Conjecture regarding governance
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:40 pmGreetings fellow Salemites,
Current drama with the MM Tribe vs their supposedly united GH opponents aside, I've been trying to wrap my head around the idea of a governing body in a game like this. You have a large amount of hermits, all scattered throughout the world. Then you have your clusters of neighbor-friends/towns. Then you have the upstart metropolises or centers of actual power based on force, numbers, and collective advancement. The game itself features permanent death and a scent tracking system should any crimes be committed (even crimes of vengeance on ones own homestead or a homestead on which they are allowed).
In an ideal world, there would be as many Rangers as Raiders willing to uphold justice and righteousness, even at cost, to ensure peace. Unfortunately that's a stretch, and in a game where tracking down a bad guy who trashed a noob's base could lead you to getting tracked as well is not an attractive option (unless the price is right, I suppose). Statistically, a Ranger who continues to Range will inevitably find himself a target.
That's the normal expected system, and while it could work, that doesn't mean it's the only one.
What if there was a ranging force that was either so feared or powerful that no one could strike out at it - that no collective group of Raiders would hit? Why, if that force existed, would it not be appropriate for them to take the helm as the leading governing body of a server? Especially if that force promised protection from other raiders? And to make sure they don't become a target, they request funding to make global protection a possibility.
Personally, I pay the treaty price. But if the MM Tribe were overthrown and chased to Jamestown and the Necromancer Guild grew in power and required a tax to provide protection AND could prove they were competent, organized, and good to their word, I'd pay. As an MMORPG in a sandbox game, elements are up to the definition of the players, especially the players with the most power.
At present, the MM Tribe has established a governing body on the Plymouth Server. I pay the treaty for the same reason I pay for health insurance, car insurance, and taxes. But it's more than that. I pay the treaty for order. Salem is a world of chaos, and with the added perma-death element, is all the more dangerous to be out on your own. Yeah, paying the treaty will hopefully protect me from some raider (or the MM Tribe itself as it raids non-treaty paying individuals to further their hold on the server), but it will also fund the ONLY unified faction in the game that has the balls to promise order and the teeth to back it up.
This doesn't mean I agree with the tribe's methods. I'm not a member. I've never experienced a vision quest. But I don't see why it's such a big deal and why people buck the system without trying to change it. It may not be democracy, but it's not cruel. And if you don't like it, then make something better that will rally the hermits to your side.
I'm not advocating the treaty any more than I'm advocating rebellion. I advocate order in a game otherwise left without. And I propose anyone to suggest a better system, one that could reasonably work given the variety of people who play, to ensure that we don't all kill one another.
Current drama with the MM Tribe vs their supposedly united GH opponents aside, I've been trying to wrap my head around the idea of a governing body in a game like this. You have a large amount of hermits, all scattered throughout the world. Then you have your clusters of neighbor-friends/towns. Then you have the upstart metropolises or centers of actual power based on force, numbers, and collective advancement. The game itself features permanent death and a scent tracking system should any crimes be committed (even crimes of vengeance on ones own homestead or a homestead on which they are allowed).
In an ideal world, there would be as many Rangers as Raiders willing to uphold justice and righteousness, even at cost, to ensure peace. Unfortunately that's a stretch, and in a game where tracking down a bad guy who trashed a noob's base could lead you to getting tracked as well is not an attractive option (unless the price is right, I suppose). Statistically, a Ranger who continues to Range will inevitably find himself a target.
That's the normal expected system, and while it could work, that doesn't mean it's the only one.
What if there was a ranging force that was either so feared or powerful that no one could strike out at it - that no collective group of Raiders would hit? Why, if that force existed, would it not be appropriate for them to take the helm as the leading governing body of a server? Especially if that force promised protection from other raiders? And to make sure they don't become a target, they request funding to make global protection a possibility.
Personally, I pay the treaty price. But if the MM Tribe were overthrown and chased to Jamestown and the Necromancer Guild grew in power and required a tax to provide protection AND could prove they were competent, organized, and good to their word, I'd pay. As an MMORPG in a sandbox game, elements are up to the definition of the players, especially the players with the most power.
At present, the MM Tribe has established a governing body on the Plymouth Server. I pay the treaty for the same reason I pay for health insurance, car insurance, and taxes. But it's more than that. I pay the treaty for order. Salem is a world of chaos, and with the added perma-death element, is all the more dangerous to be out on your own. Yeah, paying the treaty will hopefully protect me from some raider (or the MM Tribe itself as it raids non-treaty paying individuals to further their hold on the server), but it will also fund the ONLY unified faction in the game that has the balls to promise order and the teeth to back it up.
This doesn't mean I agree with the tribe's methods. I'm not a member. I've never experienced a vision quest. But I don't see why it's such a big deal and why people buck the system without trying to change it. It may not be democracy, but it's not cruel. And if you don't like it, then make something better that will rally the hermits to your side.
I'm not advocating the treaty any more than I'm advocating rebellion. I advocate order in a game otherwise left without. And I propose anyone to suggest a better system, one that could reasonably work given the variety of people who play, to ensure that we don't all kill one another.
