The towns are just material and owned by your king. Your temple, however, is the "home" of your god and religion. It should be more important to you than your own life or 10 towns.Jyrgen wrote:The thing is actually the opposite, as you don't really lose anything (but pride and emmys and whatnot) from not defending your temple, but if someone sieges your town, you're somewhat forced to PvP unless you want to "lose" your cities. And as there was nothing really much to gain from attacking temple either, people mostly did it to have some fun pvp. Not to pvp 5 hours straightMike wrote:Players want a siege system, GMs create it, players complain it creates too much pvp. Basically the only pvp you should feel compelled to participate in is temple defense, the rest is volountary. Temple attacks could be executed without the siege system.
I know, as it is now not participating in the temple defence means nothing. Some emissaries might die and the altar might be corrupted, but other than that it doesn't really have a big impact on anything. Even though this is true by game mechanism, it's untrue by RP. By RP you should fight down to the last man to defend your god and temple, because in the end your god is all you are.
The Tekstone - Nature idea I made a while back would give more meaning to temple attacks, at least to Tekstone and Nature which is something we might seriously need. Losing your temple should be bad and hurtful to a religion, not just to some player's ego, but to their characters as well.