User:Danaris/Proposals/Question Nobility

Not that long ago, Tom finally decided that the "strip titles"/"question nobility" option was just too badly misunderstood and too badly abused, and removed it entirely. However, I believe that it can be salvaged, and something good made out of it. The main problem is that it has always been seen by most as something other than what it is: a fate worse, in many cases, than death, and a very last-resort option for a ruler who wishes to punish a political rival and doesn't care what happens to himself in the process.

As some have suggested in the past, the core of this proposal is to have the option, if successful, make the victim no longer considered a noble—he would become an adventurer, and have to work his way back to nobility just as any other adventurer must. This alone would go a long way toward impressing on people the severity of the option, as before, the only in-game effect was that they lost any appointed or elected positions they held.

But there must also be consequences for the ruler, and, as the entire system of nobility is, more or less, a consensus fiction, those consequences must be at least partially based on how much—and how many—people agree with him.

There are two parts to this. The first is the player-character, major nobles of the realm. When a ruler accuses a supposed noble of imposture, though the loss of titles and of honour and prestige would happen immediately, everyone else in the realm would also get the option to support the accused noble's claim of nobility. This can be easily implemented with a simple referendum.

The second is the NPC, minor nobles, who get far too little credit in the game in general. Their opinion, however, is largely expressed by honour and prestige values, and those are the primary determining factor in where their support goes. Now, I'm afraid I'm not sure about what the particulars should be—that is a balance issue, of course—but the general idea should be something like this: The higher the victim's honour and prestige are, in the absolute, the more support he has. The difference between the ruler's honour and prestige and that of the victim should also be taken into account—that is, if the ruler's is much higher, that would decrease support for the victim, and vice versa. If the ruler has only been in power a short time, support for the victim increases (though this effect should be felt less in realms with a periodically-elected ruler). The higher the victim's rank, the more support he has. However, all the support from the minor nobles should not add up to much more than the support of 2 or 3 major nobles combined: it can sway things if they're close, but it's not going to make a difference otherwise.

If enough nobles, minor and major, supported him (the PC noble number should probably be similar or proportional to the amount needed to protest the ruler out of power, absent the influence of the minor nobles), the accused noble would not lose anything further, but the ruler would lose massive amounts of honour and prestige (I would say 25% or more), and his position as ruler, and would not be electable for at least another month. Perhaps there should also be an intermediate level at which the accused noble does not become an adventurer, but loses further honour... If, though, there are *not* enough supporters within the alloted time period, the accused becomes an adventurer, and all those who *did* support him will themselves lose large amounts of honour and prestige.

So, the sequence of events would be something like the following:

King John selects the option to question the nobility of Duke Dan. Right then and there, he is no longer Duke, and loses a great deal of honour and prestige. The King also loses some honour and prestige at the same time, and Dan is given the option to duel John to the death, which John cannot refuse (much like in the old feature). At the same time, a referendum is started, to last 3 days, on whom to support: Dan or John. You cannot remain neutral in an issue of this magnitude (except, of course, by not voting, which ought to get you an automatic penalty of some kind for being so indecisive...).

During those three days, all kinds of accusations and recriminations are flung around, including some accusations of OOC powergaming on both sides. People make their choices, silently deciding the fate of at least two men. At the end of that time, both the minor and major nobles will have made their decisions, and one of three things happens:\

• King John has by far the most support. Dan's words and actions have, indeed, shown him to be not only bad, but less than a real man—less than a noble. As such, he loses all patents of nobility, along with most of his honour and prestige, and is no better than a common adventurer. If he ever wishes to be a noble again, he must work his way up to it. Anyone who supported his claims to nobility also lose large amounts of honour and prestige, and anyone who was known to have associated with him loses some too (as with the previous option).
• Dan has by far the most support. The King has clearly gone mad, and his accusation is totally without merit. He loses a very large percentage of his honour and prestige, along with his crown, and is not eligible to be re-elected as Ruler for at least a month. Anyone who supported the King also loses large amounts of honour and prestige.
• There is not enough support for either to decide it clearly. This is a black mark for the entire realm, and everyone loses large amounts of honour and prestige (only slightly less than supporters of the losing side would have in either of the other cases). The peasants and minor nobles are very upset about this, as well, and region stats drop across the realm as they realize just how dysfunctional their ruling class is.

So, in summary, this option would have massive repercussions compared to the old one, and it could not fail to be seen as something that shakes the very foundations of noble society. It is not something any ruler in his right mind would use on someone just to get them out of a position they didn't want them in—not unless he was absolutely certain that he would have the full support of the realm.

Possible Variant

Rather than simply adding their voices to those of the major nobles, the opinions of the minor nobles determine both how much honour and prestige is lost by each side and how much the regional stats drop (in this case, stats should drop some in all cases—if the King wins, then it's over concerns that their nobles believed that a commoner was one of them, and if he loses, it's over concerns that the nobles let an obvious madman be King).