Banishment Poll

[FactionHeir]

Proposal (vote on idea/concept, not numbers/details as those can be changed via discussion)

The FactionLeader can banish lesser nobles (those who are lesser than Count) from Imperial lands for a duration of 15 turns if they are involved in a civil war.

If the banished noble becomes a vassal of a Count or higher, there may be some formal voting at the next session to end the outlaw status if an edict pardoning the elector is passed.

While outlawed, the character may be attacked without penalty if he is within the confines of the empire. If caught, he may face imprisonment or execution. He can only be caught if pursued, meaning sufficient men-at-arms are sent after the character. The chancellor is not obliged to pursue the character and players are individually encouraged to pursue instead if they wish to gain the FactionLeader's favor.

As such banishment order takes time to reach all provinces, he character can be assailed on the same turn only if within 1 province of the FactionLeader. Else within the next.

A minimum of 6 Authority is required for the FactionLeader to exercise this priviledge.

Rationale: This allows a FactionLeader to take sides only within a civil war as this affects his empire as a whole. Banished characters are game, meaning that those not involved in a given civil war may do the Leader's bidding/suggestion without needing to join the war formally themselves. It also gives some safety to those who endear themselves to the FL without making this ability overpowered.

[TinCow]

The way this is worded is interesting. What you're essentially doing is giving the FL the power to allow neutrals to attack a particular avatar in a Civil War, without entering the Civil War themselves. Since it only can be applied to people already in a Civil War, it's pretty much useless for actual 'banishment.' The person will already be committed to fighting other players by the virtue of being in the Civil War in the first place, thus there's not much chance of any 'banished' player actually leaving the borders of the faction. If you want it to actually result in someone fleeing, it should be allowed at any time, not just during Civil War.

[FactionHeir]

That's something I had ben thinking about - having it allowed at any time, but then some players found that to be too powerful.

My initial suggestion was to allow it for a good reason, but the problem is defining that. Breaking an oath would be such a good reason for instance. What other circumstances would you suggest?

Alternatively, how could this be made more useful in a civil war situation without greatly affecting the outcome too easily?

[TinCow]

I'm not convinced that we should allow this, but it's interesting enough to warrant an in-depth discussion. If we did allow it, I actually don't think we should legislate when it can be used. If the FL has the power, let him use it when he wants. I do like your restriction to 6 authority or more, though. I've considered various other 'powers by stats' but haven't implemented any except for the FL's edict/amendment veto power.

[FactionHeir]

Right, I would like some discussion from everyone (not just us two) regarding whether its better to allow the FL banishment only during a civil war or at any time, keeping in mind that no more than 1 noble may be banished at any one time.

[AussieGiant]

I like it at anytime but based on the Authority stat of the FL.

There could be a minimum of 6 to use it, then at 8 points it unlocks further powers and then at 10 there is third tier option.

[Ferret]

voted 'aye' but I think that 15 turns is too long.

[FactionHeir]

Hmmm That is an interesting idea.

Overall: Banish at any time.

So how about something like at 6 authority, the FL can banish one person for 6 turns with a cooldown of 10 turns.

At 8 authority he can banish for 9 turns with a cooldown of 12 turns.

At 10 he could banish a second person for 5 turns in addition to the first person with a separate cooldown of 12 turns.


Is that what would be more agreeable?

[Ferret]

sounds good to me, would spice up the game and give the FL a little more power

[Northnovas]

It is a good concept and could be refined but I do think the 15 turns is too long.

[Ramses II CP]

As I said elsewhere, I am all in favor of this as long as the power isn't used on those who would find it unfun.

[Zim]

I think it be an interesting power. I'm a bit curious about something, though. By allowing attack of an avatar on "imperial" lands does that mean lands owned by the faction leader only, or all of the faction's lands? If the former then it's a flavor power but would have to be carefully used to have much effect (like preventing someone from participating in a civil war if you own the land between there's and the House/players they want to attack). If the latter it could ruin the game unless done with player permission.

I think actual "exile" would also be interesting, but would have to be entirely IC and arranged between players.

As I said elsewhere, I am all in favor of this as long as the power isn't used on those who would find it unfun.

[FactionHeir]

I think the main point is that even if the FactionLeader says you are banished, you are only banished by the letter but not physically unless the FactionLeader or his croonies actually send their men after you.

If you are a vassal (or even head of house) and the FactionLeader does not enjoy widespread support, chances are that it won't affect you much at all. The FactionLeader only owns a royal army and has no vassals so its unlikely he on his own will be able to enforce the banishment without help.

At the same time, if you are outlawed, you will hardly care what the FactionLeader thinks of you now (unless you are a pacifist and just hope he will lift it or you override him at the next diet). As such, nothing stops you from turning it the other way and attack the FactionLeader.

Even with the ability in play, I don't think the player who is the FactionLeader will use it frivolously but rather strategically when he knows he can gain a lot. Something to keep in mind next time you strongly go against the King/Emperor.

[Zim]

I take that means imperial land=all of the faction's land?

It's certainly an interesting concept. I voted "aye".

[deguerra]

I quite like the idea, it adds something interesting, and gives the FL some more fun powers. However, I agree with Ramses that it should only be used on a player who is happy to accept it. Obviously it may make a big difference to your avatars life, and I could see people being unhappy about it.

So I would say, keep it with the revised rules regarding authority and time, but also add that the player of the avatar who is banished has to agree. Then just try it out. It may be that noone ever agrees to it, then we might as well get rid of it, but Im hoping there'll be enough ppl who enjoy that kind of thing.

[Csargo]

What about letting the FL decide how long a character is banished? But with a cap on the maximum amount (10 or 15 ect.) It seems only appropriate. Also, I like the idea.

[Privateerkev]

I think it either has to be made somewhat "weak" or it has to be completely voluntary.

In a way, being banished can be worse than avatar death. If your avatar is killed, you get another right away. Banishment just sounds really really boring for the player and it might not be very fun.

[FactionHeir]

Regarding needing player permission, I disagree. If you needed player permission, then you effectively make this a nonexistent power as you can just RP the FL banishing the player without it being actual banishment and only lasting as long as both parties want it. In that case you should be voting "Nay" rather than "Aye". The purpose of a priviledge/power is that non both sides have to agree but there is a cost involved to the person using the power as well.

What about letting the FL decide how long a character is banished? But with a cap on the maximum amount (10 or 15 ect.) It seems only appropriate. Also, I like the idea.

That is actually interesting. Yeah, I think we can agree that the numbers I mentioned are the max number of turns, so the FactionLeader can decide when he wants to end banishment (i.e. they reconciled)

[TinCow]

I agree that it shouldn't require permission, otherwise it seems pointless. If permission is required, we might as well not make it a formal power anyway, since it would just be an agreement between two players about how to RP a certain situation. The poll results are pretty clear: people like this idea. I do think most of the current proposals are slightly too radical, though. I'll give this some thought and see if I can come up with a draft version of this power that satisfies everyone.

[FactionHeir]

The final proposal that was voted on after discussion seems to be this:

The FactionLeader can banish lesser nobles (those who are lesser than Count) from Imperial lands for a certain duration based on his authority attribute for up to 12 turns.

If the banished noble is a vassal of a Count or higher, there may be some formal voting at the next diet session to end the outlaw status if an edict pardoning the elector is passed.

While outlawed, the character may be attacked without penalty by anyone. If caught, he may face imprisonment or execution. He can only be caught if pursued, meaning sufficient men-at-arms are sent after the character. The chancellor is not obliged to pursue the character and players are individually encouraged to pursue instead if they wish to gain the FactionLeader's favor.

As such banishment order takes time to reach all provinces, he character can be assailed on the same turn only if within 1 province of the FactionLeader. Else within the next.

A minimum of 6 Authority is required for the FactionLeader to exercise this priviledge. The progression is as follows:
6 Authority: Can banish 1 person for 6 turns with a cooldown of 10 turns.
8 Authority: Can banish for 9 turns with a cooldown of 12 turns.
10 Authority: May banish a second person for 5 turns in addition to the first person with a separate cooldown of 12 turns.

The FactionLeader may decide to pardon a banished character at any time. The banishment continues even through the next leader's reign unless pardon is given, the duration ends or the decision is overturned during a voting session.

[Privateerkev]

The final proposal that was voted on after discussion seems to be this:

The FactionLeader can banish lesser nobles (those who are lesser than Count) from Imperial lands for a certain duration based on his authority attribute for up to 12 turns.

If the banished noble is a vassal of a Count or higher, there may be some formal voting at the next diet session to end the outlaw status if an edict pardoning the elector is passed.

While outlawed, the character may be attacked without penalty by anyone. If caught, he may face imprisonment or execution. He can only be caught if pursued, meaning sufficient men-at-arms are sent after the character. The chancellor is not obliged to pursue the character and players are individually encouraged to pursue instead if they wish to gain the FactionLeader's favor.

As such banishment order takes time to reach all provinces, he character can be assailed on the same turn only if within 1 province of the FactionLeader. Else within the next.

A minimum of 6 Authority is required for the FactionLeader to exercise this priviledge. The progression is as follows:
6 Authority: Can banish 1 person for 6 turns with a cooldown of 10 turns.
8 Authority: Can banish for 9 turns with a cooldown of 12 turns.
10 Authority: May banish a second person for 5 turns in addition to the first person with a separate cooldown of 12 turns.

The FactionLeader may decide to pardon a banished character at any time. The banishment continues even through the next leader's reign unless pardon is given, the duration ends or the decision is overturned during a voting session.

Interesting...

Can the Chancellor be forced to pursue the banished character if the "Governing Body" passes an edict directing him to?

[FactionHeir]

That means the banished character must be hugely unpopular and I think if it would go that far as to having such an edict passed, it would still be up to the chancellor whether he wants to bear the political consequences or not.

If the chancellor likes the exile, then there is no reason why he shouldn't try to delay the pursuers or beef up the exile

[Privateerkev]

That means the banished character must be hugely unpopular and I think if it would go that far as to having such an edict passed, it would still be up to the chancellor whether he wants to bear the political consequences or not.

If the chancellor likes the exile, then there is no reason why he shouldn't try to delay the pursuers or beef up the exile

Fair enough.

New question.

The banishment continues even through the next leader's reign unless pardon is given, the duration ends or the decision is overturned during a voting session.

What if the new FL has more Authority than the previous FL? It would make sense to me to let the new FL cancel the previous FL's banishment. Especially if his Authority was greater. Say a 6 Authority FL banishes a noble. Then he dies and his heir has 8 or even 10 Authority. Do you think the new FL should be able to pardon him?

Or, in your rules, do you already have it where the new FL can pardon any banished noble upon his ascension and I'm just reading the rules wrong?

[TinCow]

A few questions on FH's draft:

The FactionLeader can banish lesser nobles (those who are lesser than Count) from Imperial lands for a certain duration based on his authority attribute for up to 12 turns.

What are Imperial lands? Those that belong to the FL, or all provinces belonging to the faction?

He can only be caught if pursued, meaning sufficient men-at-arms are sent after the character.

What does "men-at-arms" mean? Actual units? Some random RP aspect with no manifestations in-game? Also, how many is "sufficient"? These seem like aspects that need to be specifically clarified before this power can be adopted. Otherwise, they are massive loopholes that will result in endless debate and OOC discussions the first time this power is used.

[FactionHeir]

Imperial as in entire faction's lands. I was talking in HRE terms

Men-at-arms as in actual units. The FL and his allies will have to commit troops to ursuing the mission if it is to have any effect. However the noble still cannot attend diet sessions while banished for obvious guard reasons.

Sufficient is relative. Say you send 2 peasants after the banished noble. Chances are his BG (and army) will crush them rather easily. I was envisioning a fast-style autoresolve PvP battle to resolve this if they catch up.

[TinCow]

Alright, I'll see if I can come up with some cleaner language for that rule then. Check back in a few minutes.

[TinCow]

Ok, here is my proposal:

Power X:

The FACTION LEADER can banish Knights, Baronets, Barons, and Viscounts from all FACTION controlled provinces. While Banished, a nobleman can be attacked by any other nobleman without the need for a Declaration of War, unless the Banished nobleman is not inside a FACTION controlled province. Any provinces owned by the Banished nobleman can also be attacked without the need for a Declaration of War. Any provinces conquered in this manner will become the property of the nobleman who conquered them. The Banished nobleman cannot be attacked on the same turn that the Banishment is ordered, unless he is in the same FACTION controlled province as the FACTION LEADER, or an adjacent FACTION controlled province to the FACTION LEADER. The Banished nobleman can defend himself, but cannot initiate an attack without making a Declaration of War. No units may be disbanded or removed from the Banished nobleman's armies or settlements without his permission. The FACTION LEADER will determine the fate of a Banished nobleman who is captured in battle. If the Banished nobleman is in the feudal chain of a nobleman whose rank is Count or higher, the Banishment can be ended by an Edict passed by the GOVERNING BODY. If he is ranked Count or higher, the highest ranking nobleman in the Banished nobleman's feudal chain can call an Emergency GOVERNING BODY Session on the same turn that the Banishment is issued.

The duration of the Banishment is determined by the FACTION LEADER's Authority. With an Authority of 5 or lower, this power may not be used. With an Authority of 6 or 7, one nobleman may be Banished for 5 turns. With an Authority of 8 or 9, one nobleman may be Banished for 10 turns. With an Authority of 10, two noblemen may be Banished for 10 turns each. Regardless of the level of Authority, this power cannot be used within 10 turns of a previous use. Banishment ends when a Banished nobleman is publicly pardoned by the FACTION LEADER, the time limit expires, an appropriate Edict is passed, or the FACTION LEADER dies.

It's generally the same as described, but I've clarified it and made a few changes that I feel improve it a bit. First of all, I changed the duration to 5 turns and 10 turns, respectively. 6 and 9 was completely random. 5 and 10 is a half-Chancellorship and a full-Chancellorship respectively, so that seems a more consistent measure of time. Consistency is a good thing with complex rules. Also, I gave all levels of the power a 10 turn cool-down timer. It seemed strange to me that the cool-down timer actually increased when the FL's authority increased. A more powerful FL should simply be more powerful, not partially more powerful, and partially less powerful. Plus, 12 turns is also a random number, while 10 turns is consistent with the rest of the rules.

I also made the 'free attacks' only apply while the Banished nobleman is inside Faction territory. It seems silly to me to subject him to attacks everywhere. The whole idea of Banishment is that he has to leave the provinces, and the 'free attacks' are the mechanism to encourage that. Thus, if he actually complies and leaves, he should be safe from attack except by the normal Civil War means. To compensate, I made it clear that the Banished nobleman does not benefit from similar 'free attacks' and must make an actual Declaration of War in order to go on the offensive himself.

There also seemed to be a general lack of a good reason for anyone else to actually attack the Banished person. Sucking up to the FL is nice, but it would be good to have some actual benefit from it. So, I gave it one: the ability to conquer any of the Banished nobleman's provinces. Now people actually have an incentive to obey the FL's will. Plus, the Banished nobleman will have to think long and hard about whether to stick around and protect them, or flee the FACTION altogether.

Finally, I made a couple adjustments to balance out this more-powerful banishment that I have created. First, Banishment end with the death of the FL. It doesn't make any sense for it to continue to be binding afterwards. The cool-down period is just for the FL who made the order, so if the new FL wants the nobleman banished as well, he can just immediately re-issue the order. If he doesn't want it, he would pardon the guy anyway. Plus, this gives the Banished noble a tiny little window to escape from Banishment: killing the FL. If he makes a Declaration of War against the FL and kills him, then the Banishment is over (at least temporarily). Second, I gave the head of the Banished nobleman's House the ability to call an Emergency Session immediately when the Banishment is ordered, even if he wouldn't have that power normally. This is to give them a chance to void the Banishment by Edict before all of the provinces are seized. Without this power, mid-level noblemen would have to wait for a Normal Session or for someone else to call one, by which time it would probably be too late. This way, they at least get a one-off chance to state their case in the Diet before the effects begin to take hold. Third, the Chancellor cannot disband or remove any military units belonging to the Banished nobleman without his permission. This gives him a chance to fight if that is what he wants to do. This seems a bit more balanced to me.

Comments are welcome.

[_Tristan_]

I voted "no" to the banishment rule, but it was at the start of the voting...

Now, seeing this rule enacted, I must admit it would change my vote to a "yes"...

I particularly like the idea that the FL's death could bring a pardon which brings an incentive for regicide to the banished noble.

[FactionHeir]

Hmmm:

If the Banished nobleman is in the feudal chain of a nobleman whose rank is Count or higher, the Banishment can be ended by an Edict passed by the GOVERNING BODY. If he is ranked Count or higher, the highest ranking nobleman in the Banished nobleman's feudal chain can call an Emergency GOVERNING BODY Session on the same turn that the Banishment is issued.

Slightly confusing wording. I assume you mean the highest member of the banished noble's feudal chain can immediately summon an emergency session AND in addition (if there is no session) call for an edict at a normal session? If so, I would apply the same rules to the emergency session as with banishment itself: The highest ranking noble would have to be in the vincinity of the FL as well to hear it on the same turn and therefore be able to call it. Else he can call it the turn after.

The duration of the Banishment is determined by the FACTION LEADER's authority. With an Authority of 5 or lower, this power may not be used. With an Authority of 6 or 7, one nobleman may be Banished for 5 turns. With an Authority of 8 or 9, one nobleman may be Banished for 10 turns. With an Authority of 10, two noblemen may be Banished for 10 turns each. Regardless of the level of Authority, this power cannot be used within 10 turns of a previous use.

So how do you banish 2 people at once if the cooldown is 10 from the previous use? Would it be more intelligible to have the cooldown separate, 10 for 1 and 10 for 2?

[TinCow]

Slightly confusing wording. I assume you mean the highest member of the banished noble's feudal chain can immediately summon an emergency session AND in addition (if there is no session) call for an edict at a normal session? If so, I would apply the same rules to the emergency session as with banishment itself: The highest ranking noble would have to be in the vincinity of the FL as well to hear it on the same turn and therefore be able to call it. Else he can call it the turn after.

Yeah, it is a bit confusing. I'll try to clarify that. Essentially, there are two parts. First, the Banishment can be ended by an Edict. This applies to any session, Normal or otherwise. Second, the highest ranking member of the Banished person's House has a one-off chance to call an Emergency Session. What you say about proximity may be realistic, but you've got to remember that I've massively increased the power of banishment by making it a free-for-all on the Banished person's provinces. It's only fair to give him a chance to make his case in the Diet before he loses everything.

So how do you banish 2 people at once if the cooldown is 10 from the previous use? Would it be more intelligible to have the cooldown separate, 10 for 1 and 10 for 2?

The way it is worded now, it is simply two people in one banishment, not two separate banishments. Two at once is much easier to keep track of for timing purposes. I wrote it this way just for simplicity and clarity. If we start alternating banishments at irregular intervals, there's a lot of potential for confusion.