[Discuss] Re: Royal Status

[Marc J.]

On 10/4/06, bpratt wrote:
>
> Since when does being noble translate to always being correct?


Since that if you, (as a peasant in the Middle Ages) where to say that a
noble was wrong... you'd lose more then your wife, kids, and house. You'd,
depending on the noble, either be killed or throw in jail and forgotten
about.

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.
>

The only difference is that BM Royalty is too "nice" and too "easy".

Nice, in the sense that when was the last time you saw a King act with
near-dictatorial power? When was the last time you saw a King demand gold
from his Dukes - and have the Banker starve the city until he got it?

If you want my honest opinion: the discussion over One's actions in AS is
the closest thing to a "real" Ruler in real life then all the Dictators in
BM's history - combined.

Easy, in the sense that all it takes to be Ruler in BM is an election. No
power plays, (besides politics) no struggle of arms, no real display of
power.

Again, my honest opinion, but I'd love to see a system where the feudal
system becomes even more important. Dukes, Local lords, and Knights are
given the power to make - or break - Ruler's and government systems.

-- 
Marc J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20061004/1ecd0e02/attachment.htm