Conversion, Dissent & Rebellion

Ooh, converting cities.

I assume this is also done to a lesser extent by continuous trade, along with which comes the exchange of ideas?

Primarily, it would refer to religious conversion through the use of an Agent - the Missionary - though if we wanted to really expand the system, we could include culture as part of that. Culture would mainly be influenced by trade, and it would tie into dissent: As new cultural/religious ideas flow into a settlement, its people become more discontent with the culture/religion of their rulers. The effect won't be so great as to guarantee a rebellion, but it should be noticeable over time.

I'm conflicted on this one. I'd love for there to be a system in which conversion was possible, but not one where you just send your missionary to the city you want, sit back and relax. Ultimately, I hope there will be active effort put into converting the populace (build churches, send missionaries, take a trip to the place yourself, religious speeches, etc.) This is why I'm almost leaning towards purely roleplay conversion, although then I risk people not doing it due to no universal mechanics for it. Thoughts?

Have your church do community stuff.

For example, if a fire burned down a large portion of people's houses, the Empire could build schools and buildings and homes, and stuff, but they'd have to devote resource to do so. In the case of a plague, you could devote a Head Scientist to go to the city, develop a cure, and save some of the populace. If there's starvation, you could devote some of your uncollected resource for the collection of food for the people. If they are under attack, you can sell/loan them some troops. If they are trading, you could devote an escort.

If there's no problem, conversion can be achieved actively by devoting a Paragon to visit, give a few speeches, etc, however risk haing some extremist attempt to assassinate your paragon. Naturally, troops can be devoted to guard the Paragon, but that makes it look hostile. Additionally, you can have buildings built in the city, a School or a Hospital for example, and that would help.

I disagree with purely role play conversion. Too easy, too hard to judge fairly.

That is exactly my problem with pure roleplay. I want there to be mechanics for it showing that it can be done, but I don't want to limit it to predefined things. We need to find some sort of balance between roleplay and actual game mechanics here.

Those were mostly scenarios, I was thinking more along the lines of Veylantz-esque personas for NPCs, in which they are set to have their specific needs, and give you unique scenarios, and you have to react in a way in order to get different levels of outcome, either positive or negative.

For example, perhaps the Varrock Slums have expanded beyond measure, and the people are unhappy with their government. Well, then an Empire could decide to donate them wood and stone. Or they can offer many jobs within the Zarosian Empire. Or, they can send preachers to incite rebellion. The player has to choose how their empire will react to this unique situation that you put them in, and their actions will directly cause the outcomes.

That's what I had in mind, but instead of simply being on the mercy of my laziness and procrastination, I want there to be ways for the players to actively pursue the conversion path.

Easy, we work out the NPC personalities, the problems that their society face before the game, and you basically keep the NPCs dynamic throughout the game.

I want to keep on a general level here, because if we go to specifics to the point where you know everything about every npc and what they have to offer, it's going to be way too strong an advantage to you two.

I think we can have a compromise. Let's say we have an Agent, the Missionary, and he visits a region dominated by a foreign religion. Let's say he, acting by himself, can start a slow, limited conversion process, basically perhaps 2-5% every 3 seasons or so. He'll travel the region, gathering a small flock and hiding in the shadows, preaching only to those who'll listen to him with an open mind.

Over time, if he's successful enough, he could establish a small Temple that would increase the conversion rate, but also increase detection. The Temple, in addition to its passive conversion rate, could also react to GM scenarios such as the ones Lime described, which present an opportunity to become more embraced by the people.

There are several ways we could allow the Missionary to establish a Temple, with, perhaps, a choice involved. He could attempt to ask the region's leader to build a Temple, which would obviously be more risky as he'd have to make himself known, but would also allow his Temple to be more open (thus making it more effective). Or, he could establish a Temple in secret, which would be less effective but would be hidden from the eyes of the region's government.

In any case, for the sake of brevity, I don't think we need to take it much further than that (i.e., we don't need a "Big Temple", "Grand Temple", etc).

When a region is fully converted, the people there can pledge allegiance to their new religion's Warlord, but if there are "enemy" troops garrisoned there, a revolt must take place. If no troops are there, the region can be turned without bloodshed.

We have two problems:

1) What should be the consequences of a Missionary being "discovered"? Obviously, execution if the region's owner is vicious, perhaps just imprisonment or ransom if he's not.

2) How will we handle a request by a player such as, "I don't want Zaros's Missionary working in my lands. Find and eliminate him!" That would be in response, of course, to the Zaros player saying, "I want one of my Missionaries to spread His Word in Lumbridge."

To address point 1, I think Missionaries should be cheap and easy to replenish; no special building required for their recruitment. For the sake of balance, the conversion rate could be capped after a certain number of Missionaries in a region at the same time, e.g., 3. To address point 2, we can say that hunting for these Missionaries is not an instantaneous thing; it may take multiple seasons to hunt them down and carry out whatever orders the region's owner wishes.

Lastly, I chose "Temple" instead of "Church" because I was thinking the Church could be a City Improvement that is built to counteract the effects of foreign Missionaries. Unlike the Temple, the Church could have 2-3 tiers of increased effectiveness, to help balance numerous Missionaries in a single region.

I'm only double-posting because this post concerns dissent!

If we want, we could have dissent (Unrest) increase as a foreign religion becomes more dominant. When Unrest reaches a high enough level, the region rebels. If William feels like doing a bunch of extra calculations, having troops garrisoned in a city (not just staying there; actually garrisoned in a building like a Guardhouse) can reduce the rate of Unrest increase.

We're basically copying Total War here, so let me know right now if any of you have played any of the Total War games.

No, I have not. I didn't intend to post here this evening at all, since I really need to go to sleep. Just wanted to see which topics were being discussed atm. I'll hopefully post more tomorrow.

Would this be able to be done in any Player-Owned Territories yet?

Well Lime, that's the complication (it's what I was trying to refer to in Problem #2). If we allow this in a player-owned territory, the player owning the region will know that a foreign Missionary is attempting to convert his people and generate Unrest. Therefore, the player could react in several ways - from (tempered reaction) ordering the finding and elimination of the Missionary to (RAGE) declaring war for the other player's insolence. Either way, for the sake of balance, William could let the foreign Missionary run around for a couple seasons before he's caught. That's why we wouldn't make the Missionary a very expensive unit with limited availability, like a Scientist or Diplomat.

I'd say that no player would be foolish enough to let someone else convert one of his provinces, and if he is, he'd at least garrison troops there so that if the people rebel, they'll have to pay the blood price. Before you guys get the idea in your heads, I absolutely DO NOT want soldier conversion. No WALOLO, no *creepy-holy conversion sound from Age of Empires II*. Missionaries won't work like AoE priests! If a Missionary attempts to convert one of your soldiers, I want the first response to be "sword in the face."

Hmm... That mention of priests actually got me thinking... What exactly would separate a priest from a missionary? I know, I know, they're not the same, but I feel like there should be some place for priests in this...

Well, the main difference is that the Priest is a military unit (even though he doesn't do much direct fighting, his Prayers are combat-oriented). Perhaps the anti-conversion effectiveness of a Church could be increased if a number of Priests are garrisoned in the city, sort of as a reminder of the metaphysical effect the dominant religion's god can have on the world. I don't want Priests to directly help Missionaries convert because, as a military unit, moving Priests into non-friendly territory would be a declaration of war.

Is it? I mean, isn't it up to the one who moves the units and the one whose territory is being invaded by the troops to decide whether or not to go to war? Remember, this isn't a game where a computer decides what happens.

Lord William wrote:

Is it? I mean, isn't it up to the one who moves the units and the one whose territory is being invaded by the troops to decide whether or not to go to war? Remember, this isn't a game where a computer decides what happens.

We could do it that way, sure. This is all discussion right now. But do you really want to blur the line between a non-combat specialist (Agent) and troops trained for battle (Priests)? Next thing you know, we'll have people trying to use Missionaries in battle XD.

I mean, there's a large difference between a Military Chaplain and a Civilian Priest. The Chaplain is used to invigorating his comrades, while the Civilian is just there to offer priestly services, speak the Word of God, and rape little bo- What?

...

I'm allowed to make jokes like that, right?

...No comment.