No, but crusaders running around, all righteous and pure, are boring. There are various types of morally ambiguous characters:

People with self-interest in mind.
People who aren't exactly evil, just hypocritical.
People who just love their homes, but not all the ideological baggage they carry (Verithrax was an example of that in his very late days in New Celest.)
People who are selfish out of habit, but who have a good nature.

The list goes on. And "Do whatever you like, just don't hurt business" is a quite acceptable and realistic position; most people, during most of human history, were mostly like that.

I'm sure you can have lots of different characters, with or without some sort of cause or philosophy.

However, without the 'inherent trait of each organization' of being opposed to those who desecrate, pillage, destroy or pervert whatever is important to them, we lose what I find is the main appeal of Lusternia. Its incredibly rich, immersive, and powerful roleplay. Particularly in making communities distinct, not just collections of random individuals.

Edit: For instance, Serenwilde is inherently morally ambigious. It likes to preach equality and respect, but that only extends as far as its own people. It is quite happy to watch everyone else die without lifting a finger, because they aren't of consequence. That's an 'evil' position to take, even though most of the internal viewpoints are quite 'good'.

I dare you.

Please?

I like fireworks!

If a village took 3 rl weeks to revolt before, does it mean it will take 6 rl weeks but with another village at the same time?

Not sure but I really doubt they would make it 6 weeks. Village revolting is slow enough as it is.

A thought occured to me as I was reviewing the proposed change again. If it was implemented, I think it would be nice if organization could micromanage their governing styles a little more, and be able to set individual styles for each village they hold. Such as governing Estelbar benevolently while governing Delport despotically. Think it would add a interesting dimension to influencing, though it's obviously unnecessary.

I like that idea Daevos...now that you bring it up, that would be a somewhat nifty twist to things.

Sounds fun, ruling like a tyrant should get you some benefits in the ways of gold or comms/you'r kicking down their doors and overtaxing them but then it makes them harder to infulence at a later date.

Means people like aiakon can be all hatefull to the furrikin while still being respectfull to tainty undead places.


Sounds fun, ruling like a tyrant should get you some benefits in the ways of gold or comms/you'r kicking down their doors and overtaxing them but then it makes them harder to infulence at a later date.

Means people like aiakon can be all hatefull to the furrikin while still being respectfull to tainty undead places.

I must also agree with the whole idea of being able to pick and choose how you rule a village.

And I think commune's should get more then just netural commune

Glomdoring is more of a convert or die type, while Serenwilde's more of a live and let live (at least i think so)

It is already possible for communes to change their governing style. They are only limited in their choice of political structures.

Uh, no. Not at all. Serenwilde is more of a 'Do what we want or get Munsia and Narsrim and Kalo on your arse' type.

Nah, we're more of a live and let die sort of people. Very snobby, everyone else can go to hell.