I like to carry 5'000 gold because, on the right occasion, you can buy people with that kind of money. Sometimes, whole realms. Is that good enough for you?
And I maintain my point. No one needs gold. Everyone wants gold, priests or not.
Yep. I've bought and paid for plenty of support. Its part of why I enjoy playing Republics. Get Duke. Bankroll whatever election you want. Not necessarily gain power, but gain major influence over your country. For me, that's a fairly good example. Bonds don't transfer realms, gold does in at least three ways that I've thought of off the top of my head.
Not so agreeing on the Diplomats, since they don't require hundreds, let alone thousands, of gold on person unless you're doing a Hireshmont-style tour of the continent. At least in my experience. Doubt expenses have spiked while I've been gone.
So yes, Priests might need hundreds or thousands of gold on hand, and not strictly for a predefined purpose. Having it handy, so to speak. That's if you're involved at that level, but if you have that much coin with you, you probably are.
Thanks for pointing that out, vonGenf. I wasn't advocating that Priests should have a limit on their cash-at-hand, nor trying to make an argument for more regular bandit/pirate attacks but I genuinely could not think of a suitable reason why you'd want to, let alone need to, have that much in gold instead of bonds or in the temple treasuries. Alternatively, I don't think a one in a hundred chance (picked a number out of the sky, obviously) or whatever it is negatively impacts Priests more than anyone else. If Priests face this, then warriors/courtiers without troops probably do too.
Anywho, yah, interesting discussion.
Finton.
Finton.
