Crusader Kings II - Dev Diary 8 - Religion | Page 7

HMAS-Nameless · May 7, 2011

Looks fantastic! I'm really keen to play right now!
Im assuming that the lack of duchies and counties are due to them still being inserted into the game?
Also may I make one little humble request? For the next DD if you are going to show any part of the map could you perhaps put it into political map mode? I'm really interested to see what it looks like!

RedRooster81 · May 7, 2011

Okay, another religion question: Reform Movements, Heretics and The Inquisition.

I would like for this to work with the new Moral Authority variable (please make this a MTTH thing, too!). So if say MA goes below 50 and certainly below 20, then you could have not just heretics but religious reformers, both coming out of the clergy and also the second and third estates. This could be construed as heresy of course (there is the great line in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose that "Inquisitors create heretics"......), by those who are benefiting from corrupt religious politics. So this would be when the Franciscans for instance would rise (Orinsul, I recall that you mentioned something along these lines in another thread), with a call for religious poverty, both institutional and personal. By the XIV century, the HRE was behind these reform movements as part of its long lasting opposition to the Papacy.

Let us not forget, too, peasant and burgher (and plebeian) calls for reform, complete with firebrand preachers, unsanctioned public preaching and prophesy, and doomsaying, with a bit of utopianism thrown in for good measure. You should be able to throw your support around utopian townsmen, monasteries, secular clergy (that is your prince-bishops), or some combination of these.

As a liege of the towns and baronies where this would occur, you should be able to set policies on how to handle such reformers. If you have certain traits, it could go either way. Would a zealous Duke of Naples embrace a reform movement targeted against papal wealth and corruption or would he support the pope, his suzerain? It might depend by default on his zealousness and the presence of a trait showing loyalty to established authority. Of course it is, to use the cliched word in US politics, "a slippery slope." A plebeian preacher calls for the renewal of the Church, which the Duke supports, then what is next? The Duke is the next target, perhaps. It should be a decision with unforeseeable consequences: decision summon_preacher_to_my_court. Then:

(a) execute him. Best to cut off the snake's head now. (25% chance: nothing happens; 50% chance: rioting in the streets, prestige -100; 25% chance: papal relations +25, piety +100)
(b) show him tacit support (25% nothing happens; 50% prestige +50, papal relations -50; 25% papal relations -75, piety -100)
(c) publicly embrace him (50% papal relations -100, piety -100; 50% papal relations -125, piety -200; set country_flag embrace_papal_reform)

I'm not looking to debate on the numbers, which should be put in line with similar events, but you should get the idea.

Low MA should also give a bonus to secular rulers looking to institute crown investiture and other anti-papal laws, provided that the king or duke or count in question is more prestigious or such than the papacy (or a similar criterion). In effect, the monarchy is setting itself up on moral high ground, claiming that with a corrupt papacy: religious orthodoxy, collection of tithes, and moral teachings should be in the hands of the Crown, because the papacy has betrayed Christ's teachings. With a rising MA at a later time, there should probably be pressure for papal investiture to return, but this can be resisted because what was lost during difficult times is not easily reclaimed.

In short, Moral Authority can be an important factor in politics and in social movements at all levels of society. Like stability (that still exists, or doesn't it?), it might be used as a MTTH factor or increase or decrease the cost of performing certain actions.

Nick B II · May 7, 2011

HMAS-Nameless said:
Looks fantastic! I'm really keen to play right now!
Im assuming that the lack of duchies and counties are due to them still being inserted into the game?
Also may I make one little humble request? For the next DD if you are going to show any part of the map could you perhaps put it into political map mode? I'm really interested to see what it looks like!

There probably isn't a political map-mode in the beta.

DD hates that the prettiest map mode (terrain) is useless in so many Paradox games, so he's trying to make a Paradox game where the terrain mode displays all the information you'd normally go to the political map-mode for, and then he'll get rid of the political map-mode altogether.

If it works the game will ship with no political map-mode.

Nick

Orinsul · May 7, 2011

sounds a good deal of fun

Menocchio · May 7, 2011

It would be awesome if each antipope was a big thing. I mean if when a antipope comes you think "OMG now half Europe with his pope against the other half of Europe with his other pope" because countries turn into the antipope impelled for their relations with the pope and with the kingdom hosting the antipope, and for their alliances and the alliances of their allies.
But if each time an antipope comes you think "Great, now the pope of Norway. Whatever... It's a Norway problem, as the other three antipopes I've seen in the last twenty years that were big deal for nobody" "How much antipopes has created Norway this game, nine??" it'll worth nothing.

kristoff · May 7, 2011

Menocchio said:
It would be awesome if each antipope was a big thing. I mean if when a antipope comes you think "OMG now half Europe with his pope against the other half of Europe with his other pope" because countries turn into the antipope impelled for their relations with the pope and with the kingdom hosting the antipope, and for their alliances and the alliances of their allies.
But if each time an antipope comes you think "Great, now the pope of Norway. Whatever... It's a Norway problem, as the other three antipopes I've seen in the last twenty years that were big deal for nobody" "How much antipopes has created Norway this game, nine??" it'll worth nothing.

+1

The feature itself is great, but I expect triggers for establishing an antipope will be so hard to meet that there will be max 1-2 at a given time and in general antipopes will happen rarely (like once in 50 years or so). Only then it will be plausible and will have a real meaning and "wow!" factor. If there will be dozen antipopes running around Europe constantly, the whole thing doesn't have much sense.

Orinsul · May 7, 2011

maybe if antipopes werent called antipopes, but it was treated as a statue of appeals light, an archbishop being brough under state control and raised in authority when it comes to taxes. And i know theres a historic example i just dont remember who.
But it seems to me the description of what an antipope is in game is nothing like an antipope but exactly like something else that i cant think of the name of but St Thomas Becket and hundreds like him spent their lifeswork to prevent.
Not the disruption of european and christian unity of an antipope, but the basic and time honoured balance of power between church and state. This being the end where the state assumes temporary authority over the church and its finances, as happened quite often in small amounts.
But antipope is certainly a more dramatic name for it so hey, it looks like fun anyway and its been announced so thats how itll be so no worries.

Denjell · May 7, 2011

The desicion to proclaim a CB for the papacy shouldnt be something that u can easily trigger whenever u feel like it, imo it should be a chain of events that could break easily and with a MTTH.

Ur dynasty ruler should also have a legitimate reason to support this antipope beyond the point of avoiding excommuntication or gain extra income.

Having ur own pope shouldnt be so easy to obtain just because its convinient to have one. U should be able to play through a whole game without having to create an antipope. There ought to be factors beyond ur own control that affects the possibility of an antipope, like the legimacy of the real pope, a series of disloyal bishops within not only ur own sphere, but in others...

The possitioning of the antipope should be weighted by the placement of the bishopric, an irish or swedish antipope within 10 year of gamestart is some that would make me frown...

Hope my rambling made some sense...

Zenith Darksea · May 7, 2011

King of Men said:
My point is rather that the Emperor would give orders to the patriarchs, possibly using the Constantinoplian one as his mouthpiece. As for examples, I don't have far to go: Iconoclasm, persecution of Monophysites, and any number of councils and synods.

Well you've pretty much disproved your own point there:

The examples you cite involved the emperor using force to strong-arm bishops, often by-passing the patriarch altogether. Leo III, the first Iconoclast emperor, is a good example of this.
It was often very ineffective. Iconoclasm never spread outside the immediate confines of imperial control - none of the other patriarchs agreed to toe the line, and what's more is that it wasn't always followed even by the patriarchs of Constantinople. Patriarch Nicephorus I, for example, opposed Emperor Leo V on the reintroduction of Iconoclasm in 815.
The Monophysites were a schismatic group deemed heretical, and so not technically a part of the Orthodox Church anyway. What's more is that you'll find that they were persecuted by secular law, not patriarchal.
'Any number of councils and synods' - look more closely at these, and you'll find that the patriarchs were nothing like a 'chief pontiff'. Not even close. The best that you're going to be able to do is to argue that the emperors used force at times to strong-arm bishops into doing what they wanted. The problem is that they also often had to use force on their own patriarchs.

Ultimately, my point still stands. I find it to be a sorry situation that games based on medieval history constantly take a pass on the Orthodox Church. It's clear that many of them, like Medieval Total War, make the Orthodox Church a clone of the Catholic Church but without any of the interesting features.

I understand what Doomdark is saying. Paradox gets to make the games it wants to make etc. etc. But really - Europa Universalis 3 got a more accurate representation of the Orthodox Church than this. I mean, come on. If you have playable Orthodox factions then you should at least put some effort in to their religion. It doesn't even have to be that detailed.

el Santiago · May 7, 2011

Hey!

It looks great, but I wonder... what about Pope's election? Will you allow to create cardinals by Pope [i.e. special title to bishops who can elect the new pope from cardinal's collegium]? What about kings pressure to elect "right" cardinal/bishop ? If collegium elect "wrong" candidate - it is good reason to start a war

- how I suppose

evilon · May 8, 2011

Orinsul said:
maybe if antipopes werent called antipopes, but it was treated as a statue of appeals light, an archbishop being brough under state control and raised in authority when it comes to taxes. And i know theres a historic example i just dont remember who.
But it seems to me the description of what an antipope is in game is nothing like an antipope but exactly like something else that i cant think of the name of but St Thomas Becket and hundreds like him spent their lifeswork to prevent.
Not the disruption of european and christian unity of an antipope, but the basic and time honoured balance of power between church and state. This being the end where the state assumes temporary authority over the church and its finances, as happened quite often in small amounts.
But antipope is certainly a more dramatic name for it so hey, it looks like fun anyway and its been announced so thats how itll be so no worries.

Actually... If you made independant archbishops rather than antipopes, and eventually these independant archbishops start talking together to gain more ecclestial (?) power, and decide to create an antipope base on whoever has the most something.

I don't know if this would be historical, but hey, I'd do it in their situation ;P

RedRooster81 · May 9, 2011

evilon said:
Actually... If you made independant archbishops rather than antipopes, and eventually these independant archbishops start talking together to gain more ecclestial (?) power, and decide to create an antipope base on whoever has the most something.

I don't know if this would be historical, but hey, I'd do it in their situation ;P

You might be able to do it in rather remote areas, not in France, Italy, or Germany, and early on, maybe in Scandinavia or Iberia or the like. Places that might be aligned with western Europe (otherwise they can be Orthodox?) but without formal relations with Rome.

Orinsul · May 9, 2011

evilon said:
Actually... If you made independant archbishops rather than antipopes, and eventually these independant archbishops start talking together to gain more ecclestial (?) power, and decide to create an antipope base on whoever has the most something.

I don't know if this would be historical, but hey, I'd do it in their situation ;P

the real problem is, an antipope isnt just a soveign asserting his authority over the church within his desine as this is, its a revolution, or atleast a coup. An attempt to overthrow the whole of europe and replace the existing authority with your own. Whereas what this DD seems to be about is more a king consolidating his power and the existing authority not being in a position to stop it. Something that happened alot and still does.
Not a schism, not an antipope, no attempt to replace the current papalcy with one of your own, or to break from the unity and community of europe. But to assert secular authority over the proceeds of church land, a thing many kings did, to assert secular authority over the appointment of ecclesiastical offices, something which again many kings did at one time or another, especially near the end. Its a minor break from the authority of the church leadership, but not a challenge to the church itself and definitely not an an attempt to topple it which is what the declaration of an antipope is.
So combing it with antipopes just seems a little overdramatic and silly.

An antipope isnt a bishop raised in importance by a secular lord, an anti-pope is appointed by the cardinals, by the church as a replacement for the incumbent. An Antipope is elected by the cardinals by the same processes and laws as a pope the only difference is that for the antipope the throne of st-peter is already filled. If it was just that the king has raised one of his bishops then he wouldn't have the legitimacy to contest the papacy.
Maybe it works practically as a game mechanic to make playing it interesting, but it doesn't have one ounce of historical plausibility.
And saying make antipope is weird too as no-one who supported them would call them an antipope. Itd be like calling yourself a heretic or a traitor. An antipope is a papal succession crisis, jacobites called james the king and william the pretender not the other way about.
its a good mechanic and looks like fun, but a change of the name would do a world of good as really it has nothing to do with the world antipope, it models the church vs. state alternating balance of power and the extremes it often ended in well as anything but has nothing to do with antipopes.

One other issue, will heresy be treated differently? or just same religion, same religion group as in EU3? As Orthodox Catholics really shouldnt be treated as heretics and albergesians/catharites or whatever the game calls them shouldnt be treated the same as the orthodox. maybe a heresy=yes in the religion entry or something to make certain that tolerance effects and heretic events dont fire where they shouldnt. Anything been said about that at all?

RedRooster81 · May 9, 2011

@ orinsul Your comments on church history are always interesting and welcome. The antipope feature as announced did seem peculiar to me as well, though I did not know exactly how to phrase it.

I would say that a better name might be "primate" or something along those lines. The secular authority is saying that the fiscal and executive power over religious matters is not subject to Rome's ultimate authority. So a bishop or archbishop is picked as the ultimate religious authority within the realm. I thought most realms should have this anyway, Castile had in time Toledo, England Canterbury, Germany Cologne, etc. This is my take, anyway.

There were especially in late medieval times understandings of one kind or another (sometimes officially recognized in concordats) between the papacy and a particular king. These were recognitions of greater autonomy, for example the king had to approve of papal bulls before they were published in his realm and the division of tithes between himself and the papacy was recognized. If that is what is meant by the antipope feature, then fine.

But it is interesting what the responses have been to the developer diary. Some have called for an antipope feature that allows you to support the current pope or the alternative; others have tended to see it (as I did initially) this as a move towards a heretical move, similar to the English Reformation or the Hussites more than anything. Then again, maybe it is meant as a more generic feature meant to cover a lot of different situations. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out.

On heresy, I would like to see the rise of different sects like the Cathars as separate religions within the Christian group. Just how many such groups should exist would be hard to say and the conditions of their existence. Another aspect of heresy, no less important, is heresy within the church, as new intellectual movements and movements for reform arise (as I earlier said, perhaps tied to a flagging Moral Authority). So the Franciscans appear in response to clerical decadence under the right conditions. Then the papacy rules on what to do with them, and secular and local religious leaders can decide, too. If deemed heretical (as for example the Spiritual Franciscans were), you can decide whether to give them sanctuary or turn them over to papal authorities. In all cases, there should be more nuanced conflicts with the papacy than "do this or I'll excommunicate you," which was often the case in CK1.

Orinsul · May 9, 2011

RedRooster81 said:
@ orinsul Your comments on church history are always interesting and welcome. The antipope feature as announced did seem peculiar to me as well, though I did not know exactly how to phrase it.

I would say that a better name might be "primate" or something along those lines. The secular authority is saying that the fiscal and executive power over religious matters is not subject to Rome's ultimate authority. So a bishop or archbishop is picked as the ultimate religious authority within the realm. I thought most realms should have this anyway, Castile had in time Toledo, England Canterbury, Germany Cologne, etc. This is my take, anyway.

There were especially in late medieval times understandings of one kind or another (sometimes officially recognized in concordats) between the papacy and a particular king. These were recognitions of greater autonomy, for example the king had to approve of papal bulls before they were published in his realm and the division of tithes between himself and the papacy was recognized. If that is what is meant by the antipope feature, then fine.

But it is interesting what the responses have been to the developer diary. Some have called for an antipope feature that allows you to support the current pope or the alternative; others have tended to see it (as I did initially) this as a move towards a heretical move, similar to the English Reformation or the Hussites more than anything. Then again, maybe it is meant as a more generic feature meant to cover a lot of different situations. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out.

On heresy, I would like to see the rise of different sects like the Cathars as separate religions within the Christian group. Just how many such groups should exist would be hard to say and the conditions of their existence. Another aspect of heresy, no less important, is heresy within the church, as new intellectual movements and movements for reform arise (as I earlier said, perhaps tied to a flagging Moral Authority). So the Franciscans appear in response to clerical decadence under the right conditions. Then the papacy rules on what to do with them, and secular and local religious leaders can decide, too. If deemed heretical (as for example the Spiritual Franciscans were), you can decide whether to give them sanctuary or turn them over to papal authorities. In all cases, there should be more nuanced conflicts with the papacy than "do this or I'll excommunicate you," which was often the case in CK1.

thats a brilliant idea! For it to be primates and the features along with

With the causes thing, one thing i was thinking about was 'either or' policies, like your realm can have its science grounded in platonic or aristotelian thought, if it its platontic you get a slight advantage to researching theory [maybe] techs and getting some events, and if a heresy breaks out itd be Cartharism or generic puritanism, ascetics or another which is an extreme of platonics. And if you have aristotelian then you get something rationalism taken to its extreme one that i cant think of off hand, humanism maybe. And bonuses to practical sciences. as a player consequence thing but also to represent the shift in views that took place thought the period.

What would be good would be if in all dealing with heresy you had the choice between dealing with it by suppression or education, rather than the suppression or tolerance that most games take. To have the option not to send in your armies but rather the Dominicans to preach and teach.
With the martial option being quick and having quite low chances of success and a risk of spreading it and the dominicians taking a long time before having any success at all but having a quick high chance of success.

But certainly having to decide how to deal with the Frairs would be great as at the start they were seen as a threat to not just the church but all the existing authorities in a way that they are often compared to the communists at the start of the last century, but by the middle of the game are firmly part of the establishment and treated as though they had always been there.
So having some sort of representation of both the threat and the stability that they represented at various parts of the game would be good, even if its just that the 'your son has run off to join the frairs' or 'frairs have arrived in our town' event has two different various depending on the date or which global flag is active. With one where you gain prestige by sending your men to drag him back/drive them out of town and the second where you lose it for the same action and gain it for the other.

but certainly as you are a lord in the game, the church vs state politics ought to have alot of potential for interest and intrigue

RedRooster81 · May 9, 2011

That's some good ideas. I'm sure that the developers have a clear idea where they want to go, but they allow us to tinker, so tinker we shall.

Religion may end up being a fruitful place for modding in the end.

On primates and antipopes, I would say that if you have one yours should be your spiritual lord by default, and he should get anxious if he is passed over for your brother-in-law who is still in seminary

In general, this should be someone who will support you in balancing religious affairs, both inside your realm and beyond. If this is what antipopes end up being (a primate with an independent streak), then it will be interesting. With Crown Investiture, you should have a strong, respected clergyman who is willing to side with you; proclaiming him "antipope" as the DD suggests might be another step in the process, but I agree that it should not be a break with the universal church. It's still a bit fuzzy for me how this would work out, but it should be an interesting dynamic.

I would like to hear how the College of Cardinals will be handled; I would not like for the major powers to each have an antipope who can be placed on the Chair of St. Peter by right of conquest. If anything, the Holy Roman Emperor could under certain circumstances pretend to have this right, but it should not be easy for even him to pull off. Having a serious schism, with opposing conclaves, is what should produce an antipope. But I say all of this with respect to the developers. Religion is a difficult thing to model, with so many potentialities to cover over a very diverse landscape.

Another idea around the friars is really accepting them, and deciding how to deal with the orders in your realm. You can grant one exclusive rights to preach or play the Franciscans and Dominicans off each other, or some mixture in between. And then there is education, too. Secular rulers had many uses for these educated and (generally speaking) dedicated men.

And each order should have some relationship with the papacy and the church as a whole. So not just events like "The Pope objects to the heretic who sits on your council," but "The Council of Lyons has condemned the Franciscans. Yet your spiritual lord is a member of that order. Turn him over to the papal legate now!"

I think that the religious angle will in part make CK2 an interesting game, beyond conquest and arranging marriage contracts.

The mendicant orders would contribute to Moral Authority generally, suppress or ease heresy, and provide civil servants to the various secular rulers, as well as aiding the spread and application of new learning. The military orders (Templars, Hospitallers, etc.) are also worth attention. Through their own priests, they can provide much the same benefit as the mendicants, and their knights military aid to their lieges. But there should be drawbacks, too, such as more demands for participating in Crusades? Just some more ideas.

Edit: I see now that I should have differentiated the Benedictines as monks from the Franciscans and other mendicants as friars, living outside monasteries. CK1 has "Templar houses" that could represent chapter houses in urban settlements. I don't imagine that Franciscans should get their own baronies, while Benedictines certainly could have abbeys. But I hope my general ideas are clear. Complexity is not nearly always a bad thing in my opinion.

Neoptolemos · May 9, 2011

Honestly, I understand the philhellenes getting irked by the way the Orthodox Church is structured (maybe it would be easier just to give the Byzantine Emperor quasi-pontifical powers and just tie severe penalties to their exercise), but my biggest concern is that, from the phrasing of the preview, it sounds like the Investiture Contest is going to be on the initiative of the emperor, not the pope. Not until the pontificate of Gregory VII is it appropriate to speak of "crown investiture" as a deviant act; just a generation before, Emperor Henry III was the most vigorous source of ecclesiastical reform in Europe, and transmontaine popes like Leo IX were interested in moral rather than organizational reform. I really hope that the 1066 scenario doesn't always start with the Investiture Contest already in progress ten years ahead of schedule, like how in the original game the eleventh-century German civil war was equally premature.

That said, the complexity and nuance of this system as implemented seems extremely promising, and I hold ever-higher hopes for this game.

SlyEcho · May 9, 2011

Logos88 said:
You now have several castles on the map on each province, and also some objects that look like churches. I'm really happy with this but is this just cosmetic?

It most likely is not multiple castles per province, otherwise Brittany has been reduced to one province. What I think it means is that provinces that are in the same demesne don't show a border at all. The black borders are borders with vassals, I think.

Then again it might be possible that there will be another kind of border within the demesne but it was not done by the time of the screenshot.

the_legion · May 9, 2011

I love Anti-Popes, now I pray the pope will counter my infamy of setting up an antipope with a "anti-king" e.g. like Heinrich IV (HRE) vs. Rudolf von Rheinfelden (Duke of Swabia).
Me, the Emperor, setting up an anti-pope, an event triggers for the biggest unloyal vassal (e.g. Duke of Swabia) offering him a free claim on the roman-german crown
if he just defeat me (beeing most likely excomunicated) and my anti-pope. In such a civil war (within a kingdom) I could only raise regiments of my very loyal vassals untill
they join either side of the fight forcing me into dealing with him quickly before everyone turns against me. That would be gameplay I'd like.
---------------

It most likely is not multiple castles per province, otherwise Brittany has been reduced to one province. What I think it means is that provinces that are in the same demesne don't show a border at all. The black borders are borders with vassals, I think.

This I guess.

Delta107 · May 9, 2011

If I understood correctly, we will be able to play only from the christian dynasties? Technically is it possible to make muslim dynasties playable?

Tsar of Australiarr

Modding Paladin

Field Marshal

Absent Minded

Colonel

Legio XXI Rapax

Absent Minded

Captain

Κατεπάνω Καλιφορνίας

Corporal

Major

Modding Paladin

Absent Minded

Modding Paladin

Absent Minded

Modding Paladin

Feersum Endjinn

████████

Colonel

Imperial Guard Conscript