BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Scarlett on February 16, 2013, 05:08:36 PM
-
I ask out of ignorance as I've never played a priest. I get that the 'priest game' is meant to be meaningfully different than the regular game and am fine with that.
But medieval priests can and did fight, some quite famously (like Adhemar du Puy on the First Crusade, who may as well have been the basis for every RPG mace-wielding 'cleric' ever seen)
They even had special titles for when they held land and owed secular fealty - Prince Bishops. More common in the HRE than France or England but it did happen.
It should be a perfectly valid choice not to do so (as most priests were content to be fat and happy without putting themselves at risk) but what is the rationale for preventing it?
-
'Priest' is not a title, it is a description of what you do for a living. A more fitting description may be preacher.
Religious titles can be given to any member of the religion through the religion rank system. "Prince Bishop" is a rank that both warriors and priests can attain.
If you want to be a fighting mace-wielding ordained person, then you are a warrior who fights for his religion.
You can even oscillate between warrior and priest on a pretty regular basis, and I have seen many characters do that quite effectively, They can be roleplayed as the crusader-monk type who picks up his sword to go fight heathens when needed, but remains a priest when at home for long periods of time.
-
I ask out of ignorance as I've never played a priest. I get that the 'priest game' is meant to be meaningfully different than the regular game and am fine with that.
But medieval priests can and did fight, some quite famously (like Adhemar du Puy on the First Crusade, who may as well have been the basis for every RPG mace-wielding 'cleric' ever seen)
They even had special titles for when they held land and owed secular fealty - Prince Bishops. More common in the HRE than France or England but it did happen.
It should be a perfectly valid choice not to do so (as most priests were content to be fat and happy without putting themselves at risk) but what is the rationale for preventing it?
Game balance. Instant travel plus troops is a huge imbalance.
-
Pretty much what vonGenf says. If you are a Priest in BattleMaster, you are one whose primary concern is preaching.
There is absolutely nothing that says that a Warrior (or any other class) cannot be deeply religious and have a strong desire to see his religion spread among the nobility.
However, for game balance, no one character can have access to all the different class functions at once. You might as well ask why Warriors can't Survey Administration, or why Traders can't murder militia.
-
What is the point of instant travel? Why is it integral to the priest game?
Medieval priests whose primary concern was the priesthood still took up arms. It was not their primary function, but they did not stop being a priest; Adhemar le Puy did not stop being a Bishop and become Sir Adhemar while on Crusade.
-
What is the point of instant travel? Why is it integral to the priest game?
Medieval priests whose primary concern was the priesthood still took up arms. It was not their primary function, but they did not stop being a priest; Adhemar le Puy did not stop being a Bishop and become Sir Adhemar while on Crusade.
And there is nothing stopping a Bishop of whatever religion you want from changing class to Warrior and joining his brethren on a Crusade. He just can't try to kill the peasants one minute, and try to convert them the next.
And before you say that it would have been historically accurate for him to have done so: tough beans. There are plenty of things that would have been historically accurate that we prevent you from doing for game balance reasons. Like, say, handing your buddy 100 gold coins while you're out on a long campaign and he forgot to bring enough to pay his unit.
-
What is the point of instant travel? Why is it integral to the priest game?
Medieval priests whose primary concern was the priesthood still took up arms. It was not their primary function, but they did not stop being a priest; Adhemar le Puy did not stop being a Bishop and become Sir Adhemar while on Crusade.
Because nerfing the priest class EVEN MORE and removing basically its #1 perk would be lame.
Plus, Priest/Diplomat is a way more common Medieval trope than Priest/Warrior, and so incentivization Priest/Diplomat makes way more sense than incentivizing Priest/Warrior, and fast travel is a super big incentive for that.
-
Medieval priests whose primary concern was the priesthood still took up arms. It was not their primary function, but they did not stop being a priest; Adhemar le Puy did not stop being a Bishop and become Sir Adhemar while on Crusade.
He did remain ordained, and as I say that's not a problem as he can be of any religious rank (even Elder Rank).
However, he was not preaching in his parish church while he was swinging a sword. If you have a sword in your hand, you're a warrior.
In real life he could switch from one to another in 5 minutes if needed. In BM, you cannot switch more than once every 7 days. That seems reasonable to me given the turn structure of the game.
-
Technically, you can become a Martyr. It's just the Hero Class with a fancy roleplay name attached to it though. I also can't remember the conditions for it or if it's even still there since I stopped playing my Priest. Given how much you can get away with, you can also roleplay yourself leading the unwashed masses as if they were the troops under your command. Cid did that during his various crusades and inquisitions.
Otherwise, I'd say the obvious reason is the same most others have said: game mechanics won't allow it.
-
I really do feel that we need a religious subclass for warriors. Knights should be able to actively get involved in religions as more than money bags. They should be able to get a crusader subclass, similar to the hero subclass.
-
Allow Priests to stir up peasants in the name of their religion to either directly volunteer into other Knight's units or to full recruitment centers?
-
I really do feel that we need a religious subclass for warriors. Knights should be able to actively get involved in religions as more than money bags. They should be able to get a crusader subclass, similar to the hero subclass.
And what do you think it should do?
That can't be done perfectly well purely in RP, I mean.
-
And before you say that it would have been historically accurate for him to have done so: tough beans.
No question even mentioning historical accuracy would be complete without Anaris condescending to explain a gameplay compromise to the unwashed masses. Yes, I get it.
I am asking - again - why instant travel is a feature particular to the priest class. I am not asking that it be taken away or expanded or even changed. I suppose I don't understand it: you have here a game whose entire functional basis is turns and hours per day. You then make an exception to the system governing the whole game. I presume this is for a good reason, and so I am curious what that reason is.
If I were actually lobbying to change the system at all I wouldn't really come at it this way - I'd probably suggest that once somebody becomes a priest, they can't stop becoming a priest without a big penalty (being defrocked is a big deal). A historically accurate priesthood, given that 'historically accurate' with a non-Catholic religious system is already kind of a red herring, would be one where joining the priesthood gave you certain additional skills and bonuses but also prohibited you from certain things that non-priests get. Maybe you can't ever be a Duke, for instance (since it's meaningless to take away inheritance). Or some other recognition that you serve two masters and so are removed from the natural order of things.
It just wouldn't occur to me to change up how hours work.
-
Why? Were there never Prince-Archbishops? Were they not essentially Dukes?
And how would such restrictions make sense in theocracies? Or even monarchies with a more religious slant?
-
And what do you think it should do?
That can't be done perfectly well purely in RP, I mean.
Ability to influence follower count (to a lesser effect than preaching, obviously, but more discreet as well: perhaps automatic conversion of peasants whenever the unit performs well in battle), construction of shrines or other infrastructure of similar working, ability to hunt down heretics (similar to looting), ability to call in favors from high-follower regions (such as cheaper repairs or entertainment), greater morale bonus when visiting temples of the faith, morale bonuses when sacking heathen temples, ability to convert foreign nobles if an elder.
Can't change out of the subclass, as with heroes, and needs to be part of a religion: loses access to all special abilities if the religion dies, until he picks up another at least.
That's the kind of stuff I'd like to see.
-
It's not just about instant travel. It's about having different classes that are actually different.
If you don't want to play a priest, then don't play a priest. But don't come crying because you can't convert peasants and run auto da fes.
You haven't, as far as I've noticed, addressed the point that other classes have things only they can do, too. Why are you not asking for Warriors to be able to sneak into people's tents and attack them? After all, it's something Warriors could do in the period, if they wanted to.
-
I am asking - again - why instant travel is a feature particular to the priest class. I am not asking that it be taken away or expanded or even changed. I suppose I don't understand it: you have here a game whose entire functional basis is turns and hours per day. You then make an exception to the system governing the whole game. I presume this is for a good reason, and so I am curious what that reason is.
This is just a pure guess on my part, but the guess would be that the instant travel (and the whole priest class) is designed to attract a broader range of players. With the instant travel you can play at a completely different pace to normal. I know of several players who exclusively play priest characters, and some who exclusively play adventurers, because they like the way the gameplay works for those classes. So that would be my guess - the instant travel is designed to appeal to a different type of player.
-
To supplement Chenier's suggestion, I'd recommend that Heroes could change to that subclass, and vice versa. They would automatically change into Heroes from that Crusader subclass if their religion was dissolved or they were removed (like is what is supposed to happen with priests).
-
Why are you not asking for Warriors to be able to sneak into people's tents and attack them?
I am not asking for anything. I put it in bold, so maybe you'll believe me this time. I wasn't around when priests first came out and I've never played one. I am merely curious about the reasoning for some of the gameplay mechanics. There is not an '...and so you should change it' attached. It's true that it's not what I would have thought of but so is half of BM and somehow we all get by.
I've never played an infiltrator but I don't see any particular reason to stop warriors from sneaking around and stabbing people. They'd probably just stink at it, like most medieval warriors would unless they had a lot of practice with skulduggery. They'd also stink at converting people, though that didn't stop them from trying.
On a purely theoretical level, you could make a case for removing class entirely: if somebody wants to priest-ify you, you're a priest. If you want to stab people in the dark, go for it. But I'm not a dev and I'm not interested in fighting that battle: I'm interested in how you came about to how and why things are they are, if you can process an academic question for its own sake that isn't serving some secret agenda. Hence the title of the thread as a question and my first post indicating ignorance as the source of my question.
Were there never Prince-Archbishops? Were they not essentially Dukes?
There were indeed, but in my hypothetical non-argument I'm trying to balance how things actually were with BM's religious system and gameplay requirements.
Basically, priesthood was a kind of backup career for nobles - it's one of the things you did if you weren't going to inherit a lot of land or money or else somebody wanted you out of the line of inheritance. But once you were in, there were huge power struggles and lots of land and money to be handed out, of which Prince-Bishops and particularly Prince-Archbishoprics were some of the nicest.
They were still not terribly common, though, so while you'd want to capture the possibility of a landed, fighting priest, you'd need to allow for the fact that this would be sort of the top of the priest game, not the everyday priest game.
I agree that restrictions wouldn't make much sense in theocracies, but then there weren't really any medieval theocratic 'realms' - just fiefs (like Prince-Bishoprics) other than the Vatican, which was still pretty big and could feasibly constitute a BM realm.
One of the big conflicts of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages was the perception that it was completely obsessed with secular power and wealth and thus disconnected from the spiritual needs of, well, everybody. For many decades huge portions, an easy majority, didn't even bother to act otherwise. But wading directly into secular politics tended to spark a lot of the latent resentment about this, which is one reason that the Templars were ultimately rooted out and destroyed by the King of France and his Pocket Pope. So you had the Prince-Bishops with a fair amount of local influence but not usually far-reaching.
-
To supplement Chenier's suggestion, I'd recommend that Heroes could change to that subclass, and vice versa. They would automatically change into Heroes from that Crusader subclass if their religion was dissolved or they were removed (like is what is supposed to happen with priests).
I considered proposing as much. Not sure what feels best, though. Mortality makes heroes unique, and not being able to switch out of morality mode is a big part of it (although you can always become a priest to avoid the risk of death in battle).
-
Given how much you can get away with, you can also roleplay yourself leading the unwashed masses as if they were the troops under your command. Cid did that during his various crusades and inquisitions.
Heck there were actually instances during the medieval ages when priests "did indeed lead their own troops into battle", even if they themselves never took an active part in the fight itself, either as members of a small army they'd raised and payed for, or else one done so by their bishop/Duke ect.
I really do feel that we need a religious subclass for warriors. Knights should be able to actively get involved in religions as more than money bags. They should be able to get a crusader subclass, similar to the hero subclass.
If the knights a lord why not have them form an army themselves and simply designate it a holy order of some kind?, after that it would just be a matter of him/her attempting persuade other Knights/warriors with the same religious fervour want to join it.
-
If the knights a lord why not have them form an army themselves and simply designate it a holy order of some kind?, after that it would just be a matter of him/her attempting persuade other Knights/warriors with the same religious fervour want to join it.
I don't get what you are trying to say.
-
, even if they themselves never took an active part in the fight itself,
Well, they did take active part in battle. They weren't supposed to spill blood, so they'd bash skulls (hence the RPG cleric). Julius II was even a fighting Pope.
It was unusual though. Just not unheard of.
-
I am asking - again - why instant travel is a feature particular to the priest class.
Because priests have a lot less to do than other classes and without being able to act/travel/act-again, it would be horribly boring to play one.
-
I am not asking for anything. I put it in bold, so maybe you'll believe me this time. I wasn't around when priests first came out and I've never played one. I am merely curious about the reasoning for some of the gameplay mechanics. There is not an '...and so you should change it' attached. It's true that it's not what I would have thought of but so is half of BM and somehow we all get by.
Aside from what Tom just said:
Priests can not fight to make absolutely clear that they are intended to be a different type of play than the regular Warrior/Courtier types.
-
If the knights a lord why not have them form an army themselves and simply designate it a holy order of some kind?, after that it would just be a matter of him/her attempting persuade other Knights/warriors with the same religious fervour want to join it.
I've seen that done, any number of times, most recently in Riombara. I'm not getting this whole discussion, really. Jenred may well have been the most actively religious member of the MAE for some years, despite not being a Priest until last week, and I've certainly seen any number of Priests who cared barely at best for their religion. It's just a different set of class options.
-
How do priests travel to places between regions that require more than 12 hours?
-
How do priests travel to places between regions that require more than 12 hours?
They have a sixteen hour pool for starters (and accumulate hours at one hour per real world hour, at least until you get old when it slows down), and if it's more than that, then you have to have a full time pool and just make the attempt to travel.
-
They have a sixteen hour pool for starters (and accumulate hours at one hour per real world hour, at least until you get old when it slows down), and if it's more than that, then you have to have a full time pool and just make the attempt to travel.
To clarify: If the trip is more than 16 hours, you wait until you have 16 hours, and start traveling. It will subtract your entire time pool from the number of hours you have to travel, then each time you would gain an hour, it instead gets applied to your travel time. Once you're 1 hour away from your destination, you start accumulating hours again, and then at the next turn change, you arrive.
-
Warrior = Fighter
Priest = Preacher
Either can equal priest makes sense to me. It is up to the elders of a religion to give religious titles and responsibilities to people. What I am not sure about is why only priests can be founders, enlarge temples and why half of elders must be priests. It would be cool if those rights could be given to anyone.
-
Any elder can enlarge temples.
The half-priests thing is due to the problem that came along with the introduction of religions where many realms created their. State religions and then mirrored the realm power structure in the religion. The elders were just the normal realm power structure all over again.
-
What I am not sure about is why only priests can be founders,
If the religion was founded without priests, it would immediately start falling apart. (Yes, this does require the elder-priests things.)
enlarge temples
Not true. You only need to be an elder, IIRC.
and why half of elders must be priests.
This is to ensure that religions are serious about actually converting the peasantry.
If you can't convince enough people to be priests to keep the religion alive, then I'm sorry, but you don't really deserve to be a religion anymore.
-
Good to know that any Elder can enlarge temples! Thanks for clarifying! I still think that religion might be better if priests were not required in any form. I am not sure why the state-religion thing is so bad. Doing something like that really limits the potential reach of a religion. What are the benefits? Easier to keep regions happy? Protection from foreign religions?
-
How can a religion be if it has no priests? That just seems... Silly.
-
Yeah, that's not a religion. It's a theological debate society.
Which is perfectly fine to have—it's just that it's called a "guild".
-
Good to know that any Elder can enlarge temples! Thanks for clarifying! I still think that religion might be better if priests were not required in any form. I am not sure why the state-religion thing is so bad. Doing something like that really limits the potential reach of a religion. What are the benefits? Easier to keep regions happy? Protection from foreign religions?
And I really think realms should be able to exist without nobles. That way there can be a realm made and ran by adventurers. They might not actually have any land though but whatevs.
-
That is just the problem. Earlier on the argument was made that a priest was simply a preacher. That any noble could be a priest of a religion simply by being given the title. Therefore warrior priests were already possible. The relevant post is quoted below. Anaris agreed with this post.
'Priest' is not a title, it is a description of what you do for a living. A more fitting description may be preacher.
Religious titles can be given to any member of the religion through the religion rank system. "Prince Bishop" is a rank that both warriors and priests can attain.
If you want to be a fighting mace-wielding ordained person, then you are a warrior who fights for his religion.
You can even oscillate between warrior and priest on a pretty regular basis, and I have seen many characters do that quite effectively, They can be roleplayed as the crusader-monk type who picks up his sword to go fight heathens when needed, but remains a priest when at home for long periods of time.
I agree that a religion needs priests. Now what is a priest? A Noble that dedicates himself to the religion and has been awarded the title priest or the priest class who was, apparently not really a priest but just a preacher? It seems to go whichever way is convenient I guess.
Want a warrior priest? Sure, just create a priest title and give it to the warrior. The priest class are just preachers anyways...
Want a religion without priest classed nobles? What? that is just stupid you need priests to have a religion. Only preachers can be priests!
Nice double standard...
-
Want a warrior priest? Sure, just create a priest title and give it to the warrior. The priest class are just preachers anyways...
Want a religion without priest classed nobles? What? that is just stupid you need priests to have a religion. Only preachers can be priests!
Nice double standard...
Anaris' point stands. You are prefectly allowed to create a guild, name its members priests, and have a bunch of nobles debate religion without ever preaching to the peasants. This has been done before (the Chaos Requiem for example).
However the whole religious infrastructure of religion in BM is geared towards preaching to commoners and then using your influence on these commoners as a weapon. The rest is just RP. If you don't have priests, then the whole infrastructure falls apart... and your RP remains, which is perfectly fine.
-
It is also worth noting that—at least, last I checked—priests can be marshals, VMs, or generals. Mind you, they don't field a unit, so you'll want a backup there to enforce formation discipline. But there's nothing stopping a realm so inclined to elevate priests to roles that are central to battle.