Temporary Lordships for Founding Religion?

[ó Broin]

Why do the founder of the religion and first prophet of the faith have to necessarily be the same person? In BattleMaster, the action of "founding a religion" is just building a temple. I imagine the faith itself existed before someone decided to put up a building dedicated to it. As to the issue of rank, there are certainly realms where the Dukes are more highly regarded than the ruler, whose "rank" is seen as a fancy, ultimately hollow, title.

The main problem is founders automatically get the highest rank in the religion, and unless they decide to demote themselves, are the most powerful in the religion in pure game mechanics. People are also aiming to get the fame point for founding a religion, so you can understand that a prophet who may have spent considerable time developing the religion isn't so keen to miss out on all that to a Lord that just builds a temple.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Yes, but the Founder can kick anyone in the religion. That may have undesirable consequences, but ultimately he can kick out anyone else there. So the Prophet would have to found another religion if the Founder is a different guy and they have a falling out.

[ó Broin]

Can they boot out priest though? I seem to remember people complaining about how you can kick out a heretical priest, so as long as the prophet is a priest they are safe from that consequence. Course they could be demoted to a special rank that has a large monthly fee.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Ah, no, priests can't be outright kicked out of a religion. I don't think they can be demoted under member rank either. But if a Founder were really so motivated, then yeah, he could set that Prophet to the bottom member rank, give no allowed debt, max the monthly fee, and then the Prophet is basically really restricted compared to what he can do as an elder.

[Hyral]

So the Prophet would have to found another religion if the Founder is a different guy and they have a falling out.

If the Founder has new ideas, and kicks the Prophet out, then there shouldn't be a problem with the prophet having to refound the "true faith" with his supporters.

But I feel like discussing who has more button-power misses the point of religion somewhat. This is religion, after all, you set it up that this guy here is  the Prophet and that has meaning. It's not as though the faithful will quietly sit there while the temple builder abuses the spiritual leader for no reason.

[De-Legro]

Given the nature of most our religions, yeah the faithful probably would just do nothing.

[Anaris]

Temporarily become a lord? That doesn't sound very SMA...  :(

I can say from personal experience that it will result in a temporary lock from the Titans if you try it.

[Vellos]

I can say from personal experience that it will result in a temporary lock from the Titans if you try it.

Was that from experience in Rio? I didn't remember that.

People are also aiming to get the fame point for founding a religion, so you can understand that a prophet who may have spent considerable time developing the religion isn't so keen to miss out on all that to a Lord that just builds a temple.

Temporary lordships to get a fame point? That's not just not SMA. That's more than a little bit against the spirit of the whole game, IMHO. Fame-hunting is annoying enough when it comes in the form of natural gameplay, and genuinely upsets me when people start guilds or religions for the sake of fame.

I've had co-founding roles in 3 religions (Qyrvaggism, Way of the Warrior Saints, Triunism). I have yet to get the fame point. Qyrvaggism was my personal project, but somebody else founded it, which caused some fun in-church intrigue for a while. Ultimately, it's not that bad. Having the prophet institutionally beholden to someone above them is not a crisis or, if it IS a crisis, then it's a nice chance for some real religious conflict.

[Anaris]

Was that from experience in Rio? I didn't remember that.

No, Pian en Luries.  Founding of the Order of St Iestyn.

[Ramiel]

No, Pian en Luries.  Founding of the Order of St Iestyn.

What about the other way around then? a Temporary loss of Lordship. (I heard that one loses their lordship if they found a new religion).

So say Lord A of C was a prophet or w/e and decided to build his temple, but his King/Duke/HoneyBear wanted him to still be lord and quickly installed him again.

Would that be SMA or not?

[Shenron]

Ok. First of all, sorry for raging on my other thread. The reason was because I didn't want my thead hijacked since I would still like collaboration on my religion, I perceived the lack of caring about this fact to be a personal slight. Sorry  :-\

I'm actually quite happy to seriously this discuss this though.

I can say from personal experience that it will result in a temporary lock from the Titans if you try it.

I'm quite worried about this actually. Because I have now described my will to found a religion to my ruler, there seems to be no way to get a lordship and then found a religion without getting bolted. This is because my ruler already knows about my plans to found a religion. 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.

e.g. 1)
- Knight asks council for temporary rule of a region to start his religion.
- Council grants his request
- BOLTED! Shaazaam...

e.g. 2)
- Knight publicly declares his will to create a religion.
- King says, "If you work hard enough to become a lord one day, you'll get the chance"
- Knight gets an easier time being handed the region because the King knows he will step down shortly.

The second problem I have is that SMA should only affect cultural medieval atmospher, not political. Why? Because enforcing political medieval realism is hypocritical to a profound extent. Why? Well consider the following things:

- Democracy/Republic - Nobles are just representatives of the land.
- Tyranny - The ruler has complete controls, he can hand territories to whomever he wants.
- Elected Kings/Appointed Lords - Not medieval at all. If we are going to enforce SMA seriously, Kings, Lords and Dukes should all have heirs.

Anyway. My personal problem seems to be that I have already made known my intentions to start a religion, so how can I now be appointed without getting KAAAZAAAMED! ?

[Anaris]

What about the other way around then? a Temporary loss of Lordship. (I heard that one loses their lordship if they found a new religion).

So say Lord A of C was a prophet or w/e and decided to build his temple, but his King/Duke/HoneyBear wanted him to still be lord and quickly installed him again.

Would that be SMA or not?

That would be just fine.  There's absolutely no problem with a Ruler reappointing a Lord he likes.

[Ramiel]

- Democracy/Republic - Nobles are just representatives of the land.
- Tyranny - The ruler has complete controls, he can hand territories to whomever he wants.
- Elected Kings/Appointed Lords - Not medieval at all. If we are going to enforce SMA seriously, Kings, Lords and Dukes should all have heirs.

Actually thats just semantics. Not all 'Lords' had heirs, some Lords were appointed a region for good service/brown-nosing/killing-people-king-disliked/etc. Lordship was a reward of being a noble and doing 'Service' to the ruler.  I always figure that with with BM its more Dark Ages/Medieval than pure medieval. So appointed lords would fit well. Heck, friendly with the King = Win and Reward.

Elected Kings... wasn't the Holy Roman Emperor elected by the Elector Counts of the Empire? Then there was the French, yes the King managed to make sure his heir was elected and it turned into a formality, but still elected.

I think what people took issue with was your use of the term -Temporary Lordship. It implies OOC planning and discussion and not much RP which goes against the whole SMA. Whereas if you had said, I am going to get myself granted a Lordship and then found a new religion - or for the purpose of founding a religion, I doubt people would have been upset.



Thanks Anaris :)

[Shenron]

Actually thats just semantics. Not all 'Lords' had heirs, some Lords were appointed a region for good service/brown-nosing/killing-people-king-disliked/etc. Lordship was a reward of being a noble and doing 'Service' to the ruler.  I always figure that with with BM its more Dark Ages/Medieval than pure medieval. So appointed lords would fit well. Heck, friendly with the King = Win and Reward.

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).

Elected Kings... wasn't the Holy Roman Emperor elected by the Elector Counts of the Empire? Then there was the French, yes the King managed to make sure his heir was elected and it turned into a formality, but still elected.

Again with the sidestepping. If make a point that kings had heirs, it is not an argument to say "sometimes in some places this wasn't the case." The absolute medieval consensus was that every noble family had the divine right to rule which carried through to their heir.

I think what people took issue with was your use of the term -Temporary Lordship. It implies OOC planning and discussion and not much RP which goes against the whole SMA.

It absolutely does have any OOC connotation whatsoever. My conduct was completely in character, handled with other characters. SMA is a completely different issue, one that I argue I was not explicitly breaching in a BM context of what "medieval" can mean. Please do not confuse SMA and IC/OOC. I'm a very IC player and enjoy roleplay very much, when people begin the OOC accusations it really isn't a good look and is an attempt to argue via ad hominem rather than with any logic. I am open to this discussion of SMA however, but the OOC one  >:(

Whereas if you had said, I am going to get myself granted a Lordship and then found a new religion - or for the purpose of founding a religion, I doubt people would have been upset.

I agree, and I mentioned this earlier in my post. This is part of the problem.

[cjnodell]

It would be cool if a Noble could found a "Canidate Religion." When a region lord builds a temple they could then be given the option of becoming the founder/prophet and lose their position as region lord or instill the creator of a "Canidate Religion" as the founder/prophet and keep his position as region lord. This way the fame point and religious power goes to whomever the founder/prophet is and it still keeps the ability to actually found a religion in the region lords hands.

Under such a system I could see several scenarios on how a new religion could be founded:

1. A region lord decides to found a new religion and become the religion's prophet/founder and gains the fame point.
2. A region lord is convinced to build a temple for a "Candidate Religion" and it's founder/prophet becomes the founder/prophet of the new religion and gains the fame point.