[Discuss] Temporary position holders

[Timothy Collett]

On Jul 31, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Jerry Wren wrote:

> It is in Dante's best interest that DA be King. I could list off  
> quite a few reasons if you would like.

Indeed: and this is the real problem with the "no interim rulers"  
dictum--which, by the way, I completely support in principle.

Take, for instance, my character in Minas Ithil, the General, Anton.   
He was the runner-up for ruler in this election, and won in a  
previous election when Dead Angel3 was captured several months ago  
(not long before the ban was instituted).  Even then, I considered  
having him try to hold onto power.  Why didn't I?

Because it is *completely and utterly* against his character.

Anton is a loyal noble of Minas Ithil, and would do nothing that he  
perceived as damaging the realm, or the person whom he perceives as  
its legitimate King, Dead Angel3.  The *only* way I think I would  
have been able to justify--in RP--not stepping down as soon as DA3  
returned would be out of concern for his health.

In general, people will be loyal to the incumbent over someone who  
was elected simply because the incumbent was temporarily  
unavailable.  This is especially true in the old monarchies that have  
had a single ruler for multiple real-life years, and is such a  
fixture that the people cannot imagine the realm without him.

I am still of the opinion that more ruler turnover is not only good  
for the game, it is essential.  However, I think that a far, far  
better way of going about it, from an RP perspective, is to provide  
some mechanism by which rulers become mortal (or more so than other  
nobles).

Timothy Collett
Anaris Family

--

No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously  
whether she will or will not be a mother.
-- Margaret H. Sanger





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