[Discuss] Royal Status

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 3 Oct 2006 at 20:54, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> > It doesn't have to make sense. Tradition works that way. It doesn't make
> > sense for two people of noble birth with immense wealth to duel to the
> > death over some minor matter, either. And yet it happened.
> 
> Death duels make perfect sense if you think about it using a medieval
> system of priorities. Of course it doesn't make sense to us, but
> that's completely irrelevant.
> 
> Dukes being invulnerable because they are an ex-ruler doesn't make
> sense with either system of priorities. Ex-rulers should generally be
> dead, or in excile. Prehaps being protested out of office should get
> you banned as well - that would solve most of the problems.

I thought the whole idea of royal status is to ensure that there could always be 
someone in the realm who can disagree with you, that you can't get rid of with 
a simple ban. Having royals means you can never be 100% secure with your 
power base, as there can always be people free to speak their minds, and 
oppose the rulers without fear of being kicked out.

The game has many rules which are OOC in order to make the game a better 
place. Not everything has to be a certain way because that would be more 
historically accurate.


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