[Discuss] Are Priests still not able to rule?

[Arron Robinson]

On 10/18/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No. The ruler of a theocracy is not a priest anymore. He might be a
> > religious figure, but he's not going to stand on the market square,
> > preaching.
>
> But he's not a soldier, bureaucrat, trader, etc. either. He's a
> theologian, even if he isn't actually preaching.
>
> Prehaps priests should be allowed to rule, but have the preach option
> disabled. It could be replaced by something it help convert nobles
> (ability to send a message to the whole continent, maybe? Or just
> everyone in his realm and neighbouring realms?). It makes sense for a
> ruling priest to concentrate on converting the nobility, rather than
> standing on market squares talking to peasents.
>
This is exactly how our realm was broken down. Our Pontifex (my
priest) was somewhat removed from day-to-day tasks of the faith,
instead being bogged down with running the realm. The other Priest(s)
was by circumstance, in charge of the traveling ministry.

This created some interesting tension between the two, with the
Pontifex being more moderate out of necessity, while the other had
become more fundamentalist due to his line of work. It had a good
dynamic.

With regard to wealth, as Ruler, my Priest did not receive tax income.
Instead he petitioned his followers to finance what needed to be done.
He lived on the temple grounds as well. Very accurate in many cases.

-- 
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from
injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to
regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall
not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is
the sum of good government, and all that is necessary to close the
circle of our felicities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss