What makes a good BM religion?

[BardicNerd]

They ascribed all kinds of things. People still do. Doesn't mean they were actually able to do those things.

So, again: The only powers priests in BM are going to have are powers of influence. Not "divine intervention" or anything that's likely to look like it.

Fair enough, your initial wording made me think you were saying that it was based upon what people in the middle ages expected them to be capable of -- but if this is not so, then I can understand why any sort of magic like abilities are not desired.

Well, personally, I kind of like the idea. However, I believe that it was, in fact, suggested in the past (possibly only within the dev team, my memory on this point is hazy), and Tom vetoed it on the grounds that he didn't want religions having official policies on realms, or something like that. They should only have official policies on religions.

Maybe the fact that historically religions did have official policies on realms might change his mind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdict#Notable_local_canonical_interdicts
More examples could probably be found if looked for.

To be a pope, doesn't one need to have actually conducted a miracle? (Probably to be archbishop or something, actually).

Sounds pretty magic to me.

That would be to be canonized as a Saint (capital 'S' important here) in the RC church (specifically, they must have two posthumous miracles).

[Chenier]

That would be to be canonized as a Saint (capital 'S' important here) in the RC church (specifically, they must have two posthumous miracles).

Oh yea. I could have sworn that it was required for archbishops too. But then again, I never really delved into Roman Catholic hierarchy.

[Indirik]

The difficult part about priests siezing regions, and which troops do and don't try to arrest, is that there is no way for a realm to specify *which* TOs it would allow, and which not. Let's say a VE priest joined Astrum and tried to do a TO of an Aurvandil region. There's no way Astrum would sanction that and allow it to happen. So of course we would stop him. Without any way for the game to tell what is OK and not OK, then either way there will be bad situations that don't match what the players would expect to happen.

[BardicNerd]

Perhaps troops led by nobles of the same religion as the priest might not interfere?  If you want to stress that this is not a takeover method for a realm, but for a religion, you could even have troops from the realm the region currently belongs to not interfere if they are led by a noble of the priest's religion. . . .

[Indirik]

Perhaps troops led by nobles of the same religion as the priest might not interfere?

Maybe, maybe not. Just because they are the same faith doesn't mean you want to help them, or agree with the actions. It could, after all, be a rogue priest.

If you want to stress that this is not a takeover method for a realm, but for a religion, you could even have troops from the realm the region currently belongs to not interfere if they are led by a noble of the priest's religion. . . .

Wouldn't work in the case of multi-realm religions, where the same religion has members on both sides of the war.

[Chenier]

The difficult part about priests siezing regions, and which troops do and don't try to arrest, is that there is no way for a realm to specify *which* TOs it would allow, and which not. Let's say a VE priest joined Astrum and tried to do a TO of an Aurvandil region. There's no way Astrum would sanction that and allow it to happen. So of course we would stop him. Without any way for the game to tell what is OK and not OK, then either way there will be bad situations that don't match what the players would expect to happen.

You wouldn't need to arrest him, you could outright ban him. The point is moot.

[Indirik]

At that point, the damage is already done. No matter which way you do it, some facet of it will not make sense IC.

[Penchant]

The difficult part about priests siezing regions, and which troops do and don't try to arrest, is that there is no way for a realm to specify *which* TOs it would allow, and which not. Let's say a VE priest joined Astrum and tried to do a TO of an Aurvandil region. There's no way Astrum would sanction that and allow it to happen. So of course we would stop him. Without any way for the game to tell what is OK and not OK, then either way there will be bad situations that don't match what the players would expect to happen.

Maybe have realms have the ability to set a policy on a realm like state religions but not using the state religion mechanic. Could be banned, discouraged, accepted, and encouraged. Accepted and encouraged they would then specifically state if they would condone such an action. Nobles of the faith could have a religion section under politics where they decide if they want to go with realm policy or religion policy on whether or not to arrest priests who do actions like that. If a noble chose religion's policy and a priest of an evil faith an action worthy of being arrested but it was allowed by the realm, the noble's unit would still attempt to arrest because they chose to go with religion's policy. Also if a noble chose religious policy, if the act was done by a priest of a misguided or variant faith it go to realm policy whereas if it was your on faith you would not aid in arresting.

[Vellos]

The difficult part about priests siezing regions, and which troops do and don't try to arrest, is that there is no way for a realm to specify *which* TOs it would allow, and which not. Let's say a VE priest joined Astrum and tried to do a TO of an Aurvandil region. There's no way Astrum would sanction that and allow it to happen. So of course we would stop him. Without any way for the game to tell what is OK and not OK, then either way there will be bad situations that don't match what the players would expect to happen.

So we could allow a game-mechanic official religion with no real in-game effects except solving this problem and being listed on the realm info page.

[vonGenf]

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..."

Actually, if Oratory was a purely priestly skill and not mixed with other non-religious actions, I'd say you should get a hit to Oratory and not to H/P. But this is probably too complicated to unentangle by now.

[vonGenf]

Oh yea. I could have sworn that it was required for archbishops too. But then again, I never really delved into Roman Catholic hierarchy.

They will only make up these miracles and assign them to the work of dead people. I don't think they've ever claimed anyone alive has performed a miracle.

[Draco Tanos]

Aye.  Only aware of miracles being a requirement for Sainthood.

[Chenier]

At that point, the damage is already done. No matter which way you do it, some facet of it will not make sense IC.

Not really. Give the region back, damage undone. Makes far more sense then throwing your own guy in enemy prison.

[Indirik]

The enemy prison part is a game balance issue. That part is not going to change.

[Chenier]

The enemy prison part is a game balance issue. That part is not going to change.

Yup, it's there to help make sure all the priest option are pretty much worthless and creates situations that make no sense whatsoever.