I agree with religions having to make sure that they choose the right nobles to be priest. If they choose poorly, then it's their own fault.
To do this, religions need to be empowered to actively choose who can be a recognized priest for them, otherwise there's no choice in the matter.
Agreed, this would be
essential if we're expected to proceed in the manner Tom has enumerated.
That said, I don't like this concept at all. You put the onus on a religion to vet anyone asking to be a priest. I have serious concerns about that approach:
1. It encourages religions to be extremely cautious about permitting people to become priests. This restricts opportunities for players to do what they want to do. My prediction, if we play like Tom is suggesting: You will see a lot less priests, and completely discourage people from casually experimenting with the class to see if they like it.
2. You force religions into a catch 22. It is in their interest to have as many priests as possible, but now they have an opposing interest in making sure that only trusted members can become priests. You thereby force them to choose between opening themselves up to heresy and/or sabotage and restricting their own growth, which isn't good for anyone involved.
3. You force religions to make decisions based on trust, but without enough metrics for people to prove that they are trustworthy. Realms have a myriad of different institutions, roles and positions available in which nobles can prove themselves to be loyal and hard-working, from armies to lordships. Religions have far fewer, the most important of which is being a priest. We can't let people become priests to prove that they'll be trustworthy priests though; that makes no sense. Most religions will be put in a position where they are being asked to approve the priesthood for someone who they probably only have limited interaction within the context of the actual religion.
