I think maybe all cabals need access to something like Coup. Wm should DEFINATELY get access to this, as why wouldn't combat decide their leaders.
So maybe Goodies like Knights can send a vote out to the cabal, or have an honorable challenge, or a submission of services performed for their cabal. Basically you run into the fact that evils have the ability to constantly have a character at E because of the coup mechanic. Now with cabals like Knight, you may have an E who is a powerhouse when they log on (like that halfer healer not long ago) but their play time is waning, and they are not as active, and are not contributing to the Cabal like they could, so the next candidate could submit the vote. If the imm wants to deny Eldership, they still have the final say, but I think it would add an interesting mechanic to cabals.
I realize this has the potential for OOC cabal buddy abuse, which is why having an Imm as the final word can reduce this. If someone just sends a vote with no viable reason, then obviously they will be denied. Just a thought for us all to c hew on. I finished my submission for the get moar players, and was bored at work. Stupid concrete walls and their crushing of cell phone signal means no MINImud for me 
I mean really, why have an iphone at all if you cannot mud while your at work.
I think maybe all cabals need access to something like Coup. Wm should DEFINATELY get access to this, as why wouldn't combat decide their leaders.
So maybe Goodies like Knights can send a vote out to the cabal, or have an honorable challenge, or a submission of services performed for their cabal. Basically you run into the fact that evils have the ability to constantly have a character at E because of the coup mechanic. Now with cabals like Knight, you may have an E who is a powerhouse when they log on (like that halfer healer not long ago) but their play time is waning, and they are not as active, and are not contributing to the Cabal like they could, so the next candidate could submit the vote. If the imm wants to deny Eldership, they still have the final say, but I think it would add an interesting mechanic to cabals.
I realize this has the potential for OOC cabal buddy abuse, which is why having an Imm as the final word can reduce this. If someone just sends a vote with no viable reason, then obviously they will be denied. Just a thought for us all to c hew on. I finished my submission for the get moar players, and was bored at work. Stupid concrete walls and their crushing of cell phone signal means no MINImud for me I mean really, why have an iphone at all if you cannot mud while your at work.
if you are an E in a non- coup cabal..and slack off, I can tell you that you wont be E for long..at least in Savant and WM I know this is the case.
I have seen characters who break balls til v, slow down a bit, get T, slow a bit more get E. THen become slowly less active. I will say that the halfling healer Knight was E for a while, then slowly became less, and less active. Leaving an occupied E slot for someone who was not as active as they had been.
You'll have to pardon me, but I don't think how "active" any player thinks another is should have any bearing on whether or not the "not so active" player gets to keep their T or E.
As long as they are exemplary when they do log and the Cabal IMM feels they log enough each month to keep that status then it should be fine.
I'm also not cool with the these "goodie challenges/coups". This is a sign of jealousy/pride that's the beginning of a fall to the dark side. 
I'm all for warmaster getting this in fact... it always confused me that they of all people didn't have this feature. I suppose it should be done without killing the other person since good aligns can be in the cabal, however just make it a challenge that cannot be declined. You challenge someone of higher rank with a command and they have to fight you within x amount of time. If they leave the lands x amount of times after being faced with this challenge by the same person then they automatically forfeit it, or they choose to fight to the stun and the victor gains the higher rank. seems perfectly reasonable.
there could be some similar way to challenge someone's position for each cabal theoretically but i think they should be well thought out and highly scrutinized for cabals like knight and maybe even tribunal.
I don't think that should work with Tribunal. Just because one person can beat another, it doesnt mean they would get more overall captures, or make a better councillor. Couping is very chaotic in nature.
I could see a Knight petitoning for leadership among his or her peers. An honorable duel could even be part of it, but once again, one person might have an edge over another, but it doesnt mean they will be a better leader or that they will be better at leading a war against evil.
Warmasters I could see having some sort of coup system, since they are all about battle, the best duelist is the best warmaster.
Savant and Watcher, hmmm. I think there it should be up to the Imms, whoever best represents the Cabal and whoever shows the most leadership should get the T, E, L etc...
The problem with Coups is that it comes down to either the best Pker or the sneakiest bastard. Perfect for Syndicate and Nexus, but it would need to be tailored to fit the other cabals.
Yes, each cabal should have some kind of mechanic like this.
Signed.
I never mentioned a cabal having two elders. I mentioned a cabal having one elder that is becoming less, and less active. Leaving said cabal with a mildly inactive E
If an Elder/Leader is not doing their job, it is up to the Cabal Imm to "fix" the situation...IMO!
However, I could certainly see WM's (maybe Knights) having a system in place like coup...maybe a best out of 3 challenges...should the up and comer be the victor...they could gain a cabal promotion if besting the Elder/Leader or gain cp's if it is a superior such as a Trusted or even a Vet if they are still an Inductee or Member...a lot of RP would go with that...could surely gain favor and bragging rights! maybe put some type of limit on it where it can't be abused with continuous use?
If an Elder/Leader is not doing their job, it is up to the Cabal Imm to "fix" the situation...IMO!
However, I could certainly see WM's (maybe Knights) having a system in place like coup...maybe a best out of 3 challenges...should the up and comer be the victor...they could gain a cabal promotion if besting the Elder/Leader or gain cp's if it is a superior such as a Trusted or even a Vet if they are still an Inductee or Member...a lot of RP would go with that...could surely gain favor and bragging rights! maybe put some type of limit on it where it can't be abused with continuous use?
There is one mortal Leader (L) slot open in any one cabal at any one time. However, there are multiple Elder (E) slots to be filled (even if a Leader is present).
I don't see the argument of 'We had an E that isn't as active anymore' as valid as if others were doing enough to be an E they would be placed in that position.
I'm unsure about allowing 'coup' rights to all cablas. I did see in 1.0 WM that a Leader elected. One of the other Warmasters took exception to this, challenged and defeated the leader and was given Leadership. This was long before anyone thought of coup for cabals.
Lytholm.
Warmasters? Sure - while they're based around the knowledge of combat as a whole, they also have a certain focus on the power of the individual (call it hero worship) and a militaristic feel to their culture. They'd reward a display of superior ability.
Praetorians? Again, militaristic, and it still maintains the hero worship of the high ranked guys... but it's also a lot more buddy-buddy than Warmaster can be. I'm fairly on the fence for them. Sigil is right out - they are NOT violent by nature, only by necessity.
Savant? Just doesn't feel right to me. I'd love to see people RPing coups here, but dueling for a spot? Doesn't sound very Savant-like to me.
Tribunal places far too much emphasis on authority to allow people to challenge it. As someone else mentioned, coups are a bit too chaotic for Tribunal to reward.
Watcher... ironically, to me Watcher seems to be the exact opposite to Tribunal in its approach to authority, so much so that authority means so little that no one would care to kill another for it. I don't see Watchers killing each other for power... that's what people do in civilizations.
Well, I have not played to many combative chars (hence my horrible pk skills 
) but I would have to agree with that aspect in Warmaster. Praetorians, not so much. They are militaristic, not combative. Rigid structure and military bearing are more their forte IMO. You can be a great general, yet your pk/challenge skills maybe lacking. Maybe that is the Marine in me. Savant, not at all. Nexus and Syndi, yes because that is the nature of evil.
That's the distinction I was trying to figure out how to word.
Pali couldn't find the right words? :eek:
Only because they have not been proven to exist yet 
Pali couldn't find the right words? :eek:
Believe it or not, I am not a literary genius.
I do like the idea of jousting Praetorians... perhaps make it so that it could only be done under special circumstances, like an RPed dispute regarding Knight policy or if two people were being considered for promotion the Knight IMM could have them duel for it. However, this still would be less along the lines of a built-in mechanic and more an IMM-sponsored activity... so it's essentially already doable.