• 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.
It's the first Thursday of a new month, and the stars just happen to be exactly right for a new entry in the Crusader Kings II developer diary! God willing, it will be an enlightening one. Yes, my friends, it is time to get serious and talk about religion, and, being a game about medieval times, religion obviously plays a huge part.

There are three groups of religions in CKII: Christian, Muslim and Pagan. Each group encompasses the main religions (e.g. Catholic and Orthodox) and their heresies (Waldensian, Bogomilist, etc.) Now, the specific religions have certain characteristics that set them apart from each other. For example, Catholicism has an independent chief pontiff (the Pope) who can excommunicate people and call for crusades. He can also, on rare occasions, grant a divorce or a special Casus Belli. Rulers can request excommunications, divorce or an invasion casus belli from the Pope, but it will cost them a lot of Piety, and requires that the Pope hold them in high regard.

Perhaps the most central feature of the Catholic Church, however, is the investiture of bishops. As you probably recall, fiefdoms can be held by members of the clergy (the rich and juicy Temple type baronies in particular). The income from these holdings normally goes to the Pope and not the secular liege of the bishops. However, if the Prince-Bishop happens to like his liege more than the Pope, he will instead pay taxes to his liege (and allow his troop levies to be raised.) The problem is just that the clergy naturally tends to favor the Pope, which is why kings can pass a law called Crown Investiture. This allows them to appoint new bishops who are appropriately grateful and loyal. Why not just do this all the time then? Because the Pope will be most displeased with kings who have passed this law, effectively barring them from any special Papal favors. There is a way around this problem too though: antipopes. Kings with Crown Investiture and high enough Prestige can set up a Pope of their own; an Antipope. This will ensure that all of the bishops in the kingdom pay taxes to the Crown, and will allow the king to excommunicate characters within the kingdom (but not outside it), arrange divorce, etc. Moreover, characters within the kingdom are immune to excommunication by the Pope, and foreign bishops who prefer your antipope might actually pay taxes to him (and therefore to you.) Antipopes cannot call for Crusades, however.

Another downside is that the setting up - and existence of - antipopes harms the "Moral Authority" of your religion. This value represents how respected the religion is and its general hold over the faithful. When the value is low, the chief pontiff can no longer call for Crusades, heresies start to run rampant, and characters and provinces will not convert to the religion easily. It is all a trade-off, and trade-offs are the heart and soul of good gameplay.

Crusaderkings2_DevDiary_110505_01.jpg

What about the other religions then? Well, in Orthodox Christianity the chief pontiff is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and he is vassal to the Byzantine Emperor. There is no investiture conflict (church taxes go to the secular liege) and the Patriarch cannot call for Crusades. However, he can excommunicate characters and grant CBs and divorces. Pagans have no chief pontiff at all and lack all the special mechanics. The two Muslim religions (Shi'a and Sunni) resemble Orthodoxy, but the Caliph himself is the chief pontiff, and they can call for Jihad.

That's all for now. At some point I will talk more about heresies. :) Until next time!

Crusaderkings2_DevDiary_110505_02.jpg

Henrik Fåhraeus, Associate Producer and CKII Project Lead
 
Last edited:
RedRooster81 said:
So would it be considered proper to establish new patriarchates if say the Byzantine Empire succeeded in conquering the Arabian Peninsula and further east? Would there be a Patriarch of Baghdad possibly? Or would there simply be bishops subject to the authority of the nearest of the established patriarchates?

Well, theoretically you could have as many patriarchates as you like. The patriarchal system was originally set up within the Roman Empire (and it developed over time). At first it was an administrative measure: in each region of the empire the bishops would have local councils/synods, and these would meet in cities of administrative importance (or, in the case of Jerusalem, symbolic importance). The 'patriarch' was the bishop of the city in which the synod met, and was effectively considered to be a chairman, not a monarch. After a while the Church came to be identified as a sort of ecclesiastical parallel to the Roman Empire - one was universal in religious terms, the other in political terms. As the Roman Empire broke down and the 'Byzantine' Empire took shape, the Patriarchate of Constantinople came to be identified with the boundaries of Byzantium. Even so, the patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were still seen as being united with Constantinople, and were all under the general political sway of Byzantium. In the 10th and 11th centuries the Papacy came under the sway of the German Holy Roman Empire, and with the papal reform movement it came to distinguish itself from all other patriarchates. Eventually the Papacy began to insist that the Pope was the sole ruler of the Church, just as the German Emperors were claiming to be the sole rulers of the Roman Empire. However, the other Patriarchates were all still under the influence of Byzantium and stayed united with one another.

It's important to understand the subtle relationship of the Orthodox patriarchates to the Byzantine imperial throne. Unlike in the west, the Byzantine emperor was generally strong enough to stop any patriarch from developing pretensions to political power (as the Roman popes did). However, a patriarchate was a mark of political power for secular rulers, since only great administrative/imperial cities were supposed to have one. Thus, when the Bulgarians created a patriarchate, it was seen as a statement of political indepedence - they weren't reliant on the Byzantine emperor any more.

As for the creation of new patriarchates in places like Baghdad, it's a hard question to answer. In purely ecclesiastical terms, there is no set number of patriarchates - you have as many as is necessary. In political terms, it might not be so desirable. Ultimately the Byzantines never conquered Baghdad, so it's impossible to say what they would have done.
 
Would I get pounced on if I were to point out that the Orthodox Church did not have a concept of a 'supreme pontiff'?

In a word, yes. :) While what you say is true on the level of theology and theory, in practice the patriarch of Constantinople was a lot more equal than the others, and he took his marching orders from the Emperor - at any rate while the Byzantine Empire was a significant power. As an abstraction for a game I think the proposed model is very sensible.
 
King of Men said:
In a word, yes. While what you say is true on the level of theology and theory, in practice the patriarch of Constantinople was a lot more equal than the others, and he took his marching orders from the Emperor - at any rate while the Byzantine Empire was a significant power. As an abstraction for a game I think the proposed model is very sensible.

Name one instance in which the Patriarch of Constantinople gave orders to other patriarchs. I bet that you can't.

Even a patriarch as infamously bad-tempered and forthright as Michael Cerularius couldn't do that. After his argument with Cardinal Humbert of Silva-Candida, Patriarch Peter of Antioch actually sent Cerularius a letter to tell him that he was wrong!

On one level you're right - the Patriarchate of Constantinople was 'more equal' in the sense that the emperor lived in Constantinople. But that didn't actually translate into the patriarch himself having any more power or authority; it just meant that the emperor could put the squeeze on people who got in the way.
 
I LIKE what I see. Looks like religion will become a lot more interesting. Now I'm really looking forward to the heretic dev diary (or the future talks about the aforementioned).
 
Sweet, just what I had hoped from the new religion system.
 
There is no Jewish religion in the game.

It was in the original Crusader Kings, why not in the new one?

---

Also:
How many caliphs are there / can there be at the same time?
Do Sunnis and Shiites each start with their own?

Thanks in advance for your reply.
 
This sounds awesome. I did miss that CK didn't model the issue with investiture of bishops and the struggle with popes. All these developer diaries make me buzz with excitement.

Since there are already several questions about orthodoxy (and promise of further information on herecies):

A1 - How are religious orders and crusader states implemented this time ?
A2 - Can several christian rulers synchronise their trip to the holy land ?
A3 - Is there going to be peasant crusades ?
(If there's going to be another DD specifically addressing crusades, then i can wait for now with these ones.)

B1 - Are the muslim jihadists continuing to show up on the banks of British Isles and Scandinavia, before they reach anywhere else ?
B2 - Is there any direct means helping to convert province ?
B3 - Are there going to be relics and pilgrimages and are they going to affect provinces economy ?
B4 - Is there going to be indulgences that boost the income of the church ?

Yes, enough popes, anti-popes, and all that. :p How else will religion be represented in the game?

Specifically:
-Did the relic thing work out as you guys had it planned? In the videos earlier this year, there was talk of needing relics to found cathedrals.
-What about military orders and mendicant orders? I need to found monasteries and send my sister's valorous bastard son off to the Templars. And get caught in theological disputes between Franciscans and Dominicans.
-What role will the church have in educating my offspring? How will nunneries be represented? How will universities?
-Will my courtiers be able to join religious confraternities, like the Third Order Franciscans and various local devotions?
-What about shrines? Will members of my court who gain the "saint" or "beatified" trait be rewarded with local shrines? If the Virgin Mary or one of the apostles or archangels turns the tide of battle or fends off a plague or some other way saves the day, how will this be represented?

Just some questions, maybe best left to modding, but all would enrich gameplay.
 
Well, theoretically you could have as many patriarchates as you like. The patriarchal system was originally set up within the Roman Empire (and it developed over time). At first it was an administrative measure: in each region of the empire the bishops would have local councils/synods, and these would meet in cities of administrative importance (or, in the case of Jerusalem, symbolic importance). The 'patriarch' was the bishop of the city in which the synod met, and was effectively considered to be a chairman, not a monarch. After a while the Church came to be identified as a sort of ecclesiastical parallel to the Roman Empire - one was universal in religious terms, the other in political terms. As the Roman Empire broke down and the 'Byzantine' Empire took shape, the Patriarchate of Constantinople came to be identified with the boundaries of Byzantium. Even so, the patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were still seen as being united with Constantinople, and were all under the general political sway of Byzantium. In the 10th and 11th centuries the Papacy came under the sway of the German Holy Roman Empire, and with the papal reform movement it came to distinguish itself from all other patriarchates. Eventually the Papacy began to insist that the Pope was the sole ruler of the Church, just as the German Emperors were claiming to be the sole rulers of the Roman Empire. However, the other Patriarchates were all still under the influence of Byzantium and stayed united with one another.

It's important to understand the subtle relationship of the Orthodox patriarchates to the Byzantine imperial throne. Unlike in the west, the Byzantine emperor was generally strong enough to stop any patriarch from developing pretensions to political power (as the Roman popes did). However, a patriarchate was a mark of political power for secular rulers, since only great administrative/imperial cities were supposed to have one. Thus, when the Bulgarians created a patriarchate, it was seen as a statement of political indepedence - they weren't reliant on the Byzantine emperor any more.

As for the creation of new patriarchates in places like Baghdad, it's a hard question to answer. In purely ecclesiastical terms, there is no set number of patriarchates - you have as many as is necessary. In political terms, it might not be so desirable. Ultimately the Byzantines never conquered Baghdad, so it's impossible to say what they would have done.

Well described. However patriarchates were not just symbolic things... in most of Europe (east & west) the church was not just there to hold mass, but it was also a super powerful propaganda machine and controlled all education institutions. Not to mention that it was fairly wealthy usually and could support the crown in various material ways. Control of the church was very important, and when (say) the Bulgarians got their own patriarchate this meant that they now had their own, independent propaganda machine and higher education institutions. Of course they had some influence on church matters even while they were still under the patriarchate of Constantinople, but Greek influence was very strong then.

Patriarchates were AFAIK only granted to kingdoms that could negotiate as equals with the Emperor. It was a concession that usually was only given when it made political sense. For example when Baliseos II crushed and conquered Bulgaria in the 11th century, he demoted their patriarchate to a mere archbishopric, although he did not abolish the autonomy of the Bulgarian church. The Bulgarian church remained organizationally separate from the one in Constantinople. But Basileos and his successors appointed almost exclusively Greek priests from the Constantinople seminar as bishops in Bulgaria.

Georgia had its own autonomous church since the 5th century, but its head was only promoted to "Catholicos-Patriarch" when the Georgian principalities were united under one ruler in the 12th century or so.

Russia never got its own patriarch because the Rus princes were not owed any favours by the Emperors. Had one of the princes united the Rus under his own dynasty, and crowned himself Knyaz or Czar, he would probably have negotiated with the Emperor about getting his own patriarchate too. The emperor would demand some concessions in return. Historically the Muscovite patriarchate was only established very late - this was because (1) the church in Russia was organizationally too weak to assert any independence (it was depended on Greek and Bulgarian clerics for much of the middle ages), (2) Russia was only united and freed from the Mongols late, and it would not befit the Orthodox church to raise Russia to a patriarchate while it is forced to bow to Mongols on a regular basis, (3) Russia was far away from Constantinople and its rulers rarely were in a position to repay possible favours from the Emperor, if you get my drift. :)

The Byzantine emperors would almost certainly not create new patriarchates in regions they controlled - however they might agree to the creation of new patriarchates in regions that they hand over someone else. For example a fictuous resurgent Empire might have conquered Persia, and made it a Christian client kingdom - they might then also wish to raise the head of the Persian church to the rank of Patriarch. But only once the Persian church is capable of standing on its own, i.e. training their own priests and staffing the whole hierarchy with their own clerics.

They would definitely not install a patriarch in, say, Baghdad, if they intent to rule the place themselves.
 
That's a good question. I doubt the Papal State's two or three provinces will need all of the gold it will be receiving from all of Europe. I also wonder how so much money will be spent.
Worst-case scenario they'll code an event that fires each month the Pope has more then 10,000 gold. It'll say something like "It's expensive being Pope," and cost 500 gold.

Or the money that goes to the Pope will just disappear.

Nick
 
But I'm not talking heretics here. Please at least read what I've posted. Having your own Patriarchate should give some bonuses as it was thought to be very tightly tied to the ruler and his power as well. In game terms you would be safe from excommunications from the other Patriarchates, being able to settle your internal issues as divorces etc. and maybe appoint bishops from your culture as opposed to being forced greeks and greek language if you are under the Byzantine Patriarchate.

That's what I mean when I was pointing out the pros and cons of having your own Patriarchate. The orthodox world is dependent on the Byzantine Patriarch unless you fight to establish your own. I don't think that would be such a big issue to implement in-game as it was something many countries tried to achieve (from Balkan countries to the Russians).

The trouble isn't just implementation. The trouble is this would take a lot of research in a theater that is supposed to be secondary. In theory it might actually be easy to implement this in a mod. If certain conditions are met the ruler gets an event changing his religion to a new one identical to Orthodox Christianity, except it's called Russian Orthodoxy. This triggers events converting all his Orthodox courtiers, provinces and his vassals to Russian Orthodoxy. In turn their courtiers, provinces, and vassals convert, etc.

As far as I can tell all the mechanics are there. Religion is moddable, so can clone Orthodox Christianity in the religion files, and you can convert via event.

The only potential problem with this is that the event would fire for a Greek Emperor who was exiled to Bulgaria for a time, and convert the entire Empire to Bulgarian Orthodoxy when he returned, thus ending the Patriarchy of Constantinople.

As for the reason the devs don't do it themselves think about it this way: if you didn't know the Orthodox states were playable in CK1 would even have occurred to you that a game called Crusader Kings 2 would include playable Orthodox realms at all?

Nick
 
Nick B II said:
As for the reason the devs don't do it themselves think about it this way: if you didn't know the Orthodox states were playable in CK1 would even have occurred to you that a game called Crusader Kings 2 would include playable Orthodox realms at all?

Yes, since they announced it. And that's what I was looking forward to, and many other people besides me.
 
There is no Jewish religion in the game.

Since you're not including Judaism, don't span the map too far south in Africa. I have seen screenshots indicating that parts of Ethiopia is on the map, please reconsider this.
Reasons:
1. No crusades went to Ethiopia during the Middle Ages, this is a game about Europe and the Middle east.
2. Since you don't include the Coptic Church, Ethiopia wouldn't be playable anyways, so I don't see the point with it.
3. You can't do Medieval Ethiopia without Jews.
 
The trouble isn't just implementation. The trouble is this would take a lot of research in a theater that is supposed to be secondary. In theory it might actually be easy to implement this in a mod. If certain conditions are met the ruler gets an event changing his religion to a new one identical to Orthodox Christianity, except it's called Russian Orthodoxy. This triggers events converting all his Orthodox courtiers, provinces and his vassals to Russian Orthodoxy. In turn their courtiers, provinces, and vassals convert, etc.

As far as I can tell all the mechanics are there. Religion is moddable, so can clone Orthodox Christianity in the religion files, and you can convert via event.

The only potential problem with this is that the event would fire for a Greek Emperor who was exiled to Bulgaria for a time, and convert the entire Empire to Bulgarian Orthodoxy when he returned, thus ending the Patriarchy of Constantinople.

As for the reason the devs don't do it themselves think about it this way: if you didn't know the Orthodox states were playable in CK1 would even have occurred to you that a game called Crusader Kings 2 would include playable Orthodox realms at all?

Nick

Patriarchates are just administrative divisions. They're not their own religions. You'd still be plain old Orthodox, just like Catholic antipopes are in terms of their character religion still plan old Catholic. :)

I was thinking more along the lines of having patriachs be like antipopes, except for the "anti" aspects. Funnelling money to their king, giving him investiture rights etc
 
What would happen to the patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria or Jerusalem, part of the original Christian pentarchy? Their status was theoretically equal to that of Constantinople or Rome, but the long years of captivity and dwindling congregation had dented their importance in the Christian world. Consequently, would they try to reassert their independence and importance or bow to the Christian power that frees them (either the Roman Empire or the Papacy through the crusader states)?
 
Beginning of the article: There will be unique features for each religion! Yeah!!!

Middle of the article: Orthodoxy will be much like Catholicism but without some benefits and penalties.

End of the article: Muslims are much like Orthodoxy. Yeah, both sects will be the same. Oh, and by the way, pagans will have no special features at all. Actually, all religions are the same except that some don't have access to all options and they hate each other in varying degrees.

I hope devs will put more work into this rather than wait for the modders to do their job.