*highfive*

But then we'd be in a monotonous six org situation. Just sayin'.

It's just two orgs, but seems a lot more interesting than the four that we've been stuck with for the past four years or so. More guilds in one org doesn't seem to add that much interesting conflict between orgs.

Edit: obligatory "Just sayin'."

The most interesting "dark" characters are, to me, the ones who are tacitly good, or, rather, aren't apparently anything other than a real person, with
their own capacities for good and evil.

Fiction is filled with characters who appear dark, but are actually good, or even are dark, but are shown to be the good ones in the end. (Or are redeemed, or are shown to have worked for a better end than the "good" characters, or whatever else is dredged up out of the worn pages of the anti-hero handbook.). It is every bit as cliche as the irredeemable monster type, though, cliche in and of itself never bothered me. (in fact, cliche can be quite fun at times!).

I don't necessarily mean good as in "we look like good guys, but are really capable of great evil", I mean that delicate sort of "good" where there is a real moral question involved. For example, Vere, in Melville's "Billy Budd, Sailor". Vere's famous line in the story is "Struck down by an angel of the lord, but the angel must hang!" In regards to Billy Budd (a rather simple man) striking dead a sailor while under extreme duress. Vere makes a logical and powerful argument, while acting essentially as judge jury and executioner for Billy Budd, for why Billy must die. He believes it is necessary for the good of the fleet, indeed, essential. He is convincing enough that Billy's last words are "God bless Captain Vere". But Vere can be interpreted to be either a just and fair captain carrying out his duty, or a tyrannical monster rushing to kill a man for the sake of order- or rather, his interpretation of order.

Or Jean-Baptiste Clamence, in Camus's "The Fall", the self proclaimed judge pentient, who becomes overwhelmed by his own hypocrisy, and takes it upon himself to explain himself to others, that they may see themselves the same. He did good acts in order to feel "above" others, but would not bring himself low. Charity for the sake of self, but is it charity none the less?

Or for that mater, "satan" in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger", or any of the other characters that range from creepy to endearing, who are good, and evil both all at once, or neither.

Basically, characters who are more like real people, rather than a cliche, or an attempt at turning a cliche on its ear that ultimately ends in a more annoying cliche that thinks itself terribly clever. Characters who actually face moral questions rather than being the moral question (and thus, exempt from having to do the hard part of answering it) themselves.

You say that now, but when we get those two, they'll likely just pick a side each and it'll be the same situation as always plus two.

Plus two - then we'll actually have a darn party and be as satisfied as that drunk man in the paper tiara.

It's going to be the same people at the party, they're just going to be wearing different hats.

Or two new friends!

I don't believe this. I believe he spent the remainder of his life being a pissy little prick because he couldn't get into art school.

But Jesus Christ, he knew how to be pissy. Me, I'd just be mean to my friends for a few days and be over it. Hitler actually attempted to take over the world, and came frighteningly close.

It'll be the same, old people with new hats. Nothing will change and then you'll complain that we need Ackleberry and Jojobo. It's like how people were complaining about conflict being the same, they change it, everyone complains that was fine the way it was before.

I'm not everyone, and never complained about the change. So if things don't, I'll just find ways to keep myself entertained, as usual.

Plus we could use Ackleberry and Jojobo, too.

THEN WE'LL HAVE 8 AT THE PARTY WOOOOOOO!!

That's the only point where things might change. It would be stupid for Gaudi and Halli to not join up with a side, however, I'd be willing to wager that Ackleberry and Jojobo would try to align themselves with a more established and powerful side. Same people, same party, shiny new hats.

If you add more people to a party, the greater the chances of having someone new there!

But who doesn't like new hats?

You're not going to have anyone new, at least not for a while. All the initial members will be established Lusternians looking for something new, when the old Lusternians move out of the spotlight, new ones will take over, this is true. But they'll be based on the traditions that the old leaders came from. Do you know the supposed story of the train track width? Four-feet, eight and a half inches. Why? Because that's what it was in England. Why? Because that's the gauge the tramways used before the railroads. Why? Because the tramways were built using the same tools as wagon-builders and that's how wide the wagon wheels were spaced. Why? Because the old roads in England had ruts that the wheels needed to accommodate. Why? Because the ruts were made by Imperial Roman chariots.

You're invited to my hat party.

*gives you a shiny new hat*

I never complained about the traditions of old leaders either.

And see, eventually some new people!

That follow the patterns set by old people. So you get basically get the same people in the end. And I know you never complained about this stuff, but there were loooong rants way back when about all of this.

But new players either way, whether or not they're like the old people. Sometimes people can pleasantly surprise you! Or utterly disappoint you.

But I bet you want a shiny new hat, don't cha.

I'm an orghopper, I always want a shiny, new hat. And no, people almost never pleasantly surprise me.

But if you're talking about the new orgs bringing in new people, I don't think it would be any more of a difference than bards and monks in the long run.