The Stranglehold of the Holy Order

[Helena]

What do you believe is the correct way to consider the Order's situation?

That question might be the correct one actually, since from the point of view, the opinion may differ. I would personally ask "Is the order RP enjoyable for everyone?", and I'd answer it could be more enjoyable:
- For what I hear and see, inquisitors feel the need to be repressive, and are not always OOCly happy to do so.
- I find it next to impossible to both RP respect for the inquisition and protect the self interest (and the life) of a character, especially during a review of faith.
- Priests are non existent.
- A lot of people don't want to RP around the davite lore, confess, pray.
- The cathedral is empty.
- People fear the review and the pyre so much their RP is hindered (they can't take any risk).

To delve into the reasons for these problems, I'd say that:
- The definition of heresy is too broad, creating uncertainty while roleplaying: inquisitors seems to feel the need to qualify everything as heretical, people are affraid to be considered heretical for whatever they do. On the same vein, the heretical belief are too close from the davism, creating confusions for everyone.
- Priests have no power to protect themselves, their flocks, and their understanding of the Erra from the inquisition. That's why, imho, they don't exist. And without them, there's not much reason to come in the cathedral and RP the davite lore.

To solve these problems, I'd propose to:
- Refrain the usage of the term heresy for believing in the Path of Fire or the Cult. Remove all mention to the Lord of the Springs from those heretical beliefs, clarify the distinction between penance and path of fire things since apparently it's not clear. Clarify that there's no IC reason to pyre an heretic, the branding should be their strongest penance.
- Separate somehow the clergy from the inquisition. Priests should not be able to become inquisitors for the seal of confessions to make sense, and inquisitors should not be able to hear confessions. Priests should be trained by priests, inquisitors by inquisitors. The clergy could develop its vision of the Erra, and could have the power to hold the hand of the inquisition when it concerns the people they hear in confessions. My feeling is that this would allow the inquisitors to play their role more easily: their repression would be balanced by the clergy, easing their stress.
- I'm also wondering if installing the knights in the cathedral would'nt give everyone more RP opportunities. Maybe that the cathdral could be split in two: on the east inquisition and knights private area, on the west, clergy area, with a room in the middle for whole guild meetings.

[Taunya]

To delve into the reasons for these problems, I'd say that:
- The definition of heresy is too broad, creating uncertainty while roleplaying: inquisitors seems to feel the need to qualify everything as heretical, people are affraid to be considered heretical for whatever they do. On the same vein, the heretical belief are too close from the davism, creating confusions for everyone.
- Priests have no power to protect themselves, their flocks, and their understanding of the Erra from the inquisition. That's why, imho, they don't exist. And without them, there's not much reason to come in the cathedral and RP the davite lore.

To solve these problems, I'd propose to:
- Refrain the usage of the term heresy for believing in the Path of Fire or the Cult. Remove all mention to the Lord of the Springs from those heretical beliefs, clarify the distinction between penance and path of fire things since apparently it's not clear. Clarify that there's no IC reason to pyre an heretic, the branding should be their strongest penance.
- Separate somehow the clergy from the inquisition. Priests should not be able to become inquisitors for the seal of confessions to make sense, and inquisitors should not be able to hear confessions. Priests should be trained by priests, inquisitors by inquisitors. The clergy could develop its vision of the Erra, and could have the power to hold the hand of the inquisition when it concerns the people they hear in confessions. My feeling is that this would allow the inquisitors to play their role more easily: their repression would be balanced by the clergy, easing their stress.
- I'm also wondering if installing the knights in the cathedral would'nt give everyone more RP opportunities. Maybe that the cathdral could be split in two: on the east inquisition and knights private area, on the west, clergy area, with a room in the middle for whole guild meetings.

You make some good points. Different forms of heresy and likely punishments could be laid out more, like has been done with secular law. I wouldn't say heresy should ever be avoided as a word, though. Heresy simply means going against the doctrine of the religion- it can be very minor, not even needing penance, or it can be major enough to need a burning. Believing a religion other than Davism is most definitely heresy, but it's not necessarily a death sentence if they claim to repent when caught.

from help heretic:

                            Helpfile for Heretic

A heretic is a person who defies the religious teachings of the Holy
Order of Dav, and the act of defiance itself is the sin called heresy.
Heresy can be minor, if an individual merely questions or defies a small
tenet of the religion - but it can also be major, up to full acceptance of
magery or belief in an alternative religion.

Heretics are generally viewed with even more disdain than mages, as some
mages can be sympathetic figures.  Most Davites believe magery is inborn,
not chosen, so some kindly individuals often understand why mages reject
Davism out of fear for their lives - even while knowing that these mages
are wrong and must still be burned.  Heretics, on the other hand, have
chosen to reject Davism without any such sympathetic reason.

Serious but repentant heretics are most commonly branded with a mark that
tells others of their heresy, letting them know that the branded individual
requires careful guidance (and careful watching) lest they fall off the
path to righteousness once more.  This mark often results in shunning lest
any taint remain or suspicion fall upon the heretic's associates.  It is
only repeated and unrepentant heresy that is typically punished by
excommunication or, in cases where no repentance is ever seen as likely,
death at the pyre.

(Subject area: religion               Last modified: Thu May  7 19:40:26 2015)

An interesting note on Path of Fire, though. On original TI there was a bit of lore that it was mildly tolerated, from a story of a Priest of the Path shielding an Inquisitor from being stoned to death when he came for him. I don't believe that's still canon, though.

I agree that Priests and Inquisitors should probably be split into separate paths, so confession will make more sense.

I think Knights are good in their Keep though.

[Evrald]

As a note, Heresy is best left only partially defined. It's part of what makes the Inquisition a terrifying thing, when an Inquisitor accuses someone of Heresy, if there's a set rule for what is and isn't Heresy it would actually undermine the Inquisitor's authority in the matter. If your character ICly finds themself questioning the Holy Order of Dav, they are infact a heretic. Whether they feel justified in their questions or not. To question the Order is to question there very foundation of the Order and it's constant struggle against Mages. The Holy Order of Dav has in the past and still is a very clear example of "If you are not with us, then you are against us." There is no middle ground really, you're either a Davite or you're not. If you're a Davite whose a heretic, then you're a Davite who is in fact a Heretic and will be treated as a Heretic. If you're not a Davite then you are by default a Heretic of one of the highest offending states.

[Lei]

I believe that the Cardinal should be far from a 'Neutral' party. If someone sends the Cardinal a letter of, "Hey. Your Grand Inquisitor is being a douche!" the cardinal should infact respond with, "Maybe you're a douche? Should I schedule you for a Review of Faith for your questions about the Leadership of the Holy Order of Dav?" The only time a Cardinal should respond any other way is if it's multiple Guildleaders and Nobility stepping up to complain about the Grand Inquisitor. Or if the Grand Inquisitor's Approval is at the Red gambit stage at which point the Cardinal sends a letter saying, "Hey. I'm hearing a lot of negative things about you. Figure it out, or they will call for your resignation." The player then has their time before the 'Cardinal' issues a Gambit leaving it in the on-grid players hands.

Doing it this way makes the Order's management feel very unified and basically tells players that if they want IC recourse for the arguably most powerful position on Grid, they need to work together for it and not just send letters to staff crying that they were the only person not able to play in the playground because the GI is a butt to mages or heretics or anyone who doesn't actually act like a good Davite. News Flash to those who aren't aware, If you are in Lithmore(the entire grid) and you don't openly act like a good Davite, you do infact have a reason for the Inquisition to not like you and make your life a living hell, up to and including branding and pyring.

This, absolutely this.

[Geras]

I just want to Taunya and Helena have the right of it.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I absolutely agree with Evrald's interpretation of things. And, again, while everyone agrees that the Cardinal should be used when a Grand Inquisitor "goes rogue", this isn't the way that the Cardinal has been used. I get "responding to PC plots", but I've always heard Staff comment that Staff Assistance is for times when on-grid efforts are exhausted or beyond reach, not as a go-to to avoid having to deal with others. Like Tasker says: if you think a Grand Inquisitor needs to be knocked down a notch, go to the Earl Marshall or the other Great Lords. If you're a Great Lord, use that reach to involve other influential players rather than to try to absolve yourself of conflict.

TTo solve these problems, I'd propose to:
- Refrain the usage of the term heresy for believing in the Path of Fire or the Cult. Remove all mention to the Lord of the Springs from those heretical beliefs, clarify the distinction between penance and path of fire things since apparently it's not clear. Clarify that there's no IC reason to pyre an heretic, the branding should be their strongest penance.
- Separate somehow the clergy from the inquisition. Priests should not be able to become inquisitors for the seal of confessions to make sense, and inquisitors should not be able to hear confessions. Priests should be trained by priests, inquisitors by inquisitors. The clergy could develop its vision of the Erra, and could have the power to hold the hand of the inquisition when it concerns the people they hear in confessions. My feeling is that this would allow the inquisitors to play their role more easily: their repression would be balanced by the clergy, easing their stress.
- I'm also wondering if installing the knights in the cathedral would'nt give everyone more RP opportunities. Maybe that the cathdral could be split in two: on the east inquisition and knights private area, on the west, clergy area, with a room in the middle for whole guild meetings.

Believing in a Cult is a heresy. As Taunya accurately notes, it does not carry with it a serious sentencing unless the person in question refuses to show repentance from such a belief. Others accurately note, too, that 'heresy' is a very broad term that is intentionally vague in order to empower the Holy Order to take action where it deems necessary. Defining it more precisely will only encourage people to ignore the Holy Order even more as they try to dance around definitions of Heresy and place their characters just inside the realm of safety that TI:L doesn't promote. It comes down to this: getting on the bad side of the Inquisition is a terrible thing. That could be for any reason, from either legitimate Davite reasons or more personal reasons.

The Priest's role of balancing out the more aggressive hand of the Inquisition is already the case for Priests. An effective Priest aligns themselves to the fiber of the community they serve and dedicates their days to community projects and counciling (re: Confession) in order to assist the devout person into a more complete understanding and devotion of the Lord of Springs. Many players might remember Paton, a recent Priest who tended to be very well-loved by most people and offered a great counter-point to the more stern aggressiveness of Grand Inquisitor Farra. However, the role of priest tends to not be a very glamorous one - it's a position that doesn't come with the same inherent intrigue of Inquisitor or Knight, and from all I've seen in the past the Priests tend to be the ones targeted for magical mayhem over Knights or Inquisitors, presumably because they are "easier targets". A lot also seems to keep being made of the troubles of a Priest becoming an Inquisitor and having confessions remembered, as if this is some conflict of faith. It's absolutely not. No good Davite admits to being a mage and then doesn't turn themselves in to the Inquisition. It is literally not possible, thematically, for a Thematic Davite to not turn themselves in. Confession is not a time to brag about one's exploits to the authorities, it's a time to submit one's self to observation and find penance for their sins. If a mage does this and yet refuses the penances, we shouldn't really be surprised that, down the road, there are consequences. There are a ton of existing ways for a Mage to talk to a Priest safely that aren't hampered by complaining that some priests go on to become Inquisitors.

Also, most of the stress that Inquisitors report is the OOC stress of dealing with policy cases, from what I've ever heard. Most who play the role gush about how fun it is to play the role when they are enabled to play it; when people take things out of IC situations to OOCly complain or to try to hide from recourse, that's when being an Inquisitor gets frustrating. We've had players very pointedly avoid the city when they see Inquisitors online, for example, because they suspect they might get caught and brought in for Questioning. THAT is stressful!

What sort of guild opportunities would getting rid of the Keep cause, exactly? The Knights need a large, open area in order to provide for their training, and the Clergy need a place close to the Cathedral for their studies and dormitories. This solves literally nothing of a problem that probably only exists for the unimaginative.

[chronodbu]

I'm finding myself disagreeing that the Order doesn't feel dangerous or powerful. They regularly burn people, arrest them for heresy, and threaten to put them to Review. I know when I was playing the head of the Reeves I had to seriously consider what I could or couldn't do in regards to them when dealing politically and at no point did I feel like I could or should get in the way of something too heavily religiously involved.

This view also felt the same when I played a Knight. At no point did I feel like I was unable to do my job.

I guess I just find it difficult seeing how a group that can easily PK someone based on a threat of heresy -isn't- dangerous or oppressive.

[chronodbu]

As a counterpoint to confession, and I may be wrong, so staff might need to give some clarification here:

Confession isn't just about getting a punishment. It's about going to a priest for guidance. If a person goes and confesses to being a mage, in the essence of the privacy of the confessional, I think it would be far more interesting if it was an opportunity for the clergyman to try to guide the mage towards doing the right thing.

If the Mage is obviously going specifically to laugh at them and spout heresy, well, that's another thing entirely. That's not really confession, it's abuse of the confessional.

[Taunya]

Perhaps rather than neutral, I should have said incorruptible. As far as I know, it's already the case most of the time that an NPC will just kick back a message saying "lol, deal wit it" if it's being done to avoid RP.

Heresy is best left only partially defined. It's part of what makes the Inquisition a terrifying thing, when an Inquisitor accuses someone of Heresy, if there's a set rule for what is and isn't Heresy it would actually undermine the Inquisitor's authority in the matter.]

I sort of had the idea of general guidelines to tell the truth. They needn't even be public knowledge, but could be referred to when dealing with sinners and other things. They might already exist for that matter, I haven't played in the order yet. But for example over the years I've had Inquisitors give conflicting information on how I should deal with taint after being present at a magical incident, from "Oh, throw yourself into the Bren" (it was Winter) to "Nah, you're fine."

However, the role of priest tends to not be a very glamorous one - it's a position that doesn't come with the same inherent intrigue of Inquisitor or Knight, and from all I've seen in the past the Priests tend to be the ones targeted for magical mayhem over Knights or Inquisitors, presumably because they are "easier targets".

That was my reasoning for the earlier resistance suggestion. Mainly for general clergy- Inquisitors have access to other tools that make them a riskier target. I do wish Priests were picked on less even without something like it though.

A lot also seems to keep being made of the troubles of a Priest becoming an Inquisitor and having confessions remembered, as if this is some conflict of faith. It's absolutely not. No good Davite admits to being a mage and then doesn't turn themselves in to the Inquisition. It is literally not possible, thematically, for a Thematic Davite to not turn themselves in. Confession is not a time to brag about one's exploits to the authorities, it's a time to submit one's self to observation and find penance for their sins. If a mage does this and yet refuses the penances, we shouldn't really be surprised that, down the road, there are consequences. There are a ton of existing ways for a Mage to talk to a Priest safely that aren't hampered by complaining that some priests go on to become Inquisitors.

I'd argue people can struggle with this and still be a good Davite. Maybe they have dependents, or other circumstances, where they would seek the pyre in the end, but can't yet. As an example, assume a woman is pregnant when their latency reveals itself. I'd see a good Davite immediately going to a priest to confess, but not saying "Welp, good show, time to hop on the pyre!" and going straight to the inquisition. When a priest can become an inquisitor at any time, this undermines that kind of trust. I can understand the OOC frustrations it could cause when the Order is pretty empty and there's no one on the Inquisitive side to step up to GI, but I think I'd prefer seeing it go to apps rather than putting a priest into the role, if we want really intriguing confession RP rather than just minor mostly meaningless confessions.

[DeadHandsome]

You can't be a good Davite and be a mage. It's not possible. Dependents or not. If you're a mage and a Davite and you're not ON YOUR WAY to the Pyre you are doing it wrong. Everyone around you thematically according to the Davite belief system can be corrupted by your Taint. It's not possible. A mage that thinks they are a Davite and is not submitting to being burned is a heretic.

Ammended to add: Any extinuating circumstances would have to be up to the Inquisition if you were playing a thematic mage davite.