Removal of Priest Immunity

[vonGenf]

Why not just make it so the founder and only the founder can kick priests?

Of course you can't make it "just the founder" because, as you said, the founder can disappear. However I would have no issue with giving this possibility only to the highest-ranked people.

[Chenier]

I've had serious issues with this mechanic way before I ever joined SA.

[Indirik]

A judge is one member of a realm, one single guy with a number of checks and balances against his position, not a council of people each with conflicting interests and virtually no oversight.

A judge can easily ban nearly every member of all but the biggest realms before anyone can stop him. (We've seen this happen several times.) By the time you can protest him out, elect a new judge, and then undo all the bans he's put in place, it could be many days. (There's a two or three day cooling down period before a new judge can play with bans.) If done at the proper time, it could easily kill a realm. There are no real checks or balances to this occurrence.

But, really, who cares about checks and balances in a religion anyway? A religion/guild is NOT a realm. The people at the top of the guild/religion are ultimate powers. Specifically the founder. He has absolute control over the guild/religion, even if he leaves and then comes back. They are specifically not institutions where any kind of democracy/fairness is implied or provided for. The are absolute tyrannies by design.

Why not just make it so the founder and only the founder can kick priests?

For the exactly reason the reason you point out: The founder can leave. The devs have gone through quite a bit of effort to ensure that both religions and guilds remain completely viable after the founder leaves. (The only unrecoverable loss being the Founder's rank.) Hardcoding an ability to the Founder's rank would be directly against that policy. The obvious possibility, as VonGenf states, is to tie the ability to the currently highest occupied. This also has the benefit of reducing the potential for abuse.

[Marlboro]

Of course you can't make it "just the founder" because, as you said, the founder can disappear. However I would have no issue with giving this possibility only to the highest-ranked people.

For the exactly reason the reason you point out: The founder can leave.

Why not? It beats the alternative: nobody being able to do it at all ever.

But, really, who cares about checks and balances in a religion anyway?

Let's stop comparing being able to kick priests out of a religion to various realm functions then, eh?

[Indirik]

Why not?

I already told you why.

[Marlboro]

I already told you why.

The founder can leave.

It beats the alternative: nobody being able to do it at all ever.

[Anaris]

Actually, no, it doesn't. All giving it to the founder, specifically, does is create endless frustration and complaints from religions whose founder no longer exists, because suddenly they don't have the same options as religions whose founder is still there. And there's no good reason for that, so please stop advocating such a pointless restriction.

If such a feature were to be implemented, it would absolutely not be given to the founder only. If it were to be restricted to a single elder rank, it would without any doubt whatsoever be the top rank, whatever that currently happens to be.

[Penchant]

Actually, no, it doesn't. All giving it to the founder, specifically, does is create endless frustration and complaints from religions whose founder no longer exists, because suddenly they don't have the same options as religions whose founder is still there. And there's no good reason for that, so please stop advocating such a pointless restriction.

If such a feature were to be implemented, it would absolutely not be given to the founder only. If it were to be restricted to a single elder rank, it would without any doubt whatsoever be the top rank, whatever that currently happens to be.

Which is what Indirik agreed with, so Marlboro would seem to be arguing just to argue.

[Dishman]

I don't see why the option to kick priests shouldn't be available for all elders of a religion. They already have control of most ranks. I'm just trying to think how to keep it from being used too much (so people can mostly go on priesting how they want to unabused). Maybe give the option to kick people out of the religion, even if they are a priest?

Regardless, I approve of 90% of this thread.

[pcw27]

I think loss of followers makes the most sense.

[feyeleanor]

Priest immunity makes religion more interesting. How else can a religion end up in schism/civil war? Or should religions be protected from the folly of their elders?

[De-Legro]

Priest immunity makes religion more interesting. How else can a religion end up in schism/civil war? Or should religions be protected from the folly of their elders?

Total immunity though can make things overpowering. If priest are too lose that immunity, the result I think must be a difficult process. Make it too easy to remove priest and you are correct, the potential for conflict within a religion is reduced by too much.

That said perhaps we should be looking at why it is so easy to remove other members that aren't priest. A high ranked noble, devoted to the church, respected for their years of work for the faith can be removed by one player in a matter of minutes. Right now that will hopefully spark some sort of conflict and either they will be restored within the church or not, but to my mind the conflict should first revolve around the effort to remove such a figure, not around the effort to restore them.

[Indirik]

Neither schism nor internal dissent require priest immunity as a precondition. That would be like saying the only way to have a rebellion our civil disorder in a realm is to first have a royal to lead it.

IIMO it should be possible to remove priests, but it should be difficult/painful. The most obvious way would be to tie it to how long someone had been a priest. The convert-of-the-day should be bootable with no consequences. Long-time priests and long-time elders should be difficult to kick out.

[De-Legro]

Neither schism nor internal dissent require priest immunity as a precondition. That would be like saying the only way to have a rebellion our civil disorder in a realm is to first have a royal to lead it.

IIMO it should be possible to remove priests, but it should be difficult/painful. The most obvious way would be to tie it to how long someone had been a priest. The convert-of-the-day should be bootable with no consequences. Long-time priests and long-time elders should be difficult to kick out.

Completely agree. Other options would be requiring a vote among elders so that removal of a priest needs the backing of a majority of the leadership.

[Chenier]

In the absence of data on historic of priesthood, oration skill could be used as an imperfect substitute. Only one other path improves that skill, key to priests, and it's a logical skill to impact consequences.