BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Helpline => Topic started by: Velax on March 17, 2013, 02:34:45 PM
-
Is it against any rules or policies (specifically, the placeholder lord policy) for a lord to step down so another can be appointed to accomplish a set task, then have that lord step down so the original may retake his position?
For instance, if we wanted a temple of every religion on the continent built in a particular city (to create a Religious Quarter and promote religious tolerance, which the realm is big on), but the current lord cannot do it because he's the head of a religion (can't really ask them to quit a religion to join another to build a temple to it when he's the leader). Would it be fine for that lord to step down and another to take his place to build the temples and then step down when he's done?
-
Have you thought about WHY there is this limitation to only building temples for your own religion and that it might serve a gameplay purpose?
-
I'm fairly certain that punishments have been handed out for something like this when it involved founding a religion.
It seems to me to be deliberate circumvention of game mechanics. "Only lords can build temples" is not just to make coding easier. It is a deliberate restriction on who can build temples. A series a benchwarmer lords who's sole tak is to build a temple and then step down seems a pretty obvious and deliberate circumvention of the game mechanics.
-
For those interested, this is related to this question:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3995.0.html
-
Well, I know that I, personally, have been punished by the Titans in the past for being involved in exactly this sort of transaction.
So yes, there has at least been a time when using a temporary lord to build a temple has been considered a bad enough circumvention of game mechanics to result in a temporary account lock.
-
Have you thought about WHY there is this limitation to only building temples for your own religion and that it might serve a gameplay purpose?
Honestly? I hadn't. Can you tell me what the gameplay purpose is?
This wasn't intended to gain any sort of unfair advantage or circumvent any mechanics. We just wanted to create a religious district with a number of temples in it. Something that we could do RPs about and add flavour to the city and to our realm.
-
This wasn't intended to gain any sort of unfair advantage or circumvent any mechanics. We just wanted to create a religious district with a number of temples in it. Something that we could do RPs about and add flavour to the city and to our realm.
And you think that happened in a time where killing people for having the wrong religion was about as normal as going shopping?
-
Perhaps not, but it is something that happens in game. Having temples to more than one religion in the same region is quite common. In Kindara, for instance, 25% of the realm's regions have more than one temple in it. It is not something that is prevented by the game.
-
Perhaps not, but it is something that happens in game. Having temples to more than one religion in the same region is quite common. In Kindara, for instance, 25% of the realm's regions have more than one temple in it. It is not something that is prevented by the game.
Which does not in any way mean that the game supports trying to get temples of loads of different religions built in a single region.
The way for that to happen is over time, as different people own the region who belong to different religions.
-
Would something like this be out of the question?
King: Margrave, you are ordered to initiate the construction of a temple of X. I have decided that there shall be a temply of every religion in the city.
Margrave: I can not, Your Majesty, do such a thing in good conscious. The mere idea of exposing my people to such a religion prevents me from complying.
King: How dare you refuse my will!
King: Duke, Your Margrave has openly refused a Royal Order. Have this Margrrave of yours replaced by one who will do as ordered.
Duke: Yes Oh King.
King: New Margrave, build my darn Temple now!
New Margrave: Of course Your Majesty, it is about time these people are exposed to the true faith.
King: Whatever. I have little interest in your religious views. Just build that temple temple.
This assumes the king holds enough sway with the Duke, Judge and population to push something like that through. The premiss is that the king has what he feels is a good reason to build such a religious sector. Some perceived diplomatic or bureaucratic advantage. This would also suggest that the king is not strongly tied to their own faith.
-
Would something like this be out of the question?
King: Margrave, you are ordered to initiate the construction of a temple of X. I have decided that there shall be a temply of every religion in the city.
Margrave: I can not, Your Majesty, do such a thing in good conscious. The mere idea of exposing my people to such a religion prevents me from complying.
King: How dare you refuse my will!
King: Duke, Your Margrave has openly refused a Royal Order. Have this Margrrave of yours replaced by one who will do as ordered.
Duke: Yes Oh King.
King: New Margrave, build my darn Temple now!
New Margrave: Of course Your Majesty, it is about time these people are exposed to the true faith.
King: Whatever. I have little interest in your religious views. Just build that temple temple.
This assumes the king holds enough sway with the Duke, Judge and population to push something like that through. The premiss is that the king has what he feels is a good reason to build such a religious sector. Some perceived diplomatic or bureaucratic advantage. This would also suggest that the king is not strongly tied to their own faith.
Would Tom be ok with? Probably. Is out of the question? Yes. That's ridiculous. I hate not allowing Velax's on the grounds of what a noble would do. This isn't an SMA island, so there is no reason to restrict actions purely based on what a medieval noble would. Pretty much no one acts how Tom describes on FEI, so its dumb that the lord be expected to randomly tell the ruler to !@#$ off not because of anything IG, but because of how a noble would act, ie SMA on a non-SMA island.
-
Honestly, I do not really get non-SMA. I try to play all characters in a SMA compatible way. What makes non-SMA?
-
SMA operates on Tom's assumption of what is considered medieval atmosphere. Whether or not that has complete basis in reality tends to depend on the person you ask.
-
King: Margrave, you are ordered to initiate the construction of a temple of X. I have decided that there shall be a temply of every religion in the city.
Margrave: I can not, Your Majesty, do such a thing in good conscious. The mere idea of exposing my people to such a religion prevents me from complying.
King: How dare you refuse my will!
King: Duke, Your Margrave has openly refused a Royal Order. Have this Margrrave of yours replaced by one who will do as ordered.
Duke: Yes Oh King.
King: New Margrave, build my darn Temple now!
New Margrave: Of course Your Majesty, it is about time these people are exposed to the true faith.
King: Whatever. I have little interest in your religious views. Just build that temple temple.
I think that's perfectly fine. The problem would come if the old Lord was reinstated right after the construction of the new temple. Dismissing a Lord for religious reasons is allowed.
-
Honestly, I do not really get non-SMA. I try to play all characters in a SMA compatible way. What makes non-SMA?
The non-placeholder rule applies on all islands, so technically this isn't a SMA matter.
However, if you want an application of SMA in that context, it's much more about the serious part. When you name a Lord, it's supposed to be for life. Yes, of course there are ways to remove him, but replacing a Lord is a very serious matter. You can't tell the Lord "just vacate the place for a few weeks please, I'll give it back to you afterwards". Being a Lord is not like having a job; if you're not a Lord you're just a landless knight. It'd be like telling a King "would you mind not being King for 2 weeks please?"
-
The difference here, though, is that the temporary stepping down is part of a punishment (for religious intolerance). I would think a lord would prefer, "Step down for two weeks while temples are built in your region to help teach you the value of religious tolerance" rather than, "Your lordship is hereby revoked permanently".
-
SMA operates on Tom's assumption of what is considered medieval atmosphere. Whether or not that has complete basis in reality tends to depend on the person you ask.
You talk as if I would judge every single interaction, which is very far from the truth. SMA is more of a community thing, but since there needs to be someone who can make a final decision if there are different opinions, that happens to be me.
It is very rarely needed.
-
religious tolerance
re-what?
There was very little of that in medieval europe, including the times before christianity held sway. People were killed for having a different religion. Some like the jews were tolerated, mostly because they could conveniently be persecuted whenever you needed a scapegoat and partially because their religion was at least a variant (in BM terms).
I can not imagine the christian baron of an european barony to order the construction of, say, a temple to Wotan/Odin.
-
I can not imagine the christian baron of an european barony to order the construction of, say, a temple to Wotan/Odin.
Here it's more a case of a pagan ruler ordering a christian lord to "tolerate" a temple to Odin. The christian lord would never do it by himself, of course, but it makes sense for the pagan ruler to require that.
In the other thread I mentioned earlier, Anaris clarified that a lord building many temples by joining religions temporarily would be allowed. This thread asks the question of whether it would be allowed to rotate the lord quickly instead of rotating religion.
-
I disagree with this game restriction, but as others have stated, for the moment, it's circumvention of game mechanics and thus not allowed.
-
re-what?
There was very little of that in medieval europe, including the times before christianity held sway. People were killed for having a different religion. Some like the jews were tolerated, mostly because they could conveniently be persecuted whenever you needed a scapegoat and partially because their religion was at least a variant (in BM terms).
I can not imagine the christian baron of an european barony to order the construction of, say, a temple to Wotan/Odin.
The fact remains that religious tolerance does exist in-game. Stating that it didn't exist in medieval times doesn't change that.
-
The fact remains that religious tolerance does exist in-game. Stating that it didn't exist in medieval times doesn't change that.
The fact remains that a mechanism for building temples to religions you're not a member of does not exist in-game. Stating whatever you like about religious tolerance doesn't change that.
-
In the other thread I mentioned earlier, Anaris clarified that a lord building many temples by joining religions temporarily would be allowed. This thread asks the question of whether it would be allowed to rotate the lord quickly instead of rotating religion.
Well, to be clear, I didn't say "it will be allowed"—I said "I don't see that it violates any rule."
Doing it the other way around, though, absolutely violates the placeholder rule, no matter what RP you put around it. A temporary lord is a temporary lord is a temporary lord, and those are not allowed.
-
You talk as if I would judge every single interaction, which is very far from the truth. SMA is more of a community thing, but since there needs to be someone who can make a final decision if there are different opinions, that happens to be me.
It is very rarely needed.
which was followed by this post...
re-what?
There was very little of that in medieval europe, including the times before christianity held sway. People were killed for having a different religion. Some like the jews were tolerated, mostly because they could conveniently be persecuted whenever you needed a scapegoat and partially because their religion was at least a variant (in BM terms).
I can not imagine the christian baron of an european barony to order the construction of, say, a temple to Wotan/Odin.
Funny you should mention variant... there happens to be an option for changing one religion's views of another as variant, and since jews were allowed to have their places of worship at times, when they weren't being scapegoats, it would make sense that the lord of a region could allow other religions to build there if their religion was held to be a variant of the lord's religion. Which he could then sack if said scapegoating occurred...
-
The fact remains that a mechanism for building temples to religions you're not a member of does not exist in-game. Stating whatever you like about religious tolerance doesn't change that.
...really? That's really immature, Anaris. Aside from the fact that your statement has no bearing, whatsoever, on my reply to Tom, where did I claim such a mechanic did exist? This entire thread is discussing an alternative given that region lords can't build temples to other religions.
-
Well, to be clear, I didn't say "it will be allowed"—I said "I don't see that it violates any rule."
It would be nice if these two things meant the same thing. The reason we ask these questions on the forum is to make sure we don't do anything that turns out not to be allowed. Barring forcing Tom to visit every thread, the word of a Dev is the best interpretation we have.
Doing it the other way around, though, absolutely violates the placeholder rule, no matter what RP you put around it. A temporary lord is a temporary lord is a temporary lord, and those are not allowed.
I absolutely agree.
-
It would be nice if these two things meant the same thing. The reason we ask these questions on the forum is to make sure we don't do anything that turns out not to be allowed. Barring forcing Tom to visit every thread, the word of a Dev is the best interpretation we have.
I don't really disagree, but that's not exactly my call.
That is, in fact, somewhat the point.
-
The fact remains that religious tolerance does exist in-game.
Not really, no. Where do you see religious tolerance in the game? Priests can easily call on mobs to go and kill believers of other religions, for example. How does that amount to religious tolerance?
-
This entire thread is discussing an alternative given that region lords can't build temples to other religions.
Yes, this entire thread is about making something possible that the game does not allow. Please do as I asked in my first reply and stop thinking about the "how" and think about the "why" for a moment. Why does the game not allow you to build any temples of any religion? That restriction is there for a reason, you know?
Once you accept the premise, you'll understand that both rotating lords and rotating religions is a clear and obvious abuse of the game mechanics to circumvent restrictions of the game mechanics.
If you insist that there should be a way for having multiple temples of multiple religions in the same regions, then having them built by priests instead of lords would be the proper solution. That's a solution that makes sense and can be discussed, but it does have consequences that you should think about as well.
-
Not really, no. Where do you see religious tolerance in the game? Priests can easily call on mobs to go and kill believers of other religions, for example. How does that amount to religious tolerance?
In game, as in how the characters actually act, not how the game wants to force them to act. Also, having the ability to call a mob does not make you religious intolerant, its actually doing that is being intolerant.Yes, this entire thread is about making something possible that the game does not allow. Please do as I asked in my first reply and stop thinking about the "how" and think about the "why" for a moment. Why does the game not allow you to build any temples of any religion? That restriction is there for a reason, you know?
Once you accept the premise, you'll understand that both rotating lords and rotating religions is a clear and obvious abuse of the game mechanics to circumvent restrictions of the game mechanics.
If you insist that there should be a way for having multiple temples of multiple religions in the same regions, then having them built by priests instead of lords would be the proper solution. That's a solution that makes sense and can be discussed, but it does have consequences that you should think about as well.
I think the feature you suggested is great, but its annoying too. Wait a couple years, then you can have your religiously diverse region.
-
Not really, no. Where do you see religious tolerance in the game? Priests can easily call on mobs to go and kill believers of other religions, for example. How does that amount to religious tolerance?
Existence of something does not mean the nonexistence of its opposite. Can priests "easily can on mobs to go and kill believers of other [evil] religions"? Yes, they can. But they very seldom do. And doing so causes a bunch of people to lose faith. In my eyes, all of the faithful lost were tolerant people that wanted nothing to do with persecution of others. And all of the priests who chose not to use this option make a show of tolerance. And even faiths who consider some others evil rarely give that stance to more than one or two other religions.
If you insist that there should be a way for having multiple temples of multiple religions in the same regions, then having them built by priests instead of lords would be the proper solution. That's a solution that makes sense and can be discussed, but it does have consequences that you should think about as well.
The most commonly proposed solution, I believe (or at least the what appears to be the best compromise to me), would be for the priest to be able to propose building a temple to the lord, by clicking a certain link, and then having the lord being able to click a link he'd receive to accept.
-
Not really, no. Where do you see religious tolerance in the game? Priests can easily call on mobs to go and kill believers of other religions, for example. How does that amount to religious tolerance?
As has been mentioned by Penchant and Chénier, the religious tolerance is seen in the characters.
If you insist that there should be a way for having multiple temples of multiple religions in the same regions, then having them built by priests instead of lords would be the proper solution. That's a solution that makes sense and can be discussed, but it does have consequences that you should think about as well.
The most commonly proposed solution, I believe (or at least the what appears to be the best compromise to me), would be for the priest to be able to propose building a temple to the lord, by clicking a certain link, and then having the lord being able to click a link he'd receive to accept.
This seems like a perfect solution to me.
-
I have to admit that I don't like it. I don't think the game should make religious tolerance and/or diversity something that is easy to achieve, or even desirable.
-
I have to admit that I don't like it. I don't think the game should make religious tolerance and/or diversity something that is easy to achieve, or even desirable.
People are going to do what they want regarding their character's RP. What the game wants or desires shouldn't get in the way of that for the most part.
-
I think this thread has gone off the tracks enough.