Merchant Sub Cabal

On 6/11/2017 at 6:09 PM, Lloth said:

Merchant is the front for the Cartel. It's not just "we buy and sell stuff." They are the money launderers, the fences, and the face of the Cartel's material goods sector. Moving them to Herald doesn't make sense. Furthermore, it would logically just move the vendetta from Tribunal to Syndicate - since let's be real, no upstanding mafia organization would allow anyone to cut into their profits or their turf.

It also just plain doesn't fit into what Herald is. They are historians, journalists, and chroniclers. None of that fits with Merchant. About as close as you get is Barnes and Nobles.

Actually, the original poster's idea was a good one. It makes total sense.

22 hours ago, Lloth said:

As to moving Merchant, or standing it up on its own, there really needs to be a solid, well-thought-out approach to it. Details. Reasoning.

Or we could just do it for fun to be creative and have a new angle.

20 hours ago, Ulmusdorn said:

 

You're talking about an extreme angle of RP directly effecting the outcome of the clan through interactions and decisions Korthian made himself.This is exactly what Lloth is trying to point out I think. People can create anything they want, the options are endless. You just need to persevere to see them through and then anything is a possibility.

People have literally died and children have been born before characters in FL have persevered enough for there to be a shift. 

Barriers to action are called excuses. Anything is possible now - not later. Stop supporting bureaucracy for the sake of it.

Frankly i find the idea that nobody plays as a shady arms dealer is wrong.

8 hours ago, Lloth said:

 

I am not against the suggestion of separating syndicate and merchant. It just has to make sense. Putting merchant into herald doesn't, though.

It makes sense and you are wrong.

I mean. Call me stupid but Korthian's own notes point to a push for an alliance with Tribunal long before Syndicate...

Maybe merchant should be moved... IMO its very possible + easy however there has been no IG push to get this done... The Merchants who are mechant seem every content being Merchants in Syndicate...

There is no clash between Merchant and Tribunal. The trib - syndi war is NOT hardcoded. Both sides could cancel it at any time if they come to an agreement. Some attempts have been made, but nothing successful so far.

Merchant was created as the clean, white-sleeved front of the Syndicate (think Mafia). Merchants can decide themselves if they trade with a cabal the syndicate is currently at war with, past Merchants have done so, albeit they adjusted their prices a little.

Merchant should support the Hunter side of syndi as in helping them to get armor and supplies.

The Hunters should protect the Merchant side of syndi, if you kill / attack a Merchant expect the whole syndicate to come after you.

The trend of some Merchants gaining their gold necessary for promos and other in game stuff more from Volg's monster than from actual trading is not a positive one. We might reduce the amount of gold you get or put in some kind of timer that checks if you killed the monster before in the last ... days. Be sure that I do watch to see if a Merchant actually does business. If not, they won't make it past V.

16 hours ago, Ulmusdorn said:

I mean. Call me stupid but Korthian's own notes point to a push for an alliance with Tribunal long before Syndicate...

Maybe merchant should be moved... IMO its very possible + easy however there has been no IG push to get this done... The Merchants who are mechant seem every content being Merchants in Syndicate...

No IG push could be for other reasons unstated. They seem content...

I just see that Merchant is VERY good for the game and circulation. Because they're attached to Syndicate automatically limits who should or could do business with them. Moving them away to a more neutral cabal would only open up opportunities that weren't there before. We shouldn't be ignorant of the complaints of players not being able to get things done and the outcry for automation. THEN the players could more actively choose who to make alliances with. Either by joining with the Syndicate, expanding the Tribunal, or prioritizing cabals that need the help more which is usually Knight or sometimes a well known player that wouldn't usually associate themselves with the Syndicate. If there can be evils in Tribunal I don't see why there can't be good aligned Merchants. Independent Merchants could play both sides of a conflict and have choices which equals more fun. Just my opinion.

Just giving Merchants the ability to hold (not wear) any alignment of equipment could solve the issue of good aligned characters getting to be more part of it. I used to have to leave really nice gear laying on the ground because it was evil or good only while I was neutral.

When I played Teex I would trade with anyone, even Tribunal who Syndicate was/is at war with. With the exception of two characters... Cassius and Raynald. That was only because they attacked another Merchant.

As it seems to be said above, the fact that Merchant is tied in with the Syndicate does not allow all characters to even deal with business. Merchant should break off from Syndicate and become its own entity, allowing all align/ethos to join, not limiting anything as far as business.

9 hours ago, tassinvegeta said:

No IG push could be for other reasons unstated. They seem content...

I just see that Merchant is VERY good for the game and circulation. Because they're attached to Syndicate automatically limits who should or could do business with them. Moving them away to a more neutral cabal would only open up opportunities that weren't there before. We shouldn't be ignorant of the complaints of players not being able to get things done and the outcry for automation. THEN the players could more actively choose who to make alliances with. Either by joining with the Syndicate, expanding the Tribunal, or prioritizing cabals that need the help more which is usually Knight or sometimes a well known player that wouldn't usually associate themselves with the Syndicate. If there can be evils in Tribunal I don't see why there can't be good aligned Merchants. Independent Merchants could play both sides of a conflict and have choices which equals more fun. Just my opinion.

Sorry I'm a little unsure why even Tribunal couldn't trade with the Merchants? You have a cabal war - yes. But as far as I was aware either party didnt even look at taking the standard from one another if its just the Merchant about? If such accords can be reached why the hell can't you trade with them?

I personally cannot think of anything more satisfying then killing/capturing a member of Syndicate with items I got from their Merchant arm of the cabal....

6 hours ago, Ulmusdorn said:

Sorry I'm a little unsure why even Tribunal couldn't trade with the Merchants? You have a cabal war - yes. But as far as I was aware either party didnt even look at taking the standard from one another if its just the Merchant about? If such accords can be reached why the hell can't you trade with them?

I personally cannot think of anything more satisfying then killing/capturing a member of Syndicate with items I got from their Merchant arm of the cabal....

Usually it's the Merchant declaring that they are not permitted to trade with cabal enemies. At the end of it, they are STILL part of Syndicate and support them as a "front", remember? 

They refuse to trade and on the other end why would the Tribunal trade knowing that their gold is going to benefit a criminal enterprise?

1 hour ago, Fireman said:

Usually it's the Merchant declaring that they are not permitted to trade with cabal enemies. At the end of it, they are STILL part of Syndicate and support them as a "front", remember? 

They refuse to trade and on the other end why would the Tribunal trade knowing that their gold is going to benefit a criminal enterprise?

You're talking about a cabal that promotes the ability to coup those above you.

Im sorry but what 'misguided' sense of loyalty does this band of thieves, brigands, murderers, cuthroats and assassins have keeping it together?

This is not a if I profit we all profit together, hold hands and sing on the picnic blanket organisation. You're openly encourage to remove the weak links, be they below or above you.

EDIT: This is exactly what @Lloth was trying to say. We're limiting our thoughts and therefore our actions by what we see the limitations to be. There are no limitations. Anume is not going to kick you from the cabal (I think? I can't really speak for her) if you make it richer as a merchant. **How you go about that is your business but the consequence are of your own making too. **

17 minutes ago, Ulmusdorn said:

There are no limitations. Anume is not going to kick you from the cabal.

Good.

Lets hope the other members of Syndicate feel the same way then. If you get what I mean.

As I said, everything has consequences.

Saying something is 'broken' or 'not working' as they think it should because they are afraid to open that door/push that envelope... Weeeell then...

10 hours ago, Ulmusdorn said:

Sorry I'm a little unsure why even Tribunal couldn't trade with the Merchants? You have a cabal war - yes. But as far as I was aware either party didnt even look at taking the standard from one another if its just the Merchant about? If such accords can be reached why the hell can't you trade with them?

I personally cannot think of anything more satisfying then killing/capturing a member of Syndicate with items I got from their Merchant arm of the cabal....

Because Merchants are part of Syndicate. Most of my Tribunals have always despised anything related to Syndicate and considered them a greater threat than the Watchers and having more legitimate reason to be at war with them.

But wait. Are you saying its hard coded that Tribunals and Merchants can take there standards from each other? If so it sounds like Merchants can't really take it back thus putting the Syndicate at a huge disadvantage when they log in. Sounds almost as loophole'ish as taking out the Tribunal Jail Guardian before fighting a Tribunal. :)

@UlmusdornTrue up to a point but you can't deny that there still are limitations that are hard coded and thus encouraged. Going against it the way they are now may not be worth the time and effort or risk of consequences. The initial responses of this thread should give evidence of how the mind of a player might think. And this is from the perspective of vet players imagine the newer and average players.

What frustrates me about this stance of pushing the envelope or opening our mind to more RP is that its hypocritical. The IMM Staff has TOLD me, specifically told me, that I am wrong in how I aimed at RPing a specific thing because that is not how it was designed or how the IMM Staff felt it should be RPed - and I know I'm not the only one.

You say open your mind to RP, then throw in that fun little caveat about the consequences it could bring. " Oh, you can trade with Merchant as a Tribunal, no problem. Just be prepared to live with the consequences of those actions. " Demoted, removed, outcasted or some other RP "consequence" that totally destroys your character because disagreed with your decision.

Its a cop out. Plain and simple. Its a way for the IMM Staff to say that the players are failing to take advantage of the possibilities that are out there and therefore nullifying their suggestion. One, that might I add, not a single player has been opposed to, but the IMM Staff has been, albeit Lloth said he may be for it as long as it is done IG and with reasons.

9 hours ago, Fireman said:

You say open your mind to RP, then throw in that fun little caveat about the consequences it could bring. " Oh, you can trade with Merchant as a Tribunal, no problem. Just be prepared to live with the consequences of those actions. " Demoted, removed, outcasted or some other RP "consequence" that totally destroys your character because disagreed with your decision.

Completely misunderstood what I was saying. 

I was saying that there would be IC or IG consequences. You help the enemies of half your cabal (merchants are allowed to trade with anyone I thought, thats why Tribunal don't strip the standard from them I thought?) then more then likely your cabal may have issues with you.

As immortals we're not going to interfere so you're barking up the wrong tree with that comment - if your cabal choose to hack you into little pieces and set you on fire... Those are the consequences I am speaking about. 

In the past there have been Watchers who have tried to broker peace with Tribunal. Did the rest of the cabal disagree? You bet. Did it make that players life harder or more realistic? Sure. Is that RP wrong? Hell no. Gaia see's everyone as their children, however misguided. If you would rather cherish the life Gaia has give and try come to an accord to protect it then fine. However your cabal mates may disagree. In this situation any player would not be hindered, demoted, removed or obstructed in any way by myself as the Cabal's Immortal as long as the RP was logical. You can't be in watcher and want to set up more cities for example, thats just too far from our core beliefs.

5 minutes ago, Ulmusdorn said:

 

Completely misunderstood what I was saying. 

I was saying that there would be IC or IG consequences. You help the enemies of half your cabal (merchants are allowed to trade with anyone I thought, thats why Tribunal don't strip the standard from them I thought?) then more then likely your cabal may have issues with you.

As immortals we're not going to interfere so you're barking up the wrong tree with that comment - if your cabal choose to hack you into little pieces and set you on fire... Those are the consequences I am speaking about. 

 

In the past there have been Watchers who have tried to broker peace with Tribunal. Did the rest of the cabal disagree? You bet. Did it make that players life harder or more realistic? Sure. Is that RP wrong? Hell no. Gaia see's everyone as their children, however misguided. If you would rather cherish the life Gaia has give and try come to an accord to protect it then fine. However your cabal mates may disagree. In this situation any player would not be hindered, demoted, removed or obstructed in any way by myself as the Cabal's Immortal as long as the RP was logical. You can't be in watcher and want to set up more cities for example, thats just too far from our core beliefs.

Since you are using your cabal and Nature RP as an example I will cite two other examples that I, as well as others, have experienced. First examples was when I(and others tried as well) attempted to play a Neutrality religion character according to the help file. We were all met with resistance as it did not fit the opinions of Staff on how that particular religion was meant to be portrayed and therefore was condemned.

Quote

Law, Order.  Good, Evil.  Extremes that when left unsupervised, wield

terrible power.  When the balance swings too far to one side, it is your job

to correct it and weigh them a bit more in favor of the underdog, for when

one side tips the scales beyond aid, it will end all that is known.  You are

a servant of the scales, aiding those who are outnumbered.  Or perhaps you

just serve one thing, yourself.  Regardless of your views, you favor neither

law nor chaos, light nor darkness.  ***But one thing is consistent, while you

walk the lands, the balance shall be maintained, and if need be, defended***.

Many of us wanted to take the religion and become a force FOR Neutrality and that balance must be maintained. If any one side went too far, the RP was to intervene in war or politics to sort it out. Ithric, if I recall correctly, had this same approach, but unfortunately he disappeared. It was stated that the helpfile was out of date and no longer fit the viewpoints the Staff held for the religion. Staff opinion > player opinion.

Another example is Warmaster. I know for a fact many other players have attempted to provide Warmaster with a more aggressive stance and truly "declare" war on multiple fronts in attempts to live up to a "warmongering" RP. I can not state the reasons why others were stopped, but I was specifically told by Tongar that Warmaster is NOT to be RPed that way as it is a cabal meant to aid and provide newer, rookie, or less skilled PKers the opportunity to learn to PK in a "safer" atmosphere via challenges.

Both of which I disagree with entirely. The first because the help file LITERALLY says it and the second because that is not how I personally view Warmaster, but it didn't matter. Staff opinion trumps player opinion in the matters of RP. Kind of like a "my sandbox, my rules" thing - or at least that's how it felt.

I have played a stalker watcher demon killer and been told that I must fight tribunal, and tribunals on the other side of it insisted that they must outlaw and kill watchers... Even law abiding ones 

Stalker rp is dead because it inevitably ends in a tribunal war.

I had leadership of a cabal and kicked out a player for rp reasons. The imms inducted them again and promoted them back and said we will decide how you lead, who you demote, and who you war with.

Imho merchants should decide if they are independent or part of a larger faction.

But as Anume said... She will decide who makes it to positions of power in merchant and who they are aligned with. Rpers need not apply.