Shattered Kingdoms

Hrm. As I skim over all these threads I'm thinking what might be interesting is this spin.

Cabal as agents of the government. It might be nice to allow tribunals to forge alliances with cabals and use them as thier CIA/Special Forces. I know you can already ally with cabals, but perhaps in doing so you allow the cabals law immunity.

I'm not sure. I just like the idea of governments using outside forces to do thier dirty work, through blackmail or mutually beneficial arrangements.

Oh my, how could I have missed the fact that you were responding to points I’ve made, that means you have read all my posts and didn’t just skim them. Let’s just look at some of your responses to see if you are reading my posts or just skimming them (or if you’re reading comprehension is that of a slow third grader).



Well I flat out said in my first post that skills/spells for cabals need to be concealed in their use, so the point about certain cabal powers that are not hidden implies you didn’t read my post.



Here you are asking for specifics when in a previous post of mine I stated I wouldn’t get into because it is a public forum. Not only does this indicate that you haven’t read the post but you are encouraging others (namely myself) to break the rules and speak on things not allowed in this forum.



Every one of my posts has been about the adjustments that I see need to be made. This comment flat out says “I haven’t read your posts, would you please re-post everything”.

Next we get to your long response to my long response to you. Yes, here you are addressing everyone one of my points. Although, when we read your response it is plainly obvious you either skimmed what I wrote or you were unable to comprehend it. Let’s take a deeper look.



This shows you didn’t read the points I made about tribunal being able to go to war. It also shows you didn’t read/understand my point about how removing powers from a cabal set and moving them to a tribunal would shift focus (the focus shift would happen with the stripping and ability for tribs to go to war as is, I believe). I think I have more then enough reason to believe you haven’t read (that’s me being generous) or didn’t comprehend my posts.

Then comes your post responding to the possible problems with dual membership without adjustment could cause. Through out your response it is obvious that you read parts but not the whole thing, or you failed to understand the points being made.



Because you refuse to read or can’t understand, I’m force to respond to the same points yet again. Without adjustment you are right that tribunals will become a tool of cabals, hence the need for adjustments like I’ve been saying all along. Without adjustment a cabal could take control of every country (except the Empire). But with adjustment the focus overtly switches to tribunals. First you must realize that I’m not suggestion a one step process so you must stop using simple one step thinking. What would removing powers from cabals do? It would make cabals less tactically attractive (hence more RP focused). What would making the remaining powers concealed do? It would allow them to make the move to be secret societies. What would allowing tribunals to go to war do? It would push them to the forefront or overt forces (notice how that combines with cabals moving to the shadows). What would giving the powers to tribunals do? It would make tribunals more attractive tactically. Also notice the extra options player then would have. Also notice the basic difference between cabals and tribunals…one represents a country with the other represents certain ideals. These changes encourage those roles.



I can’t help but believe you only truly read the first sentence in regards to the third problem I listed because I go on to explain. But I will do it again here for you. Yes tribunals, through their dual members, would have a greater range of powers to defend with but that doesn’t mean they are more empowered then cabals. Without adjustment the cabals will be the forefront force because they are the obvious power and the only ones with the ability to wage war. That means they will take over countries effectively making the tribunal nothing more then another way to give cabals more power. Again, this is why adjustments are needed and if you really read what I wrote you would either see that or put forth an argument that actually relates to my meaning rather then just attacking one sentence at a time.

In your last response to me we see you saying



That is something I’ve been saying the whole time in every post...but you claim to have read what I wrote.



First off you are wrong about why the mass inductions happened…at least to start. They first started because CRS went in not “adjusting for the lowest common denominator” which lead some to see that with numbers they could “win SK” and that is what happened. Then others did as you say, mass inducted for protection. If you had read my points you would see that I’m saying adjustments need to be made so this doesn’t repeat itself.



I think I already pointed out extra powers don’t lead to more inductions, leaders do that. Second, tribunals are a country’s army, it should be larger then a cabal. Third, you are not taking into consideration the effects an economy would have on wars. Yes they can war but if a country does it indiscriminately they should end up hurting themselves because of the extra money spent in being at war. Again you are not looking at the whole picture but rather trying to attack me. And if you did read my posts, I’m not against people being in player organization but against inductions based on tactical reasons rather then RP reasons. With that in mind the difference between cabals and tribunals is significant. Secret societies should be selective but armies will want all that are able and loyal. Hence there should be more inductions to tribunals but the threat of cabal spies would curb it from inducting everyone.



This is the first original thought you put forth. Even though responding to it doesn’t coincide with the theme of this post, I will. I’ll grant there is no net gain/loss of powers under my suggestion, but for cabals to be in the shadows and tribunals to be the focus there should be a greater tactical draw to the tribunals. I believe this for two reasons; first, it makes cabals less attractive from a pure tactical point of view comparatively and second cabals have a richer story line RP wise because all tribunals are basically the same in being the government.

Seriously man, either read or if you do, make sure you understand what I’m trying to say before you go off making half assed posts. I have no hate for you but I don’t like having to constantly repeat myself because someone didn’t do their due diligence. If you want to debate a point or or clarification orsomething of that nature, I’ll gladly do so but that is different then rehashing.

Lei Kung

Your post is too long and not worth reading, Lei Kung.

Obviously, this isn't the approach I would take namely because of point 4. But if the Imms are willing to deal with problems and quickly, I have a hard time denying them their fun .

I say it is still very important to lessen the tactical influence of cabals and increase it for tribunals. Without moving cabals from the tactical to the RP more I fear that tribunals will just become shells for cabals (that is another reason I have for the leaders not being dual members). Look we are talking about something that will change the face of SK and add a great amount of depth to the game, why should we be scared of re-allocating a few powers that would shift the tactical draw in order to accomplish the change?


Edit: corrected some grammatical errors.
Lei Kung

I like the infiltration aspect, but really do not think this change is needed.

No worries the last one is directed at Joseph. But since it is all about how he either doesn't really read my posts or how he lacks the ability to understand them, I doubt anyone will read it.

Why is everyone so fascinated with the idea of a person swearing an oath to an organization and being a spy in it? Its not going to happen, and if it does happen, it'll probably (as I think it should) be punished. Its the same reason why all deep-elves are evil, why all paladins are good, why you can't change alignment. A certain staticness is needed.

Someone will abuse that freedom, then people will start crying, then flags like oathbreaker will be implemented.

We've been through that I think already.

Scrape cabals, hand over powers to tribunals, make new classes, and give me my damn Minotaur Monk!

Last thing SK needs is cross faction employment, good luck figuring out sides if that happens, or if one leader doesn't get along with another, can't wait for the mess that would leave. Just cause far too many problems and open for too much abuse. So with that said, Make it so. Wouldn't be the first dumb idea Dulrik put in.

I guess I've never understood why so many consider removing variety good for RP. I'll grant that there needs to be some rules such as deep elves are evil and don't get along with normal elves. But to me that has always been about setting the atmosphere of the game. The idea of secret societies working in and out of countries' governments and those countries going to war just seems to add flavor. This doesn't change the histories or motivations of any country nor does it change the goals and motivations of the cabals. It just allows for more complex and political interaction between them.

Lei Kung