Religion

[Anaris]

Religion should be a main cause of conflict in the game.

I think that is a questionable premise.

Remember, game-mechanic religion has only been around for about half the lifetime of the game.

[Galvez]

'A main cause', not 'the main cause'. And historically speaking, I do not think my premise is that questionable. We need more wars like the Ibladesh - Itorunt war.

[Stue (DC)]

Religion should be a main cause of conflict in the game.

the main "problem" here is that tom was quite clear that he sees religion as pure rp-ing tool. i was always thinking that bm reaches its peaks when rp-ing and mechanics are so interconnected that it is hard to make boundary. but that's only me 
in current game circumstances what i see is when game dynamics is relieved of influences of other elements, all we have is "go to region x and kill them all". over time it simply becomes boring as it's straightforward.

Some religions are way too tolerant to others. Where is the fun in that? Too little debt cause for little strive. The people's characters should start believing that there is only one true religion, theirs.

yep, that' related to other aspects of the game as elaborated in neighboring thread.

even without deep analysis, by mere playing, with learning by trial and error, we come to the point to notice that the most successful in-game careers are "won" by those who are ultimately fair, fine, peace-loving, tolerant to everyone etc. etc.
it is apparently related to current game setup, where majority of risky and adventurous actions can result either in minor reward or in harsh penalty.
cumulation of such imbalances pushes those who want to be successful "to the bright side" and that creates boredom.

[Daycryn]

even without deep analysis, by mere playing, with learning by trial and error, we come to the point to notice that the most successful in-game careers are "won" by those who are ultimately fair, fine, peace-loving, tolerant to everyone etc. etc.
it is apparently related to current game setup, where majority of risky and adventurous actions can result either in minor reward or in harsh penalty.
cumulation of such imbalances pushes those who want to be successful "to the bright side" and that creates boredom.

I don't agree with your premise here. I mean first, how are you defining "successful" career?

[Sacha]

There's tons of nobles who prove you don't have to play nice to have a long 'successful' career. Off the top of my head, there's Alanna, Gregor, Jenred, Sordnaz, ...

[De-Legro]

There's tons of nobles who prove you don't have to play nice to have a long 'successful' career. Off the top of my head, there's Alanna, Gregor, Jenred, Sordnaz, ...

Shhhhh, we don't like evidence and proof. This is a internet forum after all.

[Stue (DC)]

i was mostly referring to current times, not to the whole known game's time span.

to try to define it better would be to say: how many "trouble makers" hold positions of power for longer time in current times?

under "trouble makers" i would define those who insist on wars and violent, harsh conflicts. in short times after such intentions are declared, gangbang forms out of large majority "who wants peace".

one on one war over a very local conflict turns into one on five in matter of weeks or even days.

the similar with religions, whoever attempts some harsher means, incites enormously large counter-power in short time.

all that comes out of situation where too little positions hold real power that can spark conflicts.

[De-Legro]

i was mostly referring to current times, not to the whole known game's time span.

to try to define it better would be to say: how many "trouble makers" hold positions of power for longer time in current times?

under "trouble makers" i would define those who insist on wars and violent, harsh conflicts. in short times after such intentions are declared, gangbang forms out of large majority "who wants peace".

one on one war over a very local conflict turns into one on five in matter of weeks or even days.

the similar with religions, whoever attempts some harsher means, incites enormously large counter-power in short time.

all that comes out of situation where too little positions hold real power that can spark conflicts.

Dwilight has two major wars going, neither of which is a gang bang. FEI has a continent wide war going, and as I understand it has 3 realms on each side of the conflict. I haven't played on the other islands in a long time so I won't comment on them.

[Eldargard]

I really think that a change in player approach is the only really answer to the religion issue. As I understand it most medieval people places religion at the fore in their lives. In many cases loyalty to the church was as great a priority as ones loyalty to family and realm. More so in some cases. The churches views were your views. It was better to die in obedience to the church that to live in defiance of it. Your brother defies the church you halt all associations with that guy and might even hunt him down to clear the family name. Your country goes against the word of the faith you find yourself between a rock and a hard place. Unless character are played like this, religion will never be what it, in my opinion, should be.

That being said I think it may be possible to encourage players to play characters as being more dedicated to their faith with mechanical incentives. I am not 100% sure what these mechanics should look like. The only religion that even comes close to commanding this kind of loyalty is Sanguis Astroism and I am not sure if it's accomplishments can be modeled or even fully understood.

[Eldargard]

I am not sure if my experience is normal but I know that when I started battlemaster back in 2003 the wiki's getting started and role playing guides influenced how I played my characters greatly. Each time I have come back to the game sense I have read through these portions of the wiki and run with what was there. Perhaps detailing how to roleplay the role of religion in characters' lives would be a good way to guide player behavior?

[Penchant]

Perhaps detailing how to roleplay the role of religion in characters' lives would be a good way to guide player behavior?

No because there is no perfect way. Saying religion should be this way or that way for every character hurts the roleplaying mood of the game IMO. If the GM's want religion to be seen as important in characters lives like they were in the BM time period, then they need to be made so. It is one thing I disagree with Tom on extremely. You and him both seem to share the view that all players should play their characters the same when it comes to religion, all being zealots. Zealots can certainly be encouraged but they aren't in any way except for word.

[Eldargard]

Encouragement is all that can be accomplished. I never suggested that a rule be made stating that all characters must obey their church. That would be plain silly. I am suggesting that these wiki pages that so many learn from point out how important religion was to medieval nobles. How the people of the time acted in manners of religion. Defining a zealot is an interesting thing. By todays terms what I describe would be the very definition of a zealot. In the medieval ages it was the norm and a zealot was in a whole other league.

[Penchant]

Encouragement is all that can be accomplished. I never suggested that a rule be made stating that all characters must obey their church. That would be plain silly. I am suggesting that these wiki pages that so many learn from point out how important religion was to medieval nobles. How the people of the time acted in manners of religion. Defining a zealot is an interesting thing. By todays terms what I describe would be the very definition of a zealot. In the medieval ages it was the norm and a zealot was in a whole other league.

Obviously as making it a rule would be rather futile, but I am against even blanket encouragement. All different play styles should encouraged, those who join church for politics, those who join for belief but have it as a low priority, those who join for belief and consider it generally rather important, those who are such zealots they might schism because they think the elders are getting away from the true beliefs, and any other playing style related to religion. I would hope that players have different playing styles for each character though as it should be a character who decides he doesn't care about religion, not the player deciding that for all his characters.

[Vita`]

At minimum, paganism should be the exception, not the norm that it seems in BM today. See a pagan? Destroy him however you can. Stab. Fine. Ban. War. Protest. Scheme to remove from power. I can see reasons for the occasional pagan, but those rare pagans should be constantly berated to either found their faith into a formal religion or join a formal religion. Being a pagan is the religious equivalent of being a rogue, in that you are without spiritual leadership and hierarchy, which is the properly ordained social structure.

[De-Legro]

At minimum, paganism should be the exception, not the norm that it seems in BM today. See a pagan? Destroy him however you can. Stab. Fine. Ban. War. Protest. Scheme to remove from power. I can see reasons for the occasional pagan, but those rare pagans should be constantly berated to either found their faith into a formal religion or join a formal religion. Being a pagan is the religious equivalent of being a rogue, in that you are without spiritual leadership and hierarchy, which is the properly ordained social structure.

We have enough problems stamping out the atheist, at least the pagans have SOME sort of belief.

There is actually no reason a pagan system can't have some sort of spiritual leadership and hierarchy. The standard definition of a Pagan is

A person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

It really hangs on the definition of a "main" world religion. It was my understanding that in game pagans worship under a system whose membership and leadership is too insignificant to really bother with identifying.