Make Vassal Degrees of Freedom Be Determined by the De Facto Liege's Laws, Please

[Hamanu]

While I agree with the OP that this is a ridiculous situation, I think there's some merit in, what one might deem as tradition. Say you were part of an empire to begin with, an empire with high authority and you manage to extradite yourself from it. The laws of that empire might not apply to you, personally, but your subjects still remember that empire and you need to at least pretend to comply with its laws to maintain the support of those you rule over. Like the examples of the barbarians parting out the Western Roman empire in the fifth and the sixth centuries. They all called themselves patricians and consuls to impress the Roman part of their populace.

In game terms, if you manage to become independent, maybe you would need to have an option to slowly "erode" that, now foreign authority which you no longer recognize de facto, but still, in a way, have to pay lip service to (i.e. de jure).

I hope I'm making some sense. Essentially, you'd be able to "degrade" that remnant of your former liege's authority over time, maybe once every 5 years or even once every 10 years, but more than once in the lifetime of a single monarch.

 

[unmerged(447119)]

Not to a modern legal positivist accepting of law as an instrument to exercise and legitimate de facto power. It is different where the expectation of fixed laws as part of fixed institutions regulating the conduct of peasants through princes, including such matters as war and succeession, is a bedrock principle - raw power can always breach these laws, but is not entitled to change them at whim. Paradox admittedly grossly simplifies the complexity and diversity of medieval legal strucutres, but the feel and flavor it is there (and exactly what you are, in the role of a ruler, chafing against).

In a Crusader Kings post-apocalyptic Mad Max mod, you would be right - he who rules, makes the rules.
From a Christian medieval viewpoint, you are all kinds of wrong (and would probably be tried and burned as a heretic, just to be on the safe side).

I agree in principle, but it doesn't fix the issue. As the game is designed, those in my land will gladly adhere to law changes if the King who once ruled this land 250 years ago but now is a very minor King changes the law, but won't adhere to that very same law if their King for the last 250 years who they love dearly makes that same change.

Either crown laws are basically permanent like you describe or "he who rules make the rules" like I describe would work but this middle ground where a king who may or may not have ruled 200 years ago makes the rules doesn't make much sense.

 

[unmerged(447119)]

While I agree with the OP that this is a ridiculous situation, I think there's some merit in, what one might deem as tradition. Say you were part of an empire to begin with, an empire with high authority and you manage to extradite yourself from it. The laws of that empire might not apply to you, personally, but your subjects still remember that empire and you need to at least pretend to comply with its laws to maintain the support of those you rule over. Like the examples of the barbarians parting out the Western Roman empire in the fifth and the sixth centuries. They all called themselves patricians and consuls to impress the Roman part of their populace.

In game terms, if you manage to become independent, maybe you would need to have an option to slowly "erode" that, now foreign authority which you no longer recognize de facto, but still, in a way, have to pay lip service to (i.e. de jure).

I hope I'm making some sense. Essentially, you'd be able to "degrade" that remnant of your former liege's authority over time, maybe once every 5 years or even once every 10 years, but more than once in the lifetime of a single monarch.

I think a good compromise (although perhaps messy to code) would be to make it so that once a Kingdom reaches a certain threshold of Crown Authority (High?), the Crown's laws extend to all de facto holdings. Anything below that and its traditional du jour rule. It would make sense, as that represents the Kingdom having a lot of authority over its populace that would extend beyond traditional borders.

 

[Hamanu]

I think a good compromise (although perhaps messy to code) would be to make it so that once a Kingdom reaches a certain threshold of Crown Authority (High?), the Crown's laws extend to all de facto holdings. Anything below that and its traditional du jour rule. It would make sense, as that represents the Kingdom having a lot of authority over its populace that would extend beyond traditional borders.

That is a good solution.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

Not to a modern legal positivist accepting of law as an instrument to exercise and legitimate de facto power. It is different where the expectation of fixed laws as part of fixed institutions regulating the conduct of peasants through princes, including such matters as war and succeession, is a bedrock principle - raw power can always breach these laws, but is not entitled to change them at whim. Paradox admittedly grossly simplifies the complexity and diversity of medieval legal strucutres, but the feel and flavor it is there (and exactly what you are, in the role of a ruler, chafing against).

In a Crusader Kings post-apocalyptic Mad Max mod, you would be right - he who rules, makes the rules.
From a Christian medieval viewpoint, you are all kinds of wrong (and would probably be tried and burned as a heretic, just to be on the safe side).

I have no idea why you are using words like "fixed" and "bedrock principle" to describe something that, as far as game mechanics go, are anything but fixed. It's a good idea in theory for some things, but as far as Crown Authority goes, it's pretty silly.

I think a good compromise (although perhaps messy to code) would be to make it so that once a Kingdom reaches a certain threshold of Crown Authority (High?), the Crown's laws extend to all de facto holdings. Anything below that and its traditional du jour rule. It would make sense, as that represents the Kingdom having a lot of authority over its populace that would extend beyond traditional borders.

This is exactly what I would want to see. This would additionally give us a good mechanical reason to stay at higher Crown Authority levels, which currently aren't really worth the massive vassal relationship penalties. Two birds with one stone.

Alternatively or in combination with the above, I'd also like for Kingdom crown laws within Empires to take precedence so long as they have a stronger individual Crown Authority than their Emperor does.

 

[Nick B II]

I have no idea why you are using words like "fixed" and "bedrock principle" to describe something that, as far as game mechanics go, are anything but fixed. It's a good idea in theory for some things, but as far as Crown Authority goes, it's pretty silly.

Medieval legal thought is inherently silly. Incredibly silly. Ridiculously silly. Read the Magna Carta. These guys are talking, in the most pretentious terms possible, about "ancient rights" for a Baronial class that clearly didn't exist 150 years earlier because 150 years earlier England was Saxon.

What happens when you change Crown Authority is simple: you find some old legal principle that everyone acknowledges is valid, and misinterpret/steal/make up stuff so that it either increase your authority or decreases it. Since this process is absolutely no fun it's abstracted out of the game.

The perfect RL example of this is probably French Salic Law. Legally speaking the right of Jure Uxoris, ie: giving the Crown Princess's husband the throne, is just as valid an interpretation of the ancient Salian Legal Texts as any other. It was certainly good enough for the Kings of France when it resulted in them gaining Brittany. But that didn't suit the French nobles politically when John the Posthumous died, so his only sibling Joan of Navarra was passed over in favor of an uncle. Later (in 1328) they had to find a way to totally disinherit the female line, or the King of England would be King of France as well, so they interpreted the ancient Salian rules some more.

That's what Paradox is trying to capture with these cumbersome Crown Laws. A real medieval Lord had to deal with laws that he could not change, he could merely reinterpret. Reinterpreting was made much more difficult if he was not King, because there'd always be somebody the next Duchy over claiming he was innovating, which the entire Catholic world would have equated with Rule by Decree and Tyranny.

Nick

 

[Sir Garnet]

The Crown Law is not just a proclamation of a particular ruler but an institution and tradition of the people who identify with the kingdom, and as such receive great respect and deference, sometimes reverence. The Constitution of the United States is viewed in a similar way by a large part of the population.

Not just in the US, but elsewhere, rulers usually insist or at least pretend that they are acting within the law, even when twisting it around with the assistance of able lawyers. That is reflected by the laws in game, which in many cases are really about interpretations and institutiions than any actual change in The Law.

Within the Catholic sphere, however, the overarching role of the Church will tend to maintain these traditions and their precedents for centuries, as was mentioned above. Whichever Catholic ruler holds power in the area at any particular time has to consider the laws and traditions of the area, which they do in game in the imperfect way of game designers and other human beings.

This is not to deny that where the old civilization is truly submierged or swept away, such as an enduring Muslim or Mongol conquest, the old institutions can be quickly forgotten, though sometimes resurrected on reconquista as the hallowed and therefore legitimate practice of the area.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

Medieval legal thought is inherently silly. Incredibly silly. Ridiculously silly. Read the Magna Carta. These guys are talking, in the most pretentious terms possible, about "ancient rights" for a Baronial class that clearly didn't exist 150 years earlier because 150 years earlier England was Saxon.

What happens when you change Crown Authority is simple: you find some old legal principle that everyone acknowledges is valid, and misinterpret/steal/make up stuff so that it either increase your authority or decreases it. Since this process is absolutely no fun it's abstracted out of the game.

The perfect RL example of this is probably French Salic Law. Legally speaking the right of Jure Uxoris, ie: giving the Crown Princess's husband the throne, is just as valid an interpretation of the ancient Salian Legal Texts as any other. It was certainly good enough for the Kings of France when it resulted in them gaining Brittany. But that didn't suit the French nobles politically when John the Posthumous died, so his only sibling Joan of Navarra was passed over in favor of an uncle. Later (in 1328) they had to find a way to totally disinherit the female line, or the King of England would be King of France as well, so they interpreted the ancient Salian rules some more.

That's what Paradox is trying to capture with these cumbersome Crown Laws. A real medieval Lord had to deal with laws that he could not change, he could merely reinterpret. Reinterpreting was made much more difficult if he was not King, because there'd always be somebody the next Duchy over claiming he was innovating, which the entire Catholic world would have equated with Rule by Decree and Tyranny.

Nick

Thanks for the history lesson. Yes, we've said over and over already that it makes sense for the way things work to apply to inheritance laws.

But where's your historical anecdote explaining how the Kingdom of Jerusalem had no crown laws of its own; how it was only legally able to implement the crown laws of the Eastern Roman Empire? That is what is represented by the game at present. That is what is being complained about in this thread. Are you going to defend that?

 

[Sir Garnet]

A real medieval Lord had to deal with laws that he could not change, he could merely reinterpret. Reinterpreting was made much more difficult if he was not King, because there'd always be somebody the next Duchy over claiming he was innovating, which the entire Catholic world would have equated with Rule by Decree and Tyranny.

Nick

And pressing a claims is essentially pushing a particular interpretation by military means.

Nice examples, Nick.

 

[nindustrial]

And from a mechanical standpoint, I'm still not understanding why Titular kingdoms, or (presumably) any given kingdom that is located within a de jure empire, even has the ability to set Crown Laws in the Legal View if they can never possibly have any effect.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

...rulers usually insist or at least pretend that they are acting within the law, even when twisting it around with the assistance of able lawyers. That is reflected by the laws in game, which in many cases are really about interpretations and institutiions than any actual change in The Law.

It would be wonderful if we had an actual game mechanic representing this sort of thing. But apparently only the de facto holder of a realm title has those able lawyers that allow them to twist the law of the realm at their whim.

Nevermind that the Emperor of Byzantium has not a single loyal vassal among the Greeks! His lawyers have re-interpreted the law in such a way to prevent the Norman-held Duchy of Apulia from being inherited by a German duke! Oh, now his last remaining vassal has forced the Emperor to grant him independence, and so the lawyers have changed the law again! This means the King of Jerusalem is no longer entitled to any substantial levies from his crusader vassals!

 

[nemuri_no_kogoro]

That's what Paradox is trying to capture with these cumbersome Crown Laws. A real medieval Lord had to deal with laws that he could not change, he could merely reinterpret. Reinterpreting was made much more difficult if he was not King, because there'd always be somebody the next Duchy over claiming he was innovating, which the entire Catholic world would have equated with Rule by Decree and Tyranny.

Nick

But the thing is, the De Jure ruler can affect the laws of the realm to change quite easily. I would understand your point if nobody could, but it doesn't make any sense (no is it very fair/fun for the player) that the system exists in the form that it is.

 

[Nick B II]

Thanks for the history lesson. Yes, we've said over and over already that it makes sense for the way things work to apply to inheritance laws.

But where's your historical anecdote explaining how the Kingdom of Jerusalem had no crown laws of its own; how it was only legally able to implement the crown laws of the Eastern Roman Empire? That is what is represented by the game at present. That is what is being complained about in this thread. Are you going to defend that?

No, because as I explained before:
I'm almost positive you're mistaken on this point.

An independent KoJ will have his own Crown Laws. He can change them. They may be identical to the Byzantine laws when the Kingdom's first created, because I don't know what the defaults for newly created kingdoms are, but the King can push them up or down depending on what he wants.

A Jerusalem which pledges itself to the Empire is a different beast altogether.

It should be easy to test. Just load up as Sicily or Jerusalem, preferably during a year when they can change their laws, and try to change them. If you can't you should be able to take a screen of the pop-up, and post it. Just use Photobucket.

Unfortunately I can't do it myself because the Mac version isn't out yet.

Nick

 

[nemuri_no_kogoro]

Nick

I don't think he means that the KoJ literally can not change its own laws. You can switch them up and down all you want.
He's saying that the Byzantine Crown laws supersede it. So he could have his set at "High" but his vassals and their underlings will only follow the Byzantine ones, even though neither he nor they are part of the ERE.

 

[Arilou]

It... Actually sounds pretty reasonable. The HRE DID work like that. There was constant references to imperial law and precedent, and the various ancient and bizzarre privilegies granted at some point.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

No, because as I explained before:
I'm almost positive you're mistaken on this point.

An independent KoJ will have his own Crown Laws. He can change them. They may be identical to the Byzantine laws when the Kingdom's first created, because I don't know what the defaults for newly created kingdoms are, but the King can push them up or down depending on what he wants.

A Jerusalem which pledges itself to the Empire is a different beast altogether.

It should be easy to test. Just load up as Sicily or Jerusalem, preferably during a year when they can change their laws, and try to change them. If you can't you should be able to take a screen of the pop-up, and post it. Just use Photobucket.

Unfortunately I can't do it myself because the Mac version isn't out yet.

Nick

Actually, you're right. I loaded up as my vassal the Doux of Apulia; he cannot wage war on anyone. But the Doux of Achaia can. Most of the Byzantine crown laws only apply to the Byzantium kingdom, not to the whole De Jure Empire as I thought. But that leaves me puzzled as to what was spoiling the Duchy of Apulia inheritance earlier; maybe Imperial crown laws are in effect if there are no Kingdom crown laws? If so, that is still an issue.

But still, I have the situation where my vassals in Greece proper, thanks to Byzantine crown laws, are able to wage war willy-nilly upon not only one another, but also any of my other vassals. It would be nice if there were a mechanic to block this somehow apart from becoming the emperor myself. Historically speaking, with the Empire racked by civil war, a Byzantine prince in my position would have no problem claiming to be Emperor and thus acting with Imperial authority over his de facto territory. CK2 makes it a bit more difficult, with only 1 person being able to claim to be Emperor at a time, and gaining a claim or usurping the title isn't a trivial matter at all.

 

[Nick B II]

My best guess is that you were an Imperial vassal, which would mean Imperial Crown Law applies. If you'd been independent you woulda been able to inherit.

My understanding is that, in de jure Empires, every Kingdom has two levels of Crown Law. All Imperial vassals obey the Imperial law, all other states obey the Royal Law. Since Sicily was apparently uncreated, it would have to be the Imperial law that screwed you.

This is not based on my personal experience, because the Mac version ain't out, but is based on Secret Master's extensive experience with the Preview version. One of the games he talked about most was a Byzantine game where he became King of the Middle East, and manipulated it so that he didn't have to obey BYZA's crown laws but everyone else did.

I'm not clear on the exact rules with uncreated Kingdoms, or the rules that determine the initial laws of newly created kingdoms. I don't think anybody is.

Nick

 

[unmerged(382585)]

Well, what I'm complaining about is another realm's institutions changing too easily, and then those changes being transplanted onto my vassals instantly with me having zero control. Doesn't strike me as historical whatsoever.

Since Crown Authority laws in particular are an abstract representation of the realm's cohesion and monarch's power, there's really no good reason for them to apply outside of the De Facto realm.

I couldn't agree more.

They have screwed up how de-jure and fe-facto works in this case.

De-facto should be what really goes on (laws of independent Bohemia)
De-jure is what 'should' be going on.

Many countries even today have many laws only de-jure (on paper) and they are not being put into everyday practice (de-facto). My country is a prime example

 

[Jak9090]

we just need to make a plot that kingdoms can split from de jure empires, if they kingdom has high oer max crown authority, what do u say?

 

[Ruwaard]

My best guess is that you were an Imperial vassal, which would mean Imperial Crown Law applies. If you'd been independent you woulda been able to inherit.

My understanding is that, in de jure Empires, every Kingdom has two levels of Crown Law. All Imperial vassals obey the Imperial law, all other states obey the Royal Law. Since Sicily was apparently uncreated, it would have to be the Imperial law that screwed you.

This is not based on my personal experience, because the Mac version ain't out, but is based on Secret Master's extensive experience with the Preview version. One of the games he talked about most was a Byzantine game where he became King of the Middle East, and manipulated it so that he didn't have to obey BYZA's crown laws but everyone else did.

I'm not clear on the exact rules with uncreated Kingdoms, or the rules that determine the initial laws of newly created kingdoms. I don't think anybody is.

Nick

Your correct (I checked my vanilla version of the game), in an empire their are imperial crown laws and royal crown laws, even vassal kingdoms within a de jure empire have to follow the imperial crown laws, but independent kingdoms within a de jure empire follow their own royal crown laws.
OTOH this won't make re-add Sicily or Croatia to the Byzantine empire in my adjusted & modded version of the game though.