So I've been noticing an increased amount of weirdness about this for a while now and feel some clarification needs to be made. The kingdoms are not considered seperate entities, correct? They all fall under the Crown which by its very nature is a Lithmorran establishment under the Samael line following the supposed death of Dav's.
I keep seeing comments about "Oh this Duchess is upset about this" or "Oh this Duke isn't happy about this". Okay, sure, I can see how the Regent who is by extension the hand of the Crown until the Queen comes of age would want to appease them in some way if only to avoid some internal strife but why do I keep seeing it in the form of 'YOU BETTER NOT UPSET THIS GROUP!'? Is this something that was perpetuated by the city report when it was first adopted?
They're vassals to the Crown. Lithmore would be, by extension, the ruling nation under direct relation to the Crown. If a Duke or Duchess wants to cause a big hubbub and spark trouble, then the Crown can easily remove them and elevate another Noble who's far more pliable. Why has the game atmosphere turned into acting like these are all seperate kingdoms as part of some alliance when in truth they're all conquered nations under a single ruler? This isn't a Republic. It's a Monarchy.
It doesn't make sense to me and I feel that thematic information just isn't clarified enough on the issue or maybe I'm just misreading it all myself.
Thematic Clarification
It is a monarchy, yes.
However the Kingdom was formed by the forcible (though some surrendered or joined willingly) annexation of the duchies under Lithmorran rule.
Some fought back.
A rebellion in the future is definitely a possibility, and it's certainly an IC (if not OOC; not sure Staff would ever go through with it) consideration that should be given. This is generally the context with which I see those "you better not upset X" comments. That several duchies have been riled up lately to the point where rebellion could be seen as a valid course of action ICly.
Rebellions have happened in the past of Lithmore, too. Usually based around succession, though.
The duchies are big. Lithmore itself is a duchy (as well a a Kingdom as well a a City; Lithmorrans are an original bunch). It is the highest organization of land and political power beneath the Kingdom entirely. So if one rebels, that could be trouble (though they'd almost certainly be put down). Two, and the Kingdom has serious problems. There's only five in the Kingdom.
The Crown can't force anyone to abdicate if they say "No, we're sick of this, we're done." And the more duchies that are upset about the current state of affairs, the more that might join them in fighting back, and the more likely that one will crack and start it.
However the Kingdom was formed by the forcible (though some surrendered or joined willingly) annexation of the duchies under Lithmorran rule.
Some fought back.
A rebellion in the future is definitely a possibility, and it's certainly an IC (if not OOC; not sure Staff would ever go through with it) consideration that should be given. This is generally the context with which I see those "you better not upset X" comments. That several duchies have been riled up lately to the point where rebellion could be seen as a valid course of action ICly.
Rebellions have happened in the past of Lithmore, too. Usually based around succession, though.
The duchies are big. Lithmore itself is a duchy (as well a a Kingdom as well a a City; Lithmorrans are an original bunch). It is the highest organization of land and political power beneath the Kingdom entirely. So if one rebels, that could be trouble (though they'd almost certainly be put down). Two, and the Kingdom has serious problems. There's only five in the Kingdom.
The Crown can't force anyone to abdicate if they say "No, we're sick of this, we're done." And the more duchies that are upset about the current state of affairs, the more that might join them in fighting back, and the more likely that one will crack and start it.
I'm not sure what's unclear for you.
How are they going to execute a duke if the duchy decides to rebel?
Are you unaware of all the historical rebellions that have happened in a monarchy?
Just because dukes swear fealty to a ruler doesn't mean that ruler doesn't have any responsibilities in turn (in fact, they do; responsibilities go both ways in feudalism). And if the dukes feel that the ruler isn't upholding their half of the bargain, rebellion can and does happen.
Usually these executions happen after the rebellion is over or because the dukes were not liked or supported by their duchy.
How are they going to execute a duke if the duchy decides to rebel?
Are you unaware of all the historical rebellions that have happened in a monarchy?
Just because dukes swear fealty to a ruler doesn't mean that ruler doesn't have any responsibilities in turn (in fact, they do; responsibilities go both ways in feudalism). And if the dukes feel that the ruler isn't upholding their half of the bargain, rebellion can and does happen.
Usually these executions happen after the rebellion is over or because the dukes were not liked or supported by their duchy.
Historically*, any empire (especially ones where the ruler delegated power to others) had its fair share of rebellions and secessions. In our case, I think we see a lot of it to 1) remind us players that the world is larger than the built grid or the PCs that populate it and 2) to inject necessary conflict into the game where most players prefer to avoid it.
Dav is remembered as a brilliant strategist who was pretty ruthless when it came to consolidating the separate kingdoms under one banner. Since his time Lithmore has experienced highs and lows but it's unlikely there have been any rulers since who have the same charisma, skill and support network to instigate a Second Consolidation, in some case where, say, all the duchies decided Heck, we -like- magery, we're splitting up again. In other words, it's a lot less work to politic and try to play nice to keep a kingdom together; real tyrants tend to get murdered in their beds.
*Don't ask me to whip out examples, history's not actually my strong suit.
Dav is remembered as a brilliant strategist who was pretty ruthless when it came to consolidating the separate kingdoms under one banner. Since his time Lithmore has experienced highs and lows but it's unlikely there have been any rulers since who have the same charisma, skill and support network to instigate a Second Consolidation, in some case where, say, all the duchies decided Heck, we -like- magery, we're splitting up again. In other words, it's a lot less work to politic and try to play nice to keep a kingdom together; real tyrants tend to get murdered in their beds.
*Don't ask me to whip out examples, history's not actually my strong suit.
This response makes sense! Avoiding the other poster until he's unbundled his britches.Inertia wrote:Historically*, any empire (especially ones where the ruler delegated power to others) had its fair share of rebellions and secessions. In our case, I think we see a lot of it to 1) remind us players that the world is larger than the built grid or the PCs that populate it and 2) to inject necessary conflict into the game where most players prefer to avoid it.
Dav is remembered as a brilliant strategist who was pretty ruthless when it came to consolidating the separate kingdoms under one banner. Since his time Lithmore has experienced highs and lows but it's unlikely there have been any rulers since who have the same charisma, skill and support network to instigate a Second Consolidation, in some case where, say, all the duchies decided Heck, we -like- magery, we're splitting up again. In other words, it's a lot less work to politic and try to play nice to keep a kingdom together; real tyrants tend to get murdered in their beds.
*Don't ask me to whip out examples, history's not actually my strong suit.
I think the original post is less about the Crown not having any responsibility to its vassals and more that the theme of the game has shifted away from the Duchies seeming like vassals at all. And I'd have to agree, there. The Crown does nothing but appease its vassals. It would be nice if "you know, maybe we should feel a little less safe being openly treasonous to the Crown" were a background theme.
-
Applesauce
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:13 pm
The word "easily" might be out of place. Take the RL example of England, head of arguably one of the largest and more successful empires of the modern day:chronodbu wrote:The kingdoms are not considered seperate entities, correct? They all fall under the Crown...
... but why do I keep seeing it in the form of 'YOU BETTER NOT UPSET THIS GROUP!'? Is this something that was perpetuated by the city report when it was first adopted?
They're vassals to the Crown. Lithmore would be, by extension, the ruling nation under direct relation to the Crown. If a Duke or Duchess wants to cause a big hubbub and spark trouble, then the Crown can easily remove them and elevate another Noble who's far more pliable. Why has the game atmosphere turned into acting like these are all seperate kingdoms as part of some alliance when in truth they're all conquered nations under a single ruler? This isn't a Republic. It's a Monarchy.
- Ireland declared independence, war ensued, Ireland never rejoined the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence
- American colonies declared independence, never again ruled by England: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
- England declared India independent after years of anti-colonial sentiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_In ... e_Act_1947
- What about internal struggles? England has had a handful of civil wars since the right to rule was not always clear: http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/history/civil.htm
It's not so easy to just say "Hey those Americans are acting up, send Reginald to become the new leader of America and let's get back on track." Sometimes you have to negotiate, or risk war.
To give a real life analogy (not egotistically, just explaining my worldview as developed by experience...), I work in large corporations as a Project Manager. In theory, it's people's literal job to do what I ask of them. However, that's not how my making demands that people disagree with works in practice. At best, they'll dawdle, and at worst they'll actively undermine me. What would happen if I threatened people's jobs to get them to comply? If I did fire them, would I get what I wanted?
Similarly, I don’t actually DO much of anything other than coordinate people on the ground to get things done. So, what can the Crown actually do without its vassals? How does it look to their other vassels if they bully or simply declare a vassal removed? Would the other vassals wonder if they support that action if they might be next? Where does the Crown's powerbase stem from if its vassals don't support the motion and have powerful reasons not to? If the motion fails, what is the risk to the Crown's future power.
Then let's look at what Dukes and Duchesses actually are thematically... they're acknowledged, legitimate, and established rulers of a region geographically far away from Lithmore. Imagine for a moment that your GL is a jerk and you want to get rid of him... but he has heaps of support from other people. That's a bit what the Crown contends with when trying to remove a Duke or Duchess, not to mention the struggle to have the reach to force compliance miles and miles away.
Dukes are also Peers of the Realm, royalty with a long lineage, history, and a whole duchy backing them. What would it take resource-wise for the Crown to put down a rebellion? Is spending those resources on a rebellion better than spending it on more fun things like local infrastructure, or hell, hookers and blow? Long wars tend to piss off your own people at home as well as being costly too. How wasteful is that just to prove a point about who is boss... if the Crown actually can effectively do so.
It's nothing but a convenient self delusion if the Crown chooses to believe that it can just snap its fingers and effectively dismiss a Duke or Duchess.
Power is nuianced and has many variables. Being the boss doesn't make one invincible, correct, or even necessarily very powerful. They say the neck controls head for a reason.
Similarly, I don’t actually DO much of anything other than coordinate people on the ground to get things done. So, what can the Crown actually do without its vassals? How does it look to their other vassels if they bully or simply declare a vassal removed? Would the other vassals wonder if they support that action if they might be next? Where does the Crown's powerbase stem from if its vassals don't support the motion and have powerful reasons not to? If the motion fails, what is the risk to the Crown's future power.
Then let's look at what Dukes and Duchesses actually are thematically... they're acknowledged, legitimate, and established rulers of a region geographically far away from Lithmore. Imagine for a moment that your GL is a jerk and you want to get rid of him... but he has heaps of support from other people. That's a bit what the Crown contends with when trying to remove a Duke or Duchess, not to mention the struggle to have the reach to force compliance miles and miles away.
Dukes are also Peers of the Realm, royalty with a long lineage, history, and a whole duchy backing them. What would it take resource-wise for the Crown to put down a rebellion? Is spending those resources on a rebellion better than spending it on more fun things like local infrastructure, or hell, hookers and blow? Long wars tend to piss off your own people at home as well as being costly too. How wasteful is that just to prove a point about who is boss... if the Crown actually can effectively do so.
It's nothing but a convenient self delusion if the Crown chooses to believe that it can just snap its fingers and effectively dismiss a Duke or Duchess.
Power is nuianced and has many variables. Being the boss doesn't make one invincible, correct, or even necessarily very powerful. They say the neck controls head for a reason.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 56 guests