Shattered Kingdoms

I miss "o priestguard c resurrect friend" the most

seriously.

There are some classes that just dont work very well defending a town solo. Rogues, Bards (Im assuming bards because I never seem to see them around) Paladins against anything not dark aura. They need a little extra buffer to let them use their class skills/spells more effectively before the bash/trip lock happens.
What I believe that will happen if you remove tribunal NPCs from tribunal combat.
Very few people well ever attack a city solo, it is not common now but it will become even less frequent if people can not use a tribunal NPC to buffer the standing guard attacks.
Classes that are already strong in the eyes of the vets well become even more one sided. Merc/barbs sorcerors, as these classes are strong at PKing solor or in small the group. Where classes like rogue and bards will become less common than they are, because they PK best the larger the group becomes.
Perhaps I just always see the worse that can come of things.

I actually miss O priest c 'cure disease' when a city gets plagued the most. I wish there was a scripted solution for that as I find it very depressing watching a priest NPC die to the plague because they wont cure themselves.

You are so wrong it is painful to read. Removing leadership would hurt barbarians and mercenaries the most, since most of the reaching weapon and ranged builds rely on tribunal guards in order to position in the second and third ranks.

And all of the armor that a Bard has, and defensive skills totally makes them better defending a city solo then a Merc/Barb.

This is an L2P issue on your part.

Qft

Why do tribunals need to be balanced?

Balance makes some sense for cabals, which are PK groups with a CRS mandate. But there are basically peaceful tribunals. This is why Nerina never had to be as well-guarded as Exile. I'd argue it was intended to be a city that can't pester visitors too much, so conflicting sides have more chance to interact peacefully there.

Commandable guards can also be fun tactically. I can understand objection to powerful melee NPCs. But having a scout set snares, a griffon provide flight, or a sorcerer brandish, all strike me as more interesting set-up options than brewing or buying consumables. Why throw out options instead of replacing a few overpowered guards? Shifts can be done gradually over time, as KDs are interested.

As for standardized guards, especially standardized alignment, that sounds terrible. Even from a PK-dominant RP perspective, the more the cities are the same, the less reason there is for conflict.

It is not good for the health or longevity of the game when only two of five tribunal choices yield a viable result. Especially a game that is advertised and billed as "where roleplay and tactics collide". Currently, this is only true if you join Hand or Guardian when you select a tribunal.

I had a hard time understanding many parts of your post, but I chose this particular part to ask a question. Can you explain what you mean here? How would a city, or tribunal, template cause less conflict?