Not being able to kick out priests of a religion

[Duvaille]

Bedwyr,

Well, this is then, I suppose, a rather pointless discussion. That is, if the schism system in the works will eventually help with the problem at hand.

[Penchant]

Well if it does not include the priests being kicked out in the new schism system then this discussion is still needed to verify how the removing of the priests will be done.

[Duvaille]

Well if it does not include the priests being kicked out in the new schism system then this discussion is still needed to verify how the removing of the priests will be done.

Well, this is true. Whatever the proposal is, perhaps a "forced schism" option could be added to it to take care of the problem at hand.

[Bedwyr]

Well, this is true. Whatever the proposal is, perhaps a "forced schism" option could be added to it to take care of the problem at hand.

That was indeed part of the discussion.  However, I don't recall if a mechanic was settled for forced schisms, though it was agreed they were necessary.

[pcw27]

Why should there be a whole complicated mechanic for this? If someone wants to play a Martin Luther they should found a new religion. If they can't get a single region lord on board (or if they're not a region lord themselves) then their doctrine clearly isn't powerful enough to gather followers.

If a spy infiltrates a religion there should be an option to ban them from receiving messages from the religion. It shouldn't be very difficult for church leaders to say "hey, that guy's a spy, stop sending him our mail". Infiltrating a religion can be a legitimate role played action, but to suggest hat spying should grant them a lifetime supply of free intelligence is ludicrous. Let them have the ability to send messages to the faith which should limit the Churches ability to use this as a way to summarily silence descent.

[Tom]

And with that, this topic is dead. Another idea/request killed by overcomplications.

People, how much more often do I need to say it? If you want things to actually happen, instead of just being discussed on the forum, they need to have three very important things going for them. They need to be simple, they need to be simple and finally they need to be simple.

Everything else is not going to happen within, say, the next year or so.

The minute someone talked about fully implementing religious shisms should've been the moment everyone realized that this is not going to happen anytime soon, end of story.

So deal with your wayward priest the way I originally explained: By roleplaying.

[vonGenf]

• Get the priest banned -OR- declare war on the priest's realm

Yay, more war! \°/

• Find someone in the same region as the priest with the capability of arresting them

Yay! More player interaction! \°/

• Assuming the priest is banned from the realm he is arrested in, convince its Judge to either deport or execute him.

You can't deport priests, and I would be in favour of changing something to make it so, but given that you can execute him it's not that bad. I think it's perfectly normal that Judges have a say in this.

[vonGenf]

Religions are about faith and dogma. Sects, heresies and dissidence are great in my book, but they do not belong all in the same Church. When past a point there has to be a break. I lead an extremely tolerant religion, the third one of Dwilight (Aetheris Pyrism), but not being able to expel heretical Priests makes a big hole in the authority of the Church.

We roleplay a lot, and I have tried to avoid direct involvement in politics both because there is a heavy lack of religions in Dwilight,(...) This is why I say that while political conflict is great (we walked the thin line between tolerance and persecution for long), this feature really provides very little enjoyable conflict potential.

This is a fine roleplay for a religion, and you can play it that way. However withdrawing from politics does mean you have less political power, which is pretty much your point; you can't then complaint that you lack political powers.

Think about it: how would you, realistically, prevent a noble from preaching in a church in a medieval setting? The setting is this: A person who is a well-known nobleman arrives in a village where a temple of Keplerism stands. This noble wears the official symbol of Keplerism and speaks about Keplerism. He enters the church and demands to give the day's sermon.

The local priest is faced with a choice: he has in his church a nobleman with a sword who tells him one thing, and a letter signed by another nobleman who tells him the inverse. Who is he going to trust? The one in front of him, of course.

Unless the high ranking church official who signed the excommunication letter manages to send a troop of armed soldiers to enforce the order. But he can only do that if he has secular power to enforce his will. Playing the hermit religious figure who forgoes all secular things is fine; but the consequence is that he can do nothing but talk.

[Penchant]

The complication of schism was brought up because Bedwyr said the idea was already fleshed out and needed to be coded so I don't see how its a complication and it was only one idea, not the only idea brought up.

[JPierreD]

This is a fine roleplay for a religion, and you can play it that way. However withdrawing from politics does mean you have less political power, which is pretty much your point; you can't then complaint that you lack political powers.

I never complained about not having political powers, and to be honest we do, we just don't use them as much. And yes, playing a state-religion is also fine, what I am asking is for the game to consider both approaches, for the sake of the religion game. There are many small religions in the game who do not control realms.

Think about it: how would you, realistically, prevent a noble from preaching in a church in a medieval setting? The setting is this: A person who is a well-known nobleman arrives in a village where a temple of Keplerism stands. This noble wears the official symbol of Keplerism and speaks about Keplerism. He enters the church and demands to give the day's sermon.

The local priest is faced with a choice: he has in his church a nobleman with a sword who tells him one thing, and a letter signed by another nobleman who tells him the inverse. Who is he going to trust? The one in front of him, of course.

Unless the high ranking church official who signed the excommunication letter manages to send a troop of armed soldiers to enforce the order. But he can only do that if he has secular power to enforce his will. Playing the hermit religious figure who forgoes all secular things is fine; but the consequence is that he can do nothing but talk.

That example is all fine and dandy, but it hardly applies to BM reality. And in RL you also had Judaic, Orthodox and Muslim minorities who dealt with their own heresies, even if it was just by shunning the transgressors.

What you are talking is about a schism, about who keeps the temple. That is a different matter. Or not, it would be nice if we knew the idea of the game mechanics that was agreed on the future schism to know where we stand on, and if what we are discussing is relevant or not in the long term.

[Chenier]

I feel like becoming a priest and then instantly joining an enemy realm to begin griefing the realm where the religion is dominant, in an RPed way of course, just to show how stupid this restriction is.

Because if "roleplaying" is the solution to this, then "roleplaying" should *also* be the solution to spies who join realm and annoy realm mates. Why do realms get a ban function?

I have personally been griefed in the past by people joining my religion to get temple locations, and I know of others who have been griefed by people joining the religion to spam. Had the griefers known they could become priests for unlimited griefing powers, who knows how much they would have ruined the fun of everyone else. And they can easily RP justify their actions without making it any less harmful to everyone's gaming experience.

If you want kicking priests out to be tied with schisms, then code the kicking priests out part *now*, and add the schisms whenever. Religions aren't broken without schisms, but they are without being able to kick out priests. Cause a minor follower loss if you think it's so important, but always remember that there *are* griefers in the game, and they often RP to weasel themselves around the rules.

[Geronus]

And with that, this topic is dead. Another idea/request killed by overcomplications.

People, how much more often do I need to say it? If you want things to actually happen, instead of just being discussed on the forum, they need to have three very important things going for them. They need to be simple, they need to be simple and finally they need to be simple.

Everything else is not going to happen within, say, the next year or so.

The minute someone talked about fully implementing religious shisms should've been the moment everyone realized that this is not going to happen anytime soon, end of story.

So deal with your wayward priest the way I originally explained: By roleplaying.

The request in the topic isn't to implement full schisms, it's to give Elders a means to kick out a priest. You are the one who keeps forcing the conversation down the road toward schisms by insisting that there must be mechanical consequences for doing that. That's the only reason I mentioned it. What I was trying to say is, if you're going to go down that road then just give us full schisms. Don't get us half way there by levying arbitrary penalties on a religion that kicks out a priest when the circumstances of a particular incident might not warrant it.

Until schisms are implemented, religions should be given the ability to control who represents them as priests. The existing situation isn't good for anyone, especially religions. Either go the whole nine yards or let it go.

[Geronus]

Why not simply have a button that every single Elder of the religion must press in order for the Priest to be kicked out?

It allows a truly troublesome priest to be kicked out, but also requires a significant consensus to do so. It allows the possibility for arguments and conflict, because if the troublesome priest has just one ally on the Elders, then he can't be kicked out.

Therefore, it would get rid of 100% immunity but also not make it an easy or wishy-washy matter to simply boot a priest.

This is the request I would press forward with, and dispense with any further hypothetical mechanical penalties for kicking out a priest until you're ready to implement full schisms. It sets a somewhat high bar for actually kicking out a priest, and leaves room for ongoing conflict in the event that the Elders are divided. It satisfies my concerns, and hopefully yours Tom.

And, it appears to be fairly simple (says the non-programmer).

[vonGenf]

That example is all fine and dandy, but it hardly applies to BM reality. And in RL you also had Judaic, Orthodox and Muslim minorities who dealt with their own heresies, even if it was just by shunning the transgressors.

I think it applies perfectly to the BM reality. And remember, we are talking exclusively about noble priests here. If a noble from a friendly realm comes and talks to the minority of peasants who follow his religion, the peasants will follow him. Commoners don't shun nobles.

What you are talking is about a schism, about who keeps the temple. That is a different matter. Or not, it would be nice if we knew the idea of the game mechanics that was agreed on the future schism to know where we stand on, and if what we are discussing is relevant or not in the long term.

No, not really. I am saying that as long as a single noble priest is in the region, that noble priest will get to use the temple. That is the prerogative of nobility. If two noble priests are in the region and disagree, then there will be strife within the peasantry as they don't know who to choose: this is well represented in BM. The only way to prevent a noble from using a region's infrastructure is to hunt that noble down; don't expect the peasants to know this without you telling them to.

[JPierreD]

I think it applies perfectly to the BM reality. And remember, we are talking exclusively about noble priests here. If a noble from a friendly realm comes and talks to the minority of peasants who follow his religion, the peasants will follow him. Commoners don't shun nobles.

That depends on if the noble is considered a heretic (like Luteran noble trying to use a Catholic church), or not. And what we are asking is the option to consider him so.

No, not really. I am saying that as long as a single noble priest is in the region, that noble priest will get to use the temple. That is the prerogative of nobility. If two noble priests are in the region and disagree, then there will be strife within the peasantry as they don't know who to choose: this is well represented in BM.

A Hussite noble priest in a Catholic realm would usually only be able to use their temples by the force of arms, unless the ones in charge of the temple were also Hussites. The problem is that we don't have the ability to declare a Priest from within our Church a heretic.

The only way to prevent a noble from using a region's infrastructure is to hunt that noble down; don't expect the peasants to know this without you telling them to.

And I don't. What I expect is to have an option to tell them to.