Appointed rulers

[Chenier]

Now this would need some tweaking, but as a general idea I think this has a lot of gameplay/RP potential.

What I would like to see would be, for monarchies and theocracies, the possibility to set it so that the ruler is not elected, but rather appointed by the judge. If this option is selected, then one could not set the judge to appointment, for obvious reasons.

It would be very historically accurate to have the leader of the faith appoint/anoint the ruler in medieval and ancient times. In monarchies, the judge is even called the Arch Priest.

I've roleplayed such an independent Arch Priest in the past, and it was loads of fun. I think such a change could bring interesting new dynamics and a greater diversity in the political landscapes amongst realms.

[Zakilevo]

Don't know about theocracies but for monarchies, priests didn't appoint the kings. Maybe rulers should be able to appoint the next king for monarchies instead of the judge.

[Chenier]

Don't know about theocracies but for monarchies, priests didn't appoint the kings. Maybe rulers should be able to appoint the next king for monarchies instead of the judge.

Isn't the whole Joan of Arc deal that this prince guy had to go to this special place for the clergy to anoint him as king of france? Yes, in most medieval cases, the priest didn't appoint just whoever random bloke he wanted, but his approval was necessary due to the papacy's power at legitimizing titles. And in our cases, we all play elite nobles, so no matter who the judge would pick he wouldn't be picking any random bloke anyways.

[Shenron]

Isn't the whole Joan of Arc deal that this prince guy had to go to this special place for the clergy to anoint him as king of france? Yes, in most medieval cases, the priest didn't appoint just whoever random bloke he wanted, but his approval was necessary due to the papacy's power at legitimizing titles. And in our cases, we all play elite nobles, so no matter who the judge would pick he wouldn't be picking any random bloke anyways.

We also don't have the whole hereditary rule thing for obvious reasons so the Arch Priest selecting the noble seems appropriate to me.

[De-Legro]

My understanding is it was most a formality in most cases, that is the presiding Bishop didn't have a whole heap of choice in the matter, unless it was a period with a weak ruling house and a very strong pope. The Queen of England was crowned by the church as well, but nobody suggests that they chose her. This would seem to be easily handled with just plain RP of the current Judge or head priest of the realm RPing the whole ceremony.

[Chenier]

My understanding is it was most a formality in most cases, that is the presiding Bishop didn't have a whole heap of choice in the matter, unless it was a period with a weak ruling house and a very strong pope. The Queen of England was crowned by the church as well, but nobody suggests that they chose her. This would seem to be easily handled with just plain RP of the current Judge or head priest of the realm RPing the whole ceremony.

Sounds excellent potential for RPs, both if there's no strong candidate and the Arch Priest has free reign and if there is and the Arch Priest would prefer another.

There *were* strong popes, popes that were stronger than emperors, so it all seems good to me.

[Anaris]

Isn't the whole Joan of Arc deal that this prince guy had to go to this special place for the clergy to anoint him as king of france? Yes, in most medieval cases, the priest didn't appoint just whoever random bloke he wanted, but his approval was necessary due to the papacy's power at legitimizing titles. And in our cases, we all play elite nobles, so no matter who the judge would pick he wouldn't be picking any random bloke anyways.

Note emphasis.

If you can get your religion to be that powerful, then you can require that new Kings get your say-so or they won't be able to keep their thrones.

It's not something that happens automatically.

[Stue (DC)]

i was also thinking about this idea for a while, with similar reasoning - enough possible rp is incurred, many tensions are possible, while it fits for every non-democratic regime.

there could also be some kind of forced type of elections, like lords representative type of election as the only way in appointing rulers in monarchies and tyrannies could have something like noble with highest prestige to receive short-duration opportunity to announce himself a ruler.

generally, a bit simplified, but i think it works as a principle: less customization for government, more rp, flavour, opportunities for internal tensions, more sense in governments type differentiation.

[Shenron]

Note emphasis.

If you can get your religion to be that powerful, then you can require that new Kings get your say-so or they won't be able to keep their thrones.

It's not something that happens automatically.

Ok. Following the same logic we should get rid of the government mechanic for the ruler altogether. Instead we need someone to put enough effort into battlemaster that he becomes so popular that everyone in the realm must refer to him as King and accept appointments even though there is no mechanic that lets him make the choices. Instead everyone just votes his way in the election because he's that damn good.

[vonGenf]

Note emphasis.

If you can get your religion to be that powerful, then you can require that new Kings get your say-so or they won't be able to keep their thrones.

It's not something that happens automatically.

It's not as if there was a vote held either. The suggestion seems to improve SMA and maintain game balance.

[Chenier]

I wouldn't see the down-side of such an option. In some realms, rulers are just over-glorified public spokesmen. Diversity in government systems is a good thing, always, imo, as it's easy to change realms if necessary and if unhappy about a change you can likely do something about it.

And in such a system, if you are strong enough to not want the Arch Priest's appointment, then you can just rebel to power.

[Indirik]

It would definitely be an interesting option to empower a state religion to select government position holders in a realm. We wanted to do this with Sanguis Astroism. I'd probably put some restrictions on it. Like only if the realm has a declared state religion, or possibly only in theocracies.

[fodder]

anointing and appoint are rather different things

who is made ruler follow strict bloodline/claims rules... whoever is chosen is then "given the mandate" by god via priests and ceremonies.. so to speak.

equally, you can imagine someone seizing the throne by force and the religious leader not legitimising it.

in either case, the religion won't be selecting squat. they basically lend support or opposition.

that said.. you can imagine something like this extended to to lots of levels... a noble can grab a piece of land by force and rule over it. yet not recognised by the overlord/duke/whatsit (who'll pop around with an army at some point probably)

[Indirik]

I find the point of game-mechanics "anointing" of a ruler to be pointless. You can already "anoint" a ruler through RP. And if you don't like the ruler, refuse to do it, and use your priests and followers to cause problems.  You don't need game mechanics to do it for you.

[Vellos]

I don't think the religion side is necessary.

Just make an option:
If the judge is not appointed, then the ruler can be selected via appointing by the judge.

It would make the judge more powerful, give some cool RP possibilities, and doesn't seem like it'd cause a big imbalance.