Shattered Kingdoms

Both Cannibal and DA put forth examples that they believe shows a flaw in the dual membership concept. To summarize those examples a tribunal’s membership consisting of dual members from multiple cabals runs into a problem when one cabal decides to ruin the city of said tribunal. Because of cabal alliances and mischief makers half or more of the tribunal membership then is in league to ruin the city.

It is an interesting example but it neglects many factors. First, if leaders are not allowed to be dual members, instantly the traitors would be outlawed and considered criminals of the worst sort in the eyes of the tribunal’s allies. The booting and outlawing would be extremely effective if it happened during the uprising. Second, any character that decided to commit such an act openly would be labeled traitorous and face difficulty being inducted into another tribunal. Third, just because player organizations have alliances does not mean they will join another’s war. Although if the allied organizations did, I would bet a world war would ensue, after all that is how WWI started (I actually see that as a benefit). Fourth, the example fails to account for characters acting in the best interests of that character. Leaders of cabal’s that have infiltrated wouldn’t have their spies turn coat (without one hell of a reason) unless they wanted to give up all ins into that tribunal. The insiders wouldn’t wish to expose themselves because then they are out of the tribunal and exposed as traitors, a tag that will follow their character (maybe even the player).

All in all, it seems to be an example that MIGHT happen and if it did it MIGHT be bad…for a short time. But I believe when it is looked at realistically, it is possible but highly improbable because the motivations are stacked against such an action. I see it happening to trigger a large scale RP and if that being the case I hardly see a problem.


Later on Cannibal brings up a point about OOC contacts being used to run a cabal and tribunal. Again with separate leadership this is less likely. More importantly this would fall under collusion which would be easily noticed by the Imms. In that case I would suggest a public and harsh punishment. All the Imms would have to watch is induction times and compare membership lists which they have easy access to. Hell, Dulrik could have reports generated that would show who is joining what when. Collusion of this nature really shouldn’t be a problem. More importantly, it seems very uncreative and dull to have a group take over the same cabal and tribunal when they could take over the cabal and get involved in all kinds of intrigue rather then all being the same.

PS. DA mentions something about having to revamp kingdoms because cabals take them over. Again with leaders not allowed dual membership this isn't a problem.

Lei Kung

Always interesting how you throw out your opinion as fact (without any support). My opinion is it’s a step in the right direction. Assuming cabals and tribunals are equal in power now, giving up two cabal powers to gain all of the tribunal ones would be a net gain for the player. So yes I see it being used, but the question is if that is enough to make loyalties to the tribunals competitive with that of cabals?

Lei Kung

I say we just allow dual memebership and see what happens.

Yes people are discussing how certain ideas might be abuse or what not, that type of discussion is what Dulrik asked for. Not sure why you find that surprising or whatever, its just trouble shooting before the task is undertaken.

I don't believe minor changes can get rid of the two major flaws in merging. First, it is unfitting the RP, the structure, and the uniqueness effectively destroys that which has previously established. Second, it is a short term solution at best because what happens when the player base expands. Just because this MIGHT fix a certain problem doesn't mean it is the best solution or even the easiest because it causes problems of its own.

Lei Kung

While visions of espionage-filled tribunals may be enticing, tribunal leaders will be smart enough to prevent them from happening.

If a tribunal leader wants to be independent of cabals, he's not going to tolerate spies. He'll take measures to ensure they're few and far between. Alignment restrictions will tighten to avoid the selfish: potential Harlequins all. Applicants will be led through rituals designed to seperate those clinging to cabal philosophies. Even then, any sign of split loyalities will probably earn a quick kick.

But more likely, a tribunal leader will decide to get in on the deal and join a cabal too. Why wouldn't he then immediately invite all cabal members into his tribunal, so they can have leadership powers? And now the leader can be absolutely sure there won't be spies from other cabals, by requiring all tribunal members to join the cabal or be kicked. Voila! A merger in all but name.

Either way, the easy-to-join tribunals that gave newbies an obvious place to find companionship will be gone. I think tribunals are worth saving for that alone, even aside from the RP opportunities they provide. Force tribunals to be closely allied with their regional cabal, and the problems of population splitting will largely disappear. Wasn't that the goal?

But if instead, we want to merge cabals and tribunals, let's just do it. There's little point in double membership games that just make life awkward until the inevitable conclusion.

I disagree. If cabals are allowed to conceal themselves, I don't see how a tribunal could prevent dual membership. More importantly, it is very possible to have a character that is a patriot and a member of a cabal. Only leaders with poor character judgment skills would deny their tribunal the boost a dual member would bring it.



Again this is only a problem if leaders are allowed to have dual membership. Without that, like I've argued since my first posting, the problem you point out doesn't exist.



Why will the “home for newbies” be gone? Wouldn’t a paranoid leader grab onto the newbie because he knows they can be trusted? And the rules for induction should still stand and the need for numbers in tribunals will grow so why? More importantly, as I pointed out above there wouldn't be a real way to tell if the applicant is a dual member if they wished to hide it. But who cares if they are so long as they are a patriot, then the dual membership benefits the tribunal. Only a supremely paranoid leader would deny the benefits of a loyal dual member and restrict induction thereby starving his own tribunal. I see what you are going for but it just doesn't hold up.



Again, merger is a solution that just doesn't work. You can find any number of arguments in my posts as to why. I do enjoy your rhetoric though, awkward life until the inevitable conclusion...paints a good picture. Unfortunately, it isn't supported by solid reasoning and is little more then the vivid picture it paints. I see no reason for life being awkward and I don't see this "inevitable conclusion" we are to be afraid of.

Lei Kung

I believe you can't force all your tribunal/cabal members to join a different cabal/tribunal. It would be abuse, since IC you wouldnt froce all your comrades to join a secret organization... not so secret, and you cant force people to want to defend a country. Its abusing OOC knowledge in a sense because the only reason you would force them is cause you know it will grant them law immunity and be a way to twink things in your favor.

Here's a thought. As a Tribunal, you are at war with the Cabal but not the Nation. Would you be able to take your guard with you to the Cabal site? Through the nation in question?

Sorry, Lei Kung, but I'm convinced this is wishful thinking. Let's go into it in a little more detail:



I'm hardly an expert on cabals, but I don't think it's too hard. As pointed out, if the leader intends to unite his tribunal with his cabal of choice, it's trivial. Whether or not the leader joins the cabal, he can bring in all the cabal members. Said cabal members can verify whether each tribunal member is a cabal member. Join or be kicked. No more spies!

And there are other measures for the tribunal purist. Alignment can't be concealed. Philosophies can't be entirely concealed. Is a Druid likely to kill a priest of Nashira in cold blood, graphically defile the altar, and raze the surrounding forest? Sounds like a great membership requirement to me. Or the leader can just insist an applicant attack the cabal guardian while he watches.



That's because you're thinking in terms of raw power, not split loyalties. Frankly, tribunals don't need a lot of power to defend a city. What they want are trustworthy friends. Say I'm the Talon tribunal leader. Why exactly do I want someone in my organization who

is sworn to the King of Taslamar (Hammer) - Everybody loves a traitor!
is opposed to civic expansion (Druid) - A big help on building projects!
is opposed to wanton violence (Fist) - Just what you want in a soldier!
is opposed to law on principle (Harlequin) - He'll be a great cop!
commits murder as an act of worship (Adept) - *add your own joke here*

Yet if a tribunal does aspire to power enough to accept cabal members, why not just merge with the closest match, as described above? There's little IC rationale for suffering the squabbles a multi-cabal tribunal must endure. At the least, cabal domination sounds like more fun than worrying about infiltrating Harlequins.



Do you really think that allowing spies means less caution instead of more? Let's be serious.

Granted, covert cabal actions that affect tribunals would be really cool. But this dual-membership method is dependent on benign neglect by tribunal leaders. They don't have much incentive to see their organizations in chaos.

First off I don't believe you would have to force anyone into dual membership and if that was a problem a simple rule would eliminate that problem. I could see a secret society suggesting members (maybe not a specific member) to join the ranks of other governments. It only makes sense that they would wish to expand their influence.



As I pointed out it wouldn't be abuse for secret societies to encourage members to become ranking members of foreign governments. But you are right an army wouldn't force its members to join a secret society. To be fair, it is hardly the same, it isn't the same motivation going both ways. If the cabal was as you say not so secret then there wouldn't be a problem (although I would argue bad leadership) because that can be seen in the Baath (do note the Baath party is fairly secret and influences governments or runs them throughout the middle east) party or the Nazi party. Lastly, you can force people to defend the country if they are in the tribunal. Just ask anyone that's been in the armed services if they can politely refuse to fight or defend.



This isn't OOC abuse at all. There would obviously be benefits to joining a tribunal or having members of your secret society joining tribunals, that's the point. Law immunity is known IC so the character in question would be acting out of IC knowledge not OOC.


Lei Kung