What makes a good BM religion?

[Indirik]

Actually, I think it was implemented to ensure your personal dissatisfaction with the priest game.

[Chenier]

Actually, I think it was implemented to ensure your personal dissatisfaction with the priest game.

I'm sure it was.

But honestly, you could scrap all of the priest features, and the priest game would barely be changed at all, let alone the religion game. Religions would remain the glorified guilds they are today.

[Vellos]

I have made 5 feature requests for my proposals.

I dropped the proposal about not arresting your own priests.

[Chenier]

I have made 5 feature requests for my proposals.

I dropped the proposal about not arresting your own priests.

Didn't even look at them, and my bet is they'll all get shot down. Apparently, religions suck by design. They were meant to be this way.

[Anaris]

Didn't even look at them, and my bet is they'll all get shot down. Apparently, religions suck by design. They were meant to be this way.

If all you're going to do is make idiotic trolling statements like these, I strongly recommend you just leave the forums for a day or two and regain your composure.

And if you still feel the urge to post stupidity like this when you come back, leave again.

Repeat until you can bring yourself to admit that "doesn't work the way I think it should" doesn't mean the same thing as "is stupid and/or poorly designed".

[Chenier]

People have complained for ages about how religions don't take the roles they ought to take.

Devs often say that it's a player problem... but yet, when the feudal hierarchy wasn't handled as desired, you didn't just say "it's a player problem, nothing to change here". Which has been your systematic response to all suggestions, no matter by whom, for structural changes to the way religions work. Instead, you brought upon huge changes to the game, and changed drastically a ton of the game's core mechanics.

When but a few out of many are problematic, then sure, it's a player problem. For example, if one continent is always stuck at peace while the others don't share at all the same problems. However, when all are problematic but a few, it's a mechanics problem. Sure, Sanguis Astroism is huge... but the context has a LOT to do with that: one of the 4 original realms, which was set as a theocracy to begin with, and that then absorbed its neighbor while no other nations made any significant efforts at religion (ever)... yea, SA got pretty big on Dwilight. But it's the only case. And it not only relied on a very special context, but also a lot of people dedicated to making it work by OOC motivation and sticking around.

[Anaris]

People have complained for ages about how religions don't take the roles they ought to take.

Devs often say that it's a player problem... but yet, when the feudal hierarchy wasn't handled as desired, you didn't just say "it's a player problem, nothing to change here". Which has been your systematic response to all suggestions, no matter by whom, for structural changes to the way religions work. Instead, you brought upon huge changes to the game, and changed drastically a ton of the game's core mechanics.

When but a few out of many are problematic, then sure, it's a player problem. For example, if one continent is always stuck at peace while the others don't share at all the same problems. However, when all are problematic but a few, it's a mechanics problem. Sure, Sanguis Astroism is huge... but the context has a LOT to do with that: one of the 4 original realms, which was set as a theocracy to begin with, and that then absorbed its neighbor while no other nations made any significant efforts at religion (ever)... yea, SA got pretty big on Dwilight. But it's the only case. And it not only relied on a very special context, but also a lot of people dedicated to making it work by OOC motivation and sticking around.

The religion system is far from perfect. It's also not meant to be coequal with the political/feudal system.

None of that is grounds for you to claim that the devs are going to deliberately ignore or reject feature requests that will improve the religion system simply for the sake of sabotaging the religion system.

[Penchant]

The religion system is far from perfect. It's also not meant to be coequal with the political/feudal system.

None of that is grounds for you to claim that the devs are going to deliberately ignore or reject feature requests that will improve the religion system simply for the sake of sabotaging the religion system.

He didn't say it was meant to be coequal with the political/feudal system he said people complained endlessly about the religious structural setup and its always been a player problem but you who do massive changes when the same is said for the political/feudal system. Also he never said that the dev team is sabotaging the religion game intentionally but that the dev team is but that every suggested change for religion is rejected and told that it is a player problem or something similar.

[Anaris]

He didn't say it was meant to be coequal with the political/feudal system he said people complained endlessly about the religious structural setup and its always been a player problem but you who do massive changes when the same is said for the political/feudal system. Also he never said that the dev team is sabotaging the religion game intentionally but that the dev team is but that every suggested change for religion is rejected and told that it is a player problem or something similar.

He said that religions suck by design, which, unless you're being deliberately pedantic or trying really hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, means that the dev team wants religions to suck.

I find this to be approximately equivalent with the position of those who believe that Tom has it in for them, and will deliberately change the code to ensure that their realms lose.

[Penchant]

He said that religions suck by design, which, unless you're being deliberately pedantic or trying really hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, means that the dev team wants religions to suck.

I find this to be approximately equivalent with the position of those who believe that Tom has it in for them, and will deliberately change the code to ensure that their realms lose.

Well that one is a bit tricky and it does kinda imply what your saying but I think its more like the players say, this sucks it should be changed and the dev response is, too bad it's like that by design. If you want to say that equates to him saying the devs are intentionally making the religion game suck I am not going to argue against that but I wouldn't say that that is of course what he means either. Also, I may be a bit pedantic on this so I apologize for that.

[Bedwyr]

In an effort to simultaneously derail a discussion about precisely how much the dev team cares about religion and toot my own horn, what are people's thoughts on these?

More offensive options...

"Exhort the faithful against their lord"
When used in a region that has a lord not of your faith, it encourages the followers of your religion to resist the control of the lord (and by extension, realm).  Control is lowered proportionally by the percentage of followers in the region, and once beyond a certain minimal percentage, there is an increasing chance of a rogue militia unit forming to actively fight.

This would be an option that doesn't require the absolutely dominating percentage of followers that some of the other options do, could be very useful in holy wars, and fits with what Priests in BM are supposed to be able to do and what priests in history could do.

"Assert divine right: Purge the heretics/Protect the faithful"
Priest options to assist in takeovers.  Both fear and sympathy based options, and I would suggest having their impact on followers tied to the success of the TO.  If the TO succeeds, then the percentage of the succeess due to religious options equates to percentage increase in followers (clearly, you were right), and similarly, if the TO fails it causes losses (clearly, you were wrong).  H/P gains/losses should similarly happen.  Priests are very publicly putting their reputation and influence on the line for this.

"Repurpose shrines/temples"
You should be able to convert shrines (percentage chance the shrine is just destroyed) and temples (percentage chance temple loses one or more levels) of other faiths.  Likely to cause a religious riot, friendly troops can help suppress.  Serious historical accuracy here, the number of shrines/gods/temples that Christianity in particular assimilated is vast, and the Hagia Sophia is the most prominent example I can think of.

"Call for martyrs"
Fill RC's faster.  Very straightforward, also accurate (allowing for how BM recruitment works).

[Draco Tanos]

I like them.  Could go eaither way on the first option, but I do love the ways to assist in TOs (finally a use for priests in that regard over just glorified diplomats).

Re-purposing temples/shrines is a great feature too (especially since getting rid of shrines is difficult for other faiths in general).  And yeah, Muslims are well known for scraping the statues and decorations off of Cathedrals and repurpose them as Mosques too. 

Calling for martyrs is an interesting option.

[Indirik]

I'm fairly certain Tom has flat out vetoed repurposing temples in the past.

[Chenier]

He said that religions suck by design, which, unless you're being deliberately pedantic or trying really hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, means that the dev team wants religions to suck.

I find this to be approximately equivalent with the position of those who believe that Tom has it in for them, and will deliberately change the code to ensure that their realms lose.

Sucking may not be your target, but it's an inevitable result of the means you insist to use, and the philosophy you adhere to as to how the game should handle everything religious.

Look at it this way: Nobody wants to eradicate all of the wild yews, but people's desire to use yews to cure cancer is doing precisely that. I'm not accusing you of wanting to eradicate the yews, but I am accusing you of doing precisely that by being stubbornly obsessed with not considering any other alternative to the problem at hand.

Because I can't even count the number of suggestions that have been made over the years, by various people, to improve the religion game. No structural change ever gets approved. And the answer that things are the way they are "by design" comes by way too often, as if the way there were was perfect. But the design is precisely what I believe has to be changed about religions in BM: it should be rewritten all over, in a complete overhaul. It's been done with the taxes/oaths, it's been done with sea travel, it's been done with BT invasions, it's been done with government settings, it's been done with referendums, it's been done with duchies. A whole ton of aspects of the game have dramatically evolved over the years. But not religions. They still remain the gimmicky guilds people have always complained about. Only they've become weaker, with older priests getting less hours and temples getting taxed.

[Penchant]

In an effort to simultaneously derail a discussion about precisely how much the dev team cares about religion and toot my own horn, what are people's thoughts on these?

I like them all though I am not sure about the specific case used for assisting in TO's. Also though it would be the only class with the ability I think they should be able to hurt TO's if they can help them.