Remove Royal "unbannable" perk

[loren]

Can't honestly recall if Gregor was wounded by an Infy or a skirmish that knocked him out of Dukeship of Westmoor, which allowed me to quickly set up loyalists over the duchy.

I've almost been knocked out of positions due to preaching incidents as well.  Damned Flowists.

It was a skirmish, but an infiltraitor wound a few weeks earlier almost did it.  Fairly certain Jor ordered that one .

[Indirik]

One of the dukes in Darka lost his duchy and lordship due to a long wound after a battle with monsters. He was out for quite a while.

[Penchant]

One of the dukes in Darka lost his duchy and lordship due to a long wound after a battle with monsters. He was out for quite a while.

Shouldn't a duke of Darka had a unit big enough to take out some monsters? Just saying.

[Chenier]

It was a skirmish, but an infiltraitor wound a few weeks earlier almost did it.  Fairly certain Jor ordered that one .

Rarely works.

One of the dukes in Darka lost his duchy and lordship due to a long wound after a battle with monsters. He was out for quite a while.

Also quite rare.

[Indirik]

@penchant: he did take out the monster. The wound was a hernia he got while trying to pick up his coin pouch.

[Fleugs]

I haven't really entirely read through this thread, but I have the distinct feeling this proposal is made for more personal gains than with the intent to improve gameplay. The assumption that "royals" create a toxic game situation is rather rash. Granted, some cling on to their status and their positions, but you should simply learn to deal with that IC. So far I have not had any problems with royals myself, except for the fact that indeed a royal duke is pretty much untouchable. Then again, in the end, most dukes are untouchable either way. To me the position of "duke" is still the best you can have in Battlemaster.

What I do understand is that a character, which gained royal status at say age 30, can be a duke for another 50 ingame years. That is indeed not the best situation. Players who do that have no sense of a continuous flow of new, fresh characters. You can consider such players selfish. It is selfish to stick to your duchy for several years IRL not giving anyone else the chance to take your place and have some fun - and probably enjoy it more, because old players tend to grow numb to positions they have had for a very long time.

My suggestion, instead of lifting "royal", is to enable death for old characters. In some cases even the limited hours that a character gets per turn is not enough to persuade people to kill their character off. Might as well be time to use some game-mechanic force then.

[Dante Silverfire]

I haven't really entirely read through this thread, but I have the distinct feeling this proposal is made for more personal gains than with the intent to improve gameplay. The assumption that "royals" create a toxic game situation is rather rash. Granted, some cling on to their status and their positions, but you should simply learn to deal with that IC.

Please keep your OOC accusations against me somewhere else, and not polluting this thread.

If you have an issue with me you can address it privately.

[Solari]

Please keep your OOC accusations against me somewhere else, and not polluting this thread.

If you have an issue with me you can address it privately.

I don't think that was the point of his comment. There are sound reasons for why we don't allow rulers to be easily banished. IMHO, they trump any other reason to the contrary.

[Penchant]

I don't think that was the point of his comment. There are sound reasons for why we don't allow rulers to be easily banished. IMHO, they trump any other reason to the contrary.

That's a false statement which is the reason for the request. There is nothing easy about banning an ex-ruler because its impossible and they are set for life.

[Chenier]

That's a false statement which is the reason for the request. There is nothing easy about banning an ex-ruler because its impossible and they are set for life.

Not quite. Banning dukes and getting away with it is quite difficult. Banning important people and getting away with it can be difficult. But if you don't care to get away with it, or if the person isn't a duke/margrave, banning him, per say, isn't hard at all.

[Solari]

That's a false statement which is the reason for the request. There is nothing easy about banning an ex-ruler because its impossible and they are set for life.

Ruling means something. Even ruling poorly. You've built up an entourage. You have loyalists, even after you lose your official power. Further, many realms are monarchies, theocracies, and the like. One could argue that royals should be easier to chase out of republics or democracies, but IMHO that misses the point of a medieval-style aristocratic republic. You, as the realm, elected this person. You placed your absolute trust in them. Now you want to cut them out like a tumor? Okay, but it's going to be a real pain in the ass. That is what the royal perk is meant to signify. It is not impossible to remove a royal from the realm. It is extremely difficult, and it should be. If the request was made because someone was abusing this privilege and haranguing the realm, that's something else and we would all benefit from knowing about this. But simply suggesting that the problem is that it's very hard to remove royals misses the point, which has already been explained.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Yes, but this can be arbitrary. Take Caelum, for instance. We just protested our ruler out of power. You could pretty reasonably say he has little support. But the royal perk arbitrarily gives him the ability to stay in the realm indefinitely.

[Sacha]

So next time, go for a rebellion. IIRC, if you're rebelled against you lose your Royal title even if you're not outright banned by the rebels afterwards.

[Penchant]

So next time, go for a rebellion. IIRC, if you're rebelled against you lose your Royal title even if you're not outright banned by the rebels afterwards.

They aren't against the entire government nor the government system, merely against one person. While if an event happens to give reason for a ruler to be removed, it is much easier to convince people to protest him out instead of doing a rebellion.

[Dante Silverfire]

Ruling means something. Even ruling poorly. You've built up an entourage. You have loyalists, even after you lose your official power. Further, many realms are monarchies, theocracies, and the like. One could argue that royals should be easier to chase out of republics or democracies, but IMHO that misses the point of a medieval-style aristocratic republic. You, as the realm, elected this person. You placed your absolute trust in them. Now you want to cut them out like a tumor? Okay, but it's going to be a real pain in the ass. That is what the royal perk is meant to signify. It is not impossible to remove a royal from the realm. It is extremely difficult, and it should be. If the request was made because someone was abusing this privilege and haranguing the realm, that's something else and we would all benefit from knowing about this. But simply suggesting that the problem is that it's very hard to remove royals misses the point, which has already been explained.

The thing is, that it IS impossible to remove a Royal from a realm. There is no way to actually remove them from your realm. The only current method that can even be attempted on them is Exile, but why should that noble leave. As Anaris stated earlier, leaving is stupid because Prestige and honor really don't mean anything in this game. A Royal cannot be removed from a realm under any circumstances.