Traitor: What does it mean in the context of bans?

[Bedwyr]

One of the primary rules of Battlemaster is that game mechanics trump RP.  Given this, if someone takes an action that they cannot be banned for (say, seceding, as you cannot randomly ban nobles of other realms), can you really call them a traitor?  Or is this the game's way of telling us that we are looking at it wrong?

For the record, my view is that you can call them a traitor, and that the game is wrong and should be changed  but I thought it was an interesting conundrum.

[De-Legro]

One of the primary rules of Battlemaster is that game mechanics trump RP.  Given this, if someone takes an action that they cannot be banned for (say, seceding, as you cannot randomly ban nobles of other realms), can you really call them a traitor?  Or is this the game's way of telling us that we are looking at it wrong?

For the record, my view is that you can call them a traitor, and that the game is wrong and should be changed  but I thought it was an interesting conundrum.

With cases like this, I have always taken the view that while I and my supporters may consider them traitors, that society at large as defined by game mechanics do not. The one that I dislike more is that my infiltrator, who has never sworn an oath to the realms he attacks can be branded as a traitor.

[Chenier]

Are you sure secessions don't cause bans, though?

[fodder]

surely you can call any and everyone a traitor for no good reason, ban or otherwise

[Perth]

surely you can call any and everyone a traitor for no good reason, ban or otherwise

Yeah... I can call you a traitor for for even constructively criticizing a military operation, or for switching lords within the realm, or for doing my every bidding, can't I?

Why wouldn't I be able to call someone a traitor for seceding from the realm?

[De-Legro]

Yeah... I can call you a traitor for for even constructively criticizing a military operation, or for switching lords within the realm, or for doing my every bidding, can't I?

Why wouldn't I be able to call someone a traitor for seceding from the realm?

The point was, you can call them a traitor but game mechanics prevent you from branding them as a traitor. Even if you capture them, unless they were engaged in black market or infiltrator activities you still can't ban them.

[Shenron]

The point was, you can call them a traitor but game mechanics prevent you from branding them as a traitor. Even if you capture them, unless they were engaged in black market or infiltrator activities you still can't ban them.

I think this the major problem. It's fair enough that they aren't banned upon secession. You know, to give them a headstart being a fledgling ruler, but having them officially in the clear is just wrong.

[Telrunya]

Seceding gets you an automatic ban as the Duke splitting off. Of course, the followers do not.

[mikm]

a traitor must belong to the realm that banned him.

[egamma]

Ban =/= traitor.

Banned means that you are not allowed in the realm, and if caught, you will be executed.

Traitor means that you are acting against your realm.

[mikm]

A difrent term should be used like enemy of the realm.It's also a bit silly that you actually have to capture nobles belonging to another realm to ban them when you can easily ban your own nobles at anytime.

[vonGenf]

I'm not certain I understand the debate here.

Certainly, you are allowed to ascribe epithets to characters you dislike, like "Bowie, the traitor", for example.

It would be bad form to RP that you ban someone from a realm if you cannot game mechanically ban them, but really it's a question of not using confusing terms. You can say "If you set foot in my realm, I will make certain you will pay for it, because I think you are a traitor."

A borderline case would be to publically declare "I will have you executed or deported" when you, in fact, cannot do so. Of course, it is always possible to roleplay that the execution is delayed or did not happen for whatever reason, but it's best to only say it when the option actually exists.

I don't think you should change your opinion of other characters based on the ban game mechanics. Game mechanics trumps RP in what happens, not in what you think.

[Valast]

Mechanics... we have to follow those to keep balance... HOWEVER

The mechanics stop short of political/social elements.  Basically... call anyone a traitor you want to... but it all comes back to if YOU can survive the politics and social scandal better then the other guy.

In the case of someone breaking the city away, sure...easy.  But can you call that dukes knights traitors?  hmmm well they follow their Liege so not really unless you can prove other arguments against them.

My $0.02

[songqu88@gmail.com]

For the knights, "I'm just following orders/my superiors" has never been "right". But I suppose the more honorable thing to do would be to follow the guy to whom you pledged you allegiance to, even if that guy broke his own pledge, since knights aren't supposed to think too far up the moral tree.

[De-Legro]

For the knights, "I'm just following orders/my superiors" has never been "right". But I suppose the more honorable thing to do would be to follow the guy to whom you pledged you allegiance to, even if that guy broke his own pledge, since knights aren't supposed to think too far up the moral tree.

There is actually a great case of a French knight holding true to his oath, even as his liege waged war on him to appropriate land. Several times his liege offered a ceasefire and agreed to take no more land, and each time the liege would later break it.