BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Foxglove on January 16, 2013, 07:32:06 AM
-
I'm curious about what people think makes for a good, interesting and fun religion in Battlemaster. What qualities of a religion would enhance the game for you, or what would make a religion fun for you? Or, if you tend to avoid the religions, what do you think the in-game faiths get wrong (in terms of not being fun for you)?
Do the religions your characters follow actually effect their actions in the game and become an active part of who they are, who they ally with, and who they war against?
-
Do the religions your characters follow actually effect their actions in the game and become an active part of who they are, who they ally with, and who they war against?
Yes. Religions that proclaim that they do not get involved with politics and are never aggressive are meaningless. If your religion doesn't impact the way my character acts, your religion might as well not exist. Most people prefer religions that abide their RL sensibilities though.
-
A good religion has, first and foremost, enemies. If it doesn't create any conflict, then it doesn't have a purpose.
Almost all BM religions are way, way, way too forgiving of heathens, heretics and people of different belief. Throughout RL history, I think it can be safely said that religion is the #1 source of violent death, war and conflict.
-
Unfortunately, Tom, religions that do that in BM tend to get destroyed by those that do not.
-
More accurately:
Religions in BM that try to create conflict right out of the gate die on the vine. No one wants those religions around, unless they're created as a state religion. Trying to create one in a realm that already has any religions in it will be nearly impossible. Trying to get one into a realm other than the one it was created in similarly.
If you want to create religious conflict in BM, you first need to have a strong, established religion. Then you declare that another religion is evil, or a realm over there (that also happens to be refusing you entry) has blasphemed against the True Gods, and all the faithful must rise up against them. Or even that Duke Nogoodnik of Keplerstan is a heretic who must be executed.
-
In order for a religion to have staying power, and keep the interest of its members, it has to get involved in what is important to them. I.e. politics and war. You have to choose how you do this very carefully. Too aggressive, and you will attract too many enemies too quickly.
Religions that try to exist solely on RP find their members bored too quickly, and uninvolved. The rich, diverse religion is a labor of love of the founder, and no one else really cares.
You have to give your people something to do, and a goal for which to strive. That's how you get them involved. You do need the religious "window dressing", but it can be useful as a way to drive external conflict.
But no matter what, relate it back to what is important to your members: war and politics.
-
What I would like to see, is for the SA realms to declare war on all heretics and heathens. Then there'd be an epic, cataclysmic, war of extinction. Realms with both SA and rival religions present would be torn in half; massive armies would assemble and march from all corners of Dwilight; everyone would be involved and everything would be at stake. Would be lots of fun.
-
Most likely such a declaration would cause SA to fracture into several small, impotent factions. There simply not enough support from the nobility for that sort of thing. Too many members claim that SA has no right to interfere with the religious rights of other nobles and their commoners.
-
I think the main issue is that religions don't really *do* anything, mechanics wise. Loyalty to a realm's secular politics almost always comes first because it produces men, gold, prestige. Religions gain nothing from expansion and thus gain nothing from risk.
-
Throughout RL history, I think it can be safely said that religion is the #1 source of violent death, war and conflict.
That is a rather simplistic and almost certainly incorrect statement.
But I think the reason why it sometimes looks that way does explain in large part why we lack much of the same conflict in BM -- historically, religion was much more closely tied to (secular) politics and money than it is in much of the world today and than it is in BM. To some extent it is in SA, though not as much, I think, as it historically was in BM's time period.
This is partially due to our modern conceptions of religion -- we think religion should be about well, religion, when historically it often was not, and partially, I think, because most religions in BM are fairly small and don't have the sort of dynamic that Christianity and Islam did with secular rulers in the middle ages. When SA does something, people care, so it's worth it for secular rulers to try to influence it and be seen as supporters of it. Most other religions in BM just don't have that kind of island-wide influence, and so there isn't much reason for a ruler of a realm to give them much support.
Without secular politics getting involved in religion, there just isn't that much to drive conflicts -- a few purely religious conflicts started by the odd true believer here and there, but those were historically rare. And those that do happen will probably be small, and quite possibly limited because no secular authority supports it, and so actual war is possible.
Which of course means that it is somewhat a chicken and egg problem, but there you have it.
Though yes, if there was more mechanics-wise to be gained from religion, rulers might see more benefit in getting involved, and then want to spread the religion so they gained more benefits, or to gain favor with the religious head, who might then cut them in for a larger share of the benefits. . . .
-
In order for a religion to have staying power, and keep the interest of its members, it has to get involved in what is important to them. I.e. politics and war. You have to choose how you do this very carefully. Too aggressive, and you will attract too many enemies too quickly.
Religions that try to exist solely on RP find their members bored too quickly, and uninvolved. The rich, diverse religion is a labor of love of the founder, and no one else really cares.
You have to give your people something to do, and a goal for which to strive. That's how you get them involved. You do need the religious "window dressing", but it can be useful as a way to drive external conflict.
But no matter what, relate it back to what is important to your members: war and politics.
The Blood Cult managed to accumulate significant power, despite being clearly antagonistic. It got up due to intensive OOC recruiting, though (IRC and friends), and pretty much fell when most of these people got tired of BM as a whole. It also got many strong members purely IC, but these people seemed somewhat more prone to getting themselves persecuted, and were less likely to return if deported or make a new character if executed.
One of the problems, I think, is that nobody wants to, overnight, become enemies with a bunch of people they don't know, especially for so little return. Because really, when you join a religion, you get your reputation tied up to the religion's, and you accept yet another guy above you against which no rebellion is possible. If it's an antagonistic religion, it's likely not an official state religion, and as such probably has limited means to repay your sacrifices. So what incentives are there for players to join such religions?
I think the number one cause of the lack of hostile religions is that characters have no interests in joining hostile religions to begin with.
-
I think the number one cause of the lack of hostile religions is that characters have no interests in joining hostile religions to begin with.
I think nobles in BM don't car about religion, because of the added authority over you an the lack of benefit but presence of penalty (religion does something bad, you can look bad because of it and the major one of gold. You need to give gold to expand and maintain but expanding your religion really gives no benefit to any but those on top because they look god for making a large religion. It's like a ruler and dukes trying to get more nobles but they don't tax any of their peasants so no one gets anything but they still need to pay for troops and pay to maintain their regions. Sure they have have an interesting role play in the start but since they don't have much nobles, the ruler and dukes aren't even that active either. That is how religion currently is done, IMO.
-
I think the number one cause of the lack of hostile religions is that characters have no interests in joining hostile religions to begin with.
I have been having my characters join the less tolerant religions, or those that look from the outside like they would be more confrontational. (Church of Sartan and Hemaism)
-
...expanding your religion really gives no benefit to any but those on top...
Then you joined a sucky religion. (Or at least one with !@#$ty leaders.) Religious leaders should focus on being of benefit to their members. Gotta keep the members happy so they stay and help out.
-
Then you joined a sucky religion. (Or at least one with !@#$ty leaders.) Religious leaders should focus on being of benefit to their members. Gotta keep the members happy so they stay and help out.
You might get promoted for making a temple, which could result in monthly grant or more debt is allowed. Otherwise what ways are there for a non-priest to expand faith? Convert nobles but the grants and allowed debt can also be bad as the gold has to come from somewhere so the more benefits they have the more they are going to want their members to donate. Gotta keep the, happy but other than giving gold, what is there to do? And if its just gold it's sucks either for the members for needing to donate a bunch to support the rewards or its asking a ton of gold from the religious leaders which results in people not wanting to be religious leaders.
-
I think that the mechanics make it possible for a religion to grow into something that people care about and respect. From what I have heard about SA, people truly do gain from joining. Minor knights gain access to promotions within their realm. A powerful ruler can gain the aid of a block of powerful nations. SA can declare a crusade against a nation or religion without fear that they will be torn up when the rest of the island decided to tear them up for being a bad religion. This is all possible, however, because some very capable people have politiced their way into having the support of rulers, councils and entire nations. They have a lot of influence over secular dealings.
My opinion, however, is that the odds of another religion managing to accomplish anything like that is slim. The closest that one might come is a state religion. Even then, the fact that the religion and stat coincide does not make it much different than simply being in a realm without much influence. I think that if we want more religions to have the clout to be openly hostile, prejudiced, and all that, we need to gice religions better tools and most are simple unable to come close to those things without some help.
Just my initial thoughts...
-
Religions should produce something. People tend to behave as game mechanics incentivize; why not something like civ 5's faith mechanic? Obviously it shouldn't produce gold but allowing it to produce another currency entirely allows it to have some sway. Nobles IRL cared about their faiths because it gave them divine right and sway over the peasantry.
-
More accurately:
Religions in BM that try to create conflict right out of the gate die on the vine. No one wants those religions around, unless they're created as a state religion. Trying to create one in a realm that already has any religions in it will be nearly impossible. Trying to get one into a realm other than the one it was created in similarly.
If you want to create religious conflict in BM, you first need to have a strong, established religion. Then you declare that another religion is evil, or a realm over there (that also happens to be refusing you entry) has blasphemed against the True Gods, and all the faithful must rise up against them. Or even that Duke Nogoodnik of Keplerstan is a heretic who must be executed.
You are spot-on for this one fact. In fact, when my character Ash was a Judge, even though he was Path of Chivalry religion follower, he allows another religion to be founded: The Blind God religion founded by Solari (I miss Remi, please come back :( )
Now our realm having half followers following Path of Chivalry and another half following Blind God. The nobles even talking about making both Path of Chivalry and Blind God as state religions in the realm. That speak volume about Ash neutrality as Judge ;D
-
Now our realm having half followers following Path of Chivalry and another half following Blind God. The nobles even talking about making both Path of Chivalry and Blind God as state religions in the realm. That speak volume about Ash neutrality as Judge ;D
Why do many players take OOC pride in having detached, neutral, peaceful characters? I'm genuinely curious, because it's a trend I've seen in many places.
-
Why do many players take OOC pride in having detached, neutral, peaceful characters? I'm genuinely curious, because it's a trend I've seen in many places.
And unfortunately, those of us who'd like to drive a religion they lead to hold a harder stance really can't without bleeding a lot of followers because of stances like that. So with the CoH, I have to try to keep us as defensive in mindset rather than as aggressive as I'd like at times.
Too many players in BM try to bring "religious freedom" or "religion shouldn't be in politics" arguments into the game. It's hard to dispute it because they act like you're the crazy one. *sigh*
-
I think nobles in BM don't car about religion, because of the added authority over you an the lack of benefit but presence of penalty (religion does something bad, you can look bad because of it and the major one of gold. You need to give gold to expand and maintain but expanding your religion really gives no benefit to any but those on top because they look god for making a large religion. It's like a ruler and dukes trying to get more nobles but they don't tax any of their peasants so no one gets anything but they still need to pay for troops and pay to maintain their regions. Sure they have have an interesting role play in the start but since they don't have much nobles, the ruler and dukes aren't even that active either. That is how religion currently is done, IMO.
I agree. Also, religions being total money pits drive away more ambitious people like myself. I've just grown really tired of having weak priests and being forced to spend thousands and thousands of gold just to keep the faith dominant in the regions I operate. It's really reward-free in most cases.
If faith was at least gold-positive, then at least it would really incite people to spread the faith, especially beyond the realm's border, in order to cash in more gold.
I have been having my characters join the less tolerant religions, or those that look from the outside like they would be more confrontational. (Church of Sartan and Hemaism)
Hemaism? Confrontational? You mean, you joined the sole theocracy of BT, who worship a god of destruction and have for years and years and years, and yet have never done any religious persecution (aside from maybe when they were founded), and that had like two lines of wiki text prior to the third invasion, and just a few more since? Oh yea, Hemaism totally sounds like the most exciting religion ever...
And unfortunately, those of us who'd like to drive a religion they lead to hold a harder stance really can't without bleeding a lot of followers because of stances like that. So with the CoH, I have to try to keep us as defensive in mindset rather than as aggressive as I'd like at times.
Too many players in BM try to bring "religious freedom" or "religion shouldn't be in politics" arguments into the game. It's hard to dispute it because they act like you're the crazy one. *sigh*
Keeping religion out of politics is totally understandable... religion founders can't be rebelled against, can't be protested out, there are never any elections... To give a religion political power is to give one guy unprecedented and unrevokable power. Who wants yet another boss? One they don't ever get to chose? One who never has to really care for public opinion, because, after all, he's a prophet sent by the gods and they've told him the Truth and the True Path to follow?
I've tried uniting various faiths into various umbrella multi-diety pantheons. But it never worked. The main obstacle? It's not the change of one's religion name, or the loss of the followers, or even the loss of the thousands of gold's worth of temples. It's that all ambitious religious types want to be at the top. Nobody wants to be second rank to anyone else. Why? Because whoever's at the top can demote everyone else as they please. And nobody holds that kind of power over the people below them anywhere else than in guilds and religions. When sharing political power, it's easy for someone to agree to let the other be ruler in exchange for being duke or judge. Because the ruler can't just take it away. However, nobody wants to cede their religious authority to have rank #2, because in terms of security of keeping one's power, it's the same as having rank #89. And if you didn't want to become a priest, it's the same as having rank #99. As such, it's pretty much impossible to get ambitious people to work together in any established continent to create something to be reckoned with, because there can only be one person at rank #1.
-
Regarding the "people don't want to join a hostile religion" thing:
A huge part of the reason religion in BM is treated so differently than religion was—and is!—in real life is because of the attitude that it's something you join. It's a club. A social gathering. A political party. And we, the players, all know with absolute certainty that every single aspect of every BM religion was created by other players.
This means that attempts to make religions that take hard-line stances on anything are nearly always doomed to fail, because the players didn't grow up being taught that that was reality.
Frankly, I don't believe there is any way to replicate that sort of feeling and sociopolitical dynamic with player-generated religions. The only way to achieve anything close to it is to have there be a relatively small set of game-mechanic religions, that are consistent across all continents, imposed by the GMs, and not subject to change in more than relatively minor points by their earthly representatives. And maybe have some game mechanics backing up their reality (though ideally, those would be pretty secret, more superstition than obvious reality—until you run into one yourself).
-
Regarding the "people don't want to join a hostile religion" thing:
A huge part of the reason religion in BM is treated so differently than religion was—and is!—in real life is because of the attitude that it's something you join. It's a club. A social gathering. A political party. And we, the players, all know with absolute certainty that every single aspect of every BM religion was created by other players.
This means that attempts to make religions that take hard-line stances on anything are nearly always doomed to fail, because the players didn't grow up being taught that that was reality.
Frankly, I don't believe there is any way to replicate that sort of feeling and sociopolitical dynamic with player-generated religions. The only way to achieve anything close to it is to have there be a relatively small set of game-mechanic religions, that are consistent across all continents, imposed by the GMs, and not subject to change in more than relatively minor points by their earthly representatives. And maybe have some game mechanics backing up their reality (though ideally, those would be pretty secret, more superstition than obvious reality—until you run into one yourself).
Or give priests an ability to write scrolls.
-
That's a good idea (the scrolls, that is)... combine it with the faith-based currency idea, so that you gain faith for having religious sway, and then can spend that faith on believable and practicable military applications, such as scrolls. It would give incentive for religions to become more confrontational, as well as give them a stronger, more direct role in what battlemaster is fundamentally about; war.
-
Hemaism? Confrontational? You mean, you joined the sole theocracy of BT, who worship a god of destruction and have for years and years and years, and yet have never done any religious persecution (aside from maybe when they were founded), and that had like two lines of wiki text prior to the third invasion, and just a few more since? Oh yea, Hemaism totally sounds like the most exciting religion ever...
It *should* be intolerant. It is a religion worshiping "The Destroyer", damnit. Where is all this BS tolerance and friendship crap coming from?
-
That's a good idea (the scrolls, that is)... combine it with the faith-based currency idea, so that you gain faith for having religious sway, and then can spend that faith on believable and practicable military applications, such as scrolls. It would give incentive for religions to become more confrontational, as well as give them a stronger, more direct role in what battlemaster is fundamentally about; war.
I was thinking that you could more spend faith on passive bonuses to all members of the faith, or instant cash-ins like buying a holy order or spawning some militia or something.
-
It *should* be intolerant. It is a religion worshiping "The Destroyer", damnit. Where is all this BS tolerance and friendship crap coming from?
What reality should be and what it is often differs. I tend to consider this to be one of these cases... Even with unlimited power, Hemaism pretty much had to be dragged by their daimon masters to do anything with it, and even then did very very little.
Religions should produce something. People tend to behave as game mechanics incentivize; why not something like civ 5's faith mechanic? Obviously it shouldn't produce gold but allowing it to produce another currency entirely allows it to have some sway. Nobles IRL cared about their faiths because it gave them divine right and sway over the peasantry.
This actually sounds interesting... What if religions had some kind of bonuses or special mechanics? Perhaps ones to chose depending on what kind of faith you want?
It wouldn't need to be D&D-esque with all kinds of magical powers. Civ5 does give an interesting mechanic for religion, and it's all pretty neutral and mundane.
-
This actually sounds interesting... What if religions had some kind of bonuses or special mechanics? Perhaps ones to chose depending on what kind of faith you want?
It wouldn't need to be D&D-esque with all kinds of magical powers. Civ5 does give an interesting mechanic for religion, and it's all pretty neutral and mundane.
That's not a bad idea. How about something like this:
Let priests have significant influence over the peasants who believe in their faith? At low levels, they could nudge morale and loyalty up and down. At higher levels, it might be reasonable to give them the ability to raise up a peasant mob to kick Lords or knights out of their estates, or even (if the priest's skill is high enough, and there's not enough troops in the region to stop it) claim the region as a new outpost of the religion (naturally, giving the priest the lordship in the process!).
...Hey, wait a second....
-
That's not a bad idea. How about something like this:
Let priests have significant influence over the peasants who believe in their faith? At low levels, they could nudge morale and loyalty up and down. At higher levels, it might be reasonable to give them the ability to raise up a peasant mob to kick Lords or knights out of their estates, or even (if the priest's skill is high enough, and there's not enough troops in the region to stop it) claim the region as a new outpost of the religion (naturally, giving the priest the lordship in the process!).
...Hey, wait a second....
Is this really worth thousands upon thousands of gold to upkeep? A slightly more effective courtier and an extremely circumstantially useful method of intrigue?
Also that's kinda not really what we were discussing.
-
That's not a bad idea. How about something like this:
Let priests have significant influence over the peasants who believe in their faith? At low levels, they could nudge morale and loyalty up and down. At higher levels, it might be reasonable to give them the ability to raise up a peasant mob to kick Lords or knights out of their estates, or even (if the priest's skill is high enough, and there's not enough troops in the region to stop it) claim the region as a new outpost of the religion (naturally, giving the priest the lordship in the process!).
...Hey, wait a second....
No. These features are worthless. And only concern priests.
Religion needs to be more than just about the priests.
In Civ5, there's no way that I've found to use religion as a weapon. It just grants bonuses. Last game I played, I founded a religion early on and converted the whole world, peacefully crushing every other faith. Every single city was 90% or more of my religion. It gave me various bonuses that don't translate well to BM, but made it feel useful anyways.
Religion needs to be more than a glorified guild with a few useless gimmicky options reserved for priests (weeks of preaching, mostly to be instantly undone, to drop loyalty a few %s? Seriously?).
Is this really worth thousands upon thousands of gold to upkeep? A slightly more effective courtier and an extremely circumstantially useful method of intrigue?
I can do a HELL OF A LOT MORE damage or good as an ambassador, with far less gold and far less hours. When you want to deal damage, your priest/ambassador doesn't use his "influence followers" option, even if he has 60% following or more, he uses his ambassador badmouth realm option.
-
The main issue as said is that you need some political power for a religion to do well. FEI for instance has a war between the Order of the Elders and the Church of Sartan, but very little actually happens in terms of crusades and burning temples or anything, why? Because the political powers (wisely perhaps in their situation) refuse to allow such religious war to be actually fought by members of their realm. Selene tried to do it aggressively and failed horribly in this case. We attempted to do the same in Ibladesh, again failed there unfortunately.
Although there are some positive points on religion. If you can get that power and tie important political figures to a church (and not just, hey I'm a member whoopwhoop, but actually tie them to you) then you can accomplish nice things with religion. As said, being part of a religion can get you that lordship etc.
I know for a fact it's used in more realms, although perhaps secretly.
-
That's not a bad idea. How about something like this:
Let priests have significant influence over the peasants who believe in their faith? At low levels, they could nudge morale and loyalty up and down. At higher levels, it might be reasonable to give them the ability to raise up a peasant mob to kick Lords or knights out of their estates, or even (if the priest's skill is high enough, and there's not enough troops in the region to stop it) claim the region as a new outpost of the religion (naturally, giving the priest the lordship in the process!).
...Hey, wait a second....
Those types of priest powers are good for quelling internal threats. They can be used to destroy dissenters, such as a Duke who threatens secession, by instantly ousting him from power, so that a more conservative character can take his place.
But as for dealing with external threats, they are useless. Hostile realms can simply arrest you before you start preaching, denying your religious spread.
Thus those powers do little to encourage intrigue or warfare, as they actively work to harm those who might initiate such things, while being incapable of initiating those things itself. Religion is a tool for preserving status quo, nothing more.
-
Those types of priest powers are good for quelling internal threats. They can be used to destroy dissenters, such as a Duke who threatens secession, by instantly ousting him from power, so that a more conservative character can take his place.
But as for dealing with external threats, they are useless. Hostile realms can simply arrest you before you start preaching, denying your religious spread.
Thus those powers do little to encourage intrigue or warfare, as they actively work to harm those who might initiate such things, while being incapable of initiating those things itself. Religion is a tool for preserving status quo, nothing more.
100% agreed.
-
I can do a HELL OF A LOT MORE damage or good as an ambassador, with far less gold and far less hours. When you want to deal damage, your priest/ambassador doesn't use his "influence followers" option, even if he has 60% following or more, he uses his ambassador badmouth realm option.
Ambassadors are overpowered. Especially since all their work is done in secret.
-
So, what types of powers/features would you like religions to have? They should be *active* powers. i.e. something that a player has to initiate to make it happen.
-
I'm liking the 'priests write scrolls' idea. If a cult or church could suddenly summon a horde of monsters on your doorstep for being an unbeliever, you'd get yo ass to church.
If you gave religions a weapon, they'd have much more reason to fight. It would take some balancing measures and some testing, but I can't think of anything better than using the clergy to manifest power through the written word.
EDIT: Someone more familiar with making feature requests want to post this (and other ideas) so we don't hijack the thread?
-
So, what types of powers/features would you like religions to have? They should be *active* powers. i.e. something that a player has to initiate to make it happen.
I was thinking you could use faith points (which would be gained regularly through peasant worship) which you can use for upgrades or one-shots, like in civ. Or do you have another mechanism in mind?
Some upgrades I thought of; a crusade upgrade that grants faith for hated religions killed in combat, a morale upgrade for units led by members of the church, etc. I guess these upgrades could require a one-time cost as well as upkeep in faith.
Some one-shots would be like spawning a unit of militia, giving a one-day bonus to combat against hated religions, instantly creating a new temple, etc.
-
I'm liking the 'priests write scrolls' idea. If a cult or church could suddenly summon a horde of monsters on your doorstep for being an unbeliever, you'd get yo ass to church.
If you gave religions a weapon, they'd have much more reason to fight. It would take some balancing measures and some testing, but I can't think of anything better than using the clergy to manifest power through the written word.
EDIT: Someone more familiar with making feature requests want to post this (and other ideas) so we don't hijack the thread?
If you haven't noticed, priests have no actual in game effects. This would be rejected instantly.
-
If you haven't noticed, priests have no actual in game effects. This would be rejected instantly.
Ah, the Apple version of 'lolno': That isn't a bug, it's a feature!
Well, if the intent of a good BM religion is purely for flavor..then I'd say http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/The_Bloodspeakers did pretty good. An amorphous collection with enough doctrine leniency to allow anyone to jump in with their own style and enough structure to bond all of it together. At least from what I've gathered from the wiki.
-
Ambassadors are overpowered. Especially since all their work is done in secret.
Even before ambassadors, priest options were ridiculously underpowered.
1) They rely on high follower counts, which can only really be achieved in your own realm where there are no competing religions and where you can get people to build temples
2) Maintaining temples of the right sizes, and shrines, costs thousands and thousands of gold.
3) Even with the massive infrastructure, getting decent follower rates takes forever in terms of time, and countless of the priest's hours in preaching. Many of these spent hours don't actually serve to gain new followers, but simply to replace the ones lost since the priest last came to the region.
4) Most of the actions cost so many followers, that no one in their right mind would sacrifice work which took so long to accomplish.
5) The "stronger" options are so "great" that they have almost no useful uses outside of civil wars. In offensive campaigns, they can only really work in isolated rural regions, because mobile troops, even your own, will stop you and throw you in the enemy dungeon. And almost nobody can use these "advanced" options. The oratory skill needs to be high. The priest needs to be an elder. Auto da fes require the region have a large enough temple (unlikely in hostile lands), and claiming the region requires that you don't already hold some kind of lordship.
Yea, Anaris. The priest options are so wonderful, I can't even begin to imagine why, even when all of my characters were priests, I never used them.
They are gimmicky at best. Religion needs more structural mechanics that mean it isn't just a glorified guild anymore. And these need to not be limited to priests.
-
Ah, the Apple version of 'lolno': That isn't a bug, it's a feature!
Well, if the intent of a good BM religion is purely for flavor..then I'd say http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/The_Bloodspeakers did pretty good. An amorphous collection with enough doctrine leniency to allow anyone to jump in with their own style and enough structure to bond all of it together. At least from what I've gathered from the wiki.
The game-mechanic powers of priests are exactly commensurate with those they might have been expected to have in the RL middle ages.
In other words, influence and power over people, not mystical magical powers.
-
The game-mechanic powers of priests are exactly commensurate with those they might have been expected to have in the RL middle ages.
In other words, influence and power over people, not mystical magical powers.
But, on Beluaterra and Dwilight at least, there are mystical and magical powers, and they are not a vanishingly small part of gameplay.
Even aside from that– here's a half-dozen possible non-mystical changes that make sense and would help:
Make religion members able to give flag something as "heresy," like vulgarity, and it automatically goes to the religion's elders, who rule on it anonymously. i.e. "the lesser nobles are grumbling that you've started to stray from the One True Path"
Stop making your own realm's troops throw priests in enemy dungeons.
Create a mechanism for an RTO where a priest can make someone else the lord of the region, besides themselves.
Allow religions to declare realms "evil" or "misguided" or "faithful" or "ignore."
Allow religions to declare characters anathema, whereby they may have a random chance of being assaulted by peasants in areas where that realm is dominant, especially if they're a courtier or something. Obviously the number of anathema persons should be capped, probably as a ratio of the members or priests of a religion.
Boost the H/P available in the priest game.
----
These all seem feasible. These all are non-mystical. None of these have been previousy explicitly rejected. None of them give religions some kind of god-moding power. None of them could substantively replace RP and influencing by players. All of them could plausibly augment and encourage such– and even the most peaceful and get-along religions will eventually be tempted to declare someone anathema or proclaim a realm evil.
-
But, on Beluaterra and Dwilight at least, there are mystical and magical powers, and they are not a vanishingly small part of gameplay.
You have missed the point.
First of all, no player characters have magic. Period. (Scrolls don't count; they're created by NPC magic, but don't require magic in the person casting them—that's their whole point.)
Second of all, to give such powers to religions would be to legitimize all their Gods. And giving it to the ones who don't even claim that there are Gods—or that the Gods don't interfere in mortal affairs—would just be bizarre.
Even aside from that– here's a half-dozen possible non-mystical changes that make sense and would help:
Make religion members able to give flag something as "heresy," like vulgarity, and it automatically goes to the religion's elders, who rule on it anonymously. i.e. "the lesser nobles are grumbling that you've started to stray from the One True Path"
OK, that doesn't sound unreasonable. What sort of effect would you say this should have?
Stop making your own realm's troops throw priests in enemy dungeons.
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean "change the code so that priests of your own realm cannot be arrested"?
Create a mechanism for an RTO where a priest can make someone else the lord of the region, besides themselves.
Again, it's not an RTO. It's claiming the region for the religion. I could see a case for making someone else who's an elder the Lord, but that's pathetically easy to game.
Allow religions to declare realms "evil" or "misguided" or "faithful" or "ignore."
That sounds reasonable to me, but I think Tom would dislike it, as it mixes the religious side and the political side too directly.
Allow religions to declare characters anathema, whereby they may have a random chance of being assaulted by peasants in areas where that realm is dominant, especially if they're a courtier or something. Obviously the number of anathema persons should be capped, probably as a ratio of the members or priests of a religion.
That one sounds kind of cool. I wouldn't make the chance dependent on class, but rather on unit size, though.
Boost the H/P available in the priest game.
Done. I have just tripled the amount of H/P available to priests ;D </snark>
...Yeah, there probably should be more H/P available to priests. Maybe for converting large numbers of peasants and the like.
These all seem feasible. These all are non-mystical. None of these have been previousy explicitly rejected. None of them give religions some kind of god-moding power. None of them could substantively replace RP and influencing by players. All of them could plausibly augment and encourage such– and even the most peaceful and get-along religions will eventually be tempted to declare someone anathema or proclaim a realm evil.
The only point I'd make in response to this is that most of these can be done in RP. Obviously that can't apply game-mechanic effects, but it can definitely serve the purpose of, say, getting the characters in the religion to view realm X as evil, or Allison Kabrinski as a heretic.
-
Anaris, what would you think about a faith mechanic like Civ V's? Obviously it'd be a major overhaul and as such is too much work for now (or ever), but is it broken on the face of it?
-
Anaris, what would you think about a faith mechanic like Civ V's? Obviously it'd be a major overhaul and as such is too much work for now (or ever), but is it broken on the face of it?
I don't know Civ V, but from your descriptions, I don't think it would be very appropriate. Things like "faith points" don't really mesh well with the general feel and mechanics of BM.
-
Make religion members able to give flag something as "heresy," like vulgarity, and it automatically goes to the religion's elders, who rule on it anonymously. i.e. "the lesser nobles are grumbling that you've started to stray from the One True Path"
I like that. Ideally, the effect would be that the noble in question would not be seen as faithful by the majority; therefore for example the peasants of his region would start again to be unruly, as if he was a pagan, or for a priest his influence would wane.
Allow religions to declare characters anathema, whereby they may have a random chance of being assaulted by peasants in areas where that realm is dominant, especially if they're a courtier or something. Obviously the number of anathema persons should be capped, probably as a ratio of the members or priests of a religion.
Two words: Bowie Ironsides. ;D
This sounds like a very fun mechanics.
-
Battlemaster is very similar to Crusader Kings, so instead of calling a religious value "faith points", it might work better to call it "piety", instead. This wording change makes it congruous with the honour and prestige system already in effect. Like honour and prestige, it could unlock various actions at various levels.
What those actions should be, are offensive abilities, that can be used to disadvantage hostile foreign realms, thus promoting the use of priests as tools of intrigue. The writing of scrolls is my favourite idea, for such an ability.
-
What those actions should be, are offensive abilities, that can be used to disadvantage hostile foreign realms, thus promoting the use of priests as tools of intrigue. The writing of scrolls is my favourite idea, for such an ability.
This is simply not going to happen. Scrolls are magic. Player characters do not have magic. The Gods our characters believe in are all equally made-up, and they do not grant supernatural powers to their followers.
-
The game-mechanic powers of priests are exactly commensurate with those they might have been expected to have in the RL middle ages.
In other words, influence and power over people, not mystical magical powers.
That's not entirely true. People in the middle ages ascribed all sorts of mystical magical abilities to saints and their relics. Having priests be able to do something with relics and pray to saints or gods for divine intervention seems entirely in keeping with what might have been expected in the RL middle ages (obviously, flashy things are mostly out, most things should probably be plausibly deniable as actual divine intervention, no matter what the priests claim).
That sounds reasonable to me, but I think Tom would dislike it, as it mixes the religious side and the political side too directly.
In the middle ages, the religious side and the political side were pretty directly mixed. The fact that they aren't so much in BM (due partially I think to our modern ideas of separation of church and state, partially due to the lack of incentives) is I think a large part of why most religions in BM are fairly meaningless and uninteresting.
-
For religions to be good drivers of conflict, their mix of incentives needs to be changed. Most of their present incentives tend toward moderation and excessive reliance on the secular establishment for support. That is why flavorless state religions are so prevalent - they are by far the easiest kind of religion to build and maintain, and secular rulers like them because they are docile and firmly under state control. Furthermore, they act as an inert barrier to expansion by more militant and less pliable faiths that might destabilize the realm with their presence.
-
That's not entirely true. People in the middle ages ascribed all sorts of mystical magical abilities to saints and their relics. Having priests be able to do something with relics and pray to saints or gods for divine intervention seems entirely in keeping with what might have been expected in the RL middle ages (obviously, flashy things are mostly out, most things should probably be plausibly deniable as actual divine intervention, no matter what the priests claim).
They ascribed all kinds of things. People still do. Doesn't mean they were actually able to do those things.
So, again: The only powers priests in BM are going to have are powers of influence. Not "divine intervention" or anything that's likely to look like it.
-
They ascribed all kinds of things. People still do. Doesn't mean they were actually able to do those things.
So, again: The only powers priests in BM are going to have are powers of influence. Not "divine intervention" or anything that's likely to look like it.
If the piety system was used, I would like the ability to make scrolls possible. I like the idea of havng this ability because it allows for a little backing to the religion but is very hard to do. making these scrolls would cost a ridiculous amount of piety so that it only happens a few times. If the ability to do such a thing doesn't make sense for a religion, then don't do it, find a way to roleplay it, or prove your elders wrong. I would suggest piety be available to everyone but much easier for priests and elders to do. One way of gaining piety would be through sermons, but only public sermons. So that their is a way for it to know if it is a sermon or a just another message, their would be a button like vulgarity to click in which it is sent to three characters but is OOC and they rate it 1-5, depending on the sum would tell if piety is given.
-
If the piety system was used, I would like the ability to make scrolls possible.
I'm not sure how many ways I can say "this is never going to happen."
This is never going to happen. Please accept it and move on.
-
Anaris:
Should I feature request these individually or collectively?
/
Based on your knowledge of the code, are any of these actually the kinds of things that could be implemented quickly (i.e. before/during the Doctrine conversion process)?
You have missed the point.
Fair enough.
OK, that doesn't sound unreasonable. What sort of effect would you say this should have?
Small H/P hits. Literally EXACTLY like vulgarity. A button you can click on every message a person sends (even to non-members of the religion or private messages) that will refer the message to a selection of elders and/or priests of the sender's religion. However the internal vulgarity mechanic works, duplicate it and, if the message is ruled vulgar, then, bam– they take a very slight H/P hit. Maybe even make it generate an in-religion notification, "Rumors that So-and-So has been making unorthodox and unsettling statements have begun to spread..."
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean "change the code so that priests of your own realm cannot be arrested"?
No, I mean Cheniers complaint about claiming a region for a religion, where your probability of being arrested and put in ENEMY prison INCREASES if YOUR OWN REALM has soldiers in the region.
Again, it's not an RTO. It's claiming the region for the religion. I could see a case for making someone else who's an elder the Lord, but that's pathetically easy to game.
Sorry about terminology.
How would this be easy to game? To me it seems entirely reasonable and very fun RP. But maybe very buggy: what if you appoint an elder to a lordship who was a member of a different realm?
That sounds reasonable to me, but I think Tom would dislike it, as it mixes the religious side and the political side too directly.
I'm not sure what on earth that means. Priests can already badmouth realms. This is just a way for a religion to do so institutionally. Heck, its game mechanic effect could even be negligible or nonexistent, and it'd STILL be valuable. Or make it so it has no effect on its own, but priestly actions that coordinate with it (badmouthing evil realms for example, or lauding faithful ones) are more effective– when your preaching is backed up by the local parish priests, you're more effective. Hardly matters to me how it works– I just think, if we want religions to engage in conflict AS RELIGIONS, then we need to give them a mechanic to do so, rather than just as individuals. Just like how wars between realms aren't just a bunch of nobles marching around set to murderous and looting.
That one sounds kind of cool. I wouldn't make the chance dependent on class, but rather on unit size, though.
Sure, that's reasonable enough. Maybe needs a little thought relating to IRs– but I suppose a priest declared anathema could always migrate.
I assume that both members and non-members of a religion could be declared anathema; otherwise you could game it by just joining a religion that declares against you.
Done. I have just tripled the amount of H/P available to priests ;D </snark>
...Yeah, there probably should be more H/P available to priests. Maybe for converting large numbers of peasants and the like.
Yeah. Probably should be.
The only point I'd make in response to this is that most of these can be done in RP. Obviously that can't apply game-mechanic effects, but it can definitely serve the purpose of, say, getting the characters in the religion to view realm X as evil, or Allison Kabrinski as a heretic.
I can have wars in RP. It's not the same thing.
None of these tools would plausibly replace RP. It's not like, with an anathema tool, we would suddenly stop politicking against Bowie Ironsides or Allison Kabrinski. And the debates about declaring them anathema would be EPIC.
Same with declaring realms evil. It's a tool for expression and creation of RPs– not a replacement. Because, right now, these things AREN'T RP'd much, and not because no players would enjoy it– but because they're not much to be gained from it. Give us something for which we can actually fight.
-
Should I feature request these individually or collectively?
I would say individually.
Based on your knowledge of the code, are any of these actually the kinds of things that could be implemented quickly (i.e. before/during the Doctrine conversion process)?
A couple of them aren't too hard—adding honour & prestige gain for priest actions and putting someone else in power after a Claim Region—but the rest are definitely post-Doctrine material.
Small H/P hits. Literally EXACTLY like vulgarity. A button you can click on every message a person sends (even to non-members of the religion or private messages) that will refer the message to a selection of elders and/or priests of the sender's religion. However the internal vulgarity mechanic works, duplicate it and, if the message is ruled vulgar, then, bam– they take a very slight H/P hit. Maybe even make it generate an in-religion notification, "Rumors that So-and-So has been making unorthodox and unsettling statements have begun to spread..."
OK, that sounds like it might fly.
No, I mean Cheniers complaint about claiming a region for a religion, where your probability of being arrested and put in ENEMY prison INCREASES if YOUR OWN REALM has soldiers in the region.
Sorry about terminology.
No. Five kinds of no.
The terminology is important, for exactly this reason.
What you call an "RTO" is a priest whipping up a mob of screaming peasants with pitchforks and torches to go throw the old Lord out. There is no easy way to tell it apart from any other mob of screaming peasants until after you've stopped it from rampaging. The only thing you can do is order your troops to stay out of the way of any screaming mob of peasants in the region.
Which you do by keeping them out of the region.
The feature is not intended to be a simple drop-in replacement for other kinds of takeover. Honestly, I'd really like to change it somehow to drive that home more clearly, but I'm not sure how. Whatever I did in that direction would certainly have the effect of nerfing the feature somewhat.
How would this be easy to game? To me it seems entirely reasonable and very fun RP.
Easy to just appoint anyone in the religion you want, by making them a temp-elder.
But maybe very buggy: what if you appoint an elder to a lordship who was a member of a different realm?
Oh, that's dead easy. Whoever you pick as the new Lord, that's the realm the region would join. If they belonged to the realm the region currently belonged to, it would stay there. Remember, it's not supposed to be a takeover option for your realm.
I'm not sure what on earth that means. Priests can already badmouth realms. This is just a way for a religion to do so institutionally. Heck, its game mechanic effect could even be negligible or nonexistent, and it'd STILL be valuable. Or make it so it has no effect on its own, but priestly actions that coordinate with it (badmouthing evil realms for example, or lauding faithful ones) are more effective– when your preaching is backed up by the local parish priests, you're more effective. Hardly matters to me how it works– I just think, if we want religions to engage in conflict AS RELIGIONS, then we need to give them a mechanic to do so, rather than just as individuals. Just like how wars between realms aren't just a bunch of nobles marching around set to murderous and looting.
Well, personally, I kind of like the idea. However, I believe that it was, in fact, suggested in the past (possibly only within the dev team, my memory on this point is hazy), and Tom vetoed it on the grounds that he didn't want religions having official policies on realms, or something like that. They should only have official policies on religions.
I could be misremembering entirely.
Sure, that's reasonable enough. Maybe needs a little thought relating to IRs– but I suppose a priest declared anathema could always migrate.
I assume that both members and non-members of a religion could be declared anathema; otherwise you could game it by just joining a religion that declares against you.
Yes, I see no reason to restrict who you'd be able to declare anathema. Aside from maybe elders. That would be kind of odd.
...Could sort of play into the sect/schism mechanics I've got in mind for later, though.
I can have wars in RP. It's not the same thing.
None of these tools would plausibly replace RP. It's not like, with an anathema tool, we would suddenly stop politicking against Bowie Ironsides or Allison Kabrinski. And the debates about declaring them anathema would be EPIC.
Same with declaring realms evil. It's a tool for expression and creation of RPs– not a replacement. Because, right now, these things AREN'T RP'd much, and not because no players would enjoy it– but because they're not much to be gained from it. Give us something for which we can actually fight.
No, I recognize that. I'm just saying that there are aspects of most of the features mentioned that could be dealt with entirely in RP, even if the features themselves are never added. And kind of playing devil's advocate.
-
I like the idea of H/P bumps tied to conversions, and instead of friendly troops not stopping a claim region for religion attempt, see below "Assert Divine Right".
More offensive options...
"Exhort the faithful against their lord"
When used in a region that has a lord not of your faith, it encourages the followers of your religion to resist the control of the lord (and by extension, realm). Control is lowered proportionally by the percentage of followers in the region, and once beyond a certain minimal percentage, there is an increasing chance of a rogue militia unit forming to actively fight.
This would be an option that doesn't require the absolutely dominating percentage of followers that some of the other options do, could be very useful in holy wars, and fits with what Priests in BM are supposed to be able to do and what priests in history could do.
"Assert divine right: Purge the heretics/Protect the faithful"
Priest options to assist in takeovers. Both fear and sympathy based options, and I would suggest having their impact on followers tied to the success of the TO. If the TO succeeds, then the percentage of the succeess due to religious options equates to percentage increase in followers (clearly, you were right), and similarly, if the TO fails it causes losses (clearly, you were wrong). H/P gains/losses should similarly happen. Priests are very publicly putting their reputation and influence on the line for this.
"Repurpose shrines/temples"
You should be able to convert shrines (percentage chance the shrine is just destroyed) and temples (percentage chance temple loses one or more levels) of other faiths. Likely to cause a religious riot, friendly troops can help suppress. Serious historical accuracy here, the number of shrines/gods/temples that Christianity in particular assimilated is vast, and the Hagia Sophia is the most prominent example I can think of.
"Call for martyrs"
Fill RC's faster. Very straightforward, also accurate (allowing for how BM recruitment works).
-
That's not entirely true. People in the middle ages ascribed all sorts of mystical magical abilities to saints and their relics. Having priests be able to do something with relics and pray to saints or gods for divine intervention seems entirely in keeping with what might have been expected in the RL middle ages (obviously, flashy things are mostly out, most things should probably be plausibly deniable as actual divine intervention, no matter what the priests claim).
In the middle ages, the religious side and the political side were pretty directly mixed. The fact that they aren't so much in BM (due partially I think to our modern ideas of separation of church and state, partially due to the lack of incentives) is I think a large part of why most religions in BM are fairly meaningless and uninteresting.
To be a pope, doesn't one need to have actually conducted a miracle? (Probably to be archbishop or something, actually).
Sounds pretty magic to me.
-
"Please wait in the adjacent region while our priest rises a mob against the heathen lord" is just stupid.
So what if there's a mob being stirred up? Why on earth would invading forces help the lord's estates fend off the mobs attacking them? The mobs would go attacking anyone and everyone, they have a very specific goal in mind.
And in any case, regardless of the lame RP justification given for it, it does make the feature feel horribly designed. If you want to kick out a heathen from lordship, and do it in your own realm, then you are likely to be punished for breaking the political hierarchy. If you do it in another realm, they will simply arrest you before you even being able to try. Unless you go sneak in late-turn when you know there's no one around, but then it basically makes you some kind of dumb ninja region-claimer.
The priest features are atrocious. And so is the religion system as a whole. It needs a complete overhaul, it needs to be stripped of its guild template and given something new, mechanics of its own.
-
Been a while since I've done a feature request.
Do we still put'em on Bugtracker, or is it all on the forum?
-
Been a while since I've done a feature request.
Do we still put'em on Bugtracker, or is it all on the forum?
Forum first, accepted ones are then put on the bug tracker, I believe.
-
They ascribed all kinds of things. People still do. Doesn't mean they were actually able to do those things.
So, again: The only powers priests in BM are going to have are powers of influence. Not "divine intervention" or anything that's likely to look like it.
Fair enough, your initial wording made me think you were saying that it was based upon what people in the middle ages expected them to be capable of -- but if this is not so, then I can understand why any sort of magic like abilities are not desired.
Well, personally, I kind of like the idea. However, I believe that it was, in fact, suggested in the past (possibly only within the dev team, my memory on this point is hazy), and Tom vetoed it on the grounds that he didn't want religions having official policies on realms, or something like that. They should only have official policies on religions.
Maybe the fact that historically religions did have official policies on realms might change his mind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdict#Notable_local_canonical_interdicts
More examples could probably be found if looked for.
To be a pope, doesn't one need to have actually conducted a miracle? (Probably to be archbishop or something, actually).
Sounds pretty magic to me.
That would be to be canonized as a Saint (capital 'S' important here) in the RC church (specifically, they must have two posthumous miracles).
-
That would be to be canonized as a Saint (capital 'S' important here) in the RC church (specifically, they must have two posthumous miracles).
Oh yea. I could have sworn that it was required for archbishops too. But then again, I never really delved into Roman Catholic hierarchy.
-
The difficult part about priests siezing regions, and which troops do and don't try to arrest, is that there is no way for a realm to specify *which* TOs it would allow, and which not. Let's say a VE priest joined Astrum and tried to do a TO of an Aurvandil region. There's no way Astrum would sanction that and allow it to happen. So of course we would stop him. Without any way for the game to tell what is OK and not OK, then either way there will be bad situations that don't match what the players would expect to happen.
-
Perhaps troops led by nobles of the same religion as the priest might not interfere? If you want to stress that this is not a takeover method for a realm, but for a religion, you could even have troops from the realm the region currently belongs to not interfere if they are led by a noble of the priest's religion. . . .
-
Perhaps troops led by nobles of the same religion as the priest might not interfere?
Maybe, maybe not. Just because they are the same faith doesn't mean you want to help them, or agree with the actions. It could, after all, be a rogue priest.
If you want to stress that this is not a takeover method for a realm, but for a religion, you could even have troops from the realm the region currently belongs to not interfere if they are led by a noble of the priest's religion. . . .
Wouldn't work in the case of multi-realm religions, where the same religion has members on both sides of the war.
-
The difficult part about priests siezing regions, and which troops do and don't try to arrest, is that there is no way for a realm to specify *which* TOs it would allow, and which not. Let's say a VE priest joined Astrum and tried to do a TO of an Aurvandil region. There's no way Astrum would sanction that and allow it to happen. So of course we would stop him. Without any way for the game to tell what is OK and not OK, then either way there will be bad situations that don't match what the players would expect to happen.
You wouldn't need to arrest him, you could outright ban him. The point is moot.
-
At that point, the damage is already done. No matter which way you do it, some facet of it will not make sense IC.
-
The difficult part about priests siezing regions, and which troops do and don't try to arrest, is that there is no way for a realm to specify *which* TOs it would allow, and which not. Let's say a VE priest joined Astrum and tried to do a TO of an Aurvandil region. There's no way Astrum would sanction that and allow it to happen. So of course we would stop him. Without any way for the game to tell what is OK and not OK, then either way there will be bad situations that don't match what the players would expect to happen.
Maybe have realms have the ability to set a policy on a realm like state religions but not using the state religion mechanic. Could be banned, discouraged, accepted, and encouraged. Accepted and encouraged they would then specifically state if they would condone such an action. Nobles of the faith could have a religion section under politics where they decide if they want to go with realm policy or religion policy on whether or not to arrest priests who do actions like that. If a noble chose religion's policy and a priest of an evil faith an action worthy of being arrested but it was allowed by the realm, the noble's unit would still attempt to arrest because they chose to go with religion's policy. Also if a noble chose religious policy, if the act was done by a priest of a misguided or variant faith it go to realm policy whereas if it was your on faith you would not aid in arresting.
-
The difficult part about priests siezing regions, and which troops do and don't try to arrest, is that there is no way for a realm to specify *which* TOs it would allow, and which not. Let's say a VE priest joined Astrum and tried to do a TO of an Aurvandil region. There's no way Astrum would sanction that and allow it to happen. So of course we would stop him. Without any way for the game to tell what is OK and not OK, then either way there will be bad situations that don't match what the players would expect to happen.
So we could allow a game-mechanic official religion with no real in-game effects except solving this problem and being listed on the realm info page.
-
Small H/P hits. Literally EXACTLY like vulgarity. A button you can click on every message a person sends (even to non-members of the religion or private messages) that will refer the message to a selection of elders and/or priests of the sender's religion. However the internal vulgarity mechanic works, duplicate it and, if the message is ruled vulgar, then, bam– they take a very slight H/P hit. Maybe even make it generate an in-religion notification, "Rumors that So-and-So has been making unorthodox and unsettling statements have begun to spread..."
Actually, if Oratory was a purely priestly skill and not mixed with other non-religious actions, I'd say you should get a hit to Oratory and not to H/P. But this is probably too complicated to unentangle by now.
-
Oh yea. I could have sworn that it was required for archbishops too. But then again, I never really delved into Roman Catholic hierarchy.
They will only make up these miracles and assign them to the work of dead people. I don't think they've ever claimed anyone alive has performed a miracle.
-
Aye. Only aware of miracles being a requirement for Sainthood.
-
At that point, the damage is already done. No matter which way you do it, some facet of it will not make sense IC.
Not really. Give the region back, damage undone. Makes far more sense then throwing your own guy in enemy prison.
-
The enemy prison part is a game balance issue. That part is not going to change.
-
The enemy prison part is a game balance issue. That part is not going to change.
Yup, it's there to help make sure all the priest option are pretty much worthless and creates situations that make no sense whatsoever.
-
Actually, I think it was implemented to ensure your personal dissatisfaction with the priest game.
-
Actually, I think it was implemented to ensure your personal dissatisfaction with the priest game.
I'm sure it was.
But honestly, you could scrap all of the priest features, and the priest game would barely be changed at all, let alone the religion game. Religions would remain the glorified guilds they are today.
-
I have made 5 feature requests for my proposals.
I dropped the proposal about not arresting your own priests.
-
I have made 5 feature requests for my proposals.
I dropped the proposal about not arresting your own priests.
Didn't even look at them, and my bet is they'll all get shot down. Apparently, religions suck by design. They were meant to be this way.
-
Didn't even look at them, and my bet is they'll all get shot down. Apparently, religions suck by design. They were meant to be this way.
If all you're going to do is make idiotic trolling statements like these, I strongly recommend you just leave the forums for a day or two and regain your composure.
And if you still feel the urge to post stupidity like this when you come back, leave again.
Repeat until you can bring yourself to admit that "doesn't work the way I think it should" doesn't mean the same thing as "is stupid and/or poorly designed".
-
People have complained for ages about how religions don't take the roles they ought to take.
Devs often say that it's a player problem... but yet, when the feudal hierarchy wasn't handled as desired, you didn't just say "it's a player problem, nothing to change here". Which has been your systematic response to all suggestions, no matter by whom, for structural changes to the way religions work. Instead, you brought upon huge changes to the game, and changed drastically a ton of the game's core mechanics.
When but a few out of many are problematic, then sure, it's a player problem. For example, if one continent is always stuck at peace while the others don't share at all the same problems. However, when all are problematic but a few, it's a mechanics problem. Sure, Sanguis Astroism is huge... but the context has a LOT to do with that: one of the 4 original realms, which was set as a theocracy to begin with, and that then absorbed its neighbor while no other nations made any significant efforts at religion (ever)... yea, SA got pretty big on Dwilight. But it's the only case. And it not only relied on a very special context, but also a lot of people dedicated to making it work by OOC motivation and sticking around.
-
People have complained for ages about how religions don't take the roles they ought to take.
Devs often say that it's a player problem... but yet, when the feudal hierarchy wasn't handled as desired, you didn't just say "it's a player problem, nothing to change here". Which has been your systematic response to all suggestions, no matter by whom, for structural changes to the way religions work. Instead, you brought upon huge changes to the game, and changed drastically a ton of the game's core mechanics.
When but a few out of many are problematic, then sure, it's a player problem. For example, if one continent is always stuck at peace while the others don't share at all the same problems. However, when all are problematic but a few, it's a mechanics problem. Sure, Sanguis Astroism is huge... but the context has a LOT to do with that: one of the 4 original realms, which was set as a theocracy to begin with, and that then absorbed its neighbor while no other nations made any significant efforts at religion (ever)... yea, SA got pretty big on Dwilight. But it's the only case. And it not only relied on a very special context, but also a lot of people dedicated to making it work by OOC motivation and sticking around.
The religion system is far from perfect. It's also not meant to be coequal with the political/feudal system.
None of that is grounds for you to claim that the devs are going to deliberately ignore or reject feature requests that will improve the religion system simply for the sake of sabotaging the religion system.
-
The religion system is far from perfect. It's also not meant to be coequal with the political/feudal system.
None of that is grounds for you to claim that the devs are going to deliberately ignore or reject feature requests that will improve the religion system simply for the sake of sabotaging the religion system.
He didn't say it was meant to be coequal with the political/feudal system he said people complained endlessly about the religious structural setup and its always been a player problem but you who do massive changes when the same is said for the political/feudal system. Also he never said that the dev team is sabotaging the religion game intentionally but that the dev team is but that every suggested change for religion is rejected and told that it is a player problem or something similar.
-
He didn't say it was meant to be coequal with the political/feudal system he said people complained endlessly about the religious structural setup and its always been a player problem but you who do massive changes when the same is said for the political/feudal system. Also he never said that the dev team is sabotaging the religion game intentionally but that the dev team is but that every suggested change for religion is rejected and told that it is a player problem or something similar.
He said that religions suck by design, which, unless you're being deliberately pedantic or trying really hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, means that the dev team wants religions to suck.
I find this to be approximately equivalent with the position of those who believe that Tom has it in for them, and will deliberately change the code to ensure that their realms lose.
-
He said that religions suck by design, which, unless you're being deliberately pedantic or trying really hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, means that the dev team wants religions to suck.
I find this to be approximately equivalent with the position of those who believe that Tom has it in for them, and will deliberately change the code to ensure that their realms lose.
Well that one is a bit tricky and it does kinda imply what your saying but I think its more like the players say, this sucks it should be changed and the dev response is, too bad it's like that by design. If you want to say that equates to him saying the devs are intentionally making the religion game suck I am not going to argue against that but I wouldn't say that that is of course what he means either. Also, I may be a bit pedantic on this so I apologize for that.
-
In an effort to simultaneously derail a discussion about precisely how much the dev team cares about religion and toot my own horn, what are people's thoughts on these?
More offensive options...
"Exhort the faithful against their lord"
When used in a region that has a lord not of your faith, it encourages the followers of your religion to resist the control of the lord (and by extension, realm). Control is lowered proportionally by the percentage of followers in the region, and once beyond a certain minimal percentage, there is an increasing chance of a rogue militia unit forming to actively fight.
This would be an option that doesn't require the absolutely dominating percentage of followers that some of the other options do, could be very useful in holy wars, and fits with what Priests in BM are supposed to be able to do and what priests in history could do.
"Assert divine right: Purge the heretics/Protect the faithful"
Priest options to assist in takeovers. Both fear and sympathy based options, and I would suggest having their impact on followers tied to the success of the TO. If the TO succeeds, then the percentage of the succeess due to religious options equates to percentage increase in followers (clearly, you were right), and similarly, if the TO fails it causes losses (clearly, you were wrong). H/P gains/losses should similarly happen. Priests are very publicly putting their reputation and influence on the line for this.
"Repurpose shrines/temples"
You should be able to convert shrines (percentage chance the shrine is just destroyed) and temples (percentage chance temple loses one or more levels) of other faiths. Likely to cause a religious riot, friendly troops can help suppress. Serious historical accuracy here, the number of shrines/gods/temples that Christianity in particular assimilated is vast, and the Hagia Sophia is the most prominent example I can think of.
"Call for martyrs"
Fill RC's faster. Very straightforward, also accurate (allowing for how BM recruitment works).
-
I like them. Could go eaither way on the first option, but I do love the ways to assist in TOs (finally a use for priests in that regard over just glorified diplomats).
Re-purposing temples/shrines is a great feature too (especially since getting rid of shrines is difficult for other faiths in general). And yeah, Muslims are well known for scraping the statues and decorations off of Cathedrals and repurpose them as Mosques too.
Calling for martyrs is an interesting option.
-
I'm fairly certain Tom has flat out vetoed repurposing temples in the past.
-
He said that religions suck by design, which, unless you're being deliberately pedantic or trying really hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, means that the dev team wants religions to suck.
I find this to be approximately equivalent with the position of those who believe that Tom has it in for them, and will deliberately change the code to ensure that their realms lose.
Sucking may not be your target, but it's an inevitable result of the means you insist to use, and the philosophy you adhere to as to how the game should handle everything religious.
Look at it this way: Nobody wants to eradicate all of the wild yews, but people's desire to use yews to cure cancer is doing precisely that. I'm not accusing you of wanting to eradicate the yews, but I am accusing you of doing precisely that by being stubbornly obsessed with not considering any other alternative to the problem at hand.
Because I can't even count the number of suggestions that have been made over the years, by various people, to improve the religion game. No structural change ever gets approved. And the answer that things are the way they are "by design" comes by way too often, as if the way there were was perfect. But the design is precisely what I believe has to be changed about religions in BM: it should be rewritten all over, in a complete overhaul. It's been done with the taxes/oaths, it's been done with sea travel, it's been done with BT invasions, it's been done with government settings, it's been done with referendums, it's been done with duchies. A whole ton of aspects of the game have dramatically evolved over the years. But not religions. They still remain the gimmicky guilds people have always complained about. Only they've become weaker, with older priests getting less hours and temples getting taxed.
-
In an effort to simultaneously derail a discussion about precisely how much the dev team cares about religion and toot my own horn, what are people's thoughts on these?
I like them all though I am not sure about the specific case used for assisting in TO's. Also though it would be the only class with the ability I think they should be able to hurt TO's if they can help them.
-
Because I can't even count the number of suggestions that have been made over the years, by various people, to improve the religion game.
I can't count the number of really dumb suggestions for all parts of the game that have been made. Some of them over and over again, without regard for the obvious exploits or the detriments to other parts of the game.
Just because people want something to be a certain way doesn't mean that way will be better. I can't speak for Canada, but if you asked every American if they would rather pay no taxes, you'd get a vast majority saying "yes", despite what that would mean for government and services. People are not always the best judges of what changes are best, because they don't think things through.
Furthermore, I am not in the least convinced that the primary reason that religion has problems catching on well in BM is the guild-based structure of religions. In fact, I already laid out what I think the only way is to make religion feel close to as important as it was in the real world, and not so much just like stories that our players made up, and it has very little to do with the hierarchical structure.
-
In an effort to simultaneously derail a discussion about precisely how much the dev team cares about religion and toot my own horn, what are people's thoughts on these?
That rail looks grassy, and it wants wear.
"Exhort the faithful against their lord"
When used in a region that has a lord not of your faith, it encourages the followers of your religion to resist the control of the lord (and by extension, realm). Control is lowered proportionally by the percentage of followers in the region, and once beyond a certain minimal percentage, there is an increasing chance of a rogue militia unit forming to actively fight.
This would be an option that doesn't require the absolutely dominating percentage of followers that some of the other options do, could be very useful in holy wars, and fits with what Priests in BM are supposed to be able to do and what priests in history could do.
What is the difference between this and "Cause Unrest"?
"Assert divine right: Purge the heretics/Protect the faithful"
Priest options to assist in takeovers. Both fear and sympathy based options, and I would suggest having their impact on followers tied to the success of the TO. If the TO succeeds, then the percentage of the succeess due to religious options equates to percentage increase in followers (clearly, you were right), and similarly, if the TO fails it causes losses (clearly, you were wrong). H/P gains/losses should similarly happen. Priests are very publicly putting their reputation and influence on the line for this.
I actually enjoy the fact that priests options are completely detached from military game mechanics. However, considering that this only involves TO and not battles.... I see how it could be interesting, as long as it does not start a slippery slope towards the priest-as-warlock idea.
"Repurpose shrines/temples"
You should be able to convert shrines (percentage chance the shrine is just destroyed) and temples (percentage chance temple loses one or more levels) of other faiths. Likely to cause a religious riot, friendly troops can help suppress. Serious historical accuracy here, the number of shrines/gods/temples that Christianity in particular assimilated is vast, and the Hagia Sophia is the most prominent example I can think of.
The problem I have with this one is that it should really be only possible for the Lord of the region. The Hagia Sophia was repurposed after the conquest of Constantinople, it's not like a foreign rogue imam led a mob and took it over.
"Call for martyrs"
Fill RC's faster. Very straightforward, also accurate (allowing for how BM recruitment works).
This is a good idea, probably only useful in desperate times, which is when people would be turning to religions for help.
-
Priests aiding friendly TOs makes sense.
I'm having a hard time understanding what a priest could plausibly do to help unfriendly TOs.
-
Play Good Cop in a Good Cop/Bad Cop scenario?
-
I'm having a hard time understanding what a priest could plausibly do to help unfriendly TOs.
Fire and Brimstone works fine.
Leviticus 26:7-8
And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.
-
What is the difference between this and "Cause Unrest"?
Is there an existing Cause Unrest option? If so, awesome! (You can see how often I've used offensive Priest mechanics.)
I actually enjoy the fact that priests options are completely detached from military game mechanics. However, considering that this only involves TO and not battles.... I see how it could be interesting, as long as it does not start a slippery slope towards the priest-as-warlock idea.
God yes, TO's only not actual fighting, and no magic warlock priests. Priests have perfectly good influence options of their own historically, no need to raise the fantasy level of the game higher than it already is.
The problem I have with this one is that it should really be only possible for the Lord of the region. The Hagia Sophia was repurposed after the conquest of Constantinople, it's not like a foreign rogue imam led a mob and took it over.
Fair point. I was thinking of offensive uses of religion in general, and I think you are right that it would be better for a region lord to repurpose temples. Unless...What if we just make it a requirement that you can only repurpose a structure to the faith of the current lord? That would actually make the most sense, I think.
This is a good idea, probably only useful in desperate times, which is when people would be turning to religions for help.
Precisely! Plus, highly historically accurate. Happened all the damn time. Still does, at that.
Priests aiding friendly TOs makes sense.
I'm having a hard time understanding what a priest could plausibly do to help unfriendly TOs.
Either Indirik or vonGenf's suggestions work. Offer sanctuary and gain gratitude, offer to mediate with the invading troops, help ease the suffering...Or...Lead a mob to burn out the tax collectors of the old regime who are clearly Satan's minions (never mind that half of them are part of our church, ignore the man behind the curtain), convert and be spared the sword, inquisitions to root our heresy and anarchists (fighting against the proper order is heresy, right?)...
The possibilities really are endless. I can keep going if you like.
-
I can't see the option right now, but from way back I know there is a Cause Unrest option for Priests (The opposite being Calm Peasants). It lowers Morale and Control in the region and is not a very costly option. I found it to be one of the more useful options for Priests (Since raising or lowering sympathy generally makes you lose more followers and is now outdone by Ambassadors if you have the gold) and can be a very potent tool for regions that are already not doing too good. It's also an excellent way to prepare a region for a RTO if you're left alone, since you need to have Control around Province for it to work.
-
Is there an existing Cause Unrest option? If so, awesome! (You can see how often I've used offensive Priest mechanics.)
Under "Influence followers" you have the following options:
scare
By spreading tales of doom and destruction, you will cause morale in the region to fall.
calm
The opposite of scaring people, you can calm them by telling them about the mercy and strength of their gods. This will slightly improve morale and very slightly reduce independence.
cause unrest
Gathering enough of the believers, you can try to stir them up into a frenzy and cause civil unrest in the region. This will raise independence and lower production. There is a small risk that the local militia will arrest you.
badmouth realm
You can use religion as a political tool. Speaking about the sins of a realm, or that the gods despise it and its government will cause the locals to reduce loyalty or sympathy towards that realm.
Note that clashes with politics cause casualties on both sides. This option will cause you to lose more followers than the simple ones.
laud realm
You can use religion as a political tool. Speaking about the virtues of a realm, or how the gods approve of them will cause the locals to improve their opinion of them, raising loyalty or sympathy.
Note that clashes with politics cause casualties on both sides. This option will cause you to lose more followers than the simple ones.
All these options are reported to the people present in the region, and their success depends on the number of followers are your oratory skill. They also all lead you to lose followers.
Fair point. I was thinking of offensive uses of religion in general, and I think you are right that it would be better for a region lord to repurpose temples. Unless...What if we just make it a requirement that you can only repurpose a structure to the faith of the current lord? That would actually make the most sense, I think.
That would make it realistic too. I'm not sure if you should need the Lord to approve of the conversion, or if his appointment is enough to assume he wants the temple converted.... Tolerating a temple of another religion can be politically important, but allowing priests to forcefully convert the temple may lead to interesting results.
Edit: "Realistic, also" and not "realistic too much"
-
I can't see the option right now, but from way back I know there is a Cause Unrest option for Priests (The opposite being Calm Peasants). It lowers Morale and Control in the region and is not a very costly option. I found it to be one of the more useful options for Priests (Since raising or lowering sympathy generally makes you lose more followers and is now outdone by Ambassadors if you have the gold) and can be a very potent tool for regions that are already not doing too good. It's also an excellent way to prepare a region for a RTO if you're left alone, since you need to have Control around Province for it to work.
To be more accurate:
The first two abilities a priest gets is calm followers, and scare followers. The first improves morale and can (very) slightly improve control (apparently). The second just reduces morale.
Then, the priest can cause unrest, which lowers control and slightly reduces production (apparently).
Then there's also laud and badmouth, much like ambassadors.
All abilities rarely have an impact of greater than 1 or 2%, from my I've seen, and regularly cost you to lose 5-15% of your followers in the region (depending on region population). At low follower %, it doesn't seem worth it, but I never noticed any significant difference in impact between 50% following and 90% following.
I've only used such abilities occasionally, however, because undoing months of preaching work never seemed worth a few percentage points that tend to recuperate right after. Heck, even when I had majority religion, and one of Aurvandil's regions was at province and hateful, it took many turns to cause Maeotis to revolt using cause unrest, and I'm not at all convinced that my actions helped the revolt in any way. You also have a far greater risk of arrest with cause unrest than with scare followers, and if caught on the ask you can be banned.
In other words, high investment (in preaching time), high cost (in followers lost), high risk (in capture doing the preaching and in getting captured and banned on the act), and little reward (in terms of actual damage inflicted). That's priest actions for you.
-
it took many turns to cause Maeotis to revolt using cause unrest,
That's good enough for me. Timely used, it can be powerful.
-
I must have been confused with the options, thanks for the clarifications. The first three options vonGenf give are indeed the ones I meant (scare and cause unrest I assumed to be one option). Those three options generally also don't cause you to lose too many followers. It's the lauding and badmouthing that have a high cost in followers (It took me a while to get Aix with 10%-15% following to be indifferent towards Ibladesh), so if you have the gold, definitely go for an Ambassador. I don't think the latter two are worth it. The first three are though.
These options do require you to keep it up for a bit to see the effects, but when you do, you can easily get any Core Region to Province (I've haven't been arrested due it, the chance of capture should be small as said in the description), which makes the region ripe for a RTO (And that is with a stable region! You're the most powerful where a region is already suffering a bit and you can just escalate the problems there, that is where your true powers lay). If the region borders faithful regions, there probably will already be a following there without any work. Obviously, don't do them where the Army is, aim for the border regions. If you're fighting a big Realm, that should be easy. The risk and follower cost should be very manageable if you restrict yourself to those options.
-
That's good enough for me. Timely used, it can be powerful.
He also said he doesn't think his work did anything meaningful considering I believe the region was also starving at the time and it took that long.
-
He also said he doesn't think his work did anything meaningful considering I believe the region was also starving at the time and it took that long.
Indeed I did. Way to selectively quote me to twist my words there, VonGenf.
The region was in atrocious shape. I was surprised it even last so long, even without my work I would have expected it to revolt earlier.
I must have been confused with the options, thanks for the clarifications. The first three options vonGenf give are indeed the ones I meant (scare and cause unrest I assumed to be one option). Those three options generally also don't cause you to lose too many followers. It's the lauding and badmouthing that have a high cost in followers (It took me a while to get Aix with 10%-15% following to be indifferent towards Ibladesh), so if you have the gold, definitely go for an Ambassador. I don't think the latter two are worth it. The first three are though.
These options do require you to keep it up for a bit to see the effects, but when you do, you can easily get any Core Region to Province (I've haven't been arrested due it, the chance of capture should be small as said in the description), which makes the region ripe for a RTO (And that is with a stable region! You're the most powerful where a region is already suffering a bit and you can just escalate the problems there, that is where your true powers lay). If the region borders faithful regions, there probably will already be a following there without any work. Obviously, don't do them where the Army is, aim for the border regions. If you're fighting a big Realm, that should be easy. The risk and follower cost should be very manageable if you restrict yourself to those options.
My experience with the first three is also high follower losses for 1 or 2% changes.
-
and I'm not at all convinced that my actions helped the revolt in any way.
I used these actions too, and I am convinced that my actions did lead to game mechanics effect. The cost in followers is surprisingly high, but if it makes a region revolt in the direction you wish too, then it's a cost worth paying.
My experience with the first three is also high follower losses for 1 or 2% changes.
Is that for 1 hour preaching or a full day? I am quite sure for a region in the middle range, I could get it up or down one notch per day (i.e. from Friendly to Indifferent). Of course, if you start from 100% or from 0%, then changes are harder.
-
The region was in such a bad shape that it should have revolted on its own. I have a hard time seeing the followers lost as a price worthy of anything.
As for my actions, I never use 1 hour. maximum hours almost all of the time.
-
The region was in such a bad shape that it should have revolted on its own. I have a hard time seeing the followers lost as a price worthy of anything.
As for my actions, I never use 1 hour. maximum hours almost all of the time.
What do you mean, like it was at 5% loyalty already? Then, alright, your actions probably didn't do much. A 2% drop means 40% of the remaining loyalists listened to you!
-
What do you mean, like it was at 5% loyalty already? Then, alright, your actions probably didn't do much. A 2% drop means 40% of the remaining loyalists listened to you!
I did not comment on initial stat, because I do not remember. I do know I've used it on relatively healthy regions before, and that more often then not, the damage caused was fixed automatically on the following TC.