Religion is missing something?

[Indirik]

Very bluntly said, a new noble seeks to become a region lord in the shortest way possible (or some other title/position).

If all you are after is min/maxing your character, then the religion aspect of the game is not for you. It's just that simple, and nothing can change that. Period.

If you are looking for more character development, as opposed to just stat development, then the religion aspect of the game can help. But you, the player, must bring something to the table for that to happen. More than likely that will require your character to do things that are non-optimal on the stat development side.

[vonGenf]

SA still doesn't have a vision on the afterlife, as far as I know, which would be the number one concern of any religious person.

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Sanguis_Astroism/Writings#On_the_Afterlife

All it has is vague theology that doesn't really force anyone to do anything they wouldn't like to do.

Of all the religions I have ever been in, it's the only one which has a sense of "if x, you should do y". Granted, it's a little script with three stars that rotate, it's not much, but it's more than anything else.

All can basically "worship" the stars in whatever way they wish.

Good luck with that. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

[Indirik]

As for SA, I don't buy it. "Blanks for people to fill" are, in my eyes, pretty much "blanks forever so as to not ruffle any feathers". May as well praise Eretzism for "leaving blanks for people to fill". SA still doesn't have a vision on the afterlife, as far as I know, which would be the number one concern of any religious person.

The debates are still happening on this one. There are advocates of a couple different theories, and none of them have managed to take the lead and force their viewpoint on the religion as a whole. But that's a good thing, I think. If they ever manage to do that, then that will put an end to the debate.

As for Eretzism, I really don't know much of anything about it. But if you are going to compare the two, then I'd have to ask: Do the followers of Eretzism debate theology? Do they argue about the afterlife? Do they argue about the nature of the gods? Do they debate on how many gods there are, and whether or not any specific god exists? I would suspect that the answer to all those questions is "No", and that Eretzism simply doesn't talk much about anything at all, other than how they can help advance the nationalist agenda of Enweil. Yet these are all debates that have occurred within Sanguis Astroism within the past few months.

So in a way you are correct. The very fact that blanks exist does not guarantee that you will have a successful religion. They are an enabler. It's what the players do with them that counts. In Sanguis Astroism, the players often use these blanks as enablers around which to hold theological discussions.

All it has is vague theology that doesn't really force anyone to do anything they wouldn't like to do. All can basically "worship" the stars in whatever way they wish. In my eyes, that's a hollow religion. Follows the same mold as all other "successful" national religions on other continents, except that it came first on the continent, and in a theocracy that would eventually colonize a lot, and at a time where the metagame was really pushing for religion to be taken seriously. That doesn't make it a good model, in my eyes.

I won't deny that the "came first" part helped. But by itself that simply can't be the only factor, or even the main factor. Other religions were founded in the religious vacuums of the west, the south, the central islands, etc. These religions had a wide open space in which to expand. There were no competing religions to stop them. The peasantry were all pagans, with no competing priests to steal their followers, no other realm-based religions to fight against, the nobles of the realm did not already belong to other faiths, etc. They had the exact same opportunities to establish themselves and expand that SA had. Why did they fail? And I refuse to believe the answer is "SA was established first". That's a lazy answer, laced with sour grapes.

As for fewer old religions... A lot of them died on BT. I don't see any improvement.

And what have the remaining religions done to capitalize on this new power vacuum?

[Chenier]

If all you are after is min/maxing your character, then the religion aspect of the game is not for you. It's just that simple, and nothing can change that. Period.

If you are looking for more character development, as opposed to just stat development, then the religion aspect of the game can help. But you, the player, must bring something to the table for that to happen. More than likely that will require your character to do things that are non-optimal on the stat development side.

You speak as if it concerned only h/p hunters or fame mongers. It doesn't.

Seeking power in not (accurately) quantifiable. It isn't a stat that you develop. Doesn't mean one can't want to be optimal, as everyone has limited time and attention span he is willing to commit to a game. It's absolutely normal for people to prioritize and do some sacrifices.

For most people, achieving power so that they can achieve something or make a difference is an important objective, whether they want the spotlight or not. And it's quite normal. If all you want is to develop a character, than you may as well just go write a book or play in a free form RPG without limiting game mechanics like BM has. If you like the restrictions, it's probably because you like a challenge, and there isn't a lot from the game that challenges the creation of a personality for your character.

[Chenier]

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Sanguis_Astroism/Writings#On_the_Afterlife

Of all the religions I have ever been in, it's the only one which has a sense of "if x, you should do y". Granted, it's a little script with three stars that rotate, it's not much, but it's more than anything else.
Good luck with that. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh yea, "may", "mystery", "speculate", "likely", "believe", quite inspiring after years of having hundreds of followers.

The only ones who got in trouble were basically searching for it.

[vonGenf]

The only ones who got in trouble were basically searching for it.

I don't find it surprising that religions that put in trouble people who weren't searching for it are not successful. Do you?

[Gustav Kuriga]

Chenier, you do realize that not every successful religion has an afterlife. Many sects of Buddhism do not believe in an afterlife.

[Chenier]

So in a way you are correct. The very fact that blanks exist does not guarantee that you will have a successful religion. They are an enabler. It's what the players do with them that counts. In Sanguis Astroism, the players often use these blanks as enablers around which to hold theological discussions.

You speak of develooped lore as if it was a "disabler". Torenism had a lot of stuff in it, and they had a lot of people commited to the religion. The Blood Cult had a lot of stuff too, and florished. Did it become the number 1 religion in follower count? No, but if you are accusing it on "too much lore", then you truly were blind to the fact that it preached, you know, sacrificing living beings to please the gods and had questionnable ties to the daimons? The Blood Cult was never meant to be mainstream. Did we have a lot of established lore? Yes. Did that stop people from adding more? No. We have players write up lore for it regardless. Per capita, a LOT more than SA ever did. There are a billion things in life that can make religious people seek divine guidance. To not start up with a dozen answers is either sheer laziness or intentional vagueness to increase acceptability. Does SA debate these things more than Eretzism? Well, yes, but Eretzism has a fraction of the follower count, has a fraction of the activity rates from those present, isn't on a SMA continent, and is quite a bit older.

In the Blood Cult, we used *lore* as an enabler, instead of blanks. With so much random lore, it's much easier to try to extrapolate by making a bunch of wild links between random existing bits.

I won't deny that the "came first" part helped. But by itself that simply can't be the only factor, or even the main factor. Other religions were founded in the religious vacuums of the west, the south, the central islands, etc. These religions had a wide open space in which to expand. There were no competing religions to stop them. The peasantry were all pagans, with no competing priests to steal their followers, no other realm-based religions to fight against, the nobles of the realm did not already belong to other faiths, etc. They had the exact same opportunities to establish themselves and expand that SA had. Why did they fail? And I refuse to believe the answer is "SA was established first". That's a lazy answer, laced with sour grapes.

How many nobles went through Morek in their lifetime compared to Caerwyn? How many colonies did Caerwyn establish as opposed to Morek? How strong was Caerwyn to impose things on its colonies as opposed to Morek? How did the government system influence Caerwyn's stance on religion as opposed to Morek?

"Wide open spaces" are not very important. Who cares if you convert far-away rogue regions? Any priest can come and undo your job in a day or two. For one, don't forget that Morek was a theocracy, Caerwyn was a republic. Morek imposed SA on its colonies and on neighbours, Caerwyn did not. Why did the western religions fail? Well, for one, they *did* face more competition. The Seven were small, isolated, and died on their own. There were many realms in the North-East, but just one religion for almost all of its history. In contrast, there were few realms in the west, and they almost all had their own religion, if not two, plus the faith some of them imported from their original realms. Natural SA expansion competed with VE in Caerwyn. SA influence competes with Triunism in Terran. In D'Hara, SA, Dragon Worship, and Verdis Elementum were all present at the same time at one point, now it's just SA and VE. Etc, etc. SA has a ton of SA theocracies, and the only theocracies (in name or spirit) that existed to something else were destroyed by SA.

They did not have the "exact same opportunities", not by a longshot. SA was in one of the four founding realms. The western colonies came in way, way later. And no non-SA realm was a theocracy. In addition, all the enthusiasm for religion that was present when SA was founded was already pretty much gone by the time the other religions came up.

As for "if x, then do y", SA has the lamest one of them all. "If (time of year), then (have this mood more)". Great theology to be proud of, there...

Don't get me wrong, SA is a great model for a "successful" religion. I just don't consider it to be a "good" religion, because I don't believe any normal human could be even remotely spiritually satisfied by its teaching, or that such a religion could have the same scope of success had it happened in the real world in the middle ages.

And what have the remaining religions done to capitalize on this new power vacuum?

New religions sprung up, Eretzism re-emerged. The one that replaced the Old Gods tried to expand, but we'll see what that gives. Qyrvaggism and Alluran were preached in now-pagan Enweil lands to stir up trouble and help Rio in their war. Otherwise, not much as far as I know.

I don't find it surprising that religions that put in trouble people who weren't searching for it are not successful. Do you?

No kidding. That doesn't mean that a religion should not have any code of conduct or taboos that at least restrict characters a little in what they might normally want to do. Real world religions have tons of arbitrary rules.

Chenier, you do realize that not every successful religion has an afterlife. Many sects of Buddhism do not believe in an afterlife.

Eastern religions, as far as I know, tend to preach reincarnation and an ultimate nothingness. Not having an "afterlife" in the end of it isn't the same as lacking theology on the afterlife: the theology just clearly says "there is no afterlife". No human being would seriously devote his life to a religion that says "Well, you know, maybe this, or maybe that, but really, we don't know what happens after death", especially in those days.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Do more research, then, Chenier.

[Chenier]

Do more research, then, Chenier.

Ignoring for a moment that SA is about the western world and not the eastern one, entertain us with examples will you?

[Indirik]

You speak of develooped lore as if it was a "disabler".

In some ways, it is. A highly developed lore can also be one in which the participants don't feel any particular need to make any contribution. It's all written already, so what reason do they have to try and contribute themselves? It's also extremely daunting to go to the wiki and see dozens of long, text-filled pages that are supposed to lay out what things your character believes, how your character should treat various situations, etc. And if you have characters in three or four realms/islands, belonging to three/four different religions, then you as a player will have to learn all of them in order to play your characters in that religion. Is it any wonder that they don't bother? Most of the probably "tl;dr" and ignore it all.

Torenism had a lot of stuff in it, and they had a lot of people commited to the religion.

Here's an interesting thing about Torenism, and it kind of illustrates my point rather well, I think. After Everguard fell I had the opportunity to talk with some former Everguardian players OOG about the events that lead to SA's crusades against them. The player claimed that most of the Torenist followers had absolutely no idea about the stuff that was on the wiki as relates to Torenism, or the manner in which Torenism was being portrayed there. So all that stuff that was written and posted, all that supposedly rich lore, was widely ignored and unused by the members of the religion. At least according the the player or two I talked with.

The Blood Cult had a lot of stuff too, and florished. Did it become the number 1 religion in follower count? No, but if you are accusing it on "too much lore", then you truly were blind to the fact that it preached, you know, sacrificing living beings to please the gods and had questionnable ties to the daimons? The Blood Cult was never meant to be mainstream. Did we have a lot of established lore? Yes. Did that stop people from adding more? No. We have players write up lore for it regardless. Per capita, a LOT more than SA ever did.

Yes, I know that the Blood Cult preached human sacrifice, and about their ties to the daimons, etc.

There are a billion things in life that can make religious people seek divine guidance. To not start up with a dozen answers is either sheer laziness or intentional vagueness to increase acceptability. Does SA debate these things more than Eretzism? Well, yes, but Eretzism has a fraction of the follower count, has a fraction of the activity rates from those present, isn't on a SMA continent, and is quite a bit older.

So, then equating Eretzism's blank spots to SA's blank spots is pretty pointless, if Eretzism doesn't actually use those blanks to good purpose.

In the Blood Cult, we used *lore* as an enabler, instead of blanks. With so much random lore, it's much easier to try to extrapolate by making a bunch of wild links between random existing bits.

For you, perhaps that's an easier way to go. But from what I have seen in the different religions I have had characters in, that's not the way it works for most people.

"Wide open spaces" are not very important. Who cares if you convert far-away rogue regions?

I'm not talking about far away regions. I'm talking about the regions right at home, within your own realm. When these other religions were formed, there was no real competition in the homelands from any other religion.

Morek imposed SA on its colonies and on neighbours

Incorrect on both accounts. SA was not imposed on Astrum. Astrum was formed by faithful followers of the Stars, who wanted to expand the influence of SA across the island. We didn't follow SA because it was the ticket to our own realm. We formed our own realm because we wanted to spread SA.

Also, Morek never imposed SA on any realm that did not first attack or otherwise antagonize Sanguis Astroism on purpose. In fact, it was quite a long time after SA's founding that any of that kind of thing happened at all.

Caerwyn did not.

That's Caerwyn's problem. Or, more probably, VE's problem. VE could have gotten together colony expeditions. Caerwyn had the nobility available to form Asylon. Why didn't the VE followers in Caerwyn get together and take Echiur for themselves? Or Itau? Or Via? These were great places for the VE followers to expand into, and set up shop for themselves. But they didn't. Why not? Didn't they care about expanding their faith? Maybe they just weren't invested in the faith enough to bother, or maybe the faith wasn't invested enough in expanding its power and influence to make the call to do this?

Why did the western religions fail? Well, for one, they *did* face more competition. The Seven were small, isolated, and died on their own.

The Seven was actually quite large in Springdale.

There were many realms in the North-East, but just one religion for almost all of its history. In contrast, there were few realms in the west, and they almost all had their own religion, if not two, plus the faith some of them imported from their original realms. Natural SA expansion competed with VE in Caerwyn.

Given that Caerwyn forbid preaching SA, and forbid all SA temples, even forcing one lord to tear down an SA temple, I find it hard to believe that there was ever much more than a token peasant following in any Caerwyn regions. There were almost always a majority of VE followers in all the northern regions of Caerwyn. At times Astrum's southern border regions had more VE followers than SA followers. After the war with Caerwyn started, in fact, several priests that came to Astrum to help in the war effort remarked on how many VE followers there were across Astrum's southern borders.

They did not have the "exact same opportunities", not by a longshot. SA was in one of the four founding realms.

So was the Seven, and the Order of St. Iestyn. And whatever that religion was in Madina, the one imported from Atamara. Estianism, maybe? I think it has since fallen apart on Dwilight, and I can't remember. So apparently being in a founding realm wasn't that much of a bonus.

The western colonies came in way, way later.

And when they were formed, SA really wasn't there in any strength at all. It still isn't in most of them.

As for "if x, then do y", SA has the lamest one of them all. "If (time of year), then (have this mood more)". Great theology to be proud of, there...

Makes for a great RP device. Need some inspiration on what your character could be doing right now? Pop open the phases of the Bloodstars, and see what they say. Is it a bit gimmicky? Sure. But it's also easy for players to grasp, and doesn't require a study of someone else's made-up theology to use.

Don't get me wrong, SA is a great model for a "successful" religion. I just don't consider it to be a "good" religion, because I don't believe any normal human could be even remotely spiritually satisfied by its teaching, or that such a religion could have the same scope of success had it happened in the real world in the middle ages.

Meh.... It would be absurd to think that any religion made up in BattleMaster could possibly be a real world religion. But that's not the key point. The key point is whether or not the religions are fun for the players that have characters in them. Most religions in the game aren't fun. They just exist. And "just existing" isn't fun.

New religions sprung up, Eretzism re-emerged. The one that replaced the Old Gods tried to expand, but we'll see what that gives. Qyrvaggism and Alluran were preached in now-pagan Enweil lands to stir up trouble and help Rio in their war. Otherwise, not much as far as I know.

Back when Alluran was founded for the first time, and then again for the second time, it was always a hollow shell. It never had anything in it worth a damn. Even the founder said "I'm leaving all this empty. It's up to the people in it to develop all the content." And without even the most basic framework to go from, it never went anywhere at all. It was a big flop from the start. I'd imagine this third incarnation is probably the same.

Not having an "afterlife" in the end of it isn't the same as lacking theology on the afterlife: the theology just clearly says "there is no afterlife". No human being would seriously devote his life to a religion that says "Well, you know, maybe this, or maybe that, but really, we don't know what happens after death", especially in those days.

What makes for a good RL religion isn't necessarily what makes a good in-game religion. The two fulfill completely different needs.

[Chenier]

Would any game religion pass IRL? No, of course no, no one has the time to develop a religion to that extent. However, with a bit of suspense of disbelief, and can imagine that if there is enough written on the key fundamental questions, then there are answers, "unwritten", on most of the rest.

If there's nothing to work on, however, I cannot suspend disbelief to tell myself that such a religion would give satisfying answers to the fundamental questions of life.

Fun doesn't make "good", in my book. You can have a bunch of nobles actively preaching about how squirrels will end us and about how we must worship the holy badger while wearing pink tutus, and RP a bunch around that and actively spread it. Could be fun. Would be stupid as hell, though, and wouldn't qualify as "good" in my book simply because it is fun.

Does a lot of theology text result in a lot of tl;dr? Yes, of course. But then again, I'd bet most SA players never really read the few SA texts there are either, and almost all of them never contributed to developping RP. So what's your point, if the end result is the same in both cases? At least when there is established theology, those who did bother can lecture others on the proper way of doing things. Hell, at least there is a determined proper way of doing things, for those who cared enough to look it up. When in the Cult, I had on many occasions people come ask questions to me about this or that, obviously not having read the wiki. It was a great opportunity to link various bits of lore with current events, and therefore publish new lore or documents. Indeed, a lot of texts you can see on the cult's wiki didn't just come out of my ass on day 1, it was the result of interaction with others.

I 100% disagree that intentionally leaving more blanks than text makes a religion better. It's certainly a key to success to not have any arbitrary rules as RL religions have as even the smallest rule will turn away some people, but that just makes for a !@#$ty (even if successful) religion. A good religion should feel like it could have been a real western religion in the days.

[Silverhawk]

The Seven was actually quite large in Springdale.

Don't make me laugh, unless something happend after my character (The founder) passed away. It had 5-7 nobles at it's peak days. Yes it had a big temple, but after the contributing (and paying) Duke disapeared it went downhill. To oppose SA it was a couple of months (maybe weeks) to late. Most likely it could have survived in a way.

If all you are after is min/maxing your character, then the religion aspect of the game is not for you. It's just that simple, and nothing can change that. Period.

And thats the reason most religions fail. Especially after the main driving force behind it (most of the time 1 player) abandons it. I would love to see a religion go from one to another and develop, change. Religions in the real world are not the work of one man, but the contributing parts of many stories, tales, visions.

[Hroppa]

Not that it is exactly the most powerful of religions, but I believe Verdis Elementum on Dwilight has survived its founder's departure.

[Silverhawk]

Survival is not the point, change adaptation, new ideas. Most of the time the creativity dies.