> >
> > The problem with your thinking is that the players that made the decision
> to
> > oath, not oath, contract, not contract, terrorize or not terrorize did so
> > knowing the rules as they were spelled out. To change them now (by
> ignoring
> > the bug) changes the facts the players had at their disposal at the time
> the
> > decision was made.
> >
>
> 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.
>
>
You know, in all the "conversations" :-) I've had with Oleg on this list I
never felt as frustrated with another player as I do right now - and that's
only after 1 email!
Klaus, I don't give a flip how you want to roleplay.
If you want to Oath all of your nobles because that's how you roleplay, fine.
But I, and many other players, have made tactical and strategic decisions
based on the rules. You are advocating changing the rules to fit your
personal view of how the game should work in a "roleplaying sense". The
change you advocate effects other factions in the most serious of ways -
permenately losing NP(s).
Several rules changes from g1 to g2 specifically dealt with the lose and
regaining of NPs. All of the ways that a faction could lose an NP were
changed so that it was (thought to be) impossible to lose one. Now we find a
hole, one that is directly contrary to the black-and-white rule that refers to
it, and you advocate ignoring it to fit YOUR veiw of roleplaying.
How would you like it if one of your nobles travelled into a forest province
to harvest some wood and disappeared, never to be heard from again (and of
course you never get the NP back). Hey, maybe the forest has some secret
hidden monster that ate him. I like that in a roleplaying sense. And hey, if
you really liked your noble, you wouldn't have sent him into a potentially
dangerous forest without protection. It's your fault for not protecting him.
I don't care that according to the rules he shouldn't have died. You should
have known that there was a risk (even though the rules explicitly state there
is no risk). In my roleplaying view, travel into forests with a civ level
less than 1 (wilderness by definition) should be dangerous and frought with
perils. Nevermind the rules specifically state that there are no randomn
attacks. Bugger the rules! That's how I think the game should go!
That's what you're advocating.
That a player that did everything by the rules, rules that specificaly detail
how NOT to lose the NP, should instead lose the NP.
I'm glad you're alone (so far) in your opinion.
Eric the Seehawk