[Discuss] Re: Royal Status

[Justin Licht]

On 10/3/06, bpratt <saintmaggot at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/3/06, w drix <valdrix1975 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> Since when does being noble translate to always being correct?
>
> And my point here is talking about game mechanics from the perspective of
> a player. It just doesn't jive for me, from a historical perspective, to
> equate the BM royalty with feudal royalty in terms of social meaning.
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
As a noble, it is not very prestigous to be found wrong... Especially on the
matters of choosing a leader. A noble should not easily accept being wrong,
especially in such matters as who is royalty and who isnt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20061003/0dd92596/attachment.htm