It's finally time to announce the next expansion for Crusader Kings II! You might already know the name: "Sons of Abraham". Some of you were very close in your guesses on what it might be. No, it's not a Zombie DLC! Sons of Abraham focuses on the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The idea was to go back to the roots after all the attention given to the heathens, and to flesh out the religious side of the game for the monotheists; Christians in particular.

First and foremost, we wanted to do more with the Pope; how he gets elected, what powers he has and how you can gain his favor. Thus, we added the Cardinal title and the College of Cardinals. For simplicity's sake, there are only nine cardinals, and the Pope is always elected from among their number. Cardinals, however, are not elected; they are picked by the Pope from among his courtiers and the bishops of Europe. The selection is based on many factors; age, piety, opinion, culture (the Pope really likes Italians!), etc.



So, how exactly do you get your man onto the chair of Saint Peter? Well, the Holy See is not a democracy, so this is not a direct process. First, you need at least one of your bishops to get appointed Cardinal by the Holy Father. Fortunately, you do not have to rely entirely on the character of the bishop himself, you can grease the machinery with a bit of lucre by putting money in the campaign fund (similar to how Doges are elected in Merchant Republics). Of course, it is also possible to carefully groom a candidate for a career in the Catholic church before you even make him a bishop.

When the Pope dies, the cardinals in turn elect his successor. This process cannot be directly influenced by the player, but the cardinals will reason much like the Pope does when he picks new cardinals, so it's better to have old, pious men made cardinals than incompetent wastrels whose election you paid for.



Ok, so let us say one of your bishops is eventually made Pope. How does that serve you? Well, Popes that come from your realm will like you - a lot. Of course, that means they will be likely to grant your requests. Want to get divorced? No problem. Want to invade someone? Ok. To make this even more useful, we've given the Pope some new powers as well: he can give you money, plain and simple. He can also approve your candidate for a bishopric under Papal Investiture, or even declare a Crusade on the infidel of your choice. However, each time he does you a favor, he will like you less, so your influence will not last forever. Incidentally, having your antipope installed in Rome will have a similar effect. Oh, and if the Pope should happen to be of your very own dynasty, that will give you a lot of monthly Piety and Prestige.



There are some direct benefits to controlling cardinals as well. You cannot ask to have someone excommunicated or invaded if they control more cardinals than you do.

That's that about the College of Cardinals. Next week I'll talk about holy orders, heresies, and other things...

ps.

Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham (official product page)
http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/crusader-kings-ii-sons-of-abraham

Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham announced (News article at PC gamer)
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/10/22/crusader-kings-ii-the-something-something-announced/[URL="http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/10/22/crusader-kings-ii-the-something-something-announced/"][/URL]

 

[Chevaresqye]

I only awoke from my lurker-sleep to comment about divorce, but while I'm awake, let me throw in a word about the theocracy thing as well...


I understand correctly that, apart from discussions about improvements to actual dynastic mechanics, we're mainly talking about the addition of theocracies, right? After all, republics are taken care of already.

Well, consider this - even republics are family-oriented in CK2. Like it or not, it is ultimatelyl a people-centric game. Faction-centric mechanics would undoubtedly be interesting to many players, but they are simply beyond the scope of the game. I mean, CK2 could easily be extended backwards in time to the fall of the Roman Empire - how great would that be? How many people would love it? Yes, but that's not within the scope of the game. You have to have limits, if only because a developer cannot spend infinite time on one game.

The question then is, could theocracies be made to work in a similar way to republics? Where you seek to strengthen your family within the context of the republic/theocracy? Yes, they could. *But* - there's a core difference. A family struggling for power within a republic is struggling for power within the republican system - they do not need to destroy the system to gain power, and indeed they can have high-minded ambitions to serve their republic. In a theocracy, this is different. The aims of a monastic order or a bishopric are utterly different, concentrated on spirituality. Yes, time and time again, corruption sets in and bishops became obsessed with worldly power, including nepotistic practices even to the point of elevating their own bastard children to high ranks or making them succcessors. In some periods, this was indeed rampant.

*But* - this was always seen as corruption. Even the popes who had mistresses and made their bastard sons cardinals did not ever try to *legalise* their standing, they never tried to change the rules to allow for married clergy, because this was in opposition to the goals of the institution. It's like the boss of a corporation who steals corporate funds for himself - he'll do it, if he's corrupt, but he won't ever have corporate support to change the actual rules and objectives of the corporation to justify his actions.

What this means is that running a theocracy would involve a fundamental opposition between the standard CK2 goals of the individual (power for my family) and the goals of the institution. Unlike in the monarchy, where the ruler's and the state's interests are one and the same, and unlike in the republic, where the ruler's and the state's interests can go in the same direction even though they're not identical, in a theocracy (at least of the Christian kind), the goals of the ruler would be in fundamental opposition to the goals of the state.

This could be bypassed by simply cutting out all the family-oriented stuff for theocracies, forcing the players to perceive the spiritual goals as top priority instead of looking for ways to strengthen their dynasty. But this is a bad solution as well - it results in an artificially clean picture of theocracies where, even if (through scripted events) a bishop might have a mistress and even a bastard son, this is the inconvenient exception, a situation that the player is motivated to avoid. It would be an unnaturally schizophrenic situation, where the bishop's goal is power for his son, while the player (who is supposed to be role-playing said bishop) wants to prevent such nepotistic practices. The bishop would be making decisions to prevent himself from doing what he wants to do?

First of all, I enjoy your writing. But I believe you have a big misunderstand here.

Switching to Theocracy does not affect the people-centric of the game at all, instead it only replace a blood-related faction (a.k.a Dynasty) by a non-blood-related faction (a.k.a order). As I pointed out it the previous post, blood-relation is not a critical feature of gameplay. In extreme case, you can enjoy the whole game from 867 to 1453 without even care about popping out a kid.

The focus of theocracy may be something arbitrary on theological level that does not need to affect the individual decision making.

 

[Thingy Person]

I like how the paradox dev said that playing as the Pope would be a "weird game"; yes it's weird. All the better, right? If playable theocracies are out of the question, then I hope they will at least not make it hardcoded. I'd love to create a new empire as the Prince-Bishop of Liège (which is currently impossible, as I had to ax all catholic clergy from the game in order to make the above screenshot happen).

 

[suchiuomizu]

I believe that Paradox has a game just for you - it's called Europa Universalis 4 and it's all about playing nation-states. I heard it's pretty good, although of course the forums are full of people complaining about this or that as is the case with any Paradox game.



Thankfully, the current stance is no theocracies. And for good reasons. Pseudo-dynasty will never be able to offer a better gameplay than what we already have with real ones. There would be no point in playing them over proper dynasties.

That is their current stance? They have stated in the past that they wanted everyone but the Pope playable eventually. That would include other theocracies. Just because it isn't being done in this DLC does not mean it won't happen (even if it would have been a good time to do it).

 

[Cliges]

I believe that Paradox has a game just for you - it's called Europa Universalis 4 and it's all about playing nation-states. I heard it's pretty good, although of course the forums are full of people complaining about this or that as is the case with any Paradox game.

I know you're trying to be cute (I have EU IV registered, as anyone can see) but I don't see it as an either/or question. A theocracy would not play like a country in an EU series game-it simply would not have a family based succession model. I really can't understand the problem with having a dynasty by other means. Essentially, all of the rest of the game would play out basically the same. Is it less of a challenge? Possibly, but not necessarily. There are plenty of games I have played where succession on a family member is pretty much given. Often, without even trying, there is someone whom you can play as if you lose your current ruler.

 

[DerOstkonig]

you mean like in EU4?

That is exactly what I mean.



As far as all this talk about playable theocracies with non-blood-related heirs goes. Please stop. If you allow a player to play a non-blood-related dynasty you are basically giving him the most overpowered feature ever seen in CK II.

First and foremost this game is about creative procreation. If you dont pop out enough babies its game over. If you dont raise them right its a hard game. What on earth is the challenge of adopting someone?

The papacy in reality functioned more like a Merchant republic intertwined with the EU IV Papacy system. YES the popes had kids and those like the Borgias attempted some dynasty building. Lets not dream up far flung overpowered systems to accomplish this. Besides, Paradox has put a release date on the DLC so I think its fairly clear that playable theocracies are not part of the plan for the time being.

 

[Thingy Person]

First and foremost this game is about creative procreation. If you dont pop out enough babies its game over. If you dont raise them right its a hard game. What on earth is the challenge of adopting someone?

Crusader Kings 2 is not the sims. Your prescription of what this game "is about" seems arbitrary.

 

[Seek75]

That is exactly what I mean.



As far as all this talk about playable theocracies with non-blood-related heirs goes. Please stop. If you allow a player to play a non-blood-related dynasty you are basically giving him the most overpowered feature ever seen in CK II.

First and foremost this game is about creative procreation. If you dont pop out enough babies its game over. If you dont raise them right its a hard game. What on earth is the challenge of adopting someone?

The papacy in reality functioned more like a Merchant republic intertwined with the EU IV Papacy system. YES the popes had kids and those like the Borgias attempted some dynasty building. Lets not dream up far flung overpowered systems to accomplish this. Besides, Paradox has put a release date on the DLC so I think its fairly clear that playable theocracies are not part of the plan for the time being.

Where's the difficulty in "pop[pping] out enough babies" or not raising them "right"? I don't think I've ever had a game where getting an heir is hard, and I've had several games where I've practically neglected my children but it didn't seem to make a difference. All the challenge in the game I've ever come across has either been in convincing people to back me in factions and plots and such and discerning the right opportunity to attack a strong opponent when they're at their weakest.

Maybe it's just me, and I don't mean to sound condescending, but at least from my experience, if you're having trouble with having children then I can't really see how you can manage anything else in this game.

 

[Cliges]

Th

As far as all this talk about playable theocracies with non-blood-related heirs goes. Please stop. If you allow a player to play a non-blood-related dynasty you are basically giving him the most overpowered feature ever seen in CK II.

First and foremost this game is about creative procreation. If you dont pop out enough babies its game over. If you dont raise them right its a hard game. What on earth is the challenge of adopting someone?
.

I've already said, while there is a point to be made about that, a very large majority of my games have had it thus that succession is all but guaranteed. Maybe it won't fall on the most ideal character, but I can't remember the last time it was game over just because there was literally no heir. Nor is it about "adoption" in terms of making anyone whomsoever you please the next in line; there could simply be a choice-on the part of the player or even game itself-of a new ruler from within a certain pool of contenders.

 

[Chevaresqye]

That is exactly what I mean.



As far as all this talk about playable theocracies with non-blood-related heirs goes. Please stop. If you allow a player to play a non-blood-related dynasty you are basically giving him the most overpowered feature ever seen in CK II.

First and foremost this game is about creative procreation. If you dont pop out enough babies its game over. If you dont raise them right its a hard game. What on earth is the challenge of adopting someone?

The papacy in reality functioned more like a Merchant republic intertwined with the EU IV Papacy system. YES the popes had kids and those like the Borgias attempted some dynasty building. Lets not dream up far flung overpowered systems to accomplish this. Besides, Paradox has put a release date on the DLC so I think its fairly clear that playable theocracies are not part of the plan for the time being.

There can be tons of fun and challenge with non-blood-related gameplay. First, you need to recruit member for your pseudo-dynasty. There will not be a simple buttom that would magically add a random character to your dynasty. You need to find suit characters and persuade them to join your side. The quality of new recruits can be varied depended on the size of your realm, the dynasty's prestige, the trait of the leader, and what you promise to give them in return for their service. Since there is no blood-tied, you have to work harder to please your sworn-brothers or they will leave your dynasty.

The system I described above is a lot more interesting than the current mechanics. There are a lot of challenges and risks in that system, and nothing is overpowered.

Stop thinking inside a box and use your creativity.

 

[WolfSnakeCaffer]

My biggest complaint is that there are only 9 cardinals. I'd love that number to be higher, though I don't know what the ideal number would be.

I'd also love it if cardinal elections (as well as doge elections) take time, as in the winner isn't announced instantly upon the death of the successor.

Lastly, will this expansion allow us to play theocracies?

 

[SBolshevik]

Lastly, will this expansion allow us to play theocracies?

Do people even read the posts before theirs?
No.

 

[classicist]

What this means is that running a theocracy would involve a fundamental opposition between the standard CK2 goals of the individual (power for my family) and the goals of the institution. Unlike in the monarchy, where the ruler's and the state's interests are one and the same, and unlike in the republic, where the ruler's and the state's interests can go in the same direction even though they're not identical, in a theocracy (at least of the Christian kind), the goals of the ruler would be in fundamental opposition to the goals of the state.

This could be bypassed by simply cutting out all the family-oriented stuff for theocracies, forcing the players to perceive the spiritual goals as top priority instead of looking for ways to strengthen their dynasty. But this is a bad solution as well - it results in an artificially clean picture of theocracies where, even if (through scripted events) a bishop might have a mistress and even a bastard son, this is the inconvenient exception, a situation that the player is motivated to avoid. It would be an unnaturally schizophrenic situation, where the bishop's goal is power for his son, while the player (who is supposed to be role-playing said bishop) wants to prevent such nepotistic practices. The bishop would be making decisions to prevent himself from doing what he wants to do?

Excellent points, all.

 

[Fabl3d]

Are the teutonic knights and other religious orders also gonna get some type of college of cardinals?

 

[Titan79]

There can be tons of fun and challenge with non-blood-related gameplay. First, you need to recruit member for your pseudo-dynasty. There will not be a simple buttom that would magically add a random character to your dynasty. You need to find suit characters and persuade them to join your side. The quality of new recruits can be varied depended on the size of your realm, the dynasty's prestige, the trait of the leader, and what you promise to give them in return for their service. Since there is no blood-tied, you have to work harder to please your sworn-brothers or they will leave your dynasty.

The system I described above is a lot more interesting than the current mechanics. There are a lot of challenges and risks in that system, and nothing is overpowered.

This could potentially turn out to be even more fun than the current CK2 setup. I think one of the planned 6 (at least) new DLCs should definitely be a Theocracy one.

 

[Talq]

Are the teutonic knights and other religious orders also gonna get some type of college of cardinals?

Holy orders will be discussed in the next dev diary.

 

[vyshan]

I have a question about the college of cardinals and other ways of appointing the head of religion, ie what ever method the othodox get. What I am wondering if pagan religions upon reforming can pick different methods? For instance if I reform the slavic faith I could set up a college of priests who pick the new head of the religion or i could have it use what ever the orthodox do?

Would that be possible or at least be moddable?

 

[Rhyden]

I don't know where else to ask this, but this place seems the best.
I can't remember where, but I believe someone mentioned that if a Heresy outgrows the main branch of the religion then it becomes the main branch and the main branch becomes the heresy. Does this apply to Mazdaki and Manichean in regards to Zoroastrianism as well or just to the Abrahamic faiths?

 

[TankRush]

Then please, do tell of how to make a dynastic Theocracy system which actually makes sense.

Perhaps it would simply not be dynastic in the usual sense.

While it would be dissimilar to other holdings, it would be interesting to more or less play the "country" rather than the dynasty. I could deal with it.

Yes, the obvious answer!

That maybe adding the ability to play Theocracies is appealing enough that it doesn't freaking matter that it basically ignores the dynastic aspects of the game. Since "theocracies" include holy orders too. Especially if you consider that the system is just as liable to result in 'wacky shenanigans' from some of your series of rulers.



As for the ahistorical divorce thing... I'm suddenly reminded of a thread I made years ago talking about whether they were going to add executions to the game. And being told that would never make sense because of various points about nobility and monarchs being relatively untouchable, and other details about how it just generally 'wasn't done' back then (executing nobles, that is.. kings is a bit understandable, though by no means uncommon).

I'm glad we get to give people the axe, though.

 

[DerOstkonig]

Where's the difficulty in "pop[pping] out enough babies" or not raising them "right"? I don't think I've ever had a game where getting an heir is hard

It totally depends on the character you start with. The size of your dynasty entirely determines the difficulty of this aspect. Now, if you have a playable papacy not only do you have all of europe grovelling at your feet for forgiveness and the power to make or break empires, but you can also just bypass the necessity of cultivating a strong family? I would like to see you argue for that not being overpowered.

There can be tons of fun and challenge with non-blood-related gameplay. First, you need to recruit member for your pseudo-dynasty. There will not be a simple buttom that would magically add a random character to your dynasty. You need to find suit characters and persuade them to join your side. The quality of new recruits can be varied depended on the size of your realm, the dynasty's prestige, the trait of the leader, and what you promise to give them in return for their service. Since there is no blood-tied, you have to work harder to please your sworn-brothers or they will leave your dynasty.

The system I described above is a lot more interesting than the current mechanics. There are a lot of challenges and risks in that system, and nothing is overpowered.

Stop thinking inside a box and use your creativity.

Without getting into a inquiry about how my preference of blood related dynastic gameplay is closed minded, I'll say that I highly doubt Paradox will move away from the current dynastic system, and I for one am glad about it. You shared your opinion, and I shared mine.

And as far as your personal attack at my creativity and open mindedness, please read the last four sentences of my post.

 

[Byzan]

Maybe we'll also get some events for the Latin Empire and Crusader States? :V