OBoogie wrote:
I don't really understand the purpose of restricting a character to one cabal or tribunal. Unlike religions, cabal leaders and kingdoms cannot keep a character's 'soul' when they join.
I disagree that this applies to cabals. Tribunals yes, but cabals no. When you've chosen to follow a cabal you've chosen a way of living life. For example you do in fact take a Blood Oath and give your soul to the Dark gods, when you join the Adepts. If you choose to follow the Hammer you have in fact dedicated your life to a fanatical belief for the Light gods. I could give examples for each cabal, but we'll move on because you have some very valid points I'd like to touch on.
Quote:
It's like the immortals own any character that devotes themselves to a church, but cabals are more like jobs. The only thing this oathbreaker flag restricts is the freedom to play. If you expect 75% of the playerbase to be in a group, it's pretty hard unless all these characters are young. If you have any character that's old, chances are he will have conflicts with the cabal. With religious characters, there can be certain situations where they must go against their cabal in order to remain true to their church. I think most cabals and tribunals allow members the option to put their religion ahead of the cabal.
Here again I tend to disagree. But I'll give you history as example. Feudal times saw several kings some of good rapport others of ill rapport rise to power. The Knights under them didn't have a choice in whether they wanted to follow them or not. To not swear allegiance was to die (a quite permanent death). So although your character may not agree with the current leader's 'style' perhaps you should play the role of the quiet disagreement. Or, suffer the IC consequences of defying your Leader.
Quote:
Sad to say, cabals and tribunals have a lot of ooc set-ups. Sometimes a player is not capable of leadership but he's put into the situation because his friend passes it down, or there isn't anybody else to take over. Then other characters are mass inducted or uninducted for very minor reasons, and that affects perhaps hundreds of hours that a player has spilled into a character.
Agreed this can and does happen. And is pretty [REDACTED] when it does. As a leader I when my time is over I strive to put in the most qualified individual not the closest friend I have. This is the one argument I'd have against the OathBreaker flag. Imo, you should always be allowed BACK into the ORIGINAL cabal you joined. Thus it would motivate thrown characters to attempt to place coup'detats or long lived characters the option of getting back when a good leader takes control.
Quote:
Sure there are times when a character does break an oath, but probably many times when they are not "oathbreakers" in an rp sense. Different people ask for different oaths when being inducted, and perhaps not even at all if the leader was on drugs. When someone moves from place to place, what is restricting them from serving another kingdom other than this oathbreaker flag? Trust? Considering that some groups can change drastically from leader to leader (such as the hammer which can be anything from passive to pkilling frenzy in a matter of weeks), resigning from said cabal is probably less of a change for this character than continuing under new rules and leadership. I don't see how this can make the character defective and not worthy of trust.
So what grand scheme does this oathbreaker flag fit into? I cannot understand it if the idea is to make more people join cabal/tribunals, then why take away the option to change, or even the option to look into each case individually? 1 in 100 does not count as an option. Ultimately, disallowing older characters to change only drives them into deletion. We're talking races that can be played for hundreds of IC years, and they are not allowed to change their views on government with this oathbreaker flag. Even in real life you have brash young rebels who turn conservative immediately after holding control, then they change all their policies.
The sad truth is most characters don't last a RL year let alone long enough to aptly earn the trust of a new organization enough to join it. Which is partly why we have a 1 in 100 chance. Because characters that are not 3 months old are asking to cabal hop.
Now if its a character who through exceptional RP has proven they have changed their mindset and way of doing things and continued to show exceptional dedication to their character for a good length of time in this new mindset. Then you could very well be that 1 in 100 chance. But the sad truth is no one has patience enough to do that, or dedication to their character enough to do that, when they could just level a new character to 50 in that amount of time.
To which I say, to each his own.