You would not want to use your master thief from the royal council because IF  the people ever discovered that the stolen money was approved by the channeller and lead by his master thief the people would have a very high chance of revolting.  The 3rd party merchants guild  would allow it to be very difficult to link the channeller to such an action.  

Think about what a group of powerful rich citizens would do if they discovered the president of the USA  actually was the individual who approved to have thieves break into their homes, bind them into chairs and steal their valuables.   Those citizens at the very least would leave to another country... and worst seek revenge and possible assassination.

On the same note... if this thief would steal from his very own people what's to stop him from stealing from other members on the council or even the very channeller himself.  The master thief could not even be trusted to attend the meetings at the high council because he has the slimy characteristics to sell the information on the black market.   Everyone on the high council must be someone who can be trusted.

Yes the channeller should have the option of having a master thief on the royal council.   I strongly feel this master thief should be used for stealing from independents and other opponents.  My whole argument has been to disagree with chopping off fingers to feed the body... hence stealing from ones own kingdom when other sources exist.

The player can be just as evil using high taxes to bring the same amount of gold.   Citizens are going to be more likely to stay in a realm of high taxes compared to a realm of moderate taxes with very bad crime because losing family heirlooms and priceless antiques will hurt more than a sack of gold.

So  just stick with having taxes.

What??  NO.   Buying private security and wards costs money.... much less expensive to move to another territory where there is no crime.  You don't see LOTS of rich moving into the Bronx because of its location and cheap rent and then buying lots of security and wards for protection.  The rich move to upstate new york where the cost of homes are more expensive, but clearly it's a safer neighborhood! People move away from crime especially since personal antiques and priceless heirlooms cannot be replaced. 

I don't see why this can't be an option for more evil rulers.  It's no way to make steady income (or else you WILL drive your citizens away), but it's not a bad idea for a quick boost of income now and then.  Not to mention it could prove to be a uniting factor in some cases. 

Think about it:  a mysterious crime spree sweeps through a city.  The sovereign acts quickly to contain the situation and stomp out crime.  Not only did you make some cash ripping off your citizens, but you look like a hero doing it. 

I like a lot of what you said, and the "Mexican Standoff" gave me an idea: the loyalty of your councilmembers would not be assumed. Instead, you would have a probability that they would betray you. The more capable the member, the more likely the betrayal. You could keep them in line through military/police power, spies, bribes, and possible other stuff like blackmail.

Surely if you're playing one or another of the Fallen, or 'evil', races then your choice of Royal Council should be slightly different. This is where the choice of Master Thief becomes more practical. Different mores and social practices would result in possibly subtle (or not so subtle) differences in who you get to choose for your Royal Council. I can't really see a shining light civilisation of angels and do-gooders having the option of choosing theives and assassins as members of their Council. On the other hand, evil (or just not-so-nice) races similarly shouldn't be able to choose representatives from 'lawful-good' leaning religions (just as an illustration, not sure how religion fits in as i haven't read much of the backstory), etc.

More standard positions such as Chancellor, Sergeant-at-arms, Horsemaster/Beastmaster or Master Merchant (Gaffer Gamgee for increased farming output?) would be available to all and sundry.

Moreover, you might only access certain other positions depending on how your civ/Channeller allocates its resources; Ruinic Priest (increases power of local spells cast by Channeller; achieved after Channeller casts x amount of local spells). Stone mason/sapper (once civ has spent x amount of resource on developing fortifications).

Each Channeller has a set amount of positions on his council, say 6. Easy at early levels as low-level channellers would only be able to hire/recruit a few, but after a while the options become important as the amount of councillors outnumber seats at the table and each change of councillor becomes increasingly expensive.

Good idea Delad, but i'm not sure how it would excute in practice.

In theory, if a player chooses all ethically good council members then his/her own moral alignment as the channeler would be shifted closer to that way as well and, thus, make it more difficult for the player to switch their faction's moral alignment. But this would naturally be neutralized by the player choosing a more balanced group (1/2 good, 1/2 evil) for:

     good = positive, evil = negative or 1+negative 1= 0

And how will neutrally aligned member would come into play? The simplist solution I can think of is to make Neutrals = zero, this way Neutrals don't muck it up. Ultimately though is the problem that we don't even know if there is going an ethics system in Elemental and how it will work. If there is and it makes the game even better, great. if not oh well.

NTJedi raised a good point about the additional complexity--and implicitly "non-fun"--aspects of disloyal advisors.  Perhaps tumultuous internal politics should be a game option, simliar to the various trading options in GalCiv2 today.

Things like Rebellions, Disloyal Followers, etc. could all be optional by game.