Duchy/City separation

[AlexR]

I am very confused as to how the new duchy system works now.
(This is regarding Sint in BT, which is going through a thorough destruction)

The Lord of Firbalt had switched his city's allegiance, but because my character is the Duchess of Firbalt, the duchy of Firbalt remains in Sint, consisting of a few randomly scattered regions, some very far away from the city of Firbalt.  Meanwhile the city of Firbalt belongs to another duchy.

And today, the Duke of Fianik had switched allegiance as well. So the duchy of Fianik is now gone to another realm in it's entirety, but the city of Fianik still lists as the capital of Sint.
I did not think that the realm capital can even switch allegiance because realm mergers are not allowed.

The structure makes absolutely no sense to me. How can a city remain listed as Sint's capital if it isn't even part of Sint?

[Eirikr]

One thing that will instantly solve some of your issues: Duchy names are no longer bound to a region. That is, a Duchy may have any time, even if that name refers to no particular piece of land.

My character on Atamara is Duke of Sigrid's Mace; no such land exists. The only real tie Duchies have to land now is that they must originally be formed from a few specific types of regions and receive taxes for any lands included in it. It's even possible for a Duchy to exist without regions, but at that point it becomes just a title. (For this to happen, it must be formed from a region and then have that region leave the Duchy.)

As a side note, I'm still waiting for someone with a Theocracy to  make Duke titles with no lands, but relevant to their religion... "Duke of Justice" or something, you know?

As far as the capital leaving, again, it's the Duchy leaving, not the specific land. I believe the Duchy would take any lands under it, though, so I wonder if the capital conflicted with that rule and now resides under a different Duchy, still within Sint?

[Jaden]

Capitals can change allegiances to another realm as long as its not the last city of the realm

[AlexR]

As far as the capital leaving, again, it's the Duchy leaving, not the specific land. I believe the Duchy would take any lands under it, though, so I wonder if the capital conflicted with that rule and now resides under a different Duchy, still within Sint?

That would have made more sense, but it is not what happened. Fianik has moved with the entire duchy (entire duchy switching makes sense, the lord of Fianik is also the duke of the duchy), but Fianik remains a capital of Sint listed with realm information.

It's even possible for a Duchy to exist without regions, but at that point it becomes just a title.

I believe I saw an example of that, but can then someone explain to me what is the purpose of allowing this? I am fairly certain you cannot form a duchy unless you do that around a city, so why would only creation but not existence of a duchy be tied to a city? Why wouldn't an empty duchy (or even one without a city) automatically dissolve?

[Indirik]

The city will remain the capital of the realm until the ruler switches it to something else. The game will no switch it for you. This is true even if it switches to another realm or goes rogue. If you don't have the gold, or another city to make the capital, then you will have to do without, our die. Yes, that is a bit harsh, but do is life.

[Indirik]

Add someone else said, duchies and cities are really not related, and create no special relationship or requirements or claims. The fact that the duchy name is the same as the city name is irrelevant. The duchy of Firbalt is not required contain the city of Firbalt, nor vice-versa.

[Revan]

As a side note, I'm still waiting for someone with a Theocracy to make Duke titles with no lands, but relevant to their religion... "Duke of Justice" or something, you know?

I believe Sorraine in the Far East has had her duchies named after Sartan related things for a while now. It adds a nice bit of flavour. Not exactly the same as making empty Duke titles but I expect that's a bit of a palaver!

[vonGenf]

As a side note, I'm still waiting for someone with a Theocracy to  make Duke titles with no lands, but relevant to their religion... "Duke of Justice" or something, you know?

Morek had a single-region "Duchy of the First Temple" for a long time, although this seems to have gone away. There are many religious-themed duchies on Dwilight, but most are multi-region duchies.

[Eirikr]

I believe I saw an example of that, but can then someone explain to me what is the purpose of allowing this? I am fairly certain you cannot form a duchy unless you do that around a city, so why would only creation but not existence of a duchy be tied to a city? Why wouldn't an empty duchy (or even one without a city) automatically dissolve?

First of all, it's not just cities. Cities, strongholds (I think), and townslands can all be used to make duchies. This is a somewhat important note because townslands often look like plains on the map, so you could have a duchy that looks like it has none of the typically associated starters.

Second, I have no idea why creation remains tied to a region at all, but I believe this has been asked before. There's probably an answer floating around the forums.

Third, empty duchies can be used to confer an honorary Duke title. I think it's a good tool to keep (and it doesn't hurt anything, as far as I can tell, to keep it) for RP's sake. Lets you maybe honor a knight or someone for particular service. I believe England has a few such titles still in use today. Though, it would be nice to have the ability to add regions to an empty duchy.

[vonGenf]

Second, I have no idea why creation remains tied to a region at all, but I believe this has been asked before. There's probably an answer floating around the forums.

There are different explanations floating around. My personal viewpoint, which is not universally shared, is that Duke is a personal title. You can only create a new Duke out of a Margrave because that is the next rank in order of importance; that is if you want to give special recognition to a Count, make him Margrave, and if you want to give further recognition, create a new Duchy then.

This is why the Duchies are not tied to cities. When the Duchy of Firbalt was created, it should not have been understood as "I create a new Duchy for Firbalt to be in", but rather "I create a new Duchy for Bob, Margrave of Firbalt, to be Duke of". If Bob gives away Firbalt in the future, he's still Duke anyway, and there's no reason why the Margrave of Firbalt would automatically become Duke; and if he does, there is no reason why he would be "Duke of Firbalt" if Bob still has that title.

In the end, though, there can be different ways to see the relationship between Dukes, Duchies and regions in different realm. The rules won't be changed to fit one realm's viewpoint, but if your viewpoint can accomodate the rules as they are, it's fine.

[Penchant]

There are different explanations floating around. My personal viewpoint, which is not universally shared, is that Duke is a personal title. You can only create a new Duke out of a Margrave because that is the next rank in order of importance; that is if you want to give special recognition to a Count, make him Margrave, and if you want to give further recognition, create a new Duchy then.

This is why the Duchies are not tied to cities. When the Duchy of Firbalt was created, it should not have been understood as "I create a new Duchy for Firbalt to be in", but rather "I create a new Duchy for Bob, Margrave of Firbalt, to be Duke of". If Bob gives away Firbalt in the future, he's still Duke anyway, and there's no reason why the Margrave of Firbalt would automatically become Duke; and if he does, there is no reason why he would be "Duke of Firbalt" if Bob still has that title.

In the end, though, there can be different ways to see the relationship between Dukes, Duchies and regions in different realm. The rules won't be changed to fit one realm's viewpoint, but if your viewpoint can accomodate the rules as they are, it's fine.

I believe the actual reasoning behind it much simpler. In order to join a duchy you must be in the duchy or your region border it, and if a duchy is created without regions, it is impossible for it to gain any regions. I would prefer changing the system to allow the creation of duchies without regions and then simply allowing people to also join duchies by going to the dukes physical location because then they would be personally swearing fealty. 

While allowing the creation of duchies requires my second feature suggestion, I like the idea of my second feature suggestion being done regardless and then reciprocated to the regional and realm level, thus also adding the ability to be a knight without an estate

[De-Legro]

I believe the actual reasoning behind it much simpler. In order to join a duchy you must be in the duchy or your region border it, and if a duchy is created without regions, it is impossible for it to gain any regions. I would prefer changing the system to allow the creation of duchies without regions and then simply allowing people to also join duchies by going to the dukes physical location because then they would be personally swearing fealty. 

While allowing the creation of duchies requires my second feature suggestion, I like the idea of my second feature suggestion being done regardless and then reciprocated to the regional and realm level, thus also adding the ability to be a knight without an estate

Ummm you can be a Knight without an estate, you just don't get any tax, so I will assume that you mean a knight without an estate that still has a regular income stream that does not require someone else to push buttons (ie you don't rely on people sending you gold).

[Stabbity]

Ummm you can be a Knight without an estate, you just don't get any tax, so I will assume that you mean a knight without an estate that still has a regular income stream that does not require someone else to push buttons (ie you don't rely on people sending you gold).

If you are estateless you are a noble, not a Knight. Knight requires estate.

[egamma]

If you are estateless you are a noble, not a Knight. Knight requires estate.

Well, I think if you take an estate, and then give it up, you hang on to the "knight" rank, but you're not a knight of a region; in the same way, a former ruler is a "royal" and a former duke is still a "duke".

[Vita`]

Though I still instinctively think in terms of rank that one has held, I haven't seen any evidence of rank since I returned to BM last January. The royal rank for former rulers looks like newer code than what used to exist and is likely the only existing instance of a rank being held after you lose it. Dukes, lords, knights, and nobles are all based upon currently-held positions.