Forced Realm Splits and Voluntary Realm Mergers

[Azerax]

Realm mergers were often cemented by marrying children, so it shouldn't be banned.

[Anaris]

Isn't the entire feudal system built upon sovereign lords giving up power in exchange for something else? Lords give up power to dukes in exchange for their protection, etc... Lords give up lands to knights in exchange for service and loyalty. Basic feudal contract to me for sovereigns to give up authority to another.

In a feudal oath, a Lord gives up ultimate sovereignty in exchange for protection, etc, but keeps his fief.

In a realm merger, a Ruler gives up all sovereignty, and does not keep his realm.

[Dante Silverfire]

In a feudal oath, a Lord gives up ultimate sovereignty in exchange for protection, etc, but keeps his fief.

In a realm merger, a Ruler gives up all sovereignty, and does not keep his realm.

If the Ruler is Duke of a single duchy realm, then he keeps his realm and simply gives up the title of ruler.

That is the situation at hand.

[Indirik]

What this treaty then effectively does is it uses a meta-game OOC rule to forcibly prevent players who already peacefully play together from ever peacefully playing together in the future in the same realm.

This statement is false. It is also irrelevant.

First, the treaty does not in any way prevent the *players* from playing together. They can start new characters. They can move their characters to the other realm. Or they can tell the Empire to piss off and do whatever they want. (All of which have different consequences, of course.)

Second, it is even less restrictive than the treaty provisions which mandate that certain characters leave the island entirely, and never return. If you are really concerned about the characters not being allowed to play together, why aren't you complaining about that?

Third, the rules of the game do not, in any way, give you the right to play in any specific realm, with any other specific player, or any other such thing. The Empire could have handed out a list of nobles that were required to be in each realm, and demand it to be permanent, and it would break no rules.

The idea of realm mergers is something on which I have little to say, other than they "feel wrong", but I can't quite explain why.

[Dante Silverfire]

This statement is false. It is also irrelevant.

First, the treaty does not in any way prevent the *players* from playing together. They can start new characters. They can move their characters to the other realm. Or they can tell the Empire to piss off and do whatever they want. (All of which have different consequences, of course.)

Second, it is even less restrictive than the treaty provisions which mandate that certain characters leave the island entirely, and never return. If you are really concerned about the characters not being allowed to play together, why aren't you complaining about that?

Third, the rules of the game do not, in any way, give you the right to play in any specific realm, with any other specific player, or any other such thing. The Empire could have handed out a list of nobles that were required to be in each realm, and demand it to be permanent, and it would break no rules.

The idea of realm mergers is something on which I have little to say, other than they "feel wrong", but I can't quite explain why.

I like this argument.

Anyway, I have complained about other terms in-game where they are actually relevant. This was the only term that actually butts up against rules that I was aware of. But, this isn't a complaint, I just want to know what the reasoning behind the realm-merger argument is, and if there are exceptions to that sort of thing. To me, this seems to fall under the category of capital changes. "You can always revert the capital of your realm to its original capital", so reforming a realm from its respective parts that were split could also be allowed.

[Eirikr]

...

Or they've been forced to form a realm, but still regard someone else as the right and proper sovereign.

Consider if the Véinsørmoot made the Mootgram position a sort of "Sovereign of the Véinsørmoot," or numerous "empire" systems springing up.

The circumstances where a "ruler" would not regard him/herself as properly sovereign are numerous and plausible.

Of course, it could always be said that if one man doesn't think he's the proper sovereign, there's likely someone else who has no problem with it. Theoretically, it's a choice between preserving someone else's ideals and ruling style while trying to find a way for them to return or giving up and stepping down, letting someone who has no reservations (and likely a large ego) step up.

So, either way, you are the rightful sovereign because you are the one who is willing to maintain rule in the style of who you believe should be ruler, but can't or someone else does not have those reservations and believes himself to be "rightful" enough.

[Eirikr]

I'd always assumed the reason realm mergers weren't allowed had something to do with forming extremely large and powerful realms out of a few allies. Having everyone in one realm makes it easier to communicate and deal with problems (Judge powers for those realms you normally wouldn't have an option for), but simply allied realms still allows them to go to war. It also seems harder to cause problems internally if you want to. There's options in place, but most of them are messy.

[Indirik]

I'd always assumed the reason realm mergers weren't allowed had something to do with forming extremely large and powerful realms out of a few allies. Having everyone in one realm makes it easier to communicate and deal with problems

I think this is part of it. If splits and mergers were allowed, then you could freely split and merge at will, whenever the mood struck you as appropriate. At peace? Split to allow for better tax efficiency, and more local control. Going to war? Merge together for the uber-coordination and defense, as well as the capital close to the front lines advantage.

So part of the answer is to just forbid mergers of equals. You can still surrender and give yourself to the enemy, if you get your ass kicked too bad.

[Penchant]

I think this is part of it. If splits and mergers were allowed, then you could freely split and merge at will, whenever the mood struck you as appropriate. At peace? Split to allow for better tax efficiency, and more local control. Going to war? Merge together for the uber-coordination and defense, as well as the capital close to the front lines advantage.

So part of the answer is to just forbid mergers of equals. You can still surrender and give yourself to the enemy, if you get your ass kicked too bad.

Invalid. It is against the rules to strategically secede thus it couldn't happen while following the rules. Also technically Hawthorne can join up with Eston peacefully while following the rules as is assuming one thing. Hawthorne can not consider itself to be equal to Eston, but merely a duchy forced into sovereignty that still viewed itself as being a part of Eston or something along these lines.

[Indirik]

Invalid. It is against the rules to strategically secede thus it couldn't happen while following the rules.

It isn't a strategic secession to split your realm to increase administrative efficiency.

[Penchant]

It isn't a strategic secession to split your realm to increase administrative efficiency.

how isn't ?

[Draco Tanos]

That sounds like the very definition of a strategic secession.

[Penchant]

That sounds like the very definition of a strategic secession.

+1. Especially after I google searched the definition and looked at some pages, one of which was http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategy which supports it through definition 1 and the part where it talks about the modern use of the word towards the bottom of the page.

[Vellos]

Historically, "strategic" secessions have been used to define secessions to get a capital closer to a border for recruitment purposes, or to prevent somebody else from doing a secession.

[GoldPanda]

The big, mean player that wrote the treaty here. For what it's worth, I think it should be allowed to revert to your "original configuration" later, if you were forced to split at sword-point at the end of a war. If Hawthorne and/or Eston gained a duchy or two after the split, re-merging again would smell slightly more fishy to me. Still, it should be an IC casus belli, not a Magistrate case.

Tom is the ultimate authority on such "doctrinal issues" though. Tom: The Pope of Battlemaster.