Rebellions, real upheavals

[Stue (DC)]

After rebellion, rebel leader or old ruler, whoever wins, should have option of dismissing dukes from their seats, in some limited period of time (few turns at most, or even immediately).

That way rebellion would regain some of its strength which seems to be lacking these days. Currently, dukes, and often many lords, simply stay neutral if they are not completely dedicated to cause (which is rare, as dukes are mostly dedicated to retaining their seats only).

Such neutrality is especially artificial if lords clearly have their side chosen, but still simply avoid all risk for themselves. They can even publicly support one side, deal with funding, deal with militia in capital (I think), while still remaining neutral, and if their side loses after everything, their feud is still intact.

Bloody rebellion is ultimate attempt to derange complete realm tradition and feudal hierarchy by reclaiming it, and should therefore have its real powers. Only those who really do not care for any of rebellion parties should remain neutral, hoping that such neutrality will be recognized by any of parties, afterwards.

Of course, dukes should be disallowed to secede of change allegiance for that short period of time after rebellion is finished, but they should be able to secede/change allegiance during the course of rebellion.

[Anaris]

After rebellion, rebel leader or old ruler, whoever wins, should have option of dismissing dukes from their seats, in some limited period of time (few turns at most, or even immediately).

Why not just ban them?

[Stue (DC)]

well, proposed measure is firstly imagined to deal with realm hierarchy and claims in general, so that everyone takes rebellion very seriously.

banning is firstly consequence of direct breaking of formal laws, while rebellion presents very special circumstances.

there are also many technical issues of banning - that is at discretion of judge, and finally, of course, issue of changing allegiances.

who would even try for rebellion if knowing that most of lords will simply leave the realm?

idea is that rebellion presents real danger for all, so no-one should be able to avoid its consequences.

if you support current leadership, help them to prevent rebellion before it starts. if it starts nevertheless, fight for your side by all means or you will lose everything.

this could also create interesting conflicts in realms where much of ordinary nobility is annoyed with fat and complacent lords.

[Chenier]

Rebellions let you appoint the council of your choice, so you can name whoever you want as judge (even yourself) and then just ban the unwanted dukes. Bans are for casting out whoever you don't want in the club anymore, regardless of the reason, not just for people having broken pre-written code of laws.

The game has been gearing towards greater respect of the feudal hierarchy, so I wouldn't see this happening. A rebellion is against the government, not against the land owners (lords and dukes). That one might need to overthrow the former to deal with the latter doesn't change this.

That being said... Sometimes the government has been reigning long enough to have had a few rotations amongst buddies and therefore some of the dukes are royal, which you cannot ban. I think it would be reasonable for the new government to be able to ban these people. It would seem reasonnable to me to give some special ban feature to rebel leaders, available for 2-3 days, that allow them to ban people (perhaps only those who were loyalists in the rebellion?).

[Bedwyr]

Does Royal status stay after a rebellion?  If it does, should it?  After all, the rebellion is throwing out the legitimacy of the previous government, which seems like it would extend to those given protections by the old regime.

[Chenier]

Does Royal status stay after a rebellion?  If it does, should it?  After all, the rebellion is throwing out the legitimacy of the previous government, which seems like it would extend to those given protections by the old regime.

I'm pretty sure it does.

Not all rebellions are about replacing the entire structure of government, though. Sometimes rebellions are against "usurpers" to "restore" the government to its proper people, so I think removing all royal statuses goes a little too far, at least if mandatory. I would rather favour either an special temporary option for the ruler to ban people such as rulers (perhaps only amongst the loyalists) or the strip only to occur if the rebel leader changes government systems (and an actual change, as right now if you had a monarchy and chose monarchy after the rebellion, the game states you "changed" or "reformed" your government into a monarchy, despite it already being one).

In other words, a way for rebels to deal with royals would be fair as long as there's a way for them to let them keep their royal statuses as well. 'cause who knows, some of these royals might be allies, and making all rebellions strip royal statuses might make these royals forever oppose any rebellion in the future out of fear of losing their own rank, even if they'd have otherwise supported the rebellion. After all, not all royals always stem from the ruling clan.

[Stue (DC)]

A rebellion is against the government, not against the land owners (lords and dukes).

well, the whole idea is about changing that a little.

currently, as there is tendency for realm council weakening, that together with the fact how easy it is to stay intact by rebellion, even when actively supporting one party makes rebellion rather sterilized, and even more creates one of problems which is present in other aspects of the game - those who risk the most are not likely to gain anything, those who risk little or nothing are likely to preserve their posts.

what power rebellion currently can gain in anyhow powerless council? at most, in respect of this discussion, position of judge who could eventually ban someone.

however, even that is very limited - new ruler who remains in throne will have the same structure as before, and let us say if judge was neutral during rebellion, he can retain such neutrality afterwards as well, which hypothetically means that even if rulers gains enough supporters and win rebellion, loyalists can be unable to even punish rebels, which is rather awkard if we consider that all is at stake for those who take part in rebellion.

if rebels win, new leader will hardly be able to appoint himself as a judge if he does not want to look as tyrant. and he can appoint someobody else and that push new judge to ban nobles he dislikes. again if such nobles held formal neutrality, that looks as dictatorial act.

so winning rebel can very likely have two choices, both being bad - to either look as heavy tyrant at very beginning of new career or to retain all power structures as they are. that means rebellion gives very little in any case.

if claims would be disputed in way, that winner of rebellion has option to dispute or reconfirm claims, as a formal act not related to any other aspects of law system, that could give him option to really change something. than he is not automatically tyrant, but he uses his discretion one-time-only right to deal with claims.

i cannot be certain, but i believe some background ould be found for it.

feuds cannot be looked at something completely isolated from anything else. if rebellion has power of changing complete structure of the government, why it should not have power to question claims?

ducal oaths belong to ruler and if we say that in regular elections new ruler automatically recognizes all previous claims as he participates in official and regular election, the same way we can say that rebellion acts against regular hierarchy in general.

these are thoughts only, of course. the main idea is that rebellion becomes real thrill for all with significant power. current position where many in power simply remain neutral like "that is not our business, we will be safe anyhow" is rather unnatural.

[Indirik]

however, even that is very limited - new ruler who remains in throne will have the same structure as before, and let us say if judge was neutral during rebellion, he can retain such neutrality afterwards as well, which hypothetically means that even if rulers gains enough supporters and win rebellion, loyalists can be unable to even punish rebels, which is rather awkard if we consider that all is at stake for those who take part in rebellion.

So get the judge's support. Or protest him out of office.

if rebels win, new leader will hardly be able to appoint himself as a judge if he does not want to look as tyrant. and he can appoint someobody else and that push new judge to ban nobles he dislikes. again if such nobles held formal neutrality, that looks as dictatorial act.

So, appointing a new judge is tyrannical, but kicking all the dukes out of office to appoint your lackeys is not tyrannical? Kicking the landholders out of office is probably the most tyrannical thing you can do. Especially if they were not official supporters of the rebellion. If they were supporters, then I can't imagine you'd have trouble getting even a neutral judge to ban them. And if the judge doesn't ban them, then have him protested out of office. Or switch the government style to Elected Monthly, and elect a new judge. And/or have him assassinated.

feuds cannot be looked at something completely isolated from anything else. if rebellion has power of changing complete structure of the government, why it should not have power to question claims?

Land claims and government styles are separate issues. You can question their land claims, if you have the power and influence. Just get the judge to ban them. And if you don't have the influence to have the judge ban them, I don't see any reason why we should give you a button to do it yourself. BattleMaster is not a single player game. It is a social multi-player game. If you want power, you need to work with other players to assemble your "team". Who you can get on this "team", and who you can convince to do what, determines how much power you have. Get the right people and you can do a lot.

[Stue (DC)]

So get the judge's support. Or protest him out of office.

the main idea revolves about this - if you undertook bloody and risky action of rebellion, you should have some more option over ordinary ones.

imagine - after all hardship of rebellion, you have to start all over again by "gaining judge support". why someone who is  violent usurper, after he succeeds in his usurpation, needs to beg someone else? "getting someone's support" is close to begging if you do not have anything specific to offer, or threat.

the same way you could seek for judge's support even without rebellion. you are, for instance, some old and respectable noble who "open judge's eyes" by pointing at some evil internal enemies. rebellion by itself should at least make some difference over ordinary course of events.

So, appointing a new judge is tyrannical, but kicking all the dukes out of office to appoint your lackeys is not tyrannical?

that is my idea only, thought for consideration. i felt if ability of new ruler to reconfirm or dismiss claims would be formal discretion right immediately after rebellion, something like rebellion put all major claims in question and ruler needs to reconfirm them, that would not look so tyrannical.

Land claims and government styles are separate issues. You can question their land claims, if you have the power and influence. Just get the judge to ban them. And if you don't have the influence to have the judge ban them, I don't see any reason why we should give you a button to do it yourself. BattleMaster is not a single player game. It is a social multi-player game. If you want power, you need to work with other players to assemble your "team". Who you can get on this "team", and who you can convince to do what, determines how much power you have. Get the right people and you can do a lot.

for rebellion to succeed, you can hardly be alone, and that short-term button would only serve to provide more dynamics in social issues. if banning is one and the only way to dispute land claims, than we have exactly what you are advocating against - landed lords who do not actually need social interaction to retain their power (almost) forever.

the idea is that rebellion provides means for deeper changes within realm. it carries little logics that knights can summon and overthrow ruler, but  to overthrow duke they need to pass so many more steps and hardships that it is almost never seen working with any success.

if it is "carved in stone" that rebellion should not have touch on land claims, than currently rebellion serves very little. Ruler can be protested out more safely and if usurpers have no enough voting power to complete protesting, they would likely not have enough influence to change anything significantly as well.

the only exception would be those who are very influential anyhow, but do not have raw votes for protesting - which lead us back to our dukes, as the only ones who can make rebellion with any significance.

this small deduction leads us to conclusion about some sort of ducal tyranny - they can play any kind of game, noone can play useful game against them. and that really does not contribute to social interaction, which both of us advocate though by different means.

this attempt was imagined to provide some alternative. maybe it is wrong, but in practice i simply do not see other ways that work, too often i only see that overly protected landed lords block all interesting interaction.

[Anaris]

the main idea revolves about this - if you undertook bloody and risky action of rebellion, you should have some more option over ordinary ones.

imagine - after all hardship of rebellion, you have to start all over again by "gaining judge support". why someone who is  violent usurper, after he succeeds in his usurpation, needs to beg someone else? "getting someone's support" is close to begging if you do not have anything specific to offer, or threat.

No, if you just won a rebellion, you get to appoint a new Judge.

[Indirik]

the main idea revolves about this - if you undertook bloody and risky action of rebellion, you should have some more option over ordinary ones.

You do. You can reform the government into a new style, and appoint any missing council members. Even ban all the loyalists en masse.

imagine - after all hardship of rebellion, you have to start all over again by "gaining judge support". why someone who is  violent usurper, after he succeeds in his usurpation, needs to beg someone else? "getting someone's support" is close to begging if you do not have anything specific to offer, or threat.

If you don't convince the judge until /after/ the rebellion, then you've already screwed up.

the same way you could seek for judge's support even without rebellion. you are, for instance, some old and respectable noble who "open judge's eyes" by pointing at some evil internal enemies. rebellion by itself should at least make some difference over ordinary course of events.

It does. It kicks out the ruler and puts a new ruler in charge. And gives you the option of reforming the government into a new style.

that is my idea only, thought for consideration. i felt if ability of new ruler to reconfirm or dismiss claims would be formal discretion right immediately after rebellion, something like rebellion put all major claims in question and ruler needs to reconfirm them, that would not look so tyrannical.

Do it through RP, and ban anyone who doesn't formally, and publicly, swear fealty.

for rebellion to succeed, you can hardly be alone, and that short-term button would only serve to provide more dynamics in social issues. if banning is one and the only way to dispute land claims, than we have exactly what you are advocating against - landed lords who do not actually need social interaction to retain their power (almost) forever.

They didn't support you, so banish them.

if it is "carved in stone" that rebellion should not have touch on land claims, than currently rebellion serves very little.

If rebellion doesn't serve your needs, then don't do it. I've seen some rebellions that have shifted the course of entire wars.

Ruler can be protested out more safely...

Of course it is safer. After all, protest will not (usually) get you banned. Especially once it is followed up by a few dozen more in quick succession.

Rebellions are for when things like protests fail to gather enough momentum. Or when they don't accomplish what you're trying to do. Such as reform the government.

...and if usurpers have no enough voting power to complete protesting, they would likely not have enough influence to change anything significantly as well.

A successful rebellion can significantly shift that balance of power, and give you that influence you need to make your changes.

[Chenier]

When rebellions succeed, every council position is vacated, and the rebel leader has full control on what the next government will be like. If you don't want to rely on another, appoint yourself. It's a show of force, but hardly tyrannical, especially next to the fact that, you know, you overthrew the government in a bloody coup and you prepare to replace all the other high-ranking land lords?

Rebel leaders already have all the power you ask for, minus being able to deal with previous royals (which, unlike the previous ruler, do not lose their royal rank).

These are not "extra steps" to deal with dukes. You can't expect to remove someone from a position without taking care of the people who put them there. The only people with authority over dukes are the government members, so if you want to deal with dukes you need to have a solid government to do it. The problem is that you want to deal with dukes without prior leading the government, so the bans aren't as much the extra step as your rebellion to gain that power is.

[Heq]

Royal status seems to remain and it probably should.  After all, if you throw out the bums and have a new ruler but don't have a problem with the old-old retired ruler they still command great respect.

You could just give a 60 day window for kicking out Royals after a rebellion, but really, you could drop metric tons of fines on them.  It should be amazingly hard to remove a duke who was one a king who didn't declare during the rebellion.

[Chenier]

Royal status seems to remain and it probably should.  After all, if you throw out the bums and have a new ruler but don't have a problem with the old-old retired ruler they still command great respect.

You could just give a 60 day window for kicking out Royals after a rebellion, but really, you could drop metric tons of fines on them.  It should be amazingly hard to remove a duke who was one a king who didn't declare during the rebellion.

Hmmm... Royal dukes... you can now kick them out and force a secession, right? That's basically the same as banning them.

[Indirik]

Hmmm... Royal dukes... you can now kick them out and force a secession, right?

Yep.

That's basically the same as banning them.

Close, but not quite. You can rig a ban with the proper circumstances to prevent a secession. Assassinations, wounds in battle, in prison, away from the city, etc., would all let you get rid of a duke without allowing the to secede or change allegiance first.