[Discuss] Re: Auto-bans

[Anthony Anderson]

On 3/23/07, Samuel Knowlton <sam at iamsam.org> wrote:
>
>  >> As far as "honorably" breaking an oath of any sort, I don't think it
> can be done without some extreme legalese in explaining  how going back on
> an oath
>
> Not at all. Think of your classic rebellion scenario.
>
> If your liege supports the rebels and you don't, then you'd be breaking an
> oath to your liege by being a loyalist only if the rebels win. It's easy to
> say 'but you should just do whatever your liege does' but that's
> pie-in-the-sky design and it'll never happen that way. It might be
> technically illegal for you to take a new oath elsewhere in the realm
> because your liege is a rebel, but the Judge probably won't see it that way
> (unless he's one too).
>
> My point is just that it very much depends on context, and the game can't
> know that. Losing honor or prestige doesn't make you a criminal; being
> banned does.
>


Your "classic" rebellion scenario?  In nearly any circumstance, those sworn
to a lord would support their liege.  He would tell them which side to
support.  And you can "pie-in-the-sky" all you want, but you're thinking too
modern and too nationalistic.  Immerse yourself in the time period and
embrace any mechanic that actually allows you to do so.

In your suggested "solution", those who automatically switch realms
following a takeover are then automatically banned from their old realm?
Hardly ideal, and even more of an excuse for people to latch onto a realm
rather than a home/estate/region/liege.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070323/dcec00fc/attachment.htm