Rules/policies question

[Velax]

Is it against any rules or policies (specifically, the placeholder lord policy) for a lord to step down so another can be appointed to accomplish a set task, then have that lord step down so the original may retake his position?

For instance, if we wanted a temple of every religion on the continent built in a particular city (to create a Religious Quarter and promote religious tolerance, which the realm is big on), but the current lord cannot do it because he's the head of a religion (can't really ask them to quit a religion to join another to build a temple to it when he's the leader). Would it be fine for that lord to step down and another to take his place to build the temples and then step down when he's done?

[Tom]

Have you thought about WHY there is this limitation to only building temples for your own religion and that it might serve a gameplay purpose?

[Indirik]

I'm fairly certain that punishments have been handed out for something like this when it involved founding a religion.

It seems to me to be deliberate circumvention of game mechanics. "Only lords can build temples" is not just to make coding easier. It is a deliberate restriction on who can build temples. A series a benchwarmer lords who's sole tak is to build a temple and then step down seems a pretty obvious and deliberate circumvention of the game mechanics.

[vonGenf]

For those interested, this is related to this question:

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3995.0.html

[Anaris]

Well, I know that I, personally, have been punished by the Titans in the past for being involved in exactly this sort of transaction.

So yes, there has at least been a time when using a temporary lord to build a temple has been considered a bad enough circumvention of game mechanics to result in a temporary account lock.

[Velax]

Have you thought about WHY there is this limitation to only building temples for your own religion and that it might serve a gameplay purpose?

Honestly? I hadn't. Can you tell me what the gameplay purpose is?

This wasn't intended to gain any sort of unfair advantage or circumvent any mechanics. We just wanted to create a religious district with a number of temples in it. Something that we could do RPs about and add flavour to the city and to our realm.

[Tom]

This wasn't intended to gain any sort of unfair advantage or circumvent any mechanics. We just wanted to create a religious district with a number of temples in it. Something that we could do RPs about and add flavour to the city and to our realm.

And you think that happened in a time where killing people for having the wrong religion was about as normal as going shopping?

[Velax]

Perhaps not, but it is something that happens in game. Having temples to more than one religion in the same region is quite common. In Kindara, for instance, 25% of the realm's regions have more than one temple in it. It is not something that is prevented by the game.

[Anaris]

Perhaps not, but it is something that happens in game. Having temples to more than one religion in the same region is quite common. In Kindara, for instance, 25% of the realm's regions have more than one temple in it. It is not something that is prevented by the game.

Which does not in any way mean that the game supports trying to get temples of loads of different religions built in a single region.

The way for that to happen is over time, as different people own the region who belong to different religions.

[Eldargard]

Would something like this be out of the question?

King: Margrave, you are ordered to initiate the construction of a temple of X. I have decided that there shall be a temply of every religion in the city.
Margrave: I can not, Your Majesty, do such a thing in good conscious. The mere idea of exposing my people to such a religion prevents me from complying.
King: How dare you refuse my will!
King: Duke, Your Margrave has openly refused a Royal Order. Have this Margrrave of yours replaced by one who will do as ordered.
Duke: Yes Oh King.
King: New Margrave, build my darn Temple now!
New Margrave: Of course Your Majesty, it is about time these people are exposed to the true faith.
King: Whatever. I have little interest in your religious views. Just build that temple temple.

This assumes the king holds enough sway with the Duke, Judge and population to push something like that through. The premiss is that the king has what he feels is a good reason to build such a religious sector. Some perceived diplomatic or bureaucratic advantage. This would also suggest that the king is not strongly tied to their own faith.

[Penchant]

Would something like this be out of the question?

King: Margrave, you are ordered to initiate the construction of a temple of X. I have decided that there shall be a temply of every religion in the city.
Margrave: I can not, Your Majesty, do such a thing in good conscious. The mere idea of exposing my people to such a religion prevents me from complying.
King: How dare you refuse my will!
King: Duke, Your Margrave has openly refused a Royal Order. Have this Margrrave of yours replaced by one who will do as ordered.
Duke: Yes Oh King.
King: New Margrave, build my darn Temple now!
New Margrave: Of course Your Majesty, it is about time these people are exposed to the true faith.
King: Whatever. I have little interest in your religious views. Just build that temple temple.

This assumes the king holds enough sway with the Duke, Judge and population to push something like that through. The premiss is that the king has what he feels is a good reason to build such a religious sector. Some perceived diplomatic or bureaucratic advantage. This would also suggest that the king is not strongly tied to their own faith.

Would Tom be ok with? Probably. Is out of the question? Yes.  That's ridiculous. I hate not allowing Velax's on the grounds of what a noble would do. This isn't an SMA island, so there is no reason to restrict actions purely based on what a medieval noble would. Pretty much no one acts how Tom describes on FEI, so its dumb that the lord be expected to randomly tell the ruler to !@#$ off not because of anything IG, but because of how a noble would act, ie SMA on a non-SMA island.

[Eldargard]

Honestly, I do not really get non-SMA. I try to play all characters in a SMA compatible way. What makes non-SMA?

[Gustav Kuriga]

SMA operates on Tom's assumption of what is considered medieval atmosphere. Whether or not that has complete basis in reality tends to depend on the person you ask.

[vonGenf]

King: Margrave, you are ordered to initiate the construction of a temple of X. I have decided that there shall be a temply of every religion in the city.
Margrave: I can not, Your Majesty, do such a thing in good conscious. The mere idea of exposing my people to such a religion prevents me from complying.
King: How dare you refuse my will!
King: Duke, Your Margrave has openly refused a Royal Order. Have this Margrrave of yours replaced by one who will do as ordered.
Duke: Yes Oh King.
King: New Margrave, build my darn Temple now!
New Margrave: Of course Your Majesty, it is about time these people are exposed to the true faith.
King: Whatever. I have little interest in your religious views. Just build that temple temple.

I think that's perfectly fine. The problem would come if the old Lord was reinstated right after the construction of the new temple. Dismissing a Lord for religious reasons is allowed.

[vonGenf]

Honestly, I do not really get non-SMA. I try to play all characters in a SMA compatible way. What makes non-SMA?

The non-placeholder rule applies on all islands, so technically this isn't a SMA matter.

However, if you want an application of SMA in that context, it's much more about the serious part. When you name a Lord, it's supposed to be for life. Yes, of course there are ways to remove him, but replacing a Lord is a very serious matter. You can't tell the Lord "just vacate the place for a few weeks please, I'll give it back to you afterwards". Being a Lord is not like having a job; if you're not a Lord you're just a landless knight. It'd be like telling a King "would you mind not being King for 2 weeks please?"