[quote name='Yrthilian' timestamp='1328088025' post='103058']
The leader are thoes of the 4 main land alliances. When there was no kingship the ones that where in charge where the Main alliance leaders
so even thogh there is no kingship. I dont see why it would be any diffrent to be honest. SO yeah the leader are the alliance leader of the main land alliances untill a desision is made regards the kingship.
[/quote]
That statement is incredibly foolish and if you only stopped to consider what you were saying for a moment it would dawn on you.
MB is run as a council currently, and elections are going on for the "leader" position. CM has not put his name forward so clearly he doesnt want to be leader.
GG is run as a <insert funny T word> and unless its changed has no real "one" leader, even looking at the main alliance, i was under the impression that it was run by multiple peolpe.
LR... I dont really know whats up with LR, i "think" shem and mya are kinda leaders... but as i said im not sure about that.
And Necro... thats a strange state, you could claim that leader of main alliance is "leader" But i could see oppersition.
Doing things like there was before kingship, and taking wide land desicsions is entirely different. The Monarchs took decisions based on what they felt, and they were "legal" and allowed. Wheras before Kings we had various points of authority that generally did things as a general concensus from everyone important in the area.
You can easily see the difference when you look at Firs banning Rheagar and Blackwood forest? (or someone, people dont matter, its the point) Firs didnt like whatever they were doing, and thusly decided to ban them. Wheras if there was merely an alliance leader, they wouldnt have had the legal right to do so, since they are not in charge of the land, but merely one part of said land.
I see little point designing a system where the trigger of the system relies on something not currently there.
If you say that main alliance has the ability to declare war on any other main alliance, Then that seems much more sensible, as they would not nesscarily be doing it "for the land" like a king could.