[Discuss] Royal Status

[Paris]

2006/10/2, Lyman Stone <lymanstone at alltel.net>:
>
> 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....


I fail to see your point here...

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.


I would say "go for it, boy!". This is not my argument though. He can RP as
he wants.

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.


I have brought an issue to discussion. I do not actually argue with Tom. If
Tom wishes to playe like that, then be my guest as long as everyone plays
according to this new system for some time. But I do not want to believe
that Tom made this game out of selfish reasons and doesn't want other
players in his game. We all play this game and try to contribute as much as
possible, don't we?

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.


Has anyone argued with that? Powerful Dukes should not be immune though.

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.


Lyman, there are *if*s in my statement. I have not seen any devaluation for
some time in BM now, but I have experienced devaluation pretty much in the
past knowing that it can happen again.

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.


I am amongst those that when I have a character in a Governmental Position,
I give much credit and power to Dukes. They just shouldn't be immune,
because then there is no way to deal with them IC and makes no sense at all.
10 enemy Nobles can TO the City and deal with him, but 60 Nobles of his
Realm can not harm him?

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


I do not se any equality so far. :/

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.
>
Indeed, but you are not the only one doing so. ;)


-- 
Lucifer Jr. - Kalmar Islands
Esperos - Avamar Selective
Laura - Nighthelm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20061002/0ce8704e/attachment.htm