Manual Government Change - Terran

[Vellos]

From e-mails with Tom:

Hey Tom,

So Terran, on Dwilight, has broken apart into pieces via secession. The realm was formerly a republic.

It has been kept alive by the generosity of Astroist lords and realms. And now, Hireshmont has pretty well purged the non-believers and declared a theocracy, and is getting material aid in this from theocratic realms.

The government system, including titles and laws, are all changing to be a theocracy. The people in power are cycling to be religiously exclusive. Major secessions have pulled all the republicans and non-Astroist out of the realm.

Is there any chance we can get a manual change to theocracy, given the above circumstances?

-Lyman Stone

Am 02.05.2013 um 20:18 schrieb Lyman Stone:

Is there any chance we can get a manual change to theocracy, given the above circumstances?

I'm not much in BM at the moment. Can you post that to the forum and ask the dev team (Tim, etc.), please?

----

Dev team, any chance I can get a manual change? It's changed in all but name (prevented by bug 0007729, which I have reported), and no nobles in Terran have expressed any opposition to the changes.

A manual government change would be nice, especially since I can't change the formal name yet due to a bug.

[Indirik]

Despite how it sounds, this is not a simple question, with no easy answer. Maunual intervention has always been explicitly against dev policy.

Out of curiosity, why don't you change it yourself? If everyone is onboard, then step down from rulership, let the election fail causing anarchy. Then claim the rulership and reform the government.

[Lefanis]

Despite how it sounds, this is not a simple question, with no easy answer. Maunual intervention has always been explicitly against dev policy.

However, there is precedent, as in the case of Arcachon, when it was changed from monarchy to theocracy for RP reasons.

[Vellos]

Well, the simple reason is that anarchy already happened.

When 80% of the realm secedes, you're down to three nobles, and you're having periodic starvation, it's anarchy in all but name. I don't see why it should be necessary for me to step down. We've already done the anarchy thing. Plus, if anarchy does happen, the peasants will get pissy, and the last region may revolt, so I can't really step down. But theocracy won't piss of the peasants, who are majority Sanguis Astroism anyways. It's just anarchy that would mess up the peasants.

Plus, my prestige is low-ish after lots of tortures. If I step down, I could be close to the range of being ineligible: which makes no sense, because proclaiming a theocracy should increase Hireshmont's prestige, not decrease it, as it increases his personal sway and power.

In sum, the dynamics of anarchy mean that transition wouldn't be very possible, and, furthermore, would contradict plenty of standing RP.

My understanding of Tom's e-mail (I guess I misread) was that he was suggesting that a dev do it, not so much that it's unclear if it should happen or not.

[egamma]

Despite how it sounds, this is not a simple question, with no easy answer. Maunual intervention has always been explicitly against dev policy.

Out of curiosity, why don't you change it yourself? If everyone is onboard, then step down from rulership, let the election fail causing anarchy. Then claim the rulership and reform the government.

Seems a little gamey for Dwilight--the dev solution is actually more SMA.

[Indirik]

Well, the simple reason is that anarchy already happened.

And at the time you chose not to change. Having been in Anarchy at some point in the past doesn't give you carte blanche to change at any time in the future.

When 80% of the realm secedes, you're down to three nobles, and you're having periodic starvation, it's anarchy in all but name.

Names are important (if they weren't, then you wouldn't be here trying to get it switched), and game mechanics trump RP. Since your government state isn't Anarchy at this moment, you don't get to freely swap to a new style. So far, I personally see no compelling reason to change it, simply because it would be more convenient for you.

I don't see why it should be necessary for me to step down. We've already done the anarchy thing. Plus, if anarchy does happen, the peasants will get pissy, and the last region may revolt, so I can't really step down. But theocracy won't piss of the peasants, who are majority Sanguis Astroism anyways. It's just anarchy that would mess up the peasants.

Plus, my prestige is low-ish after lots of tortures. If I step down, I could be close to the range of being ineligible: which makes no sense, because proclaiming a theocracy should increase Hireshmont's prestige, not decrease it, as it increases his personal sway and power.

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing a compelling reason to do it. All I see is that doing it would be personally inconvenient for you to do it with the completely valid method at your disposal.

My understanding of Tom's e-mail (I guess I misread) was that he was suggesting that a dev do it, not so much that it's unclear if it should happen or not.

If Tom wanted a dev to do it without debate, he would have said so, or he would have told you to tell Tim to do it, or he would have forward your email to Tim with a "Do it, please" attached.

The game has a long-standing policy of NOT doing this kind of thing. In the more than 7 years that I've been playing, I don't think I've seen more than two name changes, and never a government style change. (Did someone maybe mention that it happened in Arcachon some time in the distant past?) You have the tools to do it yourself, in a completely IC way.

[Kwanstein]

The anarchy requisite can be explained.

The government and realm of Terran does not simply consist of several players. There are, of course, assumed to be petty nobility, merchant houses big and small, influential citizens, guilds, a clergy, lesser bureaucrats and other types not represented by player characters but, still, through their numeracy, in hold of substantial power. Many of those sorts would stand to lose from such a major change in governance, while others would simply be content under the current system and not inclined to dramatic and possibly dangerous changes. These sorts, who would comprise the majority of their kind, would oppose change through determined refusal to co-operate, or even outright rebellion towards a supposed ruler who's all too blunt with his methods. The intricate web of power could prevent a quick and easy theoretical government change from being a remote possibility, so it would obviously need to be upset first. Hence, the need for anarchy.

[Vellos]

And at the time you chose not to change. Having been in Anarchy at some point in the past doesn't give you carte blanche to change at any time in the future.

No, there wasn't game-mechanics anarchy, which isn't anarchy at all. There was actual anarchy. Game-mechanics anarchy is just a little stat hit. What we had was actual anarchy,

So what you're suggesting is that it's BETTER RP for me to have a fake rebellion? That the dev-preferred solution is "friendly rebellion"?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was actually under the impression that such rebellions weren't even allowed, given how obviously abusive they are. The rebellion and anarchy mechanics aren't designed as methods of planned, centralized government change: hence why you can't change government type after a rebellion if the sitting ruler abdicates (or at least you used to not be able to, maybe that's changed)., because you're not supposed to be able to have peaceful rebellions to reform the government.

The government is reformed. The players have all changed. The players in Terran support the theocracy. The church recognizes the theocracy. We are governed theocratically. I really don't see the big deal here with making the change.

A centrally organized-rebellion is a misuse of the rebellion mechanic: that's not a valid tool. Rebellions aren't intended to be tools for sitting governments to change their game-mechanic name.

[Vellos]

obviously the issue here is that we need to protect the interests of NPCs against players. That's a major concern.

The major concern is just represented by the NPCs. Don't eat the menu and don't drive on the map, please.

What these NPCs represent is that a government system is more than the label on the palace entrance. Changing a country from communism to capitalism is messy. From monarchy to democracy, usually bloody. From democracy to dictatorship, often twice as bloody. It's not something that happens in the palace, or even in the capital. It involves not just the government and the nobles, but everyone working for the government, from the ministers down to the lowest clerk.

A government system is a lot more stable than any particular government. A monarchy easily survives a hundred kings, and a democracy can go through a civil war with nobody questioning the democratic principles per se.

That is what we simulate in the game by simply not having a "change your government system here" button. The government in BM is only reformed after breaking down entirely. Throughout real-world history, that has been the normal case, with the peaceful changes like east germany being the exceptions.

I won't rule out exceptions entirely. But they need to be exceptional and that's why I asked this to be brought to the attention of someone who actually knows what's going on in-game, because I haven't played BM at all for a few months now.

[Perth]

I'm just jealous that you were able to change the official name of Terran. I've been trying to do the same in Phantaria since its inception but I get an error every time.  (I did file a bug report for it though a while back so I assume it'll be fixed at some point).

[Stabbity]

Oh my gosh, you can come up with an imaginary situation to justify a mechanics situation?

I'm so impressed; you should pat yourself on the back! Clearly I was struggling to come up with an RP reason; obviously the issue here is that we need to protect the interests of NPCs against players. That's a major concern.

Aren't you doing the same with trying to justify the state of Terran as reason to get a manual government change? Anarchy is a game mechanic, your realm has not been through it. Terran has had a government this whole time, and thus there has been no anarchy.

[Kwanstein]

Oh my gosh, you can come up with an imaginary situation to justify a mechanics situation?

I'm so impressed; you should pat yourself on the back! Clearly I was struggling to come up with an RP reason; obviously the issue here is that we need to protect the interests of NPCs against players. That's a major concern.

You are asking to have your government changed on the basis that the alternative (changing it yourself) conflicts with verisimilitude. I am telling you otherwise; that it is actually more justifiable for there to be conditions and consequences for a government change than for it to be done with the wave of a wand, figuratively speaking (or literally, with the click of a button), as the former more accurately represents the weight of such a decision.

[Indirik]

No, there wasn't game-mechanics anarchy, which isn't anarchy at all. There was actual anarchy. Game-mechanics anarchy is just a little stat hit. What we had was actual anarchy,

So you haven't even had the "little stat hit" of official Anarchy in order to satisfy the game mechanics requirements of changing your government?

But just a post or two ago you didn't want to go through anarchy because you were afraid it might be bad enough that your last region would revolt.

So is anarchy "a little stat hit" that is so insignificant as to be irrelevant in the overall scheme of chaos caused by government change, or is it so bad you're afraid of doing it because it might destroy your realm?

So what you're suggesting is that it's BETTER RP for me to have a fake rebellion?

I never suggested any such thing. If you check, you'll find that I never even used the word "rebellion". You're the one that suggested a fake rebellion. (Which, I agree, is an abuse of the game mechanics.)

What I suggested is that your realm refuses to participate in your failed Republican government. Step down as ruler and don't elect a new one. The government will spiral down in anarchy, and you can reform it. Think of it as proof positive that everyone in your realm agrees that the republic is dead, and that it's time for a change. Do the anarchy thing (after all, it's just "a little stat hit") and change it yourself.

The government is reformed. The players have all changed. The players in Terran support the theocracy. The church recognizes the theocracy. We are governed theocratically. I really don't see the big deal here with making the change.

So you've RP'd some stuff, and maybe some other players think you did a cool RP. But lo and behold, the game mechanics don't agree with your RP, so you want the devs to change the game mechanics so it matches your RP? I'm sorry, but things just don't work that way. Game mechanics trumps RP, not the other way around.

[Chenier]

Niselur got their name change, as did Xinhay/Morek...

I'd really like to hear more about this previous case of manual government change that was mentioned earlier, though...

[Vellos]

So you haven't even had the "little stat hit" of official Anarchy in order to satisfy the game mechanics requirements of changing your government?

But just a post or two ago you didn't want to go through anarchy because you were afraid it might be bad enough that your last region would revolt.

So is anarchy "a little stat hit" that is so insignificant as to be irrelevant in the overall scheme of chaos caused by government change, or is it so bad you're afraid of doing it because it might destroy your realm?

It's a little state hit when you're a stable realm with lots of people and a food supply. It's a big deal when you're teetering on the edge of destruction already. But this is ultimately not very relevant one way or another.

I never suggested any such thing. If you check, you'll find that I never even used the word "rebellion". You're the one that suggested a fake rebellion. (Which, I agree, is an abuse of the game mechanics.)

True: you suggested abusing anarchy, not rebellion, my mistake. Again, engineer anarchy done by a sitting government is misuse of the feature. And this would mean that one character who wanted to play spoiler, who has no power, could veto the whole realm's interests.

I'm duke, ruler, banker, general, lord of the city and almost only region, and can be judge too if I want it. Titles are changed, laws are simply what Hireshmont declares them to be: how on earth is it reasonable to suggest anarchy should be required? Again, anarchy has pretty well already happened. The anti-theocrats are gone.

What I suggested is that your realm refuses to participate in your failed Republican government. Step down as ruler and don't elect a new one. The government will spiral down in anarchy, and you can reform it. Think of it as proof positive that everyone in your realm agrees that the republic is dead, and that it's time for a change. Do the anarchy thing (after all, it's just "a little stat hit") and change it yourself.
So you've RP'd some stuff, and maybe some other players think you did a cool RP. But lo and behold, the game mechanics don't agree with your RP, so you want the devs to change the game mechanics so it matches your RP? I'm sorry, but things just don't work that way. Game mechanics trumps RP, not the other way around.

Now you're just being an ass to be an ass.

The devs have already done this for other realms and, guess what, it was fine! It didn't mess anything up! Players liked it! What, you think Niselur should still be called Iashalur too, and Morek Empire called Xinhai? Should Arcachon still be a monarchy?

Sure, mechanics trump RP. And the mechanics say Terran is a theocracy and also not a theocracy. Because the mechanics say that Terran's official name has been changed to Occidental Theocracy of Terran, and Terran's official titles are all indestinguishable from theocracies, and Terran's ruler is a ranking priest. There is one place in the game that still has the word "republic" (well two, if you count the bug that Perth and I have reported and that has yet to be fixed): and I'm asking that it be moved into harmony with the rest of the game mechanics and established RP. This is not unique or new: this has been done before. It's not unreasonable. It's not even, AFAIK, particularly difficult.