Savalite Church [Not Active]

[Chewett]

What do you think should be done about them and other alliances in general that lose their leader?

Constructive comments only

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

Loving the sig Chewett

I have to say, I do not feel that just because an alliance loses it's leader it should be disbanded automatically like some people appear to believe. It really is dependent on the purpose of the alliance as a whole, the story that backs it up, the land it's related to....so many factors. Only the people who are in or related to the alliance could really comment on this in some cases as (as we all know) a substantial portion of information is secret, held back for us to find out if we have the impetus to do so. Releasing it to one and all I'm not in favour of either, although I realise I may be in a minority, I think that the hidden information just makes for more of an interesting and intriguing game. How can you possibly comment on whether something should or shouldn't exist when you are unaware of the actual reason for it's existance in the first place?

I understand some people think an alliance being disbanded should be a community choice. Again, I don't agree. An alliance is not created by the will of the whole community as such and therefore why subject it to that bar in terms of disbandment?

Sometimes the leader is the thing that holds an alliance together, sometimes it isn't. Knowing the difference requires particular information. Information that is not accessible to everyone always, but none the less has an impact on the game, even if it's one we don't feel we are aware of.

Z

[Metal Bunny]

Ah, but sometimes, it IS the choice of the community. When there is indeed a leader.
In fact, savel did the same, he wanted something, gathered his followers from the community, raised his minority voice inside it and got what he wanted.

How would this not be applicable in reverse? What if there are malicious, envious, jealous and downright devious destructive members in our community? Who need but only a voice, a leader. Who then yearns to destroy such an alliance. If they persevere, their voice loud enough, ignoring them would become impossible.

All I am saying is that:
The savelites have lost their voice.
The party(ies) against them, (I just read the topic, I don't know if there are parties against them) do not yet exist, or more likely, are not yet united by a leader.

It seems to me that the one who voices their outrage first, will get the first victory in an uncertain war.

As such I believe that if there is a group with a strong enough voice, the voiceless alliance would abandon itself in time. No higher authority should immediately and actively interfere. Only when that voice screams loud enough in his ear, should it happen.
The other way around is also possible, and a very good opportunity for roleplaying.

A voice with a hidden agenda (stop looking at me ¬_¬) could infiltrate and take over the leaderless alliance and slowly, with enough will and cunning, take over and transform the alliance to his/her image. The alliance itself, as a sub-community would change members and such. And only when that new leader has done his/her absolute best, could perhaps persuade a higher authority with a loud enough voice to change the alliance in name.
Of course, such an infiltrator could of course be a person who is loyal to the leader before him/her. In this case, it would be just a succession of rulers, which IMO, is [i]one[/i] of the most likely scenario's to happen.

So basically, what I just said was this: In time the direct fate of the alliance will appear as obvious and unstoppable by all, due to common convention of the community and her judgement over this alliance. This fate can be influenced from within by people with malicious or noble purpose, or from the outside, with either intent.

So.... yeah.. this is just me saying, be lazy, wait it out, and when it's obvious, you act.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Metal Bunny