Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 03, 2011, 12:18:12 PM...Shin will temporarily become a lord...
Temporarily become a lord? That doesn't sound very SMA... :(
Quote from: Indirik on April 03, 2011, 09:46:21 PM
Temporarily become a lord? That doesn't sound very SMA... :(
Stop being mean :'(
Quote from: Indirik on April 03, 2011, 09:46:21 PM
Temporarily become a lord? That doesn't sound very SMA... :(
Got to agree with this. Temporary lord positions just so someone can create a religion just sounds wrong.
Lords lose their positions anyway to start a religion. He *could* just say he had a revelation that he doesn't want to be a lord anymore or something. I'm not condoning any "temporary lord" actions, but I'm just saying what could be a valid in-character explanation for becoming a lord and subsequent separation from the position.
To me, if you took the Lordship as a player intending to just create the religion, and the other players involved knew about this, then it is just a weak IC excuse to cover a OOC agreement.
Sometimes it's best not to accuse too quickly, unless there's really strong evidence. I won't say anything about this case, but let's draw a hypothetical.
Say that I wanted to start a new religion. By this game's design, I can only do that if I am lord or duke. So obviously if I want to start my own religion then I will have to seek a lordship. I think that what might be the issue here is that the lordship is granted OOCly, but that doesn't have to be the case. Who knows, maybe the ruler who appoints lords thinks the idea is great and appoints me so I can start this religion. By mechanics I get automatically separated from the region. In such a case, yes, I would have pursued the lordship solely in order to start a religion. I mean, what other choice do I have in the matter? There is no other way to start a religion.
It gets a bit hard to decide in these cases because of the limitations imposed by game mechanics. And human intentions, especially of other people, are notoriously difficult to comprehend.
The reason we are questioning it is his use of the word "Temporary Lordship". If in IC he deceives everyone with the goal of getting to Lord just so he can start his religion then all fine and good. When you use the term temporary lordship it has all sorts of OOC connotations. Of course he can always be granted the Lordship again after he starts the religion.
My opinion is the restrictions are probably there for a reason. It is not sufficient to just say, well this is what we have to do to get around the mechanics. Even IC, it I was getting appointed to a region just to start a religion, I would think that a bit odd. In these cases I try to think, what would be reasonable in a real world situation (obviously a very weird real world :) ) I just can't see a Duke or Ruler appointing anyone just so they can start a religion.
See, I've never understood this. What people seem to be saying is the only legitimate way to start a religion is if you are already a Lord or Duke. Why can't a noble convince a Ruler or Duke that their religion is awesome, and be granted a region specifically to formally start the religion? That seems perfectly in-character to me.
I think most people here agree that is the case. It might be the part where Shenron said "temporary lord", although I think it deserves an explanation from the guy who said it. "Temporary lord" can have very different meanings. It could mean an OOC arranged appointment for the sole purpose of starting a religion, hence temporary would refer to being a lord only short-term in order to achieve an agenda that was handled beyond the level of character-character. It could mean the acknowledgement that starting a new religion breaks the lordship, hence temporary would refer literally to game mechanics.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 04, 2011, 04:19:07 AM
See, I've never understood this. What people seem to be saying is the only legitimate way to start a religion is if you are already a Lord or Duke. Why can't a noble convince a Ruler or Duke that their religion is awesome, and be granted a region specifically to formally start the religion? That seems perfectly in-character to me.
Because a Lordship is more then a vehicle to create a religion. The thinking starts with the though, would a medieval lord give away a Lordship just to form a religion. Of course this is a rather difficult line of thinking, because it is trying to combine the though process of a historical age, with a game mechanic.
Really unless Tom has made a ruling on granting a region for this purpose, it is up to individual realms to decide what is appropriate for them.
Even if the answer is "No, he would not", there are no other ways to achieve this. It's possible for someone to become a lord through any other means, and for whatever other reasons, and one day have divine inspiration. But that probably doesn't exactly follow the process of all potential prophets. Hey, Henry VIII (I know he's a later time period, but this is just as an example) formed the Anglican Church just so he could divorce his wife. Reasons can get strange.
But the end-all I think is that one shouldn't go to some realm where the ruler or whoever decides the lordships make one's character a lord for the sole OOC purpose of starting a religion. Unfortunately, as I said before, knowing the true intentions, especially of other people, is very difficult to find out, unless one or more of them said they were doing it purely OOCly with in-game interactions coming secondary. It doesn't mean they had no IC interaction, just that the OOC considerations (maybe ruler was the lord's real life friend) far outweighted the IC justifications.
Quote from: Artemesia on April 04, 2011, 04:34:46 AM
Even if the answer is "No, he would not", there are no other ways to achieve this. It's possible for someone to become a lord through any other means, and for whatever other reasons, and one day have divine inspiration. But that probably doesn't exactly follow the process of all potential prophets. Hey, Henry VIII (I know he's a later time period, but this is just as an example) formed the Anglican Church just so he could divorce his wife. Reasons can get strange.
But the end-all I think is that one shouldn't go to some realm where the ruler or whoever decides the lordships make one's character a lord for the sole OOC purpose of starting a religion. Unfortunately, as I said before, knowing the true intentions, especially of other people, is very difficult to find out, unless one or more of them said they were doing it purely OOCly with in-game interactions coming secondary. It doesn't mean they had no IC interaction, just that the OOC considerations (maybe ruler was the lord's real life friend) far outweighted the IC justifications.
This unfortunately is what I see all to often. A group on IRC discussing a idea for a religion, and then the suggestion that they all join X realm because Y is ruler there, or is a Duke and can set them up with a region. It is a difficult one though, on one hand we want to see new and vibrant religions start. On the other we don't want to encourage OOC manipulation of game mechanics. In the end though even if it is OOC character, its not like it is some horrible game ruining action.
Quote from: Artemesia on April 04, 2011, 04:34:46 AM
But the end-all I think is that one shouldn't go to some realm where the ruler or whoever decides the lordships make one's character a lord for the sole OOC purpose of starting a religion.
Again, my problem with this line of thinking is that line, right there. Yes, arranging it OOC is bad for the same reason that arranging anything OOC is bad.
But if someone /IC/ has a religious revelation, and /IC/ convinces the Ruler/Duke/voting populace that their religion is awesome, then why is appointing them to a region for the sole purpose of starting a religion bad?
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 04, 2011, 05:07:18 AM
Again, my problem with this line of thinking is that line, right there. Yes, arranging it OOC is bad for the same reason that arranging anything OOC is bad.
But if someone /IC/ has a religious revelation, and /IC/ convinces the Ruler/Duke/voting populace that their religion is awesome, then why is appointing them to a region for the sole purpose of starting a religion bad?
Bingo. The character wants to start a religion, and needs to be a lord to establish the first temple and become its' profit. So, the character asks a Duke to be appointed region lord, explaining his reasoning--the reason, of course, is that only region lords own their region and control the construction of large buildings like temples.
What's OOC about that?
Quote from: egamma on April 04, 2011, 05:18:47 AM
Bingo. The character wants to start a religion, and needs to be a lord to establish the first temple and become its' profit. So, the character asks a Duke to be appointed region lord, explaining his reasoning--the reason, of course, is that only region lords own their region and control the construction of large buildings like temples.
What's OOC about that?
People never suggested that case is OOC. Rather they suggested that it wasn't in line with SMA in their opinion. There are two separate discussions, the first is the OOC creation of religions. The second is whether is complies with SMA to appoint a Lord just so they can found a religion.
Quote from: De-Legro on April 04, 2011, 05:20:52 AM
People never suggested that case is OOC. Rather they suggested that it wasn't in line with SMA in their opinion. There are two separate discussions, the first is the OOC creation of religions. The second is whether is complies with SMA to appoint a Lord just so they can found a religion.
Alright, let me ask this another way: How does a non-lord with a religious revelation go about establishing his religion with this version of "SMA"?
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 04, 2011, 10:46:40 AM
Alright, let me ask this another way: How does a non-lord with a religious revelation go about establishing his religion with this version of "SMA"?
There lies the problem. I know people have asked this of Tom before, but I can't recall ever getting a answer. I believe he has rejected the idea that people that aren't region lords have the ability to create a religion. So like I said, without a solid ruling from Tom its all pretty much up to individual opinion.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 04, 2011, 10:43:42 AM
Ok I'll put it this way. It beats the !@#$ out of the following things:
- OOC clanning
- Old Players auto getting positions
- NOT EVEN ALLOWING RELIGION BECAUSE IT IMPOSES AGAINST STATE SOVEREIGNTY.
What I'm trying to do is have fun. Not powergaming. Just trying to get my religion out there. Unless you are seriously requesting that I don't do this because it breaches your idea of SMA, then please get off my thread.
Calm down. You have voice your intentions on a public forum, don't throw a fit when people express their opinions. In this situation personal idea's of SMA are irrelevant. People have suggested that it might be against SMA, but obviously only a titan would be able to say for sure. If anything they bring it up so you might get clarification about the issue before you do it in realm and THEN find out it was against SMA when the titans step in.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 04, 2011, 02:08:02 PM
The thread title reads "New Religion: Please help me".
And here I thought that trying to help you keep the formation of your new religion in line with SMA was, you know, helping.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 04, 2011, 04:19:07 AM
See, I've never understood this. What people seem to be saying is the only legitimate way to start a religion is if you are already a Lord or Duke. Why can't a noble convince a Ruler or Duke that their religion is awesome, and be granted a region specifically to formally start the religion? That seems perfectly in-character to me.
This is exactly how Qyrvaggism was founded. Amekal had a vision, and "converted" a few lords (before religion even had game mechanics). When mechanics got added, one of the lords founded the religion. It DOES have one downside: the "Founder" is not the "Prophet."
Riombara later did a temporary lordship for a competing religion (and, as it were, an ideological opposite faith), which ticked me off. There is no IC reason why religions can only be founded by lords, so there is no IC reason why a person would need a lordship to found a faith. "Found" your religion now. Get converts. Start as an informal sect (like how pretty much every real religion started), then maybe you'll eventually get a lordship, or convert some other lord.
Until there is an IC explanation why a religion requires a regional lordship, I will regard it as against the spirit of the game to give or to receive "temporary lordships" for the sake of founding a religion.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 04, 2011, 10:43:42 AM
Ok I'll put it this way. It beats the !@#$ out of the following things:
- OOC clanning
- Old Players auto getting positions
- NOT EVEN ALLOWING RELIGION BECAUSE IT IMPOSES AGAINST STATE SOVEREIGNTY.
What I'm trying to do is have fun. Not powergaming. Just trying to get my religion out there. Unless you are seriously requesting that I don't do this because it breaches your idea of SMA, then please get off my thread.
The degree of puerility and infantile rage in this quote is shocking to me. Why, oh why, is there a limit on the "dispraise" button?
Quote from: Vellos on April 04, 2011, 07:29:08 PM
Until there is an IC explanation why a religion requires a regional lordship, I will regard it as against the spirit of the game to give or to receive "temporary lordships" for the sake of founding a religion.
The IC explanation is that to have a formal religion, you have to have at least one temple. Only region lords can build temples, because region lords control all building in the region. It's a bit of sophistry because it leads to the question of why a lord you "convert" before it's a formal religion can't build it for you, but like a lot of things in this game, you have to look the other way because the game mechanics are for fun and not a realistic simulation.
A temporary lordship for the purpose of making a religion is essentially the Duke or Ruler or whomever saying "we grant you the temporary authority to build in this region to construct your temple".
I really wish there was some other way to found a religion that to make someone a "temporary lord". It really flies in the face of some very important things we try to instill in the playerbase, such as "no placeholders". After all, if you're allowed to do a temporary lordship to found a religion, why not a temporary lordship for a new region until the referendum finishes? Or a temporary general's office until the real general gets out of jail? It's really the same thing: "We're granting you temporary authority to issues orders".
Quote from: Indirik on April 04, 2011, 08:59:52 PM
I really wish there was some other way to found a religion that to make someone a "temporary lord". It really flies in the face of some very important things we try to instill in the playerbase, such as "no placeholders". After all, if you're allowed to do a temporary lordship to found a religion, why not a temporary lordship for a new region until the referendum finishes? Or a temporary general's office until the real general gets out of jail? It's really the same thing: "We're granting you temporary authority to issues orders".
I concur. However, Tom doesn't. We work with what we have.
Maybe a way to do it would be to give wannabe prophets the chance to gather up a group of noble followers, and if they have, say, five of them including at least one Lord, they get the option to establish a first temple in the region of any Lord in their group? Game-wise, that seems a perfectly legitimate and acceptable way to do it, but I don't know if such a thing would be possible to code...
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 04, 2011, 08:33:02 PM
The IC explanation is that to have a formal religion, you have to have at least one temple.
As has been noted, you can convince an existing lord to do it. To be a formal religion you need a temple, to get a temple you need a lord: it does not logically follow that, to be a formal religion, a "temporary lordship" is necessary. Temporary lordships, to me, seem like a means of trying to get around game mechanics.
It might have more to do with the desire to be the founder, the #1 spot on the religion. That is the first reason that comes to mind for not allowing an existing lord to create the temple that will start the religion, if that is indeed what is being said here.
Quote from: Vellos on April 04, 2011, 10:07:00 PM
As has been noted, you can convince an existing lord to do it. To be a formal religion you need a temple, to get a temple you need a lord: it does not logically follow that, to be a formal religion, a "temporary lordship" is necessary. Temporary lordships, to me, seem like a means of trying to get around game mechanics.
So instead of "getting around" game mechanics by doing a temporary lordship, we should instead have the Founder not, in fact, be the Prophet? Or shall we get around game mechanics again by having the Founder found the religion, promote the
actual Prophet, and demote himself?
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 04, 2011, 10:55:18 PM
So instead of "getting around" game mechanics by doing a temporary lordship, we should instead have the Founder not, in fact, be the Prophet? Or shall we get around game mechanics again by having the Founder found the religion, promote the actual Prophet, and demote himself?
Just have a founder who isn't the prophet. The Pope isn't Jesus, nor does he claim even a similar position. The Caliphs did not claim to be the equals of the Prophet.
I don't see the big deal with have an institution where the primary spiritual authority is not necessarily the highest institutional authority. It was actually pretty entertaining for the 8 months or so where Qyrvaggism was like that.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 04, 2011, 10:55:18 PM
So instead of "getting around" game mechanics by doing a temporary lordship, we should instead have the Founder not, in fact, be the Prophet? Or shall we get around game mechanics again by having the Founder found the religion, promote the actual Prophet, and demote himself?
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.
Quote from: Hyral on April 05, 2011, 12:44:50 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Artemesia on April 05, 2011, 12:48:32 AM
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.
Given the nature of most our religions, yeah the faithful probably would just do nothing.
Quote from: Indirik on April 03, 2011, 09:46:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Anaris on April 05, 2011, 03:01:10 AM
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.
Quote from: ó Broin on April 05, 2011, 12:48:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Vellos on April 05, 2011, 03:41:47 AM
Was that from experience in Rio? I didn't remember that.
No, Pian en Luries. Founding of the Order of St Iestyn.
Quote from: Anaris on April 05, 2011, 03:47:10 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Anaris on April 05, 2011, 03:01:10 AM
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! ?
Quote from: Ramiel on April 05, 2011, 09:42:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 05, 2011, 11:20:59 AM
- 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 :)
Quote from: Ramiel on April 05, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
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).
Quote from: Ramiel on April 05, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Ramiel on April 05, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
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 >:(
Quote from: Ramiel on April 05, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 05, 2011, 03:09:51 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 05, 2011, 11:20:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 05, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 05, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 05, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Vellos on April 05, 2011, 09:41:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 05, 2011, 09:52:54 PM
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.
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:
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.
Quote from: Hyral on April 05, 2011, 11:20:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Vellos on April 05, 2011, 09:41:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Vellos on April 05, 2011, 09:41:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Indirik on April 05, 2011, 11:44:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 06, 2011, 12:06:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Shane "Shenron" O'neil on April 06, 2011, 12:06:09 AM
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.
Vellos,
Read the text Indirik posted.
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.
Quote from: Vellos on April 06, 2011, 06:56:29 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 06, 2011, 07:02:20 AM
"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.
Quote from: Vellos on April 06, 2011, 05:05:45 PM
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.
What IC behavior have I said should be restricted? I have no problem with the founder being a prophet. I just don't think the founder must be a prophet.
Anything that can be justified IC, go ahead and do. But I don't see how a temporary lordship for the purpose of founding a religion can be justified ICly.
Until the mechanic changes such as to allow a non-lord to be the founder of a religion, I think there will always be at least some religion founder who will try to cite the mechanical restriction as a justification for such a move, with IC justifications of varying plausibilities provided.
Quote from: Vellos on April 06, 2011, 08:20:44 PM
What IC behavior have I said should be restricted? I have no problem with the founder being a prophet. I just don't think the founder must be a prophet.
Anything that can be justified IC, go ahead and do. But I don't see how a temporary lordship for the purpose of founding a religion can be justified ICly.
Only region lords can build buildings in their regions. It's a fact of the world, the same way that you can't give gold to someone else directly. You don't snipe at someone for violating SMA by saying that they have to go to a bank to give you gold, you shouldn't snipe at someone for violating SMA by saying they need a region to found a religion. If they talk someone into giving them one IC, then that's that.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 06, 2011, 08:53:45 PM
Only region lords can build buildings in their regions. It's a fact of the world, the same way that you can't give gold to someone else directly. You don't snipe at someone for violating SMA by saying that they have to go to a bank to give you gold, you shouldn't snipe at someone for violating SMA by saying they need a region to found a religion. If they talk someone into giving them one IC, then that's that.
Apparently it isn't, though. Anaris already said that giving someone a temporary lordship for the purposes of founding a religion on Dwilight resulted in Titan action. This conversation is just going to run itself in circles.
But, in my opinion, making that one bit of game text regarding prophets less restrictive would make the most sense. As Vellos said, there is no historical reason that the person who builds the first temple should necessarily be a prophet. There's no game-balance reason I can see that the lord must be a prophet and not simply a devout (who gives up his worldly stuff and dedicates his life to the faith). Convincing a lord to believe in your teachings and build a temple on his land is a lot more immersion-friendly than convincing a Duke to make you a lord for two seconds so *you* can build a temple on the land.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 06, 2011, 08:53:45 PM
Only region lords can build buildings in their regions. It's a fact of the world, the same way that you can't give gold to someone else directly. You don't snipe at someone for violating SMA by saying that they have to go to a bank to give you gold, you shouldn't snipe at someone for violating SMA by saying they need a region to found a religion. If they talk someone into giving them one IC, then that's that.
No, I don't snipe at someone who talks about banks. And if somebody did a temporary lordship to found a religion in a realm I was in, I probably wouldn't comment on it or report them to the Titans. But this thread is
about the discussion of this topic. That is it's
entire purpose.But, more importantly, temporary lordships are different than, say, cashing bonds or CS.
First, they are non-essential: you can get your religion founded without a temporary lordship. If you already have institutional support for your religion, finding a lord can't be that hard. Moreover, founding a religion is not an inalienable right. Moreover, as I have noted, there isn't a strong IC justification for why the chief spiritual leader of the religion must be the institutional founder.
Second, temporary positions have been repeatedly condemned in BM. Temporary council positions are the most commonly cited instance, but I don't see lordships as any different.
Third, the Titans have already ruled on this issue.
Fourth, if a person isn't advocating their religion before founding it formally, you better believe I'd snipe at them. My character would ridicule them and their faith. Oh, so you got a lordship, and suddenly God talked to you? Sure. I won't be surprised when we find out you've convinced all the peasant women you're their "Spiritual Husband" either.... If someone sincerely likes the idea of the religion and wants to see it founded, they should be looking for any way to do that: including and not limited to talking to current lords.
Fifth, you have the stipulation "If they talk to someone IC." Okay, so how does that conversation go, in your mind?
Would-be Prophet (P): I would like to be a region lord.
King (K): Why do you think I should make you a lord?
P: Because, if you do, I will found a religion.
K: Oh cool, that makes sense: you want to suddenly have prophetic visions, so I should make you a lord, so that can happen!
Ehh... no? Or, maybe:
P: I would like to be a region lord.
K: Do you swear to attend to your region faithfully, ensuring its loyalty to me and the realm, distributing its assets to your knights, ensuring said knights are loyal and maintain the region, and taking care of the fief entrusted to you?
P: No.
K: What?
P: Actually, I just want to found a religion.
K: What, you can't preach on the streetcorner or something?
P: No, God only talks to lords who have not already joined a religion.
K: So, do you even plan on maintaining the region?
P: No.
K: Will you at least assign your knights to armies?
P: If I remember, but I'll be busy having visions. I'll only even be lord for a day or two.
K: So... you want a lordship... so that you can pursue your religious agenda... and spit on the title I'm offering you?
P: Pretty much.
K: Sounds like you'll make a great lord! Here you go, take this nice townsland!
No.
I'll stick to my argument that the necessity of a region lordship cannot be explained ICly, therefore an IC justification for a temporary lordship cannot exist.
Now, if the would-be-prophet misled his/her king, and founded the religion without giving the ruler advance notice, that'd be a different issue entirely. Or if the would-be-prophet held the position for a significant period of time before founding the religion. Or maybe even if the would-be-prophet held the position for a significant period of time after founding the religion, through re-appointment. Maybe. All of those scenarios would at least complicate the simple model I am addressing, if not entirely alleviate the problem.
The issue the Titans ruled on was a lord stepping down from a region to allow someone else to be appointed so that person could found a religion and then the old lord was reappointed (I talked to Tim about it, and the ruling was "Orchestrating a change of power in Pian en Luries' simply to allow another character to construct a temple is not in keeping with the SMA guidelines of Dwilight. It is an abuse of your power as ruler.") which is a considerably different scenario from taking a new region, appointing a lord because he convinced you that the religion needs a full temple. Conversation could go thusly:
"Your Majesty, I have spoken to you at length regarding my visions, and I believe that it is time for a grand and glorious temple dedicated to the Gods to be erected. As the visions were revealed to me, it is only appropriate that I consecrate this temple at every step of its construction, and request full authority over its building and design. And, as the man to whom the Gods revealed this wonder, I feel it is only appropriate that I be the head of the church as well. Will you grant me the authority necessary to oversee this construction in Keplerville?"
"As a devotee of the Gods, Sir Crazymanfromthedesert, I will indeed grant you this authority for as long as necessary to construct the temple, with the understanding that as you will be devoting your time to the Faith, once the temple is completed a new secular leader for the people of Keplerville will be required."
a lord steps down to found a religion for someone else with absolutely no intention of being a priest and then gets placed back as the lord is basically as temporary as anything. granted it's not a position per se (unless he doesn't want to be founder either).
whilst you don't want any odd duck to found a religion just for fame, there should be something better to avoid all this.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 06, 2011, 10:48:37 PM
"Your Majesty, I have spoken to you at length regarding my visions, and I believe that it is time for a grand and glorious temple dedicated to the Gods to be erected. As the visions were revealed to me, it is only appropriate that I consecrate this temple at every step of its construction, and request full authority over its building and design. And, as the man to whom the Gods revealed this wonder, I feel it is only appropriate that I be the head of the church as well. Will you grant me the authority necessary to oversee this construction in Keplerville?"
"As a devotee of the Gods, Sir Crazymanfromthedesert, I will indeed grant you this authority for as long as necessary to construct the temple, with the understanding that as you will be devoting your time to the Faith, once the temple is completed a new secular leader for the people of Keplerville will be required."
I just can't agree with that. The language is atmospheric, yes, but it basically says the duke/ruler will be giving this noble the authority of the lord without the intention of actually entrusting him with the region's future, that is, the recruiting of knights, the management of food stores, the courts, the RCs, the investments, and everything else a real lord has to care about. The duke/ruler is giving the noble the lordship so he has the authority to build a temple on the land and knows full well that this person is going to abandon his post as soon as he finishes his task. How is that different than a placeholder?
'Oh, Wise Ruler, please grant me the authority to manage the affairs of Keplerville while Sir Kepler recovers from his wounds, so that your lands with will not fall into disrepair in his absence."
"As King and guardian of these fine people, I do so grant you the authority to manage the region of Keplerville as its lord, with the understanding that you will be stepping aside when Lord Kepler returns."
Ruler grants noble a lordship to preform a certain task, knowing that he will step down as soon as he's done.
Granting a lordship is not just giving the person authority (buttons), it's *bestowing a title*. I thought we have been trying to instill in people that oaths and titles are supposed to
mean something. That a title means something more to our characters than the buttons we are able to push as players.
Hyral has said it far better than I did. That about hits it on the head.
It doesn't matter how well it's stated: it's still not what lordships are about.
So you're going to ignore fodder's point as well? Someone else founding the religion, violating the text on becoming the prophet, getting immediately reappointed and changing out of Priest as soon as they can is better than getting a temporary lordship through completely IC means?
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 07, 2011, 07:43:47 AM
So you're going to ignore fodder's point as well? Someone else founding the religion, violating the text on becoming the prophet, getting immediately reappointed and changing out of Priest as soon as they can is better than getting a temporary lordship through completely IC means?
Indeed, this isn't much better, either.
And so it seems that both options are somewhat poor ones when it comes to the foundation of religions in SMA (and in general, really).
Perhaps a better system would be that if someone wants to start a religion, they must first begin RPing and spreading their message amongst other nobles, etc. There could be some kind of option where they could eventually "present religious ideas" to another noble and that noble could opt to "buy into" (or not) what that noble is saying. Once you have, say, 10 nobles buying into your idea, you get the ability to officially found the religion.
This would stem the problem of having any Joe Schmuck just founding religions left and right, and would necessitate someone to care enough to RP some ideas about their religion before its actual founding, ensuring someone will actually
care about the religion they are founding. They'll have to put work into it to even get it off the ground first. Solving the big problem in this thread, they won't have to be a Lord in order to found the religion.
Agreed, Perth, a system like that would be much better.
Quote from: Vellos on April 06, 2011, 10:35:54 PM
Fifth, you have the stipulation "If they talk to someone IC." Okay, so how does that conversation go, in your mind?
Would-be Prophet (P): I would like to be a region lord.
King (K): Why do you think I should make you a lord?
P: Because, if you do, I will found a religion.
K: Oh cool, that makes sense: you want to suddenly have prophetic visions, so I should make you a lord, so that can happen!
Ehh... no? Or, maybe:
P: I would like to be a region lord.
K: Do you swear to attend to your region faithfully, ensuring its loyalty to me and the realm, distributing its assets to your knights, ensuring said knights are loyal and maintain the region, and taking care of the fief entrusted to you?
P: No.
K: What?
P: Actually, I just want to found a religion.
K: What, you can't preach on the streetcorner or something?
P: No, God only talks to lords who have not already joined a religion.
K: So, do you even plan on maintaining the region?
P: No.
K: Will you at least assign your knights to armies?
P: If I remember, but I'll be busy having visions. I'll only even be lord for a day or two.
K: So... you want a lordship... so that you can pursue your religious agenda... and spit on the title I'm offering you?
P: Pretty much.
K: Sounds like you'll make a great lord! Here you go, take this nice townsland!
No.
What about:
Would-be Prophet (P): I would like to be a region lord.
King (K): Why do you think I should make you a lord?
P: Because, if you do, I will found a religion by building a temple.
K: Since I share your beliefs, I will make you Lord. Tend to the region well.
5 days later:
P: Your Majesty, having built a temple and become a priest, I find myself unable to attend my duty as a region Lord. I give all of my time to the flock, and I have less and less interest in worldly concern. Out of respect, I will let you name a new Lord while I take my life into this new direction.
When we say that game mechanics trumps RP, I think that's what it means. You cannot not RP that you are retiring from wordly concerns, because the game tells you that this is a part of founding a religion. However, you don't have to act as if your character knew this in advance. You just have to RP it as it happens.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 07, 2011, 07:43:47 AM
So you're going to ignore fodder's point as well? Someone else founding the religion, violating the text on becoming the prophet, getting immediately reappointed and changing out of Priest as soon as they can is better than getting a temporary lordship through completely IC means?
No, I think it's a very good point. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I would say that the system Perth proposed sounds much better.
VonGenf, if the king is unaware of the person's intention to found a religion, it isn't a problem. But a king who's been double-crossed like that is unlikely to be happy about it.
Quote from: Vellos on April 07, 2011, 05:18:53 PM
VonGenf, if the king is unaware of the person's intention to found a religion, it isn't a problem. But a king who's been double-crossed like that is unlikely to be happy about it.
Right, so the problem becomes not really that you can't get a lordship if you intend to found a religion, since the character does not *know* he is going to step down, but rather that everybody around has to act unhappy when it happens, even though their players know that it was game-mechanic imposed.
I always found these to be difficult to RP around, frankly. But it can be done.
Quote from: Bedwyr on April 07, 2011, 07:43:47 AM
So you're going to ignore fodder's point as well? Someone else founding the religion, violating the text on becoming the prophet, getting immediately reappointed and changing out of Priest as soon as they can is better than getting a temporary lordship through completely IC means?
It wasn't my intention to ignore anyone ;A; But I do think that you might be putting too much stock in "completely IC means", we can wrap just about anything in a wonderful roleplay and make it IC, that doesn't mean it's within the spirit of the game.
But no, I don't think the situation fodder posed is any better than a placeholder (though I'm starting to think that we BMers are becoming quite cynical, look at all these shady workarounds we come up with!), what I've been trying to get at is that something in the system needs changing. Both options we can currently use are technically violations of SMA spirit/game rules, so,
something needs to change. Perth's idea is excellent. I'm biased, but I really do think it's best that the religion have followers before it is officially founded. Religions are so much about roleplay and immersion, you really need to set the scene before you start to worry about building stuff and preaching skill and all that. How to say, like...being a team before you run out onto the field?
Quote from: vonGenf on April 07, 2011, 05:23:35 PM
Right, so the problem becomes not really that you can't get a lordship if you intend to found a religion, since the character does not *know* he is going to step down, but rather that everybody around has to act unhappy when it happens, even though their players know that it was game-mechanic imposed.
I always found these to be difficult to RP around, frankly. But it can be done.
More than
act unhappy, they must
be unhappy, same as if a lord had violated his oath to loyally manage the region for some other reason.
Though BM players don't very well RP that anyways.
Quote from: Hyral on April 07, 2011, 06:12:51 PM
It wasn't my intention to ignore anyone ;A; But I do think that you might be putting too much stock in "completely IC means", we can wrap just about anything in a wonderful roleplay and make it IC, that doesn't mean it's within the spirit of the game.
But no, I don't think the situation fodder posed is any better than a placeholder (though I'm starting to think that we BMers are becoming quite cynical, look at all these shady workarounds we come up with!), what I've been trying to get at is that something in the system needs changing. Both options we can currently use are technically violations of SMA spirit/game rules, so, something needs to change. Perth's idea is excellent. I'm biased, but I really do think it's best that the religion have followers before it is officially founded. Religions are so much about roleplay and immersion, you really need to set the scene before you start to worry about building stuff and preaching skill and all that. How to say, like...being a team before you run out onto the field?
Kind of hard to do that when there's nothing officially established. While values can be assigned in terms of religion concentration and spread, how would it be organized? And who would be able to start such an idea? Anyone? That would only lead to a couple hundred pre-religions floating around every region.
But if it's restricted to only a certain few, then just replace the lordship with whatever new selection rule is formed for these "religion precursors" as players who are really intent on starting their own religion make a mad dash to attain the requirements to start.
And since someone is bound to ask, what I think is to make the "Prophet" selection post-establishment. Let the #1 position be placed to anyone chosen or trusted to lead the faith. Don't make it automatically the founder of the first temple. I think there was something on Dlist about replacing the #1 position after the founder has disappeared, and something about intra-religion referendums. Same deal here, just at establishment, much like a newly formed colony.
Quote from: Artemesia on April 08, 2011, 01:49:37 AM
Kind of hard to do that when there's nothing officially established. While values can be assigned in terms of religion concentration and spread, how would it be organized? And who would be able to start such an idea? Anyone? That would only lead to a couple hundred pre-religions floating around every region.
It is not impossibly hard to form the structure of a religion and convince characters to believe in it without the mechanics that back established faiths, religion existed in BM before religions became a mechanic.
A temporary lordship from a friendly duke is easier to obtain than 10 devoted followers, and we don't have hundreds of religions per region now. As it stands, anyone who has an idea can start on the road to founding a religion. That would not change. What I would like to see change are the requirements. Right now all anyone needs is a lordship, and that's an awkward business. What I think would be better is a) some h/p/time in realm requirement to get the option "found a religion, b) sign up a number of followers, let's say ten, and c) build a temple to establish your religion officially (you would have to convert a lord, which also gives your religion a base in realm politics). The character who starts the 'gather followers' bit is ranked Founder, for the sake of simplicity, and everything else is set up afterward. I was thinking that there needed to be some sort of loss by the founder for balance, as the giving-up-lordship represents now, but the way most people use it, they never intended to keep the lordship in the first place, so it's no loss...
Would there be religions-in-the-making floating around, I imagine so, yes. But religions remaining unestablished until it is sculpted enough to attract interest does not sound like a bad thing, in my opinion.
Having some half-baked religions around...actually probably isn't too different from what already exists. But even so, when talking about what we can accomplish through roleplaying means, almost anything is possible. But if we're talking about a game-mechanic change, I think that less complex is better. It seems more difficult to alter the code of how religions are formed. In the current system, as far as the game cares, a religion only exists when the first temple is built. Everything else is fine among players, but the game's verdict is: Can you preach? Influence? Without making the first temple, the answer is no.
So where am I going with this? Well, on one hand, we can change the way religion works just to solve seemingly one problem, that of temporary lordships, which may or may not be as much of a problem as it sounds. I think that a more amenable solution would be to avoid making any large changes in how this system works, and modify the existing one by integrating another existing mechanic.
As I said before, there has been discussion in the past about replacing a #1 position in a religion when the player of said character has left the game. Darkanism was the religion in question. One of the suggestions was to hold referendum to vote in a new #1. I think that such a solution would be fairly simple and efficient. We already have the referendum in place, and from what I can see, it's pretty flexible. It shouldn't be too difficult to call a special referendum immediately after a new religion is founded. In terms of current game mechanics, that would mean after lord builds a temple, a vote commences to determine who the #1 is. The lord doesn't lose his lordship either, so no temporary lords there. If he steps down voluntarily then that almost settles the matter completely that he was only interested in making a religion.
It doesn't have to be by vote, I suppose. We do have guilds and secret societies, maybe religion, when formed, can take two routes? But I don't know about that, it sounds like it's growing a bit more complex. I mean, all our rulers are voted in under normal circumstances, in all government systems.
Quote from: Artemesia on April 08, 2011, 11:54:29 AM
But if we're talking about a game-mechanic change, I think that less complex is better. It seems more difficult to alter the code of how religions are formed. In the current system, as far as the game cares, a religion only exists when the first temple is built. Everything else is fine among players, but the game's verdict is: Can you preach? Influence? Without making the first temple, the answer is no.
So where am I going with this? Well, on one hand, we can change the way religion works just to solve seemingly one problem, that of temporary lordships, which may or may not be as much of a problem as it sounds. I think that a more amenable solution would be to avoid making any large changes in how this system works, and modify the existing one by integrating another existing mechanic.
Well, yes, temporary lordships are the topic of this thread :] Less complex is usually better, true, and I was originally in support of just changing a bit of game text, but as fodder pointed out, that doesn't solve the issue of temporary lords, something I do consider a problem, but not the only problem with the way religions are started...
QuoteAs I said before, there has been discussion in the past about replacing a #1 position in a religion when the player of said character has left the game. Darkanism was the religion in question. One of the suggestions was to hold referendum to vote in a new #1. I think that such a solution would be fairly simple and efficient. We already have the referendum in place, and from what I can see, it's pretty flexible. It shouldn't be too difficult to call a special referendum immediately after a new religion is founded. In terms of current game mechanics, that would mean after lord builds a temple, a vote commences to determine who the #1 is. The lord doesn't lose his lordship either, so no temporary lords there. If he steps down voluntarily then that almost settles the matter completely that he was only interested in making a religion.
I don't think anyone doubts that the temporary lords who form religions are only interested in making a religion, that's why they got the lordship and that's what makes it temporary. Finding a new leader through vote seems reasonable in a case of the original leader disappearing, however, it seems a bizarre way to actually start a religion. Yes, mechanics-wise a religion only exists as long as it has a temple (both in forming and dissolving), but having a lord build a temple and then find a spiritual leader through vote? It's even more backwards than what we have already (build a temple, become a prophet). That's what I like about the proposed system, step one is become religious leader, step two is gather followers, and the last thing you do is build a temple, and then you're official. It's more complicated than a tweak, but it makes sense in a religious context, something forming a religion doesn't necessarily do now.
But, in the end, if it is decided that temporary lordships are okay, then we really would just need a text tweak u.u
Sometimes what might make sense in real life doesn't translate well into games. In this case, maybe the emergence of a religious leader before establishment of a temple makes sense in real life and it might even work in-game. But in that case, there would need to be a set of new requirements to start one's own religion, which were mentioned already so I won't reiterate them.
As it already is, BM's religion system is unrealistic, and all the better I think because of that. However, my concern is more with dissuading questionable behavior (in this case, temporary lordships). My thought on the suggestion of a religious leader pre-temple is that anyone who is really intent on founding a religion will rush to fulfill the new requirements, then use his status as religious leader to gain a lordship to build a temple. This sounds perfectly legitimate, and probably would be.
However, just how different would it be from asking for lordship in order to found a religion? In the former case, a somewhat intangible counter of "faith" * would be used to support one's claim to a region. In the latter case it is the promise of a future establishment. In either case, the result is that the noble gets the lordship, and builds the temple.
Now, it doesn't have to happen that way. Since the suggestion here seems to be that the religious leader would hold #1 spot no matter what, then it shouldn't matter which lord builds the temple. This might reduce the number of people seeking lordships only to start a religion, but it would be hard to tell, as some people might still want to be the first to construct. And if the lordship isn't relinquished in the new suggested system, all the more reason.
*: Now I will go into the difficulties with a system that would function before the currently used system comes into play. What I mean, is, under the proposed system, which I will call pre-temple, some things might necessarily be different for fairness. In addition, I will support my claim that such a system would not drastically improve on what can be achieved under the current system. However, that only applies to the difficulty of successfully making use of the pre-temple system. I am not claiming that it might not be successful in discouraging temporary lordships more so than the current system. I am claiming that the idea on its own does not appear to justify its inclusion.
In pre-temple organization, I do not think that it should be allowed for the religion to gain any peasant followers. On one hand, that would be unfair to those religions that actually established a temple, perhaps several. They should be rewarded for having the funding to spread their faith. In addition, allowing pre-temple religions to have followers among the population is a convenient way to thwart an enemy religion. Let's say that the Theocracy of Evil is preaching Evilism and the Kingdom of Good doesn't like how several regions they took from Evil are still 100% followers of Evilism. To counteract this, many nobles of Good suddenly have epiphanies, each of them gathering the bare minimum for their religions to have sway in a region. Then the many facets of Good's various religions suddenly dilute the minds of the former Evilists, causing the Theocracy suddenly to lose influence.
Ok, so let's say that we don't allow any faith recognized by the game. Let's keep it strictly among the nobles who are starting it. First, how would the organization go, if any? Would the "founder" have options unavailable to others? If so, that provides a lot of incentive to be the founder, especially if the requirements aren't that hard. And should it be hard? Someone who is prepared to become a priest wouldn't have the highest H/P, nor that much gold, nor that much skill, usually. Maybe some do fit those requirements, but what about the soft-spoken, gentle, ascetic, prophet? The current system has the flexibility to allow for any type of prophet. It simply depends on the player to actually provide the text to make that clear.
Now, let's talk about the viability of the pre-temple system. Under the current religious system, I believe that a religion is considered no longer in existence by the game once the last temple falls. That, of course, does not stop the characters from holding onto the ideas. Under the pre-religion system, when, if ever, would the pre-temple religion "die"? In addition, would it be fully converted into the current religion system once a temple is established?
I think that if the pre-temple religion was not converted fully into the current religion system, then that means even after the last temple falls, the religion would not suffer as much because they can just start over again so long as the nucleus of "prophet" and a certain number of noble followers remain. If that is not the case, then let's look at another aspect. How would one leave this pre-temple religion? I assume that there are other nobles in the pre-temple religion. If not, then there is nothing stopping pretty much anyone from starting his/her own pre-temple religion and having it form simply by having any lord build the temple. But then, if a lord has to build the temple, that means either the prophet must be a lord, or at least one other noble has to be capable of joining the pre-temple religion.
In the former case, we get into the same deal about temporary lordships, meaning the prophet seeks to gain lordship for the primary reason of building a temple, with secondary, if any, intentions to take care of the region. Sure, one can say that in the pre-temple case there already exists a "faith" and this provides support for the prophet's position, but even in the current system, the future founder can use the guarantee of a temple as his support. In both cases, the reasons are simply there to secure a lordship.
But let's go first to the other part about membership, in which other nobles can join pre-temple. Then the question remains, how does one leave? Can he leave anytime, anywhere? Currently religions do not allow anyone to leave while indebted. I cannot say what the current system intended with that, but I will say that there should be some incentive to motivate nobles to think very carefully about which pre-temple religion to join before joining, because there shouldn't be a high changeover rate of pre-temple faiths. And then, in that case, post-temple, what would be the ranks and statuses of those pre-temple members? Surely they deserve something for sticking by the prophet for so long? But do we put all of them into one rank? Or somehow select them? Or maybe, like it is now, the #1 rank decides? In any case, it would appear to make sense if those disciples automatically became part of the religion. After all, they didn't follow the prophet all that way just to remain pagans once the temple was established. Then they would need to automatically take a certain spot, in which case, shall they go Aspirant, Member, or Senior?
Let's recap. I think that the pre-temple suggestion needs to be defined more attentively to account for many more complexities that will inevitably arise due to the attempted introduction of a new system to one that already exists. While some of the points were indeed addressed already, I have decided to explore them more so that the reasons those aspects may be valid and the ways that they had already been "solved" are more clear. I believe that this system would bring new difficulties that must first be made into a form that would both fix the supposed temporary lordship problems, and at the same time, avoid creating any new problems.
You brought up a lot of points, so I'm just going to try to reply to them one by one...
-Pre-temple religions will not gain peasant followers as they have no priests or temples to convert them with (do temples even convert or do they just maintain, I don't recall) . It wouldn't be possible to use a pre-temple religion to sway the populace.
-Organization of pre-temple religion: There's the 'founder' and there are the converts, that's it. It needn't be ranked, titled, or complicated. Established-religion is when things can get complicated, pre-temple would be simple and mostly RPed. The only option available to the founder is "invite" and it may as well just be available to him (this is his project after all, he should do the work). The only incentive he should have is to see his religion established. The converts needn't have any special options.
-Requirements: There needs to be some minimum, even switching to courtier has requirements. What are the current requirements for lordship? If those stats are good enough to start a religion now, they'll be fine under a new system. I don't know what you mean about limiting the way a player plays his prophet? There are requirements in the current system and as you said, the current system doesn't limit the ways a prophet can portray himself.
-Pre-temple religion dies when the last person leaves, as in, the founder. Founders can leave their religions now, so that shouldn't be a problem. If successful, the pre-temple would convert over to an established religion and the structure of the pre-temple need not be maintained.
-Established religion falls due to lack of temple: If the prophet and his core followers are still around, why the heck did they let the last temple fall? They should have to start from scratch if they let that happen.
-Other nobles in pre-temple: One of the requirements for a pre-temple to become established would be gathering some number of noble followers, previously mentioned as converts (again, let's say ten). It's not a matter of can, you *must* have noble followers in your pre-temple. At least one of whom should be a lord, since you are wanting to build a temple.
Since there are so many options (so many lords), there is no reason for it to be okay for a would-be prophet to seek a temporary lordship. Right now, the *only* way to start a religion is for *you* to be a lord, so the only way to avoid a temporary appointment is to already be a lord when you get the idea, and that doesn't seem to be the case most of the time. Because there is only one option, it's unfair to say 'no temporary lordships', but under a new system there would be lots of options, and completely fair to crack down on temporary appointments.
-Leaving pre-temple religion: Click "leave". No coffers (if you want to raise gold, keep it on hand for when you're official), so no debt. It's just as easy to leave a religion now, and I believe that's intentional. I, too, would prefer people take their choice of religion more seriously, but if Tom wants fluidity then fluidity there shall be.
-Moving over to an established-religion: Keep it simple. Everyone in pre-temple move to established-religion. Founder is Founder, everyone else from pre-temple is Member (Senior would be interesting, but I think you can only have a certain percentage of members as Senior, and that's a good feature, in my opinion). The Founder can mess with the ranks as he pleases afterward.
The nature of pre-temple (in my envisioning of it, I imagine you guys have your own thoughts on Perth's suggestion) is to be mechanically simple. No bells or whistles, just get people interested and get your religion formed.