[Chris Byler]

It looks like there's pretty broad consensus that at least the mass-kill events (flood, emigration, probably others) should be restricted to misfortune provinces only (or should be very rare without misfortune).

Really, how many places have catastrophic flooding every year? The Nile valley and...? And the annual Nile floods didn't kill 1/4 of the population of Egypt every year, either. The only disasters I can think of with that kind of kill rate are major volcanic eruptions (Thera, Vesuvius, Krakatoa), which are once in several centuries for the whole world. Hurricanes don't kill 1/4 the population of Florida (or India). Maybe 1/10.

Now, I don't think that disasters should be eliminated from the game entirely, or even that a disaster every few years (note a year is 12 turns!) is unreasonable - for a strong misfortune scale. A God with a fortune dominion shouldn't have his people troubled with constant floods, earthquakes, barbarian incursions, gangs of troll heroes, etc. - or what use is his divine power over fortune?

So what kind of random events should be able to occur (occasionally) in a forune dominion? Poor harvests (temporary decrease in tax or supply), brigand activity, vandalism (costs gold to repair), increased unrest, superstition (decreased dominion), desertion of some normal (non-[pretender | prophet | mindless | magic | demon | undead]) troops in the province (the chance of an individual unit deserting could be based on morale), etc. One-time or temporary bad events, not permanent cripplers.

Also, there need to be more good events with better effects than the current "small amount of gold or gems". The site creation events are a nice start, but if there is a mass emigration event, why isn't there a mass immigration event, for example? Celebrants of the faith could build you a free temple. An independent mage (of some type that would normally only be recruited in a particular site, e.g. metal orders) could offer you his services.

Turmoil/luck dominions usually result in more effect from bad events than from good ones, even though there are more good events. In order to be balanced against neutral scales (given the income reduction of turmoil), turmoil/luck needs to have events be a net benefit (since luck has hardly any benefits aside from events - crossbreeding and heroes are it, IIRC). Also, misfortune needs to not be neutralized by order; it wasn't allowed in Dom I, why was that changed?

I'd just like to see the order and luck scales balanced to a point that most races could reasonably choose most combinations of those scales. It wouldn't be too bad if (as in Dom I) order/luck was usually a waste of points and turmoil/misfortune was horribly crippling but other combinations worked OK for their point costs.

Maybe order/turmoil shouldn't affect event frequency at all, but only allow/disallow certain events (volunteers for the militia or increased tax revenues would be more common in order, increased unrest, vandalism and rebellions in turmoil). Order is powerful enough for its income benefits. Anyway, I don't think an orderly population is going to be much use against a catastrophic flood.