Mayor/citizenship/faction system draft v0.9.2

[Monad]

still i'd like to see both systems seperate from each other. religion towns for religions(siege system), and few towns for this new system

What are the problems you see them working side by side?

again i will take for example skara brae siege, law took it over, what hapened after a day imperial came back in the town, with this new system what would happen? mayor is in vote, citizens changing loyality, day by day, how can we show loyality to a king if we have to change it more then we change our socks? just because of religion wars

If the sieges happen too often, we can figure out some measurements to prevent that having down sides to the citizens too much. For example:

• 1. make sieging much harder, e.g. requirement for the total piety to siege the stone bigger
  2. sieging can be done only once in a month to the same town
  3. siege can't take place if 70% of the citizens are against it

Point is I'm sure we can figure out ways to minimize possible problems as they come and find a way for these to work side by side.

[Darian Darkmind]

Religions are loyal to their own Lord/King, no-one else. That's one of the downside of playing in religion, you have certain basic guidelines set on the stone which you need to follow.
It doesn't make any sense that Lord Blackthorn would allow his follower or elite fighter to pay taxes to his enemy King, and even less it would make sense from the characters point of view.

You can't be in a religion and freely choose your allegiance, that'll be the benefit of non-religious characters only which this system is mainly designated for. The restriction will be in place, sorry.

I understand that reasoning well. However, the reason I'm against it is because if it's not restricted, it allows people to "take over" the town by buying houses there and voting themselves the mayor. Lord British's town could therefore have people, mayor and militia in fact loyal to Imperial, which then soon sieges the whole town. Wasn't this what the "changing faction and starting siege if 70% of the citizens agree" was all about. It's about winning the people and that might require inflitrating the town. Restrictions and removing possibilities are always things we should try to avoid.

Anyway, not a big deal and I can understand why Imperial and Law would be restricted, but as Tekstone and Nature are both without king, they should be allowed to choose freely. Of course being murderers the mayor would not accept Tekstone members for the time being, but like I've said things might change in the future.

P.S. Shouldn't the religions be loyal to their gods and not their kings? Kings are mortal and come and go. Some are good, some are bad. What if the king dies and his heir prooves to be an evil and insane man thriven by lust for blood? Of course such things never happen in Pangaea, because it requires the kings to actually have a background story, a role and life of their own, but still that's something to think about.

[Monad]

Militia, after all, is meant to PROTECT the town. Back in the medieval times militia was mustered from the common folk among the town, they fought for the town and didn't so much care who they paid their taxes to. So I don't think it should be that big of an issue to just say you're doing what is the best for the town and try to keep it as safe as possible.

I'm not sure what you are refering with this poist, but I'm assuming it's the reply of religious characters cannot choose their faction.
Yes you're right, militia was from common folk and that's how it works here aswell. Common folk are free to do whatever they want to join whatever faction they want etc. Religion characters however are not common folk and don't share the same freedom. But good thing is all players have five character slots and you're free to choose those slots by your own liking.

[Monad]

but as Tekstone and Nature are both without king, they should be allowed to choose freely. Of course being murderers the mayor would not accept Tekstone members for the time being, but like I've said things might change in the future.

P.S. Shouldn't the religions be loyal to their gods and not their kings? Kings are mortal and come and go. Some are good, some are bad. What if the king dies and his heir prooves to be an evil and insane man thriven by lust for blood? Of course such things never happen in Pangaea, because it requires the kings to actually have a background story, a role and life of their own, but still that's something to think about.

Nature and Tekstone are still under debate, I haven't given much thought for how they play a part in all this, so nothing is set on stone what comes to them. They could possibly choose a side on Blackthorn or Britisdh faction aswell, but I'd rather not mix them up. We'll see.

"P.S. Shouldn't the religions be loyal to their gods and not their kings?"
How I see the difference between gods and the kings in Law and Imperial's case:

• - Esuna and Winchester are those who dictates the moral and spiritual guidance for the religions. The gods are where they get the religious power from and where the bigger plan of the religion bases for, e.g. what strives them forward.
  - Blackthorn and British are those who are in control of the land, guards, NPC's and are in charge of the operational, every day duties what protecting the empire or citizens require for, the Lords share a common interest with the religion members and the gods of holding the land and expanding the land to gather more followers/citizens to their ranks. Blackthorn is more like chaotic neutral who doesn't care so much of the exact good and bad as Lord British does.

So Imperial and Law are more like devoted elite group of fighters for the Lord's faction while still having their religious agenda behind it aswell which in practice goes hand in hand with the Lord's cause.

[James Blackburn]

again i will take for example skara brae siege, law took it over, what hapened after a day imperial came back in the town, with this new system what would happen? mayor is in vote, citizens changing loyality, day by day, how can we show loyality to a king if we have to change it more then we change our socks? just because of religion wars

If the sieges happen too often, we can figure out some measurements to prevent that having down sides to the citizens too much. For example:

• 1. make sieging much harder, e.g. requirement for the total piety to siege the stone bigger
  2. sieging can be done only once in a month to the same town
  3. siege can't take place if 70% of the citizens are against it

Point is I'm sure we can figure out ways to minimize possible problems as they come and find a way for these to work side by side.

maybe it's possible to mix those points 1 and 3 together, i mean if lets say 70% ar agains siege then requipments to start siege(piety) gets highter, and also hours to take the town will be much more, and same apply if 70% want's old goverment(king) back, requipments lowers and and hours to take over also... this is just idea, but still there is a problem to figure out how to avoid metagaming from players alt side

[Darian Darkmind]

James, that's bascially the idea I've been trying to get through.

The towns could have a "loyalty" meter similar to religions. If it's 100%, the town can't be sieged at all. Normally each guard adds 10 minutes to the siege time so maybe each point over 70% adds to the timer and each point under 70% lowers the timer.

Example
Loyalty 94% (94-70 = +24) - siege time is 10x1.24 = 12.4 minutes per guard.
Loyalty 34% (34-70 = -36 ) - siege time is 10x0.64 = 6.4 minutes per guard
Loyalty 0% (0-70 = -70= - siege time is 10x0.3 = 3 minutes per guard

This gives a bigger role for propaganda and RP, but also "forces" the controlling religion to do their job, help the citizens and protect them to ensure the loyalty stays. A religion and kingdom that ignores its people, take too much taxes etc will lose loyalty allowing the opposing religion to take over easier.

[Monad]

I agree there's a potential in that system. I'll try to work up a draft perhaps on weekend. This way the power would be more on the citizens instead religions on who's controlling the town.

[Demian]

System like that just wouldn't work because of metagaming. Sure it looks nice but it will be horrible in action.

[Edward Sinclair]

It would be nice if the mayor system didn't revolve around religion/PvP as much :S

I don't have many suggestions but I'll try spending some time brainstorming and hopefully there will be some nice ideas to bung in

[Monad]

Mayor system itself has nothing to do with religions. Religions are able to join as citizens just like anyone else but that's about it.