- Feb 12, 2011
That is a good point that elevating a bhikkhu to count status or greater results in all sorts of outrageous behavior, and that it results from taking the prince-bishop model from Europe and applying it all across the map. (And I've taken note of it when playing CK2.) But I've got a different instinct as to what is to be done. In CK3 terms, I'd make it a doctrinal choice as to whether theocracies can exist above the individual temple holding level. If they can't, then any cleric who acquires count or higher status disrobes and goes back to lay life. (I actually think that CK3 may in fact be doing this - the first Religion dev diary showed a doctrinal choice for "Clerical Function" and it was set to "Control". That sounds to me that there might be other Function doctrine options that limit the power of the clergy.)But that's forcing much more flavor down your throat. I really think the best comparison are theocracies - in Ckii, I can invite a claimant, demand-convert them, land them as a temple holder, fight a war for their claim on a title of any tier, and then:
1) If they're my vassal, I can call them to fight in any sort of war
2) They'll likely start acting tyrannical and revoking their heretic vassals property, taking that which is not given
3) They'll likely start declaring their own holy wars
4) They'll accumulate vast wealth and material possessions and generally be living in a way totally incompatible with Therevada or Jain monastic rules and ideals
Which is all absolutely bonkers for a Bhikku. Arguably more bonkers than a holy order which has at least has one condition (you must be at war with a heretic) before they'll fight for you. Theocracies really only represent the behavior of European prince-bishops and the Papal State. But we accept that the framework of the game is built with Europe in mind first and the standard we can reasonably hold them to is just to try and build other regions in the way that best represents reality within the confines of that framework.