Shattered Kingdoms

I'm finding I really dislike the Oathbreaker tag. I understand why it was put in, but I'm of the opinion that if I'm the leader of a cabal, and my character knows that some other character was once in a cabal, I should be able to make up my own mind as to whether or not I trust that character enough to join my cabal.

I propose changing how Oathbreaker works. Upon uninduction, either give out an honorable or dishonorable discharge. Then, if they do seek out another cabal, when the leader goes to induct the character, it will mention that so and so was honorably or dishonorably discharged from an organization (I wouldn't care if it says which one or not). At this point, the leader should think to himself, "Has this person told me he was once in another organization?" If not, you have some questions to ask. If so, you already know what's going on. Then if it says they were dishonorably discharged, the leader might again pause and wonder if it's such a good idea to let that person into the cabal.

I know that cabal hopping is frowned upon, but really, I think it should be something that's more player policed than anything. Most leaders don't like flighty characters in their cabal, so it'll still carry some stigma, but if someone sticks it out and proves their worth, the leader should still be able to reward that with membership.

In short: power back to the people.

Perhaps with some sort of waiting period. People need time to settle their past, change their visions, and be well (realong) their new path. The troubl remains the potential for a certain abuse of internal IC knowledge from one group getting into another group by the same character. I believe that the oathbreaker was intended to attempt to prevent this.

Another possibility for change is an expansion of the groups that a character can move to (some restrictions should always apply.)

This would appear to allow for headhunting, but really, a character compatible with more than one group is in my limited experience the exception proving the rule. If I were going to campaign for anything, it would be that tribunal and cabal membership were considered exclusive with respect to precluding one another. Or that the rule was changed to specify Leadership of any Tribunal/Cabal/Religion, rather than Membership, meant you couldn't get involved elsewhere.

In other words, people could have both tribunal and cabal characters, perhaps unless they lead a group. Considering how things are currently dispersed, that would promote some diversity more than allowing for squeaky wheels to be swapped around.

I don't know about giving everyone a refractory period. In my experience, those really only complicate experiences.

I can see just as powerful counter-arguments, though. I have to admit, I think the current system is the lesser of available evils... but the other options always make for good considerations.

I'd like to see concurrent membership in a cabal and a tribunal permitted although not restricted by kingdom. The cabal is the more elite group of like-minded and powerful individuals (say the stone masons for example) and they could have vested interests in having their minds involved in politics across the globe (much as the stone masons do, from presidents to police chiefs to ambassadors etc). Obviously you wouldn't see a Crucible involved in the Peacekeepers as the peacekeepers would not likely fall for a necro or other diabolic within their ranks so I don't see it as being too big a deal. Also it wouldn't be a problem insofar as secretive membership since tribunal membership is generally more open.

Just a thought/wet dream

I am with you on this on Drew. Not all the members in a cabal are from one city. From my experience, where people live has been very diverse already in Cabals for awhile, so why not let us have dual membership in cabal/tribunal?

Concurrent membership opens the can of worms of elite cliques within elite cliques. Conspiracies within conspiracies... Cloak and Dagger is not very fun when you hold neither cloak nor dagger. When I consider ways it would play out, most would be the beginning of an eventual collapse of tribunals and cabals into one organization.

To use your own analogy, why are the Masons so cool? Because they ALSO run the Government. And when, ever, is the government cool? When some Men in Black step out of an unmarked car holding certain Resplendent Hammers with which to Philosophize, to turn an in-game reference into an allusion.

Like that doesnt happen now already?

I was and always will be against the oathbreaker flag. It is moronic and exists only to force immortal intervention on players.

I'm not really for concurrent membership so much. I just want the cabal leader to have the power to induct someone he wants, even if the oathbreaker flag exists. If so and so is talked into joining an organization, and then for some reason or another has to leave (dispute with leader, religious differences, etc.) and another cabal that fits the character (which if it takes place long enough after the first membership might be a reflection of character development!) decides they want to pick him up, why should the leader not have the choice to let them in? The leader should have the judgement necessary to say 'yea' or 'nay' ...being that he's the leader of the cabal.

The only other options currently are: make an alt/new main, or hope the imms say yes to your case...which the current policy is pretty much 'no' unless you badger them into submission. (No rancor to the imms, I just disagree with your policy.)

If it is being implemented, can we get a rough ETA on dual membership please Dulrik?

...or just whatever you have in store for us, something for us to look forward to would be sweet.