Arelith

So I heard the chancellor got assassinated... again. and my only reaction was an intense roll of the eyes...

I feel the frequency of chancellors getting assassinated is getting a bit too common of late. Its being used and abused like somebody pressing the next button on their music playlist part way through almost every song. Also the methods people are using to mechanically get people removed from the position leaves much to be desired.

Its really getting boring if im honest, the consequences of a single death to such a circumstance are too high, perhaps a 3 strike policy, even a 2 strike policy would be more desireable. Or perhaps you keep chancellorship but your powers are limited for a week afterwards, which is a quarter of your term while you recover, rather than you being removed from office with immediate effect which does not strike me as being realistic or fun.

I tend to agree. The problem is that no chancellor really gets to actually have any impact before getting killed. I have no idea as to the background of the recent assassins, but it does seem to be a bit willy-nilly thrown in there.

One assassination is enough, it falls on the chancellor to remain secure and on the assassin not to be a cheeseball.

I like the high stakes personally, I think it makes things more interesting since it means that it's not enough to simply have a plan for getting elected. If being elected meant you were safe that'd be boring, assassination means that you need a real plan for after the election as well. If assassinations are too common then aspiring Chancellors should take note and try to cultivate a familiarity with the various assassins they might come across first.

Assassinations of settlement leaders isn't really all that common. Can the assassinated leader run again? If so then assassination seems a bit pointless as it seems if they won the first time then they should win the second.

Well honestly, if the IC discussions and talk about things with the assassination of the interim Chancellor being the first ever in the the history of Chancellorships within Cordor.

Then a second assassination is hardly an abuse of the mechanic as it was simply a start of something new with political RP in Cordor. Before it was simply a.... option that wasn't looked at all in Surface Political RP.

Yet with the advent of the first assassination and then the promotion of said murderer/assassin to the head of the Ordo in the following administration set forth the precedent of assassinations being Good.

Sooo.... I'd argue that, its something new and of course not an abuse of the system as of yet. *This may change* as I am sure there are very valid IC RP reasons for utilizing said assassins against leadership positions.

Hi. I am the player of the assassin'd chancellor.

I want to make sure everyone here knows that the assassination of Wylaana was legit and well-played (if extremely lucky). I am generally averse to PvP so generally just let things happen if I'm about to be killed.

A chancellor is able to run again after being assassinated and "reborn" as it were.

While I take it upon myself to play this out in good faith, I will echo others' concerns that the "ephemeral" nature of Cordorian politics makes it exceedingly difficult for any one administration (and I say administration referring to the dozens of player characters who are actually involved in any single chancellor's roleplay) to get a foothold, and to actually roleplay being part of the government. Wylaana got to be chancellor for a whole of three IRL days before she was deposed; if she wins again, I have little doubt another hit will be taken out on her life shortly after, too. I'll take that in stride.

My intention OOCly was to get as many people involved in Cordor government as wished to participate, via an Amnian-style guild democracy that remained true to FR's faux-medieval setting. Such a thing takes time and the participation of a lot of people, and to have it cut short so immediately was a bit frustrating. But while IC things are rough, there are no OOC hard feelings.

I'll conclude by reminding everyone that roleplay (even conflict roleplay) should be cooperative, an effort to build a collective story. It should not be competitive. IC losers (like myself, in this case) should never feel like they "lost" the game OOC. Roll with the punches, and remember that the "win/lose" mentality is the death of any roleplay server.

This is one of those aspects of the game that is more FOIG than listed out as mechanics, which does irritate me slightly as it's not that straightforward, and a lot of my previously held understandings of the mechanics aren't even correct.

They can run again even after the assassination is completed, even if they're a candidate they can be assassinated once more, but they can still just Thomas the Dank Engine right on through. There is no mechanic that forces a character to roll as far as in character actions (save for one that has been pretty hungry as of late so I hear).

Every time I've brushed up against leadership controls I never seem to have it on the nose. Either way, two assassinations in three Chancellors is a high level of lethality for Cordor, but I might be incorrect on even *that* fact.

I already think the term aswell as election period is too short, and this only really exacerbates that.

It's starting to feel alot like Menzoberranzan with all these uppheavals to the chancellorship, and often with little to no change having come from it but disruption.

It's also a bit too convenient and easy to just put out a contract on such a public figure, and in theory would not require more from a PC than them disliking someone IG, and to just post it, with little to no consequence. Because lets face it, there's alot of PCs out there with ridiculous amounts of money.

That being said, I have no real insight into this latest deed, and it might have been some very engaging and thrilling, well motivated RP involved. I have no opinion on the events themselves.

I'm more frustrated with the general lack of stability that has been characteristic of governments of late. Either winners are absent post election, they don't have the time to follow through on even a quarter of the things they want due to the shortness of term in office, or they're assassinated. And even with such a short election period, these last seven days we'll have spent more time voting, than anyone has spent running the city.

I don't have any concrete suggestions as to how to rectify it, aside from increasing the length of terms (perhaps with a refresh mechanic, similar to how factions/quarters work), but wanted to post regardless, so as to show I wouldnt be opposed to there being changes made in this area too.

PeterRasta wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:05 pm

And even with such a short election period, these last seven days we'll have spent more time voting, than anyone has spent running the city.

Yeeah. I am justifiably exhausted by "campaign roleplay." Wyl has now spent three times as much time campaigning as she has governing. Bleh.

One RL month seems like a lot of time at first glance. It's a full year in game. But taking into consideration player schedules, keeping appointments, and just generally trying to get everyone on the same page, it leads to very little actual government roleplay getting done.

OOC I don't think there should be any sweeping changes to Cordor's government, but I do/did want to get people involved. It's very difficult to do that in a month, let alone three days.

I don't think the system should change just because of this, we're not going to throw permanent death on them, and there is a big risk in cases of abuse in preventing the character from running again. I think how players respond IG should change to what happens to their characters or the world around them.

1: The Chancellor should protect themselves. Not protecting themselves leads to chaos. Even if they win again, it should form into a teaching moment to them, that they learn they can begin to lose people's faith if they are not taking security seriously and it happens again. On the other hand, they can also choose not to run as a player when this happens, letting the assassination have more effect. I would not blame anyone not wanting to do that though after such a short time of three days of leading, in fairness.
2: Assassins should probably not strike so fast. Striking so soon after the election is not going to see the Chancellor's voting base crumble. They in turn, should take this as a learning opportunity to take their time unless there are certain that the election was very close and the few problem voters have been dealt with, in bribes or other ways.
3: With constant threats to security, guards may wish to investigate suspicious targets, and throw eyes upon them, because letting suspicious people walk apathetically can lead to bad things happening, as they may learn.
4: Voters do not have to start an election when it is possible. If people want longer periods they can choose not to run until an agreed upon time limit. The other Surface settlements have in the past had election periods with greater spaces than one real life month.

If I was going to change the system in general:

1: No more than three terms per elected leader (Excluding Brogendenstein for cultural reasons). Terms are divided by election challenges. No election challenge, no interruption of term. There are only so many elected leaders possible, and turnover to new hands a good thing.
2: Any assassination in the first month prevents a Chancellor from using their powers for several days. In the second month, it calls an election. In a third, removes their ability to run and starts an election, regardless of if it is the first, second, or third term.
3: Another 15 days added to the election cycle. One month is too short, but two months too long. Maybe a month and a half is that sweet spot of getting things done.

DM Titania wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:36 pm

1: No more than three terms per elected leader (Excluding Brogendenstein for cultural reasons).

I agree that leaders should have limited terms, but leaving one out is an awful idea.

I agree with everything Titania said save the term limits.

It seems a bit anachronistic (then again, so is voting!) to the faux-medieval/renaissance time period we're in, and I find it difficult to justify why a Banite (just for instance) would step down amicably when their whole shtick is creating laws that reinforce their dominion over others.

A tangential concern: there's a lot of post-enlightenment idealism being tossed around in character and it *does* serve to break the immersion of certain players who want to acknowledge the fact that Cordor is literally a kingdom. The words "due process" and "freedom of speech" are heard frequently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but while FR has no "real world" temporal parallel we are still in a high-medieval fantasy setting, and a lot of people *like that.*

Even so, a few changes/safeguards in place to make it less hectic and arbitrary would be lovely.

Cortex wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:43 pm

DM Titania wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:36 pm

1: No more than three terms per elected leader (Excluding Brogendenstein for cultural reasons).

I agree that leaders should have limited terms, but leaving one out is an awful idea.

I see no reason to force a new leader on anyone if They are satisfied with it. This justs sounds like okay Ghestald is too favored by dwarves lets push it mechanically.

And definately, there is no reason to prevent one character being a leader of settlement over a year or more, if the player base of settlement is willing to keep him there.

The only issue with settlements is how instable some are (devils table, cordor), not others.

There are only handful of players and characters willing to run settlement and only few of them are able to handle it, so why the hell would someone try to keep these succesfull people from it?

If They are inactive, or disliked by settlements, there is that voting systém or assasination.

I think it would be detrimental to put in safeguards that tried to make it not "hectic" or "arbitrary."

I honestly don't know what people want out of a political system in Cordor. It's always fascinating to see how discussions arise about what people think is a "proper" political Cordor. Couldn't tell you what people think is fundamental to successful political rp.

Intrigue? Stability? Backstabbing? Cozy fun scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine funland with little events and galas? Constant upheaval?

I, personally, think there should be the fewest rules possible. People should be able to cheese it as much as they want. DMs should hammer people who abuse, and the community should reward people who flourish the political climate. Make absolute power absolute. Make it easily abuseable. Part of the problem is the lack of real consequence, and the lack of weight, and its ability to be so easily ignored.

I guess we get into the "Be Nice" rule territory, and it can be hard to balance, but Cordor is like constantly striving to be some shining beacon instead of embracing its volatility and instability to the fullest.

1: No more than three terms per elected leader (Excluding Brogendenstein for cultural reasons). Terms are divided by election challenges. No election challenge, no interruption of term. There are only so many elected leaders possible, and turnover to new hands a good thing.
2: Any assassination in the first month prevents a Chancellor from using their powers for several days. In the second month, it calls an election. In a third, removes their ability to run and starts an election, regardless of if it is the first, second, or third term.
3: Another 15 days added to the election cycle. One month is too short, but two months too long. Maybe a month and a half is that sweet spot of getting things done.

I think these are all very good suggestions, though I do have some hesitancy to actually seeing the first implemented, especially to Brogendenstein only, whilst Myon would be just as likely a candidate.

Cortex wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:43 pm

DM Titania wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:36 pm

1: No more than three terms per elected leader (Excluding Brogendenstein for cultural reasons).

I agree that leaders should have limited terms, but leaving one out is an awful idea.

I don't think terms should be limited at all personally, but find excluding one settlement from changes to be an even worse decision. We have the DT for an example of this right now. If a leader is going to have limited terms, it should be for consecutive rule, and not forever for the character, i.e. if you're going to make them, sit out after 3 terms, they should be able to run again afterwards. If a leader is succesful enough or enjoyed enough ICly to continue to have a voting base, then they shouldn't be forced into changeover, which will only cause the instability that's being complained about here.

In my experience it's not hard to not be killed. I had assassins trying to kill me the entire first two terms of Pierce's existence. I was thwarting kills once a RL night for awhile, and I got into PvP exactly once over it. However: Pierce was a high spot and high stealth rogue. This makes my options about fifteen times bigger than the random fighter who wins, I admit this.

The point is, it's not too difficult to not get assassinated, even when people are trying. And even if you do, you can just run again, which personally boggles my mind, it completely eliminates the point of the system if the assassinated person can just run again. IMO the assassin system should be even slightly more effective, and an assassinated person cannot hold power in that settlement for the length of an entire term.

TimeAdept if you got assasinated in elections, you are done.

You need to wait a full month to run again, and your votes fall into trash allowing opponent to win even with a single vote.

So i would say its like lets assasinate you, elections happen, then get you again, you are out of election and opposition wins. If you sit out 3 day voting, lets get kill you after, and repeat process.

I can see how a great deal of fun this can be for someone trying to do real things as chancellor.

I'm of the opinion nothing should be allowed to last "forever" (as in an inordinary long time) in what should be an otherwise dynamic RP enviromnent. I'm not saying Ghestaldt/the dwarves are at fault (I generally think they've stayed the way they are in a cool way), and if terms were somehow limited, I'm certain they'd make do.

I'm also not saying there's been any recent case of someone staying in power unrightfully for too long, just that it is mechanically possible and something I do not think should be a thing.

Cortex wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:17 pm

I'm of the opinion nothing should be allowed to last "forever" (as in an inordinary long time) in what should be an otherwise dynamic RP enviromnent. I'm not saying Ghestaldt/the dwarves are at fault (I generally think they've stayed the way they are in a cool way), and if terms were somehow limited, I'm certain they'd make do.

I'm also not saying there's been any recent case of someone staying in power unrightfully for too long, just that it is mechanically possible and something I do not think should be a thing.

Are you aware how hard is to find a competetive leader? This is not a mechanical way, this is about real people.It is not like lets click and we got a new leader, lol.

flower wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:16 pm

TimeAdept if you got assasinated in elections, you are done.

You need to wait a full month to run again, and your votes fall into trash allowing opponent to win even with a single vote.

So i would say its like lets assasinate you, elections happen, then get you again, you are out of election and opposition wins. If you sit out 3 day voting, lets get kill you after, and repeat process.

I can see how a great deal of fun this can be for someone trying to do real things as chancellor.

I'm not talking about during election time, I'm talking about after the fact when it's over. If tyou get assassinated you just run again.

And like I said: It was actually very fun. I chancellored for 3 months in Cordor without an OOC faction powerbase behind me and fending off assassins for 2 RL months. I managed to get quite a bit done.

Term limits are a good thing. All factions should institute them. No more then three consecutive elections.

flower wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:20 pm

Cortex wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:17 pm

I'm of the opinion nothing should be allowed to last "forever" (as in an inordinary long time) in what should be an otherwise dynamic RP enviromnent. I'm not saying Ghestaldt/the dwarves are at fault (I generally think they've stayed the way they are in a cool way), and if terms were somehow limited, I'm certain they'd make do.

I'm also not saying there's been any recent case of someone staying in power unrightfully for too long, just that it is mechanically possible and something I do not think should be a thing.

Are you aware how hard is to find a competetive leader? This is not a mechanical way, this is about real people.It is not like lets click and we got a new leader, lol.

That is very subjective, a few years ago there was a lot of competition, and nothing in regards to settlement leadership has changed at all.

I think it would be a really good idea if all these rules, such as "if you get assassinated whilst running for election, this happens. If you get assassinated whilst in office, that happens, " were written down somewhere. Otherwise, there is a huge advantage to people who have held office on other characters over those who do so for the first time.