Shattered Kingdoms

Forsooth, your argument is correct as far as it goes. However, with proper RP you can debunk any current system, be it the council of blossoms, or the ranking leadership of Ayamao. The only really difficult nations to usurp ultimate control over are Taslamar and, to a lesser extent, the Empire. A character only has as much control over the country as its player allows, which means the definition of specific tribunals and their sway changes from leader to leader.

You're also defining the term 'disloyal' fairly broadly. The actions undertaken by your hypothetical leader could just as easily be the result of an alliance as a surrender, and those reasons may or may not be sound. That's part of the beauty of a player-led organisation.

Syndal, if you don't have anything to contribute, I suggest you stop posting.

Dual membership should be allowed, So long as it is one cabal and one tribunal... The charactor WILL ultimitly be more with one then the other but so what...

If a tribunal leader wants to join a cabal to try to protect his home nation then so be it... and if he is giving the chance to lead the cabal and does so only to protect his nation... Thats for him to decide...

And conversly... If a cabal leader belives in his ideals and joins a tribunal to push his agenda let it be... and if he is offered leadership and he abuses his tribunal powers then so be it...

I just want to see a a what will happen if a harlie leader takes power in Zhensh while the other leader of zhensh is a follower of Ain and the head of the hammer...

Somthing like that will surely lead to a major battle in zhensh where the "leaders" use thiere powers to clear the people on thiere sides of thiere sentences... Corrupt leaders like this sounds fun to me...

I do think its one cabal and one tribunal... not two tribunals or two cabals right??? I dont feel like going back to read... but I think allowing people to join two seperate cabals or two seperate tribunals is bad...plain and simple...

I (largely) agree with our illiterate friend.

Joining two cabals or tribunals is stupid and I pray to god that Dulrik never implement something so terrible.

But if he does... I'll take leadership of Druids and Adepts, fight peons.

After Seromet and Omnn's relationship I wouldn't even let you be an Adept let alone lead. Unless you let me lead Droobies. Was going to try and RP myself into the druids using Plaguelord RP. Their pestulance spells and Halls of Balance with certain NPC, I could have done it in time.

This is my first post in this thread, but basically, I agree with Jardek - although I hate Machiavelli.

Dual-membership opens up for interesting new opportunities - including, but not limited to, espionage and revised diplomacy. It also grants the advantage of making use of the rather limited number of players we have at the moment. Every proposal of a new cabal/tribunal has been cut down with the argument of 'not enough players'. This argument should be held in consideration when this idea is put up for debate. It is definately a solution to the problem.

A backside of the idea would be that it would tear apart some of the team-spirit which currently reigns the cabals/tribunals, due to the one-character-rule. That it would abolish this trust would both be a good and a bad thing. It would lead to a mistrust of everyone but the leader, but it would also result in absolute loyalty of the leader. This would be a great hinderance when trying to infiltrate some organisations, but also something to play on when trying to advance in the ranks (whether you are a spy or not).

The entire concept of perhaps swearing allegiance to an organisation when you are really sworn to another group is great. It would add to the secrecy of the groups, because random recruiting would result in the enemy knowing your ranks. While you also have to watch among your high-ranking officers. You would choose those you trust, but there would also be the double-edged sword. You could offer a high position to those whose true affiliance are dubious - a great diplomatic and pugnacious tool for the cabals/tribunals.

I say, let it be. If we get enough players, it can be changed back (if not a success) and cabals and tribunals can once again be divided...

This is not what the debate is about. It is about concurrent membership in a cabal and a tribunal. Not two cabals. Not two tribunals. There would never be any reason to allow membership in two of the same type of organization.

A

HF Thuban, leader of Adepts and Druids...

That would be fun.

If this whole thing turns out to reduce the number of organizations, which at times looks possible, there really should be a deep cabal. Tribunal wouldn't make much sense there, owing to the backstabbing nature of deep-elves, but just about anything you do with a deep cabal, whether it's deep-elves, or all members of the deep, would by default be pretty cool.