Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
Moderators: Active DMs, Forum Moderators, Contributors
Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
This is a thread to brainstorm potential alternatives to the Devil's table councilor system. This is NOT a thread for commentary about drow RP, the table being a drow district(even if it is de-facto, though arguably not by design), or for slamming specific players.
The councilor system worked in the past, for a while, before during the first reign of Xun'viir, and as a council of matrons(back when I played a matron), and it did so successfully for two years(possibly longer; I've been back for three years and it may have been working before then). The last year and a half, things have changed, and the system has become nonfunctional. We're not here to argue why. There are RP reasons and OOC reasons(some of which have to do with, objectively, player toxicity and a shift towards mechanics taking precedence over RP in recent years.) Its my belief that the system currently stymies RP, and has been a great source of burnout for people who used to be, are, and will be interested in politics.
The question is: "How, mechanically, can we take this nonfunctional system, and retool, or replace, it to function better as a settlement"?
Things these suggestions should strive for:
-Lengthening the election cycle(so you don't have several in a month)
-Keeping assassination relevant
-Sharing power responsibly, so that no one given group can utterly dominate and shut out all comers(this should be done in a way that inspires and promotes inter-faction RP, without becoming nonfunctional because of OOC logistics)
-Stabalizing the government
/discuss, and keep it civil. This is a topic worth discussing, as it is an issue that needs addressing. Lets try not to get it locked so we can't talk about it for several months like other topics hmm?
The councilor system worked in the past, for a while, before during the first reign of Xun'viir, and as a council of matrons(back when I played a matron), and it did so successfully for two years(possibly longer; I've been back for three years and it may have been working before then). The last year and a half, things have changed, and the system has become nonfunctional. We're not here to argue why. There are RP reasons and OOC reasons(some of which have to do with, objectively, player toxicity and a shift towards mechanics taking precedence over RP in recent years.) Its my belief that the system currently stymies RP, and has been a great source of burnout for people who used to be, are, and will be interested in politics.
The question is: "How, mechanically, can we take this nonfunctional system, and retool, or replace, it to function better as a settlement"?
Things these suggestions should strive for:
-Lengthening the election cycle(so you don't have several in a month)
-Keeping assassination relevant
-Sharing power responsibly, so that no one given group can utterly dominate and shut out all comers(this should be done in a way that inspires and promotes inter-faction RP, without becoming nonfunctional because of OOC logistics)
-Stabalizing the government
/discuss, and keep it civil. This is a topic worth discussing, as it is an issue that needs addressing. Lets try not to get it locked so we can't talk about it for several months like other topics hmm?
Plays: Durvayas(deleted), Marco(deleted), Hounynrae(NPC), Sinithra Auvry'ndal(rolled), Rauvlin Barrith(Active), Madeline Clavelle(Shelved)
-
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:20 am
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
Ideally, a system where you arn't forced to work with your political/house adversaries would be best. Beginning an administration already next to an enemy you can't banish/exile or stop from stealing coin/messing up your district would be a step up.
I propose, to keep the 'council' feel intact, force individuals to run as a trio on a ticket rather then individuals, so whatever trio wins becomes the new council. This would allow the same feel with three leaders, but also make betrayals, if they happen, more meaningful, because anyone on the ticket was picked to be there by the other two, not because they got third in the election.
I propose, to keep the 'council' feel intact, force individuals to run as a trio on a ticket rather then individuals, so whatever trio wins becomes the new council. This would allow the same feel with three leaders, but also make betrayals, if they happen, more meaningful, because anyone on the ticket was picked to be there by the other two, not because they got third in the election.
\
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
My suggestion is simpler: Go to single leader, if the Drow want a council of matrons, this can be upheld entirely with roleplay.
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
My personal idea:
-Keep the aspect of the system involving 3 councilors(this allows smaller factions to still be involved)
-Only one member allowed to be elected from any given faction.
-The three councilors elect, from their number, an "Archon"(Tyrant/district overseer/queen/whatever)
-The Archon MUST appoint ministers
Archon Powers:
-Exile Powers
-Revocation of property
Councilor Powers:
-Election of Archon
-Trade ministry(appointed by Archon. MUST be a councilor): Oversees the shops.
-Civic ministry(Appointed by Archon. MUST be a councilor):Oversees district bank account and resources
Rationale:
These are potent powers, and minor factions can benefit from their influence. It breeds intrigue, while also removing the anonymity of the old system. If the bank is wiped, everyone knows EXACTLY who to blame. The trade minister can focus on dealing with the market, and can promote RP that way without needing writ approval for every little thing. Civic ministry can focus on the guilds of the table(eg: The Melee Magthere and Sorcere) and taxing the houses or giving 'stimulus spending' to help promote faction growth.
-Allow decapitation of the government via assassin. Councilors killed lose their position and are removed from office. Archons killed lose their position, and cannot have a replacement chosen until the next election.
-Archons cannot step down, nor can they do a dead councilor's job(this prevents a ruling party from killing a councilor to sieze their powers.)
-If an assassin kills the Archon, the current government remains in power for 3 weeks.
-If this occurs, the system defaults back to councilor writs(leaving it somewhat functional, but not nearly as streamlined).
-The Archon being dead is the only circumstance wherein councilors get to revoke quarters or exile.
-Vassalization can only be done through a unanimous vote. All three councilors must agree.
-If all the councilors fail to appoint an Archon by voting for themselves, the election is reset.
-Elections CANNOT be called if two of the councilors(including the archon, in case a minister is killed) are alive, Stepping down is either impossible, or carries a massive fine(to prevent cheese.)
-Keep the aspect of the system involving 3 councilors(this allows smaller factions to still be involved)
-Only one member allowed to be elected from any given faction.
-The three councilors elect, from their number, an "Archon"(Tyrant/district overseer/queen/whatever)
-The Archon MUST appoint ministers
Archon Powers:
-Exile Powers
-Revocation of property
Councilor Powers:
-Election of Archon
-Trade ministry(appointed by Archon. MUST be a councilor): Oversees the shops.
-Civic ministry(Appointed by Archon. MUST be a councilor):Oversees district bank account and resources
Rationale:
These are potent powers, and minor factions can benefit from their influence. It breeds intrigue, while also removing the anonymity of the old system. If the bank is wiped, everyone knows EXACTLY who to blame. The trade minister can focus on dealing with the market, and can promote RP that way without needing writ approval for every little thing. Civic ministry can focus on the guilds of the table(eg: The Melee Magthere and Sorcere) and taxing the houses or giving 'stimulus spending' to help promote faction growth.
-Allow decapitation of the government via assassin. Councilors killed lose their position and are removed from office. Archons killed lose their position, and cannot have a replacement chosen until the next election.
-Archons cannot step down, nor can they do a dead councilor's job(this prevents a ruling party from killing a councilor to sieze their powers.)
-If an assassin kills the Archon, the current government remains in power for 3 weeks.
-If this occurs, the system defaults back to councilor writs(leaving it somewhat functional, but not nearly as streamlined).
-The Archon being dead is the only circumstance wherein councilors get to revoke quarters or exile.
-Vassalization can only be done through a unanimous vote. All three councilors must agree.
-If all the councilors fail to appoint an Archon by voting for themselves, the election is reset.
-Elections CANNOT be called if two of the councilors(including the archon, in case a minister is killed) are alive, Stepping down is either impossible, or carries a massive fine(to prevent cheese.)
Last edited by Durvayas on Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Plays: Durvayas(deleted), Marco(deleted), Hounynrae(NPC), Sinithra Auvry'ndal(rolled), Rauvlin Barrith(Active), Madeline Clavelle(Shelved)
-
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:20 am
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
To be fair, that sounds very complex, and the more I think about it, the more I think we should just emulate Cordor/Sharps.
I dont see any way we can give multiple election leaders multiple powers without giving someone the ability to totally torpedo the guys who did win the main election for no reason other then IC spite, leaving the government non-functional for long periods of time.
I dont see any way we can give multiple election leaders multiple powers without giving someone the ability to totally torpedo the guys who did win the main election for no reason other then IC spite, leaving the government non-functional for long periods of time.
\
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
That is why my suggestion gives only the archon the strongest powers. Sub-leaders attempting to torpedo the administration can be assassinated to be stopped, and then exiled. Unlike the current system, my suggestion can still function even with a councilor dead, albeit in a limited capacity.BegoneThoth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:44 pmTo be fair, that sounds very complex, and the more I think about it, the more I think we should just emulate Cordor/Sharps.
I dont see any way we can give multiple election leaders multiple powers without giving someone the ability to totally torpedo the guys who did win the main election for no reason other then IC spite, leaving the government non-functional for long periods of time.
As well, a councilor that is 'dangerous' can simply be assigned to be the trade minister to limit the damage they can do.
Plays: Durvayas(deleted), Marco(deleted), Hounynrae(NPC), Sinithra Auvry'ndal(rolled), Rauvlin Barrith(Active), Madeline Clavelle(Shelved)
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
This is what I agree with most. The model has been tried and tested all over IG and seems to work more than not.
Edited out a typo!
Irongron wrote: [...] the super-secret Arelith development roadmap is a post apocalyptic wasteland populated with competing tribes of hand-bombard wielding techno-giants, and strewn with the bones of long dead elves.
So we're very much on track.
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
I don't see the purpose in overly complicating things. Until a more nuanced settlement rework can be rolled out for not just Andunor, but the whole of the server, you may as well put in a stop-gap.
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
We're trying to figure a nuanced settlement rework right here in this thread. We've seen the sharps/cordor model, it too has its own issues. We're looking at alternatives.strong yeet wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:55 pmI don't see the purpose in overly complicating things. Until a more nuanced settlement rework can be rolled out for not just Andunor, but the whole of the server, you may as well put in a stop-gap.
Plays: Durvayas(deleted), Marco(deleted), Hounynrae(NPC), Sinithra Auvry'ndal(rolled), Rauvlin Barrith(Active), Madeline Clavelle(Shelved)
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
Make it work like every other settlement.
PROBLEM
SOLVED
PROBLEM
SOLVED
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
Alternatives that could take a lot longer to code, because devs are people who have lives and other projects and other stuff they want to do rather than make stuff in the script editor. The server still goes on and stuff still happens in the interim. I don't want to shut down your discussion, because I think it does need to be had, but I also don't want your discussion to be used as a reason for inaction Now, you know?
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
I agree with most. One solo ruler and hope to find something more interesting (if possible) as we go.
I can see merit behind the 3 for 1 (3 ppl as one vote) or even not triggering elections until 2 people leave being fine options too.
I can see merit behind the 3 for 1 (3 ppl as one vote) or even not triggering elections until 2 people leave being fine options too.
Katernin Bersk, Chancellor of Divination; Kerri Amblecrown, Paladin of Milil; Xull'kacha Auvry'rae, Redcap Fey-pacted; Sadia yr Thuravya el Bhirax, Priestess of Umberlee; Lissa Whitehorn, Archmage of Artifice
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
I find it a dubious notion that the Dev team would be willing to write an entirely new system of government specifically just for the Devil's table.
Therefore, the choice must be between the current system, and a one seat system, and a suggestion and feedback thread have already been opened on that subject. I'm not sure there's anything more to say?
Therefore, the choice must be between the current system, and a one seat system, and a suggestion and feedback thread have already been opened on that subject. I'm not sure there's anything more to say?
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
I didn't mean to imply this with my post, sorry. I meant that a settlement rework altogether is something I would suggest the consideration of, and ideas for one part of the server can be applied to all I would think.
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
Yeah; regardless of what's done with the DT, the settlement system is badly made, and in dire need of a complete overhaul.
UilliamNebel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:24 pmYou're right. Participating in the forums was a mistake. Won't do this again.
Anime Sword Fighter wrote: I have seen far too many miniskirt anime slave girls.
-
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:06 pm
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
The whole election system is in need of an overhaul.
I don't see why having 3 leaders is so bad, its a rp server and why is having to work with possible enemies to run a settlement such a bad thing? There is nNothing that can happen with 3 people that can't happen with one. OOC discussions how to get power, leader vanishing, robbing the treasury, abuse of power, leader not doing anything etc. The problem with one leader is if they vanish you have people who weren't elected running things. 3 people it should mean there should be rp with people having to manipulate things to get their will done.
-
- Community Manager
- Posts: 3402
- Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:44 pm
- Location: The Seeliecourt singing with Tinkerbell
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
Moving this to feedback, keep the suggestions and cordialness going.
Please don't feed my sister.
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
This isn't what happens in practice though. Please see the opening posts and page of the new locked topic for a very indepth look at why the councillor system does not achieve the desired goal of a triumvirate leadership.Sab1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:53 amThe whole election system is in need of an overhaul.
I don't see why having 3 leaders is so bad, its a rp server and why is having to work with possible enemies to run a settlement such a bad thing? There is nNothing that can happen with 3 people that can't happen with one. OOC discussions how to get power, leader vanishing, robbing the treasury, abuse of power, leader not doing anything etc. The problem with one leader is if they vanish you have people who weren't elected running things. 3 people it should mean there should be rp with people having to manipulate things to get their will done.
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
On the other hand, there are many things than can happen with one person that can't happen with three. We're dealing with timezones, conflicting personalities (IG, presuming one or more other parties are rivals), work and other out of character engagements, and more.Sab1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:53 amThe whole election system is in need of an overhaul.
I don't see why having 3 leaders is so bad, its a rp server and why is having to work with possible enemies to run a settlement such a bad thing? There is nNothing that can happen with 3 people that can't happen with one. OOC discussions how to get power, leader vanishing, robbing the treasury, abuse of power, leader not doing anything etc. The problem with one leader is if they vanish you have people who weren't elected running things. 3 people it should mean there should be rp with people having to manipulate things to get their will done.
With one majority player, at least in what I've observed in game to be greatly successful more often than not, is that it is easier to delegate and create RP when not being railroaded by arbitrary mechanics like writs and endlessly repeating voting cycles.
It's not like a one-person government no longer has to deal with enemies or delegation. It just alleviates the mechanic boundaries and converts them to RP boundaries.
Easily enough, because we're dealing with super majorities, a defunct leader is likely to be easily supplanted by any other more active faction because they only need to vote in one person and not two to gain a majority. Splitting a vote to gain a majority is brutal, especially if you aren't using things like discord to coordinate.
Irongron wrote: [...] the super-secret Arelith development roadmap is a post apocalyptic wasteland populated with competing tribes of hand-bombard wielding techno-giants, and strewn with the bones of long dead elves.
So we're very much on track.
-
- Arelith Gold Supporter
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:33 pm
- Contact:
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
The problem as I see it, with forcing people to stand next to each other, who don't want to stand next to each other, who signed up solely with the intention of opposing each other's aims and protecting values that the other opposes will always cause additional rancor, and in Andunor, from it's very founding and partially by the strenuous 'right on top of each other' design -- often violence.
Every administration I've found from every settlement has ways of exercising force to keep certain groups out by the threat of PvP or by exile, each with their own outcasted groups and these occur dynamically. As individuals ally with groups, these tend to progress through generations of characters.
Rarely does the son of a Priest of a Death God become life-long friends with the son of a famous Paladin's Order commander once blood-lines, political interests and ally-circles are discovered except in the most extreme (or intentionally motivated or arranged) circumstances.
I just don't see the equivalent of "Paladins letting Necromancers run their trade ministry and shops" no matter how the results of the election say things should go. Sometimes ... people have opposing beliefs, goals, or aims that are not reconcilable because of past events (betrayals, battles, intrusions, etc) and damage was done to relationships and I feel that is healthy roleplay for that to matter and be high-stakes.
Micromanaging people, and telling them they -must- get along with X-group or Y-group regardless of history is unhealthy, and will result in the same problems already held. I also suspect that if everyone's account-names were changed and characters were wiped... many players CD keys would gravitate toward roleplayers they know on their previous characters. While this scenario is ridiculous and extreme, I use it as an example:
While people may not end up in the same hostilities they had, I suspect they would be likely to gravitate toward many of their old friends, even if their character ideas are entirely new. (Such as myself playing a disguise-specialized Spellsword rather than a 2-handed weapon-master)... even if faction lines became entirely different and nobody knew who their old nemesis was on their old characters:
This example, without naming names or specific instances shows a reason why individuals who make new toons and immediately ally with their friends on new characters end up in victory and no-win scenarios while engaging in politics; because of the web of -existing- characters they become associated with and have long, multi-character histories with, OOC friendships with, that they're not willing to set aside.
I, myself -- though relatively new to the server am inexplicably bound and judged by people's opinions (positive or negative) of the factions I happened to become associated with when I signed up for Arelith. And as this web of individuals I have associated with different contexts grows larger, and larger (in part because I am -always- online) ... people's perception of what "my faction" consists of can change with the people they see me stand near regularly in different time-zones... which increases people's belief in the size of an individual faction~ I find myself falling into this pitfall often.
Instead, I've come to the realization that: It is often the impact of an individual character, and those with the casual association, or who are helping out someone ... is not necessarily associated with their faction.
The reason this is relevant ... is that even if they aren't associated with a faction: These individuals represent the voting power of the political settlement system. The person who is the most entertaining, who offers the most casual favors, who has the most time to spend, the most friend-of-a-friend ... is always, always, always going to absolutely dominate and flatten the playing field on any player-based leadership system.
Adding additional tensions in order to offer consolation prizes from the paladin to the necromancer ... isn't going to change anything but causing additional short-term conflict that continues to spiral out of control and raise tensions, when what is needed for healing relationships and reducing tensions is time and distance ... not being forced to be on top of eachother even more, watching for further treachery and competition.
Every administration I've found from every settlement has ways of exercising force to keep certain groups out by the threat of PvP or by exile, each with their own outcasted groups and these occur dynamically. As individuals ally with groups, these tend to progress through generations of characters.
Rarely does the son of a Priest of a Death God become life-long friends with the son of a famous Paladin's Order commander once blood-lines, political interests and ally-circles are discovered except in the most extreme (or intentionally motivated or arranged) circumstances.
I just don't see the equivalent of "Paladins letting Necromancers run their trade ministry and shops" no matter how the results of the election say things should go. Sometimes ... people have opposing beliefs, goals, or aims that are not reconcilable because of past events (betrayals, battles, intrusions, etc) and damage was done to relationships and I feel that is healthy roleplay for that to matter and be high-stakes.
Micromanaging people, and telling them they -must- get along with X-group or Y-group regardless of history is unhealthy, and will result in the same problems already held. I also suspect that if everyone's account-names were changed and characters were wiped... many players CD keys would gravitate toward roleplayers they know on their previous characters. While this scenario is ridiculous and extreme, I use it as an example:
While people may not end up in the same hostilities they had, I suspect they would be likely to gravitate toward many of their old friends, even if their character ideas are entirely new. (Such as myself playing a disguise-specialized Spellsword rather than a 2-handed weapon-master)... even if faction lines became entirely different and nobody knew who their old nemesis was on their old characters:
This example, without naming names or specific instances shows a reason why individuals who make new toons and immediately ally with their friends on new characters end up in victory and no-win scenarios while engaging in politics; because of the web of -existing- characters they become associated with and have long, multi-character histories with, OOC friendships with, that they're not willing to set aside.
I, myself -- though relatively new to the server am inexplicably bound and judged by people's opinions (positive or negative) of the factions I happened to become associated with when I signed up for Arelith. And as this web of individuals I have associated with different contexts grows larger, and larger (in part because I am -always- online) ... people's perception of what "my faction" consists of can change with the people they see me stand near regularly in different time-zones... which increases people's belief in the size of an individual faction~ I find myself falling into this pitfall often.
Instead, I've come to the realization that: It is often the impact of an individual character, and those with the casual association, or who are helping out someone ... is not necessarily associated with their faction.
The reason this is relevant ... is that even if they aren't associated with a faction: These individuals represent the voting power of the political settlement system. The person who is the most entertaining, who offers the most casual favors, who has the most time to spend, the most friend-of-a-friend ... is always, always, always going to absolutely dominate and flatten the playing field on any player-based leadership system.
Adding additional tensions in order to offer consolation prizes from the paladin to the necromancer ... isn't going to change anything but causing additional short-term conflict that continues to spiral out of control and raise tensions, when what is needed for healing relationships and reducing tensions is time and distance ... not being forced to be on top of eachother even more, watching for further treachery and competition.
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
In fairness, we're discussing ideas for a district government for a UD settlement(that may or may not be expanded to the entire server with minor tweaks); inviting treachery and competition should be encouraged to a degree by design, but not in a "hahaha I start the election over again and again, because screw you!" kind of way.dominantdrowess wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:02 amAdding additional tensions in order to offer consolation prizes from the paladin to the necromancer ... isn't going to change anything but causing additional short-term conflict that continues to spiral out of control and raise tensions, when what is needed for healing relationships and reducing tensions is time and distance ... not being forced to be on top of eachother even more, watching for further treachery and competition.
Plays: Durvayas(deleted), Marco(deleted), Hounynrae(NPC), Sinithra Auvry'ndal(rolled), Rauvlin Barrith(Active), Madeline Clavelle(Shelved)
-
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 6724
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:47 pm
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
Just to put in a small thought-
Whilst some stability is nice, you probably don't want to build anything with -too- much stability. Shifts in power/influence are actually very good and healthy for a settlment/server. I don't think you want a situation, especialy in a underdark settlment, where Character X and his faction has been in controle for 2+ RL years, and it doesn't look like anything could ever possibly change. You want regular (monthly, bi monthly, tri monthly?) shifts in power and influence, so that things are kept interesting, and also so that different characters have a go at trying their hand at leadership.
In fact, the last point is one of the few good points about the three-leadership council. Though I'll admit that the negatives may outweigh it.
Whilst some stability is nice, you probably don't want to build anything with -too- much stability. Shifts in power/influence are actually very good and healthy for a settlment/server. I don't think you want a situation, especialy in a underdark settlment, where Character X and his faction has been in controle for 2+ RL years, and it doesn't look like anything could ever possibly change. You want regular (monthly, bi monthly, tri monthly?) shifts in power and influence, so that things are kept interesting, and also so that different characters have a go at trying their hand at leadership.
In fact, the last point is one of the few good points about the three-leadership council. Though I'll admit that the negatives may outweigh it.
This too shall pass.
(I now have a DM Discord (I hope) It's DM GrumpyCat#7185 but please keep in mind I'm very busy IRL so I can't promise how quick I'll get back to you.)
(I now have a DM Discord (I hope) It's DM GrumpyCat#7185 but please keep in mind I'm very busy IRL so I can't promise how quick I'll get back to you.)
Re: Devil's Table Potential Goverment System Brainstorm
Is that to say the DM Team has a negative view of the situations in Myon and Brogenstine, who frequently have leaders for RL years?DM GrumpyCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:15 amJust to put in a small thought-
Whilst some stability is nice, you probably don't want to build anything with -too- much stability. Shifts in power/influence are actually very good and healthy for a settlment/server. I don't think you want a situation, especialy in a underdark settlment, where Character X and his faction has been in controle for 2+ RL years, and it doesn't look like anything could ever possibly change. You want regular (monthly, bi monthly, tri monthly?) shifts in power and influence, so that things are kept interesting, and also so that different characters have a go at trying their hand at leadership.
In fact, the last point is one of the few good points about the three-leadership council. Though I'll admit that the negatives may outweigh it.