Shattered Kingdoms

I'm not touching the favoritism bit. As regards alignment and cabals/tribs, however, it seems silly to argue against Dulrik's views by arguing with OA.

I was curious about the context of his quote, because I didn't remember seeing it, so I did a quick search of "alignment" posts by Dulrik. It also showed this tidbit, which seemed quite apropos:



Seek it here: http://www.shatteredkingdoms.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14244&p=209561&hilit=alignment#p209561

The original one that was quoted: http://www.shatteredkingdoms.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14259&p=379253&hilit=alignment#p379253

When it comes to SK and what goes and what doesn't, Dulrik is Alpha and Omega, captain of the dictator ship, head honcho, big cheese, etc. etc. Thus, a quote of D's views...absolutely no interpretation, just flat out "this is what the man said"...is a trump card and irrefutable until and unless you get the man to say otherwise.

It's not really my two cents, it's more like pointing at where D's are, but I felt it needed to be said.

Also: http://xkcd.com/386/

(edited because I fail at quoting)

Seems OA conveniently left out
The faction doesn't have an alignment, but joining it is still a choice that should be made with your alignment factored in.

But OA is creating a straw man, not simply passing along Dulrik's opinions. If Dulrik comes here and says that OA is accurately representing him then I guess I will have to start arguing with Dulrik, but I believe this is far from the case.

The factions do not have alignments. They do have an OOC purpose, though, and each has an IC ethos to which its members subscribe. Playing out of type sometimes ignores this; leading out of type subverts it and leads to consequences such as intervention from frustrated IMMs.

Styles is right about everything in this thread

I agree with Styles as well.

This is precisely my point about how leading out of type subverts the purpose of factions. Suppose you are an evil Talon and you end up leading it. Now some guy comes along with a principled griffon who wants to serve the Talons (a totally appropriate concept). Upon learning of the leader, the player decides his character would not take orders from an evil character (again, totally appropriate). Now some guy has essentially been punished for RPing well. The player leading against type has subverted the purpose of the faction to serve as a light-grey faction.

Endless examples could be made like this. An anarchist prankster may want to join the Harlequins (totally appropriate) but may also not want to be subjected to the diabolical machinations of a necromancer leader or the do-goodery of an elf leader. Again, the player making appropriate IC and OOC choices gets punished. It should not be this way.

Here's what's generally accepted by most players who have lead both cabals and tribunals:

Hammer of Light, Lightie only

Keepers, Light to light grey

MC, Dark grey to darkie

Hand, Dark grey to darkie

Fist, Lightie only

Guardians, Lightie to Darkie (there are dark auras in Ayamao as well, and the only real hard fast rule is no necros or deep elves)

Druids and Harlies and Talons have always taken all types, always will.

Crucible, Darkie only

Does that sum it up? Or shall we post what Dulrik has said again. Really leave the horse alone, it's beaten, dead and drowned.
With specific exceptions based on RP ability, factions can look into other alignments. (IE A lightie in the MC, but stringent and carefully monitored role play is there to make sure it's following alignment). It CAN and has been done.

Hope you're trolling you bad grey aura'd mcer you.

You're misinterpreting it. Again with Styles example, a diabolical -leader- of the Talons will make it so that it's actually bad RP for a paladin to join the Talons. If you always have a grey aura leader of the Talons, that makes it less complicated.

Yes, do always allow any to join the Talons, but for a paladin to join under a necromancer's leadership is a silly thing and shouldn't happen.