Temporary Lordships for Founding Religion?

[Indirik]

The absolute medieval consensus was that every noble family had the divine right to rule which carried through to their heir.

As has been pointed out in this forum several times, divine right is a relatively modern idea. Most "medieval" rulers, in the time period BattleMaster is set, would not have ruled by divine right.

[Vellos]

A huge problem with this ruling is that it has everything to do with how the situation is worded and pretty much nothing to do with what actually happens.

Yes. That's part of the SMA. You word things as a Medieval. Not as a game-player.

Nobody has a problem with someone attaining a lordship and founding a religion. It's NOT a question of your actions, but of your intentions. If your INTENTION for getting a lordship is explicitly to found a religion, rather than increase your prestige as a higher-ranked landed nobleman, then you are not acting in accord with the SMA, because the lordship requirement for religion is obviously a mechanics issue made so that not every single person can found a religion: only people with established power and prestige can do so.

You're sidestepping my point. Yes becoming a lord was a reward, yes it was hereditary. Titles were transferred by hereditary means far more than by appointment (unless a huge takeover had just happened).

Actually, titles were transferred through renewal of oaths and the paying of homage. Usually by heirs, but the formal title was bestowed through oaths, not precisely blood.

The absolute medieval consensus was that every noble family had the divine right to rule which carried through to their heir.

And that is a 100% false statement in every Medieval society. No Medieval, western European, Christian society believed in divine right or monarchal absolutism. The closest might be Charlemagne's title as Holy Emperor of the Romans (NOT the same as the Holy Roman Emperor, mind you, which was elected), or perhaps Caesaropapism. Outside of western Christianity, the Byzantine Emperors occupied a special place, and could perhaps be loosely analogized to divine right. They did after all take titles like "Autokrator" and "Despotes." The various Caliphates could also be seen as somewhat like divine right. But certainly western European medieval Roman Catholic states did not regard the king as possessing absolute divine right.

It absolutely does have any OOC connotation whatsoever. My conduct was completely in character, handled with other characters.

But you cannot give an IC justification for why you need to be a lord to found the religion. Therefore, it is an OOC question.

[Bedwyr]

But you cannot give an IC justification for why you need to be a lord to found the religion. Therefore, it is an OOC question.

Yes, you can.  Only the Lord can build in the region.  You have to build a temple for your religion.

SMA takes a second seat to the game, because the game trumps RP.  We talk about combat strength in SMA.  We have instant letters in SMA.  You can't build buildings in a region without being a lord.  There's no way to explain any of that IC, so we work around it where possible.

We don't ask why people can only recruit in the capital, despite there being no possible way to justify that IC.  Is it against SMA to tell people to go to the capital and recruit, then?  No, because that's how the game works.

The game demands that you have a certain amount of pull to found a religion.  If you can get appointed to a region, that's the pull the game demands.

[Hyral]

Yes, you can.  Only the Lord can build in the region.  You have to build a temple for your religion.

But is there IC justification for why you have to be the lord who builds the temple? The arguments for that seem to be mostly OOC stuff, credit and fame points.

[Indirik]

When you found a religion, you are given in-game some text. This is it:

* Become the enlightened founder of a new religion... - There is no law about this action in your realm.

If you click the link, you are given this text:

Code Select Expand

As the Duchess of Akanos, you can order the construction of a temple belonging to a religion that was unknown so far.
In doing so, you will automatically become its first prophet.

You will automatically switch to the priest class and lose your region command, your unit and your rank.
That is the price of founding a new religion.

So if you are the founder, you are also the prophet. And the first priest. This all has religious implications. It's not that the guy who builds the temple simply happens to be some random bloke who signs the building permit. He's the Holy Prophet. The man who tells you what god wants you to do. That's the RP aspect of losing your lordship: You give up your worldly concerns to dedicate your life to the gods.

And if he's not the Holy Prophet and priest of the faith, then why does he lose the lordship for signing the building permit?

And let's face it, everyone wants credit for their work. That's why the game gives the founder the fame. Because it's his religion.

[egamma]

But is there IC justification for why you have to be the lord who builds the temple? The arguments for that seem to be mostly OOC stuff, credit and fame points.

Apparently, nobody else wants to found the religion and lose their lordship doing so--there's nothing stopping them from reading the forum, RPing that they met a prophet on his deathbed/received a divine vision/etc, and founding the religion before Shane does.

[Shenron]

Nobody has a problem with someone attaining a lordship and founding a religion. It's NOT a question of your actions, but of your intentions. If your INTENTION for getting a lordship is explicitly to found a religion, rather than increase your prestige as a higher-ranked landed nobleman, then you are not acting in accord with the SMA, because the lordship requirement for religion is obviously a mechanics issue made so that not every single person can found a religion: only people with established power and prestige can do so.

Thats very wishful thinking. Whether you like it your not, the majority (and I'm talking about 99% of people) in battlemaster RP their character how they want and worry about historical correctness later. The fact of the matter is, character and player intentions are not so different: therefor we must provide concrete rules backed by game mechanics of what SMA means. If I decide Shin has a holy vision and wants to brith a new religion, it is IN CHARACTER, whether you think it's SMA or not. This fact you simply must understand, and it isn't hard, it's how BM has been played forever. Calling this an OOC thing is giving a free pass to all the clans and powergamers that really do exist out there.

You have done the same thing as Ramiel by not actually addressing my point: my point being that BM is nowhere near a medieval atmosphere and societies within BM absolutely do not reflect medieval society. Therefore, I believe SMA as more of language and courtesy and peasant hating. This is because enforcing political SMA is unrealistic for the reasons I have already mentioned.

But you cannot give an IC justification for why you need to be a lord to found the religion. Therefore, it is an OOC question.

I can give perfect IC justification. Shin wants to make a religion, he needs a region to do so. It's really that simple. To pretend BM has ever been played differently is just a stretch of the imagination.

[Hyral]

As the Duchess of Akanos, you can order the construction of a temple belonging to a religion that was unknown so far.
In doing so, you will automatically become its first prophet.

Drats, game-text thwarts roleplay once again...

But I worry about those religions that have stories of prophets from past ages, if that is the case.

[Vellos]

my point being that BM is nowhere near a medieval atmosphere and societies within BM absolutely do not reflect medieval society. Therefore, I believe SMA as more of language and courtesy and peasant hating.

Not to be an !@#$%^&, but I'll be an !@#$%^& and say: then don't play in SMA places. You clearly don't get it. If you don't plan on altering your playing style and objectives for SMA areas, just don't play in them. As Tim has noted, the Titans on Dwilight do not approve of temporary lordships. It IS a violation of the SMA.

I quote from the wiki page on the Serious Medieval Atmosphere:
If the only reason you do something is game-mechanics, you should probably not do it.
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Serious_Medieval_Atmosphere#Don.27ts

Again, you cannot provide an RP reason why lordship is necessarily connected to religious prophesy (unless you have a theological argument suggesting that God only speaks to lords, for example, that might be plausible): you have no reason for seeking a lordship other than the game-mechanics, and you don't have any intention of holding the lordship. So clarify for me again what your IC, RPed explanation for seeking this lordship is?

Solomon did not found Judaism, and was not its prophet, nor even the high priest. The first person to build a church was not Jesus nor even Peter, nor did Justinian found Eastern Orthodoxy. The Kaabah predates Mohammed, and Hindu traditions predate the great Hindu temples. Buddh wasn't an architect.

I cannot think of any historical example whereby the construction of a temple indicated a person's prophetic status. I would imagine the game includes that text because we have no other mechanic for ensuring that religions do not proliferate out of control: but arguing that the founder necessarily must be the prophet is just silly, especially in an SMA context, where every historical example would indicate that religions are founded well before the construction of temples.

Calling this an OOC thing is giving a free pass to all the clans and powergamers that really do exist out there.

Please do not exaggerate. It does nothing of the kind. Nobody here has said anything endorsing powergaming or clanning.

[Bedwyr]

Vellos,

Read the text Indirik posted.

[Vellos]

Bedwyr,

I did. It makes no difference. Laws exist when they are interpreted. Titans have punished temporary lordships, and they are the nearest thing we have to a legal interpretive system.

I will reiterate: there is no religion in the entire world wherein the first temple-builder is also the prophet. It makes good sense for game balance to restrict religion-founding to lords. It would seem necessary for the game to offer some explanatory text, and such text is indeed offered. Usually, that text would explain it pretty clearly. In most circumstances, the first prophet probably is the founder. But to suggest that text is intended to imply that the founder must always in all places be the first prophet is not only odd and not in keeping with what seems a reasonable explanation of that text, but also falsifiable. Qyrvaggism's first prophet was not it's founder. Nor was it's second. Nor was its third. Its founder was a contemporary of its third prophet, but was in fact never a prophet.

Therefore, an instance exists wherein the founder was not the primary spiritual leader. No complaint was lodged by any party, and it was evidently within the spirit of the game. Given this, that text obviously cannot mean that the founder must be the first prophet, as a religion exists wherein the founder was not the first prophet, and that religion was not regarded as invalid or in violation.

Therefore, that text does not exist for the purpose of identifying what spiritual role the founder must play, but rather for offering some guidance for people and so the option isn't a blank field.

Therefore, it does not make sense to deploy that text as the final authority on whether or not being the founder of a religion logically necessitates being the prophet of a religion.

Therefore, it is possible to use "therefore" many times in one post.

[Bedwyr]

But to suggest that text is intended to imply that the founder must always in all places be the first prophet is not only odd and not in keeping with what seems a reasonable explanation of that text, but also falsifiable. Qyrvaggism's first prophet was not it's founder. Nor was it's second. Nor was its third. Its founder was a contemporary of its third prophet, but was in fact never a prophet.

"In doing so, you will automatically become its first prophet."

That's not an implication.  That's an outright statement.  Game trumps RP.  I personally don't see anything wrong with how you did Qyrvaggism, but it's more of a violation than the alleged SMA violation of a temporary lordship.  The game outright states the founder is the first prophet.

[De-Legro]

And its a bit of a special case. Didn't Qyrvaggism exist before the game mechanics supporting religion? Either way we could take it to mean the first prophet recognised by the larger continent society, as evidenced by the religion being granted official standing and a recognised center of worship.

[Vellos]

"In doing so, you will automatically become its first prophet."

That's not an implication.  That's an outright statement.  Game trumps RP.  I personally don't see anything wrong with how you did Qyrvaggism, but it's more of a violation than the alleged SMA violation of a temporary lordship.  The game outright states the founder is the first prophet.

That logic would also suggest that all religions must be prophetic religions. So, for example, if a founder is the spiritual leader, but not a "prophet," I suppose you would also object? All BM religions must be prophetic religions, without backstory, wherein whoever builds the first temple must be the prophet?

And you think that's what Tom intends in that text? The main religion of Medieval Europe, Christianity, does not fit any part of that description.

[Bedwyr]

That logic would also suggest that all religions must be prophetic religions. So, for example, if a founder is the spiritual leader, but not a "prophet," I suppose you would also object? All BM religions must be prophetic religions, without backstory, wherein whoever builds the first temple must be the prophet?

And you think that's what Tom intends in that text? The main religion of Medieval Europe, Christianity, does not fit any part of that description.

You might read the rest of my response.  I'm not the one arguing to restrict IC behaviour: You are.  As long as the matter is done IC rather than OOC, I see no problem with it.  But if you want to get bitchy over technical details, Qyrvaggism is more of a violation because you're disregarding what the game tells you for RP, which is a big no-no.