[Discuss] Dukes still not recognised properly?

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 4 Jan 2007 at 0:38, Dorian Gray wrote:

> Even with the advent of the new tax system, I don't think Dukes will be
> played as they should. Dukes, in reality, would almost conduct their own
> diplomacy - trying to gather regions away from other Dukes, hoarding
> food/gold, raiding with their private armies into other realms. In game,
> Dukes can't get away with any of this because:
> 
> -There's still no recognised need for a lord to switch Duchies one way or
> another - this may well change with oaths in full effect though.

What would be a reason that a region lord should switch duchies. Not in any 
real world sense, but in game? What benefit would a region lord see in being 
aligned with one duchy verse another?

>From what I understand, in the new oath system, you can't fine someone 
unless they have black marks with their liege. Perhaps that could be an 
incentive. If the people in power start unjustly punishing people then it's up to 
the lieges to stick up for their people. If your liege or duke is not sticking up for 
you, then there is some incentive to find another one.

Perhaps if taxes were distributed as the realm taxing the duchym, the duchy 
taxing the regions, and the regions taxing the individual nobles.

> -We can still work out mathematically how much a region should be giving,
> and if it isn't, punish the lord. This is almost like using OOC means, since
> the gold that a region at 100% isn't really visibly variable and it can be
> worked out from there, where in reality it could vary greatly. With food,
> AFAIK the Banker still manages food.

So, Dukes aren't allowed to have their book keepers "run the numbers"? I'm 
pretty sure that the Dukes had a darn good idea how much money the region 
lords were supposed to be paying in taxes, if they didn't outright specify an 
exact amount of gold to be paid. If it's not coming in, then investigate. The 
region lord would have to come up with some good reason, or be in trouble.

> -Settings make it difficult to attack - if you're at peace, you can only
> ever attack on murderous if you want to go raiding, and your options are
> still limited - you can't loot or take over or anything like that, which the
> objective of a raid would be. Then the ruler of the victim realm would
> appeal and there'd either be all-out war or the ruler will strip the duke of
> their title.

Well, of course there would. Do you really think the other realm would be 
tolerant of it? The victimized count/duke/marquis would scream to their king to 
fix things. The king would send emissaries to the other king, etc.

> There's secession as a counter, but even since claims and
> everything else I've still seen three realms destroyed and a fourth about to
> be (three of the four being secessions).

And... How many secession have there been? Simply saying that four secession 
is meaningless if there have been 57 altogether. On BT there's even an alliance 
called the Ceded Cities Alliance that currently has, what, five(?) members.

Ceding a city *should* be hard. In fact it should be harder than that. It should 
be *damn* hard. You know full well that the realm you seceded from is going 
to be coming after you with murder in their eyes. Why woudn't they? You stole 
their land and betrayed their scared trust. You spit in their faces threw down 
the gauntlet.

Also, seceded regions no longer have claims on them. That change was made 
quite a while ago. Soon after it was implemented, actually.

> At least two of those have had
> rulers agree to surrender (what's left of) their realms without a fight -
> this might be historically accurate (keeping lords in power after an
> invasion), but I'm not sure whether that was ever a gameplay no-no, since
> IIRC people have been bolted for it before.
> 
> -Dukes appointed are usually chosen out of their loyalty to the ruler,

Of course. No king in his right mind is going to place an enemy or a known 
malcontent in such a position of power. Why would they? In Battlemaster, that 
is, not in real life.

> which wasn't always the way it happened in real life - there were often
> rich and powerful lords that the ruler had to appease in order to stay
> in power. 
> 
> These days, if a Duke tries anything like that, the inevitable result seems
> to be fine/banishment/exile/stripping of titles and secession.

Well, yes. Of course! What do you expect to the happen, the other realm to just 
shrug and say "Dukes wil be Dukes"? The duke in these examples has 
committed a diplomatic incident by raiding the neghboring kingdom that 
equates to an act of war. What would you have the ruler do? Tell the victimized 
kingdom to let bygones be bygones, and let's all just have another glass of 
wine? The duke *invaded* the other realm!

> Basically, while in theory the Dukes are meant to have a decent amount of
> power, in practice they're still very much limited, with the rulers still
> being the ones with the real say in the end. There are some semi-democratic
> solutions in most realms such as an extended 'realm council', and there are
> people that do try and RP their Dukes as being the realistic, arrogant and
> powerful people they should be, but it's not quite the same. I'd like to see
> privately sponsored armies looting border regions of their own free will,
> rulers having to beg for support, etc. but I just don't think it'll happen
> the way people see them now.
> 
> Does anyone else see this or is it just me?

I seem to be seeing a lot of ideas along the lines of "dukes should be very 
strong" to the point that many feel that dukes should be stronger than rulers. 
Well, I suppose I have several things to say about that, and here they are, in no 
particular order.

1. If dukes are stronger than kings, and the the kings had to beg them to go 
fight, then what you have is not so much a single strong realm made up of 
multiple duchies, but a collection of strong duchies that merely happen to fly 
the same flag, albeit on a lower staff than their own personal banners. If the 
dukes were really so powerful that they could defy the king, then *why* would 
they be vassals of the king?

2. Many people seem to want to increase the power of dukes, allowing to do 
things like set tax rates for the duchy, punish their own nobles, set diplomatic 
policies for other duchies in the realm and other realms, etc. Essentially what 
this does is turn the duke into a ruler of a realm that consists of a single city. So 
instead of strong rulers, we now have strong dukes that are essentially storng 
rulers, but of smaller realms. So what has really changed? Nothing at all, really. 
We just call our rulers Dukes now, and they group together in Federations that 
we call Realms. Oh, and there is this guy we call a ruler, but he can't do 
anything, really, except beg other people to do things for him.

3.  Real world: You are a duke because you are noble born, rich, and have lots 
of land and personal power. BM: You are selected as Duke because you are 
trusted by the ruler. Because of that appointment, you have wealth and land, 
and therefore some personal power.

So what we normally have in Battlemaster is that "With the position comes the 
power", rather than they way people are claimed it happene IRL, which is "With 
the power comes the positioin". So, how can we change that? Well, really, we 
can't. You can't restrict this stuff by game mechanics. If you could, it would 
mean that all the old timers with the highest H/P, or the longest time in realm, 
or whatever, would have all the positions, and newbies would just be stuck 
playing peons forever.

Rather than change game mechanics, people need to start acting the part 
*before* they get the position. If you want a position, then you have to amass 
your power base. Accumulate your personal power by the contacts you make. 
Then, when the time comes to choose a new Duke, step forward assert your 
*right* to the position, based on your personal power and following. Have your 
following also support you in your bid for the position. If you are passed over 
for the position, make a big stink about it, and have you followers do the same. 
Amass more followers and supporters. When the next position comes up, do it 
again.

If you have no followers, and no support, then if for some reason you are given 
the position, no one will follow you when you suddenly start acting the part of 
an influential and powerful Duke who demands the respect and power that his 
position deserves.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't be asking for the game 
mechanics to give us the power we want to be inherenet in the system. We 
need to change our actions to accumulate the power for ourselves, then 
exercise that power through our personal contacts and connections. The game 
can give you the authority, and it already does, by giving you the title and the 
tax gold. It's up to the players to assert their authority and claim the attendant 
power that goes along with that.

Oh well, I have to go, and I really don't have the time to put into this that it 
really deserves. I hope I got my point across anyway.


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