National Borders and Banning

It came up in the recent QandA whether a nation could ban certain guilds from within it's borders. Caspian said no, or at least not at this time.

Obviously even if you ban a guild they can still come across the border they just get flagged as breaking an implicit contract.

The issue is whether this kind of implicit contract should exist and the answer is obviously yes. If there are going to be nations then there needs to be citizenship. If there's going to be citizenship then citizens of certain nations will be treated differently depending on what nation they are in. This seems obvious to me.

Let's say that nation A wants to conquer nation B. If there are no implicit contracts governing who can or can't enter the country on the borders, or even specific borders, then nation A could sneak in as many spies, insurgents, or even an entire army if they want to or are careful. This is a serious problem.

If Caspian expects CoE to have nations then the nations must be able to regulate their borders and citizenship as they see fit. This must be able to include guilds as well. If the nations do not have this power then they are not real nations. It's that simple.

2/19/2016 8:57:33 AM #1

I agree entirely.

2/19/2016 9:24:35 AM #2

Caspian did not say that you could not ban any one just that you need a reason to do so, and simply the membership to a particular organisation was not one of the reasons contracts currently supported.

What is it you actually want to stop? You want to stop invasion? You want to stop espionage? You want to stop spying? You want to stop trespass? Your Kingdom can set up contracts to do so. It is just you actually have to think about the actions you want to stop rather than blanket bans.

Author of the Elyria Echo the first, and least up-to-date, CoE fan site.

2/19/2016 9:48:16 AM #3

having kingdoms have some sort of passport control would be kind of cool.

Like all citizens must have an ID card and outsiders must have travel permits etc, and anyone without these can face on the spot fines or be branded an enemy of the state.

2/19/2016 10:23:04 AM #4

There is probably already some kind of "papers" planned, since diguise can implied also forgery and fake IDs.

Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe - Abraham Lincoln

2/19/2016 10:34:02 AM #5

I agree as well, and it does seem that they are working on systems for this, hopefully nothing extremem comes along and ruins it :P

2 + 2

2/19/2016 12:15:47 PM #6

nah that sounds like a very different system to me. It's been said that people checking for disguises will have the authority to remove cloaks and such. Because of the technological age we're in it's doubtful we'll have anything like photo id's, but maybe for a future tech it might be a thing

2/19/2016 12:31:34 PM #7

You can't exactly control who enters your borders, there are no airports and trying to monitor all of your borders sounds like an impossible task. What you could want to do is flag anyone who openly belongs to an outlawed/criminal faction as a criminal. I personally would rather have a less restrictive system for law making, but this is just the way it is for CoE. Not sure how actually exiling people would go about.

2/19/2016 1:35:08 PM #8

Build the Trump Wall

2/19/2016 2:01:15 PM #9

And make the other nation pay for it.

2/19/2016 2:48:46 PM #10

My only issue is what constitutes a reason? There are a huge number of reasons why I might ban any given guild at any given time. Maybe I want to ban a particular Smith Guild because of their criminal business practices. Maybe I want to ban a Mercenary Guild because they are generally unruly and disruptive. What I said before were just the most prominent reasons I could think of off the top of my head, but the issue is do the developers expect to program in every conceivable reason so that I can hit a button and say "This is why?" Because programming in every single reason you think someone could have will be restrictive by definition. No one is creative or smart enough to plan for every eventuality. So, what constitutes a reason, and if I'm a monarch who do I have to justify myself to? Maybe my authority is absolute and the reason is because I'm a tyrannical jerk. Maybe my authority is not absolute, maybe the nobility of my nation is forcing me to ban a certain guild so that they can enforce an economic monopoly or just protect their market from goods that are better than the ones they make. That's a pretty selfish reason, it's still a reason, and it's not even one that the main administrator of the nation came up with. Do you see the problem? How do the devs expect to sort that out without just forcing people to justify themselves in the mechanics? That seems like it would be pretty restrictive and arbitrary.

2/19/2016 3:22:01 PM #11

I think the point is that no, the Developers do not plan to program in every conceivable reason. One of the reasons they are not choosing to program in is an association with a guild. Therefore, you have to choose one of the character events that can be tracked by the contract system instead. What the full list is we are not sure yet so I cannot give you that.

Personally, I like that you actually have to think about the behaviour you do not want rather than simply who you do not want. I think it makes it far more interesting and far less arbitrary.

Author of the Elyria Echo the first, and least up-to-date, CoE fan site.

2/19/2016 3:45:38 PM #12

My thoughts are given the setting and how the debts are trying to make this as realistic as possible... How would you magically know a member of a guild crossed your borders?

Given fake ids and disguises it is even less likely someone would be recognized.

2/19/2016 4:12:22 PM #13

if you REALLY wanted to you could build a wall around a kingdom with entrance points that act as checkpoints.

it would take a lot of time but if a king was so inclined he could order his citizens to make it and work at border patrol. it would work in the planning stages, but would it work in practice, i think not. Doesn't stop it from being interesting though

2/19/2016 4:16:57 PM #14

You wouldn't, but if you found them out then you'd already have a legal framework in place for getting rid of them or punishing them. Also, it'd make it harder for them to own land or do business. If they're a guild it'd be harder to be present in any significant numbers.

2/19/2016 4:23:07 PM #15

Why not both? If we want a system that gives the players freedom then let's go all the way. If a leader group is tyrannical and arbitrary then that leader group is tyrannical and arbitrary, they just are, they also probably aren't going to last very long. They'll probably be replaced and the next group of people will reverse their decrees. Or, they'll maintain their power because they have a strong player base that supports them in their tyranny and the surrounding nations will have to attack them and destroy the kingdom. I'm not saying that using the mechanic would be inherently justified, in some cases I think it would be, but that's not the point. The mechanic should exist. If players use it arbitrarily then it's the players who are being arbitrary.