disband the empty duchy.
Depends on their age, really. Because the wounds are more likely to get worse before they get better.
Sooner or later other realms infiltrators will come to attempt the bounty ;D
Oh, so you're wanting to violate his inalienable right to play at his own pace by banning him for being inactive?
Yes. If one of my nobles is not doing there job properly and its to the detriment of the realm, they should step down adn be moved to a less important position, if they are inactive and doing there job poorly and that is a detriment to the realm they should be punished as you would any other noble. OOC is Irrelevant in this
players in the realm are given additional recourse against those characters which have stopped realm fun and engagement and simply want to sit on a gold mine.
, if they are inactive and doing there job poorly and that is a detriment to the realm they should be punished as you would any other nobleThen say "not doing his job". Don't say "inactive". Because inactive does not automatically mean not doing their job. Depending on the position, it is absolutely possible to log in once every 4 days and do thejob perfectly well.
forgot the other thing...
kill the stats of the region as diplomat... so the peasants boot him due to low stats..
That works for Lords. It doesn't work for Dukes.
Everyone is assuming the realm is united against him. That isn't necessarily the case.
Of course if the realm is united its easy to cause enough trouble to make him leave. I'm talking about the possibility of being removed from normal in game plotting or efforts.
No, it isn't. If you have a lot of active players willing to dedicate a significant chunk of time to aggravating him, you can make him very aggravated. But if he's ornery enough, he can stay anyway.
There is no way to make a Royal leave unless he's dumb enough to, say, rebel against you and lose.
When a region is handed away by the ruler, nobles stay with the realm.I am not so sure that first part is true as I thought Paisland was gifted to D'hara but I know the current lord went with.
If the region changes allegiance via the lord changing it, then the nobles of the region go with it. (The same applies for dukes and entire duchies.)
I have seen it too. Usually as long as they aren't hurting anybody no cares. The main times it would come into play is when he/she is !@#$ing up his/her duchy when times are tough.
I tend to agree with this. I may be wrong, but I didn't think rulers protested out of office got royal status.They do get it according to Woelfy. (He was protested out and says he has royal title.)
They do get it according to Woelfy. (He was protested out and says he has royal title.)
I am not so sure that first part is true as I thought Paisland was gifted to D'hara but I know the current lord went with.
I am not so sure that first part is true as I thought Paisland was gifted to D'hara but I know the current lord went with.
When a region is handed away by the ruler, nobles stay with the realm.
That wasn't the case under the old system; not sure about the new. I was lord of Larodais and stepped down so the ruler could give the region away. Unfortunately, stepping down as lord automatically made me a knight of the region, which we didn't realise, and I went with the region when it was given away.
.... that shouldn't be the case. you became a knight because you have an estate. if you don't have an estate, then you'll not be a knight but some random noble not on the hierarchy.As a lord, he had an estate, so when he stepped down, he was automatically a knight.
being a lord has nothing to do with estate.. you can be a lord without an estate.I didn't say it did. All I said was he had an estate as a lord.
Can't honestly recall if Gregor was wounded by an Infy or a skirmish that knocked him out of Dukeship of Westmoor, which allowed me to quickly set up loyalists over the duchy.
I've almost been knocked out of positions due to preaching incidents as well. Damned Flowists.
One of the dukes in Darka lost his duchy and lordship due to a long wound after a battle with monsters. He was out for quite a while.Shouldn't a duke of Darka had a unit big enough to take out some monsters? Just saying.
It was a skirmish, but an infiltraitor wound a few weeks earlier almost did it. Fairly certain Jor ordered that one ;).
One of the dukes in Darka lost his duchy and lordship due to a long wound after a battle with monsters. He was out for quite a while.
I haven't really entirely read through this thread, but I have the distinct feeling this proposal is made for more personal gains than with the intent to improve gameplay. The assumption that "royals" create a toxic game situation is rather rash. Granted, some cling on to their status and their positions, but you should simply learn to deal with that IC.
Please keep your OOC accusations against me somewhere else, and not polluting this thread.
If you have an issue with me you can address it privately.
I don't think that was the point of his comment. There are sound reasons for why we don't allow rulers to be easily banished. IMHO, they trump any other reason to the contrary.That's a false statement which is the reason for the request. There is nothing easy about banning an ex-ruler because its impossible and they are set for life.
That's a false statement which is the reason for the request. There is nothing easy about banning an ex-ruler because its impossible and they are set for life.
That's a false statement which is the reason for the request. There is nothing easy about banning an ex-ruler because its impossible and they are set for life.
So next time, go for a rebellion. IIRC, if you're rebelled against you lose your Royal title even if you're not outright banned by the rebels afterwards.They aren't against the entire government nor the government system, merely against one person. While if an event happens to give reason for a ruler to be removed, it is much easier to convince people to protest him out instead of doing a rebellion.
Ruling means something. Even ruling poorly. You've built up an entourage. You have loyalists, even after you lose your official power. Further, many realms are monarchies, theocracies, and the like. One could argue that royals should be easier to chase out of republics or democracies, but IMHO that misses the point of a medieval-style aristocratic republic. You, as the realm, elected this person. You placed your absolute trust in them. Now you want to cut them out like a tumor? Okay, but it's going to be a real pain in the ass. That is what the royal perk is meant to signify. It is not impossible to remove a royal from the realm. It is extremely difficult, and it should be. If the request was made because someone was abusing this privilege and haranguing the realm, that's something else and we would all benefit from knowing about this. But simply suggesting that the problem is that it's very hard to remove royals misses the point, which has already been explained.
They aren't against the entire government nor the government system, merely against one person. While if an event happens to give reason for a ruler to be removed, it is much easier to convince people to protest him out instead of doing a rebellion.
The thing is, that it IS impossible to remove a Royal from a realm. There is no way to actually remove them from your realm. The only current method that can even be attempted on them is Exile, but why should that noble leave. As Anaris stated earlier, leaving is stupid because Prestige and honor really don't mean anything in this game. A Royal cannot be removed from a realm under any circumstances.
Really? You're not creative (or mean) enough. Two options off the top of my head, I think they may have been mentioned earlier in the thread.
1. Have the lord of his region switch realms. This works best if you can pay them off with a better region on their return.
2. Give away their region. They'll still be in the realm, but they won't have any income. If he's a duke, have his lords switch lieges and then disband his duchy.
3. Put a 1000 gold bounty on his head, and then announce to all infiltrators that any infiltrator caught assassinating him will be released immediately with no repercussions. Notify him that you have done this. Repeat until he leaves the continent.
4. Get together with your ally (or possibly, enemy), and have them declare war on your realm (or you on them, whatever). Continually provide that realm with the location of the royal, so their army can harass him. If he has a region, have them loot it until it rebels. Use your own priests and diplomats to help the region revolt, and have surrounding lords drop their tax rates in order to make his peasants even more unhappy. Refuse to sell him food (or buy his food, depending).
You just don't think big enough. If you really want him gone, there are ways. They will come with a steep price, but they are there nonetheless. If the cost is too high for you, well, maybe you don't want him gone quite badly enough. And then there are just those times where you have to eat the whole !@#$ sandwich and seconds. Welcome to politics. Royals didn't rise to power all on their own, so usually the problem is one you created in the first place. Better think twice before casting a vote next time, eh!
Destroy the realm and start a new one. That was basically the original idea behind Luria Nova. It was to serve as a new Pian en Luries, eating away at the old one until it was only Alanna sitting by herself in Poryatown.
Destroy the realm and start a new one. That was basically the original idea behind Luria Nova. It was to serve as a new Pian en Luries, eating away at the old one until it was only Alanna sitting by herself in Poryatown.
Okay, so do you think that is conducive to positive game behavior whereby the realm is the "team" so, we have to destroy the entire realm just to get rid of a single noble?
Is that toxic for gameplay or beneficial?
Seeing as how the plan had the support of most of the nobility save a few of Alanna's fiercest loyalists, I'd say beneficial. And it's not like it was our first round of scorched earth. Before LN, PeL had already been split down the middle and a whole duchy leveled to get rid of a few entrenched people.
Really, you should focus on preventing the problem of unbannable Royals instead of panicking about what to do once you've run out of options. You don't have to be a mindreader to know if someone might end up being a problem once they have a crown on their head. And if they do become a troublesome ruler and you want them gone, then by Jove, start a rebellion and execute them/kick their ass to another continent instead of giving them a license to make your life miserable later on.
Think ahead!
You completely disregarded my question. Its not whether or not it was a good decision in that one instance. Its whether or not having to destroy a realm as the only possible recourse is a reasonable thing to include in the game. For all future cases and in general. That is what I believe is toxic.
So next time, go for a rebellion. IIRC, if you're rebelled against you lose your Royal title even if you're not outright banned by the rebels afterwards.
If one particular Royal is bad enough to prompt a feature request taking away their immunity, then surely they're bad enough to consider wrecking a realm over him.
Are you sure?
I'm pretty sure that if the ruler abdicates willingly, it's quite different than if he is defeated. I'm not sure for what aspects, though. I know you can't reform the government if he steps down, and I'm under the impression he isn't auto-banned either, and wouldn't be surprised if he kept his royal title.
I can speak first-hand about abdicating during a rebellion. You get instantly banned and declared a rogue, and by extent lose your Royal status. Once you know you can't win it's basically a fast-forward button to the end of the rebellion.
Never felt right to me that the deposed ruler had that power to decide if the rebels could or couldn't reform the government...
Is that the case then? I have no idea, AFAIK I'm the only ruler who's ever willingly abdicated during a rebellion :P
But yes, it would seem illogical. I always assumed Fulco didn't see the need for a reformation. Luria is and always will be a Monarchy, I simply can't imagine it working under a different system. Well, maybe a Tyranny, but that word has a particularly bad ring to it around Luria :P
Personally, I think the "bribe a lord to switch realms" idea is a good one. Should be simple, quick, and painless. If you can do it, all it costs your realm is a region. If you do it right, you can even get a good border war out of it.Couldn't you have the lord switch, then kick him out of the estate, then switch back, or would that actually go into the abuse category?
You could always "sell" or "loan" the region away, for X months.
Is that the case then? I have no idea, AFAIK I'm the only ruler who's ever willingly abdicated during a rebellion :PI had to do it once, to put up a show for the rest of the world :P got banned.
Not if you do this in the sole intent of removing someone with a royal status. It's about intent.
I don't see how this would be abuse, but destroying the whole realm wouldn't...
"I hate the King of Kepler. I want him dead, gone, erased from history, his name forgotten. When I'm done with him, there won't be a Kepler left." is a perfectly legitimate, IC sentiment.
"I hate the King of Kepler. I'll ask the Count of Kepler Fields to swear allegiance to Evilstan, evince him from his manor, then come back to Kepler" is not something a medieval noble would do. It's meta-gaming.
Exactly. Dirty politics weren't invented in the 20th century.
It's the contriveness of the region coming back immediately afterwards that bothers me. Changing allegiance is a serious matter, you don't do it once just planning to undo it the day after.
The thing is, that it IS impossible to remove a Royal from a realm. There is no way to actually remove them from your realm. The only current method that can even be attempted on them is Exile, but why should that noble leave. As Anaris stated earlier, leaving is stupid because Prestige and honor really don't mean anything in this game. A Royal cannot be removed from a realm under any circumstances.
Truly as their are so many options, they all are viable... Yet, aren't realistic. T do any of this takes a insurmountable amount of time and truly if it comes to pass you've done more damage than good.
Shouldn't the realm council be able to make such a choice for the betterment of the realm?
Truly as their are so many options, they all are viable... Yet, aren't realistic. T do any of this takes a insurmountable amount of time and truly if it comes to pass you've done more damage than good.
Royalty isn't something that should be decided by a popular vote if you ask me.
oddly enough.. royalty status is decided by popular vote (or whichever voting system is used). or at least gaining it.
(not saying losing should be decided by such a vote...)