Ehh... I love FL. Your suggestion will change FL so much that it won't be FL anymore.
I know you've put a lot of thoughts into this, but really... why? Every suggestion of yours that I read (I remember your last one too!) feels so not FL...
If I wanted a new mud I would have went for one.
That is' date=' if an alliance would become null after this implementation or not. [/quote']
The only intercabal alliances I could really see working out in the new system (they don't even work in our -current- system) would be the ones that the IMMs put forth for balancing reasons (e.x. all the vets are in Forsaken so the other two cabals band together until it evens out)
The political system we have now isn't played out at all and is paper thin as it is.
Also, how would we put these sub cabals together under one cabal whose main concern would be overly different then all the other sub cabals?
One such way would be in the premise section I outlined. The most difficult case is the Empire which has a good-only and evil-only subcabal led by a neutral-only one. I can't imagine -a lot- of killing intracabal-wise. But I CAN imagine the subcabals making things hell for each other should they get out of line.
Let's take the Empire for example. On one hand, we have the glorious do-gooders, defenders of the peace, smiters of conquering armies and revolutionary forces. On the other hand, we have the backstabbing, money-grabbing evil schemers, also working (officially) to defend the peace and to root out revolutionaries. They are motivated towards the same end goals (albeit with a different focus) for very different reasons. The good-doers are bound by the law and uphold it, working honorably in the open at all times. The agents must in turn work around the law, doing what is technically illegal, but doing so without -ever- causing legal problems due to their affiliation with the government. This means that sometimes agents will make mistakes and get themselves wanted (thus hunted). It will also mean that sometimes the Knights will be interfering with the business of the Empire (by protecting enemy cabalmates in a town for example because they can't break the law) and targeted or redirected by the agency/council. In this, some intracabal conflict can occur, but not a great deal. The Empire is also a special case because the opposite subcabals can't resupply, hunt, or officially coordinate attack/defense with each other due to opposite aligns. A lot of potential for PK/RP strategy here.
Wouldn't it become a huge cabal with a bunch of differences, fighting, and couping rather than 3 cabals fighting against one another?
Shortly, yes I feel there is room for limited subcabal vs subcabal conflict, but mostly on the RP side (except for our resident evil-only subcabals). More than that, I'd leave that up to the IMMs to decide.
Thirdly.. what about couping? Would that become obsolete?
Not at all. It would remain in the Forsaken (cabal) and Agency (subcabal), similar to now (Nexus + syndicate). I'm sure a system could be worked out for Stalker/Knight with the challenge system if we so wished.
What about Leaders and Elders of the 3 cabals? Would there be a L and an E for each sub cabal, and a 'King' so to say for the whole cabal?
Leaders are a rare enough thing as it is that I would imagine that we would never need more than three leaders in the game at any time. We can also follow the present system of one elder per subcabal which would give us 3 leaders + 7 elders possible. That is enough for us I think.
I'm just not sure we've all this thought out, yet. Needs a -lot- of work for the time being. Until then, I'll vote no, since I'm unsure if the Immortals (or me) would want to make such a large change...
That is the purpose behind this public thread--to flesh things out. 
My thoughts, I don't know about the whole lawful thing only for the Praets...
The idea behind this is that the Gaia are revolutionaries at heart (non-lawful) and the Forsaken are a conquering force (also non-lawful). The Empire has the leadership (which has learned from the old Council's mistakes and knows that sometimes we -do- need to do illegal things as a government - thus the enlightenment). The agency is essentially a spy/assassin organization that is quasi-legal which, as part of its job, must inherently break the law.
This leaves the Knights who do not have the specialization of the agency, or the flexibility of the leadership (council) and thus must stay perfectly legal in their actions as the military.
edit: typos yet again
Ehh... I love FL. Your suggestion will change FL so much that it won't be FL anymore.
This would be much less of a change than from 1.0 to 2.0. Is changing the cabal flags really such an earthshaking, anti-FL change? Is there some huge departure from the setting or basic structure of the game? I feel it is an advancement.
FL isn't exactly what it is was 6 years ago, and it isn't exactly what it was last year. It won't exactly be the same next year. Which FL memory are you so desperately clinging to?
I take the opposite stance and say that FL can be changed and still be FL. I would even go so far as to venture that it might be a better and more enjoyable FL from which even more players (including a newer generation) could get some enjoyment over the next several years. We aren't going to embrace the future by thinking it might damage our memory of the past.
I know you've put a lot of thoughts into this, but really... why? Every suggestion of yours that I read (I remember your last one too!) feels so not FL...
I liked that idea very much! I still do and it is one that I will bring up likely bring up again because I still feel it has a lot of merit.
But realistically, I think you feel I am changing FL so much because I try to look at deep core issues (be it gameplay, PK, or RP) and try to address them seriously. Few, if any, other players try to do this, so that is probably why you get that feeling only from me. In that, I lean quite extremely on the innovative side whereas you are leaning extremely on the traditionalistic side.
Fighting my ideas simply because they are 'change' is something you can of course do. But anti-change isn't something I can really use to improve my ideas (being an ideal and thus not constructive) and so we may forever be on opposite sides. 
Marry me, Celerity.
I think this is a fantastic idea and here is why:
In my opinion I see this being able to narrow the amount of war to what the players want it to be. Since there are fewer cabals and would no doubt be more cabal mates, fighting would be more of an option. You can choose to engage in RP politics while others fight for your standard/crown/item. Or you can (As many I'm sure would love to) jump into the fray.
I think this would open alot more opportunities for implementing new methods of warfare. With cabals so scattered it seems like CTF and Slayer are the only real ways to prove dominance over an enemy. Other means of oppositional gameplay could more easily be attained, such as giving players available cabal powers. Like, if you kill a certain temporum- his influence with his afiliation is lessened for a time and causes his whole cabal to lose some temporum power. Same with an agency or knight. I think this works along with cabal selectables that were suggested, making war a much more versatile creature.
Allow thieves (not necessarily just the thief class) to steal things from the organization -like artifacts special to the cabal- (Not necessarily from PCs for this purpose) to gain favor or dominance.
Have cabals be able to build large artifacts to use for periods of supreme dominance, and it would be the goal of the opposing cabals to disarm or destroy these artifacts-leading to a greater notion of balance between cabals for alliance. Ex: Say one cabal is much stronger than the other two, and begins to build this huge artifact. The other two cabals, as much as they hate eachother would have to ally to stop this force and neutralize everyone to equality. Then back to war.
But again, my favorite part is that while there is constant war, which seems like the desired effect as an ambience, you would not HAVE to fight continually if there is any support for your cabal. 
I think that cabals are fine as they are.The idea is nice but it won't be implemented anyway because there are too many other things that need to be changed.Crusaders are full of bugs as many other things.Not to mention that the only thing that will bring us players would be new class or race.We all remember what happened when blademasters and ferals were created.
Cool idea.
I voted yes, but I'm not sure. For example, I wouldn't like to see this change taking away coolness factors of FL. No more Reavers of Nexus? It would also make it much more demanding as a cabal member. I'm not much for complex politics myself, but I can always play the mercenary guy that you send to kill people, he he.
I am satisfied with FL as it is right now, but this looks exciting and would surely bring back old players. Is it too big of a change though?
But again' date=' my favorite part is that while there is constant war, which seems like the desired effect as an ambience, [b']you would not HAVE to fight continually if there is any support for your cabal.
I don't get it. Why not?
I don't get it. Why not?
Other people to do it while you do other things (RP) for your cabal. Of course if you were the only one around, you would defend what you have..
Someone is attacking your cabal and you have better things to do? Really? Someone took your standard and you would rather have a healer tea party? Seriously?
Myrek as it stands now if only one person is attacking cabal only one person is allowed to defend anyway. I cannot tell you how many cps Knights has lost due to interfearance in some form or another. Im not even allowed to knock out someone with Kinivus just to give another member time to quaff a gyvel or sleep an hour or two.
Of course, and that is how it should be. I think Myrek meant something else though...
Make cabal powers selectable' date=' so that you cannot predict a cabaled characters skill set. [/quote']
I like that idea also, this way if I happen to join the same cabal or sub cabal then my experiance can be different every time I have a char in said cabal.
Of course' date=' and that is how it should be. I think Myrek meant something else though...[/quote']
Nope, that is what I meant and I am immensely baffled. If someone attacks my house, I don't sit around and have tea because the little woman is handling it. We both would roll. I really don't understand not responding to an attack.
Each Immortal has their own rules on what's allowed and not allowed. For most cabals, defending in numbers at the Cabal is fine. As far as Knight is concerned, I will only have one person fighting another at any one time, including at the cabal.
Just to clear up any confusion.
any one know which other cabals are that way so I know which to avoid?
any one know which other cabals are that way so I know which to avoid?
None as far as I know. Lol
I really like the idea. I agree 100% that this will promote more intercabal RP as far as offense and defense in warfare goes. Also, the odds of vet/newbie vs vet/newbie looks promising. That might help to ease the learning curve for newer players, getting a little guidance from others in their cabals.
my 2 cents:
Generally, it's a great idea, and I think your reasoning holds. With some further development, I think this could really be something that would hold.
But:
Why no neutrals in the agency? They do a "necessary bad". Neutrals definitly fits in.
Also, the capture the flag cabal warfare system HAS to be reworked, or even replaced. Or it'd be running for flags all day long. Maybe it could be replaced by raids, and/or similar stuff?
Cool idea.
I voted yes, but I'm not sure. For example, I wouldn't like to see this change taking away coolness factors of FL. No more Reavers of Nexus? It would also make it much more demanding as a cabal member. I'm not much for complex politics myself, but I can always play the mercenary guy that you send to kill people, he he.
I am satisfied with FL as it is right now, but this looks exciting and would surely bring back old players. Is it too big of a change though?
Possessed sounds perfect for you, then. Agency could do, so could knight. And either of those gaia subcabals.