Forced Realm Splits and Voluntary Realm Mergers

[Dante Silverfire]

So, interesting situation which has arisen on Atamara.

CE is forcing the realm of Eston to split into two realms by duchies. The terms dictate that they must stay this way for a period of 6 months or so. Now, the interesting part is that my current understanding of the rules is that it is against the rules for two realms to merge. 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. (in this geographic spot)

Should it be against the rules for the two realms: Hawthorne (the new realm to be) and Eston to rejoin peacefully after 6 months have passed? They never wanted to be split in the first place and all of the characters are originally from the same realm.

Alternatively, if it is deemed that it is still against the rules for Hawthorne and Eston to rejoin, then should it not also be against the rules to forcibly enact realm splits by treaty, if realm mergers are prohibited? This creates a situation where a realm has to invent a farsicle "war" against their other half in order to rejoin themselves and let the other side surrender before rejoining. Obviously this is an exploit of game mechanics, but this situation is far from having two realms simply join together to make themselves stronger, or for any of the other reasons I've seen argued thus far.

I am interested in hearing from the Magistrates and/or Tom on what they feel these circumstances entail with this ruling.

[Geronus]

IMO it would be better to allow realm mergers than to prohibit realm splits. In the specific example provided, the Empire could always declare war if they felt that the treaty was violated by a future realm merger.

However, there are certainly legitimate reasons not to permit realm mergers, namely that peaceful mergers limit opportunities for conflict.

[Anaris]

For clarity and completeness, as I was telling Dante on IRC, the reasoning behind the ban on realm mergers, as I remember it, is that no Ruler should be willing to give up his sovereignty, and the rest of his people should not be willing to give up their national identity, without being defeated in a war. (Or something that produces similar circumstances.)

[Vellos]

I will confess, I have never fully understood the rationale behind banning realm mergers.

However, as things stand, realm mergers are prohibited, but realm splits are certainly not. So I'd say Eston is stuck.

[Vellos]

For clarity and completeness, as I was telling Dante on IRC, the reasoning behind the ban on realm mergers, as I remember it, is that no Ruler should be willing to give up his sovereignty, and the rest of his people should not be willing to give up their national identity, without being defeated in a war. (Or something that produces similar circumstances.)

What about rulers who do not regard themselves as legitimate sovereigns?

[Anaris]

What about rulers who do not regard themselves as legitimate sovereigns?

Obviously, they're nuts.

[Vellos]

Obviously, they're nuts.

...

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.

[Draco Tanos]

Obviously, they're nuts.

Ah, but in this case, it would be a duke simply wishing to undo what was done to his proper liege.  He does not view himself as a sovereign. 

[Dante Silverfire]

IMO it would be better to allow realm mergers than to prohibit realm splits. In the specific example provided, the Empire could always declare war if they felt that the treaty was violated by a future realm merger.

This is my thought as well. However, I don't suggest prohibiting realm splits, I suggest prohibiting "forced realm splits." There is a distinct difference. When a Duke wants to split away from their realm either in secession or through an allegiance change that is fine. When a Duke is forced to do so by treaty that would be a forced realm split. Under that circumstance, that Duke would still consider whoever his former ruler was as his rightful sovereign.

However, there are certainly legitimate reasons not to permit realm mergers, namely that peaceful mergers limit opportunities for conflict.

True, but no conflict would arise in this case anyway. The only reason conflict would exist between these two parties is if they made it up, and pretended to be in conflict for a short while so that they could merge their realm by one side surrendering to the other, so as to restore their current realm.

[Geronus]

True, but no conflict would arise in this case anyway. The only reason conflict would exist between these two parties is if they made it up, and pretended to be in conflict for a short while so that they could merge their realm by one side surrendering to the other, so as to restore their current realm.

You have no way of knowing that with certainty. Influxes of new players who have no memories of a united Eston combined with outflows of old players who do can drastically reorient a realm's attitude over a surprisingly short span of time. Beyond that, any number of unforeseen events could occur that lead to friction. I agree that it's not necessarily likely, especially as I suspect that both realms would be more intent on fighting with Rieleston, but so long as the realms are two distinct entities instead of one the potential for conflict exists.

[Dante Silverfire]

You have no way of knowing that with certainty. Influxes of new players who have no memories of a united Eston combined with outflows of old players who do can drastically reorient a realm's attitude over a surprisingly short span of time. Beyond that, any number of unforeseen events could occur that lead to friction. I agree that it's not necessarily likely, especially as I suspect that both realms would be more intent on fighting with Rieleston, but so long as the realms are two distinct entities instead of one the potential for conflict exists.

Fair enough. But if the two realms see themselves not as two distinct entities but as one entity temporarily split at the end of the 6 months, then should they not be allowed to re-merge peacefully?

If they don't, then fine let conflict arise, but if they do, why is it game breaking to let them rejoin?

[Geronus]

If they don't, then fine let conflict arise, but if they do, why is it game breaking to let them rejoin?

You know, I don't think I know what Tom's actual reasoning behind this is. Anaris is probably right, in which case the answer is not that it's 'game breaking,' but rather that it runs counter to Tom's vision of how medieval nobles should behave.

[Perth]

You know, I don't think I know what Tom's actual reasoning behind this is. Anaris is probably right, in which case the answer is not that it's 'game breaking,' but rather that it runs counter to Tom's vision of how medieval nobles should behave.

If that is the reason, then it would seem that the trend to create a de jure multi-realm Empire would also be against the rules because the Sovereigns of those realms are certainly giving up power/sovereignty in some way.

[Geronus]

If that is the reason, then it would seem that the trend to create a de jure multi-realm Empire would also be against the rules because the Sovereigns of those realms are certainly giving up power/sovereignty in some way.

That's certainly possible, but only Tom can say. To my knowledge he has never said anything on the subject one way or another.

[Dante Silverfire]

If that is the reason, then it would seem that the trend to create a de jure multi-realm Empire would also be against the rules because the Sovereigns of those realms are certainly giving up power/sovereignty in some way.

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.