Message #9675

[Stue (DC)]

I agree with the general idea of this. I wouldn't say that everyone wants to "dominate", because I don't think that "dominate" is always quite the right word. But yes, religions want to convert everyone to believe the way they do.

I disagree. And I think the people that play the Church of Ibladesh would probably disagree. And the Flow of the Balance. (And the people fighting them, too!) And, of course, Sanguis Astroism.

Well, I would remind  that you did not find good examples of the subject, as both Astroism and CoI based their power on theocratic states. What I am talking about are competing powers, not jointed powers, that create even more monopoly and less competition, that is religions that will be able to compete other powers and be somewhat independent. Flow could be good example if I did not learn that two rich dukes have their own brothers (what a coincidence among the most important elders, which again lead to few-size-all power instead of competing powers. Again, that is not so much because of power-hungry players, but because of mechanics, where insufficiently powerful positions can only function if bolstered with additional titles, which simply works against idea of team-play, by design.

If religions had the power to have a net positive income, then they would become another tool of the state. They would be just another revenue stream for the realm-based war machine. The need to have powerful patrons is definitely intentional.

On contrary, to the maximum extent! If religions had net positive income, they could influence realms, play their own little games, being not dependent on realms, and to some extent being not dependent on landed lords. Of course, landed lords can limit their influence in many ways, but the sole fact that religions do not need to beg for money, but have some of their own income would provide much more depth to plots, calculations, power plays etc. All of that is non-existent for beggars.


If you want to have big temples, support lots of followers, and have the big power that comes with it, then you have to have the gold to support it. And you're not going to get that gold by asking farmers and blacksmiths to hand over 10% of their meager incomes. You get the rich, powerful nobles to hand over 10% of *their* incomes.

Power, and the organization and labor that comes with it and that it requires, costs money.


If we had competing powers, lot of preaching and bringing lot of followers should bring some funds, I am not advocating funds comparable to region income at all, I am just talking about some funds. While dukes can sit in their region forever, doing very little over basic food arrangement, priests need to endlessly wander around preaching and taking care of follower levels, so why that would not be rewarded with some funds. Mere rank which competes very hard work, competing ways to earn funds.

So the mongols, huns, etc., never got a single coin in pay, at all? Never had someone give them a sword/bow and some armor or clothes? Not even through looting the conquered lands?

Mongols and huns depended on spiritual arrangement much more than on funds, and if game could be designed in way that armies could be self-sustainable by mere looting, that would be indeed fun, but I cannot imagine how complex it would be to find balance. Again, i was trying to talk about having possibility to reach the same goals with different ways instead of being hanged on gold transfers only. the game world is so deep, and I believe tweaks without any revolutionary changes could reach that, not in the case of looting but in come other mentioned examples.

I thought you wanted diversity, and multiple paths to the same ends? Now when you have it, you say that having one makes the other invalid.

I am trying to advocate diversity all the time, and if you see some discrepancy, please be exact.

However, these two abilities are a bit different. Priests pay a cost in followers, diplomats in gold. Priests also have a wider range of options, while diplomats only affect sympathy.

Priests lose lot of followers, and net loss is big compared to what they achieve, while diplomats, again, lose gold only.
I have one priest char that possibly reached all skill available to noble human being, experimented much, but all kind of influences were mostly disappointing. priest can risk his life to cause unrest in region that is on occupied control already, but will not cause revolt, being less influential than simple looting. it is also disappointing that months of influencing rogue regions will rarely raise morale, for instance, as it probably reverts back every day.

If people aren't interested in what is intended to be an RP heavy mode of play, then we can't force them to be interested. All you'll get is a mouthing of the required phrases to meet the minimum requirements, while they move on and do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. (Interestingly enough, this is what you can claim many people do with real world religions, too. So maybe this would make us more realistic.)

As I mentioned, people would be more interested if all that talk would have at least some influence on mundane world, otherwise it really resembles some self-sufficient religious fanaticism


RTO and auto da fe are the two most visible, and powerful, of a priests abilities. They are not the only two. The ability to calm population, cause unrest, and influence the commoner's thoughts are also powerful as well, when properly used. All of these can be used to gain influence with the realm, and with the other faithful.

With religion dependent on outside funding, priests are reduced to some second-grade courtiers, and in many realms they are openly treated that way. Again with religion who beg even RTO is reduced to some attachment to army actions, instead of being tool of elders power-play, which could complicate situation to many.


That is simply ridiculous. A duke that participates in his religion, and has his region converted to his own faith, or a significant part of it, will not suffer any problems from religion. (And, actually, so long as the peasants do not follow some *other* organized religion, he won't have any problems then, either.) Nor is this a "profane tool". Didn't you say at the start that everyone who is in a religion wants to convert everyone to his own faith? How is this profane? You *can* use it for profane purposes. But that doesn't mean you *will* use it that way.

I will try to rephrase in  simple way - dukes use faith either as their decorative element or they ignore it. they are not even slightly pushed to take care of it even if they don't like it, at least on level they are pushed to take care of trade (where balance is not so good as well, rural lords are mostly poor beggars, while holding the most important non-city regions)

Stop making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. A quick survey of BT shows that 2/3rds of the dukes of cities follow an established, in-game religion.

ok, that could be one of such, so do not use plural  i damit to not have relevant statistics, but my chars are really running around many realms, and all I see is their observation.
to be punctual in 4 realms where i am in, there are only few dukes who follow any religion.

So just because a peasant doesn't follow an "officially established" faith, they are a lazy, unruly, unproductive mob that hates the establishment? I could perhaps see the numbers of pagans being added to the number of peasants that "are upset that their lord doesn't agree with their faith". Unless the lord himself is a "pagan". But to just have "pagan" peasants be unruly mobs makes no sense.

yes, they should have reduced food/gold productivity, say 80% of those who follow any faith, as religion was only real incentive for them, their pay was sufficient for bare living, they could never earn something  or create financial reserves, spend their whole life in such a manner, (interestingly some in south america still live that way), i think it could be historically justified


Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on this? What type of balancing powers would you like to see?

I am trying to talk about that all the time, but this is moment to summarize:

- religions, financially independent, self sustainable power , with enough hard work in preaching and taking care of things (not frequent logging, of course, but long dedication to preaching etc.)
- council members, whose mere rank has enough power to oppose landed lord rather than being completely dependent on them

it would be ideal that both mentioned have ability to be powerful enough to not care for landed positions for themselves. that way much more nobles would be in positions on power, and they would naturally compete to each other, as all of them would have limitation to their powers. compare to current situation where almost everything is relied upon landed lord sponsorship.
the only exception are property taxes, but they are very limited currently and can easily be avoided.
i believe one single change, non-revolutionary tweak (which is even accepted by tom if i remember well) - realm council that can directly tax cities would make major difference.

together with influential religions  that are not directly dependent on landed lords to the extent they are currently, that would create many natural tensions that we would not need "too much peace" code at all in my opnion as nonone would be able to control everythign as there would be too much competing powers for that.