Head of Religion Titles in All Signatures

[Indirik]

I generally consider "guilds" as we have them in game to be more like knightly orders or societies rather than as a craftsman's guild. Some of these could be quite prestigious.

As for why you might not want your titles used in non-religious letters, the perfect example is the Blood Cult on BT. The religion was widely hated, and I would imagine that the people involved did not want to go around advertising their affiliation. This change would force a certain percentage of nobles to advertise their faith whether they want to or not. (And yes, I know that it is public for lords. This is circumventable by not becoming a lord, and it is also a local phenomenon, not broadcast constantly with every letter you send.)

[fodder]

well certainly... lay members of the religion might not want it advertised. the only odd thing about lord having his faith blasted everywhere... is that duke/ruler/gov members don't.

that.... is not an insurmountable problem. each noble could have a tick box option to show/hide his faith title.

but as stated before... a load of titles doesn't mean jack to anyone who can't see the pecking order tree.

the head of a religion can be the nominal rank 10 (ie.. lowest elder rank) or any rank above that's been reclaimed when founder/former head disappeared... (i think... i don't think the new head is automatically promoted to highest rank)... and given each rank has its own title... showing that title doesn't tell you anything. whereas a generic "head of X" does mean something to everyone else.

the head of a religion doesn't have to be a priest.. how does that fit in with titles? eg.. you could have a lay member at highest rank pulling strings with a priest fronting the religion. no one outside the religion would know. (unless advertised or informed by those within)

[Chenier]

I generally consider "guilds" as we have them in game to be more like knightly orders or societies rather than as a craftsman's guild. Some of these could be quite prestigious.

As for why you might not want your titles used in non-religious letters, the perfect example is the Blood Cult on BT. The religion was widely hated, and I would imagine that the people involved did not want to go around advertising their affiliation. This change would force a certain percentage of nobles to advertise their faith whether they want to or not. (And yes, I know that it is public for lords. This is circumventable by not becoming a lord, and it is also a local phenomenon, not broadcast constantly with every letter you send.)

I don't think it's a good example. Everyone knew Louis-Joseph was the Teocoatl, and he never hid this fact. I wouldn't have minded the least bit that his letters be signed with "Teocoatl of The Blood Cult".

Our elders weren't as publicized, but I think they were on our wiki page somewhere anyways, so that wouldn't have mattered much either. It's more the full members, aspirants, and temple locations we wanted to remain unknown.

[Arundel]

well certainly... lay members of the religion might not want it advertised. the only odd thing about lord having his faith blasted everywhere... is that duke/ruler/gov members don't.

that.... is not an insurmountable problem. each noble could have a tick box option to show/hide his faith title.

but as stated before... a load of titles doesn't mean jack to anyone who can't see the pecking order tree.

the head of a religion can be the nominal rank 10 (ie.. lowest elder rank) or any rank above that's been reclaimed when founder/former head disappeared... (i think... i don't think the new head is automatically promoted to highest rank)... and given each rank has its own title... showing that title doesn't tell you anything. whereas a generic "head of X" does mean something to everyone else.

What about having both? So the specific title followed by the universal definition.

For example:

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

or

Brantley Unwin
Knight of Shinnen Purlieus
Blaze Guide of Aetheris Pyrism
Elder of Aetheris Pyrism


Sure, some people's titles would be quite lengthily, but isn't that the whole goal of being a noble? If you have the most titles, then you are most certainly the best noble by your own proclamation. Another reason why I support the more specific title - whilst agreeing with your suggestion - is for personal communication's sake. If I send a letter signing only with "Head of Bob", then I'll have a reply beginning with "Head of Bob"; its as bland as "Priest of Bob". Rulers don't solely sign with "Ruler of Bobland", and neither should heads of religion.

the head of a religion doesn't have to be a priest.. how does that fit in with titles? eg.. you could have a lay member at highest rank pulling strings with a priest fronting the religion. no one outside the religion would know. (unless advertised or informed by those within)

If we were to only replace "Priest of Bob" with specific titles, then I wouldn't see this as a problem. If the priest is a figurehead or a "front" for the religion, then obviously the man pulling the strings wouldn't be as well known to the public of peasants, nor many of the nobles - save if they were told from the inside. Word would eventually get out, but at a much slower pace.

As for why you might not want your titles used in non-religious letters, the perfect example is the Blood Cult on BT. The religion was widely hated, and I would imagine that the people involved did not want to go around advertising their affiliation. This change would force a certain percentage of nobles to advertise their faith whether they want to or not. (And yes, I know that it is public for lords. This is circumventable by not becoming a lord, and it is also a local phenomenon, not broadcast constantly with every letter you send.)

Let us consider this then: the rumors of court, the rumors of the fickle. News traveled quite rapidly in the Medieval times, and it did so by word of mouth. We have to remember that we - the players - are the cream of the crop, the highest nobles. There are minor nobles, merchants, priests, administrators, and peasants that exist in BM as referenced NPC's. In a Temple, it would be highly illogical that it'd be a one man operation, as there would be a plethora of priests and laypersons beneath you. People would naturally know who was who because information was a valuable commodity.

So even if a head and elders of a religion wished to keep their identities secret, I doubt they would be successful should they wish to preach even once. Not to mention, when a religion is created, everyone is notified who made it and where they made it. Not much secrecy there.

 

It is meant to be optional.

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/SMA#An_Exhortation_Concerning_Good_Order_and_Obedience_to_Rulers_and_Magistrates

It is clear by this example how important religion is. Optional or not, Norrel's point stands true: it can be played parallel while still being equal to the rest of the game, as it should be. 

Edits: grammar and vocab choice.

[Anaris]

the head of a religion can be the nominal rank 10 (ie.. lowest elder rank) or any rank above that's been reclaimed when founder/former head disappeared... (i think... i don't think the new head is automatically promoted to highest rank)...

This is incorrect. When the ranks of those who have left the religion are reclaimed, the new head is automatically promoted to rank 2. Thus, the head of the religion should always be either rank 1, if present, or, if not, rank 2.

If the feature request were to be accepted, I would see no problem with applying it to both rank 1 and rank 2 at all times, for simplicity's sake.

[Indirik]

Let us consider this then: the rumors of court, the rumors of the fickle. News traveled quite rapidly in the Medieval times, and it did so by word of mouth. We have to remember that we - the players - are the cream of the crop, the highest nobles. There are minor nobles, merchants, priests, administrators, and peasants that exist in BM as referenced NPC's. In a Temple, it would be highly illogical that it'd be a one man operation, as there would be a plethora of priests and laypersons beneath you. People would naturally know who was who because information was a valuable commodity.

Then let the IG rumour mill do its work. If I don't feel like signing some title to my letters, why do I have to put up with you forcing me to do it? Let's face it, you forcing me to sign my letters with specific titles is just as bad as me saying you can't use those titles in your letters, right? What if I just don't want to advertise my affiliation to a specific religion? Why should I *have* to do it?

So even if a head and elders of a religion wished to keep their identities secret, I doubt they would be successful should they wish to preach even once.

Who said they have to preach? Who said they even have to be a priest? You're making too many assumptions in order to make your point.

Not to mention, when a religion is created, everyone is notified who made it and where they made it. Not much secrecy there.

This is not true. Only the realm to which the noble belongs is informed. Also, that only applies for the original founder. Once that person leaves, and another takes over, there is no announcement about it.

[Bedwyr]

I've never liked this whole "what if religions want to be secret cults" thing.  If you want a secret cult, do a secret society.  A religion requires at least one sizable temple.  This is not some little hole in the wall people can scurry to without notice.  This is a large building with staff.  It costs more than some recruitment centers.  And most religions have enough infrastructure in temples and shrines to make them equivalent in total investment to a duchy, and quite a number have as much or more than realms.

I think the religion game should be more public, people should be standing up and having their beliefs known, and religious titles should be given equal weight to secular ones.  The highest of high nobles of a realm joining a religion is not something that could be secret, nor should it be.

[Indirik]

It's not entirely about being secret. Sometimes I want to send a letter discussing something without having to tack it chock full of religious titles. There are reasons to use specific titles for specific messages. I don't always want them to be weighed down by religious baggage.

[Bedwyr]

Sometimes Jenred wrote private letters to his wife, and I highly doubt he signed all of them as "King of Arcaea, Paladin of Amriel" etc etc.  I agree a checkbox where you could select which titles to sign with would be nice, but failing that I would rather have all realm and religious titles (I am counting Elder ranks as titles, while Full and Aspirant ranks are not).

[Eldargard]

I am no medieval scholar, but from what I have read on the BM wiki and forum suggests that religion was very important to people in that time. I can not imagine many Bishops wanting to leave their religious titles out of their correspondence. I could be wrong though. I also agree that there may be cases in which a new religion operates in secret until they have enough support to come public. I agree, however, that in such cases a secret society would be best used until the religion is formally formed. I also agree that once a religion has been made official, there would be no secrecy attached and that most members would proudly wield their religious titles.

It seems that a checklist that remembers a default setting is best for all though.

[Norrel]

Do you want to be a part of a religion secretly? Join a secret society cult. Otherwise, your faith is what largely defines you (at least publicly) and I don't really think anyone in that age kept their religion a secret. Sure, you'd get the occasional christian who was actually a jew or a muslim or vice versa, but they were still a part of the christian infrastructure and they still publicly claimed to be christian.

[Arundel]

Then let the IG rumour mill do its work. If I don't feel like signing some title to my letters, why do I have to put up with you forcing me to do it? Let's face it, you forcing me to sign my letters with specific titles is just as bad as me saying you can't use those titles in your letters, right? What if I just don't want to advertise my affiliation to a specific religion? Why should I *have* to do it?

The IG rumour mill hardly exists for this kind of information, as there is no actual base to learn from outside the religion.

Why does any ruler or government member in this game have to sign their titles to their letters? Why do they have to put up with us forcing them to do it? Because they have responsibility and overarching authority that extends through multiple facets of the game. The same goes for religious leaders, who extend their power over a number of people both spiritually and often politically. SA has approximately 140 members! How many realms do you know of have 140 noble player followers? Aetheris Pyrism has nearly 30, a decently high number in comparison to realms around the BM universe, Sartanism has around 20, and the Order of the Elders has more than that. If the religious heads and elders of these religions to refused to sign their titles, it would seem absolutely ridiculous! What about smaller religions? Signing their religious titles lets people know they are serious about leading their faiths, proud in their own beliefs or willing to exemplify them regardless of prejudice/competition, and finally for the fact that they are indeed alive (active and contributing in BM.) A Cathar priest in medieval times would have signed his titles, the Paulicians would have, and the Bogomils would have as well for much the same reasons.

Who said they have to preach? Who said they even have to be a priest? You're making too many assumptions in order to make your point.

What kind of religion is founded in this game with the sole or primary intent of never preaching in their lives, or never having priests? Not too long ago, there was a restriction surrounding priest to layperson ratios for elders, was there not? If there's an example that counters my assumption, I'd be interested in seeing it.

This is not true. Only the realm to which the noble belongs is informed. Also, that only applies for the original founder. Once that person leaves, and another takes over, there is no announcement about it.

Then I stand corrected.

Edit: fixes to writing, as always  .

[fodder]

This is incorrect. When the ranks of those who have left the religion are reclaimed, the new head is automatically promoted to rank 2. Thus, the head of the religion should always be either rank 1, if present, or, if not, rank 2.

If the feature request were to be accepted, I would see no problem with applying it to both rank 1 and rank 2 at all times, for simplicity's sake.

i'm probably not explaining it properly... you don't have to reclaim missing ranks, right? or is it automatically reclaimed? (if it's automatic... then obviously everything below is flawed)

eg..
1 head
2 vice
3 deputy <-- empty
6 dogsbody
7 someone
8 mice

head disappears... so your rank 2 is now elder. that displays a different custom title.
vice disappears and dogsbody is now boss (doesn't reclaim)... yet another custom title.
head reappears and reclaims it... back to head. appoints deputy and then head disappears... yet another custom title.

none of those custom titles mean anything to outsiders who cannot access the list of ranks. the only reason custom titles for gov "work" is that you can look up the realm details and tell what means what. and that is a bit of a chore.

how's that sound?
-----

equally.. you can have a religion that tells everyone else outside it that a priest is the boss.. but he isn't actually the boss in the religion. (as in there are layer members above)... slapping a title on for the actual boss is undesirable.

another alternative is a religion based toggle, rather than noble based. the head of the religion can tick a tickbox against 1 particular elder rank. whoever is in that rank will have a generic title of "Head/Leader of <religion x>" in his sig.

[Anaris]

i'm probably not explaining it properly... you don't have to reclaim missing ranks, right? or is it automatically reclaimed? (if it's automatic... then obviously everything below is flawed)

eg..
1 head
2 vice
3 deputy <-- empty
6 dogsbody
7 someone
8 mice

head disappears... so your rank 2 is now elder. that displays a different custom title.
vice disappears and dogsbody is now boss (doesn't reclaim)... yet another custom title.
head reappears and reclaims it... back to head. appoints deputy and then head disappears... yet another custom title.

Oh—there are 2 different "reclaims" going on.

The one you're describing is the Founder's ability to reclaim the Founder rank if he leaves the guild (by whatever means) and rejoins. That just results in the one character being promoted to the one rank.

The one I was talking about is what can happen if Head, Vice, and Deputy are all gone. At that point, Dogsbody can reclaim the ranks above him, deleting the Vice and Deputy ranks and making the Dogsbody rank into rank 2.

[fodder]

eh.. but my point is... what if he doesn't reclaim at all.  why would he need to reclaim if he's the highest rank anyway and doesn't need to add more elder ranks (eg.. he thinks 2 or whatever below him is enough)

it would still open the way for anyone after him to reclaim ranks above. thus the highest rank shown to people outside can theoretically be any 1 of 10 and that's changeable with time, even if the names are set in stone (which they aren't)

----
anyway... it's somewhat irrelevant as i was basically saying displaying more than 1 rank title from 1 religion is bad because no one knows what they mean. (someone said show for all elders)