Anaris:
Should I feature request these individually or collectively?
/
Based on your knowledge of the code, are any of these actually the kinds of things that could be implemented quickly (i.e. before/during the Doctrine conversion process)?
You have missed the point.
Fair enough.
OK, that doesn't sound unreasonable. What sort of effect would you say this should have?
Small H/P hits. Literally EXACTLY like vulgarity. A button you can click on every message a person sends (even to non-members of the religion or private messages) that will refer the message to a selection of elders and/or priests of the sender's religion. However the internal vulgarity mechanic works, duplicate it and, if the message is ruled vulgar, then, bam– they take a very slight H/P hit. Maybe even make it generate an in-religion notification, "Rumors that So-and-So has been making unorthodox and unsettling statements have begun to spread..."
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean "change the code so that priests of your own realm cannot be arrested"?
No, I mean Cheniers complaint about claiming a region for a religion, where your probability of being arrested and put in ENEMY prison INCREASES if YOUR OWN REALM has soldiers in the region.
Again, it's not an RTO. It's claiming the region for the religion. I could see a case for making someone else who's an elder the Lord, but that's pathetically easy to game.
Sorry about terminology.
How would this be easy to game? To me it seems entirely reasonable and very fun RP. But maybe very buggy: what if you appoint an elder to a lordship who was a member of a different realm?
That sounds reasonable to me, but I think Tom would dislike it, as it mixes the religious side and the political side too directly.
I'm not sure what on earth that means. Priests can already badmouth realms. This is just a way for a religion to do so institutionally. Heck, its game mechanic effect could even be negligible or nonexistent, and it'd STILL be valuable. Or make it so it has no effect on its own, but priestly actions that coordinate with it (badmouthing evil realms for example, or lauding faithful ones) are more effective– when your preaching is backed up by the local parish priests, you're more effective. Hardly matters to me how it works– I just think, if we want religions to engage in conflict AS RELIGIONS, then we need to give them a mechanic to do so, rather than just as individuals. Just like how wars between realms aren't just a bunch of nobles marching around set to murderous and looting.
That one sounds kind of cool. I wouldn't make the chance dependent on class, but rather on unit size, though.
Sure, that's reasonable enough. Maybe needs a little thought relating to IRs– but I suppose a priest declared anathema could always migrate.
I assume that both members and non-members of a religion could be declared anathema; otherwise you could game it by just joining a religion that declares against you.
Done. I have just tripled the amount of H/P available to priests 
</snark>
...Yeah, there probably should be more H/P available to priests. Maybe for converting large numbers of peasants and the like.
Yeah. Probably should be.
The only point I'd make in response to this is that most of these can be done in RP. Obviously that can't apply game-mechanic effects, but it can definitely serve the purpose of, say, getting the characters in the religion to view realm X as evil, or Allison Kabrinski as a heretic.
I can have wars in RP. It's not the same thing.
None of these tools would plausibly replace RP. It's not like, with an anathema tool, we would suddenly stop politicking against Bowie Ironsides or Allison Kabrinski. And the debates about declaring them anathema would be EPIC.
Same with declaring realms evil. It's a tool for expression and creation of RPs– not a replacement. Because, right now, these things AREN'T RP'd much, and not because no players would enjoy it– but because they're not much to be gained from it. Give us something for which we can actually fight.
