Feature Request: Buy elections

[JPierreD]

I would certainly restrict the bribing option to certain elections. For the ones in which each noble has just one vote, it would be very strange that you could fake their votes, given the prestige they count with (as long as the vote is not secret, which though IG-mechanics it is, I don't see as very medieval). When you have elections in where prestige or knights counts, then it would be easier, for you would simply bribe the low nobility of which the prestigious nobles has the support from (I suppose that is how the system works).

In any case, we have two different possibilities it would be nice to clearly separate: bribing electors (namely the NPC lower nobility, for the players you already can), or rigging the elections (and bribing the elector officers, who are probably not public employees without major loyalties as in modern democracies, but probably servants of the royal or a very powerful house), which should be severely riskier and with harder consequences. The first option is buying the will of the voters, the second is outright fooling them.

[Chenier]

I'm not speaking from a gameplay point of view rather than "what would be medieval." I don't care what happens in real life, whats important is does it keep the game fun for a decent number of people (not just the rich ones.)

This is why I think it's important to have an elected once ruler be transparent not because it's realistic but so the game still has a minimal layer of transparency. I'm all for this buying votes thing but I think we need to seriously consider the impact this will have on the game; especially for the "noobs"

Winning an election doesn't make someone an almighty god. An unpopular ruler can still be protested or rebelled out. Personally, I find one in a lifetime elections are those who matter the *least*, because they weren't democratic at all to begin with anyways.

[Kain]

I'm not speaking from a gameplay point of view rather than "what would be medieval." I don't care what happens in real life, whats important is does it keep the game fun for a decent number of people (not just the rich ones.)

This is why I think it's important to have an elected once ruler be transparent not because it's realistic but so the game still has a minimal layer of transparency. I'm all for this buying votes thing but I think we need to seriously consider the impact this will have on the game; especially for the "noobs"

You do make a good point there.

But I wonder how big the impact would be. Most people invest heavily in their realm so to risk this would be sort of an all-out move. Either you succeed and your character becomes King or you are discovered, you fail and you're banned for trying or atleast reprimanted harshly.

[fodder]

You can effectively buy votes now though.  Nothing stops someone from straight out bribing others to vote for them.

precisely. the difference being, you are bribing a player who can double cross you. or bribing an npc, which won't. (well, he would if someone else bribe him more, though probably won't rat you out)

---
someone people don't want getting on to the throne is no big deal. they'll be protested out the next turn in all probability.

[vonGenf]

You can effectively buy votes now though.  Nothing stops someone from straight out bribing others to vote for them.

You're right, I can pay half the realm to vote for me. That's just good politics. It's not even cheating!

I don't think this proposal will lower interaction within a realm. In the vast majority of cases, things will unfurl as usual.

[Chenier]

precisely. the difference being, you are bribing a player who can double cross you. or bribing an npc, which won't. (well, he would if someone else bribe him more, though probably won't rat you out)

---
someone people don't want getting on to the throne is no big deal. they'll be protested out the next turn in all probability.

Non-sense. Failure and discovery % would obviously be part of the code.

[fodder]

NPC by definition cannot do the same kind of backstabbing as PC.
imagine some exaggerated scenario:

election with candidates A, B, C
candidate A bribes XYZ, XYZ takes the money, don't tell everyone, but went ahead to vote for B/C because they are in some secret society together or what not and uses the gold to bribe someone else to vote anyone but A.

doing something similar with npc would be a bit complicated, no?

dealing with npc tends to mean they won't screw you. taking your money and running away, sure. failure, sure. but not really screw you. they don't have memories, hold grudges and what not. and that's a very ooc thing.

[Chenier]

NPC by definition cannot do the same kind of backstabbing as PC.
imagine some exaggerated scenario:

election with candidates A, B, C
candidate A bribes XYZ, XYZ takes the money, don't tell everyone, but went ahead to vote for B/C because they are in some secret society together or what not and uses the gold to bribe someone else to vote anyone but A.

doing something similar with npc would be a bit complicated, no?

dealing with npc tends to mean they won't screw you. taking your money and running away, sure. failure, sure. but not really screw you. they don't have memories, hold grudges and what not. and that's a very ooc thing.

But they can call you out, and then *everyone else* will remember.

[fodder]

yes, but that can be done by pc anyway (with a higher chance)... and not sneaky at all.

[Chenier]

yes, but that can be done by pc anyway (with a higher chance)... and not sneaky at all.

How can you say "higher chance" than a feature which doesn't even exist yet and which's success rate is therefore unknown?

There could also be a sneaky factor, in which random nobles would get "your scribes inform you that X tried to bribe them to have your vote changed in his favor". That person could then be able to blackmail the one who tried to rig the elections.

[fodder]

because people and npc are inherently different and people will interact with npc differently than with other people. npc do not do things to advance an agenda.

if the idea is to bribe a noble, then bribe a noble. don't need new mechanism for that.
if the idea is to bribe some faceless npc to change how someone else vote, then it would be best not to show too much info for elections, like who got how many votes.

just seems to be complexities that is just unnecessary

mind you, how many people actually pay out gold to bribe elections already? oddly enough, i suspect it'll happen a lot more if there's an ingame function to do it via npc. because clicking links is "better" than writing a letter.

you don't have to anticipate what the other player will do. click a link, if it fails, it fails. big deal.

the random thing to random noble will basically go down the same route as investigation. people inherently trust anything that's in the form of a copy/pasted message.

[Shenron]

mind you, how many people actually pay out gold to bribe elections already? oddly enough, i suspect it'll happen a lot more if there's an ingame function to do it via npc. because clicking links is "better" than writing a letter.

Do you mean to introduce a feature where a noble can offer an bribe to another noble and upon clickling "accept" their vote will automagically be set to this candidate.

Or are you trying to say we should rely on what we have now and just ask people to vote for us in a message and give them money.

Because if it's the latter I've gotta say that if someone ever tried to bribe me for a vote... it would be pretty much be an implied message saying: "don't vote for me, I'm a dirty bastard." In which case I would accept the money and not vote for him

Honestly I think this is why npcs are good for stuff like this. Medieval times are all about saving face (even when it's fairly obvious you're full of !@#$.) Therefore deniability needs to be present always or else nobody is going to stick their neck out (nor should they.)

[vonGenf]

Because if it's the latter I've gotta say that if someone ever tried to bribe me for a vote... it would be pretty much be an implied message saying: "don't vote for me, I'm a dirty bastard." In which case I would accept the money and not vote for him

This is why most people who rig elections don't bribe the voters. They bribe the vote counters.