Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Cardinals, Popes, and the Holy Roman Empire

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(6160)

unmerged(6160)

Member of Parliament 1900
Oct 24, 2001
916
0
Visit site
How should Cardinals, and Paple Elections be held in the game? I think Cardinals should be characters like nobles and some clerics. I think that if Rome is occupied, not all cardinals should attend the election. If a cardinal is a member of your family maybe you could forbid them from going. If you occupy Rome, could you outlaw another paple election, this has happended before. There should be times when there is no pope, he died the Emperor entered Rome, and cardinals are forbidened to meet, or the meeting is in exile. I think cardinal spots should be able to be bought, if the pope is strapped for cash, also the pope can defrock cardinals, bishops and all other clerics.

BTW: the paplacy is controllable and buyible.
 
I really don't like the idea. For one it will be somewhat insulting to Catholics, one of who's beliefs is that the Holy Spirit has guided all papal succession since Peter, (that of course doesn't mean that all pope's were good, just that God simply had a purpose for each that we don't understand; or, as the saying goes, "God works in mysterious ways"). In any case it is dogma that the HS has protected the papacy.

For another it will have a strange effect on the development of the Church in the period. I.E. possibly no Franciscans or Dominicans (both were a big part of life and politics back then).

And then there is the conversion from game to game feature that will get all complicated. Say that there is a schism going on with 3+ popes when you end CK? How in God's name do you convert that, let alone the messed up names list (if there's a Pious III in say 1312? then who will succeed Alexander IV in 1503 in EUII?) .

It's a potentially horrible mess. Once you get into Papal politics you get into Church politics in general, like doctrinal development (you'd be surprised how intimately connected it was with papal politics) and such. It's a can of worms.
 
I definitely agree with the Leper King. The man's a genius. Great flick.. great freaken flick.
 
Sometimes it seems like you have a bit of a political agenda Leper :p

I do not see why it is offensive. Is it not a known fact that the papacy was highly corrupt perhaps even to today?

Of course its not as bad today if at all, but there was much immorality in the church heirarchy in the 'dark ages' and I don't see how portraying this in a historically accurate fashion would be offensive.

:)
 
Neither do I; if one applies that bit of catholic logic, the entire idea of an alternate-history game should be offensive / inappropriate for them, and thus that feature (influencing papal elections) should not be that offensive to catholics since those among catholics who would be offended by it, also won't be playing the game anyway.
 
Originally posted by historycaesar
I agree with Jaron, I don't won't to offend anyone, but the game portrays Orthodox Greeks as Heretics, and Jews/Muslims as heathans. The game makes it looks like the crusaders were perfect saints, and they had to comit these autrostacities.(BTW how do you spell that word)?

However I believe Snowball mentioned that papal elections are controllable as is the Holy See itself.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your statements, because I have not gotten that impression in any way.
 
I think they should be represended in game. I don't think they will offend anyone. And changed my top post, the game doesn't offend any groups, I hope. However the papal elections where a major part of the medieval ages, and I think they should be represended, if it can be done in a none offense way.

I don't won't to offend, but several medieval popes where bad men.
 
Hmm... tricky questions. I personally think the influence ends at being able to "make" a certain person with good attitudes a cardinal, and perhaps "promote" another certain person for the position of Pope. I.e. no direct control.

However, nothing has been mentioned about what you can do if you hold Rome, AFAIK.
 
The Leper King, there is a game in which cardinals were bought and the Pope was controllable and elected because a faction had bought more Cardinals than the others. These two kind of character could even be assassinated by the player anytime. The game is Machiavelli : the Prince.

If it hurts Catholics' sensibility, it's too bad for them. In other words, let them eat cake.

I don't think Paradox and Snowball should stop to represent an historical situation which happened up to ten centuries ago. There are plenty of books, films and games that has represented the Christian Church in a realistic not-so-beautiful portrait. This wasn't really Christiendom, it was medieval power play under the wrap of Christiendom. If there are some Catholic that might be offended, then they should not buy the game, not read those books and return to their dogmas while leaving history-buffs alone. For my part, I see the Higher clergy of that time as it has really been : corrupted, manipulating and ambitious. Papal elections were a major even for Lords in their interpares game of power and prestige, they should go all the way through to simulate the whole package, even with corruption, lustful ambition and lucra.

Drakken
 
Wow, I didn't expect such a response to my post. I was simply voicing my reservations about the potential for poor implementation of this game.

The game's very nature has the potential for great offense to many groups. However, I do believe the game has great potential :p. My comments were an attempt to show, not why I think this game is going to be poor, but why it should take itself seriously; not like M:TW or other games set at the time. And, if it comes to it I'm prepared to accept papal politics in the game as more then just an abstraction, with all that that implies (including the potential destruction of the papacy, and thus the Catholic Church).

Having said that however, some things need to be pointed out.

An accurate representation of western Medieval society will require quite a bit of Catholic background (especially if you plan to represent papal politics as part of the game). The things that effected people back then were different then now. Indeed, what gave the Pope his power was simply the fact that the people DID believe him to be their spiritual head. The Catholic religion was all pervasive in secular politics (In fact you might say their was no secular life, as opposed to religious). The actions of councils and popes were, simply put, of universal importance to the Christian princes of Europe.

If you plan on changing things like the history of the papacy, what about the history of councils? One effects the other, as far as western Christendom is concerned. If you plan on going as far as putting conciliar history in the game (which you would probably have to if you want papal politics) then to what extent do you plan to have them effect the people? This becomes a serious problem the more accurately you try to recreate the reality of medieval civilization.
 
I didn't accuse nor blame you of anything, I do believe that you're as much eager to play this game as I am and you want CK to be the best medieval game ever. :)

I only said that we shouldn't take the reservations of some Catholic fundamentalists into account. After all, slavery was represented in EU, albeit in a rather abstract and indirect matter. However, the role of the higher clergy in CK will not be abstract. It could make or brake your dynasty. That is why I think that the perversions of the Church should be fully simulated so that we may immerge in the politics of that era.

I hope you'll be in the beta to voice your opinion on the matter. :D

Drakken
 
Sorry I meant to respond to your post earlier.

Originally posted by Drakken
If there are some Catholic that might be offended, then they should not buy the game, not read those books and return to their dogmas while leaving history-buffs alone.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood my point. I never claimed that all the popes were perfect saints. In fact since I was advocating using the actual history, i.e. not changing the list of popes, then wasn't I technically asking for all the real saints and sinners who've held the Keys? Also I've spent the last 5 years of my academic life devoted almost exclusively to Church history. I am considered by every one I know to be a "History-buff." I can assure you having a knowledge of history doesn't preclude being a Catholic. Quite the contrary, the more I studied it, the more I appreciated my faith. I can if you whish go through the complete (known)history of every pope from 1066-1453(and more if you want), and I'll prove to you that ambition, corruption, and lust among the popes were vary much the exception rather than the rule.

For my part, I see the Higher clergy of that time as it has really been : corrupted, manipulating and ambitious.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. My opinion, which is based on a knowledge of the lives of the popes of the middle ages is that the vast majority of them fought against such things in the clergy. You don't have to believe that of course. But then, you probably didn't study the lives of the popes ;).



PAX.
 
I believe Sergei said that the list of popes can and will change.

I think it will be interesting to see how the conflict between church and state will evolve, and what the popes will do when they are controlled by a power hungry king.

Pax Amici
 
I like the idea of papel Elections, because like Philip Le Bel, he controlled the Papacy for his own ends i.e. to squash the Templars. So if you had elections, you could try win over support from the Cardinals, mayb if u have paid homage to the church, and not declared war etc wiv anyone of the "True Faith"....or maybe just invaded and installed your own pope ;). It would be fun to control over the Papacy to your own ends. (Choose to ask the Pope to squash the Hospilitars instead of the Templars with an English Pope on the Papal Throne instead of a French one etc)
 
I like the idea of papel Elections, because like Philip Le Bel, he controlled the Papacy for his own ends i.e. to squash the Templars. So if you had elections, you could try win over support from the Cardinals, mayb if u have paid homage to the church, and not declared war etc wiv anyone of the "True Faith"....or maybe just invaded and installed your own pope . It would be fun to control over the Papacy to your own ends. (Choose to ask the Pope to squash the Hospilitars instead of the Templars with an English Pope on the Papal Throne instead of a French one etc)
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea:) However, it is your dynasty that will be doing this stuff and risk the lowering of the piety. I stand with Leper King, in that we should have knowledge of background in the Church.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. My opinion, which is based on a knowledge of the lives of the popes of the middle ages is that the vast majority of them fought against such things in the clergy. You don't have to believe that of course. But then, you probably didn't study the lives of the popes .
Click to expand...

I agree, I have read alot regarding Medieval history, and I can say that he is right. Like priests, during Black Death, Priests were the first one to go, I mean they took care care of the sick thus being infected themselves, so there are no priest left since most of them died and corrupted priests went into hide. If you read the history, you will see that most of clergy worked hard against corruption, and that there are only some whose being corrupted, not everybody in clergy. In fact, Pope and Emperor often got into conflict because Pope tried to eliminate the corrution within Church (lay investion for example) but Emperor didn't want that since that would mean the control of Church get out of his hand.

By the way, most of corruption came from people from ambitious wealthy family like Borias, Medic, and the power hungry. The Church was not more corrupted, just more prominently. I mean, everything have the share of power hungry people, and Church seems to be the best place for those people whose can't inherit the lands (second son of a noble) and Church worked hard to disencourage the corruption. Damn, I am lousy at expressing my ideas, and clarify it.:mad: My point is that Leper King is right.

By the way, more I learn about the Church, more I appreciate my faith. Also, how my faith, Catholicism, has evolved throughout the history, it is very fasicinasting to me.
 
Still, you must admit that the corruption was far more present in the higher clergy, like I stated earlier? I wasn't talking about the low clergy, the priests in the parishes. There I agree that corruption was far less present.

Drakken
 
Originally posted by Drakken
Still, you must admit that the corruption was far more present in the higher clergy, like I stated earlier? I wasn't talking about the low clergy, the priests in the parishes. There I agree that corruption was far less present.

Drakken
Click to expand...

That's what I meant too.
 
I think papal elections and the ability to influence them is not only a good option, but a must if the period reality is to be represented correctly. Since we change the history of the game by possible extinction or non-historical raise to power of historical dynasties, I see no reason why the church has to be treated differently.

Besides, as it was said, papacy will not be playable, just controllable, i.e. you will have only some influence on papal politics. This does not prevent the popes from holding major religious events (like councils) on their own, through scripted events. Your control won't include things like changing doctrine to nestorianism or allowing women to become priests - it will be more in line of getting a leverage to excommunicate an unruly noble or call a minor crusade - something like in the great old game Machiavelli, when you could not only elect the Popes, but even assassinate them - and noone seemed offended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back