Shattered Kingdoms

Ironically, the simpliest answer is usually the best answer. Not to mention if such a change was to go through, I would have been one of the first people to exploit it, much like the mentor system *whistles*

To 'exploit' it? Big deal. Cabal powers and abilities make remarkably little difference in someone's ability to pk in this mud. The most you could 'exploit' is killing big NPCs for their landsknechts.

If you are properly roleplayed and not breaking the rules of this mud by trying to roleplay being a pacifist some days and a crusader the other, you wouldn't have an opportunity to join the Fist in the firstplace.

Unfortunately, I think that the leaders of these cabals have slowly destroyed the standards for joining to the point where essentially anyone could gain access into any cabal/tribunal of his aura. I have confidence I could make a character who would join Guardians, Talon, Peacekeeper, Druids, and Hammer all at the same time. I don't think this would be overpowered, personally, but I also think that the only reason I could make a character in all 5 of those organizations would be because the standards for induction have lowered so much that it is en embarassment.

Cabals and tribunals should be hard to get into and only open to -characters- who have shown consistent roleplay over an extended period of time.

Ah, I see you wish to exploit this possible change aswell. Good man. And yeah, five new skills/spells adds nothing to the table when it comes to PK...... What fantasy world you living in?

Edit: Now that I think about it, probably rock being a FISTie while in a tribunal, can just imagine the fun of whirlwind kick while protecting your city, especially if the adjacent room has a law NPC or spawns one. Or hell A Druid would rock too, entangle and round up law NPCs and keep sending them in on the person with no risk to yourself.... damn this just gets better. DO IT!

...and the implication it contains that people ought to be abruptly and artificially altering the direction of their RP to fit with the vicissitudes of OOC reality.

I said I could join multiple cabals and tribunals, and while this might make my own character stronger in some ways - it really would not affect a great deal in player killing. I would not be any more afraid of a Fist/Hammer/Harlequin mercenary than I would be of a Fist mercenary.

Yep! Specifically, it was the Druids who started doing some very Sith-unfriendly things. (Yes, I know Ayamao != Sith, but it did in all but name.) For a while, Gaal and Camby were alternating banishments and pardons on the same characters. There'd been tensions between the Druids and the elves before, but it became publick and somewhat violent, to the point where it really didn't make sense at all for the D'Astae Druids to have legal influence in Ayamao.

Similar scenarios had cropped up in Exile as well, with unofficial nationalistic organizations springing up in support (at first) of the Hammer. The Order of the Rose, the Peacekeepers and so on. The Peacekeepers got some momentum going and really established their own unique identity. I can't remember the Peacekeepers being at odds with the Hammer in those early days of tribunals, but it's possible. By then, I was more involved in the Guardians/Druids scene. Keepers and the Hammer have certainly had some conflict in recent time.

The Council and the Talon sprung up because the code was there, not because there was necessarily anyone clamoring for their tribunal-like group in those kingdoms to be split off.

EDIT: I interpreted V'klya's response as a question, but maybe it was a statement? In which case, enjoy storytime with Bux.

Peace,
Bux

Having been involved in a lot of Council [semi-]vs. Adepts drama in my time, I can tell you that some justification has developed since then. I haven't played a Talon or a Fistie though, so I don't know much about their current IC relationship to one another politically.



It was a statement [emoticon in raw form led to confusion, I think]. But thank you, I always do.

I'm pretty certain V'klya's comment was a statement, but storytime is always fun.

The Peacekeepers were created out of a rift between the city and the Hammer. Remember Gloif killing Aztalyn, etc? Though to a point the theme was devised and fostered in the knowledge that tribunals were coming and a desire for those involved (myself included, I'll add) to have Taslamar enjoy the privilage of being the first to follow the Ayamao.

But in the case of the Ayamao, the Knights of the Selkwood had long been played as a counterfoil to the Druids, even predating the D'Astae involvement and so were a natural progression. The Peacekeepers, on the other hand, had long been played as an extention to the Hammer, so in that respect the split was fabricated.

In any case, my purpose for mentioning these old arguments was not to dispute them as incorrect, but rather to point out that they arguably still apply. I just don't agree that they necessarily remain valid anymore when stacked up against the size of the playerbase now and the consequences of fragmenting the players into many disparate groups.



Absolutely not. At least not within certain boundaries, in any case.

Because to a point, we do this anyway. There is a certain stereotype forced upon you by your choice of race, class and alignment, and there is an expectation that you will interpret and so play your character within certain parameters accordingly. The subsequent selection of affiliation in terms of religion and cabal is just an extention of this.

But there's nothing abrupt or artificial about it.

And no reason why conflict (Peacekeeper interests in defence vs Hammer interests in aggression, for instance) can't be played out within the umbrella of a given organisation.

To take the Ayamoan example, had Dulrik not created the Knights of the Selkwood when he did and thus split the Druids with the creation of tribunals, it would not have affected the roleplayed tension and split over the D'Astae fundamentalism under Gaal's direction and Camby's more civic interests as King of Sith'a'niel. You would have just coped with it in other ways.

The Druids remain Ayamoan in origin and bias. Under Gaal the tention between them and the elves was an obvious theme to follow. But under future leaders of the Druids there would be no reason why the polarities of that relationship might not reverse.

The OOC realities of the game mechanics are not necessarily a straight-jacket within which to confine your character and roleplay, but rather a structure to be worked with.[/u]

I still like the idea of Dual membership. Although, there has to be then a reason to not join a cabal and/or trib. That is why there should be some set of universial powers that everyone has access to as long as they are not in a cabal/trib. Which would make the idea of being and independent still a viable option for PvP and/or PvE. Along with Lei Kung's ideas of stripping a couple of powers from the cabals and give them to their respective trib, would give a huge variety of options for players when they make a char instead of just either, "Which cabal do I want to make this char for?" Yeah, there are independents out there but the the general focus of chars is to get the cabal powers so that they can pk better. Yeah, they all have abilities that are more rp driven and that is nice, but they all have at least 2 powers that makes them significantly more effective in pk.

I think I like the dual-membership idea. Jardek has made the best arguments to go along with the change, in my book. I'd like to see it go along the lines of making things more complex and more fun.

1) Change tribunals to allow them to include NPCs in attacks, for warring with other nations.

2) Change cabals to have secretive use of powers.

3) Allow dual membership.

4) Make no restrictions on dual membership or leadership of groups.

5) Be rid of Oathbreaker and any associated penalty with leaving an organization.

6) If there becomes abuse, let it be handled by IMMs and if it becomes rampant, code fixes on an as needed basis. Allow people to shine or screw up. Deal with issues as they come up, instead of planning for issues that *might* come up.

A