Multiple alliances

[shorty13]

I wish a guild could have multiple sets of alliances.  Right now, a guild can only be in 1 alliance at a time (although I think many guilds can be in that alliance).

WHY?  Because I think guilds should be able to ally with 2 guilds, even if those 2 other guilds don\'t want to be allied together, or if you want to ally with a guild for a different reason then to ally with other guilds.

[SuburbanPlankton]

I\'m not sure how that is possible.

Alliance: A close association of nations or other groups, formed to advance common interests or causes


IMO, you can\'t have two different alliances, unless the two groups with whom you are allied are also allied with each other. (In which case, you are all part of the same alliance.)

It seems easiest to express in mathematical terms:

A=B and A=C implies that B=C

An alliance implies, among other things, an agreement of mutual protection.  How would you react if your two allies went to war against each other?  Which side would you choose?

You could have friendly relations with multiple, non-aligned guilds, but not alliances.  You could have trade agreements, sharing of knowledge, etc., with any number of groups, but you can only be aligned with a single entity at a time.

[Ivniciix]

This seems like as good a place as any to express some thoughts about \"guilds\" since, in a slightly different context, it has to do with multiple guild affiliations.

I\'ve always had a bit of a problem with the term \"guild\" being applied to player associations in MMORPG\'s. Why? Because historically a guild was a trade association like the Weaver\'s Guild or the Blacksmiths Guild. I certainly understand how the term has came into common usage since it\'s a broad enough term to be \"stretched\". I also understand that too much historical realism isn\'t practical in games.

That said, it seems that most MMORPG player associations are more akin to Knighty Orders, Mercenary Companies, City Militias etc. than they are to Guilds. In a game that has a strong and diverse set of crafting skills and hopes to have an active player economy, I wonder if it doesn\'t make sense to allow players to in both a \"military\" association and a \"trade\" association?

The sort of conflict that SuburbanPlankton sees in shorty13\'s concept is historically and RP-plausible...particularly if you have multiple trade associations for every trade and those trade associations have \"affinity\" bonds with other trade associations. Not only does this assist trades in gathering sub components not made by their guild, but it creates a potentially useful tension between \"trading\" blocks.

The complication that additional and seperate military associations create makes for a more fluid and complex world in which  \"REAL\" roleplay is derived from game content not just stuff that you make up. Roleplaying ought to be about decisions that have in game consequences and derive from things actually implemented in the game mechanics.

[hereticalfaction]

Alternatives to guilds found in western history:

Order    (as in monks, knights, or freemasons)

Rule      (many orders or individuals who follow a common set of principles)

Cartel   (small group of powerful \"patron\" individuals in alliance to monopolise an industry or commodity)

Faction  (one of such patrons, his extended household, retainers, and network of clients, their households, retainers, etc.)

League (Like a cartel, only the oligarchs intend to dictate many aspects of governence as in councils of medieval burgers or the roman senate)

Mystery Cult  (why should all these temples have open doors, offerring services or insight to all who ask?)

Bourse/Exchange (A few key producers and consumers agree to only trade amongst themselves, become more powerful as upstart competitors can not gain a foothold with the best customers or suppliers)