I won't insist further on this topic, but all I'm saying is that in games, random elements that affect you negatively are a lot less fun if you have no control over them than if you have at least some control over them. That's why most major games tend to preffer random positive elements rather than random negative elements, it's just more fun. ex: How Civilization used to think about implementing Dark Ages, but after testing implemented Golden Ages instead, as it was more fun for sensibly the same kind of mechanic and effect. BM is a game, games are meant to be fun, and random negative events you have no power over aren't fun. That's all I'm saying. Just knowing this mechanic exists will make some think "Do I turn this month-long trek into a two-month trek, just to reduce the risks?" And that's no fun either, regardless of whether something bad happens or not.
Ah, but piracy isn't random if there's a fixed percentage chance of it happening. Think of it more as a risk/reward thingy: is carrying around X amount of gold worth the 1/20 risk of being robbed? If not, then don't do it.
Civilization has these sorts of things as well: for example in Civilization 3 sending a galley into an ocean square carried a 50% risk of it sinking. However it could be rewarding, as by taking the risk you could potentially discover a new land early on in the game. Was the chance of having a galley sink in Civ 3 unfun? I don't think so, and I haven't seen anyone else complain about it either. On the contrary, I felt that it added an additional strategic element for more competitive players to take into consideration, as well as a fun gambling element for less competitive players.
My thoughts about it in Battlemaster are that it provides a minor benefit (lightly discouraging the use of priests as couriers) with no real drawback.
