• 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:
As for Islam, it's actually not as different as you think.

Essentially all Muslims in this period acknowledged some Caliph or Imam as the sole and supreme ruler of ALL Muslims. This is regardless of how independent they actually were in reality, and occasionally even hostile to them.

You've got:
The al-Sunnah wal-Jamma (Sunnis) by 1066 recognized the Abbasid Khalifa at Baghdad as the sole rightful leader of Islam, and ruled "in his name" (lol).
The Isma'ilis ("Seveners") recognize the descendants of Isma'il ibn Ja'far as the sole rightful leaders of Islam and in 1066 recognize the Fatimid Khalifa at Cairo as the sole rightful leader of Islam
The Ibadis did not recognize either 'Ali OR Uthman as Caliph, and in 1066 recognize the Imam of Nizwa as the rightful leader of Islam
The Zaidis recognize the descendants of Zayd ibn Ali as the sole rightful leaders of Islam and in 1066 recognize the Imam of Sa'da as the rightful leader of Islam

The Twelvers in 1066 believe the 12th Imam, the rightful leader of Islam, is hidden from the world by Allah. They would not really have any religious leadership until the 15th century

Now sure these leaders often (in fact usually) were also temporal rulers, but so was the Pope and the Patriarch of Aquilea.
 
While what you say is certainly true, and I always found it annoying that CK1 read the early modern Catholic/Orthodox divergence backwards into the eleventh century, I think there are bigger fish to fry as far as religious representation goes. For example, I was very disappointed to hear that Jews and Judaism are not going be represented at all.
 
anybody besides me getting bit "horny" over this upcoming title ? :D <3

Also would be nice if you kept small parts of the old religion of old norse religion to maybe bring small parts of viking history alive again ;=)?
 
Last edited:
anybody besides me getting bit "horny" over this upcoming title ? :D <3

Also would be nice if you kept small parts of the old religion of old norse religion to maybe bring small parts of viking history alive again ;=)?

Rejoice, my southern brother, for 'tis confirmed that Ásatrú is among the faiths of the Pagan group. Looking back t'would seem most absurd if the old ways wern't depicted in the provinces as half of the Swedes were still strongly Ásatrú and it was shown as such in the preceding title. One only wishes that Blót-Sven verily adheres to the gods of old, as he will fight the Christians to the south-west to become a true king for many of his years.

..Anyhow, yeah, Ásatrú is in the game, will have to be enabled through modding as the non-Christian religions aren't officially supported at release (expansion). You bet your ass Hrafnsmerki will be flying high on all the flags in the land when I get my hands on it. <3
 
The very idea that it would be harder to reconcile the Patriarch of Constantinople with that of Rome rather than Alexandria or Jerusalem ("mere" Heresies) is laughable. They had fundamentally different ideas about the very nature of Christ.

In 1066, you had basically 5 "real" patriarchs, 3 subservient ones (that don't really count but could be made independent).:
The Patriarch of Rome (aka "the Pope", head of "Catholicism") of the Catholic Church
The Patriarch of Constantinople (aka "the Patriarch", head of "Eastern Orthodoxy") of the Orthodox Catholic Church
The Patriarch of Baghdad (aka "the Catholicos-Patriarch" head of the "Nestorians") of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
The Patriarch of Alexandria (aka the "Pope-Patriarch" head of the "Copts") of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
The Patriarch of Vagharshapat (aka the "Catholicos" head of the "Armenians") of the One Holy Universal Apostolic Orthodox Armenian Church

Then there were three who were basically independent but recognized Constantinople's supremacy in 1066:
The Patriarch of Antioch (Syrian Orthodox Church)
The Patriarch of Jerusalem (Orthodox Church of Jerusalem)
The Patriarch of Kartli (Georgian Orthodox Church)

[/snip]

Maybe I'm not quite as knowledgeable about Christianity outside of Western Europe in the 11th Century, but it seems to me that the Paradox's choice to essentially "gloss over" the issues you raise is due to lack of substantial temporal power held by Christians of Alexandria, Assyria, and Armenia. If there aren't powerful and important political powerhouses representing those branches of the faith, then why bother spending man hours on creating additional mechanics to create a 5-way split in Christianity rather than a 2-way split.

As I said, it's not my field, so I might be missing something really obvious, but between Islam and Byzantium, 3 of those patriarchs you listed were under someone else's thumb in period.
 
I don't understand why there is Catholicism and Orthodoxy then "the heresies", that makes no sense to divide up Christianity.
That is true although Catholicism and Orthodoxy where already backed by the temporal powers that be, which put “the heresies” in a great disadvantage. They either had no Christian temporal lords (Oriental Christians) or had to chip out at the already established sects with the expected consequences (Cathars and Bogomils). Therefore it makes sense for the heretics to be second rate players.

Christianity in this era is essentially divided in Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches. As far as the patriarch of Rome and Constantinple were concerned, they were rival popes. In fact in reality there were two antipopes, one backed by the German emperor and the other by the Byzantine emperor, but especially in this time, they weren't TWO religions, they should actually be reconcilable with one SUPREME patriarch.
That is not true. There were differences of rite even before the Schism with the East (btw for Orthodox it is called the Great schism, duh), and most importantly the Ecumenal Patriarch is not a pope. He has no authority over other patriarchs, and not anywere near the control the pope had over his own clergy. The main thing is that the pope claimed superiority over other patriarchs, as a successor of Peter, while the Byzantine patriarch had no such claim. The Orthodox stance in the dispute was keeping the Nicaean Creed, with no special powers of the patriarchs (keeping them under the authority of the emperor), while the pope side was that he should have priviledged position over other patriarchs and claim suzerainty over temporal lords (Constantine's gift).


The very idea that it would be harder to reconcile the Patriarch of Constantinople with that of Rome rather than Alexandria or Jerusalem ("mere" Heresies) is laughable. They had fundamentally different ideas about the very nature of Christ.

The Orthodox creed had the power of Orthodox lords at its disposal, the Catholic creed had the power of Catholic lords at its disposal. Who would protect the patriarch of Alexandria? Keep in mind you have a Coptic patriarch and an Orthodox one in Alexandria (patriarch and anti-patriarch).

In 1066, you had basically 5 "real" patriarchs, 3 subservient ones (that don't really count but could be made independent).:
The Patriarch of Rome (aka "the Pope", head of "Catholicism") of the Catholic Church
The Patriarch of Constantinople (aka "the Patriarch", head of "Eastern Orthodoxy") of the Orthodox Catholic Church
The Patriarch of Baghdad (aka "the Catholicos-Patriarch" head of the "Nestorians") of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
The Patriarch of Alexandria (aka the "Pope-Patriarch" head of the "Copts") of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
The Patriarch of Vagharshapat (aka the "Catholicos" head of the "Armenians") of the One Holy Universal Apostolic Orthodox Armenian Church
First, “catholicos” is pathriarch in Greek s having a catholicos-patriarch is useless repetition. Second, the Armenian church is a bit of a special case, as it older the Roman church, from which the other patriarchs are representatives. While there are differences of belief, I do not think direct confrontation by a Roman patriarch could happen.
 
If relations are high enough between the Papal State and the Antipope or the King supporting the Antipope, would one be able to end the schism diplomatically?

Would it be possible to reunify the Christian faith if relations are strong between Rome and Constantinople?

EDIT: Whoops. Looks like this might be addressed later in the thread. I mistook the page I was on to be the last page. My mistake. I need to read the rest of the topic.
 
Would it be possible to reunify the Christian faith if relations are strong between Rome and Constantinople?

I sincerely doubt that, since I can't see either of them willing to step down from supreme authority even if they're the best friends in the world. There wouldn't be conflict within Christendom and the Latin and Greek rites would be encouraged to be tolerant, but to dismiss either of them in favour of the other based on the feelings of a Patriarch? Nah.
 
I sincerely doubt that, since I can't see either of them willing to step down from supreme authority even if they're the best friends in the world. There wouldn't be conflict within Christendom and the Latin and Greek rites would be encouraged to be tolerant, but to dismiss either of them in favour of the other based on the feelings of a Patriarch? Nah.

What if high relations was one of a series of requirements needed to start an event chain? Perhaps a few events simulating ecumenical councils.

(The Council of INSERT PROVINCE HERE has been called to discuss present grievances between the East and West. We have been asked to send some of our clergy who will represent our interests. How should we respond? Option 1: We must move toward reconciliation. Option 2: Bah! The Mother Church shall never compromise Option 3: Do not send a representative.)

High relations would just be one of many steps needed to accomplish reunification. At the end of the chain, the Pope and Patriarch would step down and a new candidate would be selected to fill both positions. Doing so would be immensely difficult but would provide a massive boost to Christianity's moral authority and perhaps have other rewards.

Just a thought. Sorry if I am disturbing.
 
What if high relations was one of a series of requirements needed to start an event chain? Perhaps a few events simulating ecumenical councils.

(The Council of INSERT PROVINCE HERE has been called to discuss present grievances between the East and West. We have been asked to send some of our clergy who will represent our interests. How should we respond? Option 1: We must move toward reconciliation. Option 2: Bah! The Mother Church shall never compromise Option 3: Do not send a representative.)

High relations would just be one of many steps needed to accomplish reunification. At the end of the chain, the Pope and Patriarch would step down and a new candidate would be selected to fill both positions. Doing so would be immensely difficult but would provide a massive boost to Christianity's moral authority and perhaps have other rewards.

Just a thought. Sorry if I am disturbing.

Sorry if you're.. disturbing? What the hay? Discussion is good. o_o

But that I do approve of (although it could get messy for gameplay if you just "end" the schisms completely), since Moral Authority is a confirmed mechanic. If there are good relations between patriarchs then councils to hammer out agreement on theological issues previously disagreed on should give you a boost from the new-found "Unity of the Church" on the issues in question. Much as how I'd really like for heretical groups to have "issues" they disagree on instead of just being individual faiths. That way regional/newly converted churches can be a bit quirky while those under strong papal control can be more similar, with the Pope trying to enforce his views where his authority is weaker (like trying to end Simony, getting rid of secular control, stamping out cultural practices still directly associated with pagan beliefs of old and so forth). If that was the case then Councils could be called to end schisms gradually and being harder to achieve depending on the severity of the disagreement (Shouldn't be easy to switch from "Jesus is God" to "He's a nifty prophet, but human". Of like substance/Of the same substance and what-not).

Having such a system would make Christians a lot more exciting and playable for my Atheist self, since the focus of the faith wouldn't just be projecting it outwards, but also making sure the Canon is kept straight internally. But given that they do have different religions I suppose it'd have to be a tolerance modifier. Oh well. :)
 
Having such a system would make Christians a lot more exciting and playable for my Atheist self, since the focus of the faith wouldn't just be projecting it outwards, but also making sure the Canon is kept straight internally. But given that they do have different religions I suppose it'd have to be a tolerance modifier. Oh well. :)

I have thought about something similar, well not quite the same. There should be religious flexibility options, to allow for a more decentralized Church, but under the same nominal head or perhaps council. Heresy would be less of an issue, and locally, you could have your own rite, cults to the saints, etc. At least in western Christianity, it was those times when Popes wanted to shore up their own authority that you have the most upheaval and the appearance of heresies.
 
anybody besides me getting bit "horny" over this upcoming title ? :D <3

Also would be nice if you kept small parts of the old religion of old norse religion to maybe bring small parts of viking history alive again ;=)?

The Norse faith is still clinging on in 1066. The Temple of Uppsala still stands, and Erik the Heathen is ready to fight for the old ways...
 
The Norse faith is still clinging on in 1066. The Temple of Uppsala still stands, and Erik the Heathen is ready to fight for the old ways...

Ah cool, so Erik is confirmed. What about Blót-Sven/Håkan (as his possible father) the earlier years in the game? :)
 
I am incredibly impressed by every screenshot and piece of video I've seen from the game so far. This looks like its going to be one of the most polished Paradox games to date.
 
Nice, playing as Erik is one of the many things I am really looking forward to in this game.

If Erik is pagan, he will not be playable ;) ... until a mod or expansion allows for that.
 
If Erik is pagan, he will not be playable ;) ... until a mod or expansion allows for that.

I wish that there were exceptions for dynasties that belong to more than one religious group, but not likely to happen. On the same line of thinking, will Christians be able to inherit non-Christian realms and vice versa? There could be laws to govern such things, and I hope that non-Christian succession laws are worked out to reflect this. In CK1, I was able to marry my Iberian Christians to Moorish noblewomen and so inherit in some cases entire emirates. :D