Convert! Or be put to the Question!

[Draco Tanos]

Maybe it is just the roleplayer in me, but I would love to see an option similar to this:

If a Judge is also a priest, s/he gets another option when someone is in the dungeon.  Call it Forced Conversion or whatever.

Judge clicks on it, it opens a page to write out an RP, just like any other Role Play.  Basically, this option will give the imprisoned character a chance to "find redemption" and convert to the Judge's faith.

For flavor, perhaps a checkbox under the message window that, if chosen, will automatically have the prisoner tortured if he declines.

If it IS accepted, the prisoner should be removed from whatever religion they are currently in and placed in as a starter member of the Judge's faith.

I apologize if this seems...  A bit all over.  6am and still need sleep.  Just would like to see some thoughts on the idea.  Would fit theocracies perfectly, IMO, as well as any other realm with strong religious influence.

[egamma]

Interesting. But what if he has a negative balance?

[Indirik]

To start, I don't like this option.

If it is used, the conversion should be delayed until he is released, and the prisoner should have the opportunity to lie, and not really do it.

[Vellos]

There should indeed be a possibility of lying. Maybe, once you are free, an option comes up that you must respond to within, say, 5 days, and you can convert or not. If you refuse, you take some H/P penalty if you earlier accepted.

So the flow would be:

1a. Judge clicks "forced conversion" without auto-torture checked
1b. Judge clicks "forced conversion" with auto-torture checked
1a.2a. Prisoner agrees to convert
1a.2b. Prisoner refused to convert, end of interaction
1a.2a.3a. Prisoner goes free; five days later prisoner has option to convert. Prisoner accepts option, and converts, end of interaction.
1a.2a.3b. Prisoner goes free; five days later prisoner has option to convert. Prisoner refuses option, suffers H/P penalty, end of interaction.
1b.2a. Prisoner agrees to convert
1b.2b. Prisoner refuses to convert, is tortured (possible second option to convert?), end of interaction
1a.2a.3a. Prisoner goes free; five days later prisoner has option to convert. Prisoner accepts option, and converts, end of interaction.
1a.2a.3b. Prisoner goes free; five days later prisoner has option to convert. Prisoner refuses option, suffers H/P penalty, end of interaction.

[Vellos]

But shouldn't this be a feature request?

[Indirik]

So lying about converting in order to avoid torture gives the victim an h/p hit? That seems pretty harsh. Way too harsh.

In fact, I would think that using this option would give the judge a major h/p penalty, even more than the regular torture.

But I still don't like it.

[Vellos]

Yes, lying creates an H/P hit. Makes sense.

Otherwise there's no incentive to ever do anything except lie, and it's a useless feature.

[Indirik]

That idea makes me like it much less. I don't think that's either realistic *or* good for the game. This sounds bad all around.

[Norrel]

How about reducing or eliminating h/p penalties for torturing infidels? Allows judges to use their position for religious purposes but isn't easily exploitable.

[Chenier]

I like the spirit of the idea but fear for possible exploits it would create.

[Draco Tanos]

Interesting. But what if he has a negative balance?

What happens if he has a negative balance when he leaves the continent?  Nothing.

I do understand your concern on that, however.  Even if I'm not a huge fan of the balance system for religion members.

I'm more curious how to tweak it for captured priests.  Hmm...

To start, I don't like this option.

If it is used, the conversion should be delayed until he is released, and the prisoner should have the opportunity to lie, and not really do it.

It's a rough idea, but why not?  Frankly, it is a VERY medieval thing to do. 

They have plenty of opportunity to lie.  They could always leave the faith and rejoin their old one.

There should indeed be a possibility of lying. Maybe, once you are free, an option comes up that you must respond to within, say, 5 days, and you can convert or not. If you refuse, you take some H/P penalty if you earlier accepted.

So the flow would be:

1a. Judge clicks "forced conversion" without auto-torture checked
1b. Judge clicks "forced conversion" with auto-torture checked
1a.2a. Prisoner agrees to convert
1a.2b. Prisoner refused to convert, end of interaction
1a.2a.3a. Prisoner goes free; five days later prisoner has option to convert. Prisoner accepts option, and converts, end of interaction.
1a.2a.3b. Prisoner goes free; five days later prisoner has option to convert. Prisoner refuses option, suffers H/P penalty, end of interaction.
1b.2a. Prisoner agrees to convert
1b.2b. Prisoner refuses to convert, is tortured (possible second option to convert?), end of interaction
1a.2a.3a. Prisoner goes free; five days later prisoner has option to convert. Prisoner accepts option, and converts, end of interaction.
1a.2a.3b. Prisoner goes free; five days later prisoner has option to convert. Prisoner refuses option, suffers H/P penalty, end of interaction.

Like the general concepts. 

But shouldn't this be a feature request?

I'm of the opinion that Feature Requests are/should be proposed ideas after a period of discussion, not for the actual brainstorming.

So lying about converting in order to avoid torture gives the victim an h/p hit? That seems pretty harsh. Way too harsh.

In fact, I would think that using this option would give the judge a major h/p penalty, even more than the regular torture.

But I still don't like it.

Lying to a priest and a judge?  Yeah, seems pretty dishonorable to me in general. 

Why would the judge get a H/P hit?  He is doing the work of the gods.  Who is going to view that as dishonorable?  Well, besides his victims?

He's saving their souls!

Yes, lying creates an H/P hit. Makes sense.

Otherwise there's no incentive to ever do anything except lie, and it's a useless feature.

^
Again, lying to a judge, a noble, and a priest all rolled into one.  It's not very honorable.  If you're not going to convert because of faith in your own gods, then don't lie about it.  THAT is the honorable thing to do.  Willing to take punishment for your beliefs.

Otherwise you just show to everyone you're not only a liar and cannot be trusted to tell the truth, your faith is weak.

That idea makes me like it much less. I don't think that's either realistic *or* good for the game. This sounds bad all around.

See above.

How about reducing or eliminating h/p penalties for torturing infidels? Allows judges to use their position for religious purposes but isn't easily exploitable.

A possibility, I suppose.  Priest-Judges don't get a penalty for torturing (or executing?) followers of evil religions?

I like the spirit of the idea but fear for possible exploits it would create.

Then help find ways to plug up the exploits. 

[Indirik]

How about reducing or eliminating h/p penalties for torturing infidels? Allows judges to use their position for religious purposes but isn't easily exploitable.

Make torturing easier, more acceptable, and less damaging to the character doing it? That's exactly what the game needs. A way for players to destroy other people's characters, while simultaneously devaluing the act of torture by making it commonplace. That's sure to be a positive step forward for the game.

[Norrel]

Make torturing easier, more acceptable, and less damaging to the character doing it? That's exactly what the game needs. A way for players to destroy other people's characters, while simultaneously devaluing the act of torture by making it commonplace. That's sure to be a positive step forward for the game.

I agree

[Indirik]

It's a rough idea, but why not?  Frankly, it is a VERY medieval thing to do. 

They have plenty of opportunity to lie.  They could always leave the faith and rejoin their old one.

There are lots of very medieval things that could be done that we specifically don't do because it makes for a !@#$ty game. I think this idea is one of them.

Lying to a priest and a judge?  Yeah, seems pretty dishonorable to me in general. 

Standing up before the judge and telling a lie? Maybe. Nobles are cunning, devious, plotting, and double-talking.

Being stretched on a rack and having someone threaten to shove a hot poker up your ass unless you swear to join some other religion? Yeah, so far as I'm concerned, not so dishonorable to tell the torturer anything he wants to hear, so long as that hot poker stays away from my ass.

Why would the judge get a H/P hit?  He is doing the work of the gods.  Who is going to view that as dishonorable?  Well, besides his victims?

Maybe because torturing other nobles is not exactly an honorable thing?

He's saving their souls!

Not so far as anyone else is concerned. And, really, that's what matters. Honor and prestige aren't what you think about yourself. They're what other people think about you. And torturing confessions and conversions out of people isn't exactly viewed as "honorable" by most people.

Again, lying to a judge, a noble, and a priest all rolled into one.  It's not very honorable.

When that judge/priest is the embodiment of evil, who cares what you tell him? No oath, word, or bond given to a heretic can be held against one of the true faith, right?

The more I see of this, the less and less I like it. If it were up to me, I'd flat flat out deny it.

[Tom]

I fail to see what this idea would add to the game. Anyone care to sum it up in two sentences?