Root Admin Muratus del Mur Posted October 9, 2009 Root Admin Report Posted October 9, 2009 After the Yrthilian voting I have been thinking a lot about the issue with the lands and their kings in the realm. A king should have _power_, but should also earn his reputation and respect. Respect should not be granted by default. A king that can't get his poeple to respect him is not a king afterall, but power should be granted. Of course power and respect are directly related, you will respect more someone that could kill you by pointing a finger. Based on recent events, i consider Kings could be "banished" by first taking over the main alliance of their land and then instigating their people to vote against them. The word banished is better than demoted, because kingship should not be considered a job or promotion but an absolute position. The powers of such a ruler should be absolute over the people of his land. Therefor i will implement a citizenship system and players will be marked as beinng part of a land or an other, obeying the rules of that land and accepting the king, or queen, as the one person (except me ) to have decision power over their destiny. The king will be able to change tags of his people, but for now these tags should be first discussed with me and i will check and aprove if they are indeed deserved. I dont want a tag inflation or tags to lose their importance, but i also don't want tags to be forgotten or ignored just because some got them and most didn't, like its now. The king can directly decide regarding things that concern the land, such as land weapon, character belonging to that land, direction the land will go in diplomatic situations with other lands, etc. Regarding characters, the current realm situation is like this: - Wodin belongs to GG land. It can be summoned by the aliance leader of the land, or by its king if these two are not one and the same. - Shade Sentinel does not belong to its people but the people belong to it. However, the Sentinel does not have direct decision power over the people and Necrovians have their free will. A HUMAN king will be elected soon. While humans and shades are in good relations within Necrovion, the Sentinel will most likely not cross the words of the king. - The summoned army has no identity, it will act as an animal with no regard of king or diplomacy. - Knator Commander, even if no longer holding an official position within Loreroot, its a Lorerootian creature and in matters that involve the benefit of the land , he obeys only the king. Being a retired general, he can refuse to join army, but he can never turn weapons against Loreroot. - The character that will be assigned to Marind Bell in the future, will have similar rules as the Shade Sentinel. The Angiens and the people of Marind Bell are occupying the land same as submarines and fishes occupy the ocean. Humans can not decide over the Angiens, and angiens will never decide over the wishes of humans as long as they live in good relations together. In case of need, Angiens as well as Shades, will be always at the side of their land and never against it. being at the side of the land does not always mean being at the side of its leadership, it means protecting its interests. The order of power in the realm is this: - Muratus del Mur (Me) - People Votes - Kings - Administrative structures and councils Untill other changes in the realm, i consider this to be the political base structure. It can be adapted to each land by using the power of vote, confirmed by me. Note that the power of vote is above Kings. Votes can banish kings, but i won't hold kingship elections to often i can assure you of that. As I said above, you need first to takeover the land before claiming to be its king. Elections to establish Kings for each land will start now, i will be organizing them one by one and keep you informed on the main newslog and here on the forum. Each land will require a slightly different political structure. It is the duty and right of the king to keep or not to keep this political structure. If he wants to rule by a council, or be a dictator, the king decides, of course with the risk of starting a riot. For the elections candidates will be required to present their political plan for people to see before they vote. Last note: Because MD is not a democracy by default, i will not accept in king position any person that i do not feel confortable with, or that i can not communicate easily to. I will not replace kings and i will respect their decisions always, but I WILL in case i consider needed, initiate new elections (without taking over their land) if i consider such elections are needed and there is no one able to initiate them. Kyphis the Bard, Jubaris, Akasha and 1 other 4
Blackwoodforest Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Can we suggest somebody to be king or does the "king" need to declare his election by itself?
Root Admin Muratus del Mur Posted October 9, 2009 Author Root Admin Report Posted October 9, 2009 Only those that want. You cant force anyone into being a king. ..but of course you can tell that person you would vote if they participate.
Blackwoodforest Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 So then I would suggest here, for all visible, to animate Princ Rhaegar to get King of Loreroot. Ravenstrider, Watcher and Prince Marvolo 2 1
Udgard Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 May I vote for nonexistant kingships? While GG and necrovion has been somehow under a single person's aboslute power and I have come to accept that, the idea of a king for each land doesn't really appeal to me... =\ Well, that's my opinion, anyways.. Kyphis the Bard 1
Root Admin Muratus del Mur Posted October 9, 2009 Author Root Admin Report Posted October 9, 2009 There are matters that need a decision reached and not a neutral one. I can not afford not to be neutral towards the lands, so i can't decide on these matters. So, if not a king, who should take these subjective decisions that add to the land "profile"? A king should care about his land only and sometimes what is good for the entire realm is not good for a particular land. I can take those decisions that regard the realm while a king would take the decisions that concern his land and by that give identity to the land. Lands without leadership have little authority because they are splitted by internal riots and don't have a central pillar. In case an other form of rulership is required, then it should be submited as an option with the consent of all those involved. For example a council ruled land, it should present the council members and the technical way in which they will conclude on decisions, majority vote, random, unanimity vote, etc. Kyphis the Bard 1
dst Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 This sounds to me like some sort of small land managers...and this might lead to problems in case they have power of life and death over one land and its inhabitants. Kyphis the Bard 1
Root Admin Muratus del Mur Posted October 9, 2009 Author Root Admin Report Posted October 9, 2009 of course it will lead to issues .. but this time the king will stop them, by force or nicely. It is time for the lands to have a stronger attitude and be actualy LANDS. wars and riots will be always, with or without a king, but a king, brings more personality to the lands and the events related to them. With one king, power will be abused only from one official point, if you can say that, instead of many. Kyphis the Bard and Jubaris 2
dst Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 [quote]With one king, power will be abused only from one official point, if you can say that, instead of many. [/quote] Nicely said. One last question: what about neutral lands like MDA and Underground.Indeed...they cause no trouble cause they don't have military alliances but...you never know what's cooking down in the caves.... Kyphis the Bard 1
Kyphis the Bard Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 The land ruler would also have the responsibility of preventing others from abusing whatever positions they hold, so some types of abuse may go down, as well... While I'm not fond of Kings and such, I do like this idea. The interactions between Necrovion and Golemus Golemicarum with the rest of the realms is enhanced a great deal due to their ability to look to figure heads who represent their land, such as Peace and Marvolo in Necrovion or Yrthilian and MRD for Golemus. The other lands have their own important figures, but I don't feel they are as easy to identify. Hopefully this action will help to strengthen roles within the community, as well as give land affiliation more meaning. A suggestion to prevent abuse of the "take over main alliance, take over land" function: Outside of a war, a person must be a citizen of the associated land before they can be accepted into an alliance for that land. This would also give more meaning to the rulers of each lands role, as they are the ones who decide on who can be citizens. Sparrhawk and Jubaris 1 1
Root Admin Muratus del Mur Posted October 9, 2009 Author Root Admin Report Posted October 9, 2009 First neutral land that will get a leader will be tribunal, but don't hurry on that, i prepared a surprise. Having a leader means to have a voice as a land and influence both your land and other lands. For now i don't want other than the 4 main lands to have a direct influence but only an indirect one. Neutrality is not the right word to use, because they are not neutral, but its an other word i cant find (suggestions?) A land is defined by several factors: - it must be independent from other lands regarding creatures supply, altar, sanctuary, land weapon, leadership. - has a background identity, like a main characteristic or tale, one that influences other lands. In other words to be a land it has to be part of the "land balance" - It has to have a decent surface - It must have a borderline and an entrance that can be considered a gate from a graphical point of view. - It should have a main vulnerability (all lands have, but i think most are not discovered yet) these are some guidelines of what i consider to be a land at time of developing. Kyphis the Bard 1
Kyphis the Bard Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 [quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='09 October 2009 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1255084323' post='44139'] Having a leader means to have a voice as a land and influence both your land and other lands. For now i don't want other than the 4 main lands to have a direct influence but only an indirect one. Neutrality is not the right word to use, because they are not neutral, but its an other word i cant find (suggestions?) [/quote] Impartiality; Independence; Reactive influence. I'll edit my post if I think of more, or make a new post if I feel like it Sparrhawk and Udgard 1 1
ladytwin Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) *giggles* i will fote for a queen when there is one that is *hopes that one will rais up* Edited October 9, 2009 by ladytwin Jester and Kyphis the Bard 1 1
Death Bell Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 if a guy gets voted then mur will name him king, if a girl gets voted she can be crowned as queen.
SageWoman Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 If a Character is "married" and applies for King or Queenship, does the spouse automatically be considered the Kings Queen or the Queens Duke? I am not familiar with monarchy's so this might be a question that arises. Disclaimer: I am not interested in running for Queen of Loreroot. Being a humble Sage and Host of the Root of the Matter Inn is enough. redneck, Kyphis the Bard and Death Bell 3
Root Admin Muratus del Mur Posted October 9, 2009 Author Root Admin Report Posted October 9, 2009 the "wife" of the king is a queen by name. What the policy will be within that land, if the queen has influence over the people, that will depend on the king to decide. If there is a queen elected, the "husband" of the queen will be...prince? I am not sure about the naming but i think calling him King will cause confusion. I am open to suggestions and historical examples. The important part is that the power should stay with the one that was elected and not shared equaly with an other part unless this is part of the official policy that the king presents.
Firsanthalas Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Yeah, its prince. Queen Elizabeth's husband is Prince Philip. She remains as the ruling monarch, he didn't become her king when she married him.
Mya Celestia Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Technically I believe the term is Prince consort. Kyphis the Bard and redneck 2
Grido Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) [quote]The powers of such a ruler should be absolute over the people of his land. Therefor i will implement a citizenship system and players will be marked as beinng part of a land or an other, obeying the rules of that land and accepting the king, or queen, as the one person (except me ) to have decision power over their destiny.[/quote]I disagree here, at least in part, whilst exiled (i havent been told otherwise, so presume i still am) I would still consider myself as being of Golemus, and so would the other people (i presume) that voted against him as king that listed their land as Golemus. Though from the direction of their vote, they are clearly against him as king, are they to then give up their belonging to their land because they dont agree with the king? I would say they shouldn't but by this system they would have to. [quote]direction the land will go in diplomatic situations with other lands, etc.[/quote]This would indicate that a king can order the alliances to do stuff...which in the roman empire anyway, well....that went horribly for the emperor, who died pretty quick when he tried to order his military to do something they didnt want to do. just my two pennies Edited October 9, 2009 by Grido
pamplemousse Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 You say that Kings cannot be forced. Yet, you are requesting that Necrovions "submit his candidates for the absolute rulership of Necrovion land." That is a HUGE request and I don't know that there are any viable candadiates that emerge as of yet. Shouldn't a King/Queen/Leader emerge naturally over time, rather than have an announcement that leads us to scramble to elect someone due to a hot button issue. Yes, lands need more people to identify passionately with them, but I do not think that electing people hastily is the way to go about it. At least not for Necrovion where there is no clear front runner. Peace, redneck and Kyphis the Bard 2 1
Yrthilian Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Might i suggest that each land talks between themselfs and see whom they might consider to take the position. For necrovian i can think of 2 that would be best suted for the role. This could become a very good idea but i beleve some more though needs to be talked on some more regards status and what not.
Death Bell Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 yeah i think more time should be given for necro to choose its king...
Liberty4life Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 dst for queen of bell Akasha, Watcher, Death Bell and 2 others 3 2
dst Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) It's called King consort. Or it keeps his original title (in case he had one). Lib you are either crazy either drunk. Or both! Edited October 9, 2009 by dst
Grido Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 I would also like to remind people as to the Dark Ages, where the kings were tyrants and their subjects mostly all hated them, so the swearing fealty or whatever to the king of the land shlouldnt happen either. I am, all in all, against the idea of telling people to suggest a king, if anything there should be two votes, one for if the land should have a king, the second being for who the king should be, and only the votes from the members of that land should count. But still, emerging over time i would think would be the better option. Fenrir Greycloth and Metal Bunny 1 1
Recommended Posts