well certainly... lay members of the religion might not want it advertised. the only odd thing about lord having his faith blasted everywhere... is that duke/ruler/gov members don't.
that.... is not an insurmountable problem. each noble could have a tick box option to show/hide his faith title.
but as stated before... a load of titles doesn't mean jack to anyone who can't see the pecking order tree.
the head of a religion can be the nominal rank 10 (ie.. lowest elder rank) or any rank above that's been reclaimed when founder/former head disappeared... (i think... i don't think the new head is automatically promoted to highest rank)... and given each rank has its own title... showing that title doesn't tell you anything. whereas a generic "head of X" does mean something to everyone else.
What about having both? So the specific title followed by the universal definition.
For example:
Alice Arundel
Vicar of the Flame of Aetheris Pyrism
Head of Aetheris Pyrismor
Brantley Unwin
Knight of Shinnen Purlieus
Blaze Guide of Aetheris Pyrism
Elder of Aetheris Pyrism
Sure, some people's titles would be quite lengthily, but isn't that the whole goal of being a noble? If you have the most titles, then you are most certainly the best noble by your own proclamation. Another reason why I support the more specific title - whilst agreeing with your suggestion - is for personal communication's sake. If I send a letter signing only with "Head of Bob", then I'll have a reply beginning with "Head of Bob"; its as bland as "Priest of Bob". Rulers don't solely sign with "Ruler of Bobland", and neither should heads of religion.
the head of a religion doesn't have to be a priest.. how does that fit in with titles? eg.. you could have a lay member at highest rank pulling strings with a priest fronting the religion. no one outside the religion would know. (unless advertised or informed by those within)
If we were to only replace "Priest of Bob" with specific titles, then I wouldn't see this as a problem. If the priest is a figurehead or a "front" for the religion, then obviously the man pulling the strings wouldn't be as well known to the public of peasants, nor many of the nobles - save if they were told from the inside. Word would eventually get out, but at a much slower pace.
As for why you might not want your titles used in non-religious letters, the perfect example is the Blood Cult on BT. The religion was widely hated, and I would imagine that the people involved did not want to go around advertising their affiliation. This change would force a certain percentage of nobles to advertise their faith whether they want to or not. (And yes, I know that it is public for lords. This is circumventable by not becoming a lord, and it is also a local phenomenon, not broadcast constantly with every letter you send.)
Let us consider this then: the rumors of court, the rumors of the fickle. News traveled quite rapidly in the Medieval times, and it did so by word of mouth. We have to remember that we - the players - are the cream of the crop, the highest nobles. There are minor nobles, merchants, priests, administrators, and peasants that exist in BM as referenced NPC's. In a Temple, it would be highly illogical that it'd be a one man operation, as there would be a plethora of priests and laypersons beneath you. People would naturally know who was who because information was a valuable commodity.
So even if a head and elders of a religion wished to keep their identities secret, I doubt they would be successful should they wish to preach even once. Not to mention, when a religion is created, everyone is notified who made it and where they made it. Not much secrecy there.
It is meant to be optional.
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/SMA#An_Exhortation_Concerning_Good_Order_and_Obedience_to_Rulers_and_MagistratesIt is clear by this example how important religion is. Optional or not, Norrel's point stands true: it can be played parallel while still being equal to the rest of the game, as it should be.
Edits: grammar and vocab choice.
