COMMUNITY - FORUMS - GENERAL DISCUSSION
Any thoughts on republics?

I was wondering as I talked with a friend on making a free city. This is a question to the devs themselves. Will there be a system in place so that elections can take place not on the scale of a mayor or governor but that of a duke or higher? This would make it able to own land and tax subjects but not be beholden to noble titles or kings. This system would also hold councils and have elections probably similar to governors and mayors, but on a higher tier so to speak.

If there is a possibility for such an idea I also wanted to know if players would be interested in forming a group to go out and find a location that would be viable for like minded people. If there is a large amount of people interested I will go ahead and start gathering a list of people for colonization and we will settle land for the benefit of all of us. This will be stylized after a merchant republic, so the location will be coastal and therefore focused on coastal activities.

The recruitment thread is ready and available for all to see!!! Link is here


4/30/2017 10:56:20 AM #1

All land in the game will be owned by a Kingdom at launch. So in order for your dream to become reality you would have to either go to war with the kingdom your in for independence. Basically an impossible fight.

Perhaps you could buy the land from the King but IMO that would be stupid of the king as it would be a short term gain and a long time loss.


4/30/2017 10:59:27 AM #2

That's true, I did take that into account when I came up with the idea, but the goal is to get a strong city to start with with without being tied to local nobility. Hence why I'm trying to get people to colonize unused land. The game plan is to find a lot of people and settle and jumpstart a new city away from nobility.


4/30/2017 11:03:58 AM #3

I imagine that if the urban gentry gets wealthy and powerful enough, and are unsatisfied with their ruler, they could launch a rebellion, fight off royal forces, and force at least a compromise. Remember, they are the class that owns the land, runs the productive enterprise - most of the taxable wealth comes from them. They simply refuse to pay taxes and use that money to raise a rebel army instead.

If not total independence, they may manage to establish checks on royal power, by establishing a Diet or Parliament of wealthy gentry who give input on issues of taxation, trade, and tariffs. Medieval and early modern European history is full of conflict between the urban elite and monarchs.

If there is no game mechanic, a republican oligarchy could be established as a meta-game institution, where the mayor/count/duchy rules as the elected leader and the consent of the urban elite.

I imagine this is what being mayor will entail - negotiating between the Count and the gentry of the city. A good mayor will find a good compromise for all.


4/30/2017 11:06:24 AM #4

Definitely what I was going for. A city doesn't necessarily have to be independent but it can have a lot of sway in local politics of a region for instance. I know that not everyone wants to be locked into feudalism so I at least want to provide a player driven, meta solution to solve the problem.


4/30/2017 11:12:07 AM #5

I'm sure that it will emerge. There will be a whole intersection of interests that city-dwellers will have with their feudal lords. Manufacturers will want tariffs to protect their industry, other cities getting mad over the tariffs favoring one city over others, get angry when taxed more for a war that doesn't affect them, get mad about poorly applied taxes that hurt the economy. There'll be a lot of particular interests in cities that will conflict with that the lords above them want to do. I'm sure a lot of politics will emerge within cities, between them, and their liege lords. From that, meta-game institutions may arise to represent the interests of these different factions. It'll sure be interesting!


4/30/2017 11:15:45 AM #6

In the event it doesn't make its way to a game feature, PM...you might pull it off on your realm's website, assuming you'll have one. Public faith in the results would also be up for dispute unless a pretty elaborate verification was set up.

I'd say foregoing the secret ballot would be a good idea--then players can publically attest their support in-game or on Discord. No doubts about the results then.

It'll work great until a loser decides not to give up power and sees if he can hang on through military might...


DPBoD2.jpg

4/30/2017 11:33:58 AM #7

I will have a discord for this (in it right now) so i will have people count their votes through discord through vocal verification. Of course I'll make it public and we can then schedule meetings on how the city should progress. I just wanted to offer this as an alternative to the way others will run their kingdoms. Anyone interested should PM me and join the colonists with a specific idea on what your role/services will be. I'll be setting up a proper recruitment thread tomorrow.


4/30/2017 11:44:23 AM #8

I assumed there would be many settlements, counties and maybe even duchies set up in this fashion much like ours as I touched on a bit here.

I'm sure there will be dictitorial rule in some areas and the complete opposite in others..

4/30/2017 11:47:24 AM #9

Interesting Noslim. Well I'm glad that I'm not the only one and should we be somewhat far away, I hope our cities can be wonderful trading partners! :D


4/30/2017 11:57:24 AM #10

Posted By Personman00 at 06:47 AM - Sun Apr 30 2017

Interesting Noslim. Well I'm glad that I'm not the only one and should we be somewhat far away, I hope our cities can be wonderful trading partners! :D

Sounds Great! Our doors are always open to like-minded people. Our Kingdom was created just for this very reason! To give our communities the freedom to rule ourselves which is explained on the Bordweall main post here. If you plan to be in NA-E definitely give us a look-see =D

4/30/2017 2:46:54 PM #11

I'm actually pretty interested to see others attempting to create a society outside the normal Monarchy. I wonder if the game mechanics will allow it and if so, how one would need to go about getting your society recognized by the game as such.

I myself however, will be sticking to the Monarchy model until such a time as a better option is available. Not going to risk losing my county on that risky of societal experimentation.


4/30/2017 3:17:14 PM #12

I think it was mentioned previously that research could be spent towards new forms of governments. So it is probably possible, just unlikely.


4/30/2017 5:54:28 PM #13

Posted By MarchionessCheshire at 3:46 PM - Sun Apr 30 2017

I myself however, will be sticking to the Monarchy model until such a time as a better option is available. Not going to risk losing my county on that risky of societal experimentation.

We did all that societal experimentation in England IRL already and worked out that Monarchy is the best model of governance.


Coming Soon(tm)

4/30/2017 6:00:04 PM #14

Posted By chipla at 10:54 AM - Sun Apr 30 2017

We did all that societal experimentation in England IRL already and worked out that Monarchy is the best model of governance.

actually i think we decided that democracy is the best model of governance, and that we keep the Royals and antiquated House of Lords around out of sentimental tradition, nostalgia, and to rake in tourist dollars

The Case of Proclamations (1610) in England decided that "the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm" and that "the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him."

No one would mistake King John and the barons of England for democrats, but the document they signed on the field of Runnymeade in 1215 is a landmark in the development of constitutional government.

The barons had become outraged at what they viewed as the king's abuse of traditional feudal law, which had given them considerable autonomy in their dealings with the monarch. When King John refused their demands, they raised an army and forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter), which contains 63 articles, most of them a list of rights that chiefly benefited the land-owning nobility and the church.

Nevertheless, a number of the provisions were later applied to all the people of England; others became the foundation for the country's legal system. The Magna Carta states, for example, that the king must seek the advice and consent of the barons in all important matters of state, including the raising of taxes. In later centuries, these provisions were used to assert that no law could be passed or tax raised without the consent of the body representing all the people, the Parliament. (In the American Revolution, colonists seeking independence turned this idea against England with the cry of "no taxation without representation.") The guarantee of due process of law and trial by jury of one's peers can also be traced to provisions in the Magna Carta.

This evolution of the Magna Carta's feudal rights into constitutional rights of ordinary people took centuries, since many later English kings successfully ignored the charter. Only in the wake of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 did England succeed in establishing a durable constitutional monarchy with Parliament as the nation's supreme law-making body. The task of reforming Parliament itself into a broadly representative, democratic institution would take more than another century.


4/30/2017 6:15:08 PM #15

Dunno if it's been mentioned but you're able to research into different laws so it might be possible.