Under Debate: Building of Temples

[daviceroy]

I've been meaning to bring this matter up for a bit, but I kept forgetting to post. LOL

Right now, the only way a new temple can be built is for the Lord of a Region to build it.  After it's built, only a Priest can enlarge it and almost anyone can work on tearing it down.  This is something that made me scratch my head for a few reasons.

1) If it's that hard to build, then why is it so easy to destroy?  After all, making it where a Priest can build it would make it easier and still everyone can remove it if they so desire.

2) Shouldn't the person responsible for maintaining/upgrading be the one who builds it?  Like walls in the cities?

3) If a Lord in another area wants to build a temple, how does one get them funding especially if banking functions aren't available due to relations between realms?

4) As someone who plays a Lord, I know often we are out in the battlefield.  It's hard to come home just for something that is not of much importance.  (Since Temples offer no real benefit to a region... why bother as a Lord?)

5) I've been mailing Lords left and right as a priest trying to get permission to preach.  (One of those pesky character decisions, I know).  I've had 3 answer.  Most go unread from what I can tell.  If a Priest can't even get a "get lost" message, how can they get a building built?

6) With the player population spread out as it is, there are regions without a Lord.  I know I've come across more than a couple recently.  Does this really mean that no temple could ever be built in those regions?

7) Financially speaking, most Lords are more strapped for cash than priests.  After all, most other nobles can recruit some type of unit.  Priests can not.

So, with the above in mind, I propose that Priests be allowed to build temples.  It would add to the Priest class by giving them a function to build and expand upon their focus (Temples and religion!).  It would also allow them to make better use of the funding they do receive.  In addition, it would contribute to the RP aspect of Priests as they could help move (and expand) their followers by the construction, expansion and glorification of the Center of Worship known as the temple.  This could also lead to more inter-fighting amongst Priests to build more temples in more regions expanding and fighting for more believers.

[Zakilevo]

I think I can answer some of them.

1) Lords are kings of their regions. They get to decide what stays and what doesn't.

2) I wouldn't mind seeing some changes to enlarging temples to allow lords to be able to enlarge them as well as long as they are a part of that religion. We no longer have too many people playing priests and most religions have one or two at most. Priests can't be everywhere.

For now though, lords are not in charge of maintaining temples. Priests are. They are the ones paying the maintenance fee not lords.

3) It is there to prevent intentional abuses. If you allow an easy way to transfer gold, people will use temples to replenish their gold.

4) It looks pretty when you have a large temple. Also, large temples can help you maintain large followers. Does it have any benefit for a region to actually have one? No. Religions don't really have that big of an impact mechanically if you just think about temples alone.

5) Priests are annoying pests at most for lazy lords. Don't bother with them. They won't allow you to build a temple ever.

6) No.

[Bronnen]

I think allowing priests to build level 1 temples would be fantastic, as would allowing lords to upgrade them.

I do think though that if a priest builds a level 1 temple, they cannot upgrade it for a set amount of time. Giving the lord more than enough time to destroy it if they don't want it there.

[daviceroy]

My proposal actually uses the apathy of lazy lords against them.  It means that if they don't want that temple there then they can raze it, arrest the priest, or more.  It would encourage them to either care more about their region or let perhaps a religion that is more poisonous to them spread.  It gives them choices instead of knowing that no matter what nothing can happen without their approval.

As I understand current BM code, Lords can not erect statues in estates they don't own.  Perhaps this is going to be changed, but as it is it gives one example of how things can be built within a region without the Lord's direct approval.

I do understand how to be a pest to Lords, but with the limited player population it also means that resources tend to be focused more on state matters (which is logical for Lords) and not with something that doesn't give them a benefit or honors them or their direct chain of command.  Since the building of a temple requires the Priest to go there, it means that there's also a risk you could be arrested for building the temple.

Also, current BM code has many things where the original builders have to maintain the things they build.  For example, the fortifications are maintained and built by the same person.  The current Priest code is the only example that I can think of in BM code where this isn't the case.  Essentially, the Priest is responsible for maintaining something that someone else builds.

Then, consider this point as well.  If I can preach in a lordless religion to expand the faith, why shouldn't I be able to build a temple to expand the faith.  If anything a Lordless region means there is no "king of the region" to stop it.  This will either force realms to deal with the issue by sending a force to tear it down, assigning a lord to go there and tear it down or letting it be.

---

In summary, my proposal's benefits are that:

1) It expands the Priest role slightly in a logical way.
2) It helps the Priest use any money earned towards the faith.  (Can't recruit troops)
3) It allows more RP opportunities (i.e. Grand Temple openings, fights between religions trying to build temples, Disgust by region lords, etc)
4) Relieves the Lord from having to deal with cross realm trips to build something quick and then leave again
5) Motivates Lords to care more about what's in their regions if they don't want something

[Vita`]

More likely, it would be similar to the invite a priest mechanic. A "seek lord's landgrant" button for the lord to approve of a new temple being built or not.

[daviceroy]

More likely, it would be similar to the invite a priest mechanic. A "seek lord's landgrant" button for the lord to approve of a new temple being built or not.

Perhaps I'm just not getting why Lords would need an approve button.  Do Knights need to get approval for their statues before they can build them?  If we applied the Lord logic being applied in this thread, then logically the actual ruler of a realm should have a lot of approval required options since all lands belong to them?  After all, Lords "king of region"....  Ruler "king of realm"?

I'm sure you can probably check into this stat, but how often is invite a priest actually used?  I've had more inquiries outside of this tool.

I really think that if this is the route taken we'll be missing out on opportunities.  Is there some real negative to my proposal that makes the developers go... no so quickly?  What is the downside of not having a Lord have approval for everything?  If this is the way it's added, then why not change the code to require them to approve upgrades to the temple?  Maybe even require approval for guards?

I don't really see any negatives to the positives I gave forth.  Can this be explained?

[Constantine]

Oh, you know who's lazy? Priests are lazy.

I've been approached by numerous priests asking permission to preach and stuff. My replies were always something like "before converting my people, you'll have to convert me, their lord. Give me a sermon and we'll go from there."
Literally zero priests told me jack !@#$ about their religion. The most I got was "Read the wiki."
I've got no patience for such people. And you want to allow them do everything without even interacting with local lords. What's the bloody point?

[Anaris]

Perhaps I'm just not getting why Lords would need an approve button.  Do Knights need to get approval for their statues before they can build them?  If we applied the Lord logic being applied in this thread, then logically the actual ruler of a realm should have a lot of approval required options since all lands belong to them?  After all, Lords "king of region"....  Ruler "king of realm"?

Knights are already directly and explicitly granted the land of their estate by the Lord. If a knight builds a statue that his liege lord doesn't like, his lord can kick him out of the estate and get the statue torn down.

Priests, in the general case, have no connection to the land they would be building a temple. Imagine it like a priest today just coming into your back yard with a work crew and starting to build a church there.

There is no way in hell we're going to give priests the ability to build temples in regions that aren't theirs without at least requiring Lordly approval.

[daviceroy]

Priests, in the general case, have no connection to the land they would be building a temple. Imagine it like a priest today just coming into your back yard with a work crew and starting to build a church there.

I'll run with your scenario.  If a priest did that today, the owner would have them arrested.  I believe that BM code has an arrest a priest option last time I checked.  So...  Imagine the same could happen in BM?  The code already exists and it would give a reason other than preaching to use it.  Doesn't that make sense?

There is no way in hell we're going to give priests the ability to build temples in regions that aren't theirs without at least requiring Lordly approval.

If that's the attitude that you have, then don't even bother coding that in.  It'll be a waste of your time.  Part of the whole reason why I am trying to get this problem solved is because Lords are too lazy to bother with something that has no benefit to them.

Thank you for reminding me why I don't put in feature requests.  There's no chance in "hell" of you doing anything other than reinforcing the problems that we try to suggest fixing.  After all, there are NO negative reasons given YET why adding this would be adverse to the game or even social interaction.  I won't make this mistake again.  Have a pleasant day

[Zakilevo]

I'll run with your scenario.  If a priest did that today, the owner would have them arrested.  I believe that BM code has an arrest a priest option last time I checked.  So...  Imagine the same could happen in BM?  The code already exists and it would give a reason other than preaching to use it.  Doesn't that make sense?

Umm no. Just no. You are forgetting the fact that priests use a completely different travel system. They can move instantly. Catching them is a hard task. You can still build shrines I believe so be happy with that.

If someone shows up with construction workers in my backyard, I'd call cops even before they start laying down the first brick. In a game where you can construct buildings instantly and can move out of a region instantly, it doesn't make sense to allow priests to just build random buildings.

[Andrew]

Lets be realistic here. For insance, getting from Gelene to Gelene Outskirts on Dwilight is 50 miles. From there to Sabadel is 172 miles. Are you trying to tell me that you're watching an area that size for anyone that decides to move into an empty building?

Yes, the game says construct, but really, you want to tell me that a new temple isn't just someone buying an existing structure? Or that the "new" temple, isn't out in the backwoods of a, arguably, HUGE area?

Aren't we supposed to be Nobles, and above caring about what the commoners do in "our backyards"?

[Zakilevo]

Nobles should be even more worried. Those 'construction workers' could be assassins in disguise!

[Bronnen]

Yes, priests can build shrines, but there are limits and there needs to be a certain amount of people.

In city regions, you need what? 10% of the population converted before you can build a shrine? Without a temple you actually will never be able to recruit that many because for some reason there are arbitrary limits on the number of people who can follow your religion without a temple.

Makes no sense.

[Vita`]

I think, purely from memory, its 10% of a region's population or 1k population. I can check later, but headed out door as I type this.

[Bronnen]

What about allow priests to make temples in Rogue or Lordless regions?

There'd be no one to stop them then.