Winter is here and the ice-fear is very cold (now there's an obscure reference for you). For today's diary, I thought that we might immerse ourselves in medieval jurisprudence. In practice, the laws function in much the same way as in Rome: Vae Victis, but in Crusader Kings II there are two different types of law; one that applies to a character's actual demesne (de facto, or demesne laws) and one that applies to everyone within an ancient traditional kingdom (de jure, or kingdom laws.) Demesne laws cover things like succession, tax levels and how the council operates. Any playable character can fiddle around with his own demesne laws. Kingdom laws cover the freedoms, rights and obligations of burghers, nobles, clergy and peasants. Only the holder of a Kingdom title is allowed to change these laws, and they will affect the whole geographical kingdom, regardless of whether a province is actually under its de facto control. (Like in Crusader Kings, de jure duchies and kingdoms are static, geographical entities that never change.)

Therefore, a player who is, for example, king of Norway and Denmark must change de jure laws separately per kingdom. To make things even more interesting, succession at the kingdom level (and only at the kingdom level) is also handled per kingdom, so Norway might be an elective monarchy while Denmark has primogeniture. Thus, the Norwegian dukes might elect another successor to the throne of Norway than the oldest son of the current king, which would split the kingdoms apart...
Speaking of succession laws, they are slightly different from the ones in Crusader Kings. In Crusader Kings II, most succession laws can be either cognatic or agnatic (that choice is a separate law.) These are the succession laws of CKII:

• Seniority (oldest man in the dynasty succeeds)
• Primogeniture (oldest son succeeds)
• Elective (the current king and the dukes each nominate a successor)
• Gavelkind (all titles are divided among the sons of the ruler)
• Turkish (a succession crisis is almost guaranteed, but the vassals are content)
• Republican (a random vassal or courtier succeeds; used for republics, etc)
• Catholic Bishopric (the liege lord can override the Pope's choice by nominating his own successor)

That's all for now. The game is still a very long way from being finished, but I can at least offer you this screenshot of the current Law interface (though bear in mind that it is still very much subject to change.) In the screenshot, the king stands to inherit the duchy, because the young duke has no legal heir. "Pretenders" are the second and third characters in the line of succession.





Until next time, I bid you a very merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Henrik Fåhraeus, Associate Producer and CKII Project Lead

 

[Captain Frakas]

Was he?

The fact is that, as soon as a bishop rule lands he become a prince-bishop.

 

[Calgacus]

The real monastic territorial powers were the results of Irish missions in the seventh to tenth centuries: Fleury, St Gall, Disibodenberg, etc. These owned lands equivalent to at least a province on the CKII map (unless provinces end up being truly massive).

Irish origin isn't particularly relevant; in the German kingdom there are more independent monasteries, but that comes from imperial policy in the 10th and 11th centuries.

Yes until 1836.
See this entry on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_durham

The term is used now, and indeed you will see it on the boards of the modern county ["land of the prince bishops"], but the term was not used at the time, certainly not in the 11th or 12th centuries. If it was used later is was not common. The term is conceptually foreign to the era; authority in the county gave from delegated shrievalty, not princelyness.

 

[King_Duncan]

Irish origin isn't particularly relevant; in the German kingdom there are more independent monasteries, but that comes from imperial policy in the 10th and 11th centuries.

Sorry, my point wasn't that you wrong about the importance of imperial monastic centres (quite the opposite). I was just making a related comment (that amongst the important centres in the German world, Irish foundations featured prominently, and that monasteries in the Empire in general could be very powerful).

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

I like the idea of a King-Archbishop being able to claim to be Pope, or at least a Patriarch. Of course, the existing ones would probably object.

But seriously, you could get a powerful bishop take over enough land to claim a "King" title, and I just can't think of a better title than King-Archbishop or possibly King-Cardinal.

In fact, thinking about it, the Count/Duke/King section of the title could be independent from the Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinal section if the first was awarded based on land claims, and the second based on a grant from the Pope/Patriarch, or if either/both were gone, if you had enough balls to claim the title.

Personally I would think Archbishop as a title would be enough. Maybe Patriarch if you get a king title?

 

[Woody Man]

Generally speaking though, large swathes of land =/= higher ecclesiastical title.

 

[rho]

I'd like to speak up in favour of allowing an option where women can inherit on the same grounds as men, or even an option where women could take precedence over men (and hopefully do so without coming across as marginally insane).

With their being an element of roleplay to CK2, this is something that's important to me. I find it much easier to identify with and roleplay a member of my own gender than I do with a guy.

I know that it's completely ahistorical, but that's not a bother to me. I like to think of this sort of game as being more a case of "how things could have been" than how they actually were, since I'm going to be influencing the way things happen anyway. I'm also only asking for it to be there as an option. The history buffs whose enjoyment is based more on verisimilitude can just turn it off (or keep it off, depending on which is default) and not have to worry about it.

 

[Sute]{h]

I think rho does make a very compelling argument here. Even though I'm normally in the segment preferring historical plausibility, I can fully understand why it is easier to identify with ones own gender. Among my friends the female gamers tend to play mostly rpgs, so CK's more rpg'ish approach to strategy does have the potentiale to tap into a wider audience than the more hardcore grand strategy games.

 

[Caranorn]

I'd like to speak up in favour of allowing an option where women can inherit on the same grounds as men, or even an option where women could take precedence over men (and hopefully do so without coming across as marginally insane).

With their being an element of roleplay to CK2, this is something that's important to me. I find it much easier to identify with and roleplay a member of my own gender than I do with a guy.

I know that it's completely ahistorical, but that's not a bother to me. I like to think of this sort of game as being more a case of "how things could have been" than how they actually were, since I'm going to be influencing the way things happen anyway. I'm also only asking for it to be there as an option. The history buffs whose enjoyment is based more on verisimilitude can just turn it off (or keep it off, depending on which is default) and not have to worry about it.

Sounds reasonable as long as it's an option...

P.S.: I've role played female characters before, but agree that it's easier to get into a game if your character is also of your gender...

 

[Woody Man]

It's a great argument, but we've heard every single argument from every side on this forum and on the CK forum. This subject has been done to death and been chased into the afterlife and then whacked continually.

PI have seen the arguments, over the past few years, they know women exist and that they play games, they're not totally detached.

 

[RedRooster81]

I took advantage of the Gamersgate EU sale this week and went for Rome Gold. I am hoping that CK2 integrates some aspects. There is a family tree screen, royal councils for monarchies, senates for republics (I think that empires should have both, no?), and lists of successive heirs (similar to the screenshot posted with the DD). One aspect that I like is the division between tyranny and infamy: the former is what your people think of you, the latter for outsiders. Finally, succession laws are handled much like laws in Vicky2. I just declared a hereditary dictatorship (playing as Rome), and there is cognatic succession as my ruling law.

 

[Memento Mori]

Will the game cover the possibility of posthumous birth - meaning, if Duke Exemplar VI of Generick dies before his wife Pregnantrude gives birth to their only child, will the throne fall to his wicked younger brother Diabolus (as would happen if there was no pregnancy, what a "lucky" stroke for Diabolus), or will the throne be reserved until we find out if the newborn is Infantus or Infanta (with the titles then passing on as if the child was born before Examplar died)?

I believe this mechanic was regulated in the Roman Law (which was, after finding Justinian's digesta quite popular among the more educated scholars of Europe) as the nascitulus case. The unborn child would be able to recieve any donations or (as it is in this case) inheritences, yet only on the condition that he would be born alive. Otherwise, according to the law - he would not exist.

Obviously, it would be quite hard to implemet in the game, as doing so would either require a regent system (where there would not be a king, even de iure for a couple of months), or there would need to be a possibility for giving up the power in a kingdom/duchy for your new born relative.

Now imagine what role playing would be possible, if (in the given example) Diabolus had like 3 months of being a duke in front of him before he would have to step aside. Now, the newly aquired spymaster would look really tempting...

 

[Willem IV]

As king of Sweden I give my second son the duchy of Slesvig. Will the AI possible to change the succesion laws, or will the succesion laws as I, king of Sweden, set them? I wouldn' like it when he changes it.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

That sort of problem could be avoided if the succession laws were set per family.

That way, you as the king would set the succession law for your branch of the family, and none of your sons could change it by themselves. Only when your current king dies, and they become heads of their own family branches, could they change the policy.

Even then it could make sense to restrict their ability to change laws willy-nilly... starting wars of their own - ok. Marrying someone of their own choosing - okay. But changing the inheritance laws so that their lands are lost to the family?? NEVER!

I think that would make sense!!!! Paradox have you read this????

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

That sort of problem could be avoided if the succession laws were set per family.

That way, you as the king would set the succession law for your branch of the family, and none of your sons could change it by themselves. Only when your current king dies, and they become heads of their own family branches, could they change the policy.

Even then it could make sense to restrict their ability to change laws willy-nilly... starting wars of their own - ok. Marrying someone of their own choosing - okay. But changing the inheritance laws so that their lands are lost to the family?? NEVER!

I think that would make sense!!!! Paradox have you read this????

IMHO this wouldn't make sense at all, since laws weren't set by the ruling family but where tied to tradition and jurisprudence.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

IMHO this wouldn't make sense at all, since laws weren't set by the ruling family but where tied to tradition and jurisprudence.

Agreed.

 

[Ruwaard]

IMHO this wouldn't make sense at all, since laws weren't set by the ruling family but where tied to tradition and jurisprudence.

I agree, but it is also connected with the type of title grant, sometimes a title was created for heirs male, but in other occasions it could be a title , which was inheritable by heirs simple (male and female line).

 

[unmerged(31881)]

IMHO this wouldn't make sense at all, since laws weren't set by the ruling family but where tied to tradition and jurisprudence.

More to the point, i want a very clear law allowing the execution of the traitors who think that dyanastic heirs have the luxury of marrying someone of their own choosing.


Heck, wasn't divvying up the re-marriage of widows and the regency/guardianship of minors a valuable royal prerogative in England? Kickbacks to cronies, courtiers weaselling their way into estates, etc.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Heck, wasn't divvying up the re-marriage of widows and the regency/guardianship of minors a valuable royal prerogative in England? Kickbacks to cronies, courtiers weaselling their way into estates, etc.

Not just in England, I think. Eleanor of Aquitaine's divorce and remarriage had a pretty significant impact on French and English history. Ok, so she was pretty exceptional, . . .

 

[Earl Uhtred]

IMHO this wouldn't make sense at all, since laws weren't set by the ruling family but where tied to tradition and jurisprudence.

Sure, if local tradition becomes a meaningful obstacle to my naked power mongering, three cheers. Some things should be beyond a player's immediate control.

 

[RedRooster81]

I believe this mechanic was regulated in the Roman Law (which was, after finding Justinian's digesta quite popular among the more educated scholars of Europe) as the nascitulus case. The unborn child would be able to recieve any donations or (as it is in this case) inheritences, yet only on the condition that he would be born alive. Otherwise, according to the law - he would not exist.

Obviously, it would be quite hard to implemet in the game, as doing so would either require a regent system (where there would not be a king, even de iure for a couple of months), or there would need to be a possibility for giving up the power in a kingdom/duchy for your new born relative.

Now imagine what role playing would be possible, if (in the given example) Diabolus had like 3 months of being a duke in front of him before he would have to step aside. Now, the newly aquired spymaster would look really tempting...

I guess the big historical example of this would be Ladislaus the Posthumous (b. 1440), thanks to the machinations of his mother Elizabeth of Bohemia. I like that a five-month-old fetus (at his father's death) was head of the House of Habsburg, Duke of Austria, and King of Bohemia. The show would have been for nothing had he been a girl or stillborn. In this case, the HRE and the Crown of Hungary were up for grabs, which seems well modeled by the by-realm succession laws: I like the idea of estates deciding on who would rule, which was the case in many parts of central Europe and Iberia but much less so in Britain or France, until the late eighteenth century.