Auto da fe on pagan lord?

[Bedwyr]

I'm certain I'm missing something here, but I would expect to be able to Auto da fe a Pagan who has an estate in a region with 95% of the population faithful to my religion.  Somehow, I am not, and the only two things I can think of are:

1. Can't Auto da fe Pagans (which seems unintended, I would imagine you should be able to do anything to Pagans that you could do to those you found evil).
2. Can't Auto da fe Lords (which I could possibly see, but the wiki is ambiguous, as it says that the noble will lose "any landed titles they may have").

Region is Arempos, character Elcalyn, desired target is Anastasia Von Borghoff (who does have an estate in the region).

Thoughts?

[Anaris]

I'm fairly sure that you can't auto da fe pagans, and that that's intentional.

Remember, "Pagan" doesn't mean "follows some peasant belief system." It means "follows a belief system that is not presently represented among the officially-founded religions of the continent," or even "hasn't yet bothered to/been able to sign up at a temple for the officially-founded religion on the continent he/she actually follows."

So they could be someone who is, in fact, a follower of a religion you would consider a variant, but no one's officially founded that religion on the continent you're on.

Auto da fe is for removing an enemy of the faith, not just "someone we find inconvenient."

As for the rest of the confusion...chalk it up to inherent drawbacks of the religion system, so far as I'm concerned.

[Indirik]

You used to be able to do it. On Dwilight, Allison kicked Aram out of the church, then immediately used an auto da fe to remove him from the lordship.

I think the key is that your religion has to have a temple of size 3 or 4 in the region.

[Anaris]

Really?

Huh. I could've sworn you couldn't auto da fe pagans...

But yes, you definitely need a size 3+ temple in the region.

[Indirik]

I am fairly certain they just have to be not a member of your religion.

[Eirikr]

I see a sudden quiet code change in the near future.

[Bedwyr]

Aha, I can at least test the level three temple.

As for pagans not being evil, I'm aware that I might consider them variant, but there are not nearly enough reasons to stop being pagan at the moment.

[Indirik]

There are currently no reasons to join a player run religion. That won't change until some realm gets enough disaster characters to dedicate several to being a priest, and several other characters willing to devote themselves to religion over realm.

[Anaris]

There are currently no reasons to join a player run religion. That won't change until some realm gets enough disaster characters to dedicate several to being a priest, and several other characters willing to devote themselves to religion over realm.

Even then, it'll only change for a little while.

I'm fairly well convinced at this point that the existing religion structure can never provide the kinds of gameplay necessary to encourage near-universal membership—or, indeed, to encourage membership for anyone besides those specifically interested in playing not just a religion, but that particular religion.

[Indirik]

Derp... Spell check failure. "Disaster characters" should have been "extra characters". Although disaster could be the eventual outcome. :p

IG religions were pretty active when we had lots of extra characters in the game. But when you're starved for enough characters to just keep realms running, it's not possible to devote effort to extra luxuries.

You might be right, though, that the given mechanism may not be capable of providing the game play we need. It may not be possible at all, with any mechanic.

[Zakilevo]

I doubt we will ever see the likes of SA and other large religions.

Most religions are not viable any longer I believe unless they go multi-realm which is rather hard to achieve.

I think someone suggested selecting a religion during character creation.

[Bedwyr]

Alternatively, I recall something being bandied about about actually having a pantheon, and then people would have differently religions interpreting the will of the gods that absolutely existed, or supporting one instead of others and the like.  I didn't like it before, but with the vast increase in the fantasy quotient after the last few Invasions, it might be appropriate.

[GundamMerc]

Alternatively, I recall something being bandied about about actually having a pantheon, and then people would have differently religions interpreting the will of the gods that absolutely existed, or supporting one instead of others and the like.  I didn't like it before, but with the vast increase in the fantasy quotient after the last few Invasions, it might be appropriate.

I don't see how a pantheon relates to the fantasy quotient... It's not like the middle ages wouldn't have come about with a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one...

[Bedwyr]

I don't see how a pantheon relates to the fantasy quotient... It's not like the middle ages wouldn't have come about with a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one...

The idea was that there would be an actual, real, game-mechanic existing pantheon that actually did things.  That significantly would have upped the fantasy quotient seven or eight years back.  These days?  Not so much.

[Anaris]

The idea was that there would be an actual, real, game-mechanic existing pantheon that actually did things.  That significantly would have upped the fantasy quotient seven or eight years back.  These days?  Not so much.

The "actually did things" part has never been close to certain.

The idea is more to have a reasonably well-defined pantheon, with different Gods having clear portfolios, and then allowing a certain amount of latitude for players to split or combine those Gods, while retaining the basic ideas that these aspects go together in some way, while those are clearly separate.