The Edelreich

[Sarge]

Waaaaaay over the top.

Anyways, I hope you have fun experimenting with this as I do.

Highly doubtful.

[Amanda44]

I like the idea. I'm all for more social interaction within the game itself, and having something more fun to do as we go through the dry late spell of haven. I'm just not sure anyone would read the lengthy post, or that many would care to follow it. but who knows.
like anything, it's worth a try.

What, with Vaku as overseer of the hearthlands?

i respect your enthusiasm, but tl;dr

Lol, I completely thought that putting a neat picture at the top would keep it interesting enough to at least read the first paragraph.

It worked for me -

as Amanda suggests, some villages from A.D. should join.

Let's be accurate, I suggested you may like Koya to join up, lol, it is afterall AD you will be replacing.

I find you interesting Vaku and I get that you're interested in social and political set-ups, I am too, it's just the way you go about it, lol, it's always so 'forced' and as Koya says and Graal thought, it's as if you are the voice of authority. It just makes me want to rebel.

But, I guess you have to start somewhere, lol, I just think you should employ a bit more subtlety when you want to take over the world.

[NOOBY93]

You probably mean some members of A.D., not some villages from it?

[Eemerald]

I like the idea. I'm all for more social interaction within the game itself, and having something more fun to do as we go through the dry late spell of haven. I'm just not sure anyone would read the lengthy post, or that many would care to follow it. but who knows.
like anything, it's worth a try.

What, with Vaku as overseer of the hearthlands?

well with minor amendments. If it was more a council of lawspeakers who deal with issues, rather than 1 person dealing with a bunch of lawspeakers..it still gives towns authority over their town, their resources, their doings or whatever. but I didn't read it all tbh, but vaku's ideas interest me. I don't see them as someone trying to take over, but maybe I'm missing something!

[LadyV]

I do wish you luck with your undertaking. I however shall remain neutral.

[ninja_yodeler]

The concept is pretty cool, but you need to revise your constitution regarding deaths and hermits.
Because most villages elect law speakers and chiefs and hirdsmen, due to the player, not the character, so making the lawspeaker relinquish their position when they die is just silly, because you pick the right person to speak for a village the first time, if they happen to die to then where is the benefit in forcing someone less proficient to the podium so to speak. And that applies to all your rules regarding death of politically important people.


Also you have no room for hermits in that system?
Unless they stood in for themselves in all positions with various alts? A hermit who knows what he's doing can get along just as well as a large village, and by making room for them in your Empire, or united nations or whatever this is, you offer them the one thing a hermit doesn't always have, protection in numbers, trusting allies and easy access to fast trading or teleport travelling. (if you set up the whole thing well enough to last that is) And so a large majority of hermits then wish to join you for these benefits, giving you a larger number of friends and allies, outposts and information, and social connectivity (favours for a friend of a friend make the world go 'round)

As it is you're excluding a large portion of players because of your system that seems more than a little over done for a complexity that will in the end, just prove tedious and not very helpful at all.

[Unostop]

[bitza]

[Vaku]

I typed the below very early on

You will be asked if you have read our constitution. We cannot stop you from skimming, or even not reading the constitution, but it would behoove you to understand what you are agreeing to, should you agree to join.

(It effectively translate to 'I don't expect you to read it.')

If they happen to die to then where is the benefit in forcing someone less proficient to the podium so to speak. And that applies to all your rules regarding death of politically important people.

I put in life-long terms for, as you correctly interpreted, the length of the in-game character's life. I do this for two reason. It gets rid of the superfluous and original voting system with terms, and years and cycles.

The second reason is that it implies an interesting transition of power. Assassination under the system has an ulterior purpose than just the death of the leader. The former leader could be killed and the vote for a more popular person to take place, for better or worse. Additionally, in a perfect world, people would be compelled to use one character for their HnH experience, and death and life would be meaningful through that. This is an attempt to make those stations meaningful.

There should be another measure in place to remove ineffective leaders, i.e. impeachment for other stations than the Sovereign.

If it was more a council of lawspeakers who deal with issues, rather than 1 person dealing with a bunch of lawspeakers.

When re-purposing the U.S. Constitution I did not throw out the clauses that create the system of Checks and Balances, though with how I rewrote the position of the executive, it could become a bit stagnant in that branch.

I'll see what I can do. I am glad I am no longer looking at this in a vacuum and appreciate all of your comments.

___________________________________________________________

I am very curious on what you guys think on the actual naturalization questions
Towards the end, I gave a bit of a personality quiz. I go through the answers, and based on the answers, I set you up with a village that matches with the results.

4 of the questions are "Read the Situation" then "Write in your answer."

4 more of the questions are "Select A or B" which describe your preferred actions.

Final question asks for your timezone.

These all help me to identify what kind of gamer you are, and as I said earlier, help to find what village you would be most comfortable to start in, but by no means does it translate that you must stay in that village.

Similarly, all the village are assessed for their "personality." Aggressive villages, might receive a greater concentration of people who give aggressive answers, and a lower concentration of peaceable players for their benefits to infrastructure; whereas, Peaceful villages gain a greater concentration of peaceable players, but lower concentration of aggressive players.

For all the player types that I am assessing, here is some additional reading: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6 ... hp?print=1

I do not address age, I base maturity off of the written answers, though for legality, I should probably ask that question, for villages that are concerned if their members are under 18, however I cannot stop people from lying, which is why I believe that there should be some written answers.

Personally, I think I could make the process shorter (Even after putting it on Googledocs and streamlining it). I want to know if the questions are boring or too difficult to read, especially for individuals where English is not their first language.

Thanks all for your time in letting me know what you think abou the above.

[LadyV]

Alright Vaku I will reply to your long winded declaration. First of all let me say your attempt at republican government is greatly lacking and has little remaining of the U.S. Constitution.

First of all your intent is purely to stir up mayhem. You clearly state this throughout the whole document. By vesting the power to elect a LS in the hands of appointed Hirdsmen and chieftan... Oh what power structures do we see here? Certainly not Republics. You instead recreated feudalism.

You limit the term of a LS to their characters life. Thus encouraging their death or assasination to force change. Then it goes the the Chieftan by default, regardless of village wishes. So now we have a king and his nobility and when the nobility are not happy they replace the king. Oh yes that worked well for the middle ages didn't it.

You further create village zones of control that are theirs to do with. Oh how nice nice a fife to rule as you wish and as long as you pay your taxes and are good servants to the king do what you want. I would call it a pyrmid system but unlike the real feudal period there is not a church/clerical power level so its more a have an have not system.

Taxes, duties, excise...I can see that one going over well. Lets not even go into your council of nobles can tell you who to trade with and how much.... So you want to encourage specialist to band together to influence the nobles to vote in their interests....I think you just recreated guilds.

To create and army obviously drawn from member villages thus removing them from those villages.

And in section 10 you so eloquently remove village powers making them subservient to your council.

You further remove village rights by insisting all member villages must grant rights and access to any member.

And I love the clause about protect the villages against domestic violence. We both know what this means in Haven society a kingdom level police force with the power to come in and establish justice.

Anyway I could go on point by point if we have to but you application of elements of republicanism with removing the guarantees of freedom make it little more than a despotic feudal society.

You say your intent is "I am eager to see what kinds of nefarious politicking takes place." and "I feel the best way for me to do this is to just try and make some interesting avenues and discover what tools I think are missing, and which ones I would really like to see as part of the core game."

Well I can tell you a governmental system above village is needed but your system would only make the world much darker and bloody. People informing on each other, bribes, wars of domination... Please id rather have the faction system we have now. At least they are clear at what they do and not trying to hide behind carefully crafted words you have manipulated to favor certain groups.

I am sorry if you find my review to be harsh but it is a very poorly arranged system for a game such as this.