Shattered Kingdoms

You're straight out wrong there, Lei Kung. Just because you're the Abbot of the Fists doesn't mean you can't take orders from the commander of the Taslamaran military, and vice versa. It doesn't create a conflict because they're mutually exclusive.

Likewise, if you were a Hierophant of the druids, you might wish to infiltrate the council of necromancers to weaken them, and may feel that you'd be the best person for that job.

Just because you think there would be a conflict of interests doesn't mean you should say there would be one for everyone. What you're essentially doing is restricting the RP of other people because of the limits to your own imagination.

It's more like a sergeant of the LAPD taking orders from the FBI. The sergeant might be in charge of his case, but as a member of the government, he has to bow to the will of the FBI if they decide to take jurisdiction. I can think of any number of other circumstances in which a person can do such a thing.

Actually, I’m not wrong. As the leader of an organization he must be the end all of that organization. If he has a superior then effectively he is not the leader of that organization because his leader can command that organization. Beyond that, there is an inherent conflict of interest because the goals of the two organizations are separate. That doesn’t mean at all times the goals will conflict but the possibility is there and that is why conflicts of interest are avoided. Take an example that is very possible, the leader of the Hammer is a member of the Peacekeepers. Much of the time the organizations goals will not come into conflict but the Hammer being a crusading organization may need to take a course of action that places Taslamar in excessive danger. As the leader of the Hammer he must pursue that course but as a sworn defender of Taslamar he must avoid it.

Regarding your example, the leader trying to bring down the Council of Necromancers, is a faulty example because it isn’t the role of the leader. For example, the director of the CIA (or any upper management) does not go on clandestine missions. Look I understand the appeal of wanting to be a leader and a dual member but it just isn’t appropriate.

Lastly, the example of the sergeant and the FBI also doesn’t work. If the FBI can take control of the investigation because it is their jurisdiction, then the sergeant isn’t the equivalent of a leader position. In fact in that case the sergeant is just another member of the law enforcement community where the FBI is the leader of it.

Lei Kung

Sorry Lei, but your argument remains unconvincing. If you don't think you can lead an organisation and be in another, then that sounds like a perfect reason why you shouldn't do both, but I fail to see why you're trying to impose your feelings on the rest of us.

I could very easily be the 'be all' of an organisation and still take orders in another - that is, of course, until I took over both of them.

Pretend, for example, that you are an FBI agent, and you've been sent to infiltrate a biker gang. You do so, and you're raised to their highest echelon throughout the years. Do you say "Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I can't be your boss because I'm also in the FBI and that'd be a conflict of interest", or do you deal with it and stay affiliated with both as your cover would suggest?

There are countless ways, as I said, that it would be appropriate to lead one cabal and be a member of another organisation - not least of which is the maintenance of secrecy. "Oh hey, I'd like you to be my second in command." "Uh... I can't. And I can't say why. But I swear to god, it's not because I have membership in another organisation."

Yeah right.

I absolutely agree with Jardek on this.

Except I accept there might be the possibility of a conflict of interest. But so what? If a cabal manages to compromise the independence of a tribunal by bringing the tribunal's leader into its fold, well and good. It's the responsibility of the tribunal's leader to not be compromised.

Coding the game so that it mechanically prevents an IC conflict of interest is the equivilent of coding it to respond "You can't do that" if an apprentice character tries to pick up a GM sword. Totally against the spirit of SK.

It has been my firm belief through the years that anyone that uses "echelon" should be put in front of a firing squad.

It's not "well and good" if a cabal compromises a tribunal or vice-versa. The point of having dual-wield, and not a merger, is to maintain seperate organizations with seperate agendas.

Also, once one group is compromised, it's likely PERMANENTLY compromised. All the subjugated leaders have to do is nominate replacements who also value the other organization more.

I am emphatically not interested in seeing tribunals, which have an RP reason to value peace, dragged into the endless, meaningless battles which so afflict cabals. Nor should a mere tribunal be using a cabal as an appendage to get its way. It's neither good RP or good fun to so conflate organizations, even if the vast powers of player leaders make it possible.

But Jardek is right on one thing. It's not fair to penalize cabal leaders for being cabal leaders. Demanding tribunal leaders be pure is one thing; they have a formidable list of special powers to play with. Cabal leaders have only discipline commands. So, give cabal leaders some extra powers!

Aside from in-city advantages, tribunal powers amount to law immunity, spell-ups, and a great bodyguard NPC of choice. So give cabal leaders law immunity in their cabal's home state (a result of cabal influence on the nation) and a great special pet buyable at their HQ. That doesn't include spell-ups, but any tribunal member can arrange one for a friend, and a cabal leader will almost certainly have friends in tribunals.

That done, we can reasonably demand that cabal leaders stay out of tribunals, and that tribunal leaders stay out of cabals. ICly, shouldn't these organizations demand the pure devotion of their leaders? OOCly, if we have an Oathbreaker flag for the good of cabals, is it unreasonable to add this restriction for the benefit of all groups?

Aside from the fact that giving a non-tribunal member law immunity goes completely against the tribunals national/cabals global ideal, a pet and limited law immunity in no way shape or form stands up against membership in two organisations.

If the change is implemented as you guys want it to be implemented, nobody capable of leading an organisation well will want to, and instead everyone will get frustrated with incompetent leadership and seeming laziness on behalf of skilled players.

If, and I say if, tribunal and cabal leaders get extra skills or abilities as compensation, they would have to be overpowering to the point of being unfair to counterbalance all the benefits a person would get from being in an extra organisation. Think about it. A tribunal leader would need abilities to counter the fact that he doesn't have the five extra skills and spells he would receive as a cabal member.

No, that's a can of worms it's best not to get into. Leaders should be able to join both tribunals and cabals, not just because it makes sense logically, but also because there's only so much talent going around - no offense to the rest of you.

First off, stop trying to stick anything in Uxmal. Just forget about it. We all know it isn't going to happen. Let's skip the effort in trying to go down a road noone's going to take.

Second off, for light auras in particular, considering the underlying "need" for cooperation, being a part of a cabal could be as though being part of a religion. It's another group that you participate in and sometimes have to go and kick [REDACTED] in the name of.

One of the things I was considering was to add another slot called the 'worn coat-of-arms' which signifies the Cabal you belong to -- if you want to announce it -- and has the "three enchantments" on them, too. Cabals dissolve from being focused organizations into something like sects. They focus on more secular, standard goals instead of something in particular, and they may be part of many different things while doing so (kind of how a policeman might be, say, a part of the freemason's guild or something). Not all have to be secret.

Being the leader of one is much like leading a religion, you make sure everyone who shares this belief and preferred method of acting is associated with you in some way. Make them a 'driving force' for IC politics but don't literally allow them to take over. Make them "obscure" again in a sense (but have them always actively seeking out members, particularly the leader).

In that vein, you could get rid of CB altogether and leave TB. Don't let cabal members know who eachother are until they actually go and meet eachother or see the coat-of-arms on another person. Only leave the cabal anonymity toggle for cabal skills themselves.

And evolve the Fist of the White Swan into a martial artist class that can be any alignment. I must agree with that. Allow a new, upcoming guild or cabal to replace them as the secrets of the Zhensh monastery begin to be taught to commoners, and eventually proficient martial artists begin to spring up from Taslamar, Selkwood, the Empire, and even a couple rare ones in Uxmal and Krychire. The upcoming guild/cult/cabal could be something more flavorful in nature and focused on peacekeeping or liberation (the Hammer is more physical, war-oriented, the alternate could be something more magically concise).

Well, the way I see it, the Fists are able to perform their martial arts feats because of a sort of path that they follow. And that path involves the light.
If they become dark, they lose their skills.
Now, what I would like to see would be an opposing martial arts faction. If we ever get a deep cabal, they could be that dark faction.
NINJAS!!!!!!

Who ever said you had to be good to attain enlightenment? I disagree completely with your assumption, even though it's the RP norm to play it that way. I'd love to see a dark aura character slip into the Fists and invent a whole new ethos for them.