Shattered Kingdoms

I remember my first reaction to the concept of dual membership when it was just an idea being tossed about (I think D started it). And my knee-jerk reaction was Hell No, do you have any concept of how over powering that would be? But over time I’ve come full circle and am a big believer in dual membership…so long as it is implemented properly.

The first issue I would like to address is the roles of cabals and tribunals under this change. One aspect that has been pointed out is cabal would move more to the shadows. Personally, I find this to be a very attractive idea seeing that these organizations could take on roles like the Illuminati (or any other secret society you like). The problem is dual membership alone will not accomplish this goal. Because any time a member of a cabal uses a power those around and/or subject to the power will see it used. Hence, secrecy is lost along with the concept of the cabal being a secret society. The simple solution is to make any powers a cabal has concealed from non-members when used. This does pose a problem with offensive attacks but I will address that later.

Along the same lines, if cabals are to become the political movers within the shadows, tribunals then need to be the overt and public force. Personally, I really like this concept since tribunals are the player’s face of a country’s governance. But as things stand now dual membership alone would not allow for this. Since there is already a diplomacy system in place, by simply allowing tribunal members to bring leadership affected NPCs into countries that tribunal is at war with, tribunals become the obvious force. This would give teeth to the diplomacy system while also giving tribunals the ability to wage war, at least to a degree (I will write more on this later as well).

The next issue would have to be with balance. As long as cabals have what is generally considered “the better skill set” there will be an inherent contradiction in cabals being the shadow powers while tribunals are the overt force. My suggestion is to remove two powers from every cabal, namely the most offensive powers (note: I would give specific on which ones and why but not in a public forum). This allows cabals to still offer very appealing tactical reasons to join while moving their focus away from their powers to the ideals that bind them. Not to mention, with the reduced focus on the tactical advantages and greater RP focus cabals would have, it removes a need to belong to both. That is important because other player should not know that the other members of the tribunal are or will be members of a cabal as well. Now I’m of a split mind on what to do with the removed powers. I do like the concpt of pooling them and then giving two powers to each tribunal so that there is more variety among tribunals. Although, I also see an argument against because then a non-tribunal member would be at a significant tactical disadvantage. In light of this change cabals should become more elite and tribunals should be very easy to join so I think I favor giving the powers to tribunals. (Note: cabals becoming more elite in allowing membership is needed to keep players unsure that any given tribunal member is also a member of a cabal)

Many people have brought up the idea of this allowing for actual spies, which is true, but I see something greater. Because cabals are becoming the shadow movers based on ideals and countries are what give real power, those dual members will then try to influence the decisions made by that country. Yes, spying and relaying information is interesting but placing members or recruiting members so that your cabal can help direct a war strikes me as having a much greater level of intrigue. I would also suggest that there should be a #1 and #2 leader for all player organizations and no #1 leader could be a dual member and no #2 leader could be a leader in another organization. That will prevent absolute chaos, not that I believe that would happen anyways but it is a preventative measure (also avoiding conflicts of interest).

One of the best reasons for this would be the move of tribunals to the forefront. This would allow for in the future real wars between countries. If D wanted, he could code it so that land and/or resources could be captured. Combined this with the economic system going in and I’m sure you can see how much richer the RP would be but also a strategic element would created (not just tactical). The ideas Cannibal put forth about room destruction and repair (a long ago post) would also be a possibility that would be possible because of actual tribunal wars, again if D was so inclined.

Now assuming the above modifications to the dual membership suggestion, there is one problem I see. Namely, the negative effect it might have on non-code supported player organizations. There is a fair sized gap between a non-member and one who is a dual member. This could impede the creation of non-code supported player organizations that require their members to be free from all cabals and tribunals. I don’t believe it would harm the non-code supported organization that would allow membership in one code supported organization (i.e. a clan that wishes to defend their homeland).

Lei Kung

Back in the day, the average number of people online were 60 or more. Now its about 30 or so. That's why people want to see a change.

LOL, so you knew you would smoke me out by starting this thread...way too funny. At any rate I did post. Oh btw I think it was you that started the idea because I seem to remember (don't ever rely on my memory) you tossing out the idea on the imm channel. At that time I think it might have been more of an off the cuff idea. Maybe I'm wrong but no matter how it came about, I'm now a supporter. Note: I'm not claiming you support it or don't, just that you are the one that started me on one of my crusades

Lei Kung

Ah, how would merging say the peacekeepers and the hammer be the same as having hammer members in the peacekeepers and the talons and the guardians? Please explain how that is the same because to me that is very very different.

Lei Kung

Before I even read the rest of this epic, just wanted to comment on this. I'm pretty much positive that this was not my idea. I remember first hearing the concept by reading your post. So maybe it was someone else's idea entirely to start with. *shrug*

I would go for the ability for dual citizenship at any point. But for those who say it's to overpowering, how about , if, say, people in a cabal who also joined a tribunal only got law immunity, and not leadership. Because these people are "splinter cells" of a sort. Sanctioned by governments, but not officially recognized. Some of you may shoot it down as a dumb idea - but it's an idea.

Hey I don't even trust my memory so it could well have been someone else. But if no one else steps up, I'll take the credit .

I like goldenlanterns idea. You can have a tribunal buffs or cabal skills. only problem is when they realize you cant control guards if you were trying to remain secret... woops

True enough. But something's gotta give. One could also say that at the time of (dual investment) the occasion, a presiding imm would strip one cabal power from the character. Character's choice maybe, but it has to happen or he won't get the invest.

I could agree with the one ccabal power being chosen by the player to be stripped. Usually there's one that's not well used for some race/class combos in every cabal.