|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 25, 2018 4:20:17 GMT
SO the TPA has said that agreemnts stop being binding after one of the rulers who signed it dies, i vaguly recall that Linde may have said something similar. a player objected that Diplomacy is a relam action not a ruler action and I personally agree with this. Obviously a diplomatic agreement could of cause be written to bind only the rulers in question, but as far as I can tell most players don't write their agreements like this, I can certainly see that it would be easier for a new regent to break a diplomatic agreement his predecessor signed for the predessesor himself but I don't think it should be concidered completly void, unless it states so. so my thoughts and suggestion
1) I think agreements should generally carry over between rulers, but perhaps penealties for not honouring them be lighter, particuarly if it was done soon after transition. Likewise it would be easier to break a treaty with the new King because his clearly a scoundrela nd a thug, wheer ehis predesessor was a man of honour.
2) Perhaps the new ruler could confirm his adherence to the treaty (or all treaties) by a decree to bind himself as fully as the old regent rather than do a full diploomacy action, bu definition the realm is already unboard. I contrast they could perhaps issue a decree that they would not honour the treaty which would be more acetpable than simply failing to honour it without notice. Obviously the specifics of the treaty and situation would affect this. Say taking a sum of gold in exchange for a treaty, then having you regent die and the new one going Haha, keeping the money but breaking the treaty, would probably be skethy for any non CE realm.
I also think complete tabula rasa on traties makes for odd situations where peace treaties are no longer valid becuase on of the rulers died and I don't think it reflect the real world or any meaningfull game logic (I don't see any basis for it in the rules).
So discuss. Player opinion? GM rulings? etc. At least we should have clarity for those players who might not have seen certain shoutbox discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Apr 25, 2018 4:38:54 GMT
It depends. A truce is probably nullified if a ruler dies, an alliance based on marriage ties is certainly nullified if those ties are severed by death. A peace treaty will probably be fine, though, and an alliance should persist if a realm simply passes it on to an heir without anything getting broken.
|
|
|
Post by Lilly Everwater on Apr 25, 2018 5:25:22 GMT
My understanding is that 2) currently applies.
My take on it: A lawful realm should suffer a light penalty for not honouring an agreement. If the regent made the agreement personally (and therefore already suffered penalties), then the realm probably shouldn't suffer if it's "broken". I had to issue a decree when Aethor died to assert that the guild's agreements would be honored, and I think that's fair for a lawful realm. If there's no decree, then for a lawful realm the assumption should probably be that they will honour past agreements - sovereigns were never absolute, and lawful nobles will expect the new sovereign to show respect to the deceased sovereign.
A chaotic realm probably doesn't care as much, if it all. They might or might not honour it. But then, that's the case on a day-to-day basis.
Neutral could probably go either way as well, but should need formal decrees to that effect.
And decrees should be limited to either asserting a treaty in full or voiding them entirely - picking and choosing should require a new diplomacy action.
(Which incidentally raised the question of the OOC status of a SWT-Nemeth-NSE agreement that, per P&H, is still in effect. There are definitely plans to use that IC, so the fact that it's still going is fine by me).
|
|
James Holt (NT)
Northern Traders
Lord of Waffles, Master of the flight of Daggers
The Iron Bank of Albion
Posts: 366
|
Post by James Holt (NT) on Apr 25, 2018 6:10:01 GMT
I have a similar interesting message in my inbox.
Since we're probably all talking about the dwarves anyway - DCG wanted to make some holdings in human lands a while ago. Since they couldn't spare a realm action, North Hold signed a treaty on the behalf of their vassal that allowed me to make some trade posts in North Hold and them some trade/guild in Umbria/Camelot. I'm now being informed that because the NH king is dead, the NT-DCG treaty is lapsed. It all seems very chaotic neutral to me.
|
|
|
Post by Turn Processing Assistant on Apr 25, 2018 12:09:50 GMT
Lets say that King A has signed a bunch of agreements in his reign, King A eventually dies of old age, with his crown being handed over to his heir King B.
So if King B is automatically bound by King A agreements then King B has a problem, he has just admitted his authority is less than his predecessor without even saying a word.
If King B on the other hand publicly states that he is continuing his predecessors agreements then he has no loss of authority.
If King B alternately breaks off his old agreements then, depending on treaties broken he may suffer stability, regency losses or other penalties. Or he may not, depending on the stated reason's for breaking the agreement.
In summary, new regents are not necessarily bound by their predecessors agreements, but will normally continue treaties unless there is a good reason not to.
|
|
James Holt (NT)
Northern Traders
Lord of Waffles, Master of the flight of Daggers
The Iron Bank of Albion
Posts: 366
|
Post by James Holt (NT) on Apr 25, 2018 12:27:40 GMT
Lets say that King A has signed a bunch of agreements in his reign, King A eventually dies of old age, with his crown being handed over to his heir King B. [snip] What about if King A has vassal C. Vassal C asks King A to do diplomacy on their behalf with realm D - creating a treaty between D and C, but signed by D and A (on behalf of C). Does King B taking over mean the treaty between D and C is voided because A's signature was on it? The guild of lawyers and bureaucrats would really like to know the proper way to proceed legally.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Apr 25, 2018 12:50:50 GMT
I think that depends whether the vassal agreement is to the king or the crown, and if a new king states previous agreements are upheld, and affirms all the responsibility of the crown , which is more likely if its a designated heir.
The question at times become, what happens when a regency strikes.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Apr 25, 2018 13:12:59 GMT
So if King B is automatically bound by King A agreements then King B has a problem, he has just admitted his authority is less than his predecessor without even saying a word. But this has always been the case. In a peaceful transition of power, there's always been an expectation that the authority of King B is derived from King A. The legitimacy of a hereditary and/or elected monarchy actually requires that King B must honour the agreements of their predecessors. Even the show makes it clear that Arthur has less authority than Uther, because Uther conquered Camelot while Arthur is inheriting it. And they are both bound by the ancient laws of Camelot, laws that presumably existed before even Uther. For example, Arthur may want to legalize magic, but even though only Uther made it illegal, it is extremely challenging for Arthur to do so. Almost impossible, in fact. An elected Monarch might have more leeway, but only if they are elected by nobles who support dissolving old agreements. If the nobles (the guys with the power, as it were) are unhappy with the new King's decision to ruin the country's reputation so early in his reign, they should get rid of him. The only time I can imagine King B definitely not respecting old agreements is if King B overthrew King A, but then hopefully King B has his own supporters.
|
|
|
Post by Emiel Rex Nagnati on Apr 25, 2018 14:11:50 GMT
To use a real world example, does Elizabeth II have less authority over the UK than her father, her grandfather, all the way back to William the Conquerer? If so, after a thousand years of monarchy, how much power does she have?
I believe that each monarch is seperate and distinct, and their legitimacy is not determined by how they came to power (whether by conquest or inherited), but by the will of the people who are investing that authority in the monarch.
For game purposes, the agreements of the previous Regent are valid, but must be affirmed by the new ruler (Decree action), stating they will continue said agreements. It affirms their sovereignty as a new Regent. This could also lead to a Diplomacy action if the new Regent doesn't think the old agreement was in the best interests of the Kingdom. Or they may validate the old agreement as is and carry on without any changes. Ultimately, the new Regent is the law of the land, and has the sovereign right to make or break agreements as they see fit.
|
|
|
Post by NSE (Lydia of Caerleon) on Apr 25, 2018 21:57:44 GMT
Could view it as a facet of how they came to rule.
If they conquered, highest value. If they inherited, slightly less than above. If they are elected, least of all.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 26, 2018 4:13:22 GMT
Could view it as a facet of how they came to rule. If they conquered, highest value. If they inherited, slightly less than above. If they are elected, least of all. Umbria being an elective monachy disagrees vehemently on that ranking.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 26, 2018 4:16:21 GMT
So if King B is automatically bound by King A agreements then King B has a problem, he has just admitted his authority is less than his predecessor without even saying a word. But this has always been the case. In a peaceful transition of power, there's always been an expectation that the authority of King B is derived from King A. The legitimacy of a hereditary and/or elected monarchy actually requires that King B must honour the agreements of their predecessors. Even the show makes it clear that Arthur has less authority than Uther, because Uther conquered Camelot while Arthur is inheriting it. And they are both bound by the ancient laws of Camelot, laws that presumably existed before even Uther. For example, Arthur may want to legalize magic, but even though only Uther made it illegal, it is extremely challenging for Arthur to do so. Almost impossible, in fact. An elected Monarch might have more leeway, but only if they are elected by nobles who support dissolving old agreements. If the nobles (the guys with the power, as it were) are unhappy with the new King's decision to ruin the country's reputation so early in his reign, they should get rid of him. The only time I can imagine King B definitely not respecting old agreements is if King B overthrew King A, but then hopefully King B has his own supporters.That very much depends on why you overthrew the old king. Meinwen arguably sort of "overthrew" Morrow and obviously isn't respecting his agreements. Other overthrews might have far more continuity. Having overthrown the old king for the noble purpose of making yourself caliph istead of the caliph it makes a great deal of sense to reasure your guild, temple and neighbours that you're going to honour his agreements so you can get on with the buisness of consolidating your rule rather than bickering and perhaps even fighting everyone.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Apr 26, 2018 16:23:03 GMT
For game purposes, the agreements of the previous Regent are valid, but must be affirmed by the new ruler (Decree action), stating they will continue said agreements. It affirms their sovereignty as a new Regent. This could also lead to a Diplomacy action if the new Regent doesn't think the old agreement was in the best interests of the Kingdom. Or they may validate the old agreement as is and carry on without any changes. Ultimately, the new Regent is the law of the land, and has the sovereign right to make or break agreements as they see fit.Emphasis mine.
I think a comparison to modern day parliamentary systems is a fair comparison: They do have the sovereign right to make and amend laws as they see fit (within the confines of constitutions that often limit their power - comparable could be Magna Carta like agreements or laws regarded as divine and immutable). However, while it's easier to bring major changes after a change in government, those changes still bring instability and uncertainty, especially if the changes are rapid, less so if the changes are expected.
A King, similarly, may very well be able to make and amend laws as he sees fit. But I think it's fair to generally assume that the laws and the agreements his predecessors remain in effect until noted otherwise, and changing those laws or agreements may very well make the King's supporters become uncertain and wary (in effect: stability loss). Very much so in a lawful realm that wants and expects continuity - it wasn't just the King himself who made those agreements (that would be a character/regent actions rather than a bonus/realm action) - it was his nobles, his court and people who wheeled and dealed to try to obtain benefits for themselves. For the new king to suddenly wipe that away? That should definitely upset his court. But context matters, of course.
The only thing I'm disputing is the idea that "Regent dies - all agreements are automatically null and void" - this might be true for a chaotic realm, but it shouldn't be true for anyone else. It's not like the Realm itself ceased to exist (which has happened a few times: ST & WT to SWT, and Slavers to STC - in those cases I fully support all agreements being null and void unless stated otherwise, because the very realm itself no longer exists. But such changes largely bring with them the same sort of instability that not following agreements bring, so...)
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Apr 26, 2018 18:27:43 GMT
Anyone trying to lift a claim to the a regent title, and take over the previous institutions, should be trying to achieve this as seamless as possible, in short, they initially should almost pretend to be the former regent.
Outside of a rebellion, it will often be assumed treaties are meant to be continued. In case of the lands choice, it would often be expected that their are decree's confirming that "everything is fine" or diplomacy begin to update treaties.
The purpose of succession is to pretend nothing really changed.
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Apr 26, 2018 20:03:16 GMT
Often. On the other hand, sometimes the entire reason a succession occurs is because something was wrong with the last regent, in which case keeping the treaties might provoke more outrage...
|
|