MRCHENN

Treatise on the Commonwealth 15th of Horen’s Calling, 1968 When Paul Salvian reconquered Barrow’s crossing and endeavored to form his Commonwealth in the city of Mardon, he sought to create a government for the Commonwealth which would prevent a conflict like the Acrean rebellion from ever happening again. The device for this, in his mind, was a republic - where all forms of governance were solidified into one elected body: the Round Table. To this end, a unifying body of government would ensure that no Councillor of the Commonwealth could enforce any policy on The People without their democratic consent. I do not mean to re-iterate history that is already commonly known, but I preface this document with this reminder of Petra’s origin to describe how far this Commonwealth’s government has deviated from this vision. As it stands, institutions of Petra are severely disconnected. The Round Table exists in name only, the Garmont Assembly is yet only an infant, and the Council which governs Petra can very well ignore these aforementioned bodies. We must strive for a unified Commonwealth, tied together by the strings of chivalry and liberty. Peter-Nicholas Montalt Elector of the Mardonlands I - The Government The Commonwealth is ruled chiefly by the King or Queen of the Petra, and their government shall only be the Garmont Assembly. The Electors of the Assembly shall be voted into office by the citizens of the Commonwealth every four years, or at the discretion of the King or Queen of the Petra. An Elector must be a knight of the Commonwealth, or be nominated by a knight themselves. If Elected, a knight is barred from serving the Commonwealth in any military capacity, unless during war. The King or Queen of the Petra may deny a nomination made by a knight, should they deem their moral character to be unfit for office. After every election, Electors will nominate and vote for a Lord Chancellor, who will operate chief amongst them as the Head of State. They shall hold authority over the Order of the Petrine Laurel, represent the Commonwealth in foreign diplomacy, and execute the laws of the Commonwealth. Typically, the King or Queen of Petra will hold an audience with the elected Chancellor, and may recommend a different Elector as a candidate to the Assembly. The Chancellor will appoint a Vice Chancellor, Treasurer, and a Knight-Paramount from the Electors of the Garmont Assembly. They may, at their discretion, resign this position to another Elector. They may also appoint further advisory positions. The Chancellor is also held responsible to the law by the Garmont Assembly and Electors may find them impeached through a majority vote or sacked by the King or Queen of the Petra. They are also liable to the punishment of a crime, if applicable. All Acts that affect the Commonwealth must pass in majority by the Garmont Assembly. An Act is typically an executive or legislative directive. Acts are not allowed to change nobility, the Order of the Petrine Laurel, or foreign diplomacy. II - Administration of Justice The Knight-Paramount is responsible for administering the laws of the Commonwealth, and organizing trials when these laws are broken by both citizens and nobility. They may nominate knights of the Commonwealth to administer justice in their absence. In the case that a knight breaks a law, the King or Queen of the Petra will supervise trial in place of the Knight Paramount. However, the sovereign will typically defer this responsibility back to the Lord Chancellor. III - Nobility Men or women who hold a title in the Commonwealth may be oathed as a knight, but are barred from being nominated to the Garmont Assembly. This limitation does not apply to their immediate family.

Username: Zynlooord Persona Name: Peter-Nicholas Montalt Persona Age: 59 Place of Residence / Street Address: Commonwealth Lane 2 Seat you are running for (ex. The People's seat of Val de Lagne):The First People's Seat of the Mardonlands

A Montalt remarks, “I must admit, the Alstion game is cunning: scheme with heathens to divide humanity, and then half a century later, claim it for themselves.”

Peter Montalt recites the missive, with some modifications. “…Though your body may break and your life’s blood stain the ground, know that you make the holiest of sacrifices for the Lord King of Balian, whom is still banished from our lands for adultery many years ago (we chose to forget this).”

“…Tatake.” Said Gorb’Gorkil in the corner

"Friar Villorik, Firstly, I must commend you on your observations. I do not mean to pen this letter as some sort of refutation, but rather a supplement to your thinking; perhaps, my response will allow you to ponder more over the why the issue you mention persists. Unlike its promulgation, the High Pontiff is no longer seen as the direct 'representative' of our Lord's will, but rather, the shepherd of Canonist thought. As such, the 'role' of the Church has often molded to the direction of its master; the Vicar. Under Lucien, it was the faith militant. Under others, it was rather a scholarly institution. To most, it was to keep the peace. Compared to most contemporary history, we now live in unprecedented times. Why is that? To put it simply, there is no Fidei Defensor. Historically, the role of the Church was intertwined with a Crowned Emperor (thus, the common saying of "Crown and Laurel"). The Church relied on the Emperor to quite literally "defend the faith", and for the most part, relied on the influence of an Empire to spread its political will. Obviously there have been many independent cases where this relationship has been soured (such as Owyn III), often leading to trends such as an independent papal state, an independent church militia, schisms, etcetera. But when you study the scrolls and even the history of our Church, this has been prescribed as the trend. It is largely known that the Emperor and High Pontiff were dependent on each other, each in different ways. Now to your point, the Church is forced to back the political ambitions of the largest human conglomerate, because there is no Empire and Fidei Defensor for them to rely on. We have seen this with the previous struggle with both Aaun and Haense; effectively, the nation who bought the most majority support of humanity was often the nation which earned the political capital of the Church. Why did the Church intercede in the death of King Edmund of Aaun, but not the King Frederick of Oren? Because one nation was still victorious, and the other wasn't. Some may call this as politics, and while I must agree that some actions of the Church have certainly been malicious, I would prescribe it to mere survival. I am unsure of how to remedy this, but perhaps an independent state and militia may be the answer. But then, we have seen that an independent Church has always violated the political interests of human countries. Will this bring another schism? Who knows. - Father Adelric"

What's your go to zyn flavor

This thread is such a Derfey moment

Oren

Geopolitical Derfey comments, “I think they forgot a member of the ‘Canonist’ alliance.”

"LETS ******* GOOOOO!!!" Said Jonny Fortesque.

Robert 'Derfei' Alstion makes some modifications to the public missive: The Archbishop of Albarosa, The Prince Merryweather Lord Commander, The Viscountess Valence Governor of the King’s Person, HRH Prince Robert Alstion Defender of the Faith Sir Gawyn Tiber Knight Grandmaster of the Order of Paradisus, Ms. Melina Dieuxmont, And Sjt. Louis Haverlock.

Skimmed through the post and while I agree with some of these arguments, realistically there's only so much staff can do about this. I really think this plague of determining "proper conflict" has devolved to an issue with player mentality, not a specific ruleset. We've seen combat and conflict rulesets dramatically change over the past few years, but these issues still persist. Why? At the end of the day, the responsibility of changing and guiding how playerbases approach conflict roleplay falls on the leaders of communities (not necesssarily the NL, but for example, a military leader). If people really care about the issue of CRP vs. PVP, set an example of having a good mentality as the leader of your RP group. If you set an example of CRPing in good faith, and PVPing when needed (or if both parties are down to just pvp), the grunts/noobs that follow you will inevitably adopt the same practice. We often see many people talk about how they've had the greatest CRP duels ever regardless of the outcome, because the two players beforehand set mutual standards for what that conflict would look like. Imagine now, if military/community leaders set that example for the people under them. At the end of the day: sure, there's still rules to work on (Re: Xarkly's post about mechanical running). But at the same time, there's only so much change in the rules that we can administrate. It falls on RP leaders of militaries and communities who care about these issues to set the example of when it's fair to CRP, and when it's fair to PVP. Only then, we might see some change spread across the server.

Sir Peter Montalt, Baronet of Ivanovich in Veletz, signs the missive.