Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will be times when a settlement/city/kingdom must make a collective decision. Players should be provided a secret ballot mechanism and powers that accrue to the collective and override any single in-game authority other than official company GM staff.
Examples might be where the settlement leader has vanished, when someone powerful must be banished, when a course of action must be decided and there is no despot, and when a settlement determines it may be time for regime change and the despot disagrees.
If settlements are left without the means to resolve such issues peacefully it will require either their subjugation to an undesireable condition or in-game violent overthrow. Both those solutions could still be possible, but for many I suspect it would be preferable to have a way to enforce the will of the people through non-violent means.
So if a community member has great power but causes sufficient antipathy among residents, the residents should have the abiltiy to expel or banish, and the instrument for doing so should be by secret ballot.
The ballot initiative's author would have to correctly name the character to be affected by the vote.
The ballot initiative's author would have to select from preset available actions, such as banishment, promotion, or possibly the amount of a fine, and a date not less than three days from initiation, by which date the votes would be final, majority wins.
This would entail a rather more formal membership status in a community than I suspect the developer intended. Recommend a quorum of citizens would be required for the vote to be valid, and simple majority rules.
Do you concur or see a need for altering the request for such an instrument, or will a community be ruled forever by the same people?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Neither. But what you are suggesting is forced democracy for everyone.
The best way to depose of absentee or unpopular despots is apathy. Everyone who cares leaves for a better tended settlement, and then somebody who wants the land finishes off the paper settlement (or else it disbands due to lack of residents, or some other decay model).
There is certainly room for a forced succession mechanic, but that should be part of each settlement's charter, not an identical plan for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the most frustrating things in terms of guild management is when the leader is MIA. In many games and systems there is no way to solve this issue, and the guild ends up falling apart. I don't think democracy or any other system should be forced on anyone, but I think each form of government should have its own way to deal with the problem. In a democracy the leader could be impeached or deposed, replaced by someone elected by a majority. An oligarchy could simply remove someone from the leadership council with a unanimous or majority vote from the remaining members. Stuff like that.
It would be really cool if a constitution could be drafted based on a questionnaire filled out by the founders, and revised when appropriate based on the currently active constitution. It could be a simple form with questions like "How many people do you want to share the leadership?" and "What process do you want to use to change leadership?" and, of course, "How do you want to revise the current constitution?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
The best way to depose of absentee or unpopular despots is apathy. Everyone who cares leaves for a better tended settlement, and then somebody who wants the land finishes off the paper settlement (or else it disbands due to lack of residents, or some other decay model).
...
All that work and treasure invested in your home community and just because the leadership vanishes for whatever reason you feel apathy is the best response? Just pick up stakes leaving perhaps years of labor behind as if it meant nothing?
Surely we could do better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All that work and treasure invested in your home community and just because the leadership vanishes for whatever reason you feel apathy is the best response?
If I'm understanding Decius, he's suggesting you should choose a Settlement with a clear plan for this scenario.
Both Being and Uthreth's ideas could be combined to create a settlement charter that is filled out by the founding members and must be accepted prior to joining the settlement. That way you know going in that the settlement is ruled by a group, or a single player, whatever. The trick is giving enough options to cover things like Mia leaders or the abrupt alignment shift of the sole head of a settlement, or whatever.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seen this happen in EVE more often then not. People drifting off because of either absentee or ineffective leadership.
However I guess it depends on how the settlement was created. In EVE a corp could give out shares and give share holders voting rights, which included removing and replacing CEOs and other officers if needed.
While I don't think a Vote is appropriate for all settlements, I think for ones that feel they want to be major players or have some way to pass down leaderships if a leader disappears (Real Life happens) it would be appropriate to have some optional mechanic for challenge and replacing current leadership.
Voting can be very Lawful, while a direct Challenge or Dual can be very Chaotic. Votes that are stacked toward certain elite cabals can be very Evil, while free and even voting can be very Good. Duals involving skills other then combat can be very Good, while duals to the death&explosion are a hallmark of CE groups.
======
As a far reaching Meta fix, players in a group with a leader who's just *poofed* into nothing could have recourse through GoblinWords admins. That could be for people who've just out right vanish and not be on for months, or even have stopped paying for their account all together.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Or combinations there of...
Meritocracy combined with Democracy gets you various kinds of Oligarchy, depending on criteria. You can even cover Magocracy and to a degree Theocracy (if divine favor becomes a trackable stat :P)
Other conditionals could include:
Task based requirements (pulling swords from stones).
Prophecy (a player generated set of complex conditions, based on time/day, events, actions, and skills/talents)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When you found your settlement (or kingdom), you decide a government type.
If you choose despotic, well, then we just have to hope there's some sort of 'heir' mechanic. (another good question in this case is: what if the despot suddenly comes back after 2 months absentia? does he regain his throne?)
If you choose democracy, then it's just a matter of who can trigger an election.
If you choose oligarchy, then the power goes to whoever of the council is still around, and they should have the power to replenish themselves.
of course, whoever holds the power can change the government type - but in the case of the absentia despot that doesn't solve anything.
I vote that the settlement itself should have ways to define what triggers election/succession. (Auto trigger ekection if despot does not log on for a week? Define a hierarchy where ruler power is held by the top dog online at any given time? pre-define a number of electors who can select an heir, maybe with a few days limbo where the despot can logon and veto the decision?)
Kingdoms may not have this problem since presumably settlements can leave the kingdom and join a new one without tearing the buildings down (but there may still be significant costs in founding a kingdom, who knows?).