Messages

31

Background / Re: Nobles in taverns

« on: October 23, 2011, 12:07:36 PM »

I used to do these types of roleplays around my first few years in BM.

If Shin knew his daddy had been in bars with peasants.... he'd probably drop dead on the spot....

32

Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request: Buy elections

« on: October 23, 2011, 07:28:28 AM »

Perhaps we should restrict this to only elections that happen more than once.

33

Helpline / Re: Election as lord of city making one Duke

« on: October 23, 2011, 05:09:14 AM »

I'm a little surprised that these significant details weren't determined before the new system went live.

"Commander" was the title I think was considered.

Guillaume Chénier, Commander of Iato, duke of Iato, Hetman of Imperskoe Viys'ko iz Fheuv'na and Ambassador of Imperskoe Viys'ko iz Fheuv'na

Thank god I'm no longer the banker as well!

I really wish that "Ambassador" wouldn't show for rulers (or any government member, really) though.

We should probably make Commander and Duke combine in the same way as government positions combine. E.g. Commander and Duke of X rather than Commander of X, Duke of X

34

Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request: Buy elections

« on: October 23, 2011, 04:53:57 AM »

You know what I LOVE about this? It makes elections a far less viable system of government and that is just !@#$ing ossim.

Shin is gonna love this: "How can you prefer these corrupt democrats over our highly disciplined nobles traditions?"

35

Dwilight / Re: Asylon Realm Thread

« on: October 22, 2011, 10:46:41 AM »

I tried to make sure in my messages to never mix religion with politics and called for SA to stop that practice, an IC view we had of them. 

I am not sure what Amandil said in private messages but he was the one to order the rape and pillaging when most of us found ways to not follow (Oops, I am a Cavalier and do not have that option, sorry) those Orders while publicly calling him out against them.  I believe (I cannot remember since it has been so long) I sent him a private message about those Orders as Archon but it was not heeded.

Since we're in medieval times, asking for a separation for religion and politics is like asking for a separation of politics and science nowadays. People would just be like, "the !@#$ is this guy on about?"

36

Development / Re: Feature Cut: Region Loyalty

« on: October 22, 2011, 08:48:12 AM »

I agree with Tarm.

We can do without loyalty. I think it currently slows down the game too much.

37

East Island / Re: Have you annoyed lot of characters on this island? How you done it?

« on: October 20, 2011, 08:46:39 AM »

Even if someone was my worst enemy (IG of course) enemy I would still attempt to kill the adventurer who ripped him off just to protect the nobility.

38

BM General Discussion / Re: Is it ever acceptable to plan things OOC?

« on: October 18, 2011, 11:32:04 AM »

So your fully written legislation doesn't hint towards modernism?

It doesn't count when the legislation is trying to repel modernism 

39

Feature Requests / Re: Family link on userdata page

« on: October 18, 2011, 11:16:56 AM »

How often do you guys check that page anyway? I might look at it like once a month or something.

40

BM General Discussion / Re: Is it ever acceptable to plan things OOC?

« on: October 18, 2011, 06:45:19 AM »

I always try and handle it IC and go OOC only when I feel someone is acting completely unmedieval.

And I mean completely. When it's only a slight tinge of modernism I still try and handle it IC with good old noble bigotry and arrogance.

41

BM General Discussion / Re: Friendly rebellion - A case for the Titans?

« on: October 17, 2011, 10:15:58 AM »

A very long time ago, Tom said realms don't change name because that's a very modern thing to do.

Meh. I suppose I don't really care. It would just be kind of cool if we could change our name under very special circumstances.

Yeah maybe it wouldn't be medieval but I can definitely see it fitting right in to the BM brand of medieval if you know what I mean.

42

BM General Discussion / Re: Friendly rebellion - A case for the Titans?

« on: October 17, 2011, 07:15:04 AM »

According to Wikipedia, both names have actually been in use for centuries, with one as the literary name and the other as the spoken name.

They still changed their official name. Same story in Thailand (used to be called Siam.)

Realms should be able to change their name with like a 90% vote from the realm or something like that imho. Obviously there should be other impediments to changing a name also.

My main beef is that sometimes there are very good rp reasons to change a name.

43

BM General Discussion / Re: Friendly rebellion - A case for the Titans?

« on: October 16, 2011, 12:53:14 PM »

You cannot ever change the name of your realm. Ever. Not even if you win the rebellion.

There probably should be a way. Somehow.

44

BM General Discussion / Re: Friendly rebellion - A case for the Titans?

« on: October 14, 2011, 07:13:22 AM »

Would it not be easier to allow the ruler to change the government type, immediately triggering a rebellion? He would be the rebelling force leader, the milita if any would be the loyal force automatically, and it would work like a normal rebellion when there is no ruler.

It would make sense IC for the ruler of the current regime to violently reform the estate, ending the old government and starting a new one (like a coup for example).

This is a really good idea.

45

BM General Discussion / Re: Friendly rebellion - A case for the Titans?

« on: October 13, 2011, 11:09:19 AM »

Then it wasn't really a rebellion at all, was it? That's my problem with it. If they rebelled to make use of mechanics, its a cop out. Its hard to see how they think they can survive when they know precisely why they're doomed and do nothing about it? In line with the families involved though. Keeps things interesting 

Finn.

Yah I agree. Don't we have some sort of guideline that the game mechanic sets the rules? Ok. The mechanic is called a "rebellion:" it must be used as a rebellion.

But really this should be put in front of the magistrates and the people involved need to defend themselves.