Shattered Kingdoms

Aahahaha.

Lord Rahl is...THAT WAY! *points north*

Awesome. I like that perk.

I think you vastly underestimate how much people (more specifically darkies) want to and will jockey their position to do exactly as they please. This leaves leaders with two options, either stay alive and take a back seat to lieutenants, or kick them out and expect an all out war. Yes, this will create some interesting situations, but it severely limits options for a leader. All of the net that I have set up to try and keep my cut throat members cooperating with any cohesiveness will be broken down because they already have another group to back them up, and they can replace what I'm giving them.

Basically, Darkie A starts giving me lip. Darkie A belongs to both CoN and Adepts. I tell Darkia A to fall in line, and Darkie A tells me to sit down, shut up, and stay out of his/her way. I tarnish/uninduct Darkie A, and (s)he gathers the Adepts to hunt me down, telling me to re-induct Darkie A. Again, this leads to two choices; comply or stand up and start an all out war, and I can only assume most people of my people aren't going to stay loyal to a leader of what is a lesser faction, being that many of them will be from the same cabal. It may look like a lot of RP, but it's actually less by giving leaders less options and control.

I'm not sure how I could further explain how tribunal leaders would not only be an undesirable position, but they will take a back seat to anyone who decides to take the smarter route and take a duel membership lieutenant position.

Now, my question is, what's the big deal about having all of this and allowing leaders to duel wield? This means that even if they don't have more worth to the cabal that the offender belongs to, they at least have relatively equal muscle, and maybe even a leg up with their ability to uninduct.

I am not sure if I made this part clear. There's no requirement for *anyone* to be a leader anymore at that point. Lieutenants could take the position, if they want to have the ability to shape the faction. Otherwise, you're right, there's no benefit. I'm still fairly certain there will be enough leaders even with lieutenants.

This could lead to actual inter faction conflict if two cabals sense a tribunal is weak, they could get the lieutenants to flood the group with members. They would still need someone to be a leader to cut off any resistance. I'm sure other cabals would know when the memberships change. If you don't have any leaders, you could actually have real conflicts that don't end right away in uninduction/tarnish. And with the nomination part, a leader can be selected in the outcome of such a showdown.

It would simply allow for groups to be much more internally run and require less Immortal oversight to have a second tier leader with some of the capabilities. Don't give them diplomacy or the other punitive skills, but let them keep the group alive. If a person spends all their time on one organization, they'll have less worries about who is and isn't possibly a spy. Dual membership really would make a person have to guard their secrets carefully.

I don't see a huge problem with finding people to take the #1 leader slot. That level of political control is worth giving up some personal power - at least to some. A perk would help, of course, such as a special item or pet.

The #2 slot? That's another matter. But then again, do we really need a second leader if lieutenants can perform most abilities? Perhaps not, if punishments can also be done while said character is offline. This would also make things more open when a leader departs, which I think is good RP.

Gremlin24, I don't see tribunal leaders getting overwhelmed in general. Banishing a cabal and its allies from its home region strikes me as pretty devestating. Using kingdom resources to build something a cabal doesn't like is another nice way to retaliate. There may be particular problems between two organizations, but I think they can be worked out. Worst case, Oathbreaker can include tribunals again - which is probably a good idea in any case.

I do see a problem if leaders in one cabal can become recruits in another. That essentially puts one group over another in a way I think is inappropriate.

I'd like to see either a detriment for being in two factions, (loss of a skill or something), or a perk for being in only one faction/being a leader.

I don't see the need. There's no actual need for anyone to belong to just one organization and it doesn't make sense that you're penalized for joining two. Choosing to join or not to join is up to you. I'm fairly certain that there's plenty of reasons to not be a dual member while others will be. The biggest perk to being in one organization is that it should put you on the fast track to leadership. If the leadership doesn't suit youthe possibility after the stint as leader, you could be demoted back to lieutenant and join another faction as a recruit. Generally I'm hoping things could be much more fluid, actually allowing for people to have more options instead of the only goal for someone being leader of their faction/PAR/HF.

I initially had a strong reaction against these implementation details, but it doesn't seem so bad now that I've had a second look at it. Naming lieutenants sounds like a good option for delegating responsibility, as long as it remains just that - an option and not a forced style of leadership. That means, there should be no pressure put on leaders to name lieutenants if they don't feel like it, and imm staff should not be going around flagging lieutenants without the faction leader's will. Beyond that, I will just wait in amusement for the first "I was not made a lieutenant, wah" forum QQing.

I would like to suggest the following tweaks:
- Retain oathbreaker for tribunals, or give them a way to distinguish between honorable and dishonorable discharge. It's one thing to retire from the home guard after many years of faithful service, and another to, say, get kicked out because you were abusing your law immunity.
- Add a provision for a leader to demote a lieutenant back to normal membership. (Maybe this is a given already, but I don't see it in the outline.)
- Maintain hourly requirements for lieutenants, equal to or only slightly less than the requirements for leadership. These people have a say in recruiting for their faction, and I don't like the idea of an out of touch and inactive person being able to suddenly return with so much power to shape their organization.

Also, I see "blemish" and "atone" in the leader-only command list. Is this supposed to apply to religions too?

I was hoping to have second tier induction given to religions at the same time. I'm not sure I agree with an hour indication for lieutenants. Leaders would have the ability to de-flag a lieutenant, yes. That is why I didn't have an hour limit for the lieutenants, when a leader saw the obligations of a lieutenant being ignored they could demote them.