More Rules Discussion: Part 3

[G]

Currently, Barons have their alignments of Loyal and Renegade. We all know that Barons can change their alignments. At one point, it became a matter of "when can Barons change their alignments and when does it take effect, immediately or does it only become official when reflected on the standings." It's my belief that for the sake of RP political maneuvering, it was decided that it would be considered in effect immediately.

The most recent explanation made by me was this:

Code: Select all

Providing a post is made on the forums, switching alignments to Renegade will be considered official instantly. A Renegade Baron must publicly petition on the forums and be publicly accepted by the Overlord to be Loyal. The Baron will be instantly recognized as Loyal upon acceptance of the Overlord. All challenge rules then apply upon these alignment switches.

I don't really have a problem with that. It makes for good political RP. For example, Overlord Cat is Overlord and is Challenged by Warlord Dog. Loyal Baron Parrot doesn't like that, so says "No Fair. I am switching to Renegade and shall valiantly defend Dogs right to challenge!"

As it is now, Parrot can do that. I am okay with this, as well. The reverse could happen, too. An Overlord can accept Loyalty from a Renegade Baron on the spot if it can benefit them. Political manuevering. Good stuff, right?

My concern that popped up as I was looking these over was this. Someone can go "Okay, I switch to Renegade to block this test." Then after the fight say "Okay, now I want to go Loyal." and the Overlord can say "Okay." and the Baron is Loyal again. It's something that could be abused.

So my proposal/thought is this. Once a Baron switches alignment, they are unable to switch it again for a period of (X) days.

Comments, suggestions and thoughts are welcomed.

[Spell]

Could treat it with the same rule as a Warlord who loses a challenge match.

A Baron may change alignments, provided they post their alignment change on the forums, at any time. Should they do so they must wait fourteen (14) days after updated standings before they are allowed to do it again.

But, yeah, in a better written way.

[Claire Gallows]

Politically speaking, why would an OL take back a Baron that just swapped sides on them? I mean, if they really want to do that, I say more power to them. But if you really feel the need to put a restriction on it, I'd say 7 days sounds reasonable to me.

[Spell]

Politically speaking, why would an OL take back a Baron that just swapped sides on them? I mean, if they really want to do that, I say more power to them. But if you really feel the need to put a restriction on it, I'd say 7 days sounds reasonable to me.

Only reason I could see is, let's say a Overlord is challenged by a Warlord. There are already renegade barons who may be able to counter the OL's test for the Warlord. A baron close to the OL, who knows the tester is better than him/her/xir decides to go Renegade to insure that the OL champion wins the test, forcing the Warlord to now have to face the tester and OL.

That's all I can really think of for a reason an Overlord would take a loyal who switched renegade who then petitions for loyal all in one night.

That or the Overlord gives zero **** and is too chill to care.

7 days sounds better than 14, IMO.

[Claire Gallows]

Politically speaking, why would an OL take back a Baron that just swapped sides on them? I mean, if they really want to do that, I say more power to them. But if you really feel the need to put a restriction on it, I'd say 7 days sounds reasonable to me.

Only reason I could see is, let's say a Overlord is challenged by a Warlord. There are already renegade barons who may be able to counter the OL's test for the Warlord. A baron close to the OL, who knows the tester is better than him/her/xir decides to go Renegade to insure that the OL champion wins the test, forcing the Warlord to now have to face the tester and OL.

That's all I can really think of for a reason an Overlord would take a loyal who switched renegade who then petitions for loyal all in one night.

That or the Overlord gives zero **** and is too chill to care.

7 days sounds better than 14, IMO.

Then I'd say that's a good IC reason to go challenge said overlord and/or baron. -shrug-

[Goldglo]

I'd say 30 days vs. 7 or 14, personally. Alignment swaps should (I feel) have story behind them and potential consequences. A week, or even 14 days, just doesn't seem a long enough break. At the extreme (not that I think it'd ever get close to this or that Overlords would tolerate all the back and forth), 7 days could theoretically allow for one Baron to have 52 alignment changes in a single year.

--Matt

[Karnafexx]

Been a while but coming from someone who has defended many OLs
I can see a situation where a baron who is truly loyal to an OL could turn renegade over a difference in viewpoints, for instance: OL feels challenger is unworthy and will test yet baron truly believes differently and turns renegade to thwart test of worthiness (is that still how it works?) through RP OL agrees and changes his/her stance and rewins the support of newly renegade baron/baroness. The delay would affect the situation if say, through RP, the challenger to the OL then said/did something that would cause the newly supporting baron to then want to intercede in a test of worthiness.

Sounds like a good role play and is an outlier but it's how I could see a defection and back happening in a matter of hours or less.

It's something I would definitely role play but it's saint Patrick's day and I'm seven beers In. So if this is way off please ignore the old man.

::smoochies::

[Karnafexx]

Maybe an RDI notification is all if its a truly on-the-fly RP situation but would need confirmation from both baron and OL? Maybe a little RDI discretion in certain situations? Just saying this because the best RP is always last minute seat of the pants improvisation and a fixed timeline would stifle that

[Kalamere]

I'd prefer to see it left as is I think. After the recent bit of controversy with OL/Baron rule abuse, I guess we're a little more suspicious of potential avenues of abuse, but all in all this one hasn't been knocked around too much over the years. The abuse case seems fairly narrow and there are places where it could make for good play.

I'd especially like to keep the reverse situation (Renegade turns loyal and then quickly back to renegade) remain an option. It can be manipulated, but I envision a scenario where an OL makes certain promises to a baron to get them to turn loyal and then fails to follow through, causing the baron to want to switch back.

I could see changing things such that becoming loyal isn't official until the standings go up, but mostly I think things are currently ok with this rule set.

~Kal

edit: removing specific names upon request

[Jake]

I'd prefer to see it left as is I think. After the recent bit of controversy with OL/Baron rule abuse, I guess we're a little more suspicious of potential avenues of abuse, but all in all this one hasn't been knocked around too much over the years. The abuse case seems fairly narrow and there are places where it could make for good play.

I'd especially like to keep the reverse situation (Renegade turns loyal and then quickly back to renegade) remain an option. It can be manipulated, but I envision a scenario where an OL makes certain promises to a baron to get them to turn loyal and then fails to follow through, causing the baron to want to switch back.

I could see changing things such that becoming loyal isn't official until the standings go up, but mostly I think things are currently ok with this rule set.

~Kal

Generally agree with Kal's points.

There's RP potential. The abuse case is narrow, and likely to generate repercussions (ones that will likely lead to more challenges).

Renegade: I'd like to be Loyal. If you'll do this...
OL: ok, I'll accept your Loyalty, but this...
Renegade-now-Loyal: Yay!
--some event/challenge/whatever--
Renegade-now-Loyal: Ok, great. You suck. I'm going Renegade again.
OL: ...very well...do not expect me to accept your Loyalty again

and perhaps later...

OL: I grant the OL Grant to [insert name], please go beat up Renegade-again.

It's got potential for challenge-dodging abuse, but I think it's got great potential for interesting RP/storylines which is kinda what makes the histories interesting.

[DUEL Gabby]

Looks like this discussion has died down. No one else wants to voice an opinion? We're gonna give it another day or so and then post a decision, so don't be shy. This discussion is for every member of the community.

[Shadowlord]

I'd prefer to see it left as is I think. After the recent bit of controversy with OL/Baron rule abuse, I guess we're a little more suspicious of potential avenues of abuse, but all in all this one hasn't been knocked around too much over the years. The abuse case seems fairly narrow and there are places where it could make for good play.

I'd especially like to keep the reverse situation (Renegade turns loyal and then quickly back to renegade) remain an option. It can be manipulated, but I envision a scenario where an OL makes certain promises to a baron to get them to turn loyal and then fails to follow through, causing the baron to want to switch back.

I could see changing things such that becoming loyal isn't official until the standings go up, but mostly I think things are currently ok with this rule set.

~Kal

Generally agree with Kal's points.

There's RP potential. The abuse case is narrow, and likely to generate repercussions (ones that will likely lead to more challenges).

Renegade: I'd like to be Loyal. If you'll do this...
OL: ok, I'll accept your Loyalty, but this...
Renegade-now-Loyal: Yay!
--some event/challenge/whatever--
Renegade-now-Loyal: Ok, great. You suck. I'm going Renegade again.
OL: ...very well...do not expect me to accept your Loyalty again

and perhaps later...

OL: I grant the OL Grant to [insert name], please go beat up Renegade-again.

It's got potential for challenge-dodging abuse, but I think it's got great potential for interesting RP/storylines which is kinda what makes the histories interesting.

This. I particularly agree that the abuse case is narrow, and cannot think of a case of someone vacillating on their alignment in this way. I don't see any reason for the rule to be in place. There are already checks and balances for OLs to deal with potentially fickle Barons.

[Hope]

I am happy that the current DoS crew is discussing points such as these after recent events that have transpired. I don't think there can always be a perfect fix to every hole but I think everyone that has contributed thus far has brought up nothing but valid points.

There was a perfect storm of treading current rules which led to a decent bit of stagnation recently.

I agree that alignments carry weight with them and I understand why the discussion of a cooldown period is being considered. I don't really know if I've seen abuse regarding it though. As various people have stated before me, there are legitimate reasons why a baron would need to alter his alignment from Loyal to Renegade back to Loyal again.

I don't think a rule to constrict player's options in play is really the solution to the issue but I agree with the concern that this type of thing -could- be a dilemma in the future.

This might be considered too much as an option but here's a thought that crossed my mind. If a Baron goes from Loyal to Renegade then back Loyal in two days back to back, there really wasn't a tangible window for anyone to check that. Any challenges forthcoming could be interceded upon and from then you'd be relying on any Renegade Barons to have your back and be willing to test. What I'm thinking is if a Baron goes from Loyal to Renegade and back and a challenge is issued while they are Renegade, treat the challenge as you would at the time of it being issued, assuming it is validated and legal. I know this is still a direction in a constricting of play and that might be too much for players and I could definitely see that being the case, but this is just the best compromise I could think of.

[Claire Gallows]

This might be considered too much as an option but here's a thought that crossed my mind. If a Baron goes from Loyal to Renegade then back Loyal in two days back to back, there really wasn't a tangible window for anyone to check that. Any challenges forthcoming could be interceded upon and from then you'd be relying on any Renegade Barons to have your back and be willing to test. What I'm thinking is if a Baron goes from Loyal to Renegade and back and a challenge is issued while they are Renegade, treat the challenge as you would at the time of it being issued, assuming it is validated and legal. I know this is still a direction in a constricting of play and that might be too much for players and I could definitely see that being the case, but this is just the best compromise I could think of.

Only trouble I see there is that if a long standing Renegade gets challenged now, they have the option of going Loyal before their challenge (if the OL accepts of course) and capitalizing on the test option. Unless you propose changing that for all Renegades, regardless of when they switched alignments most recently, I don't feel that's particularly fair to take that option from those that switched Loyal-Ren-Loyal. Arguably, I'd say someone that stays Renegade up until they need the OL to test before switching is less of a loyal than someone who switches sides briefly for political or moral reasons.

[Hope]

It could be simply applicable to people who recently switch from Loyal to Renegade. Kind of like a debuff that's temporary. "Deserter" - Recently abandoned Loyalty from the Overlord.

Maybe this could be an alternative to altering someone's In Character story experience and tweaking the issue at a more game-play perspective. It might be a little more difficult to measure but I think it's something that could provide a few boons to play. Maybe set the duration length as 'x days OR dueling x times to clear the status'.