Guild Leadership shouldn't be held by retired players.

[Hoihe]

I strongly oppose the idea of DMs meddling with guilds ICly beyond perhaps dealing with NPC citizens or members. CK should be the only guild with DM leadership, and even then, by lore, that leadership should be pretty hands off for 90% of the cases.

Having DMs who might try to push their agenda against a PC in a guild they disapprove of is recipe for disaster.


We should have an OOC tool for removing afk leadership, but that's the involvement they should have at most. Same way CK elects new leaders:

PCs send private votes to DM team. DM team gives back results. In this case, players hand in request for removal. If removal is sufficiently backed up (proper inactivity of 3-6 months), then go ahead.

[Ewe]

It's pretty simple. Respect rule 0 of the server, don't be a jerk use some common sense people.

If you've been gone for six months or more with no intentions of playing regularly just step down from your leadership spot and let an active player use it. I can't believe this is an issue.

[Ewe]

It's come to my attention on the Discord that the leader of the Thayan guild, while inactive, has said they'll pass the guild along to someone who steps up. So it seems like a non-issue. /thread

[Young Werther]

It's come to my attention on the Discord that the leader of the Thayan guild, while inactive, has said they'll pass the guild along to someone who steps up. So it seems like a non-issue. /thread

*worms slowly crawl back into a tin can and seal themselves shut*

[Tekill]

I hope its true about the reverse can of worms.. I'd like to help get the Enclave rolling again- we will see what the dms and the current leader says.

If anything was learned, it is that there is varying opinions on how DMs should influence guilds or certain guilds. I tend to sit on the fence on this one. I don't want the DM's to create too many rules but they have the power to transition things along...or not.

I do not like an npc leader, but perhaps an npc administrator. One that can confirm guild inactivity not just player inactivity. They do not have to do all the boring stuff but maybe even just ask for a post from the leaders every once in awhile, to show that they are doing stuff in game.

Oh and I decided I will become Duke. There its done, no take backsies times infinity +1!!!

Now bow before me you filthy peasants.

[Max Hatchet]

I agree that any major FR lore guild/faction should not be headed by a player. Players should cccupy the deputy posts below of which there should be 2 or 3.

The Red Wizard enclave has been held back and should not have a player at the top (i played a RW with two friends for a while about a year ago - my RW is still in my vault)

If a group of players make their own original guild it can be different but DMs should still make a ruling if the leader is absent for too long

[Deathgrowl]

I feel like any lore guild should have a "distant" leader controlled by the DMs. What that means is that in almost all cases, the guild will be lead by players, but when it starts breaking lore (say if Candlekeep suddenly starts burning books or the Red Wizard enclave in Baldur's Gate repeatedly does terrible diplomatic blunders), the DM team should step in to safeguard the integrity of the setting. In one way or another.

I do think player characters should be able to aquire power and influence, though. At the same time, misuse of that power needs to come with appropriate consequences (be it all the way from demotion and fines to exiling, outlawing or even execution).

[Tekill]

safeguard the integrity of the setting.

That's like when they tell me I can look at the exhibits, but please don't touch the glass.

Fun fun fun.

[Wildsheep]

Candlekeep has the Keeper of Tomes, The Red Wizards have Samas Kul, the Zhentarim has Manshoon and Bregan D'earthe has Jarlaxle. As far as I can tell, all lore guilds technically have an npc above the current PC guild leader

[Ravial]

Zhentarim has Fzoul, not Manshoon. Here, Manshoon is some supreme traitor.

Thieves Guild is a lore guild, truthfully speaking, and the utmost leadership is in player hands.

Not sure about Everwatch, here, but it's also a lore-based guild.

[Deathgrowl]

safeguard the integrity of the setting.

That's like when they tell me I can look at the exhibits, but please don't touch the glass.

Fun fun fun.

No, no. Touch all you want. But if you break it, you pay for it.

[Calodan]

safeguard the integrity of the setting.

That's like when they tell me I can look at the exhibits, but please don't touch the glass.

Fun fun fun.

No, no. Touch all you want. But if you break it, you pay for it.

Or you don't pay for it and you succeed at what you were trying to do in the first place........NPCs don't always win neither do the gods.....

[Deathgrowl]

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I mean by safeguarding the integrity of the setting. Just to take an example: Thay is ruled by the Zulkirs, eight magocrats, heads of each of their schools of magic. They are all massively evil, and in general leaning to the lawful side. The entire Red Wizard hierarchy is riddled with lethal competition. If a Zulkir begins to fear their competition, they will kill them one way or another.

More importantly for our server, a diplomatic trade enclave run by Thay's trade guild, which is headed by Samas Kul and quite well supported by Szass Tam. If someone associated with that enclave does something to inspire the ire of their superiors, be it Samas Kul or Szass Tam or someone else, their life is by lore in grave danger. At best, they will live the rest of their lives an exile of Thay, always on the run.

If you mean that player characters should be able to do all sorts of things without repercussions from their lore based superiors, I suppose I wonder how that makes any of the lore consistent.

If you mean that player characters should actually be able to defeat such lore based superiors as the extremely powerful Szass Tam, then we definitely cannot have consistent lore, and we have very, very different views on what makes sense for a roleplaying server in regards to levels of power.

[Steve]

Well, that brings up something: is it therefore impossible to EVER consider our Player Characters on equal level to Canon Lore NPCs, such as Tam, Elminster, the Dukes, etc?

Though our Characters gain these near-world shattering experiences, slaying Dragons, Balors, Elite Devils, traveling to Planes, etc...that all pales in comparison to Lore NPCs...or so?

What it comes down to is there is a SERIOUS glass ceiling—if I may borrow the term—in combination with an “unspoken rule” about the true/false exceptional epicness of PCs on BGTSCC.

Thus, the RP is quite “off,” both in application and expectation.

Which is why I’d say it’s even more important that Lore-based Guilds are NPC lead, because already, essentially, there ARE Characters that always remain above ours in terms of power and importance, and I’d argue the RP of the Server is better if we’d accept this and install this in a much more legitimate way than is promoted right now.

[Balthomer]

Elminster is CR 39, comparing him to a Balor pit fiend or anything you can find on server still pales in power, even in lore the devil armies just pale in comparison to the power of a god for example, not everyone wants to play a Marie Sue and think 30 int is enough to outsmart Mask or sonething.