I'm having a hard time seeing the benefit if the system isn't going to work both ways. There needs to be some way to reciprocate being attacked, even if the attack is subtle and not direct.

I think this is one of those touchier subjects that ought best to be either taken on a case-by-case basis or allowed to play out by itself. We may not want to make in-game politics as black and white as "50% say so so that is what happens." Also, why shouldn't a GL be allowed to remove someone who i...

To clarify, I don't mind one way or another if people write character blogs. I just doubt I'd be compelled to write any for mine, or read others' anymore.

I'm not sure it should be as simple as a 50% vote. Presumably a character is in a leadership position for a very good reason, even if they were created for the position and app'ed into it. I imagine the kind of sway a character would hold would keep them from being kicked out just because half the r...

I don't think it should be something to vote on. This is a personal decision each player needs to decide about each of their characters. Even aside from that, nothing's stopping anybody from doing it regardless of what the decision is on this forum; simply go set up a blog somewhere and treat it as ...

I like the idea, but rather than having a disadvantage to using it, simply make it not work all the time. The better you are at it, the more often it works. Otherwise you'd simply draw your weapon and that would be your turn.

Personally, I'd love to take a shot at playing a Duke. I think I could make it work enough to make it interesting at the very least.

That said, I do agree moreso with the rest of the sentiment here, in that it's probably too early yet to start introducing such powerhouses to the mix.

Sounds to me like wealth and the influence it exerts ought to take into account income, expenditure and how much you're sitting on.

I agree. My Freeman Hillman 13-year-old had no problem accumulating gold when I wanted him to have it. As the current system stands, I'd actually have to insist that closer to 100 gold or more would be 'wealthy'.

I'd like to see it.