[Discuss] Royal Status

[Lyman Stone]

> Which means that there is no way to deal with a mad royal and that  
> if he happens to be a Duke then better start digging your grave,  
> because sooner or later he will destroy your Realm without 60  
> Nobles being able to stop him.

Solution: Dont appoint said person as a duke in the first place. Lets  
see... One was elected, correct? Maybe this is showing why democracy  
was virtually nonexistent in the middle ages....
> A royal Duke disbands all the militia, damages the fortifications  
> and destroys all the RCs of the capital and not even 100000000000  
> Nobles can do anything to deal with him. This is madness and 100%  
> nonsense!
Firstly, the duke hurts himself as well by doing those things. It  
means he's sacrificing his realm and, most likely, his position.  
Unless of course he made a deal with the conquerors, in which case I  
say: Fight on brave duke! Usurp the people, wield your power, and do  
as you please! Just dont violate the inalienable rights.

>
> If this is how you wish to play the game, then alright I will play  
> along with you, but I hope that after this specific Realm is  
> destroyed (if this will ever happen) that thing not to change  
> because it suddenly will stop to make any sense to you. If again  
> this is not the case, then I hope that not to change when you will  
> find yourselves in a similar situation, because simply some of you  
> clearly have a stronger voice than mine, something that would of  
> course downgrade my worth as a player.
Firstly, this may/may not be how the majority of players want to  
play, but its how, apparently, Tom wants to play. It doesnt matter if  
every player in BM wants to allow stripping of a royal duke's titles,  
if Tom says no, its no, and you dont argue with Tom. Firstly because  
he made the game, secondly because he puts alot of effort into  
maintaining the game, thirdly out of respect, fourthly because he  
already gets enough crap. Personally: I like having very, very  
powerful dukes.

Secondly, nobody is devalueing you as a player. I've read this  
discussion off and on, and I think contributed a few times, and I  
haven't seen any devalueing going on. If I were the people being  
accused of "devalueing", I would probably feel devalued. This is a  
discussion, there will be different opinions. Some people will have  
different info, more or less experience, and different viewpoints.  
Just because one side of a discussion ends up having A- more voices  
B- voices which end up "coming out on top", doesnt mean that suddenly  
the other "side" is disliked. I utterly fail to see any connection  
whatsoever between any part of this discussion and anyone's worth as  
a player. We're talking about IC royal status. We dont have royal  
status OOC. We're, in most nations around the world, equal under the  
law.

>
> Royal Dukes of Capitals rule the Realms and noone can stop them,  
> even if they were elected accidentaly for 1 day and then protested  
> out of office. Dukes after a secession can destroy the Realm they  
> have found, because they simply *own* it.
Correct. Thats how its supposed to be. Feudal Hierarchy > Ruler.  
Dukes are, essentially, more powerful than rulers. Examples:  
Secession of Irombro, Kthon, Joppo, Heen, Vice, heck, every secession  
ever. Look in any realm with dukes. If the dukes choose to, they can  
overrule the ruler.

Marc, in Irombro, was not royal, just rich. Bought the title multiple  
times to facilitate secession.
> What better than being Ruler? Of course becoming Duke.
>
> Do we agree?
>

Duke and Ruler are sometimes equal, sometimes rulers are supreme,  
sometimes dukes are supreme.

Sorry if I came across as harsh, or anything like that, I didnt mean  
to be, but I understand that, often, my blunt and confrontationalist  
style of speech comes across as arrogant or offensive.