Removal of Priest Immunity

[De-Legro]

We kinda already have that Become a priest, and then you can be as heretical as you want, openly stir dissent and recruit others against the religion, all the while knowing and exploiting the fact that no one in the religion can do a thing about it. Elders have no in-game reason why they can't excommunicate a heretical priest. "He's got the magical collar on, rendering us helpless."

Obviously my intention would be to have the system not be so one sided in favour of the heretic.

[Zakilevo]

Why not just add a special rank called 'Excommunicated' with auto mute within the religion and no available religious actions. Make it a lower rank than a new comer.

[De-Legro]

Why not just add a special rank called 'Excommunicated' with auto mute within the religion and no available religious actions. Make it a lower rank than a new comer.

Because we would need to change the system such that priest can be demoted to and hold ranks lower then a full member?

[Indirik]

No. Chenier didn't request it for only when priests go rogue, he requested to be able to do it whenever which would equate to a warrior being denied by game mechanics to recruit a unit. Priests are like the equivalent of royals in that they can't be banned.

Your argument is completely invalid.

I can deny someone their inalienable right to recruit troops by simply destroying all recruiting centers in my realm.  No rights broken. No recruiting. To a lesser extent, i can deny someone the right to recruit a specific type of unit by making sure or realm had no rcs of that type. Used to be very common with MI.

I can deny someone their right to be an infiltrator by making them go rogue.

I can deny someone the right choose the priest class by refusing to grant them full membership in my religion.

Etc, etc, etc.

[pcw27]

Yup, now we are talking close to equivalence.

The only real problem is that heretics are likely to still attract some sort of following among the faithful, so completely removing their abilities would seem odd, as is telling them to just find a new religion. This is the characters faith, their core belief (at least in most cases, surely there are priests characters that do not really believe in their faith) and yet they should be able to just convert to another religion?

It is far too much work at this stage, but a new system that sees the heretic trying to wage a guerilla religious war against the establishment would be entertaining.

In existing mechanics it's a matter of them getting a player following from the starting religion that can help them establish a new heretical sect.

[Chenier]

No. Chenier didn't request it for only when priests go rogue, he requested to be able to do it whenever which would equate to a warrior being denied by game mechanics to recruit a unit. Priests are like the equivalent of royals in that they can't be banned.

Royals can't be banned... sure. That's kinda how elders can't be removed by lower-ranking elders. I'm not sure what your point is. The ban parallel is fully adequate. And heck, you can also exile royals to prevent them from recruiting. You can also refuse to give them estates so they lack the gold to recruit... Stuff their city with militia if they are lords so that they don't get an income to recruit. Is a trader's IR being violated if nobody puts up sale offers? Is a newbie's IR being violated when his realm has too much peace to allow him to gain enough h/p to pick the subclasses he wants?

I think there is a gross exageration of what the IRs actually cover. The IRs are there to prevent people from telling others how to play. They aren't there to force people to make every path equally viable or attainable.

Telling people not to become warriors is against the IRs, but failing to provide people with income or RCs is not.
Telling people not to become traders is against the IRs, but failing to provide trade offers is not.
Telling people not to recruit from archers is against the IRs, but failing to provide archer RCs is not.
Telling people not to play priests is against the IRs, but providing them a religion to be a priest is should not be considered as such. They can always found their own religion or pick another religion if they want to be a priest.

The rights offer a protection to the individuals, not a duty to the collectivity to heed to every little desire of said individuals.

[Tom]

I don't know how IRs entered this discussion, so let me clear something up:


A game mechanic applied in the way it is intended is never an IR violation. The IRs are a RIGHT, not a natural law. Real-world example, mute people are not deprived of their 1st Amendment Free Speech rights - they simply can't speak.

The IR does specifically not state that you have the right to play any class at any moment. On the contrary, the game limits access to classes in many ways.

The IR define the limits of PLAYER ACTIONS. The right to recruit any unit type of your choice does NOT mean every realm is mandated to provide any type. Likewise, someone who wants to play a priest still needs to find a way to become one.

The IR simply means that players can't go and tell someone WHO BY GAME MECHANICS COULD to not do something that's covered by the IR.



So the whole "you can't kick a priest out of a religion" thing has nothing to do with the IR of playing that class. Banning someone from a realm who is an infiltrator will also make him lose that subclass - no IR violation there.


No, what the game mechanic is intended to do is allow conflict within churches and make sure that priests enjoy some leeway. It's more like tenure.

[Anaris]

So the whole "you can't kick a priest out of a religion" thing has nothing to do with the IR of playing that class. Banning someone from a realm who is an infiltrator will also make him lose that subclass - no IR violation there.

Except that I'm 99.8% sure that you have used exactly that as a reason why we couldn't allow priests to be kicked out of religions, and as a reason why we couldn't allow deportation of priests.

If you really want, I can try and dig up the posts (probably to the dev list) where you said these things...I can certainly accept that you're changing your mind, but please don't try to tell me this was never an issue.

No, what the game mechanic is intended to do is allow conflict within churches and make sure that priests enjoy some leeway. It's more like tenure.

Fine. Then let's make it less absolute. Even a tenured professor can be fired if they break the law. Right now, this isn't "more leeway"—it's an open invitation to abuse that cannot be stopped short of finding a way to execute the damn priest.

[Chenier]

Fine. Then let's make it less absolute. Even a tenured professor can be fired if they break the law. Right now, this isn't "more leeway"—it's an open invitation to abuse that cannot be stopped short of finding a way to execute the damn priest.

Which, unless the guy is REALLY stupid, is next to impossible. Things that damage the religion the most can never result in bans. Arresting them is not only pointless, it's also self-destructive if your regions are of your faith.

[Stabbity]

Why not this:

Remember the old liege/vassal point system?

Incorporate it into a religion like this:

A priest cannot be kicked from a religion unless they have so many black marks (based on the number of elders). Makes it so an elder can now be involved in supporting a heretic or undesirable, and makes church politics more politickier. At the same time, it makes it so if there is a general consensus among the elders that a priest should be removed, they can be.

In summary, elders get the ability to give good/bad marks to priests, and a priest who accrues enough bad marks can be kicked.

[Chenier]

Why not this:

Remember the old liege/vassal point system?

Incorporate it into a religion like this:

A priest cannot be kicked from a religion unless they have so many black marks (based on the number of elders). Makes it so an elder can now be involved in supporting a heretic or undesirable, and makes church politics more politickier. At the same time, it makes it so if there is a general consensus among the elders that a priest should be removed, they can be.

In summary, elders get the ability to give good/bad marks to priests, and a priest who accrues enough bad marks can be kicked.

I don't like this on the basis that it can be gamed. If the top elder wants it done, all he has to do is demote all of the other elders temporarily and all of a sudden he'd have all of the freedom he desires? I don't think restrictions are worth it if they can be gamed like this. I also don't think the marks system ever really worked all too good.

[Daycryn]

It'd be interesting if there was a kind of recommendation process - kind of like how Adventurers have to get three recommendations from nobles to become a Warrior class, a would-be priest has to get three recommendations from the senior members of the religion.  That would help prevent just any-old full member becoming a priest willy-nilly. After all these aren't just common ministers who can get mail-order ministry cards online, these are nobles who become the equivalent of cardinals or bishops, it should involve at least a bit of vetting by the religious leadership.

[Marlboro]

A rogue priest means someone trusted him enough to let him in and now he's betrayed you. That sucks, for sure, but that's like electing Hitler and then complaining that he's OP when he dismantles the government, starts building weird rocket planes and oppressing ethnic groups.

If someone is griefing/trolling the other players in an OOC manner using this religious function then the Social Contract does provide for that. "Do not insult or harass other players."

[pcw27]

A rogue priest means someone trusted him enough to let him in and now he's betrayed you. That sucks, for sure, but that's like electing Hitler and then complaining that he's OP when he dismantles the government, starts building weird rocket planes and oppressing ethnic groups.

If someone is griefing/trolling the other players in an OOC manner using this religious function then the Social Contract does provide for that. "Do not insult or harass other players."

It can also be used to power game. It's been done in the past.

[Daycryn]

A rogue priest means someone trusted him enough to let him in and now he's betrayed you. That sucks, for sure, but that's like electing Hitler and then complaining that he's OP when he dismantles the government, starts building weird rocket planes and oppressing ethnic groups.

No. Nobody "elected" him as a priest. To be a priest only requires being a full member of the religion. To be trusted as a full member is not the same thing as being trusted as a priest. Religions should not have to be paranoid about making members full members on the off chance that they will become rogue priests and gain immunity from all crimes.