[quote name='Firsanthalas' date='22 August 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1282484378' post='66788']
Bottom line. If the response of an alliance is to simply run away because they have an issue with the King, then they shouldn't continue to exist at all. In particular, the duty of a land alliance is to protect the land. If that means protecting it from a terrible king or queen, then they should do that. Running away is a gross failure in that regards. Furthermore, there is an already awful lack of loylaty within MD (Im not talking about the stat). If you want to start a system whereby people can up sticks and leave en mass, then there really is little point in having alliances or citizenship at all.If an alliance feels a king is wrong, then they should stand and fight for that belief and the king should either take note of the fact that an entire alliance is rebelling and consider that perhaps there is good cause or he should put it down. Having multiple alliances in a land is even better, becuase it allows for more than one to band together. If the leader of an alliance takes issue with the king and has little or no support from his fellows, then he needs to go. That is the way it currently is and I believe that is the way it should stay. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
[/quote]
What about if a king decides he doesnt like what an alliance is doing. Bans the leader and then the rest of the alliance goes "we will not rebel because he will ban us to" Alliances cant really do very much against a king. Because as mur said ALL bans will only be taken into account once they have used their amount up. So basicly kings can do wtf they like as long as they dont use their ban amount up. Where a king can ban people, what can the alliances do?