PC limit in PC tribes: Discussion

[nauta]

Is there a thread on this?

Now there is!  Here's the idea:

I wouldn't mind experimenting with eliminating this line:

"Only four (4) PC members are allowed per family or tribe--and not just four alive at one time, but four PCs, total. This includes your PC."

Change it to something like:

"Only four (4) PC members are allowed alive at one time per family or tribe, including your PC.  If there are no PCs in the tribe, then the tribe is dead (i.e., fully virtual and no longer open to play).  Otherwise, people can keep applying for a role as long as there is an open slot.  There is a six month pause before you can re-apply for the same tribe."

Hence, if three of your tribemembers die, you can refresh the role call.  If all four die, well, nice run, game over.

The reason I think it'd be a good idea:

1. Newbie Deaths. New PCs die to the stupidest things.

2. Buyer's Remorse. New PCs might store once they realize the actual situation.

3. The Audacity of Hope. It gives you something to look forward to and strive towards.

4. Encourages Risk Taking. There's a sense of 'preserve' that kicks in (at least to me) when you know that this is your one shot.  If you knew that your PC's death wouldn't screw over the tribe or make the person who put all the effort into the tribe docs cry, then you might be willing to play a bit more risky (read: fun).

When I asked for feedback and opinions before making a tribe, two people shared some anecdotes -- I hope you don't mind that I share these:

First, I was told to make sure people are interested in the actual tribe -- someone had did a 4-person tribe in the past, and two of them buggered off, or something like that, after two days.  Second, I was told the story of how the three other members in a PC tribe died within the first week or something.

Re the discussion (clipped) from the other thread:

I wouldn't want this to be motivated by worries about people 'gaming' the system -- that's sort of the wrong way to look at it -- from either perspective (OOC cliques forming tribes; OOC cliques eliminating tribes for the lulz).   I know there might be 'that guy' but I've at least got a tremendous amount of respect for the playerbase, and would view such instances as exceptions to be dealt with not in a systematic manner but on a case-by-case basis.

[Reiloth]

I know the conservative stance behind 'No More Tribe Members' harkens back to a couple of tribes/families in Tuluk that basically had a) too many people in them b) people died and then recycled into the tribe c) they made IC/OOC connections that shouldn't have been made, implying conversations taking place outside of the game. It was basically like a huge posse, and if you fucked with one, you fucked with all. I forget the name of the most 'famous' example of this, but I remember Staff quoting this as being the reason for swinging the pendulum the other way, and now we have the regulations in place.

I do think that the regulations are a 'tad' draconian, as most reactionary regulations are. Tribes such as the SLK, for example, were Player Created. The Tan Muark were either player created or player reinforced (I forget which) but they also were a headache (fake language, anyone?) I think a balance could be struck.

It would be nice if there was a track that a tribe could go along in order to become virtually big enough that they last beyond the initial 4 PCs. This would be similar to a PC Clan attaining 'Lesser Merchant House' status, which as we know is a very difficult task. I'm not saying it should be easy, but it should be possible. At this point Indy Staff would become more involved, helping write official documentation for the tribe with the tribe creator, so that it is Staff Approved (Just as it currently is at the beginning of the process, though things may have changed during play from inception.)

At this point, the tribe could have a GDB Forum and Role Call for additional tribe members. They could only have a maximum of 4 at one time at this stage, but if other tribe members died off between the point of inception of the tribe (Creation) and this point (Completion), they can refill the ranks. If there is a time where all four members of the tribe die/go inactive, the tribe closes, and that's that.

In essence, I feel more of a grey area could be injected into the system, moving away from the binary nature of the regulations. So much of ArmageddonMUD is already binary by nature due to the code (You are hidden, you are visible, you are incriminated, you are not incriminated). It would be nice to have nuance.

[Dunetrade55]

Wish there were a like button, Reiloth. I mean, if you piss off the wrong people too badly, you'll still get flushed, definitely. This would not, in my opinion, make them indestructible somehow, by any means. I can understand the reason for the current rules, but I remember a particularly fascinating tribe, not all that long ago, got torn apart by a random series of events, at least one of which was due in part to one of the prominent members taking an extended period of absence, and coming back in to find out, welp.

Could make it so you can only fill one slot per X amount months, I'd think X being 1 would be ideal, like a mastercraft, instead of just, well, three more leapt off the shield wall, ANOTHER ROLECALL. There'd still be a lot of caution needed, and the time limit on a previous player who had a character in the tribe apping in again being restricted to once every six months or so would prevent too much OOC collusion while encouraging more of a grab-bag variety of characters. Probably needs some tweaks to some variables, as I just pulled those numbers off the top of my head.

[Armaddict]

You get targeted simply for existing sometimes (I know I have), and that's all I'll say about that.

If you -know- that you were targeted for no reason other than for being in a group, I'd have to wonder
a. whether your group purposefully made an enemy that was capable of targeting them
b. whether or not you filled out a report to staff suggesting that it was an ooc targeting event, rather than an ic one.

The latter is a more appropriate response than saying 'This group should not be allowed to die out as long as there is ooc recruitment for it.'

Tribes such as the SLK, for example, were Player Created. The Tan Muark were either player created or player reinforced (I forget which) but they also were a headache (fake language, anyone?)

The gypsies were already around when I started, so I can't comment on that, but the SLK came around in a time where there was no regulation whatsoever on tribe creation, and desert elves could simply send in documentation for any clan they wanted.  As a result, there were dozens of player-made clans (I sent in documentation for a tribe that I proceeded to apply desert elves into for four or five straight PC's...I only got 3 or 4 other players in on it in that time).  The SLK stuck because of both long lived characters and ripe documentation that a staffer wanted to get behind.

This seems to be the formalized, recognized process that is in place now, is it not?  The same procedure, but now actually regulated to avoid the appearance of 'That person just had a staffer who liked them'.

I, again, really like the idea of city elf tribes, but I'm also extremely wary of making it so that people can build large groups, or that those groups can be granted perpetuity simply based off of OOC posts or, something that can be just as much of a thing, which is popularity.  We do away with popularity contests in all ways, so someone who has a lot of friends on the GDB or in the Arm community all looking to support their cause is just as real as being targeted (can't have one without the other, if you're going to play the 'some people do this' card).

If there is a compromise to be made, I'd hope it takes those things into account and works hard to not create power swells and vacuums any more than long lived PC's already do.

Edit:  Er, to clarify...when I say clans, I don't mean coded clans.  Just a tribe that you created.  And not tons existing at the same time, generally.  This is all anecdotal.

[Reiloth]

I think the targeting thing is self-evident purely from putting two and two together. If you advertise for an elf tribe or a family role, and suddenly a new tribe/family shows up in town, you can probably guess it was 'that role call'. Similarly, i've found that in the last two family roles i've been a part of, you suddenly have everyone and their mother wanting to get to know you/work for them/get on their side, which can be OOCly gratifying in that people want to involve you, but maybe a stretch ICly because...How did they suddenly find out about you?

I don't think it's much of a stretch to say 'This group should not be allowed to die out if there is an active member still in it, and they want to pursue it further." As I said above, if all PC members of a tribe die out at any point, it closes. But if there is still an active member, they can fill the ranks at Staff discretion. In that way, you don't suddenly refill to 4 every time. Maybe Staff will allow you one at a time, or maybe they say 'nope, the buck dies with you this time, you've already recruited before'. Just something other than 'Absolutely no.'

I also find it funny that change shouldn't be effected due to OOC posts. Should we make IC posts about it? It's a General Discussion Board, most of the change you have witnessed in the game has come about due to OOC discussion.

I'll also note that the last two Family roles I did were with people I have never interacted with before, and found the concept intriguing, so I pursued it and applied for it as if I were applying for a role sponsored by a Staff member. There is/was no clique involved, or 'group gang up' mentality going on.

[Armaddict]

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that as an accusation, Reiloth.  Sorry if it came off that way.

I meant it as the presentation of the opposite side of the same scale...if we're introducing that scale as a reason for the need for this, then both sides of that spectrum need to be addressed.

[Jingo]

You get targeted simply for existing sometimes (I know I have), and that's all I'll say about that.

If you -know- that you were targeted for no reason other than for being in a group, I'd have to wonder
a. whether your group purposefully made an enemy that was capable of targeting them
b. whether or not you filled out a report to staff suggesting that it was an ooc targeting event, rather than an ic one.

The latter is a more appropriate response than saying 'This group should not be allowed to die out as long as there is ooc recruitment for it.'

Tribes such as the SLK, for example, were Player Created. The Tan Muark were either player created or player reinforced (I forget which) but they also were a headache (fake language, anyone?)

I've seen it happen enough to make it practically a universal rule of Armageddon. Naturally the perpetrators always think their ic reasoning is 100% valid. But it generally doesn't excuse why this small group is singled out for interrogation/eradication when there are thousands just like them.

The Maurk and the SLK were conceived and developed during a different phase of armageddon. Particularly one in which staff would support one group of players over others and give them all sorts of ridiculous goodies. Those times are over and nobody is immune anymore to player interferance.

[Armaddict]

Those times are over and nobody is immune anymore to player interferance.

My experience says otherwise.  But I really don't want to nitpick or turn this into an argument over such.  I merely wanted to state that there are measures in place for it to be investigated, and if there -are- IC things going on that justify it, there's not much way around it.  That's essentially a disagreement on how people handle things IC'ly, which is a very valid disagreement to have in a roleplaying game.

Mostly, I'm just pleased with how the PC clan thing has been progressing, and so I think the tradeoff between that and a PC tribe are fairly even.  The former can be removed by removing the head of it.  The latter can only be removed if you end all parts of it.  However, the former can recruit IC, while the latter cannot.  My impression was that there was a desire for a lack of permanence in family roles, hence what I meant by these are not the thousand year bloodlines; I think in the case that you're affecting things and have ripe documentation, you'll get attention for more, but I don't think every family tribal role call deserves longevity just because someone made it.  PC clans have to earn it, tribal families will have to as well.

Perhaps we could organize some documentation to be approved by staff that set up 'milestones' for PC tribes, that allow for additional spots?  One of the higher achievements is the longer-term availability of recruitment?  My personal opinion is that a milestone reward system would be best, with the milestones being steep but attainable.

[Reiloth]

I agree that the 'griefing for the sake of griefing' argument is a bit straw man at best. I mean, there's no real way to prove it. Do people feel a particular joy PKing people in general? Some do, some don't. Do they go out of their way to PK you because they know you are a part of a tribe/family? OOCly...Maybe so, maybe no. But as Armaddict points out, there is a justifiable argument to be made for that having a major place in Zalanthas.

Think of many Mob movies, or Medieval literature...The husband/wife/son/daughter can be used as ransom against someone who isn't doing what you want them to do. Sometimes, they are killed in order to make an emotional example out of them. It isn't far fetched to find out "Hey, this guy is related to this other guy, but the guy I want to kill is hard to get. I'll just kill his brother instead." In fact, I think many a plot could be born out of such a thing. This is "Murder, Corruption, Betrayal", not "Family Matters".

That being said -- If you feel you are being singled out for that in an OOC manner, Armaddict again is right. There are ways to have Staff help you investigate if that is true, and they will honestly tell you if you are crazy, or if there's something fishy going on. Things like 'Revenge Characters' i'm sure still happen all the time, even though it's against the rules.



On topic, yes -- I think the reform I would be looking for would be putting tribes on a track, especially elven/dwarven tribes.

Stage 1:
You're a nobody tribe, nobody cares about you, you might as well make a living eating dung.

Stage 2:
You've stuck around for a while. You might be renting a place, running a business, or otherwise minding your P's and Q's. You've expanded a bit -- You can have a rumor board in your place of business, and a couple NPCs to reflect the virtual population.

Stage 3:
You've stuck around for a long time. A couple of the initial 4 PCs have died or stored, but you and another person are sticking it out. You've got some hirelings and underlings, but they aren't new family. You're given a GDB forum, and allowed to post a new role call for the same family, with Staff's review and approval. You can throw your documentation up on the GDB, and post role calls, and rumors ala other clans/tribes.

Stage 4:
You've survived the rigors of Zalanthas. Maybe it's been a few RL years. Staff really likes your clan and decides to take it on into canon. You wouldn't approach Staff about it, or even reach this Stage officially, but Staff can decide to approach you about it if they choose to.



Obviously, Stage 4 wouldn't need to happen. That would inherently be a case by case basis. But to know it's possible for players to have the potential can sometimes make it worth it. To think that the SLK was a fluke is a bit disheartening, because while it isn't the best thought out tribe in the world in some ways, it is very Zalanthan and fits a certain niche I think we'd all miss if they went away. And it was player created.

[Armaddict]

Things like 'Revenge Characters' i'm sure still happen all the time, even though it's against the rules.

In the last couple years I played a PC that killed a lot of people, and had a lot of people killed...even for me.  I kept getting paranoid over revenge PC's due to past experiences.  Back in the old days, I hung out in the IRC room with a certain clique of players, and hearing them talk about making PC's and 'hopefully finding a reason to get that guy' or just straight up 'I'm gonna get that bastard' conditioned me to think that it was normal.  It made me paranoid, whenever I get to the status where I feel 'long-lived'.  But I have to say that I'm kind of satisfied that it doesn't happen that much, because if it did, that would be the guy it would have happened to.  Anecdotal, I know, but despite my insistence that killing players has a very real, definite place in the game, I'm starting to view the playerbase at large a lot better.

I like your stages, though I'd like for there to be more stepping stones between.  A more clearly defined outline, like those made for PC clans, I think would go a long way.  As you pointed out, I think there is a good middle ground to be reached that is very -hard- to attain, but attainable.  Kind of as hard as PC clans were before being adjusted, really...because this is essentially the beginnings of a real clan (as a family), not just a mercantile group set up under one leader.  You're setting it up for offspring, setting it up so that the original creator can die and it can go on, etc etc.

[seidhr]

Revenge PCs are pretty rare, at least successful ones.  I can think of a couple situations that have made us investigate during my time on staff, but it's like... a once a year thing.  Generally people are pretty responsible about that sort of thing, and it makes me glad!

[Jingo]

I agree that the 'griefing for the sake of griefing' argument is a bit straw man at best...

I wouldn't even call it that. It's just the way players will get up your ass if you're trying to lay low and remain a mystery. It's not some mafia scheme or inter-family feud because I'd be fine with it if it was. It happens to lone roles, family roles and secret roles. It's just that players overreact to a group of players that are outside the established norm of clans in some wildly ooc ways.

It's annoying at best to get meta'd to that degree. It's lethal if you actually do have something to hide. And that's really what the problem is, as I see it.

It gets even worse when the players of leaders actively promote this kind of play. You wouldn't believe some of the massive leaps of logic I've seen.

[Dunetrade55]

While griefing or differing perceptions of it are a fascinating topic, it's getting to be a bit of a derail.

[Jingo]

I don't consider it griefing. The motivations are different.

But yes, it's off topic.

[anvilsmith]

If the concern is that families/tribes will grow too powerful, the solution is simple: limit the family/tribe to four PCs at a given time, allow only one new PC per real-world month and remove the family/tribe from play when all members have died, preventing new players from joining it. It seems like the ideal way to handle things.

I also think you should be able to advertise for a new family or tribe after you create your PC. There is absolutely no harm in that and no reason why the staff should forbid it.

[Yam]

Frankly I like the way it is now. Having family that you can absolutely, 100% trust is an incredibly powerful thing in the game. If a family/tribe ends up getting in a spat with another group the family/tribe can just keep getting freshly recruited family members from the Player Announcement thread who all trust one another and automatically work together while the other group will usually have to go through the process of recruiting and trust building in character. It's pretty imbalanced for conflicts of attrition in an OOC manner.

I think Reiloth is on the right track with a tribe track similar to the independent merchant track. A tribe that can recruit multiple "generations" should have more staff oversight.

[Desertman]

Eh, I don't want to derail tribe discussion.

[Raptor_Dan]

I don't understand this. So, you apply for a tribe, and develop a backstory for each of them, and then go into the game and play. And one dies,

And then what? Are we discussing how to inject thirteen years minimum of more backstory into that tribe, for the next character? I'm picturing either a bunch of ad hoc bios about ,'Oh yeah, we also have a cousin', or some really masterfully done backup plans of family trees with lineages, dates of births, and fleshed out backstories for a good twelve PCs ahead of time.

How does one rectify having someone 'new' in their tribe, that wasn't mentioned before? I'm not trying to be critical, I just can't picture it myself. And damnit, if I can't picture something after skimming through a thread on three hours sleep, it has no business being in my ZZZZZZ.

[Reiloth]

I don't understand this. So, you apply for a tribe, and develop a backstory for each of them, and then go into the game and play. And one dies,

And then what? Are we discussing how to inject thirteen years minimum of more backstory into that tribe, for the next character? I'm picturing either a bunch of ad hoc bios about ,'Oh yeah, we also have a cousin', or some really masterfully done backup plans of family trees with lineages, dates of births, and fleshed out backstories for a good twelve PCs ahead of time.

How does one rectify having someone 'new' in their tribe, that wasn't mentioned before? I'm not trying to be critical, I just can't picture it myself. And damnit, if I can't picture something after skimming through a thread on three hours sleep, it has no business being in my ZZZZZZ.

There are other virtual members of the tribe -- Just as with any 'role call' that is sponsored, you are bringing someone out of the virtual world and into the PC world. Just as they write a background for anything, they explain their place in a tribe after reading through the documentation for that tribe/clan/whatever.

When there is a family of 4, there are more definite borders -- After all, these are usually nuclear units (Father, Mother, Daughter, Son, or multiple siblings). So those don't really grow on trees.

With a tribe, though, that has more virtual borders (even if they are still small, say a tribe of 20-40 people), there is more wiggle room in the virtual world.

Almost every tribe i've played in (even the Staff run ones, like the Sun Runners and Al'Seik, etc.) all PCs are 'cousins' to one another. Sometimes, there is a direct brother/sister relationship, but those are actually kind of rare.

[Dunetrade55]

I don't see where people are thinking that somehow having a family or tribe means you can trust them %100. I don't know what your family is like IRL, but mine are some of the most backstabbity jackholes on the planet. I feel safer amidst strangers in a bullet-ridden ghetto than I do with the crocodile smiles and harsh judgements ("tough love") I end up getting from "well-meaning" parents, siblings, and cousins, because a bullet to dome only hurts once. I've seen human tribal role calls go sour and near immediately turn to them sabotaging and murdering eachother, luckily from the outside.

The ONE exception to this, is, the elven tribe. If the elves are played properly, yes, even a small patch of elves are something to be very wary of. Is it OP? I don't think so. Elves, over the past several years, at least, have had next to zero options for clan play. The ones they do have, it's almost like a dark brittish humor sketch in practice. Trooper Amos keeps a small portion of his grandmother's ashes in his aba at all times. Runner Ears is an emotional and dedicated sharp just looking for company and some tribal substitute. One day, Trooper Amos reaches into his aba to touch his lucky pendant, and, it's not there.

Ears gets both hands and ears chopped off, set on fire, and hurled out the gates. Later that day, amidst much grumbling, Amos looks in his locker, and lo and behold, the missing pendant, which he produces with a smile, amidst audience laughter. I guess this is the way it should be, but anyone trying to seriously play a city elf will quickly learn that these clans are a laughable option at best, and usually only to be given a shot with a serious character they don't PLAN to get executed under extremely exceptional circumstances. Anything else leads to bitter resentment for even trying to bring part of the virtual world to life for fellow players and having their best efforts ruined the SECOND anything goes wrong in a seemingly meta fashion.

Not so with an elven tribe, even when limited to four, this provides a very interesting counterbalance to the risk/reward factor to screwing over THAT elf (which a good number times is deadly for the elf in question) in that there might be consequences. This gives the elf an actual shot at BELONGING to others, and having others belong to them, which is a documented inborn trait they have. In the NPC and vNPC environment, there are many elves and elven tribes milling about, but for a long time we've only ever seen the solo elf, who, let's face it, even if they have a vNPC tribe no one will think twice about singling that elf out and curb stomping them the second the mug count comes up off at the Gaj, which strikes me as surprisingly meta, that it must've been THAT elf.

No, with the elven tribe, there's an actual, very real DANGER (as well as more resources with which to bribe or tempt authorities) to fucking with THAT elf... which honestly, is how it should be. There's a reason elves have survived and persisted even in the streets of Allanak, and it's not because they breed like lab-rabbits constantly dosed with fertility drugs. I'm not even sure their skinny frames could survive birthing the litters needed to sustain their population if the PC environment over the past several years is any reflection of the virtual one. Over the past several years, we have become accustomed to seeing these things, and the temptation to meta further for some may be too hard to resist when presented with a potential threat to their goals, the easiest solution being, wreck the PC tribe by taking out this one pillar over here, because, we KNOW it can't be replaced ever again. As a side note, I personally believe there's usually a side route to destruction, but it's more like trying to solve a puzzle, rather than simply throwing pieces out because they don't immediatly fit in a convenient fashion.

Hopefully such is rare, but city elf tribal rolecalls have been so rare, so novel, and so excitement generating that it's kind of disappointing to watch them crumble, with no chance of repair, ever, from the outside and saying to yourself, well, it'll be another few years before I see something like THAT again. There's no way to join such tribes from the outside, ever, and it's harder to make friends with them than the lone elf, which, is as it should be. But to me this is a representation of the virtual environment that is conspicuously absent from the actual environment, and could use a sustainability nudge. This is the kind of group which would benefit most, in my opinion.

Sorry for the rant, just my personal perspectives on the matter. For human tribes and families, well, that just makes it less punishing to shitmug or otherwise murder brother/cousin Fuckwit for fighting for his fair share of grandma's fine china, and replace them with someone who'll respect your authority, which is a boon there, too.

EDITED TO ADD: Most of you, if not near all, are fantastic roleplayers and make efforts not to meta the situation by boiling down OOC perspectives in order to "win" armageddon. Don't get the impression I think it's a widespread issue. But when it comes up, it can be irreversibly devestating at times, as opposed to relatively benign or even possibly beneficial things like guild sniffing, which is something hard to resist doing at times.

[Reiloth]

Interesting rant, thank you. I agree with you, especially in that while a city elf tribe is around, everyone is glad for it -- It adds a dynamic to the culture and society of Allanak that is otherwise only virtually present. When it is destroyed/gone, however, it may be quite a while before another returns.

It's a tricky sticky wicket. I think a balance could be struck, but there are a few sticking points. I'll address them below.

1 - How do you avoid the '100% trust' topic that Yam brings up and Desertman alludes to? The 'All or nothing' sort of mentality wherein you suddenly have 4 PCs in game that have more or less aligned goals?

As Dunetrade55 points out above, even within a family unit of elves, there are disagreements and factions. Everyone isn't always on the same page about everything, and ready to go to war with X Y Z organization over a spat or feud. Elves are very quick to realize that rising up against an entity usually spells doom for their tribe, because what chance do they stand against them, at the end of the day? Elves are much more prone to a slow-boiling hatred and revenge, serving the coldest of dishes years later for a slight against them, when the opportunity strikes. They are also much more prone to a 'posse' like behavior, wherein they have strength in numbers rather than as an individual.

This lends itself towards many of a tribe's PCs banding together to get things done -- But it doesn't necessarily mean they all 100% agree with each other, 100% of the time. Ive found quite the opposite in my Elf Tribe Playings, even in established tribes like the Sun Runners and Haruch Kemad.

2 - How do you avoid the 'kill most of the family, and a few more people app in and go after the person in question? Desertman mentions this, and this is the exact scenario I was alluding to in Tuluk years ago, that began the regulations we currently have in place. Call it the 'Columbine' of Family Role Calls.

I think the solution to this is to very explicitly analogize this to 'revenge characters'. It would be made clear that while someone may have eliminated part of your tribe, that the 'Elders' of your tribe / the majority of your tribe would not be interested in seeking revenge, as it may spell complete doom for the tribe as a whole (which is pretty true). A waiting period could be effected where you cannot apply new members into your tribe for a month or six weeks. This gives a cool down period, and also allows for the tribe to be completely wiped out in the interim. It would be requested that you don't simply go dormant for this time, but actively play in order to allow for more members to be app'd in.

3 - How do you create a track for a tribe and not meta-realize these goals in order to leave a lasting impression on the game?

This is a careful balance, and requires the right players and mentality I think. There will always be the 'achivement' type PC in any walk of life in the game. The people who want to be the Senior Agent, or want to found the Lesser Merchant House, or make their mark on the world. As Desertman pointed out elsewhere, this is more or less up to the dictation of Staff, as they are the gatekeepers to what they want to become canon or not, and what remains within the theme of the game and what does not. I believe it would then ultimately be up to Staff to decide, later in the stage of a player created tribe (or clan) if it is going to survive beyond the initial push of creating it. I think 90% of the time, the answer would be no. Your tribe dies with you. But it would be cool if in that 10%, there were a marginal acceptance for it lasting and becoming canon. Even to have it become virtual canon would be great. For instance, there are several city elf tribes in the Labyrinth and Allanak. To become one of those 'virtual tribes', mentioned in lore and the website material, even if they are no longer available for PC play, would be great in my opinion. It adds to the lore of the game, and gives agency to the players who are a part of it.