BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: vonGenf on September 28, 2014, 12:20:56 AM
-
Title: Increase allowed amounts for fines
Summary:
When a Judge imposes a fine on someone, he can choose an amount somewhere between 10 and 200 gold. For many this is little more than a pittance at which they can laugh. I propose that the ceiling be increased.
Details:
I propose additional options up to 1'000 gold. The exact ceiling can be discussed. There probably was a time when 200 gold was already extremely high. I think it is clear that there is on average more gold available in the game now, although I don't know by how much.
Note that I don't ask for the removal of the ceiling. A character who amasses 10'000 pieces of gold should be relatively immune from fines. However it seems it should be possible for them to hurt even a little bit.
Benefits:
Give some teeth to the fine option when dealing with rich characters.
Possible Downsides/Exploits:
This could be used to lay out crippling fine to a knight who doesn't actually have that much gold. This could be fixed if there was a moving cap at, say, the weekly revenue of the knight. However the page makes you decide the amount and the recipient at the same time, so I imagine that would be harder to code.
-
Title: Increase allowed amounts for fines
Summary:
When a Judge imposes a fine on someone, he can choose an amount somewhere between 50 and 200 gold. For many this is little more than a pittance at which they can laugh. I propose that the ceiling be increased.
Details:
I propose additional options up to 1'000 gold. The exact ceiling can be discussed. There probably was a time when 200 gold was already extremely high. I think it is clear that there is on average more gold available in the game now, although I don't know by how much.
Note that I don't ask for the removal of the ceiling. A character who amasses 10'000 pieces of gold should be relatively immune from fines. However it seems it should be possible for them to hurt even a little bit.
Benefits:
Give some teeth to the fine option when dealing with rich characters.
Possible Downsides/Exploits:
This could be used to lay out crippling fine to a knight who doesn't actually have that much gold. This could be fixed if there was a moving cap at, say, the weekly revenue of the knight. However the page makes you decide the amount and the recipient at the same time, so I imagine that would be harder to code.
Given that the judge has the power to quite simply ban the knight, I have a hard time seeing any amount as abusive.
-
Rich people can do what they want; the poor have to suck it up.
Pros & Cons I see:
PRO's:
- lots of stupid judges will run around slapping large fines on people to try to control them. These people will then get angry and change realm, take their region out of realm, take their Duchy out of realm, protest judge out of office, have judge assassinated out of office, have judge voted out of office, simply ignore paying the fine and just ignore orders to march with army so they don't need to recruit while stashing their money in a private guild, take advantage of only one fine at a time mechanic to go break the looting laws to pay fine, etc.
All of which brings conflict & more dynamics to realm
(Assuming Celine being annoyed at someone prompted this, have you considered that backlash?)
CON's:
- reinforces many judges misbegotten idea that their job is to sit and control everyone all the time. Rich people tend to be powerful, and get away with things. If you need more than a 200 gold fine, ban them. If you dare.
I have always been against the game supplying mechanics to allow characters to avoid dealing with conflict, and I think this falls in that definition.
-
(Assuming Celine being annoyed at someone prompted this, have you considered that backlash?)
Backlash is fun!
-
Could the Judge not simple fine a noble repeatedly? Regardless, I like the proposed change.
-
Could the Judge not simple fine a noble repeatedly? Regardless, I like the proposed change.
I think you technically can, but it would feel like going around a game mechanics if there is no repeat offense. Certainly the ceiling is meant to have some meaning.
-
I think you technically can, but it would feel like going around a game mechanics if there is no repeat offense. Certainly the ceiling is meant to have some meaning.
You need to wait for the person to pay his fine, at the minimum. Not sure if extra delays exist.
-
That's all just because Dürion laughed when he was fined in 50 gold having 6600 with him? I'm so proud :)
He will spend everything with hookers and blackjack. And beer and weed 8)
-
Spam that 200 gold fine on Durion constantly until he breaks!
Also, change the whole fine system so if the person refuses to pay the fine, make it automatically take it out from his tax! NOW THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE PEOPLE CRY MUWHAHAHA
-
That would just give another char more chances to win the next election, since he was already punished and by the laws, the first offense mus be a fine of 50 gold. Also, he will reach Sirion and instead of give 6600 gold for investments, he will send everything to his family or divide it in small gifts of 100 gold for each Sirionite... he will be father ;)
-
That's all just because Dürion laughed when he was fined in 50 gold having 6600 with him? I'm so proud :)
He will spend everything with hookers and blackjack. And beer and weed 8)
The question is, will you get your own blackjack, with hookers? ;)
Back on topic.. I'd go with increased fine amounts.
-
The question is, will you get your own blackjack, with hookers? ;)
That's the intention :)
I'm for it as well. 200 gold can be too much for a Knight, but a Margrave with 6k gold will just laugh at the Judge. And while I can understand why I can't, I would love to have an option to arrest my own nobles ::)
-
You do.
You lure them deep into your own realm, slap a ban on them, and play, "300 gold to whoever catches the rabbit!"
-
That would just give another char more chances to win the next election, since he was already punished and by the laws, the first offense mus be a fine of 50 gold.
There seems to be a disconnect between the law in your head and what is actually written down. Celine could have fined you anything between 10 and 200 gold. She chose 50.
But that's neither here nor there. This situation made me realise the allowed amounts were too small in general, it doesn't mean it was a specific issue in Sirion.
-
In truth, every law must be revised... since many of them are just in my head. Erik advocated too much on his own power and since he's not Judge - and since he's not around anymore - Sirion will need a new set of laws... unless people still want to follow "traditions" instead of revised laws.
-
Also, change the whole fine system so if the person refuses to pay the fine, make it automatically take it out from his tax! NOW THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE PEOPLE CRY MUWHAHAHA
Fines used to have a little more teeth back when you got all your taxes in bonds. You can't use the bank while you have outstanding fines. So you used to have to pay your fines before you could cash your bonds and use gold for anything at all. People did not used to be able to choose to not pay a fine unless they were also willing to live without gold. (Or were willing to swap realms to avoid the fine, but then you lose all your bonds anyway.)
The reason that you can't slap additional fines down on people who already have a fine is that you would be basically cutting off all of their access to gold, essentially preventing them from playing the game. (At least this is the reasoning that I heard many, many years ago about it.) If you kept slapping fines on someone, I wonder if that might be considered harassment. It would probably depend on the situation, I guess.
-
Fines used to have a little more teeth back when you got all your taxes in bonds. You can't use the bank while you have outstanding fines. So you used to have to pay your fines before you could cash your bonds and use gold for anything at all. People did not used to be able to choose to not pay a fine unless they were also willing to live without gold. (Or were willing to swap realms to avoid the fine, but then you lose all your bonds anyway.)
The reason that you can't slap additional fines down on people who already have a fine is that you would be basically cutting off all of their access to gold, essentially preventing them from playing the game. (At least this is the reasoning that I heard many, many years ago about it.) If you kept slapping fines on someone, I wonder if that might be considered harassment. It would probably depend on the situation, I guess.
Yea, pretty sure I heard that argument too. But I still disagree with it as I did then. Fines don't prevent you from playing the game, they prevent you from doing certain actions in your realm. This is not harsh. Slapping a 5000 gold fine? Target can't do some actions for some time in the realm. That's all. If he wanted, he could have banned the person instead, in which case: target can't do much actions for very long in the realm, and then can't do any actions in the realm, being forcefully removed from it.
As banishment is an option, and one that is not very restricted, then why have more restrictions on a softer punishment?
As a side note, though, can fines be removed if the judge gets replaced or changes his mind? This would be the only issue I could see with large fines.
-
As a side note, though, can fines be removed if the judge gets replaced or changes his mind? This would be the only issue I could see with large fines.
No, fines cannot be removed. People often demand that judges lift fines, but the can't.
This is just like "ask to leave" instead of immediate banning. If you immediately ban someone, that ban can be lifted before it goes into effect. An "ask to leave", though, cannot be lifted. The person can leave quickly and avoid the ban. But one way or another, they are leaving the realm.
-
No, fines cannot be removed. People often demand that judges lift fines, but the can't.
This is just like "ask to leave" instead of immediate banning. If you immediately ban someone, that ban can be lifted before it goes into effect. An "ask to leave", though, cannot be lifted. The person can leave quickly and avoid the ban. But one way or another, they are leaving the realm.
Is this... intentional...?
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
Why?
This falls in the same category as "you must lose h/p if you want to replace your !@#$ty badland lordship for a glorious city lordship"
It makes no sense and is just aggravating to players.
-
I'm not following your comparison, so I'm not really understanding what you're asking. Can you restate it?
-
I'm not following your comparison, so I'm not really understanding what you're asking. Can you restate it?
Restrictions that are aggravating to players and serve no game-play purpose nor hold any RP logic all while being inconsistent with other game features.
-
Restrictions that are aggravating to players and serve no game-play purpose nor hold any RP logic all while being inconsistent with other game features.
Stepping down from a lordship is breaking an oath. It doesn't matter that what you're doing it for will be more personally advantageous to you, you're still breaking your oath to rule and protect the people of the region you're leaving.
-
Stepping down from a lordship is breaking an oath. It doesn't matter that what you're doing it for will be more personally advantageous to you, you're still breaking your oath to rule and protect the people of the region you're leaving.
I'll concede that argument to you, but there's no similar argument to be made about bans and fines.
I'll also note that running for elections of a different region holds no equivalent penalty.
-
I'll concede that argument to you, but there's no similar argument to be made about bans and fines.
I'm inclined to agree. If not being able to lift a fine is deliberate, I don't know why.
I'll also note that running for elections of a different region holds no equivalent penalty.
Then maybe it should.
-
This is a very interesting discussion, but what about the original request?
-
This is a very interesting discussion, but what about the original request?
I'm all for it. I thought it went up to 500 gold per fine. But then it's been years since one of my characters was a judge.
-
Restrictions that are aggravating to players and serve no game-play purpose nor hold any RP logic all while being inconsistent with other game features.
Ah, OK, I see what you mean.
For fines: Not being able to lift fines is intentional, as far as I am aware. It has been discussed in the past. IIRC Tom stated that fines are a minor penalty that don't really have any lasting effect on a character. They pay the fine, it goes away, and that's the end of it. There's no permanent record, and no permanent effect. Personally, I don't have any strong feelings on it either way.
As far as the lordships thing goes, I agree with you. Stepping down from a region to accept a different one shouldn't necessarily require a loss of honor. (And if you've been lord long enough, then all you will lose is one point of honor.) Anaris has a planned change to lordships (as discussed in another thread) that should take care of that. As far as the oath thing goes, that could vary. Yes, you took an oath, but whoever you gave that oath to you should be able to release you from that oath. If you're staying in the same duchy, and you're being appointed to a new lordship, then it would stand to reason that the person who holds that oath is releasing you from it, so you shouldn't incur an honor penalty.
The two different kinds of bans was implemented before I started playing, so I can only relate what I have heard. The idea is that if you "ask to leave", you are giving them a chance to leave without getting a ban in their permanent record if they leave quick enough. I think it's three days, roughly twice that of a regular ban. But at the same time, it cannot be rescinded. Once it has been pronounced, that person will be banned when the time runs out, if they have not already left. It is rarely used, as most people want to banned person gone *right now*. (And the last time I saw it used my character was pissed, because she wanted the guy banned so he could be executed later. Grrr! >:( ) I believe the intention was to have two different methods available to the judge, each with it's own mechanic. You can choose the one that you like, based on your situation. Don't like the "as to leave" option? Then don't use it.
-
Yes, you took an oath, but whoever you gave that oath to you should be able to release you from that oath. If you're staying in the same duchy, and you're being appointed to a new lordship, then it would stand to reason that the person who holds that oath is releasing you from it, so you shouldn't incur an honor penalty.
No, you have misunderstood.
The oath a Lord swears is to his people. Everyone in the region. It is an oath to protect them. Stepping down means that you are abrogating that oath.
No one can release you from it. Once you accept a Lordship, stepping down is, and should be, seen by its people as an admission that you cannot or will not protect them.
-
Ah, OK, I see what you mean.
For fines: Not being able to lift fines is intentional, as far as I am aware. It has been discussed in the past. IIRC Tom stated that fines are a minor penalty that don't really have any lasting effect on a character. They pay the fine, it goes away, and that's the end of it. There's no permanent record, and no permanent effect. Personally, I don't have any strong feelings on it either way.
That only stays true if the fine amounts stay small. If a judge wants to slap a 2000 fine on someone, then there should be a way to cancel this fine.
-
My Idea, though it might be a bit extreme:
* Judge can give a fine of up to 10,000 gold
* Once the fine is issued, the amount of the fine is taken from any bonds the character may have
* If there are not enough bonds in the bank, all the bonds are taken the fine remains with an adjusted ballance
* until the fine is completely paid off, all taxes go straight to paying off the fine until the fine is completely paid off
* the judge has the option to "forgive remaining balance" on any standing fine
* the fined character has the option use gold on hand to pay towards the fine
* the fined character has the potion of requesting that his family pay towards his fine
-
No, you have misunderstood.
The oath a Lord swears is to his people. Everyone in the region. It is an oath to protect them. Stepping down means that you are abrogating that oath.
No one can release you from it. Once you accept a Lordship, stepping down is, and should be, seen by its people as an admission that you cannot or will not protect them.
I've never heard of it being like that, I've always been told that it was an oath to the Duke that you would ensure the people and region itself were protected and taken care of. A slight, but significant, difference. That is why lords are part of a duchy after all, otherwise there's no reason a lord couldn't just be attached to the realm without any duke over him.
-
yeah, I have to agree - I read that answer and didn't agree at all.
The Lord swears to the Duke. The people are his chattel. If he steps down, for whatever reason, he cares as much about their opinions as he does those of his donkey.
"cannot or will not protect them"? No it doesn't - it means he's moving on to other things. perhaps a better, richer region.
we don't get our honor based on what the peasants think of us
-
I've always understood it to be two-way... but that the one to the peasants was symbolic. A political show to say "Hey, I'm your boss now, accept me because I will do stuff for you."
-
I've always understood it to be two-way... but that the one to the peasants was symbolic. A political show to say "Hey, I'm your boss now, accept me because I will do stuff for you."
Honour is a measure of how well you handle this symbolism. You don't lose anything when you lose a few points of honour, and there is no "real" downside to stepping down from a lordship either.
And if you're stepping down for a promotion, then quickly you'll gain more honour and prestige from this new position than you lost from the old one.
But, this is very interesting but it really has absolutely no bearing on whether the cap for fines should be raised. Do you have an opinion on that?
-
I wasn't arguing against the loss of honor - if anything, that was meant to be for it. You're breaking an oath at some point, the question is just the severity.
I guess I did forget to comment on the topic... I also didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me for any overlap. Sometimes restating is good anyway. (I'll make an effort to read it tonight, since I've stirred the pot.)
I'd be in favor of raising the cap, maybe even making it unlimited. Canceling it should be possible, too. You see, to me, as a Judge in the past and currently, I find fines to be almost pointless at a functional level. If you put down a fine too big, people can't pay it... which doesn't actually cause any further trouble anyway. Too small, people just pay it and go about their business. Worse yet, the ones who do pay now can't fund their unit and need to ask for gold - oh look, no damage done. The war is more important than the small crime.
What is does do, if you're lucky, is cause a RP stir. People are insulted by the fine and make a big deal about it or people cite it as a reason to shame others. The social effects can be massive if it gets really played out.
Removing the cap allows a greater range of "I'm this upset with you." Slap down a huge fine on someone for the whole realm to see and you'll draw attention from more than just the target. Canceling it allows for a appeals, forgiveness, or other deals (like "Community Service", where a noble is ordered to do Civil Work to make up for it).
Long story short: Since it's a symbolic gesture anyway, let it shine as brightly as the player wants it to.
-
Maybe fix the imbalanced economy where a huge amount of money has been accumulated.
-
Maybe fix the imbalanced economy where a huge amount of money has been accumulated.
???
I'm not sure if you're saying this suggestion is a possible fix for that problem or that solving that problem directly is more important.
Because, of course, this wouldn't actually solve the problem since collected fines come back to the Ruler on tax day.
-
I favour the interpretation which doesn't have an obvious hole.
-
I favour the interpretation which doesn't have an obvious hole.
Figured, just making sure. 8)
It's probably for another thread, but any suggestion as to how one accomplishes a significant reduction in the available gold? Beyond just saying to fix it?
EDIT: I know you've written about it in more detail in other threads before, but what about making a single thread with a consolidated idea?
-
I prefer to watch the world burn etc
-
I prefer to watch the world burn etc
At least it's characteristic