Orangeboy is the only option.
Might send a token to Mickdude in exchange for a recreational McNuke™, though.
Orangeboy is the only option.
Might send a token to Mickdude in exchange for a recreational McNuke™, though.
My idealistic goal is the Republic, but sure..i dont care to setup a long road to finally got all things work. So, yes, even with Kingship, i'll not send the army and kill all rebel Dukes. I'll sign the Bill of Rights and accept all Senate laws. The Duke will need to follow the King's law, with or without the Senate. I dont want a civil war, but i'll follow the Senate orders. Everyone will have limited power and negative orders.
About the Foreign Policy...i'll not ''export'' revolution..only theory.
If im not the King..i'll do my best to research the republican system. I'll follow the kingdom/dukedom laws, but i'll do everything i can to advance the republican agenda. Sure, the situation can scale to war, and that is ok. Im prepared to fight (and even fail, extirpation of the title and land burned).
Thats the game.
Posted By Desdark at 9:51 PM - Tue Oct 31 2017
My idealistic goal is the Republic, but sure..i dont care to setup a long road to finally got all things work. So, yes, even with Kingship, i'll not send the army and kill all rebel Dukes. I'll sign the Bill of Rights and accept all Senate laws. The Duke will need to follow the King's law, with or without the Senate. I dont want a civil war, but i'll follow the Senate orders. Everyone will have limited power and negative orders.
About the Foreign Policy...i'll not ''export'' revolution..only theory.
If im not the King..i'll do my best to research the republican system. I'll follow the kingdom/dukedom laws, but i'll do everything i can to advance the republican agenda. Sure, the situation can scale to war, and that is ok. Im prepared to fight (and even fail, extirpation of the title and land burned).
Thats the game.
If anything you'll import troublemakers, which could be interesting either way.
Posted By Scheneighnay at 12:57 AM - Wed Nov 01 2017
Posted By Desdark at 9:51 PM - Tue Oct 31 2017
My idealistic goal is the Republic, but sure..i dont care to setup a long road to finally got all things work. So, yes, even with Kingship, i'll not send the army and kill all rebel Dukes. I'll sign the Bill of Rights and accept all Senate laws. The Duke will need to follow the King's law, with or without the Senate. I dont want a civil war, but i'll follow the Senate orders. Everyone will have limited power and negative orders.
About the Foreign Policy...i'll not ''export'' revolution..only theory.
If im not the King..i'll do my best to research the republican system. I'll follow the kingdom/dukedom laws, but i'll do everything i can to advance the republican agenda. Sure, the situation can scale to war, and that is ok. Im prepared to fight (and even fail, extirpation of the title and land burned).
Thats the game.
If anything you'll import troublemakers, which could be interesting either way.
Uhn...''freedom warriors''? Maybe...
Posted By Desdark at 9:59 PM - Tue Oct 31 2017
Posted By Scheneighnay at 12:57 AM - Wed Nov 01 2017
Posted By Desdark at 9:51 PM - Tue Oct 31 2017
My idealistic goal is the Republic, but sure..i dont care to setup a long road to finally got all things work. So, yes, even with Kingship, i'll not send the army and kill all rebel Dukes. I'll sign the Bill of Rights and accept all Senate laws. The Duke will need to follow the King's law, with or without the Senate. I dont want a civil war, but i'll follow the Senate orders. Everyone will have limited power and negative orders.
About the Foreign Policy...i'll not ''export'' revolution..only theory.
If im not the King..i'll do my best to research the republican system. I'll follow the kingdom/dukedom laws, but i'll do everything i can to advance the republican agenda. Sure, the situation can scale to war, and that is ok. Im prepared to fight (and even fail, extirpation of the title and land burned).
Thats the game.
If anything you'll import troublemakers, which could be interesting either way.
Uhn...''freedom warriors''? Maybe...
More like anyone looking to rig an election or buy a senator.
Posted By Scheneighnay at 01:02 AM - Wed Nov 01 2017
Posted By Desdark at 9:59 PM - Tue Oct 31 2017
Posted By Scheneighnay at 12:57 AM - Wed Nov 01 2017
Posted By Desdark at 9:51 PM - Tue Oct 31 2017
My idealistic goal is the Republic, but sure..i dont care to setup a long road to finally got all things work. So, yes, even with Kingship, i'll not send the army and kill all rebel Dukes. I'll sign the Bill of Rights and accept all Senate laws. The Duke will need to follow the King's law, with or without the Senate. I dont want a civil war, but i'll follow the Senate orders. Everyone will have limited power and negative orders.
About the Foreign Policy...i'll not ''export'' revolution..only theory.
If im not the King..i'll do my best to research the republican system. I'll follow the kingdom/dukedom laws, but i'll do everything i can to advance the republican agenda. Sure, the situation can scale to war, and that is ok. Im prepared to fight (and even fail, extirpation of the title and land burned).
Thats the game.
If anything you'll import troublemakers, which could be interesting either way.
Uhn...''freedom warriors''? Maybe...
More like anyone looking to rig an election or buy a senator.
Sad, but yes..can happen. But sure, we will work to avoid this situation.
There are essentially two kinds of candidate: Chaotic and Ordered.
The Ordered candidates promise more of the same: Catering to everyones goals, supportive of dukal autonomy, and wealth for the nation.
The Chaotic candidates propose a single goal and promise to commit all their resources towards it.
I believe, Ordered candidates are destined to fail. Trying to establish a kingdom based on the will of an amorphous people with half of its population composed of rivals, and the other half composed of randoms make the idea of a unified vision near impossible. Stagnation awaits.
Chaotic Candidates have the chance to fair better as they could attract people with a specific vision to their side. They will face significant pressure from below at first, but the potential for a dominant force arising with a unified goal is higher. Even if it isn't the original ruling body.
Honestly, right now I can see Violet stepping forward as the major Ordered Candidate, and she has done well consolidating those with a similar view into her camp. Her's is a kingdom I'd live in, though whose fate I am uncertain of as multiple groups would demand accommodations. This would decentralize the goals, and slow progress.
The major Chaotic candidate has yet to come forward, though I have a strong feeling it will be Maulvorn. This kingdom would be chaotic at first but would centralize around a central goal, either in defense of its borders or as the result of the rise of a central power. Either way this is the kingdom of progress, that will benefit both the COE narrative and the continent as a whole.
Addendum: I would love to see other candidates: Sir Apetus,Cheshire, or M. Real in the role of King or Duke as well. No matter where they end up they are a boon to whatever nation they fall into.
I really hope that's not what and all you got from my campaign, The duchy's main focus will be Medical And Alchemy which includes research and with those comes Trade. They all come in hand with one another and my Capital will be a trade capital.
Drama and conflicts tend to differ. Especially from the drama that I have seen. Conflicts will happen yes, but I'm hoping to resolve those quickly and peacefully.
A lot of people are actually encouraging discrimination especially towards other tribes and religions. ~ I don't want discrimination anywhere.
I don't understand what you mean by no meat to it? I listed how I want everyone to work together via councils and the make up of the ducal council as well as who gets a say ~ Which I'll be adding onto.
As for the duchies ~ No. I want them to be self sufficient I do not want to have to micromanage every little thing for every little town. I want the Duchies to handle their own stuff, while coming together to agree on things on a kingdom level since they are HUGE parts of the kingdom.
>.< I would suggest rereading my post sweetie
Nice thread. Easy place to read about them all, without going through each and every thread. Love the harsh honest view.
"....I will be loyal to the cause of independence from foreign powers" Isn't this a given?
Is it? With 151 people entering the Kingdom, don't you think some of them may be agents of other Kingdoms, to support their interests from the inside? I do think there will be a lot of intrigue and backstabbing in the Kingdom. It's great to have that, but I play to win.
I made a point of saying it because I consider myself running for one spot in the 151 positions available, the closest to the top possible,
On relation to the family spots, it has a populist taste, I won't deny, but the reason I decided to pledge that, is because I believe player run families will be much better at everything than NPC families. And I also believe that most, if not virtually all players, specially those with the most proeminent families will micromanage their child codes. It is the most game effective decision, but I think it's not the most interesting. And will make it more difficult for those that earn Story Points, a mechanic I very much like, to feel rewarded.
Since it's the community that will elect me into any rank I may get, I think I must give something back to the group. And I also think it would enrich my experience if some of my family members are not under my micromanagement.
The sucession crisis hypotesis wouldn't happen in an elective monarchy, because the right to the throne would not be hereditary, there would be no legal claim by any heir to the current King.
Clarifying a few points:
- "We want to allow all forms of deviancy" Literally creating a crusade target for all Vittori
Excuses for conflict will always exist, there's no point to avoiding game mechanics to try to avoid conflict. That's a boring way to play for many people. Regardless, avoidance could work on a personal level perhaps, but not at the Hierarchical Kingdom levels, there will be Kingdom conflicts. We also never stated "We want to allow all forms of deviancy", that implies no controls whereas later in my post we stated that some limitations will be required to maintain basic levels of order, hence our heavy emphasis on contracts to curb the rougher edges of deviant mechanics.
- "Contract enforcement is our first priority" A kingdom's first priority should be defense of its citizens and ensuring their wellbeing
Protecting and defending citizens would be enforcing the social contract (in this case using the Law system), which would be covered by our highest priority. When a citizen needs help from their government it's based upon an assumption of responsibility and authority, the laws and contracts of the Kingdom reflect and support this. The key for citizens is giving them the freedom and flexibility they want without stifling them with controls and regulations in the name of "security".
Right now most leadership positions have been bought, which tends to make the people holding them very attached to what they "own". The structures they've created are designed to keep them in power. The Free Kingdom gives us an opportunity to build a Kingdom that isn't structured around maintaining the status quo for those in power. The double edged sword to this ideology is that you may be required to expend greater effort to maintain governmental aspirations as the overall government is not invested in a specific person maintaining their position, but in a competent person maintaining their position to help maintain the greater whole.
- "Random murder in the streets isn't particularly wanted or generally useful" But it's still allowed?????
It is not, that was clearly stated in the section that you pulled the quote from: "Random murder in the streets isn't particularly wanted or generally useful, but contractual murder with risks and gains should be perfectly legal." The context of the statements is that under the right circumstances what is usually considered "deviant" can be perfectly legal and we would aim to allow as much leeway in that regard as possible while still maintaining basic security to prevent arbitrary "ganking".
- "...allow us to curb the worst aspects of deviant behavior and channel what's left into productive directions." This contradicts everything said up to this point, such as wanting to allow all forms of deviancy, yet now you state you want to curb the worst aspects of it????
There is no contradiction, we do not believe full anarchy will succeed nor are we pushing "deviancy with no limits", which is how you seem to be interpreting our position. We are much more willing to embrace mechanics and ideologies that skirt that line while utilizing and maintaining the Kingdom framework to meet the average player's minimum personal security requirements while giving them maximum amount of freedom and opportunity to embrace the full extent of CoE.
If you have any further questions I will gladly answer them.
- "Contract enforcement is our first priority" A kingdom's first priority should be defense of its citizens and ensuring their wellbeing
Protecting and defending citizens would be enforcing the social contract (in this case using the Law system), which would be covered by our highest priority. When a citizen needs help from their government it's based upon an assumption of responsibility and authority, the laws and contracts of the Kingdom reflect and support this. The key for citizens is giving them the freedom and flexibility they want without stifling them with controls and regulations in the name of "security".
Right now most leadership positions have been bought, which tends to make the people holding them very attached to what they "own". The structures they've created are designed to keep them in power. The Free Kingdom gives us an opportunity to build a Kingdom that isn't structured around maintaining the status quo for those in power. The double edged sword to this ideology is that you may be required to expend greater effort to maintain governmental aspirations as the overall government is not invested in a specific person maintaining their position, but in a competent person maintaining their position to help maintain the greater whole.
Does this not create the loophole of abuse under contractual obligation?
- "Random murder in the streets isn't particularly wanted or generally useful" But it's still allowed?????
It is not, that was clearly stated in the section that you pulled the quote from: "Random murder in the streets isn't particularly wanted or generally useful, but contractual murder with risks and gains should be perfectly legal." The context of the statements is that under the right circumstances what is usually considered "deviant" can be perfectly legal and we would aim to allow as much leeway in that regard as possible while still maintaining basic security to prevent arbitrary "ganking".
"We clearly stated that in the section you pulled the quote from 'Random murder in the streets isn't particularly wanted or general useful, but contractual murder with risks and gains should be perfectly legal" Where does it state that it is illegal. You call it "unwanted and useless" but you do not say, it is illegal.
- "...allow us to curb the worst aspects of deviant behavior and channel what's left into productive directions." This contradicts everything said up to this point, such as wanting to allow all forms of deviancy, yet now you state you want to curb the worst aspects of it????
There is no contradiction, we do not believe full anarchy will succeed nor are we pushing "deviancy with no limits", which is how you seem to be interpreting our position. We are much more willing to embrace mechanics and ideologies that skirt that line while utilizing and maintaining the Kingdom framework to meet the average player's minimum personal security requirements while giving them maximum amount of freedom and opportunity to embrace the full extent of CoE.
If you have any further questions I will gladly answer them.
"There is no contradiction" Give me your definition of Deviancy then, as per the accepted definition of deviant, it means departing from usual or accepted standards. It goes unsaid, that murder falls under this category, yet you say murder is perfectly legal in your bid. Murder, is not a "slightly deviant" behavior, it is not something that a normal person does, it is as I would call it, one of the "worst aspects" of deviancy, and it is perfectly legal, according to your bid. Also were I to commit a greater offense under contract would that not become legal by your standards? Even if it were to fall under the "worst aspects" of deviancy, you stated that contracts ARE the law, therefore a contract can violate basic rights and those involved make it away without penalty? You can not, in good faith, state that you will purge the "worst aspects" of Deviancy, and run your kingdom as stated. It is, simply put, contradictory.
@Violet
First of all, I don't appreciate the belittling tone you decided to take on off the feeling that I wronged you, I will now address each of your claims one by one, and critique as needed
I really hope that's not what and all you got from my campaign, The duchy's main focus will be Medical And Alchemy which includes research and with those comes Trade. They all come in hand with one another and my Capital will be a trade capital.
Yes but what will be your basic laws? Your Taxation? Your stance on military matters? You left all of this out, these are just basic examples of what a Duchess, not to mention, a Queen, should be stating in their bid.
Drama and conflicts tend to differ. Especially from the drama that I have seen. Conflicts will happen yes, but I'm hoping to resolve those quickly and peacefully.
You can not reasonably solve each and every conflict diplomatically, how will you solve those that do not resolve peacefully? What if they last through generations and create animosity between noble families? These are things that a King, or in your case, a Queen, must handle.
A lot of people are actually encouraging discrimination especially towards other tribes and religions. ~ I don't want discrimination anywhere.
If there is a dividing line people will make use of it to make a point. This is an inevitability and nothing you do can change this fact, you as a Queen, should be above petty problems like these, these are meant to be left to Dukes, to determine how each people should be treated in their own land. Especially when you plan to give autonomy out so easily.
I don't understand what you mean by no meat to it? I listed how I want everyone to work together via councils and the make up of the ducal council as well as who gets a say ~ Which I'll be adding onto.
How will you rule your lands, how high will you tax? How many fields do you plan on having? Will you sponsor these farmers? How do you propose to pay for scientific study? How will the Government make money beyond taxation? Will Military service be mandatory? How will you determine your ruling council? You overlook all of these SIMPLE yet absolutely NECESSARY points. That is what I mean by "No meat." Also note that that is a critique I handed out to nearly EVERY candidate, and that every candidate was deserving of to be quite honest.
As for the duchies ~ No. I want them to be self sufficient I do not want to have to micromanage every little thing for every little town. I want the Duchies to handle their own stuff, while coming together to agree on things on a kingdom level since they are HUGE parts of the kingdom.
That is not what I said, self sufficiency does not depend upon you telling each and every one of them to do, self sufficiency is them being able to provide everything they need for themselves, say I produce clothing in my tailoring business, and I also grow crops in a field, I also am able to fix anything wrong with my home due to having a bit of carpeting knowledge. I am self sufficient, I have no need to interact with others. What you STATED. Is that you wanted each duchy to focus on ONE aspect, and not all, this would mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE, for them to be self sufficient.
>.< I would suggest rereading my post sweetie
You're not above critique, and taking a tone such as that when addressing that critique does not make it go away.
@Eadward
"....I will be loyal to the cause of independence from foreign powers" Isn't this a given?
Is it? With 151 people entering the Kingdom, don't you think some of them may be agents of other Kingdoms, to support their interests from the inside? I do think there will be a lot of intrigue and backstabbing in the Kingdom. It's great to have that, but I play to win.
Yes, It is a GIVEN for a King to be loyal to his own Kingdom, in what world is it not? You announced yourself as a "King Candidate" and had a plan for an elective monarchy, you did not market yourself as just "One of 151".
The sucession crisis hypotesis wouldn't happen in an elective monarchy, because the right to the throne would not be hereditary, there would be no legal claim by any heir to the current King.
The succession crisis is not a hypothetical, it can happen quite easily in fact. The fact that it is in Elective monarchy does not change the fact that you would set the ruling dynasty, in the case that the main branch of that dynasty, which would likely hold the throne generation after generation, were to die out, you'd have at the very LEAST two people with a BLOOD claim to the throne. The fact that it is elective does not change the nature of the throne, those of a single dynasty are more likely to hold it, than a constantly changing dynasty. You can see this in real life in the Polish Commonwealth from 1587-1668, where the Vasa dynasty held the throne for 3 continuous elections. Or in Bohemia, where from 1526, the former elective monarchy, was controlled by the Habsburgs indefinitely.
Alright, well first of all I didn't mean to come off as "belittling" That isn't the type of person I am at all ^.^
I'm not trying to settle every conflict diplomatically. I'm trying to, as a leader, settle them how seen fit depending on the situation. Not every situation is the same and in this case I can't sit here and say "Well I would do this, this and this" Because of the many different conflicts that can occur in and outside of the game. ~So, I hope that in most cases they can be solved fairly quickly and peacefully on both sides of the party. If this isn't the case then things will happen that either one or both sides don't like and that all depends on the severity of the conflict and what happens. I'm all for the lore created conflict that "can last generations" etc.
You just said no one wants discrimination? Now you're saying that people will use discrimination to make a point? I'm not sure what part is misunderstood here, but the point I'm trying to make is that I don't want people to feel like they can't be here or don't belong because of them wanting to be something else, or someone else, or a certain tribe in game. I want them to be able to feel comfortable with their choices and making those choices and not everyone is like that. I'm going to be a QUEEN and a DUCHESS. I will have my own duchy as well and I will speak about certain things that will happen there too. Like I said previously I'm not looking to micromanage. It's not Autonomy because I don't plan on giving "Full" control to the duchies.
I didn't speak of taxes or go into detail (like the others) Because there is NO game mechanics out for such posts within the threads. There is no way to know how much what will cost and when and how the taxes will be there to do those things. So by that definition you're saying to me that all these posts don't have "meat"?
I didn't state that I wanted each duchy to focus on ONE thing. As it stands I'm a consort duchess in Riftwood to Caynin Winterborne and our duchy is "military focused" but we have counties that will be: Agricultural focused, trade focused, resource focused, crafting focused, training focused etc. I'm not saying that the duchies need to have ONE focus. So I don't know where you're getting that idea from. My who idea is to be self sufficient.
As for the "scientific" part and who will pay for that etc. I will be, its going to be academies, as you can see in my signature. They will eventually end up paying for themselves with the people who pay to go to them to learn or get treatment etc. I will be making sure that the "taxes" won't be high on them. Can I tell you what the taxes etc will be on them? No, why? Because those mechanics aren't out yet to talk about.
I suggested you reread it because you're taking sentences you half read out of context >.< I don't mind filling you in and helping you understand better but it would be better to ask questions rather than making assumptions.
On that note though, I won't be further responding to this thread. If you have questions feel free to ask on my post or on my campaign discord ^.^
>> Thread link <<
>> Discord link <<