My bad. Sorry!But I would like to kindly ask that people don't copy my personal board notes into public domain as a matter of courtesy.
Checkup: Knight/Order Merger
I'm generally in favour of having fewer IG guilds, and concentrating our characters into them as much as possible to ensure maximum RP opportunities. For this reason, I'd suggest that the two guilds remain merged; however, having experienced them apart, I wouldn't be annoyed or upset if they were split.
Not a big fan of the idea of Knight Inquisitors; this, for me, would feel like taking too much of the Knights' purpose away from them, and I'm a big proponent of letting every character (in general), play out their designated purpose.
Not a big fan of the idea of Knight Inquisitors; this, for me, would feel like taking too much of the Knights' purpose away from them, and I'm a big proponent of letting every character (in general), play out their designated purpose.
-
Onyxsoulle
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:46 pm
Okay so here is my two cents for what it's worth.
For the most part I like the way the Order currently is. It allows what should be the biggest(or 2nd biggest) guild to be just that.
However, there is the matter of the Gl's, that is the part I don't like.
Cardinal should be A#1 without a doubt. Personally I would suggest a new position to cover the #2 spot. GI made sense before the merger, but now it doesn't seem to be so.
Below that, I would actually break the church into 2 branches, priestly and knightly. EM is in charge of Knightly's, GI in charge of priestly's. This would remove 2 gl positions(EM and GI), both are equal and in charge of their own branch and answer to GL2 and the Cardinal.
Just my thoughts
For the most part I like the way the Order currently is. It allows what should be the biggest(or 2nd biggest) guild to be just that.
However, there is the matter of the Gl's, that is the part I don't like.
Cardinal should be A#1 without a doubt. Personally I would suggest a new position to cover the #2 spot. GI made sense before the merger, but now it doesn't seem to be so.
Below that, I would actually break the church into 2 branches, priestly and knightly. EM is in charge of Knightly's, GI in charge of priestly's. This would remove 2 gl positions(EM and GI), both are equal and in charge of their own branch and answer to GL2 and the Cardinal.
Just my thoughts
I don't quite know where the chain of command got lost, but should it not be Cardinal > GI > EM > Inquisition > Knights?
The Knights, thematically, are the sword arm of the Inquisition. The GI and EM should not be 'equal', and the Cardinal - while generally controlling the more priestly side, just has a say in everything because they are closest to the Lord.
The Knights, thematically, are the sword arm of the Inquisition. The GI and EM should not be 'equal', and the Cardinal - while generally controlling the more priestly side, just has a say in everything because they are closest to the Lord.
Player of: Alexander ab Courtland
I would say that it isn't as simple as a downflowing chain of command between the order and the knights.Leech wrote:I don't quite know where the chain of command got lost, but should it not be Cardinal > GI > EM > Inquisition > Knights?
The Knights, thematically, are the sword arm of the Inquisition. The GI and EM should not be 'equal', and the Cardinal - while generally controlling the more priestly side, just has a say in everything because they are closest to the Lord.
The Cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor or any other Inquisitor request that a given suspect be brought in and may advise on how to do that, but as the ones with the expertise, the EM/GM/Knights are entrusted to execute that warrant as and how they wish.
Likewise, the Earl Marshall and other knights don't have the authority to instruct Inquisitors on how they do their job.
Outside of inquisitorial stuff and mage seizing, I'd say that the above chain would work for general dignity and authority, which goes back to my previous point that the current situation doesn't work with regards to guild leaders. The GI does have more overall sway than the EM. However, neither the EM or the GI are in the position or have the knowledge/expertise to give instructions to the other's sphere of influence. Yet, it is imperative (in my opinion) that both are prominently displayed on 'guildleader'.
My other suggestion, if we a) do want to keep them as one guild and b) can't have guildleader display 4 leaders for the guild, would be to NPC the Cardinal/Patriarch and make the GI the PC leader of the church with their second being archbishop of Lithmore or something like that. From a gameplay POV it is my belief that the GI is a more important role to fill/publicise than the Cardinal.
-Z
I can see the merits of Zeita's argument. I think that NPCing out the Cardinal (or more appropriately reverting the authority back to the Monarch) would be an option worth considering.
I just want to reiterate, however, that the help files are very clear on the order of precedence, so who is peers with who is kind of a moot point unless we start mucking around with theme. In practice the GI may have a little more power to make people's lives annoying, but he or she is still the equivalent of an Archbishop.
In an Earth context the Earl Marshal would be responsible for the protection of the Monarch and other secular duties and the Grand Master would be responsible for religious matters and would answer to a religious authority. Grand Inquisitors were bishops or archbishops, not Cardinals. In the case of the Spanish Inquisition they were actually reported to the King not the pope.
That last paragraph was not to sway the discussion either way, just a history lesson for those who were curious.
By a quick count it looks like splitting the guild is about equal with the people who say not to split the guild
I just want to reiterate, however, that the help files are very clear on the order of precedence, so who is peers with who is kind of a moot point unless we start mucking around with theme. In practice the GI may have a little more power to make people's lives annoying, but he or she is still the equivalent of an Archbishop.
In an Earth context the Earl Marshal would be responsible for the protection of the Monarch and other secular duties and the Grand Master would be responsible for religious matters and would answer to a religious authority. Grand Inquisitors were bishops or archbishops, not Cardinals. In the case of the Spanish Inquisition they were actually reported to the King not the pope.
That last paragraph was not to sway the discussion either way, just a history lesson for those who were curious.
By a quick count it looks like splitting the guild is about equal with the people who say not to split the guild
I think we run into some speed bumps with the Monarch being the Matriarch because our Queen is currently a six year old who doesn't live in the city. I'd hazard a guess that would be a bit too much all-encompassing power for the Regent; also, the Regent spot is passed through so many hands that it would mean a large amount of instability. I'd be in favour of keeping the Patriarchy solely with the Church, and "giving" it IG to the GI.
TL;DR: Since our monarch is also an NPC, that would mean no IG head of the Church. Let's keep it with the Order!
TL;DR: Since our monarch is also an NPC, that would mean no IG head of the Church. Let's keep it with the Order!
-
Onyxsoulle
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:46 pm
I can't say I like the idea of the Monarch influencing the Order. There is supposed to be a big separation between the two that causes conflict.
On a similar note, the talk about combining other guilds. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the Reeves melded with court. This makes sense to me. Reeves enforce the laws that the Monarch issues and handle any executions/punishments of nobles and whatnot. But we would likely see the same problems we are seeing with the church. I picture the King/Queen/Regent being at the top, 2nd GL would be the steward(though I've always been partial to the king/queen's spouse for this spot.), and then Justiciar(not as GL).
But again, that's just me.
On a similar note, the talk about combining other guilds. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the Reeves melded with court. This makes sense to me. Reeves enforce the laws that the Monarch issues and handle any executions/punishments of nobles and whatnot. But we would likely see the same problems we are seeing with the church. I picture the King/Queen/Regent being at the top, 2nd GL would be the steward(though I've always been partial to the king/queen's spouse for this spot.), and then Justiciar(not as GL).
But again, that's just me.
I do agree that the Court and Reeves are a more natural merge without having to change the face of either too much.
I can't see the Patriarchy returning to the Crown again, and certainly not during the monarch's minority as Cellan points out.
I'd also be happy with awarding the Patriarchy to the Grand Inquisitor. However, my preference is investing the Grand Inquisitorial title into the Cardinal's role, so that they oversee the velvet glove and the iron gauntlet. There has always been a slight disconnect where the Cardinal and Grand Inquisitor kind of should be thematically staying out of one another's sandboxes- a thematic thing that is rarely very practical due to Order staffing levels.
This doesn't need to include retaining the Patriarchy, which could instead be invested in the high synod as a group rather than any individual. My experience is that the Patriarchy in the church tends to be downplayed somewhat, and is more of a 'tacked on' title rather than the focus.
-Z
I can't see the Patriarchy returning to the Crown again, and certainly not during the monarch's minority as Cellan points out.
I'd also be happy with awarding the Patriarchy to the Grand Inquisitor. However, my preference is investing the Grand Inquisitorial title into the Cardinal's role, so that they oversee the velvet glove and the iron gauntlet. There has always been a slight disconnect where the Cardinal and Grand Inquisitor kind of should be thematically staying out of one another's sandboxes- a thematic thing that is rarely very practical due to Order staffing levels.
This doesn't need to include retaining the Patriarchy, which could instead be invested in the high synod as a group rather than any individual. My experience is that the Patriarchy in the church tends to be downplayed somewhat, and is more of a 'tacked on' title rather than the focus.
-Z
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests