Shattered Kingdoms

With the oathbreaker flag sticky coming to life again, I can't help but wonder: if those ADD players who keep characters for like a month delete and then automatically join another cabal with a new character or an established alt, isn't that MUCH worse than a character who wants to switch cabals once during a long-lived life (two characters immediately come to mind)

I just wonder if the players might get more "inside info" (the case for the Oathbreaker flag) by switching cabals one month to the next on different characters than one character might get by having one character in two cabals over a long lifetime.

Could there be a time limit before one player (I guess determined by IP) can join a cabal after having left another one? Nothing crazy, maybe like three weeks after creation.

I know that cabals without a lot of players don't really need to be screwed over because of something like this.

But occasionally I will run into characters of one cabal or another who know way too much about a cabal that they are not even in, then I will find out they just deleted a character in that particular cabal and then promptly joined another one.

I know we don't have a lot of players but we should at least pretend like we're preserving the secrecy of cabals a bit.

No thanks.

I've been in cabals before and there's nothing worth keeping secret in any of them, neither IC board nor forum. Oathbreaker is an IC flag because OOCly, no one cares. "Cabal secrecy" is a joke and everyone knows it, with the punchline being that they can just log on to YIM and find out all of the members anyways.

To sum it up, "No thanks."

Well I mean, fine, but have it one way or another.

Nope.

Well, generally speaking, a cabal won't accept a low level character into their ranks, will they?

Doesn't that kind of make a time limit of sorts?

I don't think this needs to be hardcoded. It's up to the leaders to properly test people seeking to join an organization. There's no rule that says you need to immediately induct someone.

There's no reason this needs to be handled in any other way than what is being done currently. It happens, but not very often. It isn't guaranteed, but for those who put the effort in, its possible. In recent times, the only people given that reward worked at it for literal months and even over a year. I guess this does pretty much rule that out for giants and griffons. Too bad about that, but I don't like any of the solutions presented here. I'd be in favor of, in a dual membership setup, allowing tribunal members to come and go freely with whatever tribunal, but only one cabal in the character's life. This is the solution that sits best with me. Right now, you've got the option of a matching cabal if you're in a tribunal, or tribunal if you're in a cabal. This of course, excludes MC and Harlequin who don't have the counterpart necessary.

One reason we have the Oathbreaker flag is to encourage inducting new characters with good RP, by addressing the trust issue. So the original proposal is counter-productive.

Instead, how about leaders tarnishing or booting players who can't keep to this relatively basic roleplay standard? SK can do without leaders who don't take responsibility for their group's roleplay.

ladyjennbo i feel a lot of those sentiments you have listed

i've been through that phase before, tried to filter players and stuff, but yeah, people get mad and they'll roll opposite cabal and still get in sooner or later anyways

it's come to the point where if we actually include people in the roleplay and allow them to participate, they actually feel like part of the team and won't leave on sour notes

people will come and go, like taking different sides, some prefer easy, some prefer underdog, or some flourish around certain players/leaders, just need to make cabal attractive probably