Parties existed before political systems that rely on parties existed, is what I meant. See, for example, the Jacobines.

My point about parties was based on how to do things in a game balanced way that was accepted by the administration and had some backing in the game itself, as well as how to do it in a way that would prevent political corruption. I was responding to Elostian's thoughts on how to change it. You yourself complained about your clan a lot--that you couldn't be kept secret, etc.

The way I thought parties could be handled is for some of them to automatically rotate after time, or for players to vote on them. The other thing about adding parties would be they would be part of the communities permanently. It would also teach new players that there isn't "one true way" to do things.

That's a separate problem, related to statues and the limitations of the clan system.

However, built-in, permanent parties are a stupid idea. I don't know if it's because Americans are so used to a cemented "This party or the other" system, but in sane parts of the world, political parties come and go. If in a commune you had to choose between the "Ravenous Snuggler Party," the "Let's Kill Everything Party" and the "Novelty Wig Party," what do you do if you don't agree with either ideology? It would just serve to pigeonhole people even further. It sends the message that you have to fit within one of the three admin-approved belief sets. Players should be able to just make their own parties and be done with it; being able to have true clan secrecy would be a nice add-on to support that. Other than that - clans can have referendums, so they can act like real political parties in most ways. There's just no way to implement any sort of party-dependant political system in Lusternia, nor would anyone want to.

Well, there obviously have to be admin approval since they're not gonna let Magnagora become the second city of light or Celest become the city of evil. There is an archetype to be preserved. Also, there is something called "Party Realignment" that happens here. Every 80 or so years the two party system here gets updated and revolted. I thought maybe people could realign the parties every so often if neither fit, jockeying for official position.

That hypothetical idea could help the Glomdoring. If they had political parties from the get go maybe this situation wouldn't exist. I'd enjoy seeing your ideas on solving the issues that Elostian talked about, if you have any.

I think it's idiotic to ask the admin to approve people's political opinions. First, they have better things to do than implement a system that would restrict roleplay. Second, the different orgs are, by themselves, good enough at maintaining their flavour. I find it very very very very unlikely that Magnagora would turn into the second city of light - any organisation inside Magnagora trying to do so would have to be secretive in the extreme, or would be cast out entirely. And if it did reach power, they'd be deposed very fast, unless they worked very subtly and very slowly, only secretly collaborating with New Celest - Which would be an interesting plot in itself and not something I would like to discourage.

But instead you think everyone should pick between two officially sanctioned party lines. Why bother? Elections in Lusternia are plurality, anyway - two-party systems will form naturally if people start making political party clans that work.

That is nonsense.

The charachters would still be acting the same way, the difference however would be that the commune would have less stagnation, and odds are people would implement "grand plans" sooner so they could be remembered for doing big things.

I thought the suggestion was three parties, not two.


And parties would just exist. What their platform is would be entirely up to the people inside the parties.

Stangant leadership affects every org, not just Glomdoring.

You still get three points of view that way, with no other options but going as independant. It is just another thing to limit people and elections.

Political parties do not limit elections, they help increase them.

Generaly, you don't really know every position a person has. Nobody ever asks or cares. But you do generally know the platform of the party. And then the person being elected states his nuance on the 2 or 3 particular policies that he wants to emphasise on.


But even that, with such a smal group of people, odds are the official party lines won't really matter at all. Its basically going to be the same as it is now regarding elections, except it will be more often and there will be more turnover.

Personally, I think clearly-defined goals are a good thing, but inflexible, extremely objective ones are not. Promoting someone should be a conscious decision, not something that relies on someone having every godamn herb in the game or thousands of vials. It should tie into the guild, and guilds should structure themselves in ways that agree with their nature. For example, mage and druid guilds could organize along the lines or apprentice/master relationships or like universities, with each secretary being the dean of a particular subject, and each undersecretary being a professor. Masters and deans would have liberty to choose how they'll advance their students (The difference between each system being that apprentices only have one master, while in an university students need to meet several, but not all, professors.)

Guilds should organise in ways that stimulate people to get to know each other; most guilds are pretty big, and it's hard getting to know your fellow guild members, so being put in a sub-group in your guild helps keep people around. Warrior guilds could assign novices to a platoon for example, and wiccan guilds could encourage their members to form semi-permanent covens that do everything together and act almost like a family unit. Monk guilds could use a belt system (But not, please, with belts - with some other trinket of your own devising). As characters advance through the belts, they'll be walked through their primary skill; gaining a new belt involves proving that you have and know how to use a particular subset of guild skills. Bard guilds should probably be the least hierarchical of all - they should work based on subjective notions of respect and talent, rather than on some objective, rigid hierarchy. I'd like to see how a bard guild which explicitly forbids any advancement task system - And instead forces people who can advance others to do so when the whim strikes - would be like.

It is a great idea but it never actually works.


Nobody is ever logged in at the same time as their other "coven" members. The guild may be large, but there are only ever at max 15 people logged in at the same time to do things together. (and thats for a big guild). I've seen that tried in every IRE game.