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]

 

[Spazcat91]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excellent >

 

[sreckom92]

I can't wait for the next DD. It's supposed to be today right?
I hope it's not....I have college obligations all day. Damn my college....never brought me any good

 

[Quarto]

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.

Well, I believe it does affect it. As I explained, there is something schizophrenic about playing with a non-blood-related faction. Let me explain a little bit more in my reply to Thorv below on the same subject.

I like the way you have expressed your ideas, but I don’t see them as objections at all. Quite the opposite, I’d see what you are saying as all the more reason to play theocracies & have fun with them.

First of all, you are presenting a false dilemma. You claim that there’d be two ways of making theocracies playable: either the dynastic way that forces us to play as corrupt nepotists, or else the spiritual way that forces us to act against our dynastic interests. But why should the game “force” the player either one way or the other?

Let me explain why the dilemma I present is not a false one.

You will hopefully agree that the player - as a human being - will be playing with certain success criteria in mind, something that he wants to achieve. Crusader Kings *is* to some degree role-playing, which can mean switching goals and objectives in a haphazard manner as appropriate - but it is also a grand strategy game, where the player always has some vision of what he'd like his dynasty to achieve. It is safe to assume that the player of a non-blood-related faction would also have certain objectives. These can vary from person to person - someone will set out to play the Holy See as a spiritual power, striving for political power only insofar as it grants him independence from undue pressure, while otherwise concentrating on excommunicating all the right people, calling all the right crusaders, and trying to continually clean up the Church from even the slightest whiff of nepotism. Another will have a different ambition - he might decide, for example, that worldly power is the key, and that the Holy See should try to become a political superpower. In this (con)quest, he may decide that spiritual cleanliness is a value worth sacrificing.

Now, so far, so good. We have multiple players with multiple strategies. But now enters the character-driven aspect of the game. The player, in theory, is not a semi-detached "grey eminence" guiding a country. He is theoretically roleplaying the current leader of the country. Yes, there are events where you make choices for other people, but you are still mainly the current leader. And these leaders vary in personality. In an ordinary dynastic game, this doesn't really matter. Your leader might be stupid, he might be crazy, but it's forgivable to assume that at the end of the day, he wants to strengthen his dynasty by realising the objectives you, the player, have come up with. In this situation, however, things are different. You do not know who the next ruler will be - will he be a ruthless politician, a corrupt nepotist, or the ascetic religious reformer? Depending on your personal objectives, you will hope to get one of these types, and you will do what you can to make sure you get him. But very often, you will not. When this happens, the question becomes - can you detach yourself from *your* personal objectives for the state, in order to pursue the character's objectives? Or will you continue to make decisions that suit you best, leading to a paradoxical situation where the corrupt nepotist sets out to clean up the state, because even though it's not what he wanted, it is what you wanted. This is what I mean by schizophrenia - while in theory, a great role-playing player will have a world of fun trying to imagine what this new character wants to do and trying to realise it, I believe that ultimately, the game aspect and the desire to "win" (and it is I, the player, who defines victory - not the character) will prevail over role-playing considerations for most people.

To be clear, this is a concern in normal dynastic gameplay as well. Why should every single ruler of a dynasty pursue the same overall strategy? But somehow, it just seems more forgivable in that context.

 

[Chevaresqye]

Well, I believe it does affect it. As I explained, there is something schizophrenic about playing with a non-blood-related faction. Let me explain a little bit more in my reply to Thorv below on the same subject.



Let me explain why the dilemma I present is not a false one.

You will hopefully agree that the player - as a human being - will be playing with certain success criteria in mind, something that he wants to achieve. Crusader Kings *is* to some degree role-playing, which can mean switching goals and objectives in a haphazard manner as appropriate - but it is also a grand strategy game, where the player always has some vision of what he'd like his dynasty to achieve. It is safe to assume that the player of a non-blood-related faction would also have certain objectives. These can vary from person to person - someone will set out to play the Holy See as a spiritual power, striving for political power only insofar as it grants him independence from undue pressure, while otherwise concentrating on excommunicating all the right people, calling all the right crusaders, and trying to continually clean up the Church from even the slightest whiff of nepotism. Another will have a different ambition - he might decide, for example, that worldly power is the key, and that the Holy See should try to become a political superpower. In this (con)quest, he may decide that spiritual cleanliness is a value worth sacrificing.

Now, so far, so good. We have multiple players with multiple strategies. But now enters the character-driven aspect of the game. The player, in theory, is not a semi-detached "grey eminence" guiding a country. He is theoretically roleplaying the current leader of the country. Yes, there are events where you make choices for other people, but you are still mainly the current leader. And these leaders vary in personality. In an ordinary dynastic game, this doesn't really matter. Your leader might be stupid, he might be crazy, but it's forgivable to assume that at the end of the day, he wants to strengthen his dynasty by realising the objectives you, the player, have come up with. In this situation, however, things are different. You do not know who the next ruler will be - will he be a ruthless politician, a corrupt nepotist, or the ascetic religious reformer? Depending on your personal objectives, you will hope to get one of these types, and you will do what you can to make sure you get him. But very often, you will not. When this happens, the question becomes - can you detach yourself from *your* personal objectives for the state, in order to pursue the character's objectives? Or will you continue to make decisions that suit you best, leading to a paradoxical situation where the corrupt nepotist sets out to clean up the state, because even though it's not what he wanted, it is what you wanted. This is what I mean by schizophrenia - while in theory, a great role-playing player will have a world of fun trying to imagine what this new character wants to do and trying to realise it, I believe that ultimately, the game aspect and the desire to "win" (and it is I, the player, who defines victory - not the character) will prevail over role-playing considerations for most people.

To be clear, this is a concern in normal dynastic gameplay as well. Why should every single ruler of a dynasty pursue the same overall strategy? But somehow, it just seems more forgivable in that context.

You could not point out blood relation has anything to to with role playing aspect of the game. The problems you bring up here can apply to both blood-relate dynasty and non-blood-relate dynasty.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

So... Can we play as theocracies?? Just kidding, I just finished reading the entire thread and since people has been complaining about playing theocracies why the hell can't I play as the leader of a mercernary band? Or as a baron? Or as a courtier with no titles whatsoever.
I mean, if people complain they can play as 'X' just for the sake of complaining, I can think of a few 'Y' and 'Z' that can't be played either and ask,nay, demand they be playable too.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

So... Can we play as theocracies?? Just kidding, I just finished reading the entire thread and since people has been complaining about playing theocracies why the hell can't I play as the leader of a mercernary band? Or as a baron? Or as a courtier with no titles whatsoever.
I mean, if people complain they can play as 'X' just for the sake of complaining, I can think of a few 'Y' and 'Z' that can't be played either and ask,nay, demand they be playable too.

Theoretically unlanded courtiers can't be played because most of the game revolves around using your lands and claims to get on in life. If you have no holdings, you have no troops.
Mercenary bands and holy orders are a little different, as they can have troops without being landed, but you'd have no control over where you and your troops are sent, since mercenary armies are controlled by the person who buys them. You might be able to do some politics, but ultimately you have no way to declare war, and can't control your character.

Barons were deliberately excluded from being playable because they're too small to really have much impact. If you can only raise 400 or so troops, and the castle garrison is 500, good luck with managing a war and actually taking any castles...
At least with a count, in theory you can raise your 400 troops and a couple of hundred between your various barony level vassals.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Oh, I know that, but I'm still pointing out that if theocracies finally get to be played, then people will begin to complain why another 'X' ain't played.
For instance: why can't I play as an adventurer trying to steal someone's title?
I get barons are too small, and the same for landless noble, but hey, it's a game about dinasty, right? So why can't I play with a landless spymaster who is plotting to put my bastard son on the throne?
I'm not defending that they get played, I'm just trying to point the sillyness of 'IhateyouparadoxbecauseIcantplayX'...

 

[Seek75]

Oh, I know that, but I'm still pointing out that if theocracies finally get to be played, then people will begin to complain why another 'X' ain't played.
For instance: why can't I play as an adventurer trying to steal someone's title?
I get barons are too small, and the same for landless noble, but hey, it's a game about dinasty, right? So why can't I play with a landless spymaster who is plotting to put my bastard son on the throne?
I'm not defending that they get played, I'm just trying to point the sillyness of 'IhateyouparadoxbecauseIcantplayX'...

I don't think anyone here is complaining just to complain, though, so how much does it really matter?

 

[kemmy23]

I think it might be interesting to allow the Pope to pass some subtle Papal reforms such as allowing Bishops (including the bishop of Rome himself) to get married. Or even bestow titles (with special benefits) upon the most pious of christian rulers.

 

[zephrelial]

There is one important fact I think people have been missing about the playability issue regarding similar dlcs and this one.Before this dlc,when first sword of islam dlc was released(correct me if I am wrong) muslim factions have also been made playable along with new features regarding islamic factions.Also when republics dlc came out again republics were made playable as well.And lastly when the Old Gods dlc was released,pagan factions also became playable.

The only exception to this pattern is the Sons of Abrahams dlc about theocracies which was actually requested for a very long time by many players including myself.And now that it has been announced apparently unlike other dlcs this dlc won't make theocracies playable.Now my question is this... When Sword of Islam,Republics and Old Gods dlcs were released if pagans,muslims and republics weren't made playable..How would you feel? How would you react? Would you still try to rationalize and justify the decision of developers? I am certain that since unfortunately there are some people belonging to every game playerbase,there is a certain type of players whom supports and tries to justify and rationalize dev decisions no matter how pointless or wrong,or just plain out of stubborness.And this forum surely doesn't lack that type of players.

About decision of theocracies not being playable.This had been mentioned before I know,but we all saw with Republics dlc that a working system had been devised by devs for us to play republics.And initially they had the same succession system with theocracies so that settles the discussion(some portion of it) about why theocracies can't be playable.Some people have indicated that the reason they aren't made playable is because that rpg wise and historical wise it would not be appropriate and henceforth they shouldn't be made playable.My answer to that is firstly this is a game,so arguably gameplay should be over other elements in general.And secondly how historical is Aztecs invading Europe? Or Empire of Carpathia,Tartaria etc.? So no matter how hard you try to put forth those arguements in order to defend devs obdurate stance of not making theocracies playable,from my point of view they are based on slippery foundation and not a solid one.

It is a weak and pointless arguement to say that once theocracies will be made playable that people will start demanding everyone to be playable.Theocracies being made playable has nothing to do with barony tiered characters or factions will be made playable or will be requested or demanded to be made playable as well.Personally if feasible I wouldn't mind if even merc companies or baronies,bishoprics and unlanded characters would be made playable.It would enrichen the game.However,theocracies and their playability is based on a different matter.They are not and can't be considered in the same tier as merc companies,unlanded characters or baronies.It is part of the main(playable) factions of the game which are Catholic,Orthodox factions,Muslim factions,Pagan factions and Republic government type factions.This is how it is to be seen in the general play style of the game.

Enclosing,paradox is exceptionally friendly and helpful towards their playerbase and previously made modding easy by importing scripts from hardcode with patches and in general is an exceptional company which actually listens to their playerbase.There is no such thing as a perfect game nor perfect developer decisions,in the light of this,unless they make theocracies playable I do hope that they will at least allow theocracies to be playable via modding(removing game over screen when switching to a theocracy via console for one thing.)

 

[kemmy23]

There is one important fact I think people have been missing about the playability issue regarding similar dlcs and this one.Before this dlc,when first sword of islam dlc was released(correct me if I am wrong) muslim factions have also been made playable along with new features regarding islamic factions.Also when republics dlc came out again republics were made playable as well.And lastly when the Old Gods dlc was released,pagan factions also became playable.........

I think you're making a bit of a 'mountain out of a mole-hill' here. I don't see how, or why this is such an obvious issue for you. I admittedly want to see some form of playability allowed for theocracies as well, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it; and if I'm honest I think what is being proposed (so far) for SoA will CK2 a significant amount.

In SoA I would like to see the Jewish cultural aspect explored (because they are argueably an ethno-religious group rather than just a religion), and I would also like to see an event where a Jewish ruler of Jerusalem would be able to build/rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem (perhaps causing issues with neighbouring religious groups such as Islam).

 

[Titan79]

There is one important fact I think people have been missing about the playability issue regarding similar dlcs and this one (...)

Well, we should get some 5 DLCs yet (if not more) so I think that one of those will eventually give us playable Theocracies - it's just that they probably haven't still refined the system so they don't want to rush it.

That's what I hope, at least. Also, I don't mind waiting a bit more if this means that we'll be given great mechanics to play with them.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Also, the devs said this second round of DLCs are focusing on deepening existing game mechanics, rather than expanding gameplay (ie adding a lot of playable new people), so in this context having no playable theocracies isn't surprising.

 

[zephrelial]

Well, we should get some 5 DLCs yet (if not more) so I think that one of those will eventually give us playable Theocracies - it's just that they probably haven't still refined the system so they don't want to rush it.

That's what I hope, at least. Also, I don't mind waiting a bit more if this means that we'll be given great mechanics to play with them.

The possibility of another theocracy dlc which actually makes theocracies playable along with all the other features also crossed my mind.But the problem with that is,unnecessarily that would have made us more to pay for 2 dlcs instead of one dlc.I don't want to pay for two dlcs instead of one dlc.I don't mind waiting at all since I've been waiting for a long time but my concern is that in this very thread clearly it was said that theocracies aren't playable now and there is no indication or remark sofar that they may be made playable in future dlcs so my hope grows thin.My personal opinion is to not rush this one and present it as one big dlc like others before that.

Kemmy,about your question why this is a big issue for me is because I was especially interested and anxious about playing a theocracy within the week of I bought this game.I wake up see the announcement thread and judging by all other major dlcs which made non-playable factions into playable factions,I think to myself yes!!! finally a dlc about theocracies and I will be able to play dlcs and then to my disappointment it is clearly stated that dlc is about theocracies but they won't be playable.So I think you can imagine my frustration and disappointment.But I am not making a mountain out of a mole-hill as you said I am just trying to point out the pattern of paradox regarding similar dlcs and this one contradicts with all of them.

 

[kemmy23]

...So I think you can imagine my frustration and disappointment.

That's just it, I can't. I don't see how the addition of theocracies is going to improve the game to the same extent as this dlc will. This is a game about dynasties after all.

But I am not making a mountain out of a mole-hill as you said I am just trying to point out the pattern of paradox regarding similar dlcs and this one contradicts with all of them.

Obviously I disagree with that. SoA will improve many key aspects within the game. To say that it contradicts the pattern (as well as being kind of irrelevant) ignores Sunset invasion.

 

[zephrelial]

That's just it, I can't. I don't see how the addition of theocracies is going to improve the game to the same extent as this dlc will. This is a game about dynasties after all.



Obviously I disagree with that. SoA will improve many key aspects within the game. To say that it contradicts the pattern (as well as being kind of irrelevant) ignores Sunset invasion.

Obviously you don't care about playing a theocracy I respect that it is your choice so that's fine.I explained(or at least tried to) but if you still can't comprehend my frustration or disappointment about the issue that means you lack empathy which is also fine.By having said that this dlc contraditcs with the pattern of other major dlcs,I meant that with all 3 dlcs SOI,Republics and OG non-playable factions were made playable and this one doesn't hence the contradiction.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Obviously you don't care about playing a theocracy I respect that it is your choice so that's fine.I explained(or at least tried to) but if you still can't comprehend my frustration or disappointment about the issue that means you lack empathy which is also fine.By having said that this dlc contraditcs with the pattern of other major dlcs,I meant that with all 3 dlcs SOI,Republics and OG non-playable factions were made playable and this one doesn't hence the contradiction.

As I mentioned above, it's not as contradictory as you think - rather not even contradictory at all. The devs have said several times that the current, second round of DLCs are meaent to deepen the game, rather than expand it like the first round - this means less focus on adding brand new things like new playable people, and more focus on expanding what is already here. So in this context no playable theocracies makes sense.

Of course, maybe we'll see playable theocracies one day. Who knows.

 

[Kljunas]

The devs have said several times that the current, second round of DLCs are meaent to deepen the game, rather than expand it like the first round - this means less focus on adding brand new things like new playable people, and more focus on expanding what is already here.

I didn't know that, this is great news!

 

[Themilo]

I always felt that the pope wasn’t important enough in crusader kings 2, hopefully this expansion will change that.

 

[Teonod]

Two weeks. Ooh, getting excited.