Government system misleading?

[Kain]

I was just thinking about something. In the old days, Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Tyranny, Theocracy, these all carried with them decided rules and titles. Some let the lords have more votes than other nobles, some let the General be elected while some systems had him be appointed. The titles of the council members were also decided by which government system it was (i.e dictator, king or prime minister). We could all know which rules applied even before we joined a realm just by looking at the government system.

But now I've found tyrannies which are less tyranic than moncharies, and other monarchies which remind me more of the old form of democracy.

The wiki page about Government systems surely needs to be updated for starters.

What is really the use of telling the new nobles which government system it has when it seems to hold little significance? Even the titles are all mixed up now. Storm General, King in a tyranny (which of course is natural, which dictator calls himself a dictator? Although I kinda liked it in the game), High Chancellor for a judge, Imperial Chancellor (different realm) for a banker and so on.

Can you somehow see these rules before you join a realm? I think I made the mistake of just looking at the government system which is, as you can see, completely misleading these days.

[Indirik]

In a way, you're correct. The government settings let realms call their council positions anything they want.  On top of that, they let you customize how these positions are selected. You can have an absolute tyrant that is elected monthly. Or an People's Representative who is appointed for life by the ruler. Unfortunately there is no way to see all these settings before you join the realm. Making choosing a realm based on that kind of things a total crapshoot.

[Telrunya]

The Government System is sadly rather outdated with the new Government Options allowing a lot of customization, leaving the Government System (Monarchy, Republic, Tyranny etc.) only affecting very few things (Like Ruler in Region bonus, whether Rulers can be elected while remaining their Duke seat at the same time etc.). Adding to that that it's very hard to change the Government System (Rebellions, Realm in Anarchy) and you get situations where, for example, Monarchies move to a more Republican System, while still being listed as a Monarchy (D'Hara for example). Perhaps those heavy restrictions on changing the Government System should be, partially, lifted?

[Stue (DC)]

Customizations of elections options left many other things rather pointless, while the only IC "benefit" is that rulers can now praise themselves for being "democratic"  by switching more and more positions to elected ones.

That is mostly counterproductive. It is anyhow hard to remind people to separate RL understanding of being democratic from medieval background, and more options to being "democratic" makes things only worse.

I cannot easily understand how that customization was accepted at all.

Or I can, seeing how swiftly gender sign (which really has little to do with medieval things) came on top of messages 

[Indirik]

Or I can, seeing how swiftly gender sign (which really has little to do with medieval things) came on top of messages 

The gender indicator is an OOC aid to players. It has nothing at all to do with being medieval. It has everything to do with being helpful by allowing the players to accurately address letters without having to jump through three or fours screens to find out if you're writing a letter to Queen Kepler or King Kepler. This facilitates the improvement of the atmosphere by removing the silly OOC mistake we often make due to gender confusion with made up names.

The fact that it went in quickly is due to the fact that it was easy, helpful, required no database modifications, and had absolutely no effect on game balance in any way.

[Chenier]

Customizations of elections options left many other things rather pointless, while the only IC "benefit" is that rulers can now praise themselves for being "democratic"  by switching more and more positions to elected ones.

That is mostly counterproductive. It is anyhow hard to remind people to separate RL understanding of being democratic from medieval background, and more options to being "democratic" makes things only worse.

I cannot easily understand how that customization was accepted at all.

Or I can, seeing how swiftly gender sign (which really has little to do with medieval things) came on top of messages 

Name aside, the different government systems do work differently. Democracies have more peaceful dissent (protest instead of riot), but harsher police work is more difficult, while kings help with morale and control simply by being present in a region, for example. The rules from who can appoint himself to what also varies greatly according to the government system, and as such you can never have a ruler in a democracy, no matter how tyrannic he is, appoint himself as a duke.

That being said, I do think that the government details are way too *easy* to switch, and have always said so. That might just be me being too old school, though. I otherwise like customization.

[egamma]

Name aside, the different government systems do work differently. Democracies have more peaceful dissent (protest instead of riot), but harsher police work is more difficult, while kings help with morale and control simply by being present in a region, for example. The rules from who can appoint himself to what also varies greatly according to the government system, and as such you can never have a ruler in a democracy, no matter how tyrannic he is, appoint himself as a duke.

That being said, I do think that the government details are way too *easy* to switch, and have always said so. That might just be me being too old school, though. I otherwise like customization.

There should be penalties, like capital-move penalties, for moving away from the base settings for a given realm type, with the greater the change, the more problems the change causes. A monarchy where the judge is elected by region lords quarterly should have only minor trouble, where a tyranny with a monthly ruler election should be almost impossible to maintain.

Or, make it a one-time penalty, and not a continuing one.

[Chenier]

There should be penalties, like capital-move penalties, for moving away from the base settings for a given realm type, with the greater the change, the more problems the change causes. A monarchy where the judge is elected by region lords quarterly should have only minor trouble, where a tyranny with a monthly ruler election should be almost impossible to maintain.

Or, make it a one-time penalty, and not a continuing one.

There are control issues generated as a one-time hit when government system settings are changed. I never felt they were too imposing, though, and I don't agree that they are the best path to follow either. I'm actually surprised that no would-be rebel has yet succeeded in taking power and then changed the government settings ten times in a row to destroy the realm.

[Bedwyr]

There are control issues generated as a one-time hit when government system settings are changed. I never felt they were too imposing, though, and I don't agree that they are the best path to follow either. I'm actually surprised that no would-be rebel has yet succeeded in taking power and then changed the government settings ten times in a row to destroy the realm.

I've never noticed a control issue before, but if anyone did that, it would be blatant OOC abuse and I have a feeling lightning would rain down from the sky.

[Shenron]

How about this. Instead having deciding upon a government system when creating a colony or finishing a rebellion etc. How about choosing the level of overall government power (e.g. high, medium or low.) Notice that this would not affect the hierarchy, just the government. So it's really a degree of how much the government can intervene with the traditional hierarchical strucuture which would not be negotiable (at least on Dwilight.)

The levels of government control (ranging from low to high) would have control over things like protest or riot, the rulers impact on a local population, the judge's ability to ban powerful people e.g. dukes and so on so forth.

The actual name of the government should be decided upon the traditional means of government transformation (i.e. rebellion, colonization etc) and then not be changeable unless rebellion or anarchy occurs.

This would go along with being unable to edit certain government parameters such as the power allocated to each position (I know this isn't active yet) and position names. We should still allow other changes such as appointment or election (perhaps not for the ruler?) Also, parameters such as election terms (or appointment) and title names should be allowed to be changed in the realms first month of new government.

To illustrate:

Bob goes founds a colony; Keplerstan. He assigns the government of Keplerstan medium power of intervention in the traditional hierarchy and officially names it the "Holy Kingdom of Keplerstan," (he intends this to be a theocracy of Keplerism.) The ruler, named the Supreme Deity is set to be elected once only, he is set to command "strong" power. The rest of his council, Servant 1, Servant 2 and Servant 3 are all to be appointed and they hold "weak" power.

Because Bob has made himself a "strong" ruler and his government having "medium" strength overall. This makes Bob a relatively powerful ruler. For example, he could single handedly relieve any of the other government members of their roles (because of their relative power difference to him) but he could not appoint a duke with no claim without serious repercussions (as his government only has medium strength.)

Later when Bob dies and Doug is elected, he is allowed to change Servant 1 to be elected monthly but can't change the title name of Servant 1 and cannot stop him from holding "weak" power. Doug also cannot change his own 1-time election.

Ideas? Please be constructive, I don't mean all this too seriously

[Anaris]

We've had some plans for some time to eliminate the named systems altogether, and add more customization options. 

But, well, you know how it is with plans that have been sitting there for some time...