Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Really, I think the desire to keep guilds as is comes down to a mostly limited position of individuals and their character's identity being linked to the guild. Having seen other IRE games survive the transition, and without any really solid or demonstrable reasoning behind the belief that the game will be worse off with fewer guilds, I would have to support a direction that concentrates the population rather than divides it.
I say this as someone who used to be against it, as I was against classflexing. I think there is an importance on character identities, but ultimately it's more important to focus on overall game health first. A dead guild is a dead guild, regardless of how much your character identifies with it. Ultimately we have to acknowledge that classflexing is a thing, and it has trended towards becoming more of a thing over time. More artifacts are being added to enhance this feature, and guilds are relaxing their requirements for it. Hold out guilds are all but extinct now. If this is the case, and classflex is here to say and increasingly weave itself into modern Lusternia, we have to ask do guilds actually add now? If you can be a Shadowdancer in the Blacktalon, do the guilds actually add anything substantial anymore? I would argue no, or at least, I would argue that it's nothing that could not be resolved by merging guilds into larger umbrella belief systems.
Do we need three elected guild positions these days? Would reducing it to two, or even one, give the positions too much work to do?
Do we need this double-graduation thing we've got going? Would the world collapse if we just had collegium graduation, now you're GR1? Would player retention increase if newbies didn't have to go through guild novice and then guild rank advancement tasks? Or would people get bored? Would they miss the lore if it wasn't shoved in their faces?
If there were no guilds, what would actually happen? Would there be less political infighting if every Hartstone was just a druid following White Hart in Serenwilde, no guild elections/positions? Would people enjoy more freedom? I mean, I barely care about White Hart, I just ride around on my giant stag beetle and worship ladybugs. What would need to change to make up for certain things being absent? The Ambassador ministry was intended to be about newbies, but that job has been done by guild professors. So if guilds go, you can just give Ambassador the ability to appoint collegium professors. Who would sit on city councils, and how would they be elected/selected? I dunno about that, others would have to work it out.
The double graduation ordeal can seriously just go away. I believe it tends to be exhaustive to the newbs we do get, and of course in particular to low populated guilds with hardly any players to help them along, is just as discouraging and makes them likely to work twice as hard.
I see GMs like RL politicians - you vote for your local representative, who then is supposed to represent your interests to the council. Of course you can't vote out the guy you don't like from an area you don't live in. He's the one the people there chose.
I think you would end up with more bias if all GMs were elected by the city/commune. Whichever family/guild/group of friends is the biggest and most active will end up with all the votes going to their people. Who will then represent the minorities?
The way the poll was worded makes me want to say that no, I'd not be ok if what I'd worked on for years was suddenly nuked. But am I open to merging of guilds? Yes, though I think such a thing would have to be carefully considered and not just a blanket rule ie saying all mages and guardians should be merged might work for one org, but in another they might completely clash.
The reason for the double graduation (as I understand it) is to provide novices an extended period of time for them to change their mind during their True Novicehood [e.g. the period during which they can forget skills without losing any lessons for doing so] if they find out they don't like the guild or archetype they've chosen.
Everyone has to graduate from the collegium at some point, but the novice graduation is to make sure that you want to be in that guild.
The current guilds dont have to be deleted by a merging. Your archetype already represents your 'guild', and the current 'guilds' are just groupings of these archetypes. The are simply a mechanic in place where you can talk with other people of your class, and generally were introduced with the idea to try and help along others that choose that class with steps to progressing forward. Ask yourself, how often does your guild actually do "Archetype things"? How often do the Aquamancer actually go out of their way to do rites with water? How often do the nihilists actually do public sacrifices?
Keep the classes as is, representing your guilds, then introduce 'societies' within each city/commune that someone can be a member of. These societies would actually work towards a goal, and not simply be glorified representations of your class skills in an org. You would still be a "Nihilist priest" or an "Ur'guard", but could choose to join one of these societies.
Here's a fun little example for Mag:
The Midnight Legion (which truth be told, is already on its way to be its own mini-org): The fighting force of Magnagora, individuals of the legion seek nothing but excellence in their combat prowess, devoting their entire lives to mastering of sword or spell, in order to bring forth the horde of undead and the truth of the Taint to the Basin.
The Midnight Chantry (not trying to be clever, but this is actually the name of the covenant of Nihilist and Cacophony): Glorify in the Taint. Use its arts to enhance yourself and the land about you. Remove the shackles of the fates and take destiny in your own hands. Join this brotherhood of likeminded individuals that seek to spur the progress of life through the blessed arts bestowed upon us.
The Enginseers (yes, stolen from Ventidius): A gear alone means nothing, but together, brings forth the driving force of progress. The Engine spurs forward, taking destiny in its hand, and showcasing to the world the power in its reformed evolutionary designs. We seek showcase the power of Industry and Academia, and bring forth a true tainted-golden-age to the basin.
The reason for the double graduation (as I understand it) is to provide novices an extended period of time for them to change their mind during their True Novicehood [e.g. the period during which they can forget skills without losing any lessons for doing so] if they find out they don't like the guild or archetype they've chosen.
Everyone has to graduate from the collegium at some point, but the novice graduation is to make sure that you want to be in that guild.
I figured it was just a holdover from when Collegiums didn't exist. Two systems just smashed together without much thought.
Zeleni - all the GM's are on the City council/court/whatever. It's not just 1 CL running the show.
Yeah, I caught that part. I thought was along the lines of anyone being elected to be on the council, so if the populace wants it, you could have three Nihilists at one time, for instance, just because they're the people who are believed by the city to be best at running the city.
I will say that I found the double graduation useful. Lusternia was a brand new and terrifying world for me. I needed time to figure things out. I learned that the Sentinels weren't for me, so I switched to the Symphonium. If I was punished by the lesson loss, I might have given up on Lusternia.
It may be frustrating for people who already understand everything, but that is what the guild advance command is for.
For Mister Zvoltz, Pejat has been terminated by the Replicant Dynodeon.
@Saran in is saying that if he doesn't like what the GM of another guild is doing on the org level, there isn't anything he can do about it.
That's even more false - he has a GM himself that he can speak with to do something about it, and at the very least, he can help push for that leaders replacement still. Nobody is helpless in this situation.
Yes, I have a GM but they are only one person and they might also agree with me as might the CL. So I wouldn't really want to replace them.
Pushing for the leaders replacement is an issue here though, both in the context of this discussion and just in general can be problematic.
For one, it relies on someone being in the guild that can and would step up. I may be biased but I feel these leaders are more often in guilds where this presents an issue because otherwise they probably would have been replaced and we wouldn't really need to think about guilds being removed if it weren't for these dead guilds.
Which can lead into the next issue, if you can't get someone active to replace them then your other option would be abandoning your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild and try to get to a point where you can replace that leader. (with the possibility that if they have an idea of what's going on they could try to stop you)
The other complication that always exists is that the person that you're trying to remove might actually be really good for their guild, they might lead as some form of spiritual leader of the guild or they might just be managing to hold it all together and the removal of them because of they suck at being on the council may have negative outcomes on the guild itself. Which also provides a reason for why the guild might not remove them, because the guild is making a decision based on what they feel is best for them even if it's problematic for the org.
Yes, I have a GM but they are only one person and they might also agree with me as might the CL. So I wouldn't really want to replace them.
Pushing for the leaders replacement is an issue here though, both in the context of this discussion and just in general can be problematic.
For one, it relies on someone being in the guild that can and would step up. I may be biased but I feel these leaders are more often in guilds where this presents an issue because otherwise they probably would have been replaced and we wouldn't really need to think about guilds being removed if it weren't for these dead guilds.
Which can lead into the next issue, if you can't get someone active to replace them then your other option would be abandoning your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild and try to get to a point where you can replace that leader. (with the possibility that if they have an idea of what's going on they could try to stop you)
The other complication that always exists is that the person that you're trying to remove might actually be really good for their guild, they might lead as some form of spiritual leader of the guild or they might just be managing to hold it all together and the removal of them because of they suck at being on the council may have negative outcomes on the guild itself. Which also provides a reason for why the guild might not remove them, because the guild is making a decision based on what they feel is best for them even if it's problematic for the org.
I don't understand what's going on in this post. Why do you have to... "abandon your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild..." to replace that other leader? If your own leader is active, tell your own leader to politically block or question that other guild leader. If your own leader is not active, and you have the energy to even consider jumping guilds to challenge the other guild's leader, then why don't you challenge your own inactive leader and then politically block or question that other guild leader?
The pros and cons of our GM-on-council system versus the other IREs' whole-org voting for each council member system can be debated at length, but I don't think "another guild's leader is doing something I dislike" is a weakness in ours.
Debating about whether or not Halli and Gaudi should have been released won't help much. Even if we say it was a bad idea, it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
Reducing the needed elected positions for what we have, and maybe allowing for monks in Gaudi/Halli without stretching us even further is something we can do.
@Saran in is saying that if he doesn't like what the GM of another guild is doing on the org level, there isn't anything he can do about it.
That's even more false - he has a GM himself that he can speak with to do something about it, and at the very least, he can help push for that leaders replacement still. Nobody is helpless in this situation.
Yes, I have a GM but they are only one person and they might also agree with me as might the CL. So I wouldn't really want to replace them.
Pushing for the leaders replacement is an issue here though, both in the context of this discussion and just in general can be problematic.
For one, it relies on someone being in the guild that can and would step up. I may be biased but I feel these leaders are more often in guilds where this presents an issue because otherwise they probably would have been replaced and we wouldn't really need to think about guilds being removed if it weren't for these dead guilds.
Which can lead into the next issue, if you can't get someone active to replace them then your other option would be abandoning your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild and try to get to a point where you can replace that leader. (with the possibility that if they have an idea of what's going on they could try to stop you)
The other complication that always exists is that the person that you're trying to remove might actually be really good for their guild, they might lead as some form of spiritual leader of the guild or they might just be managing to hold it all together and the removal of them because of they suck at being on the council may have negative outcomes on the guild itself. Which also provides a reason for why the guild might not remove them, because the guild is making a decision based on what they feel is best for them even if it's problematic for the org.
Isnt that the point of the Guildmaster position? It is the voice of the guild. Not of the city/commune. The Honeymancers, Rainbowdancers, The Chitty Chitty Bang Bangs, and Pickachuguards may like kicking puppies, but the Beyonce Flawlesssingers don't. The GM of the BFS is supposed to say kick rocks thats not what my guild wants.
Yes, I have a GM but they are only one person and they might also agree with me as might the CL. So I wouldn't really want to replace them.
Pushing for the leaders replacement is an issue here though, both in the context of this discussion and just in general can be problematic.
For one, it relies on someone being in the guild that can and would step up. I may be biased but I feel these leaders are more often in guilds where this presents an issue because otherwise they probably would have been replaced and we wouldn't really need to think about guilds being removed if it weren't for these dead guilds.
Which can lead into the next issue, if you can't get someone active to replace them then your other option would be abandoning your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild and try to get to a point where you can replace that leader. (with the possibility that if they have an idea of what's going on they could try to stop you)
The other complication that always exists is that the person that you're trying to remove might actually be really good for their guild, they might lead as some form of spiritual leader of the guild or they might just be managing to hold it all together and the removal of them because of they suck at being on the council may have negative outcomes on the guild itself. Which also provides a reason for why the guild might not remove them, because the guild is making a decision based on what they feel is best for them even if it's problematic for the org.
I don't understand what's going on in this post. Why do you have to... "abandon your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild..." to replace that other leader? If your own leader is active, tell your own leader to politically block or question that other guild leader. If your own leader is not active, and you have the energy to even consider jumping guilds to challenge the other guild's leader, then why don't you challenge your own inactive leader and then politically block or question that other guild leader?
The pros and cons of our GM-on-council system versus the other IREs' whole-org voting for each council member system can be debated at length, but I don't think "another guild's leader is doing something I dislike" is a weakness in ours.
As I've said, my issue is when it's someone that I can't replace that I have an issue with. When there is the situation that there isn't anything that my guild leader can actually do about it. I actually also dislike the family seat for the same reason even though I hold it in Serenwilde.
I dislike that it is about "another guild's leader" if my issue with them is about how the are acting as a leader of the org. I believe that if people don't want me on the council, if they don't want Jaamil there, or Turnus, then they should be able to replace us without having to disrupt a guild. I also dislike when there's an election going on in my guild and people keep asking me how it's going because they are worried about the possibility of x being on the council, because the decision of the guild does have an impact on them.
@Saran in is saying that if he doesn't like what the GM of another guild is doing on the org level, there isn't anything he can do about it.
That's even more false - he has a GM himself that he can speak with to do something about it, and at the very least, he can help push for that leaders replacement still. Nobody is helpless in this situation.
Yes, I have a GM but they are only one person and they might also agree with me as might the CL. So I wouldn't really want to replace them.
Pushing for the leaders replacement is an issue here though, both in the context of this discussion and just in general can be problematic.
For one, it relies on someone being in the guild that can and would step up. I may be biased but I feel these leaders are more often in guilds where this presents an issue because otherwise they probably would have been replaced and we wouldn't really need to think about guilds being removed if it weren't for these dead guilds.
Which can lead into the next issue, if you can't get someone active to replace them then your other option would be abandoning your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild and try to get to a point where you can replace that leader. (with the possibility that if they have an idea of what's going on they could try to stop you)
The other complication that always exists is that the person that you're trying to remove might actually be really good for their guild, they might lead as some form of spiritual leader of the guild or they might just be managing to hold it all together and the removal of them because of they suck at being on the council may have negative outcomes on the guild itself. Which also provides a reason for why the guild might not remove them, because the guild is making a decision based on what they feel is best for them even if it's problematic for the org.
Isnt that the point of the Guildmaster position? It is the voice of the guild. Not of the city/commune. The Honeymancers, Rainbowdancers, The Chitty Chitty Bang Bangs, and Pickachuguards may like kicking puppies, but the Beyonce Flawlesssingers don't. The GM of the BFS is supposed to say kick rocks thats not what my guild wants.
Yes, but does that mean that the Guildmaster has to have a direct vote on the council? Can the guild not use its influence as a guild to try to get things done.
I suppose in an example, some GMs in Serenwilde have been upset because Avurekhos... wasn't really on board with the NAP with Glomdoring. If this matter went to an election and Avurekhos won it, then this would imply that the majority of Serenwilde as a whole supports him, even though a majority of the council oppose him, if this is the case and those guild leaders are representing their guilds then the minority is overruling the majority.
Yes, I have a GM but they are only one person and they might also agree with me as might the CL. So I wouldn't really want to replace them.
Pushing for the leaders replacement is an issue here though, both in the context of this discussion and just in general can be problematic.
For one, it relies on someone being in the guild that can and would step up. I may be biased but I feel these leaders are more often in guilds where this presents an issue because otherwise they probably would have been replaced and we wouldn't really need to think about guilds being removed if it weren't for these dead guilds.
Which can lead into the next issue, if you can't get someone active to replace them then your other option would be abandoning your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild and try to get to a point where you can replace that leader. (with the possibility that if they have an idea of what's going on they could try to stop you)
The other complication that always exists is that the person that you're trying to remove might actually be really good for their guild, they might lead as some form of spiritual leader of the guild or they might just be managing to hold it all together and the removal of them because of they suck at being on the council may have negative outcomes on the guild itself. Which also provides a reason for why the guild might not remove them, because the guild is making a decision based on what they feel is best for them even if it's problematic for the org.
I don't understand what's going on in this post. Why do you have to... "abandon your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild..." to replace that other leader? If your own leader is active, tell your own leader to politically block or question that other guild leader. If your own leader is not active, and you have the energy to even consider jumping guilds to challenge the other guild's leader, then why don't you challenge your own inactive leader and then politically block or question that other guild leader?
The pros and cons of our GM-on-council system versus the other IREs' whole-org voting for each council member system can be debated at length, but I don't think "another guild's leader is doing something I dislike" is a weakness in ours.
As I've said, my issue is when it's someone that I can't replace that I have an issue with. When there is the situation that there isn't anything that my guild leader can actually do about it. I actually also dislike the family seat for the same reason even though I hold it in Serenwilde.
I dislike that it is about "another guild's leader" if my issue with them is about how the are acting as a leader of the org. I believe that if people don't want me on the council, if they don't want Jaamil there, or Turnus, then they should be able to replace us without having to disrupt a guild. I also dislike when there's an election going on in my guild and people keep asking me how it's going because they are worried about the possibility of x being on the council, because the decision of the guild does have an impact on them.
If the Moondancers are electing a GM, it is not about what anyone in the Serenwilde wants except for the Moondancers. If the Moondancers want Munsia as GM it is their choice regardless of what you want.
Frank Lucas is a congress person in Oklahoma. Do I like anything he has to say ever? (I honestly dont know but probably not because well I live in Oklahoma) He is not my representative I cannot be upset because he does what the people he is chosen to represent want him to do.
That's how organizations work, though. It's the intended design: guilds are vital parts of the whole city or commune. All the guilds interact with one another, and they all make up the bigger organization. The Illuminati should have some idea (not each explicit detail, just some general idea) of what's going on in the Minstrels, because they are both part of Gaudiguch. At the same time, however, the Illuminati should know that it has limits on what it can directly affect in the Minstrels, because the people there can and are entitled their own opinion. It's up to both guilds (through their respective GMs) to work together and find a compromise and some common ground so that Gaudiguch as a whole doesn't implode.
Are we really debating the merits and downsides of representative democracy?
1
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited November 2015
Though Saran is arguing for a mechanic that allows him, as an individual, to forcefully override a guild's selection process for personal reasons, he is not taking into account that in every org (EVERY SINGLE ORG) there is some individual that has an issue with their respective leadership. His issue applies to those people too.
So I'm not entirely sure what solution he thinks will resolve this. A second level of voting within the Council alone that overrides guild selections? Why even bother with guild elections at that point?
A mechanic already exists if a guild leader is being SO obstructionist and destructive as to disrupt an entire organization. You kick them out. Doesn't even take a majority vote.
Are we really debating the merits and downsides of representative democracy?
I actually wrote a fairly long post giving my opinion and perspective of that but then the clock hit knock-off time and I had a dinner appointment. Through the zen effects of stuffing myself with pork chops, I realised I wasn't really an advocate of democracy anyway (hurrah communism) and so I had no need to spend time defending it on a game forums.
That's how organizations work, though. It's the intended design: guilds are vital parts of the whole city or commune. All the guilds interact with one another, and they all make up the bigger organization. The Illuminati should have some idea (not each explicit detail, just some general idea) of what's going on in the Minstrels, because they are both part of Gaudiguch. At the same time, however, the Illuminati should know that it has limits on what it can directly affect in the Minstrels, because the people there can and are entitled their own opinion. It's up to both guilds (through their respective GMs) to work together and find a compromise and some common ground so that Gaudiguch as a whole doesn't implode.
And we're in a thread talking about how the "intended design" of guilds isn't really working out, looking at how the players would like to make changes so that it would work better.
I was also responding to Qistrel's question about whether or not we really need three elected positions, because looking at how the current design of guilds works or doesn't is related to this thread.
As an example, if you merge guilds down to three, it seems better to figure out a different way to deal with guards and discretionaries on an org level rather than guild, which can mean by extension that the guild champions may not really need to exist. If I were going to get rid of one more position it would be the Guild Master because the GA is the most crucial one out of the three for ensuring the guild itself functions and it means an aspect I don't like won't be an issue any more.
@Celina, as I've said I just would prefer it if the org itself elected the entire council rather than it being a council of GMs + Family + CL. For one, if things stay the same with just a reduction of guilds, it makes each seat increasingly more powerful with each guild gone, including the family one.
There's also a variety of other options that exist, but how the councils function is linked to the structure of guilds right now.
If there is a change to the number of guilds, their leadership structures, or even the creation of factions as Eventru suggested years ago, all of these are going to have impacts on the council, so it's part of this discussion.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
This really makes no sense to me. It's coming across as an entirely arbitrary divorcing of org leadership from the guilds/factions/whatever themselves.
If you want organizations at large selecting guild leadership for the guilds, why bother with guild leadership at all? Unless you're proposing councils be divorced entirely from guild leadership, allow guilds to select their internal leaders, and create this weird schism between the org at large dictating who they think should represent each guild regardless of what the guild thinks and the guilds themselves. Popular vote for entire org leadership is the quickest way to have orgs ran by unbreakable cliques, we see this in guilds already but at least guild elections limit their impact. You're really just replacing isolated problems with new ones that are much more difficult to replace by any sort of minority objection. Your proposal is really ultimately aiming to eliminate minority opinion which is generally just a terrible idea, no matter how much you might dislike who has that minority opinion.
Okay, so each seat becomes more "powerful" (a dubious claim, given that council members really don't have all that much "power" to begin with except within their own guilds that elected them), but the consolidation of the population would ultimately resolve population issues that you are citing as a problem for finding replacements for people you think are not valid leaders. So why bother?
The only thing I'm getting from this is that @Saran wants to power to remove anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Yes, I want to remove the family seat that I currently hold because I don't agree with myself...
There's also a variety of leaders that I don't agree with but I actually respect them and think they're a good leader. But then there are the leaders that yeah, get people around the org worrying with the thought of them being a leader.
This really makes no sense to me. It's coming across as an entirely arbitrary divorcing of org leadership from the guilds/factions/whatever themselves.
If you want organizations at large selecting guild leadership for the guilds, why bother with guild leadership at all? Unless you're proposing councils be divorced entirely from guild leadership, allow guilds to select their internal leaders, and create this weird schism between the org at large dictating who they think should represent each guild regardless of what the guild thinks and the guilds themselves. Popular vote for entire org leadership is the quickest way to have orgs ran by unbreakable cliques, we see this in guilds already but at least guild elections limit their impact. You're really just replacing isolated problems with new ones that are much more difficult to replace by any sort of minority objection. Your proposal is really ultimately aiming to eliminate minority opinion which is generally just a terrible idea, no matter how much you might dislike who has that minority opinion.
Okay, so each seat becomes more "powerful" (a dubious claim, given that council members really don't have all that much "power" to begin with except within their own guilds that elected them), but the consolidation of the population would ultimately resolve population issues that you are citing as a problem for finding replacements for people you think are not valid leaders. So why bother?
You seem to get halfway to what I'm saying and then go off in the complete opposite direction based on your own assumptions, it's interesting.
At no point have I said that the org should dictate to the guild who their leaders are, that just creates more issues.
There was simply the question about the current structure of guild leadership and modifying that. I agree with a reduction due to what happened earlier this year but I don't agree with two guild leaders because there's no majority there, so if there is a reduction I'd go to one leader which for me would be the GA.
You seem to get halfway to what I'm saying and then go off in the complete opposite direction based on your own assumptions, it's interesting.
No where did I say you wanted to remove yourself, I said you wanted the power to remove people you don't agree with. A power which you actually already have, but are apparently not taking advantage of.
Debating about whether or not Halli and Gaudi should have been released won't help much. Even if we say it was a bad idea, it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
Reducing the needed elected positions for what we have, and maybe allowing for monks in Gaudi/Halli without stretching us even further is something we can do.
It's never too late. No, the genie will not be put back in the bottle. But why commit so hard to something we understand was not that great for us? Lusternia evolves. It adapts, for all the Vision that guided its origins. To be a living world, we -need- to adapt to our actual world.
Mayor Steingrim, the Grand Schema says to you, "Well, as I recall you kinda leave a mark whereever you go."
Mass event where all conflict between Halli and Gaudi is resolved. Halli becomming noobville thus the need for newton being wiped and opened to all for funtimes and Gaudi becomming Roguetown where we have a nice little neutral area for all players to go and open up avenues for interorg RP. Monks become warriors, bards join mage/guardian. Tada.
This probably doesn't work no a bunch of levels. But I really love the idea of having a neutral 'org' where political and social adventures can take place in a moderately safe and acceptable area. Anyways. Back to you rantings and ravings about being misundeerstood.
Honestly, you guys don't even have the numbers to support all the cities/forests you have. While it's great that you have admin willing to put forth the effort to open up new factions and guilds regularly, the game has progressed way beyond the number of players and it severely hurts your game in the long run. Newbies make characters only to join empty orgs. That can be devastating to muds.
Comments
Ixion tells you, "// I don't think anyone else had a clue, amazing form."
The current guilds dont have to be deleted by a merging. Your archetype already represents your 'guild', and the current 'guilds' are just groupings of these archetypes. The are simply a mechanic in place where you can talk with other people of your class, and generally were introduced with the idea to try and help along others that choose that class with steps to progressing forward. Ask yourself, how often does your guild actually do "Archetype things"? How often do the Aquamancer actually go out of their way to do rites with water? How often do the nihilists actually do public sacrifices?
Keep the classes as is, representing your guilds, then introduce 'societies' within each city/commune that someone can be a member of. These societies would actually work towards a goal, and not simply be glorified representations of your class skills in an org. You would still be a "Nihilist priest" or an "Ur'guard", but could choose to join one of these societies.
Here's a fun little example for Mag:
The Midnight Legion (which truth be told, is already on its way to be its own mini-org): The fighting force of Magnagora, individuals of the legion seek nothing but excellence in their combat prowess, devoting their entire lives to mastering of sword or spell, in order to bring forth the horde of undead and the truth of the Taint to the Basin.
The Midnight Chantry (not trying to be clever, but this is actually the name of the covenant of Nihilist and Cacophony): Glorify in the Taint. Use its arts to enhance yourself and the land about you. Remove the shackles of the fates and take destiny in your own hands. Join this brotherhood of likeminded individuals that seek to spur the progress of life through the blessed arts bestowed upon us.
The Enginseers (yes, stolen from Ventidius): A gear alone means nothing, but together, brings forth the driving force of progress. The Engine spurs forward, taking destiny in its hand, and showcasing to the world the power in its reformed evolutionary designs. We seek showcase the power of Industry and Academia, and bring forth a true tainted-golden-age to the basin.
And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Pushing for the leaders replacement is an issue here though, both in the context of this discussion and just in general can be problematic.
For one, it relies on someone being in the guild that can and would step up. I may be biased but I feel these leaders are more often in guilds where this presents an issue because otherwise they probably would have been replaced and we wouldn't really need to think about guilds being removed if it weren't for these dead guilds.
Which can lead into the next issue, if you can't get someone active to replace them then your other option would be abandoning your own guild along with whatever you've done in it to go to this other guild and try to get to a point where you can replace that leader. (with the possibility that if they have an idea of what's going on they could try to stop you)
The other complication that always exists is that the person that you're trying to remove might actually be really good for their guild, they might lead as some form of spiritual leader of the guild or they might just be managing to hold it all together and the removal of them because of they suck at being on the council may have negative outcomes on the guild itself. Which also provides a reason for why the guild might not remove them, because the guild is making a decision based on what they feel is best for them even if it's problematic for the org.
Reducing the needed elected positions for what we have, and maybe allowing for monks in Gaudi/Halli without stretching us even further is something we can do.
Isnt that the point of the Guildmaster position? It is the voice of the guild. Not of the city/commune. The Honeymancers, Rainbowdancers, The Chitty Chitty Bang Bangs, and Pickachuguards may like kicking puppies, but the Beyonce Flawlesssingers don't. The GM of the BFS is supposed to say kick rocks thats not what my guild wants.
I dislike that it is about "another guild's leader" if my issue with them is about how the are acting as a leader of the org. I believe that if people don't want me on the council, if they don't want Jaamil there, or Turnus, then they should be able to replace us without having to disrupt a guild.
I also dislike when there's an election going on in my guild and people keep asking me how it's going because they are worried about the possibility of x being on the council, because the decision of the guild does have an impact on them.
I suppose in an example, some GMs in Serenwilde have been upset because Avurekhos... wasn't really on board with the NAP with Glomdoring. If this matter went to an election and Avurekhos won it, then this would imply that the majority of Serenwilde as a whole supports him, even though a majority of the council oppose him, if this is the case and those guild leaders are representing their guilds then the minority is overruling the majority.
Frank Lucas is a congress person in Oklahoma. Do I like anything he has to say ever? (I honestly dont know but probably not because well I live in Oklahoma) He is not my representative I cannot be upset because he does what the people he is chosen to represent want him to do.
I actually wrote a fairly long post giving my opinion and perspective of that but then the clock hit knock-off time and I had a dinner appointment. Through the zen effects of stuffing myself with pork chops, I realised I wasn't really an advocate of democracy anyway (hurrah communism) and so I had no need to spend time defending it on a game forums.
There's also a variety of leaders that I don't agree with but I actually respect them and think they're a good leader. But then there are the leaders that yeah, get people around the org worrying with the thought of them being a leader.
At no point have I said that the org should dictate to the guild who their leaders are, that just creates more issues.
There was simply the question about the current structure of guild leadership and modifying that. I agree with a reduction due to what happened earlier this year but I don't agree with two guild leaders because there's no majority there, so if there is a reduction I'd go to one leader which for me would be the GA.
No where did I say you wanted to remove yourself, I said you wanted the power to remove people you don't agree with. A power which you actually already have, but are apparently not taking advantage of.