Council Power

[De-Legro]

As I pointed at many times before, depriving formal titles from real power deprives game of exciting actions. When all title holders can be removed by more than one means, they should have power (and, absurdly, the only title which holds realm power -non-council title -  is untouchable), so the balance would exist between their power and power of those who dislike them. Quarrels about power would create much of internal political frictions and indirectly create foreign frictions too in many ways I will describe later.

Currently the necessity that council needs to be liked by most of realm create some sort of liberal democracy that has almost nothing to do with medieval atmosphere - fine people doing fine thing, all respect each other, ideal for real life, terrible for the game.

Even the only example of "noble democracy" that of medieval England - balance was fragile all the time, power abuses attempts frequent. Once harmony was reached, middle age was already over... Without power there are no abuses, strong characters, strong stories, nothing.

With mechanics which forces ruler to be some sort "prime minister of minority government" the most frequently we have two scenarios:

1- everybody does his own business, no any real cohesion within realm exist. Besides putting gold in pockets almost nothing happens as no-one can move something to happen
2- over time council, or ruler, created reign of very submissive followers. This mostly works in some very old realms who had luck to never be exposed to some more serious test of strength. Apathy is dominant feeling. Leaders will take care to never disturb customary submissiveness by any new initiative, being fully aware that they cannot gain absolutely nothing, but they will likely lose everything but introducing change in fragile balance of their informal power.

All described i caused by game mechanics. It is like mechanics wants so impose consensus as the only way of realm society's functioning. Together with the mention fact that success in achieving such consensus means boring idyll, it also derogates many  founding stones of medieval values - as it was nicely described in some Wiki articles, nobles lived and died for formal title, that meant everything for them, that way their main objective in life and motive which moved things forward. How can that work if titles are apparently empty...

I always wonder what realms you must play in to form these ideas. They are always so completely different from my own experience.  It is non-trivial to remove council members, unless you have the Judge on side. Protest and rebellions require a fair amount of support to work, so really a council member would  need a majority of the realm to be against them. The only realms I can think of were the council made any real effort to appease the nobility was the few democracies I've played in. I've found that with Monarchies, Theocracies and Tyrannies, player want and EXPECT their council to operate according the ideals of governments. For example in a Monarchy I expect a strong decisive ruler. It doesn't matter if I always agree with them so long as the character IS a monarch.

[Cadfan]

As I pointed at many times before, depriving formal titles from real power deprives game of exciting actions. When all title holders can be removed by more than one means, they should have power (and, absurdly, the only title which holds realm power -non-council title -  is untouchable), so the balance would exist between their power and power of those who dislike them. Quarrels about power would create much of internal political frictions and indirectly create foreign frictions too in many ways I will describe later.

Currently the necessity that council needs to be liked by most of realm create some sort of liberal democracy that has almost nothing to do with medieval atmosphere - fine people doing fine thing, all respect each other, ideal for real life, terrible for the game.

Even the only example of "noble democracy" that of medieval England - balance was fragile all the time, power abuses attempts frequent. Once harmony was reached, middle age was already over... Without power there are no abuses, strong characters, strong stories, nothing.

With mechanics which forces ruler to be some sort "prime minister of minority government" the most frequently we have two scenarios:

1- everybody does his own business, no any real cohesion within realm exist. Besides putting gold in pockets almost nothing happens as no-one can move something to happen
2- over time council, or ruler, created reign of very submissive followers. This mostly works in some very old realms who had luck to never be exposed to some more serious test of strength. Apathy is dominant feeling. Leaders will take care to never disturb customary submissiveness by any new initiative, being fully aware that they cannot gain absolutely nothing, but they will likely lose everything but introducing change in fragile balance of their informal power.

All described i caused by game mechanics. It is like mechanics wants so impose consensus as the only way of realm society's functioning. Together with the mention fact that success in achieving such consensus means boring idyll, it also derogates many  founding stones of medieval values - as it was nicely described in some Wiki articles, nobles lived and died for formal title, that meant everything for them, that way their main objective in life and motive which moved things forward. How can that work if titles are apparently empty...

You really must have played in some terrible realms. I've never seen anything close to what you describe. Perhaps the problems were not with the game, but with the players that had the power in those realms.

[Stue (DC)]

Quality of discussion is in my opinion mostly based on mutual respect. As regards that, if we trust each other in basic statements, we will simply agree that experience can be vastly different.

Not only having experience with multiple characters, but some of my characters moved much, so they "covered" many realms.

For instance, what I saw in multiple realms in current times, habit apparently transmitted throughout continents over time: in monarchy ruler elections, there are often one or more nobles who call ruler candidates to state their "program" , and they even structure such demand into several specific questions.

Once I complained publicly that ruler is to be elected on basis on his previous deeds, his established respect with the realm, apparent qualities, claims etc. as monarch as a concept assumes that elections values those fundamental values of chivalry that would guarantee realm's future, not some "program", especially if ruler candidate may not think such specific questions are the most important ones. And somebody called me "non-democratic".

The fact is if there were buttons strong enough, some players who may not grasp concepts from very beginning would better do it when faced with in-character harshness.

Currently, I am often reluctant to conduct deep discussions about noble values, to apply arrogance toward younger nobles, insist on claims etc. as there are so many angry reactions which often turn to ooc. Absurdly, the more convincing my character is, the more ooc upset some people are, though it is really funny for me that when I say " you are incompetent young noble and your low reputation barely allows you to ride a horse", somebody takes it ooc.

If I pursue such behavior long enough, most of people get it, because of the fact that most of Bm players are clever, some just lack wiki reading and initial player guidance, and they spent many months without grasping basic concepts.

The same parallel can be drawn with realm council buttons - they would help players to better, quicker and easier understand what tyranny, monarch etc. is, they will barely understand anything if seeing ruler is trying to please them.

At this point I can also ask myself where you draw your experience, probably within some of large and long-established realms, where changes in game mechanics did not affect players habits.

And I really needs to disagree with your indirect statement that there is no enough means to get rid of council members.

Let us take some tyrant as and example. Would it be realistic that few protests can take him off the throne? Certainly not, what would be his power than. So there is option of either mass protest or well-prepared rebellion that does not have to have extremely much nobles involved. Or persuading strong dukes or other council members against him... So vast number of oppotunity which  give chance for funny.

But it is actually not so funny to overthrow someone who is not powerful, lack of such buttons simply sterilizes game in many aspects. I am almost convinced that if council members have more power, they would be attacked more often.

[De-Legro]

Depends, you take Tyrant to mean something like

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

I think it was mentioned on the D-list before that what is meant by Tyrant in game is

(Historical Terms) (esp in ancient Greece) a ruler whose authority lacked the sanction of law or custom; usurper

I get where you are comming from, but honestly I think you are ignoring the fun aspect for most the realm in order to impose arbitrary beliefs of historical accuracy. For example you say

Currently, I am often reluctant to conduct deep discussions about noble values, to apply arrogance toward younger nobles, insist on claims etc. as there are so many angry reactions which often turn to ooc. Absurdly, the more convincing my character is, the more ooc upset some people are, though it is really funny for me that when I say " you are incompetent young noble and your low reputation barely allows you to ride a horse", somebody takes it ooc.

But if we wanted to be accurate, the age of the noble would in most cases be far less important then what family he comes from. It was unlikely anyone would have talked in such a manner to young member of the House of Plantagenet unless there own family outranked them.

Like wise I have always understood the fundamental values of chivalry to be largely romanticised rules created in later periods, with a basis in the behaviour of knights in the last phases of the middle ages when their dominant role on the battlefield had largely been usurped by infantry.

I simply don't agree that those example you gave are really anything wrong or bad in the context of the game. Realms are always going to exist on a spectrum, and that spectrum is only partially going to be based on history, a good part of a realms identity is going to be bases on what the majority of its members find to be fun. Like the rest of us you will just have to search until you find a realm that meets YOUR expectations, or create your own.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

We should keep in mind that it is very likely that the vast majority of players don't know anything substantial about the real Middle Ages. It's kind of like Medipunk, if that exists.

[Stue (DC)]

Depends, you take Tyrant to mean something like

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

I think it was mentioned on the D-list before that what is meant by Tyrant in game is

(Historical Terms) (esp in ancient Greece) a ruler whose authority lacked the sanction of law or custom; usurper

i would simplify and say that tyrant could be the one who usurps too much power and his vasals can either find fun to support him or find fun in overthrow him, both these alternatives having potential for in-game fun.

diluted council power, however, mitigates potential conflicts. it would be much better that game mechanics encourages conflicts instead of mitigating them.

i would like to be part of consensus democracy in real life. in game - it is really not funny - for me and i daresay for many others.

I get where you are coming from, but honestly I think you are ignoring the fun aspect for most the realm in order to impose arbitrary beliefs of historical accuracy. For example you say

But if we wanted to be accurate, the age of the noble would in most cases be far less important then what family he comes from. It was unlikely anyone would have talked in such a manner to young member of the House of Plantagenet unless there own family outranked them.

Like wise I have always understood the fundamental values of chivalry to be largely romanticised rules created in later periods, with a basis in the behaviour of knights in the last phases of the middle ages when their dominant role on the battlefield had largely been usurped by infantry.

there is almost no doubt that most of chivalry issues comes from domain of epic development of legends, like most of things in the whole history.

but we are trying to create world which resembles middle age in idealized way. i doubt too many people care for accuracy. do whatever you believe it could happen in middle age, but at least try to resemble it, do not resemble modern democracy where it clearly does not belong to.

you are right when saying - find your own place, create your own realm. but in such case game mechanics should be neutral, to allow us to choose different paths, which is not the case now, where game mechanics seems to favorize consensus democracy, at the same time making other ways incredibly hard to achieve, if not impossible.

[Kain]

Speaking of Council positions, since I've had my chars paused for a long time, I must ask.

A council position these days seem to have a "power level" which can be either strong, balanced or weak.

What does this mean in practical terms?

[De-Legro]

Speaking of Council positions, since I've had my chars paused for a long time, I must ask.

A council position these days seem to have a "power level" which can be either strong, balanced or weak.

What does this mean in practical terms?

Very little, I believe it is something that is not implemented or only partially implemented.

[Chenier]

Speaking of Council positions, since I've had my chars paused for a long time, I must ask.

A council position these days seem to have a "power level" which can be either strong, balanced or weak.

What does this mean in practical terms?

Nothing at all, if I'm correct. It has not been implemented in any way thus far.

[Bedwyr]

Nothing at all, if I'm correct. It has not been implemented in any way thus far.

This is correct.  There are plans to do something with it, but currently it does nothing.

[Indirik]

Foundation is actually working on removing that from the interface for now. In fact, he's been taking on the job of "Code Deletion Engineer" lately, removing a lot of things from the interface that were broken, unimplemented, or obsolete.

[Draco Tanos]

Personally, I'd like to see the ruler being given the option of dismissing the Council to allow new appointments/elections.    Having to deal with the previous ruler's choices doesn't really make much sense, especially in all but democracies and, to a degree, republics.  If the general membership disagrees with the ruler's choice, there can be protests.

[Sacha]

So let the ruler call for protests against the council if he wants them gone. If the realm agrees, they'll do what he asks.

[Shenron]

Personally, I'd like to see the ruler being given the option of dismissing the Council to allow new appointments/elections.    Having to deal with the previous ruler's choices doesn't really make much sense, especially in all but democracies and, to a degree, republics.  If the general membership disagrees with the ruler's choice, there can be protests.

I would like to see this feature in tyrannies. 

[Draco Tanos]

Name a classical monarchy, tyranny, or republic where the ruler does not have the right/ability to remove cabinet-level members of the government.  Even in modern republics this is a standard thing.  Pretty sure in modern monarchies most monarchs have the right as well, even if it's not practiced (due to possible protests against -them-). 

The ruler should not have to call on the general membership to protest a person out of a position.  The person could do an adequate enough job, but the purpose of a cabinet/council is historically to be a trusted group of advisers.  i.e. a privy council.