[Discuss] New Secession rules

[Chad Ziccardi]

begin quote from Timothy Collett <danaris at mac.com> written 2007-06-04:

> On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Nick Moeller wrote:
>> The surprise and fun of the unknowing has also been taken out of it. The 
>> duke as well as the realm automatically know what regions and nobles will 
>> be part of the rebellion
>
> I believe that's exactly the point.
>
> This is what was intended all along.  The only reason secessions weren't like 
> this to begin with is there weren't duchies then.  I understand what you're 
> saying, but this *is* how secessions *should* work.
>
> Look at it this way: because of the oaths they have sworn, the lords and 
> knights under the Duke are in his duchy first, and only then in the realm, 
> because the Duke is.  As soon as he declares himself to be in a different 
> realm--whether by secession or simple allegiance change (well, I say 
> "simple", heh...)--they *are* in that other realm.  They must *choose* to 
> break their direct oath, because that is *meant* to be the strongest bond, 
> not the allegiance to a realm.
>
> The duchy cannot be broken apart save by the explicit action of the lords 
> within it...just as the realm cannot be broken apart save by the explicit 
> action of the lords and dukes within it.


Is there always a way to break the bond? I worry that you would be unable to 
break the oath, if your duchy left and your region was surrounded by others in 
your former duchy. (I believe you can only swear to the duchy that you are 
next to)

I can think of some reasons for wanting to break, but breaking against them 
seems like you'd get put down rather quickly anyway.

-- 
Chad Ziccardi, Professional Slacker          cz at digitalfreaks.org
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go."


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