Kingdom Governments

Xythar · #1 10-18-2001, 04:38 AM

This is something that's been bugging me about the Graal 2k1 kingdoms for a while now. All of them run on the same monarchial system, where one person is boss, no questions asked. Why?

It doesn't really affect me personally (I'm about as high-ranking a Dustari member as non-royalty can be right now) but it's mildly stupid. Is it so hard to take a few seconds to devise a system of shared powers for Graal? I was flying back to Providence from LAX, got bored and wrote one up in all of 15 minutes. It outlined military, recruitment, creation of laws, establishing (and disestablishing) rulers, and several power checks. I probably won't ever use it as I'm not particularly inclined to create a new kingdom right now, but the point stands. It isn't very hard at all.

Personally, what I think it boils down to is kingdom creators not wanting to risk being succeeded, or losing any power. They're power-mad, I tell you. It's a shame, too, as it could be very interesting to see what happens in Graal when people are given the opportunity to rise and fall from power. Oh well.

freddyfox · #2 10-18-2001, 04:40 AM

Uhhhhh. A kingdom really WAS only run by the king and his advisors. No one else.

Tyjiri · #3 10-18-2001, 04:41 AM

Graal 2001 needs a kingdom that is similar to a democracy, but the citizens of the kingom get to vote every week or something similar.

ZanderX · #4 10-18-2001, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xythar
This is something that's been bugging me about the Graal 2k1 kingdoms for a while now. All of them run on the same monarchial system, where one person is boss, no questions asked. Why?

It doesn't really affect me personally (I'm about as high-ranking a Dustari member as non-royalty can be right now) but it's mildly stupid. Is it so hard to take a few seconds to devise a system of shared powers for Graal? I was flying back to Providence from LAX, got bored and wrote one up in all of 15 minutes. It outlined military, recruitment, creation of laws, establishing (and disestablishing) rulers, and several power checks. I probably won't ever use it as I'm not particularly inclined to create a new kingdom right now, but the point stands. It isn't very hard at all.

Personally, what I think it boils down to is kingdom creators not wanting to risk being succeeded, or losing any power. They're power-mad, I tell you. It's a shame, too, as it could be very interesting to see what happens in Graal when people are given the opportunity to rise and fall from power. Oh well.

I agree completely that it seems that almost all of the Kingdoms run off a Monarchy, to greater or lesser degree.

Dustari runs on a Monarchy because it always has. I remember a point where Tyealia was about to work off of a Democracy, but it stopped. And I don't know why.

Dustari itself is a bit more person oriented as opposed to what it used to be, an Absolute Monarchy where the King(me), would control EVERYTHING...

ZanderX · #5 10-18-2001, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by freddyfox
Uhhhhh. A kingdom really WAS only run by the king and his advisors. No one else.

There were parliamentary governments in the middle ages. :O

Xythar · #6 10-18-2001, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by freddyfox
Uhhhhh. A kingdom really WAS only run by the king and his advisors. No one else.

And Graal is so real, right? What with Pirates fighting ninjas, fish and cloud-men, eh?

And when you think about it, isn't that why most kingdoms fell?

Xythar · #7 10-18-2001, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

There were parliamentary governments in the middle ages. :O

Plus, what he said.

ZanderX · #8 10-18-2001, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xythar

Plus, what he said.

:O

WE'RE ALL KUNG FU FIGHTA'S!!!

Xythar · #9 10-18-2001, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

I agree completely that it seems that almost all of the Kingdoms run off a Monarchy, to greater or lesser degree.

Dustari runs on a Monarchy because it always has. I remember a point where Tyealia was about to work off of a Democracy, but it stopped. And I don't know why.

Dustari itself is a bit more person oriented as opposed to what it used to be, an Absolute Monarchy where the King(me), would control EVERYTHING...

Yeah, but Dustari is the classic, medievel kingdom thing. And there are shared powers, MUCH moreso than in most others, or as it used to be.

And I'm willing to bet Tyealia stopped for the same reason I mentioned before. Nobody wanted to risk losing their so-called "power."

Tyjiri · #10 10-18-2001, 04:46 AM

Why does everyone quote every single other person's quote in here? It's annoying.

Xythar · #11 10-18-2001, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

:O

WE'RE ALL KUNG FU FIGHTA'S!!!

Punny?

Xythar · #12 10-18-2001, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyjiri
Why does everyone quote every single other person's quote in here? It's annoying.

Easier to adress people. It's a bit out of hand, but works fairly well for the most part. Now stop with the off-topicness, fool.

ZanderX · #13 10-18-2001, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyjiri
Why does everyone quote every single other person's quote in here? It's annoying.

Not everyone does that to everyone else. I do it when making a point, being funny, etc...

If I'm in an intelligent conversation I'll do it too, and I'll also do double or triple quotes.

It's much easier to address information when you quote.

ZanderX · #14 10-18-2001, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xythar

Yeah, but Dustari is the classic, medievel kingdom thing. And there are shared powers, MUCH moreso than in most others, or as it used to be.

And I'm willing to bet Tyealia stopped for the same reason I mentioned before. Nobody wanted to risk losing their so-called "power."

Point taken...

Xythar · #15 10-18-2001, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

Point taken...

Huh? That wasn't really directed at you....

ZanderX · #16 10-18-2001, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xythar

Huh? That wasn't really directed at you....

Regardless, I understood your point.

Xythar · #17 10-18-2001, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

Regardless, I understood your point.

Bah. But if you notice, I made a nice save by saying that Dustari was meant to be a monarchy. Real slick of me, no?

ZanderX · #18 10-18-2001, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xythar

Bah. But if you notice, I made a nice save by saying that Dustari was meant to be a monarchy. Real slick of me, no?

ZO ZLICK.

Xythar · #19 10-18-2001, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

ZO ZLICK.

I NO TEL ME ABUOTI T

AlkarenHyralt · #20 10-18-2001, 05:09 AM

I agree with what you're saying but, to change it might cause conflict with the name... Think about it: Kingdom. It's a monarchy, run by royalty (King/Queen), with the nobility (Titles differ, depending where you are) under the royalty. The nobility is there to support the royalty, and to give them advice. Now, the king or queen does not rule over everything exactly; others have say and they have advisers and other people.. perhaps on a council or something like it there, to help run the affairs. A king/queen basiclly just makes everything offical (sp) while other people run thing in their name.

If you have a democracy, then it is no long a kingdom; it's a democracy, republic, etc. And if it is ruled by an emperor/empress it's an empire.

Like I said, I understand what you're saying about, and I don't think it isn't true...but it would take quite a bit of work to change such "deep rooted" things... like the craving for power.

Xythar · #21 10-18-2001, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AlkarenHyralt
Long post.

I agree, and disagree. The term kingdom is used loosely on Graal, it isn't exactly literal. It refers moreso to a player-run role-playing body than the exact definition. And if there's Empires, why not Republics? Spread the power around, spice things up. I might post a small draft of what I came up with, just for an example. And like Kamuii pointed out, there's been parliamentary governments for a loooong time.

And for your last comment, that's why it should probably be used in a completely new kingdom so people don't whine about losing their supposed status. Though I'm afraid that's all people will do if something like it does go into effect. People on Graal are crazy about ranks and such, and the thought of being able to ave them taken away in a flash mught turn some people off.

Like you said, it would be hard for it to work. But it could be done, with a bit of time.

FatherDante · #22 10-18-2001, 05:20 AM

Yeah, keep your pride to yourself, we're not idiots.

Xythar · #23 10-18-2001, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FatherDante
Yeah, keep your pride to yourself, we're not idiots.

Who was that directed to? Kind of vague, easily misinterpreted, etc.

Hulk Hogan · #24 10-18-2001, 05:25 AM

i'm "making" a government system.....
i dont know if anyone will use it...
maybe me and ghost can use it on our server...

(it has nothing to do with my graal council guild tag thing)

AlkarenHyralt · #25 10-18-2001, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xythar

I agree, and disagree. The term kingdom is used loosely on Graal, it isn't exactly literal.

I know that, and I don't thinks that's exactly...the correct thing to do.

Quote:

It refers moreso to a player-run role-playing body than the exact definition. And if there's Empires, why not Republics? Spread the power around, spice things up. I might post a small draft of what I came up with, just for an example. And like Kamuii pointed out, there's been parliamentary governments for a loooong time.

Understandable, but no matter what kind of ruling body/government you have, there will always be power-hungry people who will try to keep others from getting more power. Even in republics, or a parliament. I'm sure a Shogun thought about overthrowing the Emperor some time, in their career.

Quote:

And for your last comment, that's why it should probably be used in a completely new kingdom so people don't whine about losing their supposed status. Though I'm afraid that's all people will do if something like it does go into effect. People on Graal are crazy about ranks and such, and the thought of being able to ave them taken away in a flash mught turn some people off.

Power, rank, status... does it really matter that much? The thurst for all of these things is what runs a role-playing enviroment.

Quote:

Like you said, it would be hard for it to work. But it could be done, with a bit of time.

And someone busting an ego or two.

_0AfTeRsHoCk0_ · #26 10-18-2001, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

There were parliamentary governments in the middle ages. :O

No sir, only in England, but that was before absolutism kicked in during the 17th century, then it went to constitutional monarchy. Oh wow, I'm a big boy, I can use big words

Anyways, Tyealia should be a theocracy (church runs state)

AlkarenHyralt · #27 10-18-2001, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by _0AfTeRsHoCk0_

No sir, only in England, but that was before absolutism kicked in during the 17th century, then it went to constitutional monarchy. Oh wow, I'm a big boy, I can use big words

Anyways, Tyealia should be a theocracy (church runs state)

Graal and theology don't mix very well.

ZanderX · #28 10-18-2001, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by _0AfTeRsHoCk0_

No sir, only in England, but that was before absolutism kicked in during the 17th century, then it went to constitutional monarchy. Oh wow, I'm a big boy, I can use big words

Anyways, Tyealia should be a theocracy (church runs state)

You still proved me right.

_0AfTeRsHoCk0_ · #29 10-18-2001, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

You still proved me right.

True, but middle ages refers to fall of the Roman Empire up to the Renaissance. They had parlimentary after the 100 years war in England but that was proto-renaissance

Xythar · #30 10-18-2001, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AlkarenHyralt

Graal and theology don't mix very well.

I'll drink to that. Here's to hoping a kingdom never makes up a religion to accompany it.

Xythar · #31 10-18-2001, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by _0AfTeRsHoCk0_

True, but middle ages refers to fall of the Roman Empire up to the Renaissance. They had parlimentary after the 100 years war in England but that was proto-renaissance

BUT IT WAS STIL A LNOG TEIM AGO

AlkarenHyralt · #32 10-18-2001, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xythar

I'll drink to that. Here's to hoping a kingdom never makes up a religion to accompany it.

I shall drink to that also.

psihunter · #33 10-18-2001, 06:15 AM

Whoa sounds like my history class =X

I wonder what kind of government form the pirate use?

Extend the fact...Do pirates have a government?

Mainly if a pirate says "Let's go plunder some landlubbers" almost all pirates would jump at the chance >=)