A Possible Third Group (Faction ?)

[mugendo]

Neutral/solo/loner/independent...etc, all descriptions that fit my character. This is something I strive hard to achieve, those I interact with know I represent neither the Kami or Karavan when I speak.
Yet I have the potential to influence events, actions and thoughts....even loyalties of other Homins. In reality I do not need to be associated with any faction to advance my personal ambitions/beliefs. So we already have a 'third faction' ...........which I represent.....and There are many other Homins with their own personal agenda on Atys who can be described as the fourth, fifth, sixth...Ad infinitum.

I enjoy the freedom to interact with all Homin with no restrictions.....but I also pay the price, I get no 'Diety love'. A trade I chose to make.
Adding more incentive to becoming a follow of a diety would make me reconsider joining a faction......not increasing the number of factions on offer.

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by mugendo

I enjoy the freedom to interact with all Homin with no restrictions.....but I also pay the price, I get no 'Diety love'. A trade I chose to make. Adding more incentive to becoming a follow of a diety would make me reconsider joining a faction......not increasing the number of factions on offer.

But the proposal isn't so much to offer a third faction, per se, so much as a way to allow neutrals to get close to full value from their game experience without being quite so mechanically penalised.

Not to establish a third faction in the same definitive sense as the K's.

[mugendo]

Originally Posted by grimjim

But the proposal isn't so much to offer a third faction, per se, so much as a way to allow neutrals to get close to full value from their game experience without being quite so mechanically penalised.

Not to establish a third faction in the same definitive sense as the K's.

Asking for major game/lore changes causes me concern, I have seen too many times the little 'requests' that open the floodgates of demands.
Highlighting and suggesting enhancements/inclusion of current options is healthy and community building.
Demanding//campaining for a third faction is something that does not have my support.

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by mugendo

Asking for major game/lore changes causes me concern, I have seen too many times the little 'requests' that open the floodgates of demands.
Highlighting and suggesting enhancements/inclusion of current options is healthy and community building.
Demanding//campaining for a third faction is something that does not have my support.

There wouldn't be a lore change involved. Just an implementation of existing lore and background.

And the third 'faction' accomplishes the the enhancements/inclusion in a way that makes internal sense.

[mugendo]

Originally Posted by grimjim

There wouldn't be a lore change involved. Just an implementation of existing lore and background.

And the third 'faction' accomplishes the the enhancements/inclusion in a way that makes internal sense.

If a third faction is recognised (oficially) that is where the problems start,
Who is the faction catering to ?
Should it have access to TP at all ?
Should it have OP access/drilling rights/ownership ?
Is it capable of alliances with the Kami/Karavan ?

And what of the Homins who don't sign up to it ?.....they are still left without access to the 'full game features'.
Just some points that come to mind immediately regarding the 'third faction catering to all'.

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by mugendo

If a third faction is recognised (oficially) that is where the problems start,
Who is the faction catering to ?
Should it have access to TP at all ?
Should it have OP access/drilling rights/ownership ?
Is it capable of alliances with the Kami/Karavan ?

And what of the Homins who don't sign up to it ?.....they are still left without access to the 'full game features'.
Just some points that come to mind immediately regarding the 'third faction catering to all'.

You're not listening.

My proposal wouldn't be a faction in the sense of Kami/Karavan. It would be anyone who isn't either in loose federation, built - lore and functionality wise - around the Tryton/Ranger alliance.

As hominists, and as allied with Tryton, they have the access and motivation to provide for those homin who don't ally with either side without necessarily making the demands of loyalty that the others do.

It wouldn't necessarily be something you 'sign up to' though to balance with the fame requirements of the Kami/Karavan it might be restricted to those who aren't 'too famous' with either.

[mrshad]

Originally Posted by grimjim

Now imagine you have three children.

You suddenly stop giving the middle child candy - for no reason - but keep giving the other two candy.

Then you start making the middle child run around the block every morning before he gets his thin gruel from breakfast while the others are happily pigging away at their sugar-frosted milk without having to do anything.

Da kid has a legitimate beef and you're getting a call from child services.

Dude...you totally FUBAR'd the analogy.

the only way to make it work out of the mangled mess you made it would be to say I had three kids, and I stopped giving them all candy until they did their chores. Two of them decided they like candy enough to do chores, the third decided that it was morally reprehensible to be rewarded for doing things.

That third kid decided that since rewards were morally wrong, so were punishments, and began a life of crime and vandalism, untimatly ending in him living of his life behind bars.

I spend my golden years wondering if I should have beat the child a little more for not doing his chores, then perhaps he would have learned the value of hard work and well-earned rewards, instead of being stuck in his entitlement mentality.

Ultimatly, I enjoy the children and grandchildren the turned out alright, and I stop taking calls for bail money that my reprobate child keeps placing to me.

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by mrshad

Dude...you totally FUBAR'd the analogy.

the only way to make it work out of the mangled mess you made it would be to say I had three kids, and I stopped giving them all candy until they did their chores. Two of them decided they like candy enough to do chores, the third decided that it was morally reprehensible to be rewarded for doing things.

Now you've mangled the analogy

The two kids only have to do their chores once, and they get their endless reward. The third child has to do their chores constantly, but doesn't get anything at all for it.

Or we could make it a crime family. You're the don and you have three kids. One joins your family as a mob torpedo and kills people for your outfit. The other betrays you and joins a different mob, also killing people. Both your kids make a lot of moolah but have no real morals or forethought about their actions.

Your third child reacts to your criminal activity by becoming a public prosecutions lawyer.

Or we could make an army analogy. Three people join the military, two of them follow orders unquestioningly and end up splashed across the front page of The Sun doing a 'Lyndsey' while the third is a consciencious objector and ends up in a prison cell...

The problem with all analogies is that they're flawed.

[katriell]

Then you start making the middle child run around the block every morning before he gets his thin gruel from breakfast while the others are happily pigging away at their sugar-frosted milk without having to do anything.

Flawed.

"You start giving all three children half-pieces of candy in a mediocre flavour. You tell them that they can have more and better if they will do some yard work at the local church. Two of them acquiesce and start receiving the better candy again. The third refuses to do the work to earn the candy back, apparently preferring to live without it. But, he won't live quietly - at every opportunity, he complains and whines about how awful it is to lack the candy and how things should be the way they used to be."

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by katriell

Flawed.

"You start giving all three children half-pieces of candy in a mediocre flavour. You tell them that they can have more and better if they will do some yard work at the local church. Two of them acquiesce and start receiving the better candy again. The third refuses to do the work to earn the candy back, apparently preferring to live without it. But, he won't live quietly - at every opportunity, he complains and whines about how awful it is to lack the candy and how things should be the way they used to be."

That almost works, if you make the church something like the Westboro Baptists.

Leaving the analogys aside for a moment, here's what actually happened.

Everyone was at rough equilibrium.
Stuff was taken away from neutrals.
Stuff wasn't taken away from the K's. (In terms of access, not in terms of raw numbers of TPs)
Some extra stuff was added to the K's.