Alignment and the Standings

[Conner Reid]

We just wanted to follow-up on the rules decision that was made tonight and provide a little additional clarity about our reasoning.

As I mentioned in the green room at the time, there isn’t anything clear in the rules about when an alignment change from renegade to loyal is effective. When the question was raised in advance of the scheduled challenge, we decided that since a loyal going renegade is effective immediately, that the same would be the case if a renegade petitioned for loyalty and the overlord granted it.

Allowing a switch of alignment instantly from renegade to loyal has support that goes back to 2015. You can see a pretty full discussion of it here.

Several questions came up about a recent decision that seems to be similar where the opposite call was made. We feel that the situation is different and that the rulings are consistent with each other.

Ettyn was not allowed to switch alignment because she had just recently lost her title. Our reasoning was that even though she was technically still baron until the standings were posted, losing the barony locks in alignment. We have treated the OL and barony alignments similarly in the recent past. Once a title is lost and a transition is going to occur, alignments can no longer be changed. This is because alignment is a benefit that is designed within the DoS rules to have consequences that no longer apply to an outgoing baron.

We know there was a lot of discussion about this interpretation of the rules, so we welcome any questions or discussion here.

[Claire Gallows]

I was one of those who said I feel it's worth discussing further the decision regarding alignment changes of outgoing barons. So here I am! I disagreed with the ruling at the time and still feel it wasn't the best call now. Here's my thought process on it, take it as you will.

The post you cited here, stated "all alignment rules are still in effect with respect to the outgoing Overlord until the new standings are posted". "All alignment rules", in my mind, should include the ability to change alignment per the terms of the rules as written ("RAW" since I use this a lot). Nothing in the rules states that you cannot change your alignment if on the upcoming standings you lose your title.

The discussion cited I also do not think is a proper one to cite for this decision, seeing as that discussion is about how alignments correlate to an outgoing Overlord and only in regards to whether alignments apply to the title or the titleholder. While distantly related, utilizing it as a form of precedent feels like a less than good use of it that leaves a whole lot of gaps that may be easily exploited in the future.

The only foreseeable caveat that I've been able to come up with that may cause pause would be an inability to challenge for Overlord should you switch to Renegade, which is easily covered in the fact that their previous challenge defense is not considered completed until the standings update (at which point they lose their title entirely). So it wouldn't be a worry of someone trying to switch alignments to go after the Overlord, that instance is already covered by the RAW.

Stating that Ettyn could not change it and that Salvador could not counter (since he wasn't official until the following week), this ruling effectively put the entire Old Market barony's ability to utilize their alignment by the terms of the RAW in limbo. The rules, as they are *currently*, support an alignment change and I stand by my thought that an alignment change should have been permitted. If that's not what the Sport heads want to see, then I think this needs to be added expressly to the rules so that there is no confusion and no leaning on an iffy situation. While ambiguity can easily be covered by the saving clause at the end of all 3 sports' rules, ambiguity with warring precedents is usually best addressed purposefully.

And that's my spiel!

[Mairead Harker]

First, thank you to Claire for saying what's been going through my head, but in a far more diplomatic manner.

I do not have any issue with Caleb's petition to be a Loyal being granted at the eleventh hour. It was a sound political move on Hope's behalf and well within what's allowed by the current rules.

There are two sections of the rules that address why I disagree with the ruling on Ettyn not being allowed to change alignment to advocate on behalf of Amaris in the recent Seaside challenge.

viewtopic.php?p=195672#p195672
2. Title changes are not considered official until they are listed in the standings. This means should a challenge take place on a Friday, and the Baron or Overlord lose their defense, they still gain the benefits of that rank until the new standings are posted on Sunday. (Fancies, Grants, Testing, etc.)

Based on that, an outgoing Overlord has the right to give away an available Overlord grant between the time they lose their challenge and the time the standings are posted. The etc. part should address the alignment issue:

viewtopic.php?p=195674#p195674
6. Loyal Barons may change their alignment at any time, in writing on the Public Notice Board.
a. This alignment change becomes official immediately and is not restricted to the standings being official.
b. A Loyal Baron who switches their alignment to Renegade in this way is unable to petition for Loyalty for a minimum of two weeks (14 days) after the standings (with their Renegade alignment) are considered official.

At any time indicates that an alignment change is still allowed until any Loyal Baron is no longer officially a Baron as per Standings #2, noted above.

[Kalamere]

So, just to throw a wrench into things, what if we're looking at the wrong change?

I mostly agree with the spirit of locking in alignment at the time the title is lost. Claire and Mairead make decent arguments against it, but to me it essentially "feels right". Claire did make a comment that struck me though about essentially taking Old Market completely out of the game during this limbo state.

Maybe the alternative that should be considered is to grant intercession / advocate rights to the new baron at the time they win (and declare their alignment) rather than waiting for the standings to post. It seems like a cleaner way to keep the barony on the board.

[Conner Reid]

I appreciate the feedback. I agree that we never want to have to rely solely on statements and discussions made outside of the actual rules, especially those that don't directly address or clearly express the issue, when we're making decisions, but they do help inform some of our thinking and provide good insight to the history of the rules and previous DoS decisions.

That said, our decisions are based first on the rules as written. When there is ambiguity or the rules do not speak to a particular circumstance we rely first and foremost on what preserves the overall logic of the rules.

As I mentioned above, the reason we did not allow Ettyn to change alignment after she had lost title but before the standings were updated was because the risk/benefits of alignment are balanced on the assumption that the baron will continue to hold the title. There are zero consequences for a post-defeat baron choosing to switch alignment. A switch to renegade alignment, for example, would not come with the usual risks (lack of grace/exposure to challenge/challenge queue, locked into alignment for 14-day period). The baron in this position would be gaining the benefits of the alignment without having to bear any of the risks.

We hear and understand your objections, but we feel that this interpretation is consistent with the intent of the rules. I'm open, as always, to hearing more perspectives about the interpretation of these rules, what you think works best, and what you think best benefits the game and why. We might just have a difference of opinion about these rules, and sometimes that can happen. We will likely be adding clarifying language addressing transitional alignment to remove any ambiguity moving forward.

[Helea Alwin]

Maybe the alternative that should be considered is to grant intercession / advocate rights to the new baron at the time they win (and declare their alignment) rather than waiting for the standings to post. It seems like a cleaner way to keep the barony on the board.

This would give reason for new title holders to be active and that should be encouraged. At times, though rare, we see title holders sit on alignment for almost the full 7 days. This at least creates agency and will show other members of the community that their new incoming Baron is and hopefully will be active in their new role.

[Mairead Harker]

Maybe the alternative that should be considered is to grant intercession / advocate rights to the new baron at the time they win (and declare their alignment) rather than waiting for the standings to post. It seems like a cleaner way to keep the barony on the board.

This would give reason for new title holders to be active and that should be encouraged. At times, though rare, we see title holders sit on alignment for almost the full 7 days. This at least creates agency and will show other members of the community that their new incoming Baron is and hopefully will be active in their new role.

I have always found it bothersome that a new Baron's reign begins in the histories on the day they win the challenge, but they must wait to gain the benefit of that rank until the Standings are posted. Maybe this is the time to decide to bring those things in line with each other; begin the reign and get the benefits at the same time. Getting those things on the same track would eliminate the limbo state Claire referred to.

[Delahada]

Though I respectfully disagree with the staff's decision on the above mentioned allowances and refusals, I do not have the spoons at the moment to elaborate. Everyone else has said much of what I've been stewing over, in more, as Maggie said, diplomatic terms than I am currently capable. I do want to highlight this statement, however:

Maybe the alternative that should be considered is to grant intercession / advocate rights to the new baron at the time they win (and declare their alignment) rather than waiting for the standings to post. It seems like a cleaner way to keep the barony on the board.

On this I wholeheartedly agree, and consider it me seconding a proposal for an amendment to the rules. Or possibly thirding. It seems that many of us are in agreement on this. If an outgoing baron is stripped of their right to switch alignment from Loyal to Renegade in order to Advocate for a Challenger who is being subjected to a Test of Worthiness, then the incoming baron, if having declared Renegade (as I did), should be permitted to Advocate in their stead.

I would also like to see the official rules clearly updated to reflect the changes in policy that have been declared about the allowances made here so that there are no further hold-ups and outrage in the future.

[Helea Alwin]

Maybe the alternative that should be considered is to grant intercession / advocate rights to the new baron at the time they win (and declare their alignment) rather than waiting for the standings to post. It seems like a cleaner way to keep the barony on the board.

This would give reason for new title holders to be active and that should be encouraged. At times, though rare, we see title holders sit on alignment for almost the full 7 days. This at least creates agency and will show other members of the community that their new incoming Baron is and hopefully will be active in their new role.

I have always found it bothersome that a new Baron's reign begins in the histories on the day they win the challenge, but they must wait to gain the benefit of that rank until the Standings are posted. Maybe this is the time to decide to bring those things in line with each other; begin the reign and get the benefits at the same time. Getting those things on the same track would eliminate the limbo state Claire referred to.

The issue is that mods and rank increases are linked to the standings and make it easier for the community to track how many mods a player would have at the time. The issuing of a special grant / decree that a new incoming title holder may act as champion to the test of worthiness or counter to such would be easier to track so long as there is a post that shows their chosen alignment upon winning the title. The ability to use the mods from the role in that position would be another story.

[Helea Alwin]

Though I should add then if a special grant / degree is issued to an incoming Baron. Would this mean that a Baron who is locked as Loyal be unable to act as a champion in a Test of Worthiness for the Overlord if they had lost a challenge earlier in the week? Would an Overlord be unable to test during a Loyal Baron challenge if they had lost their title earlier in the week?

[Mairead Harker]

Bringing them together could also go the other way with both things going active when the standings are posted. The RAW, as Claire put it, are as follows:
2. Title changes are not considered official until they are listed in the standings. This means should a challenge take place on a Friday, and the Baron or Overlord lose their defense, they still gain the benefits of that rank until the new standings are posted on Sunday. (Fancies, Grants, Testing, etc.)

Allowing a Baron to continue using the rights/privileges of their rank/title until their time official ends seems to be the easiest way to avoid future problems and avoid confusion with mods. There's no reason, under the rules, to lock an alignment for someone that won't have the title in a few days. The Baron, however, might have a reason to change it. To me, not allowing the alignment change for an outgoing Baron is like forcing someone to continue wearing a wedding ring while they are waiting for a divorce.

[Cajsa Storm]

I don't think there is a limbo state. The Baron retains the perks of their rank and alignment until the next standings update. The incoming Baron will then gain those perks with the next standings update. Challenges are considered complete and official when the standings are posted. This is also to make it so everyone has a chance to challenge at the same time, and track cool down periods and grace periods. It makes it easy for everyone to track by making everything uniform. Changing this would require a nearly complete overhaul of the rules.

Also, the Baron who lost still continues to receive the perks of the rank and alignment they had at the time of their loss. How often do people change alignments, and why should it be allowed to be done without any consequence? Caleb changed alignment, and I would expect if people are upset he did so and tested, that they would challenge him. If Ettyn had gone renegade and countered, what would be the in-game answer to that? You can't challenge her because she already lost. This to me makes it a poor in-game mechanic if allowed - there would be no in-game response for anyone to take. The OL couldn't give someone a grant with the caveat they challenge the person who just went renegade; the OL's lover/friend couldn't challenge the person they saw turn their back on the OL. This also robs the people who had been renegade up to that point of their perks while they also had been carrying the risk.

Again, this is about consequences to in-game actions. I don't think it's a good game mechanic if you're allowed to do something without facing any potential repercussions in game, and changing alignment - especially going from loyal where you enjoy grace to Renegade where you can have a huge impact on challenges - after you lose is exactly that. Like Conner stated, the drawbacks for being a Renegade are that you are open to any challenge at any time and open to challenge queues. These are null if you switch to Renegade after already having lost. All reward, no risk. This means there is no potential gameplay to come from this in-game, and so I don't think it should be in the game.

[Mairead Harker]

I don't think there is a limbo state. The Baron retains the perks of their rank and alignment until the next standings update. The incoming Baron will then gain those perks with the next standings update. Challenges are considered complete and official when the standings are posted. This is also to make it so everyone has a chance to challenge at the same time, and track cool down periods and grace periods. It makes it easy for everyone to track by making everything uniform. Changing this would require a nearly complete overhaul of the rules.

Emphasis mine
Which means as per the rules, a Loyal may change alignment at any time.

[Conner Reid]

It seems like there is very strong feeling here, so I'd like to take a moment to just make sure we're focused and all talking about the same thing.

We have a difference of opinion about how the rules as they are written should be interpreted. Current DoS staff has explained why we made the decision we did with respect to post-defeat alignment. We have explained why we still feel that our interpretation of the rules is correct with respect to post-defeat alignment. We have also stated plans to clarify the rules so that they will state our interpretation expressly moving forward.

So far, we've heard several arguments that the rules already allow post-defeat alignment change. We hear you, but as noted above, we disagree.

However, we haven't heard any arguments why we should allow post-defeat alignment changes. We have explained in-game reasons why we don't think outgoing barons should retain this ability. But you disagree, and we hear that. But why? How would allowing this benefit the game? How does allowing this outweigh the potential concerns articulated in my previous post and in Cajsa's?

We absolutely welcome that discussion. We're open to having our minds changed. We're open to hearing your arguments why you feel strongly that the baron should retain this ability as a benefit to the game.

[Kalamere]

Personally, I'm good with the decision - just in case that wasn't clear. I can agree with the consequences argument.

Any time a baron gets involved as a champion or advocate, I think the same consequences aspect comes into play. I've seen plenty of barons (my own characters included) make enemies based on who they chose to support and suffer quick challenge to their own title as a result. That aspect is off the table in the lame duck baron scenario.

I was just proposing you could put it into play by awarding a new title holder those rights (and only those rights) once they've won the title, without waiting for the standings. The outgoing baron loses those rights, but gets a few days to pack up and move out of the manor house, and their squire hangs onto the manor weapon for a bit - but when it comes to the political machinations of the sport, allow the new title holder enter immediately and paint a target on their back if they so choose.