Happiness versus Law?

**Nfilheim** · 12-07-2005, 19:32

What is the difference between Law and Happiness that temples give? Take Armenia for instance. They have one temple that gives only happiness, to a maximum of 40 pts, and one temple that gives a total of 20 law and 20 happiness, for a max of 40 pts, too. Now, why would I choose one over the other to build? The max public order I get from both is exactly the same.

I've read that Law cancels corruption, okay. Does happiness cancel something else, then? And if not, why would I ever build the happiness temple? The only scenario I can think of to build the happiness temple would be if the settlement in question was close enough to the capital to not have corruption. Unfortunately, close to the capital you have less need for public order and other temples would make more sense to use (in this case Armenia gets +2 troop exp, some happiness, armor and weapon bonuses (iirc)).

Aside from a role-play perspective, I don't get the point. Diversity for diversities sake? Thanks.

**The_Doctor** · 12-07-2005, 20:52

Welcome, Nfilheim

The only advantage that I can think is better traits/retuine members.

**Conqueror** · 12-07-2005, 21:02

I think the Law bonus is better as it reduces corruption, which helps your economy. Also, many of the Happiness temples tend to give seriously bad traits to governors. Such as the Temple of Dionysius (for Seleucid Empire) which gives alcoholism traits.

**Ludens** · 12-07-2005, 21:15

Originally Posted by Conqueror

I think the Law bonus is better as it reduces corruption, which helps your economy. Also, many of the Happiness temples tend to give seriously bad traits to governors. Such as the Temple of Dionysius (for Seleucid Empire) which gives alcoholism traits.

I think you are correct. The difference is mainly in the traits and retinues given by the temples. Temples of fun are bad news, usually. Law temples are less pronounced when it comes to traits and retinues, but also less risky.

**Nfilheim** · 12-07-2005, 22:02

Ahhh, okay. I guess that does make sense. Law implies a certain degree of restraint-order, as opposed to order-through-overindulgence. I'll stick to the law temple