BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Aldwoni on April 01, 2011, 08:53:53 PM
-
When I send a message in function as Elder priest, I get my function under my name, but when I get a reply back and send a message to the same character it changes to my function in the realm.
-
The signature is applied based on where you find the link to start the message. If you go from a guild or religion, it knows to use the guild/religion title.
However, once that message goes out and comes back, the game does not know that the message is a religious/guild message. All it sees is a message from Frank Kepler. How is it supposed to know that this is a religious message? That's why it defaults back to the generic realm titles. If you would like it to keep using the religious titles, you'll need to go back to the religion message options and start a new message from there.
-
Maybe an option to select which set of titles to use? Or maybe even, which titles to specifically include? On Dwilight, I used to RP a character that would list all his official titles from his religions, realm, and guilds. Given SMA, I think this would add to the flavour of Dwilight.
-
Maybe an option to select which set of titles to use? Or maybe even, which titles to specifically include? On Dwilight, I used to RP a character that would list all his official titles from his religions, realm, and guilds. Given SMA, I think this would add to the flavour of Dwilight.
I like this.
Perhaps a set of checkboxes, and the option to set a default set?
-
Wasn't there something on the Dlist about titles, centered mostly around giving the religious title to everyone? I believe the outcome of that was something like "Anyone not in the religion doesn't care what they want to call themselves", although in present-day we do pay attention to religious titles. We also pay attention to "guild" titles somewhat as well, as in, CEO of WonderBusiness. But I don't recall how the original thread went.
-
While some outside the religion might not care, others would. A pagan lord would probably pay more attention to a bishop or archbishop's mail than a common lay priest.
-
I totally agree. Actually I just thought about the checkboxes too, independently from this thread :)
It would just be very handy to, for instance, gain new members for your guild. If you mesage someone you would like to recruit, he cannot see your guild rank until he's actually joined.
And another thing:
"send to ... one of your contacts". It's useful in some cases, but often I want to send 1 letter to several people I know (for instance to friends across a continent), and I end up copy-pasting the letter several times. Is this intentional? Because it kind of breaks the atmosphere.
Why not add 'send to some of your contacts'?
-
While some outside the religion might not care, others would. A pagan lord would probably pay more attention to a bishop or archbishop's mail than a common lay priest.
That's why there are elder priests and normal priests, the former of which have more options and can be clearly differentiated.
-
That's why there are elder priests and normal priests, the former of which have more options and can be clearly differentiated.
Two of my characters are elder priests. Neither of them show up any different than non-elder priests in messages. So either you're thinking of something else or you're mistaken.
-
Two of my characters are elder priests. Neither of them show up any different than non-elder priests in messages. So either you're thinking of something else or you're mistaken.
Who said it had to be only in messages that the difference is clear to outsiders?
-
Please elaborate what you mean by that sentence, as to me, it makes absolutely no sense.
He's saying the entire point of this thread is about religious titles appearing in messages, so referring to how elder priests may appear different outside of messages is not all that relevant.
-
While some outside the religion might not care, others would. A pagan lord would probably pay more attention to a bishop or archbishop's mail than a common lay priest.
That's why there are elder priests and normal priests, the former of which have more options and can be clearly differentiated.
Two of my characters are elder priests. Neither of them show up any different than non-elder priests in messages. So either you're thinking of something else or you're mistaken.
By following those statements, Draco Tanos opened up the deviation to the clear distinction between elder priests and normal priests. By the original reply he gave, he is asserting that an elder priest would have more clout than a regular priest, albeit he is limiting his scope to messages alone. By my next reply, I say that such is indeed the case, but I never stated nor implied that it was through messages, merely that elder priests can be differentiated from normal priests already in our current system. And why should it only be through messages? We do not recognize those who are famous or high-ranking simply from contacts alone.
The fact that Draco Tanos assumed I was talking about messages is not my problem. And I think it is quite relevant to know that elder priests can be distinguished even now, because that does factor into the consideration of whether we want religious titles outside the religion.
As the system currently stands, one can see a renowned priest to invite for sermons, and one can figure out who is an elder priest if and when he takes over a region through religion. To have titles outside the religion would open the gates for some religion to fill the entire list of ranks, and if it grows large enough, we'll see some strange titles for every priest. What would the average lord who is not at all interested in the religion say about some priest with the title "Grand Chalupa"? I doubt he'd go up and say "Excuse me, but what's your rank in your religion? I have to ascertain that you are worth my time."
Ah, but wait, we already have a system to find out whether priests are "worth our time". It's called the invite priest action, in which a renowned priest can be invited for private sermon. If you're really that interested about his title in the religion, ask him. Obviously if you've invited him for a private sermon, that's the best time to do it.
Egamma edit: removed off-topic content.
-
Ok, I'll put it straight to you: At least come up with some actual argument as to why my line of reasoning is incorrect. Quoting things shows you know how to quote. Now show what you think, other than "Hah, u dont read either!!" because I can interpret Indirik's message as relative to how the game knows what is a religious message. It goes into mechanics territory, and when considering changes to mechanics we should consider all aspects that directly relate to the mechanic we seek to change. Alterations would not necessarily only affect message appearances. For example, right now there is a need to ask, or to invite. It engenders possible personal relations. Having the title out there, especially weird ones, when one might very well be disinterested in the entire religion can cause conflicts unnecessarily and affect first impressions.
For example if the Church of Living Light has as its elder the Priest of Fresh human Blood, at first glance many characters will withdraw in terror. Less will approach initially than if only the more neutral sounding religion name was given.
Now, I've given a little more of my reasoning. Point out the flaws and more importantly how and why they are flawed.
-
Maybe an option to select which set of titles to use? Or maybe even, which titles to specifically include? On Dwilight, I used to RP a character that would list all his official titles from his religions, realm, and guilds. Given SMA, I think this would add to the flavour of Dwilight.
Even if an elder priest sends his message to another elder or priest?
-
+1 for the checkboxes! ;D
-
If I understand this correctly the idea would be to have a list of titles from which an individual can select to include in his signature for messages instead of having the game auto select what it thinks the best title would be based on the recipient?
So for example:
Message to: Jimmy, Sam, Bill, Bob
--------------------------------------------------
| My Message. |
| |
| |
| |
--------------------------------------------------
Sign as:
[] Baron of Region
[] High Priest of Religion
[] Banker or Realm
[SEND]
The titles can not be customized or created but are solely based on what you character has earned in game. You simply get to choose which ones to incluse on any given message. Doese this sound right?
-
Pelgard, that's exactly right--nice example.
-
Yes, you broke it down nicely :) I support this.
-
Thats how I imagine it too ;D
-
I wonder whether it would be strange for a CEO of a serious Fortune 500 company to sign a legal document with one of his other titles like "President of Cute Anime Babes Admirers International Fanclub" rather than "CEO of Serious Inc."
We're talking nobles here, the same ones who are supposedly uptight enough about proper decorum to kill over breaches in proper behavior, including address. As the message system is, it automatically sorts for when you're talking to a guild, whereby your guild title is used, religion, or political.
In case it's still not clear, let's give a more modern example. I assume we're mostly more lax in our rules about titles, but even with our liberal treatment of them, for the most part, do we call ourselves stuff like "Chairman of Otaku Heaven" to our boss? Coworkers? Friends who aren't part of that club?
Yes, we do recognize stuff like "Doctor", and "Reverend", etc. But for those I'd argue the BM equivalent sticks no matter what channel you message. Ever notice that council positions and region lordships, even "Ambassador of X" sticks to each and every message you send? There's your "Dr."
Regarding religion, has it ever occurred that there are not at all that religions influential enough in BM to make people care what religious tutle you have? Same with guilds. At least "Priest of Y" appears in the absence of higher priority titles, so be glad of that.
-
And has it ever occurred to you that a priest wouldn't care if others thought his religion was "important" or not, but some would rather it be clear when they're speaking from a position of spiritual authority rather than temporal?
-
Now you say the exact same thing that was discussed in the Dlist links I provided. Go read them again to find the paraphrased words of Tom: "People outside the religion don't give a damn, No." Actually, to be more exact, his words were:
"The signatures are not just for flavour, they also tell an outsider who you are. Making them arbitrary means other people can't place you. Is a "Storm-walker" a priest or is he not?"
http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/2010-September/045133.html (http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/2010-September/045133.html)
But do read the rest of the thread. It's enlightening and is in fact relevant because the whole issue of priests having their titles out in public was exactly what started that thread. Wow, this is the...fourth time I've had to explain this to the same person?
If opinions have changed, then great, we have this forum after all. But at least read the stuff that is relevant to what you're stating. Then you'd know what the direction was back then and you can make a case for why that is the wrong thinking rather than continue to pound in a possibly dead end yet unjustified direction.
Gee, I'm not trying to be some "voice of Tom" that Nerukou accuses Anaris of being, but really, pay attention to past discussions on the same topic, especially when I take the trouble of finding them for you and linking them.
-
I am usually against double posting but this would probably require a separate post.
First, a description of the mechanical side of titles as they are now. There is a set series of priority for determining which title appears in your message. I will refer to them according to tiers, with lower tiers being covered up by higher tiers, and equal tiers coexisting. For tiers with the same number but differing numbers of the ' symbol, it means that the ranks function in similar ways, but cannot coexist.
Tier 0: Outlaw (I think, I have never done much with my only outlaw noble.), appears as: (Outlaw)
Tier 0.5* Commoner only rank: Freeman, prioritizes over T0, appears as: (Freeman)
Tier 1: Noble, including Imperial Knight, appears as: (Noble)
Tier 2: Knight of region, appears as: (Knight of <Region>)
Tier 3: Lord without region, appears as: (Lord)
Tier 3': Duke without region, appears as: (Duke)
Tier 3'': Royal, appears as: (Royal)
Tier 4: Priest, appears as (Priest of <Religion>)
Tier 5: Lord of region other than city or stronghold, for example under classical system may appear in one variation as: Baron of Landmass
Tier 5': Duke of region, for example under classical system it would appear as: Duke of Cityplace
Tier 5* (Coexists with all other Tier 5, overwrites all under Tier 5, but Duke and Lord are exclusive for one character, hence the special tier): Ruler, General, Judge, Banker, Ambassador, Marshal
Any corrections, please point out.
This tiering system appears fairly deliberate as well, indicating the possibility that there was thought put into the priorities of how titles would be handled. In a way it makes sense. Why? Let's go back to the checkboxes suggestion. I think we are lacking some key thoughts there.
1. What would the default be in case the player doesn't hit any checkboxes? Do not underestimate the importance of this, as human laziness has a very high limit. Are we going to default back to the original system I described above? If so, then just how many people would actually use it? Care about it?
2. How would multiple titles be handled? If it's freeform, then there at first seems to be no problem since there are some people who are almost every council position, a duke, a marshal, and an ambassador. But now add to that, what if the guy was also a high ranking member of his religion like an elder priest? That's possible to have nearly all council positions, region lordship, ambassador status, marshal or army, elder priest. Let's add to that all his guilds, shall we? Let's say he's in about 10 guilds because he travels the continent seeking to buff his titles. What would we see then? Here's an example:
Letter from Pompous Longwind
Hello.
Pompous Longwind
Emperor and Judicator and Commander of BigHead, Duke of Arrogantville, Marshal of the Cocky Jerks, Infinity Priest of Narcissism, Almighty Master of Keys to Success, Chairman of Adventurer Beaters Anonymous, President of Ham Sandwich Makers, High Commander of Armchair Generaling United, Prime Secretary of Hedonistic Guild, Manager of Inflated Ego Company, Supervisor of We Are Better Than You International
You get the idea.
Now if we were to set certain parameters, like force them to select political, military, economic, religious, guild, titles, that would still not allow someone like a military dictator show off that he is marshal of an army, or a theocracy leader show that he is both priest and ruler.
The end result is that under a freeform system, you'll have at least a couple players think it would be funny to make their titles longer than their messages. Under a stricter system you will have people complain about how restrictive the choices are. Under the current system you have people like Draco Tanos intent on getting some form of the above two choices or another variant implemented.
Like I said about the Magic Scrolls Feature Request, no matter which way you slice it there will be problems, and there will be visible complaint. Now the question becomes which way would leave the fewest people complaining and keep the most people interested.
-
Title
Having every letter signed at the end with your religious title and to what religion, if you are the head of a religion.
Summary
Instead of seeing this in secular letters:
Liara Anaris
Viscountess of Ajitmon
Priestess of Quintarianism
We would have:
Liara Anaris
Viscountess of Ajitmon
Priestess of Quintarianism
Founder of Quintarianism
Or:
Alice Arundel
Priestess of Aetheris Pyrism
to
Alice Arundel
Priestess of Aetheris Pyrism
Vicar of the Flame of Aetheris Pyrism
Details
The head of a religion would naturally sign their letters with their title, as they had significant religious authority that would sometimes extend politically. Nobles would acknowledge their position by including their religious title with any secular title they held; drawing example from the Pope, the Patriarch, or a Caliph.
This suggestion is also a realistic alternative to the constant explanation that you're the head of religion, in every letter, as if you were overly self righteous.
Benefits
I. An improved religious game through the identification and acknowledgement of religious heads. Promotion of obedience, adherence, praise, fear, and prejudice by others as recognized position extends outside of strictly religious missives.
II. Easier for a recipient to identify who you are, instead of just being a "priest."
Possible Exploits
Abuse of system through silly and inappropriate titles and ranks.
One step further (Not the focus of this request.)
Removing the title "Priest of (insert religion here)", and replacing it with whichever rank said person holds and to what religion. As priest characters - who aren't too numerous - dedicate themselves to the religious game, having their ranks show may promote religious activity and diversity.
This would also remove the insignificant title "Priestess of Quintarianism/Priestess of Aetheris Pyrism" from the primary feature requested above.
Edit: Fit to the required scheme of a feature request: sorry for not doing so the first time.
-
This has been repeatedly rejected.
-
I like the concept, but obviously the founder-level title isn't necessarily leader for many religions at this point due to it being unobtainable.
Is there a particular reason it's rejected?
-
This has been repeatedly rejected.
It isn't on the frequently rejected page, hence it was posted.
-
I like the concept, but obviously the founder-level title isn't necessarily leader for many religions at this point due to it being unobtainable.
Is there a particular reason it's rejected?
I understand that the founder is not always the leader, hence the second example. Having it select the highest ranking member would seem ideal.
-
Honestly, all Elder ranks would make sense. Because I can't imagine Bishop Bob or Paladin Primus Pete wouldn't include the title in their massive sigs.
-
Honestly, all Elder ranks would make sense. Because I can't imagine Bishop Bob or Paladin Primus Pete wouldn't include the title in their massive sigs.
I agree completely. I kept the request solely to the head of religion simply because it would be the first step in this particular direction. But if all elders is something to be considered, I will gladly support it.
-
Honestly, all Elder ranks would make sense. Because I can't imagine Bishop Bob or Paladin Primus Pete wouldn't include the title in their massive sigs.
Indeed. This seems quite nice, improving the RP atmosphere.
-
What if the "head" of the religion doesn't want it?
What if the highest ranking guy isn't the active leader?
What if there are multiples at the highest rank?
-
What if the "head" of the religion doesn't want it?
What if the highest ranking guy isn't the active leader?
What if there are multiples at the highest rank?
1. Give an example of a reason they wouldn't want it shown.
2. He shouldn't be the highest ranking guy or go with the all elders option so its guaranteed the active leader is showed.
3. Every person with the highest rank gets the title for their signature, its called being co-leader which is why they both have the title.
-
What if the "head" of the religion doesn't want it?
What if the highest ranking guy isn't the active leader?
What if there are multiples at the highest rank?
To add to Penchant's argument:
What if a Duke doesn't want to sign with the title of duke? We're nobles, signing with your titles is natural. The fact that "Priest of (Insert religion here)" already exists, I don't think this a valid argument, seeing as the title of priest might not even fit into the hierarchy of the person's religion and is equally not a choice.
Then make it for all the elders. Honestly, I believe most, if not all religions have the highest rank as the leader.
Then have both signed, since they would be co-leaders, or have all the elders have a signature, as mentioned and supported above.
-
no one outside of a religion has a clue what religious titles mean and you can have 10 (11?) of those elder ones per religion... unless you mean generic title.. like "Elder of U"
-
no one outside of a religion has a clue what religious titles mean and you can have 10 (11?) of those elder ones per religion... unless you mean generic title.. like "Elder of U"
I believe what is being suggested is if its just for person/people with highest rank's title of their religion. Ex. Spiritual Father of Evgenism
Edit: Short version of what I previously typed but got deleted; its not about what the elder position is but the fact that it shows they are elder without being bland, like realm council could be always ruler, judge, banker, and general but the names are custimimizable so its not bland and fits to the realm; if there are many elders of the religion that will almost always mean its a larger religion which then makes sense for their to be many elders being represented so its not overkill.
-
I found the original feature request and combined them. Indirik, I do not see where it was rejected in that other thread, although a quoted d-list posting (which is no longer accessible) makes the point that people outside the religion don't care.
-
I found the original feature request and combined them. Indirik, I do not see where it was rejected in that other thread, although a quoted d-list posting (which is no longer accessible) makes the point that people outside the religion don't care.
I don't believe that's a sufficient reason for a noble not to sign his own titles. I also think that everyone who is part of the religion, in addition to potential converts and high ranking members - both political and religious - would take interest if the letter was signed with their religious title.
Also, a reverse argument, why sign King of Bobland in a religious letter? Why does it matter? Do you think people from another realm care? If you say yes on the principle that they are a King and significant authority, the same argument can be made for a religious leader and elders. If we don't give religious authority the same kind of extensions as secular authority - even in small things like signing letters - then the religious game will always be that much more insignificant.
-
I'm looking for a "Like" option for your post, Arundel. Sadly, forums don't have it. D:
Seriously though, I've been in favor of this for awhile. While non-followers won't care, the followers and the writer WOULD care because historically and therefore ICly, faith was frequently more important than anything else. There were rebellions because the Church excommunicated a nobleman after all, for their word was no longer backed by any sort of Divine Right.
-
Draco, I think you may be right. I tried looking for that like button, but I can't find it either.
But I don't think non-followers won't care to the extent we're talking. They may not care in a positive way, but what about the negative emotions? Intrigue, conflict, and so on can also spark from knowledge that should be made available. Nobles flaunted their power and titles, always, as it was a symbol of superiority for that person and their family. They made friends and enemies because of it, and I think that opportunity should be made accessible for the religious game.
-
You can make the same argument for guild elders. And then you run into the problem of people having 20 titles.
That's not an issue with religions, but I'm not really sure if restricting it to religions really is the answer.
-
So long as the religion game is treated as decidedly inferior to the rest of the game, nobody outside of hardcore RPers or priests will give it the light of day.
-
Tom, that's the thing. Guilds weren't really that major for noblility during the middle ages. They were typically for commoners. Many were or became well-to-do commoners, but still tended to not be nobility. Though I will admit that many of us use them for other purposes where the game does not quite give us easy sway otherwise (alliances, religious knightly orders, etc).
Religion though? That was a major part of everyone's everyday life. Being a leader of the stonecutters' guild? Not usually concerning unless you'd have to deal with them for some reason. Religious leaders? I'm pretty sure even the pagan tribes of Germany tended to know who the nearby Bishops were. They might not have liked them, they may have even HATED them, but they knew who they were.
-
So long as the religion game is treated as decidedly inferior to the rest of the game, nobody outside of hardcore RPers or priests will give it the light of day.
It is meant to be optional.
-
It is meant to be optional.
They can be parallel to the main game while still being equal to it.
If religion is going to exist with actual ingame mechanics, some strength behind those mechanics should exist. Being the head of a major religion should be considered equal to being a king. Right now, religion is pointless, and stuff like this basically just mocks it. Why the hell would you join a religion if all it's going to do is take your cash and time, when you don't even get a cool title out of gaining influence within it, let alone any tangible benefits?
-
I generally consider "guilds" as we have them in game to be more like knightly orders or societies rather than as a craftsman's guild. Some of these could be quite prestigious.
As for why you might not want your titles used in non-religious letters, the perfect example is the Blood Cult on BT. The religion was widely hated, and I would imagine that the people involved did not want to go around advertising their affiliation. This change would force a certain percentage of nobles to advertise their faith whether they want to or not. (And yes, I know that it is public for lords. This is circumventable by not becoming a lord, and it is also a local phenomenon, not broadcast constantly with every letter you send.)
-
well certainly... lay members of the religion might not want it advertised. the only odd thing about lord having his faith blasted everywhere... is that duke/ruler/gov members don't.
that.... is not an insurmountable problem. each noble could have a tick box option to show/hide his faith title.
but as stated before... a load of titles doesn't mean jack to anyone who can't see the pecking order tree.
the head of a religion can be the nominal rank 10 (ie.. lowest elder rank) or any rank above that's been reclaimed when founder/former head disappeared... (i think... i don't think the new head is automatically promoted to highest rank)... and given each rank has its own title... showing that title doesn't tell you anything. whereas a generic "head of X" does mean something to everyone else.
the head of a religion doesn't have to be a priest.. how does that fit in with titles? eg.. you could have a lay member at highest rank pulling strings with a priest fronting the religion. no one outside the religion would know. (unless advertised or informed by those within)
-
I generally consider "guilds" as we have them in game to be more like knightly orders or societies rather than as a craftsman's guild. Some of these could be quite prestigious.
As for why you might not want your titles used in non-religious letters, the perfect example is the Blood Cult on BT. The religion was widely hated, and I would imagine that the people involved did not want to go around advertising their affiliation. This change would force a certain percentage of nobles to advertise their faith whether they want to or not. (And yes, I know that it is public for lords. This is circumventable by not becoming a lord, and it is also a local phenomenon, not broadcast constantly with every letter you send.)
I don't think it's a good example. Everyone knew Louis-Joseph was the Teocoatl, and he never hid this fact. I wouldn't have minded the least bit that his letters be signed with "Teocoatl of The Blood Cult".
Our elders weren't as publicized, but I think they were on our wiki page somewhere anyways, so that wouldn't have mattered much either. It's more the full members, aspirants, and temple locations we wanted to remain unknown.
-
well certainly... lay members of the religion might not want it advertised. the only odd thing about lord having his faith blasted everywhere... is that duke/ruler/gov members don't.
that.... is not an insurmountable problem. each noble could have a tick box option to show/hide his faith title.
but as stated before... a load of titles doesn't mean jack to anyone who can't see the pecking order tree.
the head of a religion can be the nominal rank 10 (ie.. lowest elder rank) or any rank above that's been reclaimed when founder/former head disappeared... (i think... i don't think the new head is automatically promoted to highest rank)... and given each rank has its own title... showing that title doesn't tell you anything. whereas a generic "head of X" does mean something to everyone else.
What about having both? So the specific title followed by the universal definition.
For example:
Alice Arundel
Vicar of the Flame of Aetheris Pyrism
Head of Aetheris Pyrism
or
Brantley Unwin
Knight of Shinnen Purlieus
Blaze Guide of Aetheris Pyrism
Elder of Aetheris Pyrism
Sure, some people's titles would be quite lengthily, but isn't that the whole goal of being a noble? If you have the most titles, then you are most certainly the best noble by your own proclamation. Another reason why I support the more specific title - whilst agreeing with your suggestion - is for personal communication's sake. If I send a letter signing only with "Head of Bob", then I'll have a reply beginning with "Head of Bob"; its as bland as "Priest of Bob". Rulers don't solely sign with "Ruler of Bobland", and neither should heads of religion.
the head of a religion doesn't have to be a priest.. how does that fit in with titles? eg.. you could have a lay member at highest rank pulling strings with a priest fronting the religion. no one outside the religion would know. (unless advertised or informed by those within)
If we were to only replace "Priest of Bob" with specific titles, then I wouldn't see this as a problem. If the priest is a figurehead or a "front" for the religion, then obviously the man pulling the strings wouldn't be as well known to the public of peasants, nor many of the nobles - save if they were told from the inside. Word would eventually get out, but at a much slower pace.
As for why you might not want your titles used in non-religious letters, the perfect example is the Blood Cult on BT. The religion was widely hated, and I would imagine that the people involved did not want to go around advertising their affiliation. This change would force a certain percentage of nobles to advertise their faith whether they want to or not. (And yes, I know that it is public for lords. This is circumventable by not becoming a lord, and it is also a local phenomenon, not broadcast constantly with every letter you send.)
Let us consider this then: the rumors of court, the rumors of the fickle. News traveled quite rapidly in the Medieval times, and it did so by word of mouth. We have to remember that we - the players - are the cream of the crop, the highest nobles. There are minor nobles, merchants, priests, administrators, and peasants that exist in BM as referenced NPC's. In a Temple, it would be highly illogical that it'd be a one man operation, as there would be a plethora of priests and laypersons beneath you. People would naturally know who was who because information was a valuable commodity.
So even if a head and elders of a religion wished to keep their identities secret, I doubt they would be successful should they wish to preach even once. Not to mention, when a religion is created, everyone is notified who made it and where they made it. Not much secrecy there.
It is meant to be optional.
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/SMA#An_Exhortation_Concerning_Good_Order_and_Obedience_to_Rulers_and_Magistrates
It is clear by this example how important religion is. Optional or not, Norrel's point stands true: it can be played parallel while still being equal to the rest of the game, as it should be.
Edits: grammar and vocab choice.
-
the head of a religion can be the nominal rank 10 (ie.. lowest elder rank) or any rank above that's been reclaimed when founder/former head disappeared... (i think... i don't think the new head is automatically promoted to highest rank)...
This is incorrect. When the ranks of those who have left the religion are reclaimed, the new head is automatically promoted to rank 2. Thus, the head of the religion should always be either rank 1, if present, or, if not, rank 2.
If the feature request were to be accepted, I would see no problem with applying it to both rank 1 and rank 2 at all times, for simplicity's sake.
-
Let us consider this then: the rumors of court, the rumors of the fickle. News traveled quite rapidly in the Medieval times, and it did so by word of mouth. We have to remember that we - the players - are the cream of the crop, the highest nobles. There are minor nobles, merchants, priests, administrators, and peasants that exist in BM as referenced NPC's. In a Temple, it would be highly illogical that it'd be a one man operation, as there would be a plethora of priests and laypersons beneath you. People would naturally know who was who because information was a valuable commodity.
Then let the IG rumour mill do its work. If I don't feel like signing some title to my letters, why do I have to put up with you forcing me to do it? Let's face it, you forcing me to sign my letters with specific titles is just as bad as me saying you can't use those titles in your letters, right? What if I just don't want to advertise my affiliation to a specific religion? Why should I *have* to do it?
So even if a head and elders of a religion wished to keep their identities secret, I doubt they would be successful should they wish to preach even once.
Who said they have to preach? Who said they even have to be a priest? You're making too many assumptions in order to make your point.
Not to mention, when a religion is created, everyone is notified who made it and where they made it. Not much secrecy there.
This is not true. Only the realm to which the noble belongs is informed. Also, that only applies for the original founder. Once that person leaves, and another takes over, there is no announcement about it.
-
I've never liked this whole "what if religions want to be secret cults" thing. If you want a secret cult, do a secret society. A religion requires at least one sizable temple. This is not some little hole in the wall people can scurry to without notice. This is a large building with staff. It costs more than some recruitment centers. And most religions have enough infrastructure in temples and shrines to make them equivalent in total investment to a duchy, and quite a number have as much or more than realms.
I think the religion game should be more public, people should be standing up and having their beliefs known, and religious titles should be given equal weight to secular ones. The highest of high nobles of a realm joining a religion is not something that could be secret, nor should it be.
-
It's not entirely about being secret. Sometimes I want to send a letter discussing something without having to tack it chock full of religious titles. There are reasons to use specific titles for specific messages. I don't always want them to be weighed down by religious baggage.
-
Sometimes Jenred wrote private letters to his wife, and I highly doubt he signed all of them as "King of Arcaea, Paladin of Amriel" etc etc. I agree a checkbox where you could select which titles to sign with would be nice, but failing that I would rather have all realm and religious titles (I am counting Elder ranks as titles, while Full and Aspirant ranks are not).
-
I am no medieval scholar, but from what I have read on the BM wiki and forum suggests that religion was very important to people in that time. I can not imagine many Bishops wanting to leave their religious titles out of their correspondence. I could be wrong though. I also agree that there may be cases in which a new religion operates in secret until they have enough support to come public. I agree, however, that in such cases a secret society would be best used until the religion is formally formed. I also agree that once a religion has been made official, there would be no secrecy attached and that most members would proudly wield their religious titles.
It seems that a checklist that remembers a default setting is best for all though.
-
Do you want to be a part of a religion secretly? Join a secret society cult. Otherwise, your faith is what largely defines you (at least publicly) and I don't really think anyone in that age kept their religion a secret. Sure, you'd get the occasional christian who was actually a jew or a muslim or vice versa, but they were still a part of the christian infrastructure and they still publicly claimed to be christian.
-
Then let the IG rumour mill do its work. If I don't feel like signing some title to my letters, why do I have to put up with you forcing me to do it? Let's face it, you forcing me to sign my letters with specific titles is just as bad as me saying you can't use those titles in your letters, right? What if I just don't want to advertise my affiliation to a specific religion? Why should I *have* to do it?
The IG rumour mill hardly exists for this kind of information, as there is no actual base to learn from outside the religion.
Why does any ruler or government member in this game have to sign their titles to their letters? Why do they have to put up with us forcing them to do it? Because they have responsibility and overarching authority that extends through multiple facets of the game. The same goes for religious leaders, who extend their power over a number of people both spiritually and often politically. SA has approximately 140 members! How many realms do you know of have 140 noble player followers? Aetheris Pyrism has nearly 30, a decently high number in comparison to realms around the BM universe, Sartanism has around 20, and the Order of the Elders has more than that. If the religious heads and elders of these religions to refused to sign their titles, it would seem absolutely ridiculous! What about smaller religions? Signing their religious titles lets people know they are serious about leading their faiths, proud in their own beliefs or willing to exemplify them regardless of prejudice/competition, and finally for the fact that they are indeed alive (active and contributing in BM.) A Cathar priest in medieval times would have signed his titles, the Paulicians would have, and the Bogomils would have as well for much the same reasons.
Who said they have to preach? Who said they even have to be a priest? You're making too many assumptions in order to make your point.
What kind of religion is founded in this game with the sole or primary intent of never preaching in their lives, or never having priests? Not too long ago, there was a restriction surrounding priest to layperson ratios for elders, was there not? If there's an example that counters my assumption, I'd be interested in seeing it.
This is not true. Only the realm to which the noble belongs is informed. Also, that only applies for the original founder. Once that person leaves, and another takes over, there is no announcement about it.
Then I stand corrected.
Edit: fixes to writing, as always >:(.
-
This is incorrect. When the ranks of those who have left the religion are reclaimed, the new head is automatically promoted to rank 2. Thus, the head of the religion should always be either rank 1, if present, or, if not, rank 2.
If the feature request were to be accepted, I would see no problem with applying it to both rank 1 and rank 2 at all times, for simplicity's sake.
i'm probably not explaining it properly... you don't have to reclaim missing ranks, right? or is it automatically reclaimed? (if it's automatic... then obviously everything below is flawed)
eg..
1 head
2 vice
3 deputy <-- empty
6 dogsbody
7 someone
8 mice
head disappears... so your rank 2 is now elder. that displays a different custom title.
vice disappears and dogsbody is now boss (doesn't reclaim)... yet another custom title.
head reappears and reclaims it... back to head. appoints deputy and then head disappears... yet another custom title.
none of those custom titles mean anything to outsiders who cannot access the list of ranks. the only reason custom titles for gov "work" is that you can look up the realm details and tell what means what. and that is a bit of a chore.
how's that sound?
-----
equally.. you can have a religion that tells everyone else outside it that a priest is the boss.. but he isn't actually the boss in the religion. (as in there are layer members above)... slapping a title on for the actual boss is undesirable.
another alternative is a religion based toggle, rather than noble based. the head of the religion can tick a tickbox against 1 particular elder rank. whoever is in that rank will have a generic title of "Head/Leader of <religion x>" in his sig.
-
i'm probably not explaining it properly... you don't have to reclaim missing ranks, right? or is it automatically reclaimed? (if it's automatic... then obviously everything below is flawed)
eg..
1 head
2 vice
3 deputy <-- empty
6 dogsbody
7 someone
8 mice
head disappears... so your rank 2 is now elder. that displays a different custom title.
vice disappears and dogsbody is now boss (doesn't reclaim)... yet another custom title.
head reappears and reclaims it... back to head. appoints deputy and then head disappears... yet another custom title.
Oh—there are 2 different "reclaims" going on.
The one you're describing is the Founder's ability to reclaim the Founder rank if he leaves the guild (by whatever means) and rejoins. That just results in the one character being promoted to the one rank.
The one I was talking about is what can happen if Head, Vice, and Deputy are all gone. At that point, Dogsbody can reclaim the ranks above him, deleting the Vice and Deputy ranks and making the Dogsbody rank into rank 2.
-
eh.. but my point is... what if he doesn't reclaim at all. why would he need to reclaim if he's the highest rank anyway and doesn't need to add more elder ranks (eg.. he thinks 2 or whatever below him is enough)
it would still open the way for anyone after him to reclaim ranks above. thus the highest rank shown to people outside can theoretically be any 1 of 10 and that's changeable with time, even if the names are set in stone (which they aren't)
----
anyway... it's somewhat irrelevant as i was basically saying displaying more than 1 rank title from 1 religion is bad because no one knows what they mean. (someone said show for all elders)
-
eh.. but my point is... what if he doesn't reclaim at all. why would he need to reclaim if he's the highest rank anyway and doesn't need to add more elder ranks (eg.. he thinks 2 or whatever below him is enough)
it would still open the way for anyone after him to reclaim ranks above. thus the highest rank shown to people outside can theoretically be any 1 of 10 and that's changeable with time, even if the names are set in stone (which they aren't)
If he doesn't reclaim, then he's not the highest rank.
-
.... highest amongst everyone else present....
-
anyway... it's somewhat irrelevant as i was basically saying displaying more than 1 rank title from 1 religion is bad because no one knows what they mean. (someone said show for all elders)
What about having both? So the specific title followed by the universal definition.
For example:
Alice Arundel
Vicar of the Flame of Aetheris Pyrism
Head of Aetheris Pyrism
or
Brantley Unwin
Knight of Shinnen Purlieus
Blaze Guide of Aetheris Pyrism
Elder of Aetheris Pyrism
-
there are 10 possible elder titles... unless you are listing them out like
<title>, head of <religion>
<title>, number 2 of <religion>
no one will have a clue which elder is more senior, etc.... anyway.. number X of <religion> sounds naff, so something better is needed. the ranks are not explicitly numbered... so you probably won't end up with something like 1,3,6 and missing inbetween.. that would look really odd.
or just stick to one title only..
though you do wonder about messages between elders of different faiths. would the message system be smart enough to figure out messages between different faiths would probably be nice to include ranks meaningfully somehow and omit them when writing to nobles of no significant faiths, for example.
--
either way.. 1 line is better than 2.
--
thing about title inflation is that.. it makes far more sense to have
knight of <estate name>, region X than the other stuff.
-
I think as long as we know they're elders, its fine. I disagree that one line is better than two, and that both should be there in order to help clarify the more colorful and meaningful title.
The largest religion in the game, Sanguis Astroism, has 12 elders in total with 9 elder titles encompassing them; or so the wiki states. It'd be safe to assume that most religions don't have that many elders, as I've seen personally in every religion that I've been a part of, and the influx of titles would be rather low.
On the note of too may titles, let me point you to secular titles. Whereas I'm suggesting 2 titles solely for elders, realms can assign a council, duke, lordship, and marshal title all to one noble - even more if one holds more than one council position - making my suggestion hardly cumbersome to what exists already.
-
If I'm a noble outside of the other religion, it's enough for me to know that the person who signed the letter is an elder. what his position is regarding the other elders is from there can be easily researched by asking.
-
I've never liked this whole "what if religions want to be secret cults" thing. If you want a secret cult, do a secret society. A religion requires at least one sizable temple. This is not some little hole in the wall people can scurry to without notice. This is a large building with staff. It costs more than some recruitment centers. And most religions have enough infrastructure in temples and shrines to make them equivalent in total investment to a duchy, and quite a number have as much or more than realms.
I think the religion game should be more public, people should be standing up and having their beliefs known, and religious titles should be given equal weight to secular ones. The highest of high nobles of a realm joining a religion is not something that could be secret, nor should it be.
I do not know any other religion who sought to be as "secret" as The Blood Cult. And in that case, the only things I wanted secret were things that were, for pretty much everyone, very difficult to learn: member list and temple location. Except those that joined the religion for the sole sake of getting extra info from doing so, which I have always held as an abuse of mechanics.
Even if the Cult was secretive, there was absolutely nothing secret about our elders: the initiation RPs, where they do ritual killings and gain their promotions, was publicly available on our wiki page.
I do not believe "some religions prefer to be secretive" as a valid reason to exclude leader (or elder) titles from signatures.
-
So I believe the feature request has come down to the following:
The head (top rank currently filled) and all elders of a religion should have their religious titles signed at the end of every letter. In addition, a simple title that describes whether said previous title belongs to an elder or a head should follow, in order to clarify it to members outside of the religion.
Example:
Alice Arundel
Vicar of the Flame of Aetheris Pyrism
Head of Aetheris Pyrism
or
Brantley Unwin
Knight of Shinnen Purlieus
Blaze Guide of Aetheris Pyrism
Elder of Aetheris Pyrism
In addition, an option - in the form of a checkbox - to sign these titles would be preferred for those who wish to have a choice in publicizing their titles. However, this is a preference and not the absolute focus of this feature request.
-
.. as i said, 1 line is better than 2.
Vicar of the Flame of Aetheris Pyrism
Head of Aetheris Pyrism
cf
Vicar of the Flame, Head of Aetheris Pyrism
-
Should the feature come to pass I'd recommend the checkbox to be made simple. Something like this:
- Temporal titles. (King, Duke, Lord, Knight of Keplerstan)
- Spiritual titles. (As described before)
[] Special title I. (Rock Prospector of Miners Guild, Elder)
[] Special title II. (Secret Headmaster of Super-secret Society, Head)
-
Putting in the line "Elder of Religion" is redundant. If the titles are only added for Elders, then the fact that the title is present tells you he's an Elder.
The term "Head" of the religion is incorrect. It should be Prophet or Founder to keep in line with the terms the game already uses. Also, I don't personally think that liner is necessary or makes any sense to be added at all. The title is enough. That's like signing your letter as "King of Perdan, Ruler of Perdan".
-
as stated. everyone and their dog can easily look up what a custom title of gov position means. no one knows jack about a particular religion.
barring the obvious that they high up.
-
Vicar of the Flame, Head of Aetheris Pyrism
I misunderstood you before. This is indeed a good suggestion, and I'm disappointed with myself for not realizing it sooner. Limiting it to one title essentially makes void the whole "chalk full of titles" argument earlier.
Putting in the line "Elder of Religion" is redundant. If the titles are only added for Elders, then the fact that the title is present tells you he's an Elder.
Only if the head of the religion has his/her title stating otherwise. Then yes, I would agree with you.
The term "Head" of the religion is incorrect. It should be Prophet or Founder to keep in line with the terms the game already uses. Also, I don't personally think that liner is necessary or makes any sense to be added at all. The title is enough. That's like signing your letter as "King of Perdan, Ruler of Perdan".
No, I don't think it should be Prophet or Founder because numerous religions have been around for ages, and their Prophets/Founders have long since been gone. The term "Head" should be created.
Like fodder points out, your comparison is flawed because three clicks at maximum (Information, Realm List, Details) lets anybody identify whom the custom title belongs to, for a ruler or council member. There's absolutely no way to identify whether or not a religious member is a head, elder, full member, or even an aspirant - as is the case with the title "Priest of Bob" - thus requiring clarification.
-
Religious titles only get added for Elders. This noble is using a religous title. Therefore, this nobles is an Elder. That makes the extra title "Elder of Religion" redundant and superfluous.
Also, I intensely dislike the term "Head of Religion". It has the completely generic feel that sounds totally inappropriate. It could also be inappropriate in some circumstances. The highest ranked noble is not necessarily the "head" of the church. The founder of SA does not really run the church. He rarely is even heard from the de facto head of the church is the Regent, at rank 2.
If religious titles for elders do get added, then add the title and leave it at that. If people are curious, they can ask.
-
Or look at the wiki (which most respectable religions should work on at leasing providing some basic info for).
-
That, too.
-
Or look at the wiki (which most respectable religions should work on at leasing providing some basic info for).
The wiki is frequently outdated for several religions. Whether or not they should update it, they don't.
-
I also think that, if only listing titles of Elders, it would be fine to leave out the generic title. As was already stated different religions have different structures. I can imagine a religion having a council of three level 2 members jointly leading the religion. Which is the head? Often a founder does not seek to be the single authoritative voice and leader of a religion. It is enough for the people to know he/she is an elder. The exact structure can be divulged via IC discussions perhaps?
-
I also think that, if only listing titles of Elders, it would be fine to leave out the generic title. As was already stated different religions have different structures. I can imagine a religion having a council of three level 2 members jointly leading the religion. Which is the head? Often a founder does not seek to be the single authoritative voice and leader of a religion. It is enough for the people to know he/she is an elder. The exact structure can be divulged via IC discussions perhaps?
Hmm, a council of leaders is a definite possibility. But I still think the majority of religions are lead by one person, and making a distinction is incredibly important to the core idea of this feature request (since its the head/heads that are the most recognized than the other members). So I would suggest alternatively that all three of those members, by your example, have themselves labeled head instead.
Its much more natural to have a recipient identify that you're the head, and explain to them afterwards that you share that responsibility with three other people. The transition in the recipient's mind is much more smooth, considering they've already labeled you a leader. Rather than, by contrast, trudging through an obscure title and having to articulate the fact that you're a leader. They'll have identified you as an important person, but when they're informed of your real title, their mindset will shift and a complete and unnatural change in the conversation will follow.
Beyond social cues, you - the noble - would identify yourself in your own letters that you're a head/leader; whether or not its a shared title, a hierarchy is maintained and cherished.
-
Hmm, a council of leaders is a definite possibility. But I still think the majority of religions are lead by one person, and making a distinction is incredibly important to the core idea of this feature request (since its the head/heads that are the most recognized than the other members). So I would suggest alternatively that all three of those members, by your example, have themselves labeled head instead.
Its much more natural to have a recipient identify that you're the head, and explain to them afterwards that you share that responsibility with three other people. The transition in the recipient's mind is much more smooth, considering they've already labeled you a leader. Rather than, by contrast, trudging through an obscure title and having to articulate the fact that you're a leader. They'll have identified you as an important person, but when they're informed of your real title, their mindset will shift and a complete and unnatural change in the conversation will follow.
Beyond social cues, you - the noble - would identify yourself in your own letters that you're a head/leader; whether or not its a shared title, a hierarchy is maintained and cherished.
Verdis Elementum should theoretically have 5 different elders with different titles leading together. I don't think we've every had an elder for all elements at the same time, though.
-
If Brance (my Dwilight character) were to use religious titles in his signature, the idea of adding "Head of Sanguis Asgtroism" wokuld never occur to him, even though he can be considered to be that. The problem is that the position "Head of Sanguis Astroism" simply does not exist. We have many leaders for different aspects.
Is there possibility for confusion based on a profusion of new titles? Of course. Some players may recall that this was one of the reasons this was never implemented before.
For myself, I am strongly against adding the fictitious title of "Head of (Religion)". It is not something that the real noble would do.
-
If Brance (my Dwilight character) were to use religious titles in his signature, the idea of adding "Head of Sanguis Asgtroism" wokuld never occur to him, even though he can be considered to be that. The problem is that the position "Head of Sanguis Astroism" simply does not exist. We have many leaders for different aspects.
Is there possibility for confusion based on a profusion of new titles? Of course. Some players may recall that this was one of the reasons this was never implemented before.
For myself, I am strongly against adding the fictitious title of "Head of (Religion)". It is not something that the real noble would do.
But the real noble would sign his religious title, especially if he was in the high echelons of its hierarchy. The suggestion for clarification is there because it would be needed for nobles to understand custom titles. The reason Kings and councilors don't do it is because those ranks are easily identified, with three clicks of a button.
On an added note, a "head" does not necessarily mean the leader of all authority. As I understand it, the elder rank "Light of the Maddening Star" in SA would be the leader of all militant actions. A "head" could be deemed closest to God/Gods/Essence/Celestial Body/divine morality, or have power over the religion at large. Like Brance's title of "Regent" suggests, he is the person who exercises the ruling power in the religion in the absence, disability, or death of the prophet. That definition would apply universally to any top ranked noble (1 or 2), as they control the religion and everyone in it; nobody can demote them or protest them out.
Hence they are the "head."
-
But the real noble would sign his religious title, especially if he was in the high echelons of its hierarchy. The suggestion for clarification is there because it would be needed for nobles to understand custom titles. The reason Kings and councilors don't do it is because those ranks are easily identified, with three clicks of a button.
The reason rulers don't do it is because "Ruler of (Realm)" is NOT one of their titles.
I highly dislike the idea of the game inventing fictitious titles for characters, applying them potentially inaccurately, and blanket labeling all highest ranked religious leaders with identical titles. We obviously disagree, and won't agree, and we've both made our points clear. We should probably let it go, and see where it goes from here.
-
The reason rulers don't do it is because "Ruler of (Realm)" is NOT one of their titles.
I highly dislike the idea of the game inventing fictitious titles for characters, applying them potentially inaccurately, and blanket labeling all highest ranked religious leaders with identical titles. We obviously disagree, and won't agree, and we've both made our points clear. We should probably let it go, and see where it goes from here.
Deal.
What I will not forfeit, however, is my argument in favor of elders publishing their religious titles in their letters. Its something real nobles would do because they'd be in positions of significant authority, and would be recognized as such. Religions can expand much quicker than realms, have more followers, and extend their authority into the political world. If the title is too custom for another person to understand, then I suppose its up to their own volition to figure out - should it be decided that we won't clarify.
-
I really don't see why it's so important for people outside of a religion to know exactly what every specific title and position is for. It's enough that you know they carry weight within their religion for most things you'd be concerned with.
-
And if they're that curious, they can ask.
If the members of the religion get tired of people asking and having to explain due to lack of information, they can get off their rears and update their wiki page.
-
I really don't see why it's so important for people outside of a religion to know exactly what every specific title and position is for. It's enough that you know they carry weight within their religion for most things you'd be concerned with.
And if they're that curious, they can ask.
If the members of the religion get tired of people asking and having to explain due to lack of information, they can get off their rears and update their wiki page.
You won't see protest from me, so long as the elders' titles show and religion granted recognition for their authority.
-
I really don't see why it's so important for people outside of a religion to know exactly what every specific title and position is for. It's enough that you know they carry weight within their religion for most things you'd be concerned with.
+1. The point of elders getting their custom title in their signature would be to show they are an elder. It is not elder of (religion) because that is implied and they would not sign that as it is not their title, their title is the custom name.
-
Bumping for a more official response.
The suggestion overall has turned into the following:
Summary:
Elders of religion are to add their religious titles in their signatures for every letter they publish.
Details:
All elders should have their religious titles included in every letter they publish, matching those of secular titles in order to promote a more realistic and improved religious game to Battlemaster. Though religion is optional, I see no problem in having it parallel and nearly equal to the secular game. In addition, the title "Priest of Religion" should be removed for Elders, as it may clash with the custom title.
The following examples provide an exact image of what's being requested:
Liara Anaris
Viscountess of Ajitmon
Founder of Quintarianism
Selene Octavius
Viscountess of Anaos
High Priestess of the Church of Sartan (example of where the original priest title would clash/become redundant information.)
Benefits:
This suggestion adds custom religious titles of elders to letters at the same level as secular titles. The suggestion benefits the optional religious game in a manner that is both realistic and motivational. Realistic because it is widely accepted that high ranking members of religious organizations, in medieval times, signed their every letter with their religious title. It was important to them, expected of them, and a show of affluence and authority in a world where such things mattered most. It is motivational because it adds a simple, yet long desired aspect to the religious game. It hinders no one - cults having been argued to become secret societies, hence the function of a cult - and benefits a large amount of people. The suggestion addresses an obvious lack in religious recognition, such a factor being important in real medieval life. Though Battlemaster is evidently a game, and religion optional, it is still felt that this lack is far too obvious, and it should be addressed simply.
Possible Exploits:
Simply put, silly titles. This, however, is matched by the customization of government titles. In contrast, a religious leader cannot be protested from his position, making the title more permanent and difficult to remove. I see no real problem with this, since it will evidently give label to silly and perhaps undesirable players (depending on taste.)
Optional additions:
An option to show these titles or not, in the form of a checkbox, has been pushed for by people who have posted in this thread. I would assume this the harder portion to code, hence why I did not include it in the primary suggestion.