Monday, April 15, 2013

Proposal: Feuds and Favors

Reaches quorum and passes at 6-1. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 17 Apr 2013 01:50:16 UTC

Enact a new rule, “Feuds”

If a Noble (the Victim) is wronged or otherwise Impugned by another Noble (the Aggressor), the Victim may declare a Feud between the two Nobles. Once a Feud has begun between any two Nobles it may not end until those Nobles have Resolved the Feud. As long as a Feud is not Resolved, any Noble may join the Feud on either the side of the Victim or the Aggressor as long as there are no Nobles with whom they are already in opposition with in another Feud. For example, if Noble A and Noble B are on opposite sides of each other in Fued F, and Noble B is on the side of the Aggressor in Fued G, Noble A may not join the side of the Aggressor in Fued G.  Whenever a Feud is created, or a Noble joins a Feud, reflect these changes on the Feuds page.
For these purposes, the Feuds page shall consist of a list of all ongoing (not Resolved) Feuds, with the Feud’s title being V vs. A, where V is the name of the Victim and A is the name of the Agressor. Below this, each Feud will have two lists one for the Nobles siding with the Victim and one for the Nobles siding with the Aggressor.

Enact a new rule entitled “Favors”

Each Noble has a non-negative integer stat “Favors” (defaulting to 0), tracked in the GNDT. If a Noble (the Debted) is aided or otherwise Benefacted by another Noble (the Benefactor), it is Proper for the Debted to offer the Benefactor their Favor. The Benefactor then increases their Favors count by 1.

Create a wiki page “Feuds” and put a link to it on the main page.

Just some ideas regarding Feuds and Favors. I’m leaving out the details to see if people want to play with them.


RaichuKFM: she/her

15-04-2013 21:42:20 UTC

for Though, due to the ambiguity of what constitutes aiding or benefacting another, Favors probably shouldn’t be too powerful.


15-04-2013 22:19:33 UTC



15-04-2013 22:28:45 UTC



15-04-2013 23:45:23 UTC



16-04-2013 06:58:17 UTC


Clucky: he/him

16-04-2013 16:56:27 UTC


I don’t strongly dislike either idea, but i do dislike the idea of putting to separate game mechanics into a single proposal. For early on stuff, that is fine, but later on it just feels like a way to skirt the “two pending proposals per player” rule. Yes, its a little riskier because if someone dislikes one of the ideas the other gets shot down too, but its still not a practice I really like.