Brainstorming: Expanded Exiling or Outlawing

[byrdcr9]

Dear Devs,

I have been a really good boy this year, and would like an expanded "exile" option for Christmas.

The idea of being exiled in BM is equivalent to the medieval idea of outlawry. Basically, a person is declared an "outlaw" when the King (read: ruler) declares a particular noble to be "no longer protected under the kings peace" or "outside of the law" which mean that any and all actions against that noble is now legal, i.e. looting his estate/regions, attacking their units, even arresting without cause. This is not equivalent to banishment, whereby a noble is permanently removed from a realm and stripped of all titles. Being made a outlaw does not strip a noble of his titles, because he holds them by ancient rite, not by the will and pleasure of the ruler (think more early middle ages).

I would also like it to be adjusted so that if a lord is made an outlaw, all of his vassals are outlawed as well. Ergo, we could have an interesting power dynamic between powerful dukes and their rulers. A duke could be coerced into 'towing the line' of the ruler by his vassals if they are more loyal to the realm than he. However, if a ruler tries to make a power-grab and declare a duke an outlaw, or if a duke has the undying support of his vassals, a ruler would have to think long and hard about declaring him an exile.

As for exiling a noble or a region lord, obviously there is a bit more leeway in favor of the ruler. This will be countered by the approval or disapproval of the realm, which will surely protest loudly if the action was unjust.

Tell me what you think!

[Zakilevo]

Exile is a crappy feature though. You can't make the person you exile actually leave your realm. If the exiled noble wants to screw you over, the noble can just stay and destroy your honor.

[Chenier]

I can only see this kind of working if it was some sort of reverse rebellion, where the king initiates a rebellion against a target, granting him and his supporters a chance to defend themselves as their regions are taken away from them.

And while this sounds like it would be cool, I think it would also be a lot of work to code.

I also always think it a poor idea to assume people will react to unjust actions. Many are bond to never care, and others are bond to not want risking being seen taking a position.

[byrdcr9]

Exile, as it is right now, is a crappy feature. That's why I'm suggesting we change it.

Coding would be a nightmare with this sort of change. And yes, I'm looking at is as sort of a reverse-rebellion. It's the last straw that a ruler can pull to try an reign in an uncontrollable lord. Use at your own risk...

[Chenier]

It's a terrible feature, I've always said so.

But we already have banish noble which covers almost every case of wanting to eject someone.

Because any intra-realm conflict would probably be very hard to code and balance.

Like looting his region... how does this work? A realm can't loot its own region. Say you remove this restriction for that particular region... well, you can't loot when the realm has rallied defenders. In this case, you are of the same realm, so you are naturally a defender, so once again, the mere fact that you have a unit able to loot would prevent your unit from being able to loot. Say you ignore your own unit for this restriction, then... well, what if a peer wants to come loot with you. Then his presence is stopping you. Say you also exempt allied nobles from counting... then what about exile nobles? Are they able to defend against looting? If so, can you fight them? How? Can't arrest them if they have a unit, and even then, you can't arrest nobles except if they are priests of an enemy realm. A realm usually cannot fight itself, save for in a rebellion. Also, if you loot so much as to create peasant militias, will they just stand by and ignore you afterwards, due you being of the same realm as you?

The only existing mechanics that would more or less approximate the things you have said are the outright rebellion mechanics. If the ruler could force a rebellion of sorts, then maybe there could be the desired power struggle. But if there's the normal timer, then it's ridiculously easy to abuse. And if the rebels don't have access to some form of recruitment, it is again ridiculously easy to abuse. But if they do, then you've essentially just created a different realm, which leaves you to wonder of a forced secession wouldn't have been better off. But that comes with its load of complexity though.

[Vita`]

Internal wars are not happening. You want to war your realmmates? Secede or change allegiance.

[Vita`]

I do think the exile mechanic needs reformed/improved somehow though.

[Gildre]

I do not think we are necessarily talking about internal war. What I am understanding is a desire for a Ruler to deal with troublesome region Lords. What I envision is an option to make the region as a whole "outlaw" to the realm. So essentially, the ruler makes that region, it's lord, and the knights serving the lord rogue. So they are no longer part of the realm. Then the realm could attack, loot, and TO the region.

Obviously, this would be a pain for the ruler. It would also make a troublesome region lord rethink his attitude, because it is now not only him but his knights as well who would be punished.

I think this would give a Ruler some decent options, with pretty severe consequences. A good balance IMO.

[Vita`]

So declaring vast groups of nobles/regions rogue? Hmm...interesting, I'm skeptical, but seems more intriguing than internal war.

[Chenier]

I don't get it? The judge can already ban all these people, why give the ruler the same power? How would it be a pain for the ruler? Many regions have no knights, most have very few, so there's little collateral here. Plus, the collateral seems really unfun for those involved.

It's also completely lopsided. Rogues have no recruitment centers, no access to banks. Against a duke, this sounds like a rebellion, except where the ones who have all of the traditional advantages in one also get the opponent's only advantage: timing and surprise.

The best compromise I could think of would be to force a secession, which would only work on dukes, and which would need restrictions regarding how many nobles and regions are there for balance purposes, imo.

But in all this, we must always consider what kind of havoc a dickish ruler could do. Sometimes malicious people do get that position, their opposition isn't always the "bad guys".

[Malus]

Maybe just give the King a bigger "get out" tool?

Maybe he can single people out and hijack all their tax, block services, or incite rebellion in their region. All exile stuff would have to be through messages, but it would make the King position feel more...kingly. Open up options of "unjust treatment" or tactical usage for suspicious converts. My two cents.

[Chenier]

I think there are very valid gameplay reasons for the ruler to not have absolute powers, and for many of these powers being transferred into other positions, notably the judge's.

Someone who wants to play Louis XIV pretty much can, but he needs to simply give himself both ruler and judge positions. Royals get more protection, but I think it's only fair that people who have been heavily invested in their realms for a very long time can't be simply stripped of everything due to a freak election or malicious misleading people.

To really break up the realm's traditional hierarchy, rebellions exist, and I think they have enough restrictions and risks to be the go to balanced option. And that's not just for those who want to get rid of the ones in charge, I've seen all kinds of rebellions, including bait rebellions where instigators are actually on the ruler's side or friendly-ish rebellions, where the rebel leader makes deals with the ruler against competing rebel leaders. Otherwise, there's wars. Have a neighbor invade the problematic region. But good luck convincing him, and then preventing escalation, the nobles might not agree to ending the war so early after it starts.

These options require machiavellic cunning and have large shares of risks. Which, in my opinion, should be *required* when trying to deal with royal dukes (the main issue, usually, since non-royals can be banned by the judge, an uncooperative judge can be protested out, and non-duke royals don't have much power).