Head of Religion Titles in All Signatures

[cjnodell]

If I understand this correctly the idea would be to have a list of titles from which an individual can select to include in his signature for messages instead of having the game auto select what it thinks the best title would be based on the recipient?

So for example:

 Message to: Jimmy, Sam, Bill, Bob
 --------------------------------------------------
 |  My Message.                                         |
 |                                                                |
 |                                                                |
 |                                                                |
 --------------------------------------------------
 Sign as:
 [] Baron of Region
 [] High Priest of Religion
 [] Banker or Realm
                                                    [SEND]


The titles can not be customized or created but are solely based on what you character has earned in game. You simply get to choose which ones to incluse on any given message. Doese this sound right?

[egamma]

Pelgard, that's exactly right--nice example.

[Shizzle]

Yes, you broke it down nicely I support this.

[Shenron]

Thats how I imagine it too 

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I wonder whether it would be strange for a CEO of a serious Fortune 500 company to sign a legal document with one of his other titles like "President of Cute Anime Babes Admirers International Fanclub" rather than "CEO of Serious Inc."

We're talking nobles here, the same ones who are supposedly uptight enough about proper decorum to kill over breaches in proper behavior, including address. As the message system is, it automatically sorts for when you're talking to a guild, whereby your guild title is used, religion, or political.

In case it's still not clear, let's give a more modern example. I assume we're mostly more lax in our rules about titles, but even with our liberal treatment of them, for the most part, do we call ourselves stuff like "Chairman of Otaku Heaven" to our boss? Coworkers? Friends who aren't part of that club?

Yes, we do recognize stuff like "Doctor", and "Reverend", etc. But for those I'd argue the BM equivalent sticks no matter what channel you message. Ever notice that council positions and region lordships, even "Ambassador of X" sticks to each and every message you send? There's your "Dr."

Regarding religion, has it ever occurred that there are not at all that  religions influential enough in BM to make people care what religious tutle you have? Same with guilds. At least "Priest of Y" appears in the absence of higher priority titles, so be glad of that.

[Draco Tanos]

And has it ever occurred to you that a priest wouldn't care if others thought his religion was "important" or not, but some would rather it be clear when they're speaking from a position of spiritual authority rather than temporal?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Now you say the exact same thing that was discussed in the Dlist links I provided. Go read them again to find the paraphrased words of Tom: "People outside the religion don't give a damn, No." Actually, to be more exact, his words were:

"The signatures are not just for flavour, they also tell an outsider who you are. Making them arbitrary means other people can't place you. Is a "Storm-walker" a priest or is he not?"

http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/2010-September/045133.html

But do read the rest of the thread. It's enlightening and is in fact relevant because the whole issue of priests having their titles out in public was exactly what started that thread. Wow, this is the...fourth time I've had to explain this to the same person?

If opinions have changed, then great, we have this forum after all. But at least read the stuff that is relevant to what you're stating. Then you'd know what the direction was back then and you can make a case for why that is the wrong thinking rather than continue to pound in a possibly dead end yet unjustified direction.

Gee, I'm not trying to be some "voice of Tom" that Nerukou accuses Anaris of being, but really, pay attention to past discussions on the same topic, especially when I take the trouble of finding them for you and linking them.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I am usually against double posting but this would probably require a separate post.

First, a description of the mechanical side of titles as they are now. There is a set series of priority for determining which title appears in your message. I will refer to them according to tiers, with lower tiers being covered up by higher tiers, and equal tiers coexisting. For tiers with the same number but differing numbers of the ' symbol, it means that the ranks function in similar ways, but cannot coexist.

Tier 0: Outlaw (I think, I have never done much with my only outlaw noble.), appears as: (Outlaw)
Tier 0.5* Commoner only rank: Freeman, prioritizes over T0, appears as: (Freeman)
Tier 1: Noble, including Imperial Knight, appears as: (Noble)
Tier 2: Knight of region, appears as: (Knight of <Region>)
Tier 3: Lord without region, appears as: (Lord)
Tier 3': Duke without region, appears as: (Duke)
Tier 3'': Royal, appears as: (Royal)
Tier 4: Priest, appears as (Priest of <Religion>)
Tier 5: Lord of region other than city or stronghold, for example under classical system may appear in one variation as: Baron of Landmass
Tier 5': Duke of region, for example under classical system it would appear as: Duke of Cityplace
Tier 5* (Coexists with all other Tier 5, overwrites all under Tier 5, but Duke and Lord are exclusive for one character, hence the special tier): Ruler, General, Judge, Banker, Ambassador, Marshal

Any corrections, please point out.

This tiering system appears fairly deliberate as well, indicating the possibility that there was thought put into the priorities of how titles would be handled. In a way it makes sense. Why? Let's go back to the checkboxes suggestion. I think we are lacking some key thoughts there.

1. What would the default be in case the player doesn't hit any checkboxes? Do not underestimate the importance of this, as human laziness has a very high limit. Are we going to default back to the original system I described above? If so, then just how many people would actually use it? Care about it?

2. How would multiple titles be handled? If it's freeform, then there at first seems to be no problem since there are some people who are almost every council position, a duke, a marshal, and an ambassador. But now add to that, what if the guy was also a high ranking member of his religion like an elder priest? That's possible to have nearly all council positions, region lordship, ambassador status, marshal or army, elder priest. Let's add to that all his guilds, shall we? Let's say he's in about 10 guilds because he travels the continent seeking to buff his titles. What would we see then? Here's an example:

Letter from Pompous Longwind

Hello.

Pompous Longwind
Emperor and Judicator and Commander of BigHead, Duke of Arrogantville, Marshal of the Cocky Jerks, Infinity Priest of Narcissism, Almighty Master of Keys to Success, Chairman of Adventurer Beaters Anonymous, President of Ham Sandwich Makers, High Commander of Armchair Generaling United, Prime Secretary of Hedonistic Guild, Manager of Inflated Ego Company, Supervisor of We Are Better Than You International

You get the idea.

Now if we were to set certain parameters, like force them to select political, military, economic, religious, guild, titles, that would still not allow someone like a military dictator show off that he is marshal of an army, or a theocracy leader show that he is both priest and ruler.

The end result is that under a freeform system, you'll have at least a couple players think it would be funny to make their titles longer than their messages. Under a stricter system you will have people complain about how restrictive the choices are. Under the current system you have people like Draco Tanos intent on getting some form of the above two choices or another variant implemented.

Like I said about the Magic Scrolls Feature Request, no matter which way you slice it there will be problems, and there will be visible complaint. Now the question becomes which way would leave the fewest people complaining and keep the most people interested.

[Arundel]

Title

Having every letter signed at the end with your religious title and to what religion, if you are the head of a religion.

Summary

Instead of seeing this in secular letters:

Liara Anaris
Viscountess of Ajitmon
Priestess of Quintarianism

We would have:

Liara Anaris
Viscountess of Ajitmon
Priestess of Quintarianism
Founder of Quintarianism

Or:

Alice Arundel
Priestess of Aetheris Pyrism

to

Alice Arundel
Priestess of Aetheris Pyrism
Vicar of the Flame of Aetheris Pyrism

Details

The head of a religion would naturally sign their letters with their title, as they had significant religious authority that would sometimes extend politically. Nobles would acknowledge their position by including their religious title with any secular title they held; drawing example from the Pope, the Patriarch, or a Caliph.

This suggestion is also a realistic alternative to the constant explanation that you're the head of religion, in every letter, as if you were overly self righteous.

Benefits
I. An improved religious game through the identification and acknowledgement of religious heads. Promotion of obedience, adherence, praise, fear, and prejudice by others as recognized position extends outside of strictly religious missives.

II. Easier for a recipient to identify who you are, instead of just being a "priest."

Possible Exploits

Abuse of system through silly and inappropriate titles and ranks.

One step further (Not the focus of this request.)

Removing the title "Priest of (insert religion here)", and replacing it with whichever rank said person holds and to what religion. As priest characters - who aren't too numerous - dedicate themselves to the religious game, having their ranks show may promote religious activity and diversity.

This would also remove the insignificant title "Priestess of Quintarianism/Priestess of Aetheris Pyrism" from the primary feature requested above.

Edit: Fit to the required scheme of a feature request: sorry for not doing so the first time.

[Indirik]

This has been repeatedly rejected.

[Draco Tanos]

I like the concept, but obviously the founder-level title isn't necessarily leader for many religions at this point due to it being unobtainable.

Is there a particular reason it's rejected? 

[Arundel]

This has been repeatedly rejected.

It isn't on the frequently rejected page, hence it was posted.

[Arundel]

I like the concept, but obviously the founder-level title isn't necessarily leader for many religions at this point due to it being unobtainable.

Is there a particular reason it's rejected?

I understand that the founder is not always the leader, hence the second example. Having it select the highest ranking member would seem ideal.

[Draco Tanos]

Honestly, all Elder ranks would make sense.  Because I can't imagine Bishop Bob or Paladin Primus Pete wouldn't include the title in their massive sigs.

[Arundel]

Honestly, all Elder ranks would make sense.  Because I can't imagine Bishop Bob or Paladin Primus Pete wouldn't include the title in their massive sigs.

I agree completely. I kept the request solely to the head of religion simply because it would be the first step in this particular direction. But if all elders is something to be considered, I will gladly support it.