A Proposal for Bishopric Succession

[unmerged(28030)]

I am not pleased with the way Bishopric succession is handled.

1a) At present, you create the 1st bishop yourself, and after that you have no control -- all the bishops come from the pope's court or ther papal controller. I would like to point out that by the game's intended design I should have an 80% chance of appointing a succeeding bishop under 'Regal Supremecy' -- it says this in the description. Will Paradox address this in the future or is it a lost cause?

1b) While Johan & Co. are considering this, I frankly think there should be an entirely different method of succession. Right now, the 2nd bishop will probably come from half way across Europe: For example, a Spanish bishopric filled by a Pole. Not even in c. 2005 is the catholic church anywhere near this cosmopolitan. Virtually all bishops are local men. If this is true today, how much the more so when the fastest transport was horse or sail ship? The pope is not going to send somebody all the way from Poland to Spain. This is ridiculous both in historical and in game terms.

In fact, even when the Pope reserved the right to invest new bishops in a country, the government thereof often had a primary role in nominating the bishop. Until modern times, many bishoprics were de facto hereditary positions, controlled by a single familly. This is clearly not possible if the Pope had absolute power over church appointments, which he did not really acquire until the 20th century (because by then they were politically irrelevent).

So then, the in game succession I would like to see is this:

Step 1 -- When a bishop dies, his liege lord gets a chance to appoint the next bishop (which would be 80% under Regal Supremecy). If he has a man with church education he may do this. He may also choose not to appoint the bishop if he doesn't want to lose a courtier.

I assume the problems connected with this would be (a) can you allow the player/AI to choose a successor from several eligable while the office is vacant and the game is continuing to go foward? (b) If not, can it work like the papal/papal controller courts do where a man is taken at random (if he is not married, not holding a position and not commanding an army)?

Step 2 -- If the lord will not appoint a bishop, the bishop has no lord, or it falls to the pope, then an unmarried successor with church education is chosen from the court of the expired bishop. A bishop in England ought to be English, most of the time.

Step 3 -- If nobody has church education there, the game generates a character with church education to fill the post, with same culture as the province.

No more bishops with martial or court education. No more married bishops. The papal controller no longer loses men; instead he has a 100% chance of filling all of his own bishop vacancies (if he chooses). All rulers would have a better chance of actually getting a family member elected pope, since they would have a chance to name bishops.

(Edit: Just as a reminder, there are still married bishops. Would it be so hard to prevent a married man from becoming bishop or 'diocese bishop'?)

I think this is a great solution. I have given a good deal of thought; in any case I hope it gives ideas to the people working on the Beta.

 

[unmerged(5707)]

I am not pleased with the way Bishopric succession is handled.

1a) At present, you create the 1st bishop yourself, and after that you have no control -- all the bishops come from the pope's court or ther papal controller. I would like to point out that by the game's intended design I should have an 80% chance of appointing a succeeding bishop under 'Regal Supremecy' -- it says this in the description. Will Paradox address this in the future or is it a lost cause?

1b) While Johan & Co. are considering this, I frankly think there should be an entirely different method of succession. Right now, the 2nd bishop will probably come from half way across Europe: For example, a Spanish bishopric filled by a Pole. Not even in c. 2005 is the catholic church anywhere near this cosmopolitan. Virtually all bishops are local men. If this is true today, how much the more so when the fastest transport was horse or sail ship? The pope is not going to send somebody all the way from Poland to Spain. This is ridiculous both in historical and in game terms.

In fact, even when the Pope reserved the right to invest new bishops in a country, the government thereof often had a primary role in nominating the bishop. Until modern times, many bishoprics were de facto hereditary positions, controlled by a single familly. This is clearly not possible if the Pope had absolute power over church appointments, which he did not really acquire until the 20th century (because by then they were politically irrelevent).

So then, the in game succession I would like to see is this:

Step 1 -- When a bishop dies, his liege lord gets a chance to appoint the next bishop (which would be 80% under Regal Supremecy). If he has a man with church education he may do this. He may also choose not to appoint the bishop if he doesn't want to lose a courtier.

I assume the problems connected with this would be (a) can you allow the player/AI to choose a successor from several eligable while the office is vacant and the game is continuing to go foward? (b) If not, can it work like the papal/papal controller courts do where a man is taken at random (if he is not married, not holding a position and not commanding an army)?

Step 2 -- If the lord will not appoint a bishop, the bishop has no lord, or it falls to the pope, then an unmarried successor with church education is chosen from the court of the expired bishop. A bishop in England ought to be English, most of the time.

Step 3 -- If nobody has church education there, the game generates a character with church education to fill the post, with same culture as the province.

No more bishops with martial or court education. No more married bishops. The papal controller no longer loses men; instead he has a 100% chance of filling all of his own bishop vacancies (if he chooses). All rulers would have a better chance of actually getting a family member elected pope, since they would have a chance to name bishops.

(Edit: Just as a reminder, there are still married bishops. Would it be so hard to prevent a married man from becoming bishop or 'diocese bishop'?)

I think this is a great solution. I have given a good deal of thought; in any case I hope it gives ideas to the people working on the Beta.

I agree with most of what you've said. I do disagree about the married bishops. That should be allowed, at least until Clerical Celibacy is acquired, and perhaps even after. There were many married bishops, hell, there were even married Popes, carrying on well into the era of celibacy. Not sure how'd they'd code it, but married bishops should be allowed; maybe you could have a modifier that wouldnt allow a ruler with piety above X to appoint one, but otherwise, IMHO, it should be allowed.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Seems like a major code rework to me, but not a critical problem, so maybe 1.06 or CK2.

 

[Alexandre]

I agree with most of what your wrote however

Step 3 -- If nobody has church education there, the game generates a character with church education to fill the post, with same culture as the province.

No more bishops with martial or court education.

While I agree that most bishops should have a church education, I don't think that another education should be an absolute bar.

One thing that I'd also like to see is an option for the leige to forcibly convert an Orthodox/Catholic bishopric to his own religion by imposing a bishop of his own. There should be a loyalty hit with all of his other-religion vassals, and have a chance of leading to cessession by the bishopric.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Like it.

 

[jordarkelf]

Even today a Bishop might be married. There certainly are some marriage priests: if the marriage was prior to the man swearing his vows, it stays valid. Priests (and other church officials) are only discouraged from marriage after they have sworn their vows, it is by no means utterly forbidden.

Good points otherwise.

 

[Lord Costabella]

Even today a Bishop might be married. There certainly are some marriage priests: if the marriage was prior to the man swearing his vows, it stays valid. Priests (and other church officials) are only discouraged from marriage after they have sworn their vows, it is by no means utterly forbidden.

Good points otherwise.

Disagree. According to the Catholic Church, no bishop may be married. A married man may become a deacon, but never advance to priest. In some dioceses in Africa and other countries, a married man may become a priest (I think). But this is not so in Europe, North America, South America, nor Oceania. In these countries, an Anglican or Episcopalian married priest who converts to the Catholic faith may become a priest, but he will never be chosen to become a bishop. Only unmarried men become bishops in today's Catholic Church.

 

[jordarkelf]

True for bishops only by tradition, not by rule.

Just like --in theory at least-- any Catholic man may become a pope if elected by the Curia: there is no need for this man to be a priest, bishop, or even just an altar boy: being Catholic is enough.
In practice of course this doesn't happen.

 

[Enravota]

though Bishops in both Catolicism and Orthodoxy are celibrate, they should get a lot of bastards, i guess

 

[unmerged(44651)]

I noticed that many bishops sent by the pope to your court are lustful...i mean really often!I wonder why...

 

[unmerged(44072)]

ALL the bishops I've been sent so far have been lustful. I wondered if this was deliberate--that these bishops are available because of scandals in their previous courts. Kind of like the Archbishop in Boston moving around all the pedophile priests.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I noticed that many bishops sent by the pope to your court are lustful...i mean really often!I wonder why...

And sceptical in my experience

 

[unmerged(21937)]

When you create a random courtier of specific type, they tend to sport either traits appropriate for them or the opposites of those. Lustful is opposite of Chaste and Sceptical is opposite of Zealous.

 

[unmerged(29883)]

Ahh...I must admit, I had wondered why the pope was fostering the malcontents of the church on me. Actually, I found it quite entertaining. Despite trying to put me on trial for my sceptical ways twice and actually putting me on trial for heresy at one stage, he nonetheless sent me no less than four sceptical bishops over a lifetime.

Surely that constitutes some form of medieval entrapment?

Certainly, the church laws appear to be broken at the moment, which is a shame, since it often makes acquiring the status of papal controller a rather luck-driven affair. You *can* try to rig it for the future, but IMO the end doesn't justify the means. If the church succession laws were WAD, then it would be useful to take the risks of having regal supremacy, etc.

The appearance of foreign bishops can be a wee bit excessive, but the only other option would really be to open up the papal controller's choices to candidates beyond his own court. If the Pope was choosing the bishop, it might be on piety alone, or on popular or clergy feeling, or it might be because he wants a firebrand zealot to tie the hands of a King who isn't toeing the Papal line. Currently, you can do that to a limited extent by parachuting members of your dynasty into their vacant spaces to ensure that your power in the church grows, and that your chances of keeping control of the papacy increase. Giving a local bishop power, with no tie to your dynastical line, but who may or may not suit the ruler would be, IMO, rather pointless flavour. Turbulent priests rarely need to be got rid of as it stands.

I agree with Step 1, if it can be implemented. With regard to Step 2, I would query whether, if no viable (ie, male, church-education) courtiers are present, then a country cousin or a courtier, if possible, should inherit the county, reverting it to feudal rather than clerical control?

Or, alternatively, your Step 3 of creating a clerical country cousin to take over the ruling of the bishopric. Not the same culture as the province, but as the previous bishop. If the ruler can't usurp foreign bishops that he doesn't want there, the game shouldn't be doing it for him...

I agree with not having bishops who don't have a church education, but marriage should hinge on clerical celibacy. If its been discovered, no married priests...if not, go ahead.

 

[Yakman]

It is a good proposal.

 

[unmerged(28030)]

Seems like a major code rework to me, but not a critical problem, so maybe 1.06 or CK2.

Not a critical problem, no, the game would still function, but it is a problem. It's obvious that originally the player was meant to choose more than the first bishop.

I agree with most of what you've said. I do disagree about the married bishops. That should be allowed, at least until Clerical Celibacy is acquired, and perhaps even after. There were many married bishops, hell, there were even married Popes

"Concubinage and open marriage seem to have been the most common during the tenth and eleventh centuries in Italy and Germany, though priests with regular or irregular consorts were found in every part of western Christendom..." -- p. 66, Dennis Hay, The Medieval Centuries, c. 1965

"...however sensual priests and monks may have been, the law on celibacy had never wavered so far as regular and higher secular clergy were concerned..." -- p. 70

Even if someone can produce an authentic example of a married bishop, it was surely extremely rare, let alone a married pope. I would rather there be no married bishops anywhere. This is surely not difficult to code.

While I agree that most bishops should have a church education, I don't think that another education should be an absolute bar.

Well what's the point of church education if it doesn't give a special quality? You might as well give all your would-be bishops court education. Ideally, you would only give church education to a man you expect will become a bishop of some type. Although you might end up making him chancellor, for instance, if he is really good. By allowing only the ecclesiastics to become bishops I suspect it would be easier also, to code my idea(s) than if you let anyone in there.

One thing that I'd also like to see is an option for the leige to forcibly convert an Orthodox/Catholic bishopric to his own religion by imposing a bishop of his own. There should be a loyalty hit with all of his other-religion vassals, and have a chance of leading to cessession by the bishopric.

They probably won't even agree to do anything I proposed, not to mention your idea. The drawback to an open forum is, the second someone has a good idea, it gets buried under 10 counter-proposals! :wacko:

The appearance of foreign bishops can be a wee bit excessive, but the only other option would really be to open up the papal controller's choices to candidates beyond his own court.

I was thinking -- and I am just using layman's common sense here -- that anything that allows you to individually pick the (successor) bishop would be difficult, since in the meantime the game is still running and what if something happens in the province where there is no bishop?

When I say "choose" the succeeding bishop, I really mean you would train as churchmen only those men you expect the AI to grab to be bishops. And only these could be "stolen" from your court. The chance would have nothing to do with being papal controller, but your church law. This is the option "b" I wrote about, which seems more feasible, because they have already programmed it to happen for the pope's and the controller's courts. Because the church law descriptions mention "bishop appointment chances" they obviously intended something like this.

Currently, you can do that to a limited extent by parachuting members of your dynasty into their vacant spaces to ensure that your power in the church grows, and that your chances of keeping control of the papacy increase.

Not sure what you mean.

Giving a local bishop power, with no tie to your dynastical line, but who may or may not suit the ruler would be, IMO, rather pointless flavour. Turbulent priests rarely need to be got rid of as it stands.

I guess, if fixing it so the grandmasters of the crusader orders are always Christian(!) is "pointless flavour" or stopping the muslims from taking Ile de France without capturing anything in between is too. The game functions with good stability now, but I feel this bishop thing is necessary flavour.

I agree with Step 1, if it can be implemented. With regard to Step 2, I would query whether, if no viable (ie, male, church-education) courtiers are present, then a country cousin or a courtier, if possible, should inherit the county, reverting it to feudal rather than clerical control?

Then bishoprics would not last any time at all, because there are ussually only 3 courtiers there, and often none is a man let alone with church education.

Or, alternatively, your Step 3 of creating a clerical country cousin to take over the ruling of the bishopric. Not the same culture as the province, but as the previous bishop. If the ruler can't usurp foreign bishops that he doesn't want there, the game shouldn't be doing it for him...

I guess. But my point was that if it was accurate most bishops would be of the local culture. That would not preculde a foriegner from finding his way in there as a church ed. courtier and then succeeding, or however.

Thanks to everyone for your imput and support.

 

[unmerged(5707)]

Re married popes/Popes with kids (repeat medici over and over to yourself...



http://www.bessel.org/popes.htm


I would have bet on Alexander being married, but apparently he was just a whoremonger

 

[unmerged(28030)]

Okay. I have to point out almost all of those married popes were in the later Roman Empire, but only one in the high middle ages. That would be Clement IV, and I have to question whether he was married at the time he was pope.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

So you think married man should not be eligble to be made bishop at all? As in, not appear in Create Bishopric listing?

Not a critical problem, no, the game would still function, but it is a problem. It's obvious that originally the player was meant to choose more than the first bishop.

Sure, but I'd rather prefer Johan using his limited time for CK to for example fix the Area bug, improve the AI and other more critical issues.

 

[unmerged(44651)]

I would also like to see him improving and fix real stuff...
And lustful married bishops are no real problem but instead funny ^^