Shattered Kingdoms

Well, we were asked to submit gradual proposals for change. We've certainly not been promised anything, but that's a good way to get things moving again.

I think the differences over leader limitations aren't something we're going to resolve. The issue becomes a value judgement over what disadvantages you'd rather have. So I'm going to suggest a Plan B as a different possibility than Lei Kung's proposal.

Plan B, draft version:

1. Allow joint membership in one cabal and one tribunal, with no special restrictions.
- The Midnight Council is designated a cabal. If members can enter tribunals as spies, more power to them.
- Shortage of dark tribunals temporarily solved by forcing Guardians or Talons grey, as part of a global RP.

2. If this works out, make secondary changes for balance and ease of use.
- Create tribunal for Empire, as balancing dark tribunal. Tribunal takes the name of Midnight Council. Cabal changes name and takes a more global perspective.
- Tweak cabal powers. For former MC, replace leadership with a new power. For Harlequins, improve powers if tribunals have effectively shut them out.
- Consider changes to Oathbreaker flag checks and leader dual membership, if immortals have had to interfere too much.

Not included in steps: Cabal secrecy improvements, tribunal NPCs in warring kingdoms, tribunal combat system, etc. While interesting, they are not tied to dual membership, or vice-versa.

I don't disagree with any of those, but I have to niggle on one point, and that is the proposed forced change to the GoA and/or Talons.

Now, the thing is that Zhenshi has been screwed around a lot since the imperial crown. It's been changed from light, to grey/light, to light, and I'm not sure they can go through too many more forced changes before they lose their identity completely.

GoA is actually not a light-aura tribunal. Think about the people they represent, who include both grey and dark auras rather than the most-common elves everyone thinks about. In fact, back when I played in the guardians I actively encouraged dark aura members, one of whom held a high position. So while I suppose in theory I disagree with you there, I agree that maybe it should be realised in a global RP that GoA is a grey aura tribunal.

Perhaps, for example, the centaurs of Grahme could realise that their interests aren't being recognised, or even the sprites of Elisair, and they could start a civil war that'd only end upon their less goodie-two-shoes interests are recognised by the rest of the alliance. I think the most important part of the southwest is the word 'alliance'. You're not talking about a kingdom, like every other country. You're talking about a band of disparate nation-states who joined together out of necessity to keep the non-fey out of their business.

I agree.



Possibly, if the alternative were deemed to complex to include in a first phase.

But the obvious alternative is to split Midnight Council into the "Midnight Council" cabal and "Imperial Legion" tribunal as part of phase one. Seems a perfectly natural split that's been a long time coming, no less so that the old Hammer/Peacekeeper seperation.

Midnight Council gets a new skill, the nature and detail of which can be decided on their own forum. They don't loose out in any way in RP terms, because if they want to continue their close connection with the Legions and the Empire, its members can just go ahead and rejoin the Legion.



I disagree. I wouldn't like to see a global RP force anything of the kind.

The Guardians are borderline grey anyway, the Talon less so, but still not as zealot as the Peacekeepers. They had a Hellion amongst their number of late, for example. Granted, it was an "Allikat special" but telling all the same that it worked for the Talon. She never managed it with the Peacekeepers. Most she got was her name on a plaque.

So in descending order of morality, you have the Peacekeepers, the Talon, the Guardians, the Legion, then the Council of Necromancers. Seems to me to be graded enough to be balanced as is. Certainly not so unbalanced that you'd want to change anything as part of a first phase.



Granted, you are talking phase two here, though I still hold that the MC/Legion split should be phase one and I don't see why you'd want to change any names. That seems artificial. No reason why the Midnight Council can't take a more global perspective, in the same way the Hammer did when they were originally severed from the Peacekeepers.

On the other hand, a rose is a rose by any other name. As is hemlock. Personally, I'd argue that this issue is less a design consideration than a consideration for whoever ends up playing in these newly split organisations, along with their respective patron immortals.

The Knights of the Selkwood were renamed to the Guardians of the Ayamao by their own wish at the time. The Peacekeepers maintained the name Peacekeepers by debate and discussion amongst the inaugural members of the day.

The Legion are the armed forces of the Empire, in the same way that the Peacekeepers were of Taslamar. Therefore the Midnight Council is the obvious choice for cabal and always has been. Only up until now, they've utterly dominated the Legion.

Though to be blunt, this is a discussion they can sort out amongst themselves on the MC forum. The only design consideration is whether or not to split them into seperate Cabal and Tribunal as part of phase one or leave it until phase two.

I favour the first option.



Agree with the obvious need to replace MC leadership with something new.

I fail to see why you'd have to play with Harlequin powers, or why they's (that one is for Grakus ) be shut out of Tribunals. It occurs to me that if the cabal poised itself right, their members would be like gold dust to tribunals across the board. The Harlequin are morally ambiguous, and any harlequin would make the perfect spy for the secret service of any tribunal.



Although not of crushing urgency, so definately phase two or beyond, I think Oathbreaker should continue to apply to cabals, but be removed from Tribunals. Tribunals are already restricted to recruiting only from members of their kingdom, that's protection enough. If you are a citizen of a nation, you should be eligible to serve in that nation's armed forces.



I agree. None of these are topics without merit, but they are a different subject to this one.

To build on what Forsooth constructed, and perhaps save everybody the bother of reading through my verbose windage above . . .

Plan B, proposed amended draft:

Phase 1
a. Split Midnight Council into a cabal and tribunal.
b. Midnight Council cabal gain compensatory skill to replace leadership.
c. Permit characters to hold dual membership of both a cabal and tribunal at the same time.

Phase 2
a. Review success or otherwise of Phase 1 and issues arising.
b. Remove Oathbreaker restrictions from Tribunal membership.
c. Decide on the final policy for dual leadership.

Notes.
i. Midnight Forum in consultation with relevant Imms to decide on final cabal and tribunal names and the nature of the compensatory cabal skill.
ii. Not included in this development are Cabal secrecy improvements, tribunal NPCs in warring kingdoms, tribunal combat system, etc. While interesting, they are not tied to dual membership, or vice-versa.
iii. Grakus to proof-read the spelling and grammer of this draft, as he seems to like the job. BTW, shouldn't 'wind-bag.' have read 'wind-bag'. ???

I agree with Tat on most things, bolded above are what I feel is important to take a look at very closely. But....no you old salt! Punctuation inside of quotation.

Tatali0n, I encourage you to take ownership of the alternate plan. It's better handled by a strong supporter of dual membership, and I'm still sitting on the fence.

That said, I would like to explore some of the differences, especially the Oathbreaker flag.

The Oathbreaker flag is a great help to newbies who want to join a group. It shouldn't be changed without a reason, and I don't really see one here. Why should someone be able to join a tribunal, fail them, and run off to another one? Is it because they're in a cabal as well now? Then why doesn't it work in reverse, where people get to betray a cabal and join a new one because they're in a tribunal?

Maybe we'll want to change the rules after we've seen the system in action. By all means, put oathbreaker on the list to be checked in step 2a. But I don't like planning for a change when there's been no real argument or evidence that Oathbreaker is a problem.

I'd also encourage you to put Harlequin powers back on the watch list for step 2a. I agree that Harlies have tactical options to offer tribunals. However, Harlies may still be excluded, simply because the cabal is such a poor IC match with law enforcement. If Harlies end up being balanced without extra powers, that's great, but I think it's worth checking.

Otherwise I think the changes good. I was seeking more reversibility, but this approach is likely to work better.

Because tribunals serve kingdoms or men. Cabals have a higher order purpose and generally are seen as receiving their abilities from a higher order, or gods.

Players can freely choose what kingdom to live in, to a point, they can be deported merely on their whim. Importing them takes the other kingdoms decision. Why not let serving a kingdom work like living in one. If the second tribunal will take you, more power to them.

Cabals, since their powers come from the gods, are more like religions, and you have about a 0% chance of being able to switch religions.

Time to retire this thread in favor of the new one.