[Discuss] Lords losing honour after a TO is optional

[Thomas Dalton]

> Now I can explain why this is _not_ a smart choice.

Thank you.

> One - people will remember. Your chances of getting a region again will
> drop if you always abandon it.

If you're pretty sure the region will fall, it doesn't do any harm, so
why would people hold it against you?

> Two - the region will suffer if its lord steps down during a TO, giving
> the enemy an advantage in succeeding with the TO.

Again, only significant if you have a chance of keeping the region.

> Three - BM is a roleplaying game, and staying with your region until the
> end is a roleplaying choice.

The honour value stored in the database should be part of the RP. If
you RP your character doing dishonourable things, his honour should
drop (not possible for all RPs, but it certainly is for this one).
Losing the honour even if you do step down would still allow the
player the choice, they just have to face the consequences for their
choice. Losing honour isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) a punishment,
it should just be a recognition of what your character has done - it
*is* dishonourable to abandon your region, so you *should* lose honour
for it.

> Four - if there's no lord when the TO completes, there will be no claim
> and the enemy can appoint a new lord and have less incentive to make
> peace. This last one is not 100% complete because it had to wait for the
> wont-lose-lordship-when-wounded change, otherwise all TO groups would be
> accompanied by a few assassins to circumvent this problem.

I think that's the first time you've mentioned this plan - it's a good
one, and does offer a strong disadvantage to stepping down (excluding
the south islands, anyway). It doesn't make stepping down any more
honourable, though.


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss