Religion is missing something?

[Indirik]

Yet, I still believe the Church is not powerful enough. A Duke will always have more influence than a priest.

Until that priest has the Duke kicked out of the church for heresy, and then removes the duke form his office via auto da fe.

And if the priest can't get the duke kicked out of his office for heresy or other such offenses against the church, then the priest doesn't deserve to be more powerful than the duke.,

Power in BattleMaster is about the influence you can wield, not the buttons you can push.

[Aldwoni]

I don't know it is already in the game but isn't it a good idea to punish the player who believe in pagan believes?
for example their unit's morale will not rise above 80% or something like that?

[Galvez]

Until that priest has the Duke kicked out of the church for heresy, and then removes the duke form his office via auto da fe.

And if the priest can't get the duke kicked out of his office for heresy or other such offenses against the church, then the priest doesn't deserve to be more powerful than the duke.,

Power in BattleMaster is about the influence you can wield, not the buttons you can push.

Auto da fe doesn't make you the next Duke. And if you do not have the support of the Judge and Ruler this could mean an instant ban. Beaten again by the feudal hierarchy. Or the charges of heresy must have broad support of the feudal hierarchy. Then it might be possible, but only in a theocracy.

However, when I said that a priest will never have more influence than a Duke is because we do not treat the priests as the speaking-tube of the Gods, the bringers of the Divine word. In medieval history they were more influential. And we do not see them as their medieval counterparts.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

There's no inherent fear in whatever powers the priests represent. It is inconvenient and very annoying to take out a religion and its priests, but there's no damnation, or eternal torture, etc. As far as some players can be concerned, taking on a religion can be a fight against the game mechanics that established a following in certain regions, with certain characters that can make use of such faith. The words exchanged to them would appear to be a funny little embellishment but otherwise mean nothing.

There are also other cases where the priests are actually respected and do hold influence. However, those are rare, and why not? In medieval Europe pretty much only the Catholic Church mattered, I think. Since there have been people clamoring for realism, then here's some realism: Most religions don't get that big. Expect about a 1 in a couple thousand chance that your religion gets any significant amount of followers. But once you do hit that spot, then you have significant power. Up to you how to use it.

[Indirik]

Auto da fe doesn't make you the next Duke.

So you only have more power than the duke if you can kick them out *and* take their lordship for yourself?

And if you do not have the support of the Judge and Ruler this could mean an instant ban.

Or you are protected by your liege lord with +3 or more good marks. Or you're not a member of that duke's realm.

But that's also beside the point. You expect to be able to completely upset the feudal hierarchy by taking action against a Duke of the realm  to remove him from his feudal seat without support of the rest of the feudal hierarchy and not suffer any consequences? Do you really think that if some no-name pastoral priest walked into England and tried to drum the peasants up into a rabid mob to kick out the Duke of York that the King of England wouldn't have stopped it and clapped that idiot priest in chains and tossed him in the dungeon?

Beaten again by the feudal hierarchy. Or the charges of heresy must have broad support of the feudal hierarchy.

Again: If you can't do it, then you're demonstrably not more powerful than the duke. Therefore you have no right whatsoever to be able to depose him. As a priest, your power is based on your influence and RP abilities, not the buttons you can push. Just because you happen to be a priest of a religion does NOT give you limitless power. You still have to play the game to get things done.

Then it might be possible, but only in a theocracy.

This is false. I have seen it done in realms other than theocracies.

However, when I said that a priest will never have more influence than a Duke is because we do not treat the priests as the speaking-tube of the Gods, the bringers of the Divine word. In medieval history they were more influential. And we do not see them as their medieval counterparts.

You are the ruler of a realm, correct? (And you have been a ruler of large realms in the past, as well.)  So what are you personally doing to give priests this power in your realm? Do you personally give priests this power? If a priest of Triunism, and a noble of Barca, walked into Rettleville and kicked out your Duke, would you go along with it? Or would you have that priest banned?

[Galvez]

I believe we are wandering off. The point I was trying to make is that the word of priests weight little compared to that of a Duke. Because the balance between the feudal hierarchy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy is disrupted by our modern view on religion. In my opinion, the Church must rule the feudal hierarchy, and not the other way around. The example you gave requires the full support of the feudal hierarchy, meaning they voluntary want to get rid of the Duke. Then the initiative comes from the crown, 'asking' the church to charge the Duke with heresy and to undo him from his feudal seat.

But if the Church finds reason to believe the Duke is a heretic, then there is no way to pressure the crown because the common nobility will always be more loyal to the feudal than the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

[Indirik]

I believe we are wandering off. The point I was trying to make is that the word of priests weight little compared to that of a Duke. Because the balance between the feudal hierarchy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy is disrupted by our modern view on religion.

That's not the problem of the game. It's a problem with the players. You need to find a way to fix that in-game. I have seen it work in-game, so I know it can be done.

In my opinion, the Church must rule the feudal hierarchy, and not the other way around. The example you gave requires the full support of the feudal hierarchy, meaning they voluntary want to get rid of the Duke. Then the initiative comes from the crown, 'asking' the church to charge the Duke with heresy and to undo him from his feudal seat.

But if the Church finds reason to believe the Duke is a heretic, then there is no way to pressure the crown because the common nobility will always be more loyal to the feudal than the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

If it can't go the other way, with the church pressing charges of heresy (or whatever) against the duke, and making it hold up against the feudal hierarchy, then your church is not strong enough, and has no business trying to kick out the duke.

What you're describing isn't a problem with religion itself. It's a problem of the players' attitude toward religion. Religion can be very powerful, if the players are willing to go along with it. It is up to the religion's players to convince the realm's players to do that. But really, that's the same that it is even with any council positions, too. If the people in the realm don't want to go along with the council, they can ignore them or kick them out of office.

This is not something that game mechanics can fix. It is something that will have to be solved by player attitudes.

[Gustav Kuriga]

For example, take Sanguis Astroism. At one time, the Church was choosing the Judge position for Xinhai (now Morek Empire). That places the balance of power squarely in the Church's position. This was not a game mechanics thing, but pure RP.

[Galvez]

What you're describing isn't a problem with religion itself. It's a problem of the players' attitude toward religion.

I know it is mostly the players' attitude towards religion. But because guilds and religions are for most part a role-played institution, most players will always be more loyal to the structured hierarchy of the feudal system.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I know it is mostly the players' attitude towards religion. But because guilds and religions are for most part a role-played institution, most players will always be more loyal to the structured hierarchy of the feudal system.

If you were a part of SA, you would know this to be false. Many nobles are as loyal, if not more, as they are to their realm. I believe that if any ruler of Astrum or Morek were to change the government from a Theocracy to another, the nobles of each would get into a raging fury.

[Indirik]

I know it is mostly the players' attitude towards religion. But because guilds and religions are for most part a role-played institution, most players will always be more loyal to the structured hierarchy of the feudal system.

My theory is that it's communication based. At the basic level, most players identify with the people they communicate closest with. That is primarily done right now through the realm.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Barring SA when discussing the Prophet's fallibility.

[Draco Tanos]

I confess, I'm a tad biased in my desire to see religion strengthened, but there are two things I would love to see:

1)  Giving religions (or rather, the elder priests of said religion) the option to excommunicate a lord.  This would make the followers of the lord's faith in that region more likely to revolt against them/increase unrest. 

2)  Encourage joining a religion by essentially making it so Lords would have to join at least SOME religion to maintain control.  Pretty sure most peasants would rather have a lord of a heathen/opposing faith than an atheist in charge.  In this period of time, atheism would be simply unheard of.  And yes, I've seen people claim to be atheists in game before.  Just strikes me as odd for the proposed time period.

[Telrunya]

If you aren't part of a Religion, you simply believe in your own pagan beliefs that aren't organized in any way. You still believe in something though, you always do.

[vonGenf]

I confess, I'm a tad biased in my desire to see religion strengthened, but there are two things I would love to see:

1)  Giving religions (or rather, the elder priests of said religion) the option to excommunicate a lord.  This would make the followers of the lord's faith in that region more likely to revolt against them/increase unrest.

Elders already have the option to excommunicate non-priests members, Lords or not.

2)  Encourage joining a religion by essentially making it so Lords would have to join at least SOME religion to maintain control.  Pretty sure most peasants would rather have a lord of a heathen/opposing faith than an atheist in charge.  In this period of time, atheism would be simply unheard of.  And yes, I've seen people claim to be atheists in game before.  Just strikes me as odd for the proposed time period.

This is already the case: control (or morale or both?) is more difficult to maintain if the religion of the Lord and of the peasants is different.