[Discuss] Re: Royal Status

[Jason Sweeney]

On 10/3/06, w drix <valdrix1975 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> bpratt <saintmaggot at gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess my only problem conceptually is how for example, a Prime Minister
> elected every 30 days is considered Royal Blood... anyone knows that his
> blood is exactly the same as it was before being chosen as head of
> government. And it's not like in real life, where Royals actually were born
> into a family, a line of descendants of Kings and Queens and all that.
>
> Part of this is me wanting to integrate the feudal concept of family and
> inherited titles with BM, which I know is pretty farfetched given game
> balance limitations.
>
>
> Well, nobility are the people who hold lands, wealth, title, and many have a
> claim to a crown....even if 4,000 people would need to die or refuse the
> crown in order for them to get it.
>
> We are all nobility in the game, so any one of us could become the ruler.
> Once ruler, then it is very understandable that he/she is royal.  If another
> is elected, it does not change that the first one is royal...and by our own
> elections no less.
>
> For us to say they are not royal, would meen we were wrong, as nobility that
> just isent acceptable is it?
>
>
>
>
Royalty was dynastic in nature. IF someone were overthrown in the
middle ages there was a chance they would be removed from history or
ever spoken of again. There is an even chance that they would become
the new opposition and try to vie for the throne again through another
candidate. Nobles are not supposed ot be infallible, but they should
appear so. They would blame spirits or something else for the
problems.