Fine amounts

[Indirik]

Also, change the whole fine system so if the person refuses to pay the fine, make it automatically take it out from his tax! NOW THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE PEOPLE CRY MUWHAHAHA

Fines used to have a little more teeth back when you got all your taxes in bonds. You can't use the bank while you have outstanding fines. So you used to have to pay your fines before you could cash your bonds and use gold for anything at all. People did not used to be able to choose to not pay a fine unless they were also willing to live without gold. (Or were willing to swap realms to avoid the fine, but then you lose all your bonds anyway.)

The reason that you can't slap additional fines down on people who already have a fine is that you would be basically cutting off all of their access to gold, essentially preventing them from playing the game. (At least this is the reasoning that I heard many, many years ago about it.)  If you kept slapping fines on someone, I wonder if that might be considered harassment. It would probably depend on the situation, I guess.

[Chenier]

Fines used to have a little more teeth back when you got all your taxes in bonds. You can't use the bank while you have outstanding fines. So you used to have to pay your fines before you could cash your bonds and use gold for anything at all. People did not used to be able to choose to not pay a fine unless they were also willing to live without gold. (Or were willing to swap realms to avoid the fine, but then you lose all your bonds anyway.)

The reason that you can't slap additional fines down on people who already have a fine is that you would be basically cutting off all of their access to gold, essentially preventing them from playing the game. (At least this is the reasoning that I heard many, many years ago about it.)  If you kept slapping fines on someone, I wonder if that might be considered harassment. It would probably depend on the situation, I guess.

Yea, pretty sure I heard that argument too. But I still disagree with it as I did then. Fines don't prevent you from playing the game, they prevent you from doing certain actions in your realm. This is not harsh. Slapping a 5000 gold fine? Target can't do some actions for some time in the realm. That's all. If he wanted, he could have banned the person instead, in which case: target can't do much actions for very long in the realm, and then can't do any actions in the realm, being forcefully removed from it.

As banishment is an option, and one that is not very restricted, then why have more restrictions on a softer punishment?

As a side note, though, can fines be removed if the judge gets replaced or changes his mind? This would be the only issue I could see with large fines.

[Indirik]

As a side note, though, can fines be removed if the judge gets replaced or changes his mind? This would be the only issue I could see with large fines.

No, fines cannot be removed. People often demand that judges lift fines, but the can't.

This is just like "ask to leave" instead of immediate banning. If you immediately ban someone, that ban can be lifted before it goes into effect. An "ask to leave", though, cannot be lifted. The person can leave quickly and avoid the ban. But one way or another, they are leaving the realm.

[Chenier]

No, fines cannot be removed. People often demand that judges lift fines, but the can't.

This is just like "ask to leave" instead of immediate banning. If you immediately ban someone, that ban can be lifted before it goes into effect. An "ask to leave", though, cannot be lifted. The person can leave quickly and avoid the ban. But one way or another, they are leaving the realm.

Is this... intentional...?

[Indirik]

Yes.

[Chenier]

Yes.

Why?

This falls in the same category as "you must lose h/p if you want to replace your !@#$ty badland lordship for a glorious city lordship"

It makes no sense and is just aggravating to players.

[Indirik]

I'm not following your comparison, so I'm not really understanding what you're asking.  Can you restate it?

[Chenier]

I'm not following your comparison, so I'm not really understanding what you're asking.  Can you restate it?

Restrictions that are aggravating to players and serve no game-play purpose nor hold any RP logic all while being inconsistent with other game features.

[Anaris]

Restrictions that are aggravating to players and serve no game-play purpose nor hold any RP logic all while being inconsistent with other game features.

Stepping down from a lordship is breaking an oath. It doesn't matter that what you're doing it for will be more personally advantageous to you, you're still breaking your oath to rule and protect the people of the region you're leaving.

[Chenier]

Stepping down from a lordship is breaking an oath. It doesn't matter that what you're doing it for will be more personally advantageous to you, you're still breaking your oath to rule and protect the people of the region you're leaving.

I'll concede that argument to you, but there's no similar argument to be made about bans and fines.

I'll also note that running for elections of a different region holds no equivalent penalty.

[Anaris]

I'll concede that argument to you, but there's no similar argument to be made about bans and fines.

I'm inclined to agree. If not being able to lift a fine is deliberate, I don't know why.

I'll also note that running for elections of a different region holds no equivalent penalty.

Then maybe it should.

[vonGenf]

This is a very interesting discussion, but what about the original request?

[Indirik]

This is a very interesting discussion, but what about the original request?

I'm all for it. I thought it went up to 500 gold per fine. But then it's been years since one of my characters was a judge.

[Indirik]

Restrictions that are aggravating to players and serve no game-play purpose nor hold any RP logic all while being inconsistent with other game features.

Ah, OK, I see what you mean.

For fines: Not being able to lift fines is intentional, as far as I am aware. It has been discussed in the past. IIRC Tom stated that fines are a minor penalty that don't really have any lasting effect on a character. They pay the fine, it goes away, and that's the end of it. There's no permanent record, and no permanent effect. Personally, I don't have any strong feelings on it either way.

As far as the lordships thing goes, I agree with you. Stepping down from a region to accept a different one shouldn't necessarily require a loss of honor. (And if you've been lord long enough, then all you will lose is one point of honor.) Anaris has a planned change to lordships (as discussed in another thread) that should take care of that. As far as the oath thing goes, that could vary. Yes, you took an oath, but whoever you gave that oath to you should be able to release you from that oath. If you're staying in the same duchy, and you're being appointed to a new lordship, then it would stand to reason that the person who holds that oath is releasing you from it, so you shouldn't incur an honor penalty.

The two different kinds of bans was implemented before I started playing, so I can only relate what I have heard. The idea is that if you "ask to leave", you are giving them a chance to leave without getting a ban in their permanent record if they leave quick enough. I think it's three days, roughly twice that of a regular ban. But at the same time, it cannot be rescinded. Once it has been pronounced, that person will be banned when the time runs out, if they have not already left. It is rarely used, as most people want to banned person gone *right now*. (And the last time I saw it used my character was pissed, because she wanted the guy banned so he could be executed later. Grrr! ) I believe the intention was to have two different methods available to the judge, each with it's own mechanic. You can choose the one that you like, based on your situation. Don't like the "as to leave" option? Then don't use it.

[Anaris]

Yes, you took an oath, but whoever you gave that oath to you should be able to release you from that oath. If you're staying in the same duchy, and you're being appointed to a new lordship, then it would stand to reason that the person who holds that oath is releasing you from it, so you shouldn't incur an honor penalty.

No, you have misunderstood.

The oath a Lord swears is to his people. Everyone in the region. It is an oath to protect them. Stepping down means that you are abrogating that oath.

No one can release you from it. Once you accept a Lordship, stepping down is, and should be, seen by its people as an admission that you cannot or will not protect them.