COMMUNITY - FORUMS - TRIBES
Laws, Customs, and Meta-Politics
+6

My Concern

This is a question/concern I have regarding the customs and laws we will be settling into once the game launches.
To what extent will I be able to change the laws and customs of my Kingdom and how difficult will it be to do so?

Regardless of where my Kingdom settles, there will undoubtedly be the problem of aligning my Kingdom's laws, customs, and courtesies into what are the established laws and customs of the tribes inhabiting the region.

Example:

"The most powerful and revered hunter among the Honored takes the title of Prime and accepts no royal guards while in the borders of his or her Dominion, as it would show weakness."

Say what you will, but it's rough on these streets. A King ought to have a personal Honor Guard or security detachment. I don't care how tough you are; when you're a key figure, people will want you dead and it's foolish for a King not to have security.

This is something I would change in game, but to what extent will that cause the NPCs within my Kingdom to lose faith in their King? Will this cause a revolt? Will the majority of my time as Monarch be spent putting out fires that changing this custom start?

Example:

"After the Second Godswar the people of the desert vowed never to take sides in open warfare again. Not only did they suffer for their past mistakes, but doing so would also imbalance the scales and violate their oath to the Two-Fold Queen. As a result, The Waerd do not fight in wars. They will start wars. They will end wars. But they do shed blood on the battlefield. Theirs is a war from behind the curtains."

I understand the lore here and I get the premise. My concern is that if I were to go Kingdom 3 and wanted to be the Kypiq King, I would have possibly 1/3 of my population unwilling to fight in open conflict. Dare I say treason? Perhaps I wanted a law that enacted a draft; would I be able to do so? The Waerd obviously wouldn't be able to fight a revolution, though it would undoubtedly cause strife within the Realm.

Conclusion

My concern is simple. I would rather not walk into a world as the current Monarch with laws and customs my Kingdom and I do not want. I'd also rather not spend the first several months with NPC meta-politics attempting to restructure my laws and customs into my Kingdom's playstyle.


11/19/2018 12:33:02 AM #1
+0

Valid concerns that I myself have been wondering. I mean, I don't mind putting down rebellions but would be good to know how much the King can change and to what effect.

Would be good to know how differing tribe NPCs would react to certain laws being changed and maybe how to prepare for them.


11/19/2018 2:20:04 AM #2
+3

This pretty much leaves you to find a work around.

Kingdom customs are one thing, tribes are another. I think it is unrealistic to think you have complete control over your subjects the same way that the President of the US cannot expect to declare one religion the true religion of the country and expect everyone to fall in line.

Finding a work around seems like the only viable solution.

Example 1
  • The Janoa look unfavorably upon a King that needs to be protected in his own lands.
  • Either have your guards be hidden while in Janoan lands, or accept the hit to your reputation.
Example 2
  • The Waerd will not participate in open conflict.
  • Constrict them anyway and don't use them in open conflict. Use them behind the scenes with sabotage and subterfuge.

There may be no way to control your populace. It will be vital to understand what they will and won't do, or what they do and don't value and work with it.


11/19/2018 2:37:01 AM #3
+1

Very reasonable concerns that I think a vast majority of players have. I know I wouldn't look forward to Kingdom 3 or 4 when I know a massive percentage of my population refuses to fight in actual battles.



Ser Aeson Holf - Duke-Aspirant of The Baien, Count of Thedris

"For every nobleman that doesn't believe in min-maxing, there's a future nobleman underneath them that does."

11/19/2018 3:03:26 AM #4
+1

Posted By NegnarHolf at 7:37 PM - Sun Nov 18 2018

Very reasonable concerns that I think a vast majority of players have. I know I wouldn't look forward to Kingdom 3 or 4 when I know a massive percentage of my population refuses to fight in actual battles.

One thing I wonder is if let's say for example a PC Weard group answers the call for battle in open warfare, then return to their Weard lands, how the NPCs will react to them. Especially if they held a noble title.

I don't know, I hope the Monarch has at least some leeway to be able to change laws depending. Even if the NPC populace doesn't agree with it and revolts. Makes for some interesting game-play opportunities and stories. I hope that'll be close to how it'll be implemented. Not just for war but many things that may go against some of a certain tribe's customs in a way to bring the kingdom together as a whole somewhat.


11/19/2018 3:17:57 AM #5
+2

I figure nobility can change the laws, but the culture itself may be rather inflexible.

Sudden policy change is almost always met with massive resistance, especially when it overturns long standing tradition. If you do want to see something change its best to do so with small steps rather than large shifts.

Also, I don't expect all NPCs or Players to abide by the law or culture, so there's that to consider as well.


11/19/2018 3:42:29 AM #6
+1

There are also Faithless, who may not follow their tribes' customs and restrictions and who are consequently ostracized by their tribes. These may be the most useful tools in a leader's arsenal, although likely more mercurial in actions and loyalties, especially if PCs.


11/19/2018 6:13:26 PM #7
+2

Posted By Labbe at 8:20 PM - Sun Nov 18 2018

This pretty much leaves you to find a work around.

Kingdom customs are one thing, tribes are another. I think it is unrealistic to think you have complete control over your subjects the same way that the President of the US cannot expect to declare one religion the true religion of the country and expect everyone to fall in line.

Finding a work around seems like the only viable solution.

Example 1
  • The Janoa look unfavorably upon a King that needs to be protected in his own lands.
  • Either have your guards be hidden while in Janoan lands, or accept the hit to your reputation.
Example 2
  • The Waerd will not participate in open conflict.
  • Constrict them anyway and don't use them in open conflict. Use them behind the scenes with sabotage and subterfuge.

There may be no way to control your populace. It will be vital to understand what they will and won't do, or what they do and don't value and work with it.

That is why I bring this up now, while the game is still in development. The discussion is more geared towards hoping SBS will find a solution that isn't "just deal with it". It is unreasonable to say that the Janoan King can't have a body guard. That seems to put that King into a position of either never leave the Palace, have a body guard and your NPCs dont respect your authority, or don't have a body guard and hope that you have your heir in line

Also, I'm not talking about controlling the populace, only influencing. I'm not interested in having a tyrannical rule, but I'm also not as interested in what my NPCs think about me as I am what my PC population does. I'd like to have a Kingdom that facilitates the playstyle of my community, not force my community into a playstyle the NPC population likes.


11/19/2018 6:22:36 PM #8
+2

Posted By King_Aerbax at 10:13 AM - Mon Nov 19 2018

Posted By Labbe at 8:20 PM - Sun Nov 18 2018

This pretty much leaves you to find a work around.

That is why I bring this up now, while the game is still in development. The discussion is more geared towards hoping SBS will find a solution that isn't "just deal with it". It is unreasonable to say that the Janoan King can't have a body guard. That seems to put that King into a position of either never leave the Palace, have a body guard and your NPCs dont respect your authority, or don't have a body guard and hope that you have your heir in line

Also, I'm not talking about controlling the populace, only influencing. I'm not interested in having a tyrannical rule, but I'm also not as interested in what my NPCs think about me as I am what my PC population does. I'd like to have a Kingdom that facilitates the playstyle of my community, not force my community into a playstyle the NPC population likes.

These are fair points to bring up.

I would still argue find a workaround though.

The King that has Janoa in their Kingdom does not necessarily need to be Janoan, and if they do and they take the hit to their reputation by having a guard you shouldn't see the entire tribe as a write off, but that having a guard will make them respect you less, and the question becomes what can I do to balance this.

Catering to the PC population as opposed to the NPC population is an extremely valid point though. The whole world ideally will become all players and 0 non-players even in the eyes of the developers.

I would say though that it seems fair that a King should have to find a way to change the culture of the tribes under him.

You may not be interested in what your NPCs think of you, but that doesn't mean we can simply erase their beliefs, or somehow mold them to your own from the starting gate. The topic of AI complexity came up in another thread and I think they Need beliefs to be fleshed out, whether they align with their leaders or not.


11/19/2018 6:29:21 PM #9
+0

Posted By Labbe at 1:22 PM - Mon Nov 19 2018

Posted By King_Aerbax at 10:13 AM - Mon Nov 19 2018

Posted By Labbe at 8:20 PM - Sun Nov 18 2018

This pretty much leaves you to find a work around.

That is why I bring this up now, while the game is still in development. The discussion is more geared towards hoping SBS will find a solution that isn't "just deal with it". It is unreasonable to say that the Janoan King can't have a body guard. That seems to put that King into a position of either never leave the Palace, have a body guard and your NPCs dont respect your authority, or don't have a body guard and hope that you have your heir in line

Also, I'm not talking about controlling the populace, only influencing. I'm not interested in having a tyrannical rule, but I'm also not as interested in what my NPCs think about me as I am what my PC population does. I'd like to have a Kingdom that facilitates the playstyle of my community, not force my community into a playstyle the NPC population likes.

These are fair points to bring up.

I would still argue find a workaround though.

The King that has Janoa in their Kingdom does not necessarily need to be Janoan, and if they do and they take the hit to their reputation by having a guard you shouldn't see the entire tribe as a write off, but that having a guard will make them respect you less, and the question becomes what can I do to balance this.

Catering to the PC population as opposed to the NPC population is an extremely valid point though. The whole world ideally will become all players and 0 non-players even in the eyes of the developers.

I would say though that it seems fair that a King should have to find a way to change the culture of the tribes under him.

You may not be interested in what your NPCs think of you, but that doesn't mean we can simply erase their beliefs, or somehow mold them to your own from the starting gate. The topic of AI complexity came up in another thread and I think they Need beliefs to be fleshed out, whether they align with their leaders or not.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I would like to add that I think there is validity of catering to NPCs over PCs. (While this is somewhat tribe dependent) I expect most nobility to preside over a significant NPC majority with a PC minority.

That said, I do think the cultural disjoint is a good thing. Choosing whether to cater to your own interests or the interests of the populace is a part of being nobility. If there's no risk associated with either, whats the point?


11/19/2018 7:54:34 PM #10
+2

Posted By Kyxsune at 12:29 PM - Mon Nov 19 2018

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I would like to add that I think there is validity of catering to NPCs over PCs. (While this is somewhat tribe dependent) I expect most nobility to preside over a significant NPC majority with a PC minority. I have to adamantly disagree with this. The NPC's don't play this game, the players do.

I would rather not be forced into finding a workaround or catering to non-people. Especially if this is something that can be addressed early in development.

I'm also not arguing against caring for the beliefs of the NPCs. Once again, I have to stress that this is all conceptual right now. These things are very much able to be changed now to accommodate the desires of the player base.


Log in to post