Councillors should be present at liege's court

[SectorsAreOkay]

Do we know of any historical examples where some major landholder in the realm was on the king's council and had to travel or delegate? Surely this was a possibility. That would answer the question as to what it could look like in the game.

With my limited knowledge, I'd imagine that people on the council were people who could be near the king most of the time. The whole point of feudalism was to delegate authority over wide lands precisely because the king couldn't be everywhere and could not directly manage the entire kingdom. So it seems weird to me that these delegated authorities (counts and dukes) would be spending a lot of time at court. But I could be wrong.

 

[AaronWaterhog]

That is never implied to be the case nor does it make any sense.

It was outright started in the dev diary that announced the council mechanics, as I recall.

 

[Taerys]

I can't agree with this post enough, if i could like multiple times i would, 100% this.

When Courts was first announced i was so excited i thought to myself "Okay, they will be tying the councilor mechanic to the court and expand on court intrigue" and then came the dissapointment.

Truth is, we have 2 mechanics: the council system and the court that should be only one system tied together.

The councilors are the Liege's most able, entrusted vassals with the affairs of the realm, they should have their own goals and their loyalty (or disloyalty) towards the liege should matter more.

Each councill position should have events and goals related to their to their according specialisation:
- The marshal in all things military
- The stewards towards the realms finances
- The diplomat about politics
...you get the picture, the vassals that COME to court to seek audience with the king should be other vassals with varying interests in military, diplomacy, stewardship according to their attitude (glory hound, zelous, etc) and to their education. Make the court events matter.

Getting a council position as a vassal should be like entering the "big players league". Councilors should be able to form factions. There should also be intrigue between councilors/different factions that compete for more influence and decision power in realm politics.

The Liege should balance their council to either have loyal, skilled or powerfull vassals as coucilors. If a councillor/faction manages to get enough influence and the loyalty of enough vassal they should be able to start a coup plot. This is more historical since there was pretty hard to change a rulling dinasty out of the blue but logically the powerfull vassal would first have to become a regent and then gain a claim on the kingdom if he is not related by blood with the rulling dinasty. This would be harder if the Liege has high legitimacy vs low.

If a councilor wins a Coup plot they get most control of the the realm affairs, the kings become a puppet. The the player would have to struggle to gain back the favor of his vassals in order to regain his influence on the realm. However if the Liege fails to do so, the the powerfull vassal could eventually depose the rulling dinasty and crown himself king.

I feel like this is what Courts dlc was meant to be and failed dramatically.

 

[Knight of Lemonwood]

@Portable Grump

It would much appreciated if you could also forward this thread as feedback. <3

 

[Portable Grump]

@Portable Grump

It would much appreciated if you could also forward this thread as feedback. <3

My eyes are peeled! :eyes:

 

[A Pink Duck]

That is never implied to be the case nor does it make any sense.

It seems pretty obvious that your martial isn't cracking down on unruly peasants across an entire county all by himself. And your court priest isn't traveling the countryside individually converting villages either. There is clearly some sort of management of agents going on.

I do generally agree that some amount of locationality would be a benefit. But I'm not sure if I'd go quite so far as to say the council should always be at the liege's court. Like someone brought up using the "issues" starting would be sensible. Most of the time the staff is handling things but every so often something requires direct oversight. Failure to travel and resolve it will have consequences like the current negatives and also personal ones like getting fired or making the liege upset. One of these "issues" could even be a "the king calls the council" activity.

Also, not every task would require being somewhere else. The "train knights" task could easily be done from your own holdings.

 

[Knight of Lemonwood]

It seems pretty obvious that your martial isn't cracking down on unruly peasants across an entire county all by himself. And your court priest isn't traveling the countryside individually converting villages either. There is clearly some sort of management of agents going on.

I do generally agree that some amount of locationality would be a benefit. But I'm not sure if I'd go quite so far as to say the council should always be at the liege's court. Like someone brought up using the "issues" starting would be sensible. Most of the time the staff is handling things but every so often something requires direct oversight. Failure to travel and resolve it will have consequences like the current negatives and also personal ones like getting fired or making the liege upset. One of these "issues" could even be a "the king calls the council" activity.

Also, not every task would require being somewhere else. The "train knights" task could easily be done from your own holdings.

The thing we have in CK3 is a privy council, if it were anything else I wouldve agreed with your notion. Members of any privy council were required to reside at the King's court because they were needed to be readily available to offer council to the King. If you want to argue in terms of in game constraints, I believe that is not an argument for us laymen to make but for those who are in the game design team.

 

[A Pink Duck]

View attachment 1166806

The thing we have in CK3 is a privy council, if it were anything else I wouldve agreed with your notion. Members of any privy council were required to reside at the King's court because they were needed to be readily available to offer council to the King. If you want to argue in terms of in game constraints, I believe that is not an argument for us laymen to make but for those who are in the game design team.

Then it's not really a privy council. You saying something doesn't make it so. There is no indication that the devs intended for the council to reside at the capital and all the gameplay makes it clear that this isn't the intent.

And even if it was, I only care about historical accuracy to the extent that it makes good gameplay. Being stuck in your liege's capital would be boring. So I don't want it, even if it was more accurate for certain kinds of councils.

 

[Alratan]

Moreover, we know that the council members aren't intended to stay at the capital the entire time because there are tasks you send them on elsewhere. They can't both be intended to be at the capital at all times and have to personally go elsewhere for their duties as they don't have a team beneath them (according to you).

On top of that, all rulers having fixed capitals that they resided in all of the time is itself ahistorical, as a great many feudal rulers and courts at this time were itinerant. In this light, even if the councillors were with their liege at all times in real life, forcing them to be at their liege's court at all times in CK3 is at least as ahistorical as the current situation.

 

[SpiritRiven]

Yes yes yes yes yes this has been bugging me for a long time.

 

[Knight of Lemonwood]

Then it's not really a privy council. You saying something doesn't make it so.

My brother in Crusader Kings 3, it is a privy council because the positions that constitute the council are privy council positons. The Chancellor, The Steward, the Spy Master, The Court Priest these are privy council positions. The Court Priest requires to be at court for him to be named as such. The Chancellor position originates in France and is responsible for the Judiciary and the implementation of Royal Decrees. The Steward or the Treasurer managed the royal finances, collecting taxes, and overseeing expenditures just like in the game. The Marshal or Constable (in france) was the commander of the royal army and responsible for military affairs. These are the most prominent positions in the Conseil du Roi/Conseil Prive of the Kingdom of France throughout the 12th-17th century and are copied verbatim into CK3's council feature.

all rulers having fixed capitals that they resided in all of the time is itself ahistorical

This guy is head deep into Eurocentrism. Literally anywhere outside of Europe as early as the 9th century, Kings, Emperors, Sultans, Caliphs had permanent courts like Baghdad (you probably never heard of it), Cordobwhat?, the obscure capital of Constantinople who's emperors famously did not hold court in and instead preferred the itinerant form of governance. During the early 12th century which is a generation after the 1060 start date, France and England maintained their traditional capitals as central hubs of administration and were no longer itinerant courts.

we know that the council members aren't intended to stay at the capital the entire time because there are tasks you send them on elsewhere.

Read my original post. They are not intended to stay if their task requires them to be elsewhere, that is exactly what I said in the original post.

 

[Alratan]

This guy is head deep into Eurocentrism. Literally anywhere outside of Europe as early as the 9th century, Kings, Emperors, Sultans, Caliphs had permanent courts like Baghdad (you probably never heard of it), Cordobwhat?, the obscure capital of Constantinople who's emperors famously did not hold court in and instead preferred the itinerant form of governance. During the early 12th century which is a generation after the 1060 start date, France and England maintained their traditional capitals as central hubs of administration and were no longer itinerant courts.

I don't think your rudeness adds to your argument, especially as you've made a logical error here. I said that "all rulers having fixed capitals that they resided in all of the time is itself ahistorical". You describing realms which did have a fixed capital doesn't contradict my statement - you'd have to show that all rulers had fixed capitals to be a contradiction. I only need one example of a ruler not having a fixed capital to demonstrate that not all rulers had fixed capitals. Fortunately, you already acknowledged in this very quote that England and France didn't during at least part of CK3's run, proving my point already - but I will still link you to several for completeness.

Read my original post. They are not intended to stay if their task requires them to be elsewhere, that is exactly what I said in the original post.

But since then you've said that: a) they are a privy council; b) "Members of any privy council were required to reside at the King's court"; c) that members of the council do not have any agents do do things in their place.

Did you mean to say instead that, "They were required to reside at the King's court except when doing specifically tasks which often took them away for years or even decades at a time." I know almost nothing about the historical nature of privy councils around the world and whether they were required to stay with their ruler or not, and whether they were sent to do individual missions for several years (or even decades) or not - you're the one who introduced this. Did the privy councillors of various realms often spend years or decades away from the court on their missions, rarely going back to their lands/the monarch's court (and presumably risking being fired if they did so for a decent chunk of time)?

 

[Knight of Lemonwood]

I don't think your rudeness adds to your argument, especially as you've made a logical error here. I said that "all rulers having fixed capitals that they resided in all of the time is itself ahistorical". You describing realms which did have a fixed capital doesn't contradict my statement - you'd have to show that all rulers had fixed capitals to be a contradiction. I only need one example of a ruler not having a fixed capital to demonstrate that not all rulers had fixed capitals. Fortunately, you already acknowledged in this very quote that England and France didn't during at least part of CK3's run, proving my point already - but I will still link you to several for completeness.

Why are you making this argument :I So what if the game is inaccurate for making Kings reside at their capital instead of being itinerant, that is not an argument to make against councillors being where they should. Even if their liege were to be itinerant a moving court is a court nonetheless, Charlemagne's itinerant court included many dignitaries and nobles who followed the King along and aided him in the administration of his realm. However, itinerant courts didn't exist in CK2 but what I described in my OP did and I'm only asking for it to be brought back for the sake of immersion.

whether they were required to stay with their ruler or not, and whether they were sent to do individual missions for several years (or even decades) or not - you're the one who introduced this.

Well most of the court positions we have in the game historically required those who are named to it to be present at the administrative capital or where the king resides.
They are based off of the French privy council. They didn't have zoom or microsoft teams back in the 12th century so you had to commute to work or live nearby if you want to run the Judiciary or manage the finances of the French crown.

 

[Niall9]

So for me there are two main improvements I would like to see for councils - I am not so fussed about their location but agree they are not impactful.

First is I would like to bring back the Council mechanics from Conclave in CK2. Having councillor opinion and temperament impactful what laws and actions you can take makes them feel more alive and impactful. However I only think that should return if laws are expanded as right now there are few laws to change except crown power and succession.

Secondly, would like them to act as advisors more. Not sure how to implement but would love to see them weighing in on decisions in events and advising courses of action.

 

[A Pink Duck]

My brother in Crusader Kings 3, it is a privy council because the positions that constitute the council are privy council positons. The Chancellor, The Steward, the Spy Master, The Court Priest these are privy council positions. The Court Priest requires to be at court for him to be named as such. The Chancellor position originates in France and is responsible for the Judiciary and the implementation of Royal Decrees. The Steward or the Treasurer managed the royal finances, collecting taxes, and overseeing expenditures just like in the game. The Marshal or Constable (in france) was the commander of the royal army and responsible for military affairs. These are the most prominent positions in the Conseil du Roi/Conseil Prive of the Kingdom of France throughout the 12th-17th century and are copied verbatim into CK3's council feature.

That's totally irrelevant. If one of the defining traits of a privy council is that the council resides at the ruler's court then definitionally what we have isn't one. The fact that the terms match doesn't matter, they're common words for that context anyway. I could rename the council positions to be "secretary of defense" and whatnot and that wouldn't make the council into the US presidential cabinet.

You may believe that it should be a privy council with all that entails and it's your right to do so. But then it's your job to convince us that making that shift is a good thing. And to my mind, you haven't.

 

[Alratan]

Why are you making this argument :I So what if the game is inaccurate for making Kings reside at their capital instead of being itinerant, that is not an argument to make against councillors being where they should.

Because previously you argued it would be more historical, see this quote below when you talk about it being more accurate to what a privy council is:

Members of any privy council were required to reside at the King's court because they were needed to be readily available to offer council to the King. If you want to argue in terms of in game constraints, I believe that is not an argument for us laymen to make but for those who are in the game design team.

And see this quote from the same post as your question, where you're arguing based on history:

Well most of the court positions we have in the game historically required those who are named to it to be present at the administrative capital or where the king resides.
They are based off of the French privy council. They didn't have zoom or microsoft teams back in the 12th century so you had to commute to work or live nearby if you want to run the Judiciary or manage the finances of the French crown.

Your argument is that councillors being with their liege is more historical. I argued councillors always being with their liege at a specific capital barony, leads to an ahistorical outcome in many situations because many feudal rulers didn't spend their entire time in just one capital. My argument is that both the status quo and the situation you suggest lead to ahistorical situations. Given that your argument is based on it being far better for historical purposes, that seems relevant.

If you don't want us to discuss gameplay and game constraints (see above), and don't want us to argue history, what is left?

All of CK3 is ultimately about a balance between history, fun gameplay and the feasibility of the devs implementing it. You argument so far as I can tell is that a) it's more historically correct because the council in CK3 is the privy council (without providing very convincing evidence for this; b) the privy council in history were always at their monarch's capital; c) as a result of (a) and (b), the CK3 council should always be with their monarch, except when they're told to do a task in a distant county for several years or decades, because that's more historical; d) you think this would be better for gameplay.

I couldn't find any argument you give for (d), even in your original post, and I think that this post does a good job of pointing out some problems with it from a gameplay position, as does my original post here. It can't be a fun game decision to strongly incentivise players against using Activities, taking part in wars etc. whenever they're in their liege's council as those are (now) core parts of the game. It'd also upend the current situation of powerful vassals wanting to be in the council, even if they're bad at it. You haven't rebutted these gameplay argument. You also haven't commented on how privy councils work with regards to councillors being sent on a task in a corner of the realm for decades on end, yet still acting in their capacity as privy councillor.

If you have a good argument for it, I'm all ears (eyes?), but I haven't seen one so far, and based on your general responses to people I think I'm going to stop replying in this thread. If your suggestion would lead to a good outcome, then I hope there's a good argument for it out there so that I can see it and it can get implemented, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced so far.

 

[Bisonmask]

I'm not understanding what the argument is to not put councilors at their liege's court. Game design sure but the few problems I've seen suggested were part of the reason councilors were kept on hand and most people are just saying "nuh uh" with no added detail

 

[SchwarzKatze]

I'm not understanding what the argument is to not put councilors at their liege's court. Game design sure but the few problems I've seen suggested were part of the reason councilors were kept on hand and most people are just saying "nuh uh" with no added detail

OP is arguing that "Councillors should be present at liege's court", not "Only those at liege's court should be councilors".
The difference being that in the game, powerful vassals expect to be councilors, hence this would result in powerful vassals being in their liege's court. The OP has thus far avoided addressing this implication.

 

[Bisonmask]

OP is arguing that "Councillors should be present at liege's court", not "Only those at liege's court should be councilors".

I'm aware, I agree

The difference being that in the game, powerful vassals expect to be councilors, hence this would result in powerful vassals being in their liege's court. The OP has thus far avoided addressing this implication.

Yep that is indeed the point, I'm not sure what's causing the confusion? Powerful vassals should be people you interact with a lot and, like you they should have to delegate a lot of stuff to maintain their position in the hierarchy. A castellan is not going to be home to manage the family farm much, why should the royal steward be free to always sit at home out of sight of their liege? It also makes them more available for events with their liege and other powerful vassals, it means rivals and friends will be around to do stuff more, it means being in the capital has value. All of these are irl reasons why important vassals tended to be in around the capital when they weren't specifically on a trip to their personal land or off on some kind of mission

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I'm aware, I agree



Yep that is indeed the point, I'm not sure what's causing the confusion? Powerful vassals should be people you interact with a lot and, like you they should have to delegate a lot of stuff to maintain their position in the hierarchy. A castellan is not going to be home to manage the family farm much, why should the royal steward be free to always sit at home out of sight of their liege? It also makes them more available for events with their liege and other powerful vassals, it means rivals and friends will be around to do stuff more, it means being in the capital has value. All of these are irl reasons why important vassals tended to be in around the capital when they weren't specifically on a trip to their personal land or off on some kind of mission

So their councillors are supposed to hang around their court when they're not even there themselves? Seriously?