Talk:Wish List/New Gov. System

Interesting, but i think that the duel might be reduced to Surrender. As most players wont sacrifice their chars to a duel to the death. Plus not many people would want to commit to it as they could lose their position and Char. ScottSabin 20:35, 8 October 2006 (CEST)

I think any realm based on that would fall into pieces in a matter of days, because 1) the new realm is weak, and would probably have angered another realm A LOT because it was founded by either secession or a colony takeover, 2) it would have a hard time having an amount of CS in a region all the time, meaning that whenever the army was rallied, the entire realm would revolt (except the region the army is rallied in of course) 3) it's likely that very few people would be interested in joining because of the hostile government type.

Also, I don't think it offers anything a Tyranny doesn't offer, except major chaos when the old ruler resigns since nobody could duel him to be the new ruler.

Hey hey hey whoever just gave the above comments, let's be positive here not Mr. Moody Pants. My Opinion? I think it is quite a good idea but maybe the stance on duel to the death should be reversed because a character would simply not want to give his life and a position just because he was challenged. If you made the duel compulsory it would be unfair because the person would have to lose there character over a stupid position. I think the duel should be compulsory however it should be a duel to surrender. It needs to be compulsory so the ruler can't just stay in power so easily. The problem with this whole system is the ruler might be dumb guy who just knows how to fight but I guess it's the same thing with a tyranny or a monarchy. Ruler initiates Rebellion, he's a dumbass. He has power anyway. So looking at this system isn't so bad. I think it could really work. You'd just have to work out the details first. - Shenron

I saw a similar "election" in a movie. Chouce of the Horde or something similar, (had horde in it). anyway that is irrelovant.
This coverment could be called Despotism berhaps... or something with barbar (barbarism) or Rule of Horde.
I like this idea alot, so what if this is a weak goverment, it dosnt mean its impossible to maintain it.
And the region would loose loyalty craduatly if some amount of militay isnt present, when loyalty goes to 0 (after a long time) it then revolts.
And respectively region would gain loyalty if military is present. (aslo slowly)
And dont worry, there are people who would join sutch a realms army, accordingly to taste, it may seem to meny people that military career beats being a peasant, pay is deacent, get to travel to other realms and you can kill people from time to time. Later if you survive you can go to a bar beat people up and abuse what little authority you had or on a whoring spree.
Instead of picking cabage and then geting most of it stolen "as a tax" by the lords (not that being a peasant didnt have perks, thats why i sayd matter of taste).

And as for the problem that a ruler must constantly defend its position, that can easely be solved by asigning a personal "champion". When ever another person wishes challenge the lord, he must first defeat the champion, before he can have the honor of challengin the Warlord(ruler) himself.
The champion isnt restricted from challengin the lord himself.

And as for "when a ruler steps back" ther could simply be a tournament (only for all in that realm, not everyone).
And berhaps death is to serious, when dueling, but surrender is to weak, barbarian spells POWER so in sutch a important duel one must at least become heavely wounded.
Think barbarian.
Metsamees 15:37, 6 July 2007 (CEST)