Folks, prepare yourself for another monologue by yours truly!

Last time, I promised to talk about Crusader Pandas, but that would be silly, so I won't. Instead, I'll inform you about the workings of the Council. Just like in Crusader Kings, the Council consists of five characters who serve as your advisers; the Chancellor, Steward, Marshal, Spymaster and Lord Spiritual. Their primary attribute is added to your own for purposes of government. (E.g. the Diplomacy skill is the primary attribute of the Chancellor.) To make it more balanced, characters now have an additional attribute called Learning, which is the primary attribute of the Lord Spiritual. Also unlike Crusader Kings, you can appoint your direct landed vassals to your council, not just your courtiers. Women can normally not serve as councillors, although the spouse and mother of the ruler can be Spymaster.

The main new Council related feature in Crusader Kings II, however, is the ability to send your councillors on various jobs (three per councillor) out in the counties. Many of these jobs are very powerful if used correctly. The chance of a good outcome is dependent on their skill. To give some examples:

Head Local Inquisition (Lord Spiritual):
The Lord Spiritual converts a province or local character to his religion.

Train Troops (Marshal):
The levies replenish faster and can grow beyond their normal max size.

Fabricate Claims (Chancellor):
Chance that you get a claim on a local title.

Oversee Construction (Steward):
The build time of improvements and new holdings is much reduced.

Study Technology (Spymaster):
Chance that a tech level spreads to your capital.





Ponder this until the next dev diary.

 

[unmerged(179107)]

Seriously..? SERIOUSLY? You just outright advocated that Churches should control government policy and that not allowing them to oppress others is an "unnatural construct"? Well I guess I can agree that it's certainly not their natural habitat to not be able to do that anymore, but that's a good thing.

No, I said that up until 300 years ago, it would have been unthinkable in EVERY SOCIETY WITH ANY RELIGION, unless you prove me otherwise that is. I didn't make any political statement, whatever you want to read into it.

And I never even mentioned religion dominating politics (or otherwise, for that matter). I said to seperate it would have been unthinkable. When I say that up till 300 years ago, it wouldn't have been thinkable not to marry (just a crazy example) I don't advocate men beating their wives. Learn the difference.

Also, I don't care what your, uncalled for, political opinions are. In fact, I don't care about politics at all.

.. ಠ_ಠ

You're thinking of Jupiter again.

I just named a random animal, I didn't imply anything.

Most Christian theological disagreements tend to be violent insanity over some minor spelling of a word on Jesus' nature, so that's hardly diverse on that front)

I do hope you know that homoousios and homoiousios is world of difference in Greek and is not minor at all? The divinity of Christ wasn't a minor issue. But go ahead spewing your ignorant bigotry. Your entire comment has been one big strawman, congratulations. Save your replies, I'm not even looking into this thread anymore.

 

[Amagaeru]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_mythology

Very interesting and it gives a good idea of the baltic gods

 

[Nuril]

No, I said that up until 300 years ago, it would have been unthinkable in EVERY SOCIETY WITH ANY RELIGION, unless you prove me otherwise that is. I didn't make any political statement, whatever you want to read into it.

And I never even mentioned religion dominating politics (or otherwise, for that matter). I said to seperate it would have been unthinkable.

You said it IS an unnatural construct to separate Church and State, not that "it was to them". Also, it was "unthinkable" all the way until... it suddenly wasn't? INCONCEIVABLE!

Something being unnatural carries a definite implication (however unfortunate and unjustified) that something is inherently bad. You don't at all strike me as the kind of person who would actively strive to avoid such implications.

Something being constructed means it's artificial. It's just "made up", as in not true. Something "Unthinkable, negative and fake". That doesn't sound like too in favour of it, IMO. Oh well, nevermind.

unless you prove me otherwise that is.

So what you believe is true until proven otherwise? That is so backwards. Especially since you went to "every society with any religion", which would include the philosophy-based ones that don't necessarily have had deities they believed in in the first place (integrated with policy, that is, obviously there were still folk traditions).

I do hope you know that homoousios and homoiousios is world of difference in Greek and is not minor at all? The divinity of Christ wasn't a minor issue.

Except that it is a minor issue. It isn't "If this spelling he was a deranged lunatic talking gibberish on the side of the road, but if it's THIS spelling he's one with and the son of the almighty creator of the universe", it's being of the same substance or like substance. Being Godly or being God. It doesn't really make a difference if he was channeling his daddy or if they were the same person wearing a disguise. A true prophet would still be a true prophet and if he didn't have those powers himself, on virtue of being a god, then God was directly granting him assistance to perform the miracles ya'll believe in. I really don't see how it's a big enough deal for centuries of blodshed.

But go ahead spewing your ignorant bigotry. Your entire comment has been one big strawman, congratulations. Save your replies, I'm not even looking into this thread anymore.

Sounds legit.

 

[Hertog Jan]

You said it IS an unnatural construct to separate Church and State, not that "it was to them". Also, it was "unthinkable" all the way until... it suddenly wasn't? INCONCEIVABLE!

Something being unnatural carries a definite implication (however unfortunate and unjustified) that something is inherently bad. You don't at all strike me as the kind of person who would actively strive to avoid such implications.

Something being constructed means it's artificial. It's just "made up", as in not true. Something "Unthinkable, negative and fake". That doesn't sound like too in favour of it, IMO. Oh well, nevermind.



So what you believe is true until proven otherwise? That is so backwards. Especially since you went to "every society with any religion", which would include the philosophy-based ones that don't necessarily have had deities they believed in in the first place.



Except that it is a minor issue. It isn't "If this spelling he was a deranged lunatic talking gibberish on the side of the road, but if it's THIS spelling he's one with and the son of the almighty creator of the universe", it's being of the same substance or like substance. Being Godly or being God. It doesn't really make a difference if he was channeling his daddy or if they were the same person wearing a disguise. A true prophet would still be a true prophet and if he didn't have those powers himself, on virtue of being a god, then God was directly granting him assistance to perform the miracles ya'll believe in. I really don't see how it's a big enough deal for centuries of blodshed.



Sounds legit.

I have a question for you and I wish to respond to some of your remarks.

Let's start with the question:

Name one society, apart from the modern West (and some Communist states), where religion and the priesthood do/did not play a major part in the functioning of the state?

As to the separation of church and state: It is unnatural when our own Western views are compared to those of nearly everyone else on the planet. The vast majority of states do have religious influence of some kind. I for one do not oppose the separation of church and state, as long as each is permitted to serve their role, respectively arranging public affairs and expounding norms and values in society. Both should be engaged in mutual criticism. It certainly is unnatural, and this I do mean in the negative sense of the word, to separate and obliterate religion from the rest of society. This entails the suppression of a whole domain of human activity and prevents the kind of countercultural criticism that churches often express.

As to the homoousis/homoiousis debate:
Firstly, I can assure you that none of the sides in the debate considered it a minor issue. Any person who examines the matter more closely, will see that the divide was not about a word, but about Jesus being either God (homoousis) or man (homoiousis, a man with godlike properties). The real thing at stake thus was whether worshipping Jesus was a violation of the First Commandment or not(I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me). If Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, He is God and thus worthy of worship. If not, He was just a man with no more importance than Moses or Elijah with the sole exception that He fulfilled the law. Because many Christians worshipped him as God, the issue was quite central to Christianity.

Secondly, I think you are exaggerating the bloodshed that proceeded from this particular controversy. The Emperor Valens (who got killed at Adrianople by the Goths) was Arian, as was the consort of Theodosius I (himself a Trinitarian Christian). Furthermore, apart from the Frankish kings, all Germanic kings were Arians and continued to hold sway long after the Council of Nicaea. Only in the Vandal Kingdom were the tensions such that violence ensued (the penultimate king, Hilderic, was a Catholic, sparking a coup by his Arian cousin Gelimer. This provoked a (lethal) response by Justinian I, who saw his interests in Africa threathened). The other Arian kingdoms were either conquered by Catholic kingdoms in ordinary wars of expansion (Ostrogoth Italy and the Burgundian kingdom). Visigothic Spain, the most powerful of the Arian kingdoms, became Catholic only in 587 when its King Reccared converted.

Note that it wrong to equate Cathars with Arians, since their beliefs varied between them, with most being Gnostics (unlike the Arians). If your aim is to place blame on Christianity for causing bloodshed, I am surprised that you didn't bring up the Albigensian Crusade. It is within CK2's timeframe after all.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Seriously..? SERIOUSLY? You just outright advocated that Churches should control government policy and that not allowing them to oppress others is an "unnatural construct"? Well I guess I can agree that it's certainly not their natural habitat to not be able to do that anymore, but that's a good thing.

Dude, the main point of organized religion has ALWAYS been work as a part of the "state" (or whatever polity there was). Separation of church and state was only possible when state formation and civil service got advanced enough for something other then religion to hold a society together (my own opinion, lets just pretend that it is 100% corret ). Increased power over its subjects and powerful connections was 99% of the reason for Norse rulers to convert after all. Resistance to Christianity was as much a resistance to centralization as it was against religion. Hmmm, therefor I think that a pagan Sweden should have the CSA flag, damn, I got sidetracked in my own post

 

[Nuril]

Let's start with the question:

Name one society, apart from the modern West (and some Communist states), where religion and the priesthood do/did not play a major part in the functioning of the state?

That wasn't the original question or the statement in question responding to it, first of all. It was to a claim that it'd be impossible to contemplate a state with separation (which isn't necessarily something I'd support, on pragmatic grounds, even if it is the more morally unassailable position. It's a recent thing in Europe and it didn't serve America very well to make them compete on the "Free market").

As for your question it depends highly on what your definitions are for "major part"/"functioning"/"the State"/"religion"/"priesthood", so yeah. I'm not convinced that it is a necessity in any society for making a non-Theocratic state merely function. Now playing a "major part" could be strictly ceremonial (and thus irrelevant) or deeply entrenched in the political elite of the state, in which case it'd be ruled out, yeah.

As for examples.. In modern times, since you excluded the west and nominally "Red" nations (for some arbitrary reason, I don't see how others are more relevant), then Japan. In older times then I don't see a big deal with going with China. Not necessarily the Imperial state, depending on what factions were influential and in power at the time and the seriousness of the "Mandate of Heaven", but on a King-level where you needn't worry about maintaining the illusion of the Mandate (be sure to not let any bad earthquakes happen, your Majesty! Omens!).

As to the homoousis/homoiousis debate:
Firstly, I can assure you that none of the sides in the debate considered it a minor issue.

Irrelevant, and obviously such a thing is self-evident or it wouldn't be such a big deal.

It doesn't matter how many angels can dance on the head of that amazing pin, that doesn't automatically make it important to the religion. Heated arguments and bloodshed doesn't change that. (Edit: Not to insinuate that the Angels-dancing-on-a-pin included bloodshed. Let's say metaphorically in that case, referring back to the other.)

The real thing at stake thus was whether worshipping Jesus was a violation of the First Commandment or not(I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me). If Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, He is God and thus worthy of worship. If not, He was just a man with no more importance than Moses or Elijah with the sole exception that He fulfilled the law. Because many Christians worshipped him as God, the issue was quite central to Christianity.

Duly noted. They thought it was more meaningful than it actually was, so they got angry about it. They weren't actually having another God before "God", they thought it was the same being (Thou shalt have no other beings sitting beside me?), so if they got "corrected" on such a detail - as much as one can when there aren't facts involved - they'd just have to go "Praise God!" instead of "Praise Jesus!". All the stuff they actually follow from Jesus wouldn't change, since it'd still be God's word through a true Prophet and what-not.

Secondly, I think you are exaggerating the bloodshed that proceeded from this particular controversy.

How can I exaggerate something I haven't specified? It shed blood and it lasted a long time. Those things are true.

The Emperor Valens was Arian, as was the consort of Theodosius I. Furthermore..

I'm not saying it was a one-sided injustice against the losers of the dispute. I don't think either one is more sensible (since I'm not Christian). I don't have a dog in this fight, not that I'd dog-fight. That's mean. The fact that they spread to various separate areas and entrenched themselves there just means more fighting over a difference in spelling.

Note that it wrong to equate Cathars with Arians, since their beliefs varied between them, with most being Gnostics (unlike the Arians). If your aim is to place blame on Christianity for causing bloodshed, I am surprised that you didn't bring up the Albigensian Crusade. It is within CK2's timeframe after all.

I am not trying to bring up anything to "place blame on Christianity for causing bloodshed", it was a throwaway comment on how I wasn't talking about Christianity with my comment on non-Christian religious unity, as they're obviously quite in line with their central dogma, given that their big disputes are about slight differences in spelling words. I understand that Nicean Christians think there'd be massive implications of accepting that alternative viewpoint, but I really don't see how it changes a darn thing other than some minor habits of the flock (Oh noes, we say "God" instead of "Jesus" now but still mean the same thing! The Sky is Falling!).

Hmmm, therefor I think that a pagan Sweden should have the CSA flag, damn, I got sidetracked in my own post

:ninja:

(The Norwegians can keep the original. )

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

Last time, I promised to talk about Crusader Pandas, but that would be silly, so I won't.

The council position names can be modded by culture, religion, etc.

It is easy to mod in new jobs, but it might require some interface modding as well.

Does Learning see use anywhere other than for the Lord Spiritual's missions?

 

[Captain Gars]

It's been asked before, but not answered:
In several videos a realm law allowing female chancellors was visible. This Dev Diary implies there will be no female chancellors.

Has the option of passing that law been removed? If so why?

It has been removed but I don't remember the reason why. Maybe Doomdark can clarify it.

 

[Tyson_48]

It has been removed but I don't remember the reason why. Maybe Doomdark can clarify it.

I assume the decision leads to endless wars about the shoe facilities with women chancellors...
So a balance issue ;-)

What about a cool down after changing advisor?
Will there be something like in Rome, where you could imprison or even kill a foreign diplomat?
And iirc there was something said about advisor titles are also provided to their heirs, is this gone too?

 

[Jaol]

It has been removed but I don't remember the reason why. Maybe Doomdark can clarify it.

Will it still be moddable?

 

[Nuril]

Will it still be moddable?

Hopefully it'll just be a "female = no" requirement on all the things, so you could add a "OR = { female = no has_country_flag = female_chancellors }" like in previous games.

 

[Nick B II]

It's been asked before, but not answered:
In several videos a realm law allowing female chancellors was visible. This Dev Diary implies there will be no female chancellors.

Has the option of passing that law been removed? If so why?

It has been removed but I don't remember the reason why. Maybe Doomdark can clarify it.

Doomdark?

You there buddy?

Nick

 

[Tegus]

Will it still be moddable?

Every job has a trigger which decides who can be appointed, so very much so.

 

[Lord Strange]

Every job has a trigger which decides who can be appointed, so very much so.

And there was much rejoicing.

 

[Jia Xu]

So in the Crusades DD from this week, it was mentioned that it's possible for Emperors to vassalize the Pope. If this happens, can the Pope be appointed to the council? What about the Ecumenical Patriarch? He starts as a vassal of the Byzantine Emperor, correct? Can he serve on Byzantium's council?

 

[unmerged(411215)]

What if the Byzantine Emperor vassalizes the Pope? Then he'd have both the head of Catholic and Orthodox Christians as his vassal. Would it be possible to end the Schism?

 

[Jia Xu]

What if the Byzantine Emperor vassalizes the Pope? Then he'd have both the head of Catholic and Orthodox Christians as his vassal. Would it be possible to end the Schism?

Only a developer (or perhaps someone in the beta testing with a green light to talk to us) can say for sure. I doubt the schism ends. It would probably be like what happened when the Turks got a hold of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Bishop serves the political interest of his new lord, but the religion itself continues on unchanged.

It's not like the Pope alone could just guarantee an end to the schism anyway. The notion that the Popes in these times were some kind of unquestionable supreme overlords of the Roman Catholic church is pretty much complete myth. Look at cases such as Benedict IX which show there is only so much tolerance for abuse of the Papal office. When the line is finally crossed, measures were taken to depose uber-awful Popes. The Pope decreeing that everyone is to switch over to the Greek liturgy with the eastern Emperor's sword at his back probably isn't going to be very persuasive to all of the western Kings. They would probably look on it as an abdication of some sort, and rival Popes might start being appointed elsewhere.

 

[unmerged(411215)]

Wrong. During CK2's timeframe the reconciliation was very possible and at times even likely.

 

[Jia Xu]

Wrong. During CK2's timeframe the reconciliation was very possible and at times even likely.

Not really. One of the big issues of the schism was the filioque, or rather the ability to change ecumenical council rulings outside of ecumenical councils. The Orthodox would never bow to this, and the western church certainly had no intent of giving up on the filioque after swearing to everyone that anyone who denies it is in contempt of Christ. If a reconciliation were to happen it would be because the whole western Church, or at least the important parts of it were satisfied. My point wasn't that a reconciliation couldn't happen. My point was that it wouldn't be guaranteed to happen just because the Pope waves his hand and demands it. The filioque itself wasn't even a Roman invention. If I recall correctly, it was the product of a monastery in Iberia, which proves my point from before that the Popes in these times were not like the Borg Queen from Star Trek or anything.

And truth be told, the "Great Schism" was just the schism on paper. The actual theological divide between the Latin and Greek churches had been present for centuries before the formal schism was made. Even if they became a single communion again during this time, it wouldn't change the fact that they're still theologically separate on many issues and should still be represented as different denominations in game.

 

[unmerged(411215)]

The Schism was greatly a dispute over ecclesiastical jurisdiction. If both churches had become vassals of the same Emperor during the 11th or even 12th century, the Schism would have surely ended.

If it's not in the game, it's going to be one of the interesting things to mod in