So marks are leaving. Sure, no problem there, they were rather pointless in most cases anyways.
And so is the protection from bans for having 3 good marks, and therefore I suppose the possibility to force a duke to secede at 3 bad marks?
[14:11] <+Sacha> so no more invulnerability from judges from getting 3 good marks?
[14:12] <@_Tom_> Sacha: No invulnerability. One of the changes in this system is that we have a lot fewer game-mechanics restrictions and rely more on players checking what happens to them. So you can resize a knights estate or kick him out and the game doesn't stop you, but unless he's a pussy, there should be consequences.
[14:21] <@_Tom_> Ramiel: Yes, there is - but not a game mechanic. One change is that I hope that added flexibility will also make you the players pass laws, rules, regulations that you enforce yourselves. I find laws that can be broken and thus have consequences a lot more interesting than a "you can't do this" message from the game engine.
[14:21] <@_Tom_> So basically, the idea is that a lord should stand up for his knights. But he has to do it himself instead of hiding behind game-mechanics.
While I can understand where you are coming from, I must say I liked the balance that was created by the lordly protection. It was a hinderence to the judge, but did not leave him without any options at all (the only problem I had with it, however, was that good marks stayed regardless of what happens to the lord, I believe, and that therefore one knight could have been given over 9000 good marks over the years and would have therefore never been possible to ban even if the lord wanted so).
The reason I liked it was because it wasn't a restriction decided upon by game mechanics, such as when we couldn't loot allies or how traders may only hire mercenary troops. It was the result of someone higher in the hierarchy deciding that he was willing to risk himself for his vassal, therefore pitting the judge against the lord instead of the knight who has way less contacts and means to defend himself against wrongful accusations or radical judgements. With the lordly protection, his liege could easily say "yes, he might deserve punishment, but nothing more than X, or you'll have to pass through me", offering a more moderate stance in his conflict against the judge. However, for most lords, this would basically mean drawing a huge target on yourself and hoping you stand well enough among the other nobles so that if he does take a shot at you they'll have his throat for it. It allows more experienced players to cover for newbs against unruly judges, and for manipulative or ambitious lords to protect their trouble-making cronies until they are ready for something bigger.
I think it was a good mechanic, as it allowed for some cases where the judge would have to pick on someone closer to their caliber if they want to use their full power. It created more opportunities for conflict and tensions, if you ask me, and a modified version would be a nice addition to the new system. Like, say, a proclamation of protection that takes two days to take effect and two to cancel? Or instantaneous?
It also brings the question about forcing the duke to secede. This too I believe was a good thing, and unless an alternative equivalent is put in place, will disappear much like lordly protection.
