Shattered Kingdoms

I'll agree with Jardek though it pains me so.

Also I reckon city guards and bounty NPCs should be made much weaker - make it the tribunals responsibility to defend the town - they'd have more to do then.

I quite like the idea of changing bounty NPCs so that the inform the tribunal of the rough whereabouts of wanted people.

For example it would look like this, obviously it would have to be a 1/8 chance of them reporting at all or it would be spam happy.

[Keepers] Random law NPC: The criminal Timfriend/Dim male elf has been spotted on <Insert room title here>

Explain how this would kill tribunals I fail to see where you are coming from. The fact that leadership could change if someone starts a vote? Then again it might not change if they are a good leader it wont. In fact it encorages good active leaders than have people that respect(or fear) them. It would enable a cabal leader to take charge of a nation. If that leader suddenly brings a whole lot of trouble to the nation then the nation can try to do something about it. I fail to see how it truly damages the tribunal system at all and it enables cabal leaders with out the risk of cabal tribunal leadership getting locked in to an organization for ever. Like most expect would happen eventually.

No Silmar, it's a [REDACTED] idea to let your average Joes have the ability to get new leaders. Not only is the average player a tree-hugging moron that wants to have nothing but mudsex and bold and the beautifulesque 'drama', but your system can be screwed over completely by doing the following.

Step 1. Start a character in desired location
Step 2. Have your twenty friends start characters in desired location
Step 3. Level up a few levels/hang around a few hours/fulfil whatever other minor hoops you'd have to jump through to vote
Step 4. Vote in some incompetent fool who makes everyone leave the tribunal in disgust
Step 5. Go back to your main and laugh mockingly

Sorry, no. Leaders pick leaders, and in the case that all the leaders go without choosing, it becomes a vote for the tribunal. It works well as is and doesn't need fixing and isn't so easily and utterly compromised.

Edit: Oh, and as for KDs getting ten votes or being the actual leaders? Yeah, I cannot wait for the cries of favouritism.

I agree with Tat. This idea is really as simple as:

1. Allow membership in one cabal and one tribunal at the same time.
2. Allow a player to be a leader of both if they're gifted enough to have leadership of both offered to them.

It's that easy.

I am reiterating this in bold in an attempt to get away from that last little spiel and keep this topic on a fruitful course. Seriously, this idea is great if you keep it simple. If you make it complicated, it's not going to please anybody, and it could easily become another change where people start to say "Let's boycott <insert derogatory name for dual membership here>".

Once a cabal leader becomes a tribunal leader, that tribunal becomes the cabal's little pet and serves the cabal's purposes completely.

- Tribunal members are recruited and are obliged to follow the wishes of the leader(aka whatever benefits the cabal).
- Next tribunal leader is chosen by present tribunal leader, and probably is a member of the cabal as well. So the tribunal is locked in service of the cabal.
- Whoever opposes the leader and tries to overtake the tribunal from him ends up out of the tribunal first, because the leader appoints a few other cabal members high in the hierarchy of the tribunal. And the tribunal uninduct command is really powerful if the leader wishes to use it.

Allowing dual leadership will destroy tribunals.

Maybe I've been playing Aerlyn too long, but I could see a Cabal/Tribunal leader never letting on to anyone in the Tribunal about her Cabal affiliations and even playing the two against each other with the only ones the wiser would be the ones who share both.

I could agree to make it possible to lead both, but I would also like to see a system where citizens of a country could band together to dispose of a tribunal leader(easier in some countries than others) that was not doing his or her job well.

Or the tribunal might become the cabal's little pet and serve the tribunal's purposes completely. Or as Ilkaisha sensibly points out, the vast majority may never realise that the guy leads both organisations because it suits his purposes better to not let on.

Bottom line, so what?

Build as much flexibility into it as you can. Ensure its integrity with Immortal oversight as we currently do. Brilliant. You've created a framework for a thousand future myths and legends to be crafted within.



Good grief no! There are so many ways this is wrong. Perhaps, just perhaps, build in something that would allow a majority of tribunal members to mutiny, but no more than this, and personally I'd even baulk at this.

And in any event, this is a different subject; this subject being about the pros and cons of dual membership, not how you'd redesign tribunals or cabals into something bigger, better, just a little pinker or whatever.

Eh, I played a mud with nobles who basicly ran the country like cabals, the system worked there and it wasnt even an enforced RP mud, you could make as many chars you wanted and basicly play them all the same. Except you could only have one character as a noble, like the cabal/tribunal rule here. It's an effective way to make sure the country's leaders are leading the way the citizens want.

I feel that dual membership will further the gap between well-versed experienced players and the average player. Especially if the same player can run both a cabal and tribunal. Leave some spots open for the noobs. INTEGRATION not SEGREGATION!