I'm actually thinking about it in a role-playing sort of way. How do you
treat the nobles under your care? Do you show little or no loyalty by
binding thier oath by contract or fear, or do you show loyalty by offering
them the option to oath? I could care less what the rules _spell out_,
what I'm looking at is how to role-play my faction _within_ the rules. The
rules provide an ultimate option towards noble loyalty, and I use it.
Others use an option that doesn't show loyalty towards thier leader, and
problems occur. Complaints then follow.
> In other words,
> On turn 10 I formed a noble, and as his contract ran low I had to make a
> decision. After reading the rules I decided to keep him contract.
> But, if the rules actually reflected the bug, then I may not have
(probably
> wouldn't have) made the same decision.
>
The bottom line is that you made the decision to not provide this noble
with an ultimate loyalty option. You just continued his 'contract'. Its a
free-agent market, and how would you feel if management presented you with
this option? Greener fields....
> If you want to advocate changing the rule for FUTURE nobles, then you may
have
> a leg to stand on. But changing the rule and punishing factions with
nobles
> formed and contracted under the assumption that the written rules were
> actually true should not even be considered.
>
We are arguing this point from completely different sides of the fence.
You advocate what is spelled out in the 'rules' and I advocate what I think
should happen as 'role-playing'. I think we both have valid arguements,
but obviously I believe mine to be the only just cause. <g>
> You also refer to teaching the noble SFW or Fight to the Death. I don't
think
> you understand the problem. The problem isn't that the nobles are dieing
in
> combat, the problem is that their contract is running out and the noble
> deserts the faction. SFW or FttD would do nothing to help you out.
>
I not only understand this problem as completely as you can hope, but I
think I understand it to a level upon which you have not yet reached. A
noble reaches the end of his contract, he looks for his options. He wishes
to stay with his primary employers, but he sees no long-term loyalty there.
He then looks around, and see's that he could possibly make more money or
increase his/her personal standing by seeking employment elsewhere. So he
terminates his current contract, and goes solo, looking for a better deal.
At this point he owes zero alleigance (sp?) to his original employer, he is
just looking after himself and his family. Sound familiar?
<interjecting game rules at this point> He has renounced loyalty. If you
want him back, you must 'bribe' him back into the fold. Show him that you
are his best option for a secure future. If you don't offer this, what's
to stop him from seeking similar employment elsewhere? Here, we live in a
hostile enviroment. This 'free agent' could find himself/herself dead just
by walking the streets to thier next interview. If they die, what kind of
claim do you have to recover invested royalties in this person? Exactly,
zero.
If you jump in as an aggresive CEO and persue this already skilled
employee, and offer them a better contract <bribe>, they may just come back
to you.
Anyways, have I made my point yet? <g>
> This is not about "getting a noble killed off". I've had contract nobles
die
> in combat and I get the NP back. But I've also had a contract noble
desert,
> then die, and I don't get the NP back. Where's the balance there? When
a
> noble dies, no matter what the circumstances, you should get the NP back.
> That is the rule.
>
I respectfully disagree. I think if you show loyalty to your employees,
that you trained and defended, and they die, then you deserve to be
compensated. If they die while being shown zero loyalty (contract, fear),
then upon what grounds do you stand thinking that you are owed something?
Klaus