Treaty friction is boring

[Chenier]

Ha...? Priest...Ambassador... Hm...

For the theocracy, or the deeply religious realms, maybe the priest has a larger role in things. For the more secular realms (Which is pretty common since trying to force-feed people to go along with certain strictly Medieval stuff often leads to bad results), ambassador outweighs priest.

Why is this? Right now, because of the mechanic, yes... Priests also have some pretty good options too. Yeah, you lose followers when you try them. Is it really that bad though? For good oratory priests and the correct regions, they can demolish about half or more of the total population with 16 hours of fanaticism. With great power...and all that. Use wisely but in moderation, yeah?

Ambassador has fewer options and generally a smaller effect. They just have the ability to sign (what will someday have actual effect) treaties, because someone has to do it. And the ruler is only one person.

You can't kill half the population one shot as a priest, that's just not how it works. You need followers to kill other followers, and not all followers participate. And when you do persecutions, then you basically lose half your followers to paganism while you are at it, and have high risks of capture. Yes, you can do great damage, but not as you put it.

Also, you completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about their powers at all. I was saying if one specialty class is to be required to make realms run smooth, then why not another, as religion was a fundamental part of medieval Europe and the religion game is way more inclusive than the diplomacy game. From a RP perspective, makes little sense, and from a gameplay perspective, it makes none at all.

Specialty classes should enhance the realm when present, not cripple it when absent.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

That might have more to do with a respect for the fact that no matter what, we are still modern humans. Diplomacy is something we all more or less understand and take as granted in the game. Religion? Not so much. For evidence you only need to find how many people still insist that they are atheists in the game.

Now that I think about it, it makes sense. A lot of the incongruities in the game that differ from a true Medieval recreation comes from the fact that we are modern humans. In many of our countries, religion simply does not play a major role in the government. The United States has the separation of church and state, China does not endorse any state religion, and I'm sure those more familiar with different countries' systems would know more examples.

In-game, this means that you can see how many realms say they have no state religion either. PoZ, last I heard, said they would allow freedom of religion, and furthermore that it would mean no religion could get a foothold on the realm. Nothoi also practices freedom of religion. To name realms that actually "matter", even Sirion, surprisingly enough, does not have a state religion, in that lords are still free to choose their faith and their regions' faith. It just so happens that one religion is more prevalent, but does not appear to interfere with the political side.

Besides, I've noticed that Chenier seems to like more realism in religion. But above all else, this is a game, and we could make the diplomat class less time intensive. Making the religions more realistic might not actually work in this game, since the majority of interactions should be roleplayed, and it doesn't sound like that many people are really into it except maybe for the rare exceptions. Ok? So? We have only a handful of major religions in this world, and the top three all happen to be monotheistic and originate from the Middle East.

Now, we do have a system to make priests more important. They are called theocracies, but beyond that, it's up to you to get support to have your power. That's what real power is, no matter where you go or what you are.

[Chenier]

That might have more to do with a respect for the fact that no matter what, we are still modern humans. Diplomacy is something we all more or less understand and take as granted in the game. Religion? Not so much. For evidence you only need to find how many people still insist that they are atheists in the game.

Now that I think about it, it makes sense. A lot of the incongruities in the game that differ from a true Medieval recreation comes from the fact that we are modern humans. In many of our countries, religion simply does not play a major role in the government. The United States has the separation of church and state, China does not endorse any state religion, and I'm sure those more familiar with different countries' systems would know more examples.

In-game, this means that you can see how many realms say they have no state religion either. PoZ, last I heard, said they would allow freedom of religion, and furthermore that it would mean no religion could get a foothold on the realm. Nothoi also practices freedom of religion. To name realms that actually "matter", even Sirion, surprisingly enough, does not have a state religion, in that lords are still free to choose their faith and their regions' faith. It just so happens that one religion is more prevalent, but does not appear to interfere with the political side.

Besides, I've noticed that Chenier seems to like more realism in religion. But above all else, this is a game, and we could make the diplomat class less time intensive. Making the religions more realistic might not actually work in this game, since the majority of interactions should be roleplayed, and it doesn't sound like that many people are really into it except maybe for the rare exceptions. Ok? So? We have only a handful of major religions in this world, and the top three all happen to be monotheistic and originate from the Middle East.

Now, we do have a system to make priests more important. They are called theocracies, but beyond that, it's up to you to get support to have your power. That's what real power is, no matter where you go or what you are.

You persist on misunderstanding my point. This thread isn't "give more power to religions!", but rather titled "Treaty friction is boring", with my point being that it doesn't make sense to have this one particular specialist class required for smooth realm running. Especially since the player base is declining. And since ambassadors and the new treaty system don't actually bring anything new to the game, other than restrictions.

And though you will likely interpret this last statement as being my main point, when it's really just a side comment, theocracies do not add any power to priests. They work just the same as democracies or any other government system, as far as priests are concerned. Players give the power they want to priests, regardless of their realm's government system. It's just easier to defend giving more power to priests when your government calls itself a theocracy, but nothing would prevent you from having a theocracy without any state religions or a democracy with a single authorized religion.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I am misinterpreting because you are being imprecise with your arguments, something that I do as well, which opens up to comments on things that were not our original points. To avoid this, limit the scope of the argument, or make examples that are not so easy to confuse as the main point.

[BardicNerd]

You can't kill half the population one shot as a priest, that's just not how it works.

Oh, in the right situation, you can.  I've killed about 90% of the population of a region in one go -- get your followers to rise up when they can't possibly succeed, and most get killed.  If you have 99% followers and good oratory, then. . . .

[Chenier]

Oh, in the right situation, you can.  I've killed about 90% of the population of a region in one go -- get your followers to rise up when they can't possibly succeed, and most get killed.  If you have 99% followers and good oratory, then. . . .

If you have little following, then yours will die, and the others will remain. If you have strong following, then yours will survive, and the others will die. If you have as much following as dissent, then a part of both will die, but I have never seen proportions to indicate this could lead to 50% casualties in one go. It tended to result in more followers turning pagans then heretics being slain.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

The Evans player is probably referring to a situation in which you call up a religious uprising but there are a ton of enemy troops in the region.

[Heq]

Just a correction on Nothoi.  It -has- a religion, just not one for the common masses or one that is acceptable to anyone else right now.

I was hoping the blood cult would set up camp, but since it's folded there is no in-game mechanic for secret cults (maybe a guild?).  Everyone from Bara'Khur knows what insane cult I'm talking about.  It's not in the wiki or listed anywhere, but rest assured there is at least one person in Beleuterra trying to cause a fifth invasion, though from a different source (sort of, maybe, depends on if all the undead come from the same place).

Not going to keep that listed on the religion page though, might make diplomacy tricky.

"Good day sir, I see you're trying to destroy the world, would you like to be allies?"

"Oh no, just purify mankind through the perfection of undeath, but sure, until my mistress returns from the grave to lead her enternal minions we can be the best of friends.  Unfortunately, you're sure to try to stop her reclaiming her throne, so then I'll have to murder you and everyone you know because you have not been made cleansed through alchemical ritual."

Yeah.  Not good PR.

[De-Legro]

Just a correction on Nothoi.  It -has- a religion, just not one for the common masses or one that is acceptable to anyone else right now.

I was hoping the blood cult would set up camp, but since it's folded there is no in-game mechanic for secret cults (maybe a guild?).  Everyone from Bara'Khur knows what insane cult I'm talking about.  It's not in the wiki or listed anywhere, but rest assured there is at least one person in Beleuterra trying to cause a fifth invasion, though from a different source (sort of, maybe, depends on if all the undead come from the same place).

Not going to keep that listed on the religion page though, might make diplomacy tricky.

"Good day sir, I see you're trying to destroy the world, would you like to be allies?"

"Oh no, just purify mankind through the perfection of undeath, but sure, until my mistress returns from the grave to lead her enternal minions we can be the best of friends.  Unfortunately, you're sure to try to stop her reclaiming her throne, so then I'll have to murder you and everyone you know because you have not been made cleansed through alchemical ritual."

Yeah.  Not good PR.

Secret societies fit the bill, unless you want a priest in which case you are out of luck. Then again it would be hard to hide the fact that your religion has a sizable peasant faith base.

[Chenier]

Just a correction on Nothoi.  It -has- a religion, just not one for the common masses or one that is acceptable to anyone else right now.

I was hoping the blood cult would set up camp, but since it's folded there is no in-game mechanic for secret cults (maybe a guild?).  Everyone from Bara'Khur knows what insane cult I'm talking about.  It's not in the wiki or listed anywhere, but rest assured there is at least one person in Beleuterra trying to cause a fifth invasion, though from a different source (sort of, maybe, depends on if all the undead come from the same place).

Not going to keep that listed on the religion page though, might make diplomacy tricky.

"Good day sir, I see you're trying to destroy the world, would you like to be allies?"

"Oh no, just purify mankind through the perfection of undeath, but sure, until my mistress returns from the grave to lead her enternal minions we can be the best of friends.  Unfortunately, you're sure to try to stop her reclaiming her throne, so then I'll have to murder you and everyone you know because you have not been made cleansed through alchemical ritual."

Yeah.  Not good PR.

I had a long reply to this. And then the server told me "!@#$ you", and I lost it. These "too many server requests" are really getting annoying...

Basically, I said that I had the intention to found a new religion, but decided it wasn't worth it. Religions are huge money pits, and one can compensate for the lack of one through a variety of cheap and low-effort policies and actions. As such, I'm quite comfortable working with "unofficial" religions from now and, and even making theocracies around them if necessary.

If the devs can't be bothered to make religions worth it, I won't be bothered to try to do it myself anymore. Priests are more of a liability than a boon, really, as just a few days without one and all your investments are gone, permanently. Or some elder leaving at an inopportune time without properly planning his replacement, and the religion goes in chaos. Why even bother? Unofficial religions have no risk of loss, no costs, and most of the gains with only marginal drawbacks.

[Naidraug]

One problem I see is not jut the treaty friction...the whole ambassador/diplomat sub-class should be re-thinked.

Right now there is no actuall advantage on beeing an diplomat or ambassador.

Some things I believe that should change are:

1- Let rulers sign their own treaties. Rulers should be able to draft treaties and sign them. Most initial proposals and contacts are made by rulers, if they don´t have ambassadors the realm has a big problem. In smaller realm that has no Ambassador they´ll basicly have to depend on other realms to draft the treaties.

The way it is now, either one noble joins the ruler an take on the role of Ambassador or the realm is in big trouble. And kind of takes the right of the player to choose what class he want´s to take.

2- It would be interesting, and bring a more medieval atmosfere, if to become an ambassador, instead of choosing the diplomat sub-class, the ruler could appoint Lords to it. It would be a great honor the ruler to choose Lord A or B instead of other lords, to be Ambassadors.

In Theocracies, priests could take the role of Ambassadors(adding something to the class), after all in Theocracies, priests should have all power.

3- No more treaty friction, a treaty unless specified is forever. If a realm wants to get rid of the treaty, then break it. Like it was said, it is easier to just sign a new treaty than to do treaty maintenence.

[vonGenf]

Right now there is no actuall advantage on beeing an diplomat or ambassador.

Well, there are game-mechanic actions available, and the extra signature is not to be underestimated in the right places.

[Naidraug]

Well, there are game-mechanic actions available, and the extra signature is not to be underestimated in the right places.

Yeah but until this system goes into action, there is no actuall use for it.

[Indirik]

Which is why I have been ignoring all those "Treaty in jeopardy" warnings I've been getting.

[vonGenf]

Yeah but until this system goes into action, there is no actuall use for it.

The Diplomacy actions affect control, not just treaties.