Alignment and the Standings

[Delahada]

My argument for allowing the outgoing baron to change their alignment as has been discussed above comes from the rules as they are written now, specifically what Maggie has cited multiple times.

From the Duel of Swords Official Rules, section Baron Rank, Benefits, Alignment & Council, subheading Baron Alignment, number 6 (https://rhydin.org/forums/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.

And coincides with section The Standings, article 2 (https://rhydin.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=195672#p195672):

Title changes are not considered official until they are listed in the standings.

Therefore, during the time of the challenge mentioned above, Ettyn was still the reigning baron of Old Market and should have been allowed to change her alignment to Renegade to benefit the Challenger (Amaris) and act as her Advocate where there was not one until Caleb showed up at the last minute and was talked into using his alignment to benefit her instead. This, however, was after, behind the scenes, Ettyn was told she could not change alignment, and I was told specifically that I could not Advocate because I was not officially the Baron listed on the standings, yet.

The above clause in The Standings is also why I took such issue with Caleb petitioning to become a Loyal baron last night, just so that he could issue a Test of Worthiness. Good RP? Sure. But also absolutely unnecessary when Hope could have, again as per the rules, chosen absolutely any duelist whatsoever that she wanted to act as her Champion in a Test of Worthiness. From an RP perspective, Caleb doing this really only reinforced just how easily he can be bought.

From section Overlord Challenge Terms, subsection Tests of Worthiness in an Overlord Challenge, clauses 1 & 2
(https://rhydin.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=195679#p195679):

1. Loyal Barons and the Overlord’s Squire may volunteer to test challengers in a “Test of Worthiness” on behalf of the Overlord, provided the Overlord accepts the intercession. Squires must meet the conditions noted under the Squire Test, found in the Squire Title & Benefits section.

2. The Overlord has the right to appoint any active duelist, with the exception of a Renegade Baron, to test a Challenger the Overlord deems unfit in a "Test of Worthiness". This may be done only once per challenge. The appointed Champion may refuse. If refused, no new Champion may be chosen.

Nowhere in the rules, as they are currently written, does it state that a Renegade baron can immediately petition to become Loyal to make good on clause 1, and nowhere does it state that an outgoing baron can not do all the things they're already allowed to do while they are still listed as the baron on the standings. In fact, the rules as they are written now state exactly otherwise.

Given the staff's decision on this matter, I look forward to the rewrites to the rules to come, and hope that they clearly reflect what is permitted of incoming and outgoing barons, and what is not.

Regardless of my arguments above, I actually stand with Kalamere and agree, as I've already said, with this suggestion:

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.

By the way ... Sal's still a Renegade, and even though he got cheated out of that possibility, he and I would both like to see the opportunity made available for future duelists.

[Mairead Harker]

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.

I support this idea. If the incoming Baron does act as an advocate before the standings are published then they should be allowed use of the five fancies for those challenge matches.

[PC]

Much of this seems like RAI (Rule as Intended) vs RAW (Rule as Written). I believe the DoS team understands the RAW argument and has given their reasoning for their viewed intent of the rule in their assessment of it. It would be best to use the reasoning provided by the team as a spring point to why a player may think contrary to it. I personally see the reasoning with the DoS teams decision and am fine with it, as it is a very niche issue that will rarely come up and can be easily averted by a title holder (from my point of view as a player in the sport and someone who has won & held titles in it. It is what I would do in this case.) waiting until a Saturday to fight in a challenge if they would like to use the full benefit of their position throughout a week.

To speak of roleplay reasoning. An argument could be made that while an outgoing Baron holds no repercussions to changing their alignment in the form of Renegade Queue, they may suffer in the long-term from those who recall it. A future Overlord can choose to not offer to act as a Test of Worthiness for them due to their willingness to throw aside loyalty when they are heading out the door. The community will remember these actions and the good or bad it caused, and should they challenge and gain a title in the future they may well be forced to face the consequences. An outgoing Overlord is available to issue a test upon challengers to their former, yet current within that week period, loyal Barons without facing repercussions due to it. They are unable to be challenged by Renegades or the Warlord who they stalled in their attempted challenge. From that I would gauge that the answer is much of the same as earlier in this paragraph, their actions will be looked upon at a later date and deemed appropriate or not by the then-current active community in the sports title picture.

[Claire Gallows]

Alright, lots of posts since my last one. Gonna be long winded, buckle up.

Here are my reasons as to why it should have been allowed.

Precedent. Precedent supports on the fly, in the moment alignment changes that take effect immediately. Precedent is an excellent reason for why it should be allowed. Not to say that we should do something because it's always been done that way, but in the moment, it's best to lean on what has been established. As I said before, if you want to go with a different spirit instead of the rules as written, that's fine but change the rules to match what your intentions are. Because as it stands, the rules contradict your ruling. You state that you made your decisions "based on the rules as written". The rules as written state they may change alignment at any time. So really, your decision was based on rules as intended, which is something different seeing as the line about changing alignment at any time seems pretty expressly clear as to meaning, if not intention.

Tearing into an interpretation this heavily signals to me a very, very clear delineation between RAI and RAW that should be corrected one way or the other.

Conner wrote: "[T]he risk/benefits of alignment are balanced on the assumption that the baron will continue to hold the title."

How so? Where in the past or current rules has anything implied this? Where was this a consideration? I ask these questions because this seems to be a behind the scenes thing that is 110% unclear and I say that as someone with past insight into working up rules and making decisions on this. It flat out does not make sense to me when aligned with my understanding of the rules.

If you don't like the idea of being able to switch it on the fly, then just say so and that you want to change it as such. But trying to prop it up behind the current rules just feels flimsy and prime to be picked apart.

My next reason: My statement about tying up a baron's ability to do what the rules allow. In this case, change alignments and test/counter for a test. The decision does make it so that a title is afforded fewer rights than a current title and may result in a Baron being unable to exercise a right granted to them by the rules.

Casja stated: "The Baron retains the perks of their rank and alignment until the next standings update."

Flat out, no they do not. A perk of being a baron is the ability to intercede on a test should one wish to change alignment. The ability to change to Renegade immediately is an established perk that has never been listed as contingent upon whether you have your title with the next standings update. If that were the case, we should be eliminating the ability to intercede for outgoing renegade barons as well as the ability of outgoing Overlords to test. By this rationale, a challenge done on a Sunday night effectively renders the option (an option granted by the rules as they are) of a barony to go Renegade impossible for a week until the standings update. How does that align with retaining the perks? Short answer, it doesn't.

Cajsa also mentioned: "Challenges are considered complete and official when the standings are posted."

So it stands to reason that until the challenge is complete, a loyal baron should have the same rights they have at any other time in their loyal reign, which should include the ability to change their alignment. You can't have it both ways, where it's not official until the standings are posted but you lose an ability before the standings are posted.

Additionally from Cajsa: How often do people change alignments, and why should it be allowed to be done without any consequence?

Is there no longer the caveat about how often you can change your alignment? That's definitely a consequence. Consequences also come ICly via roleplay. This is a niche situation that will happen rarely so I think the focus on trying to punish someone mechanically when they've effectively already been punished by losing their title seems like adding insult to injury.

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.

So we're worried about hypothetical people being 'robbed' of a perk rather than worrying about robbing someone in a title already. I do apologize, but I think we should be more worried about the perks for those with the titles rather than the 'maybes' of 'well maybe this could potentially possibly perhaps happen and then it couldn't because of someone actually in the role'. Current title holders' rights trump whataboutism potentials, in my opinion. Renegades have their rights through the last day of their reign when the standings update. They are robbed of nothing either.

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.

If anyone legitimately thinks no gameplay can come from it and that the politics magically stop the moment someone loses their title, I don't know what to tell you except that you (general you) should look at it more closely. Because repercussions for decisions have been seen for characters through multiple reigns/challenges/etc that were tied to past decisions. We are all effective and creative roleplayers, the options for this really are limitless. Allowing this to play out ICly, I think, feels like a better alternative to trying to micromanage mechanics.

How would allowing this benefit the game? How does allowing this outweigh the potential concerns articulated in my previous post and in Cajsa's?

I feel like several posts already touched on these questions, perhaps indirectly. I tried to address some of them above. But for summation, Duel of Swords has a smaller number of RP hooks aside from the politics and the manors, as compared to the hooks seen in DoF and DoM. DoS is a sport of history, politics, cats paws, and making deals. Empowering those abilities, letting people play the 'chess game' of it for both the short game and the long game ICly seems like a win for the community. Restricting it for the sake of what? Feeling like someone should be mechanically punished for switching alignments (as opposed to letting it play out ICly)? That feels counter-intuitive to the spirit of the game in my opinion.

The latest rule change in DoS, about shortening the acceptance period, was justified with the reasoning of "to reduce the time between a challenge being issued and a challenge being completed, reduce the wait time for challengers, and prevent grace periods from being strategically extended." If we are looking to try and keep titles in play with all facets of the process available and able to be utilized, I think this falls under that umbrella as well. Add in the tactical aspect of this new precedent making it more attractive to schedule your challenge as late in the week as possible so as to maintain your full list of perks? It seems the very spirit and reasoning for the other rule change could (and should) apply to this as well.

And that is my long ass almost midnight post for the day.

[Hope]

There are a lot of ideas and thoughts being exchanged in this thread up to this point. Far too many for me to make note of each one individually that I agree with or disagree with without leaving you all with a full Ted Talk script; so instead I'll give an anecdote of a situation that happened regarding my own DoS title stint and a hypothetical for everyone to consider.

After winning the Overlord title I sat on my hands eagerly waiting my turn to start. Due to work most of my dueling availability happens on my days off(Sunday and Monday) which remain true to this day. So when Lilith and I dueled it was on a Sunday night after Standings had already been posted. We all knew that going in. I knew that going into my challenge last night as well that standings were dry by the time the challenge happens.

The very next evening the Cadentia challenge took place and Lilith tested the challenger. Hope was present and that night and at no point did I feel it was appropriate- or even made sense for Hope to have a say in the matter. This Baron had no alignment present since the standings didn't roll over, they couldn't be Loyal or Renegade to Hope. I have no idea how this would get further complicated if incoming title holders can just insert themselves into these things. As far as Overlords go it complicates it for the entire sport.

Now the hypothetical I wanted to bring up is say an Overlord is on their way out, title loss, forfeiture and etc. On the topic of consequences and their weight in the sport if the lame Overlord was to just throw their hands up and banish all Loyals to Renegade. They could do that and every single Loyal Baron is now assed out of their grace period. All of the Overlord's friends could line up and throw challenges in at zero repercussion to the Overlord. They don't have to worry about instant challenge queues or the resulting fallout of these actions. This feels to me very parallel to the idea of switching alignments once the title is lost. When the payouts of these political decisions are lopsided to exclude actionable repercussions, they can no longer be considered playable.

That's just how I feel about it.

[Mairead Harker]

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.

If anyone legitimately thinks no gameplay can come from it and that the politics magically stop the moment someone loses their title, I don't know what to tell you except that you (general you) should look at it more closely. Because repercussions for decisions have been seen for characters through multiple reigns/challenges/etc that were tied to past decisions. We are all effective and creative roleplayers, the options for this really are limitless. Allowing this to play out ICly, I think, feels like a better alternative to trying to micromanage mechanics.

I can speak from personal experience on this. Maggie has been dealing with the consequences of her actions from a challenge match, two years ago. It did not end when she lost Old Temple to Gloria.

[Claire Gallows]

Now the hypothetical I wanted to bring up is say an Overlord is on their way out, title loss, forfeiture and etc. On the topic of consequences and their weight in the sport if the lame Overlord was to just throw their hands up and banish all Loyals to Renegade. They could do that and every single Loyal Baron is now assed out of their grace period. All of the Overlord's friends could line up and throw challenges in at zero repercussion to the Overlord. They don't have to worry about instant challenge queues or the resulting fallout of these actions. This feels to me very parallel to the idea of switching alignments once the title is lost. When the payouts of these political decisions are lopsided to exclude actionable repercussions, they can no longer be considered playable.

That's just how I feel about it.

Playability is not restricted to mechanical functions.

At the end of the day, dueling is meant to be an extension of our roleplaying, not the end all, be all. But should an Overlord do that (which mind you, we're meant to be talking about outgoing Barons rather than Overlords (who often have different rules applied to them anyways) here, but we'll go with it for shits and giggles), it is a political decision just the same that can cause sudden tumult ICly, leave people scrambling, and prompts a slew of possibilities play wise. An Overlord does that to most of my characters? Can bet your ass that at least one or two of them would gun for that person the moment they try to step back into the title game and the IC animosity that would ensue would hardly cease with the conclusion of their reign. Hell, we've all seen some grudges carry over through multiple titles across all three sports.

That said, how often are we running into this for it to be the giant, gamebreaking thing that it's being framed as? Shit, the political atmosphere has been pretty lackluster for well over a year (even during my time as OL and before). Give people more stuff to play off of instead of scripting everything to a T. I feel like these situations encourage opportunities for interaction IC, for story building and the like, as these functions intend, without prematurely reducing a titleholder's capabilities. Stories don't stop with the end of a reign, our characters don't stop existing with the end of a reign, why would the play opportunities stop then either?

But that's a rant for another day, I guess. Claire's soapbox tl;dr so that I'm not coming back to this all day... IMO "Playable" is only as limited as our imaginations, disallowing things allowed by the words of the rules is not great for future calls (unless rewrites occur, of course), and calls that put a title's abilities in limbo for whatever length of time are counterproductive to the overall health of the sport. Two bits, take 'em as you will.

[Hope]

It feels like we're approaching this topic at slightly different angles. I brought up the Overlord analogy because it's an example of an unfair move. When I said it cannot be considered playable, I'm speaking from a game theory perspective. The rules in my example state that if a Loyal Baron is banished Renegade, they can then immediately challenge the Overlord superseding all current challenges. In my example, by the rules and the state of the Overlord having already lost, these rules cannot function. It is unfair to the Barons and excludes the actionable repercussions and is void of written counterplay.

From the Baronial Challenge Terms:

1. Renegades are open to any and all challenges from Warlords and Overlord Grant recipients.

By the rules, becoming Renegade means you are now effectively challengable at all times, including a queue, with no grace. So if you are in the incredibly unique state of being unchallengable(because you have lost your title, the one foreseeable situation in which this can occur I believe), logically you cannot become a Renegade, because it is defined by being challengable. To switch to Renegade while incurring none of the written debuffs would be unfair and it would be breaking the rules.

[Claire Gallows]

It feels like we're approaching this topic at slightly different angles. I brought up the Overlord analogy because it's an example of an unfair move. When I said it cannot be considered playable, I'm speaking from a game theory perspective. The rules in my example state that if a Loyal Baron is banished Renegade, they can then immediately challenge the Overlord superseding all current challenges. In my example, by the rules and the state of the Overlord having already lost, these rules cannot function. It is unfair to the Barons and excludes the actionable repercussions and is void of written counterplay.

From the Baronial Challenge Terms:

1. Renegades are open to any and all challenges from Warlords and Overlord Grant recipients.

By the rules, becoming Renegade means you are now effectively challengable at all times, including a queue, with no grace. So if you are in the incredibly unique state of being unchallengable(because you have lost your title, the one foreseeable situation in which this can occur I believe), logically you cannot become a Renegade, because it is defined by being challengable. To switch to Renegade while incurring none of the written debuffs would be unfair and it would be breaking the rules.

While I disagree that it's unfair or breaking the rules, you present an interesting view in regards to how a Renegade is defined. You've essentially pointed out contradicting points that cannot co-exist together. So how do we balance a right written in the rules versus a definition written in the rules? Because that's what we need to do here is balance that. Do we change the rules to reflect the inability to change it because of this?

I think honestly the best call is to simply amend the rules to state switching is not allowed when you lose your title. Some will disagree with it (myself included), but it would then be defined and supported by the RAW instead of RAI. It may come at the cost of people potentially reacting by pushing their challenges back to the end of the week so that they don't risk losing that right, but if that's a cost we're willing to pay, then that's that.

[Delahada]

Claire, I 100% appreciate the hell out of you in this discussion, and agree with pretty much everything you've written. I don't have much else to contribute, but I did want to throw in my support behind this:

I think honestly the best call is to simply amend the rules to state switching is not allowed when you lose your title. Some will disagree with it (myself included), but it would then be defined and supported by the RAW instead of RAI. It may come at the cost of people potentially reacting by pushing their challenges back to the end of the week so that they don't risk losing that right, but if that's a cost we're willing to pay, then that's that.

Additionally, I once again want to state that if X then Y. If the ruling going forward is that outgoing barons lose their rights, then I think it's only fair to allow the incoming baron to gain theirs, before the standings are officially updated. Provided they have declared their alignment, like Kalamere said above.

Overall it looks as if quite a lot of the RAW needs some revision. I would very much like to see these policies very clearly expressed in future updates.

[Mairead Harker]

I think honestly the best call is to simply amend the rules to state switching is not allowed when you lose your title. Some will disagree with it (myself included), but it would then be defined and supported by the RAW instead of RAI. It may come at the cost of people potentially reacting by pushing their challenges back to the end of the week so that they don't risk losing that right, but if that's a cost we're willing to pay, then that's that.

This is the crux of things. Since the DoS team has decided this is how it is then the rule regarding Loyal Barons being able to change alignment at any time needs to be amended to reflect that it's not allowed during the interim between losing their title and the new Baron officially claiming the rights and privileges of the rank.

The rule as presently written is quite clear.
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.

I am curious as to why the clause in the rules wasn't amended when the decision regarding Ettyn not being allowed to switch was made. That would have made sense, clarified things for the long haul, saved everyone headaches, and prevented the need for this discussion. Whether or not one agrees with the ruling, it would have jived with RAW.

Claire has made several comments/examples comparing RAW and RAI. I'd like to take things from a slightly different perspective.
Someone is driving on a stretch of highway that's posted as 75 mph and gets pulled over. When they ask why, they are told the city officials decided that the stretch of road should be 65 and the driver is now breaking the law. When the case gets to court the judge throws it out because the city officials failed to back that intention to change the speed limit with a corresponding ordinance in the books and failed to change the signs to appropriately notify drivers.

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.

I think you are being very short sighted with your example of in RP response since some RP rivalries, etc. have being going on for a very long time as the saying goes, since Tass was there to see Lupton father dirt. Ettyn gained a few friends/allies and possibly the reverse for being willing to act on Amaris's behalf. Those things have long term effects on RP and on more than who has what title and when.

[PC]

The fixes would actually be quite easy.

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.

Replaced with,

6. 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.
c. When a Baron is defeated in a challenge they are unable to change their alignment before the official standings update.

This can be even more simplified by melding 6. and C. together, though the wording would need to be touched up some.

[PC]

As a follow up,

I also think we as players need to put some burden on our own shoulders in this situation and Renegade Barons interested in the play of politics during their reigns should keep an eye on the forums to know when challenges will take place. At the time of the challenge in question there were 4 Renegade Barons. Due diligence should be done by challengers and Renegade Barons in moments like that, more so when a Loyal Baron is challenged. Duel of Swords challenges are harsh especially to new players who may be blindsided by situations they weren't expecting, so it is good for those in the title game to be proactive and look out for possible future allies.

[Mairead Harker]

The fixes would actually be quite easy.

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.

Replaced with,

6. 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.
c. When a Baron is defeated in a challenge they are unable to change their alignment before the official standings update.

This can be even more simplified by melding 6. and C. together, though the wording would need to be touched up some.

Having it as 6. Barons may change their alignment at any time, in writing on the Public Notice Board. and not specifying Loyals has the rule reading/implying Renegades can also automatically change alignment. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with that proposed wording.

[PC]

Having it as 6. Barons may change their alignment at any time, in writing on the Public Notice Board. and not specifying Loyals has the rule reading/implying Renegades can also automatically change alignment. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with that proposed wording.

This is already covered by:

5. Renegades may petition for Loyal alignment pending approval of the Overlord. The Overlord may refuse the realignment for any given reason. This is not the same as a banishment.

This can be also simplified with 5 being erased all together and folded into 6 (which then gets renamed 5).

5. 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.
c. Renegades may petition for Loyal alignment pending approval of the Overlord. The Overlord may refuse the realignment for any given reason. This is not the same as a banishment. A Renegade Baron who switches their alignment to Loyal in this way is unable to change their alignment to Renegade for a minimum of two weeks (14 days) after the standings (with their Loyal alignment) are considered official.
d. When a Baron is defeated in a challenge they are unable to change their alignment before the official standings update.

It just depends on how bloated the rule wants to look or not. B and C could be simplified into one post, though two show a clear difference. One being free choice while the other is through petition.