Temporary Lordships for Founding Religion?

[De-Legro]

Bingo. The character wants to start a religion, and needs to be a lord to establish the first temple and become its' profit. So, the character asks a Duke to be appointed region lord, explaining his reasoning--the reason, of course, is that only region lords own their region and control the construction of large buildings like temples.

What's OOC about that?

People never suggested that case is OOC. Rather they suggested that it wasn't in line with SMA in their opinion. There are two separate discussions, the first is the OOC creation of religions. The second is whether is complies with SMA to appoint a Lord just so they can found a religion.

[Bedwyr]

People never suggested that case is OOC. Rather they suggested that it wasn't in line with SMA in their opinion. There are two separate discussions, the first is the OOC creation of religions. The second is whether is complies with SMA to appoint a Lord just so they can found a religion.

Alright, let me ask this another way: How does a non-lord with a religious revelation go about establishing his religion with this version of "SMA"?

[De-Legro]

Alright, let me ask this another way: How does a non-lord with a religious revelation go about establishing his religion with this version of "SMA"?

There lies the problem. I know people have asked this of Tom before, but I can't recall ever getting a answer. I believe he has rejected the idea that people that aren't region lords have the ability to create a religion. So like I said, without a solid ruling from Tom its all pretty much up to individual opinion.

[ó Broin]

Ok I'll put it this way. It beats the !@#$ out of the following things:

- OOC clanning
- Old Players auto getting positions
- NOT EVEN ALLOWING RELIGION BECAUSE IT IMPOSES AGAINST STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

What I'm trying to do is have fun. Not powergaming. Just trying to get my religion out there. Unless you are seriously requesting that I don't do this because it breaches your idea of SMA, then please get off my thread.

Calm down. You have voice your intentions on a public forum, don't throw a fit when people express their opinions. In this situation personal idea's of SMA are irrelevant. People have suggested that it might be against SMA, but obviously only a titan would be able to say for sure. If anything they bring it up so you might get clarification about the issue before you do it in realm and THEN find out it was against SMA when the titans step in.

[Indirik]

The thread title reads "New Religion: Please help me".

And here I thought that trying to help you keep the formation of your new religion in line with SMA was, you know, helping.

[Vellos]

See, I've never understood this.  What people seem to be saying is the only legitimate way to start a religion is if you are already a Lord or Duke.  Why can't a noble convince a Ruler or Duke that their religion is awesome, and be granted a region specifically to formally start the religion?  That seems perfectly in-character to me.

This is exactly how Qyrvaggism was founded. Amekal had a vision, and "converted" a few lords (before religion even had game mechanics). When mechanics got added, one of the lords founded the religion. It DOES have one downside: the "Founder" is not the "Prophet."

Riombara later did a temporary lordship for a competing religion (and, as it were, an ideological opposite faith), which ticked me off. There is no IC reason why religions can only be founded by lords, so there is no IC reason why a person would need a lordship to found a faith. "Found" your religion now. Get converts. Start as an informal sect (like how pretty much every real religion started), then maybe you'll eventually get a lordship, or convert some other lord.

Until there is an IC explanation why a religion requires a regional lordship, I will regard it as against the spirit of the game to give or to receive "temporary lordships" for the sake of founding a religion.

Ok I'll put it this way. It beats the !@#$ out of the following things:

- OOC clanning
- Old Players auto getting positions
- NOT EVEN ALLOWING RELIGION BECAUSE IT IMPOSES AGAINST STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

What I'm trying to do is have fun. Not powergaming. Just trying to get my religion out there. Unless you are seriously requesting that I don't do this because it breaches your idea of SMA, then please get off my thread.

The degree of puerility and infantile rage in this quote is shocking to me. Why, oh why, is there a limit on the "dispraise" button?

[Bedwyr]

Until there is an IC explanation why a religion requires a regional lordship, I will regard it as against the spirit of the game to give or to receive "temporary lordships" for the sake of founding a religion.

The IC explanation is that to have a formal religion, you have to have at least one temple.  Only region lords can build temples, because region lords control all building in the region.  It's a bit of sophistry because it leads to the question of why a lord you "convert" before it's a formal religion can't build it for you, but like a lot of things in this game, you have to look the other way because the game mechanics are for fun and not a realistic simulation.

A temporary lordship for the purpose of making a religion is essentially the Duke or Ruler or whomever saying "we grant you the temporary authority to build in this region to construct your temple".

[Indirik]

I really wish there was some other way to found a religion that to make someone a "temporary lord". It really flies in the face of some very important things we try to instill in the playerbase, such as "no placeholders". After all, if you're allowed to do a temporary lordship to found a religion, why not a temporary lordship for a new region until the referendum finishes? Or a temporary general's office until the real general gets out of jail? It's really the same thing: "We're granting you temporary authority to issues orders".

[Bedwyr]

I really wish there was some other way to found a religion that to make someone a "temporary lord". It really flies in the face of some very important things we try to instill in the playerbase, such as "no placeholders". After all, if you're allowed to do a temporary lordship to found a religion, why not a temporary lordship for a new region until the referendum finishes? Or a temporary general's office until the real general gets out of jail? It's really the same thing: "We're granting you temporary authority to issues orders".

I concur.  However, Tom doesn't.  We work with what we have.

[Sacha]

Maybe a way to do it would be to give wannabe prophets the chance to gather up a group of noble followers, and if they have, say, five of them including at least one Lord, they get the option to establish a first temple in the region of any Lord in their group? Game-wise, that seems a perfectly legitimate and acceptable way to do it, but I don't know if such a thing would be possible to code...

[Vellos]

The IC explanation is that to have a formal religion, you have to have at least one temple. 

As has been noted, you can convince an existing lord to do it. To be a formal religion you need a temple, to get a temple you need a lord: it does not logically follow that, to be a formal religion, a "temporary lordship" is necessary. Temporary lordships, to me, seem like a means of trying to get around game mechanics.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

It might have more to do with the desire to be the founder, the #1 spot on the religion. That is the first reason that comes to mind for not allowing an existing lord to create the temple that will start the religion, if that is indeed what is being said here.

[Bedwyr]

As has been noted, you can convince an existing lord to do it. To be a formal religion you need a temple, to get a temple you need a lord: it does not logically follow that, to be a formal religion, a "temporary lordship" is necessary. Temporary lordships, to me, seem like a means of trying to get around game mechanics.

So instead of "getting around" game mechanics by doing a temporary lordship, we should instead have the Founder not, in fact, be the Prophet?  Or shall we get around game mechanics again by having the Founder found the religion, promote the actual Prophet, and demote himself?

[Vellos]

So instead of "getting around" game mechanics by doing a temporary lordship, we should instead have the Founder not, in fact, be the Prophet?  Or shall we get around game mechanics again by having the Founder found the religion, promote the actual Prophet, and demote himself?

Just have a founder who isn't the prophet. The Pope isn't Jesus, nor does he claim even a similar position. The Caliphs did not claim to be the equals of the Prophet.

I don't see the big deal with have an institution where the primary spiritual authority is not necessarily the highest institutional authority. It was actually pretty entertaining for the 8 months or so where Qyrvaggism was like that.

[Hyral]

So instead of "getting around" game mechanics by doing a temporary lordship, we should instead have the Founder not, in fact, be the Prophet?  Or shall we get around game mechanics again by having the Founder found the religion, promote the actual Prophet, and demote himself?

Why do the founder of the religion and first prophet of the faith have to necessarily be the same person? In BattleMaster, the action of "founding a religion" is just building a temple. I imagine the faith itself existed before someone decided to put up a building dedicated to it. As to the issue of rank, there are certainly realms where the Dukes are more highly regarded than the ruler, whose "rank" is seen as a fancy, ultimately hollow, title.