Allow Dukes to Secede a multiple city duchy that includes capital

[Dante Silverfire]

Title: Allow Dukes to Secede a multiple city duchy that includes capital

Summary: The new Duke/Margrave separation mechanic has created a new situation of judging secession mechanics. Under this mechanic dukes can be liege over multiple cities making the restriction on duchy secession an outdated mechanic. Just because one of the multiple cities a Duke controls is the capital shouldn't stop him from seceding if he meets all other requirements.

Details:

First let me list the complete set of current restrictions upon a seceding duchy.

You must be Duke.
Your Duchy must contain at least one city.
Your Duchy cannot contain all the cities in the realm.
Your Duchy cannot contain the realm's capital.
You must be in the city (within your Duchy) that you wish to become the new capital of your realm.
This city must not have high independence/low control.
You must have been in both your duchy and realm for at least 2 weeks.
You must have at least 6 hours available.
You cannot already be the ruler of your realm.
You cannot be in an NPC realm (pretty much moot nowadays, save for bugs).
You cannot have a family member who is already a ruler on the continent.

There is also a difference between a Duchy containing the capital being able to secede and change allegiance:

Duchies containing the capital of the realm cannot secede. They can, however, switch allegiances. To even begin considering either of these two options there must be another duchy containing a city.

I propose making the simple change of allowing Duchies that hold multiple cities to be able to secede their duchy even if one of their cities is the current capital of their realm and ALL other current requirements are made.

Benefits: This change will eliminate the current dichotomy in addressing duchies that contain a capital of a realm. Why does it make sense that one can change allegiance while Duke over the capital region, but they can't secede if they are duke over the capital region?

Two arguments I presented in the helpline thread:
1. It makes sense to me that a Duke can't secede if his ONLY city is the capital of the realm. However, if he chooses to secede and create a new realm while having more than one city, and he makes the capital of the new realm a different capital than the old one you have a completely different set of circumstances than ever seen before.

2. I guess I'm confused what is trying to be restricted here. Every single other restriction I can think of a reason for it to be in place, but this one baffles me. What is different about a Duke seceding a three city duchy(in a 4 city or more realm) and a duke transferring the allegiance of his three city duchy to another realm, (perhaps a one city realm).

Exploits: None that I can think of. Most exploits are taken care of in the other requirements.

[vonGenf]

To get back to the point I have made in the other thread:

If you wish to change allegiance, you swear yourself to a different ruler. It does not matter that you control the capital, because you do not wish to be a ruler. You're just a traitor.

If you wish to become a ruler, and you control the capital of your realm, then you should seize control of your realm. Why would you seize control of only the core of it?

Imagine the situation, you control a duchy that includes both Keplerville and Eviltown. Being a proud evilstani, you secede your duchy and declare Eviltown your capital. But meanwhile, Keplerville, which is a city in Evilstan but not its capital, remains the capital of Kepler!

I can't imagine any historical example of that. That's like Manchester seceding from Britain and expecting London to follow along.

I think this mechanics does not aim so much at restricting secession than at encouraging rebellions. Secessions should be for border regions with little central control, not for the core of a realm.

[Dante Silverfire]

To get back to the point I have made in the other thread:

If you wish to change allegiance, you swear yourself to a different ruler. It does not matter that you control the capital, because you do not wish to be a ruler. You're just a traitor.

If you wish to become a ruler, and you control the capital of your realm, then you should seize control of your realm. Why would you seize control of only the core of it?

Imagine the situation, you control a duchy that includes both Keplerville and Eviltown. Being a proud evilstani, you secede your duchy and declare Eviltown your capital. But meanwhile, Keplerville, which is a city in Evilstan but not its capital, remains the capital of Kepler!

I can't imagine any historical example of that. That's like Manchester seceding from Britain and expecting London to follow along.

I think this mechanics does not aim so much at restricting secession than at encouraging rebellions. Secessions should be for border regions with little central control, not for the core of a realm.

What makes the Duke who has the capital as a vassal "the core of a realm?" Duchies are no longer limited to being geographically adjacent. The same goes for realms (I believe.)

You could be Duke of two regions, the capital and another city off on the far edge.

Why should I not then just declare allegiance to another realm, and two weeks later secede to form my own realm? Oh, because that's abusing game mechanics? Sure, but why should it be a bad thing?

Perhaps I don't want to rule the realm I'm a part of but want to rule my own. Perhaps I don't want to ruin the fun for all the players in the realm I'm currently apart of by leading a rebellion and then banning half the realm so that I get those I don't like out of it. Maybe I just want to start my own realm and let everyone else be nice and dandy.

The problem is that this restriction was based upon legitimate concerns under a past system. The current system is completely different and as far as I can tell, those concerns no longer apply.

[vonGenf]

What makes the Duke who has the capital as a vassal "the core of a realm?" Duchies are no longer limited to being geographically adjacent. The same goes for realms (I believe.)

You could be Duke of two regions, the capital and another city off on the far edge.

Core as in game-mechanic core: you control the place where the government is located. It's not a geographic argument.

Why should I not then just declare allegiance to another realm, and two weeks later secede to form my own realm? Oh, because that's abusing game mechanics? Sure, but why should it be a bad thing?

It's abusing game mechanic only in the sense that game mechanics say you can't secede if you have the capital; if that were allowed, then it would not be abuse (and would not be needed).

Perhaps I don't want to rule the realm I'm a part of but want to rule my own.

I think the restriction is in place exactly to avoid people seeing realms as their personal little toy.

When Henry Tudor won the War of the Roses, he didn't create a new realm named Tudoria. He didn't destroy a large, powerful realm with a long history and took its ressources for himself; he took the whole realm and its history with it.

Perhaps I don't want to ruin the fun for all the players in the realm I'm currently apart of by leading a rebellion and then banning half the realm so that I get those I don't like out of it. Maybe I just want to start my own realm and let everyone else be nice and dandy.

You're not making it easy for the others: you're stealing their capital!

If you want everyone else be nice and dandy, first you should ensure that the capital is not in your duchy, either by giving the city to another Duke or convince the realm to move the capital.

[Dante Silverfire]

Core as in game-mechanic core: you control the place where the government is located. It's not a geographic argument.

Then, it should be possible for any liege of the capital to automatically replace the government of a realm without an armed rebellion.

Otherwise, this point is completely moot*.

[Penchant]

Then, it should be possible for any liege of the capital to automatically replace the government of a realm without an armed rebellion.

Otherwise, this point is completely mute.

Agreed.

[Draco Tanos]

Then, it should be possible for any liege of the capital to automatically replace the government of a realm without an armed rebellion.

Otherwise, this point is completely mute.

Moot, not mute.

If that became the case then a ruler should be able to revoke the titles of dukes.  Unless the duke could only replace he council except the ruler, perhaps.  Hrm...

[Dante Silverfire]

If that became the case then a ruler should be able to revoke the titles of dukes.  Unless the duke could only replace he council except the ruler, perhaps.  Hrm...

Why? Dukes are the seats of power. Rulers only have what power is granted to them by those below them in the hierarchy. If the Dukes apparently have the power of government simply because they have the lord of the capital as their vassal then they should literally control the government.

Otherwise this rule is simply not based upon anything.

[Chenier]

No single character should be able to destroy a realm on his own, which is what your suggestion would allow.

[Dante Silverfire]

No single character should be able to destroy a realm on his own, which is what your suggestion would allow.

Please explain how.

[Draco Tanos]

Why? Dukes are the seats of power. Rulers only have what power is granted to them by those below them in the hierarchy. If the Dukes apparently have the power of government simply because they have the lord of the capital as their vassal then they should literally control the government.

Otherwise this rule is simply not based upon anything.

On the contrary, Dukes rule in the name of the ruler.  Just as Lords rule in the name of their Duke and landed knights in the name of their Lord.

In the medieval mindset, at least if one is properly RPing, power doesn't come from below but rather from above.  It is why the "Royal We" developed.  The monarch IS the realm personified.

[Dante Silverfire]

On the contrary, Dukes rule in the name of the ruler.  Just as Lords rule in the name of their Duke and landed knights in the name of their Lord.

In the medieval mindset, at least if one is properly RPing, power doesn't come from below but rather from above.  It is why the "Royal We" developed.  The monarch IS the realm personified.

If you're in a Monarchy you're correct.

You're wrong otherwise.

I can perhaps see allowing a Strong Monarch that power. But other rulers wouldn't have it.

[Penchant]

No single character should be able to destroy a realm on his own, which is what your suggestion would allow.

He is suggesting if in a three city realm with his duchy containing a two cities, one the capital, that he should be able to secede. He is not suggesting I be able to secede with every city of the realm.

[Chenier]

He is suggesting if in a three city realm with his duchy containing a two cities, one the capital, that he should be able to secede. He is not suggesting I be able to secede with every city of the realm.

Leaving with the capital is extremely damaging to a realm. Even if the realm is left with a strongland, or maybe even a city, it may never be able to move its capital and get back on its feet.

[Dante Silverfire]

Leaving with the capital is extremely damaging to a realm. Even if the realm is left with a strongland, or maybe even a city, it may never be able to move its capital and get back on its feet.

How about a 6 city realm? We have two cities secede, and 4 stay with a new capital.

Or perpahs what's the difference between in a 4 city realm, 3 cities changing allegiance to a 1 city realm, or 3 cities seceding to make their new realm.

It just seems to me that this restriction was based upon Dukes being Duke over only a single city. With the changes made, it doesn't make sense that in order to secede I must first grant my capital city a dukeship, then secede, then have that city join me through an allegiance change.