Winter is here and the ice-fear is very cold (now there's an obscure reference for you). For today's diary, I thought that we might immerse ourselves in medieval jurisprudence. In practice, the laws function in much the same way as in Rome: Vae Victis, but in Crusader Kings II there are two different types of law; one that applies to a character's actual demesne (de facto, or demesne laws) and one that applies to everyone within an ancient traditional kingdom (de jure, or kingdom laws.) Demesne laws cover things like succession, tax levels and how the council operates. Any playable character can fiddle around with his own demesne laws. Kingdom laws cover the freedoms, rights and obligations of burghers, nobles, clergy and peasants. Only the holder of a Kingdom title is allowed to change these laws, and they will affect the whole geographical kingdom, regardless of whether a province is actually under its de facto control. (Like in Crusader Kings, de jure duchies and kingdoms are static, geographical entities that never change.)

Therefore, a player who is, for example, king of Norway and Denmark must change de jure laws separately per kingdom. To make things even more interesting, succession at the kingdom level (and only at the kingdom level) is also handled per kingdom, so Norway might be an elective monarchy while Denmark has primogeniture. Thus, the Norwegian dukes might elect another successor to the throne of Norway than the oldest son of the current king, which would split the kingdoms apart...
Speaking of succession laws, they are slightly different from the ones in Crusader Kings. In Crusader Kings II, most succession laws can be either cognatic or agnatic (that choice is a separate law.) These are the succession laws of CKII:

• Seniority (oldest man in the dynasty succeeds)
• Primogeniture (oldest son succeeds)
• Elective (the current king and the dukes each nominate a successor)
• Gavelkind (all titles are divided among the sons of the ruler)
• Turkish (a succession crisis is almost guaranteed, but the vassals are content)
• Republican (a random vassal or courtier succeeds; used for republics, etc)
• Catholic Bishopric (the liege lord can override the Pope's choice by nominating his own successor)

That's all for now. The game is still a very long way from being finished, but I can at least offer you this screenshot of the current Law interface (though bear in mind that it is still very much subject to change.) In the screenshot, the king stands to inherit the duchy, because the young duke has no legal heir. "Pretenders" are the second and third characters in the line of succession.





Until next time, I bid you a very merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Henrik Fåhraeus, Associate Producer and CKII Project Lead

 

[sagimine1]

Though off-topic but what is an estate general? I see this happen once in a blue moon in some of my game I play in Crusader Kings.

 

[Captain Frakas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Estates and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_States-General

 

[Nick B II]

Though off-topic but what is an estate general? I see this happen once in a blue moon in some of my game I play in Crusader Kings.

Parliament. The Church, nobility, and commoners all had representation.

The British House of Lords is a descendant of the first two estates (some Churchmen sit there as "Lords spiritual"), and the COmmons is a descendant of the Third.

Nick

 

[RedRooster81]

Parliament. The Church, nobility, and commoners all had representation.

The British House of Lords is a descendant of the first two estates (some Churchmen sit there as "Lords spiritual"), and the COmmons is a descendant of the Third.

Nick

The thing is I wonder if the estates will be represented graphically (like the senate in EU Rome) or simply through events or country decisions when you need money or an upgrade in stability? At the least, you should call them at the beginning of each reign to confirm the new monarch and assure them that their traditional rights are to be respected.

 

[Mammoth]

Winter is here and the ice-fear is

Hmm, I only just noticed the first line and obscure references.
Is that to the Lords of Midnight series of games? I used to play those excessively. I used to just stack up in Xajorkith and await the chance to counterattack
If winter is here is that a reference to George R R Martin's HBO adaptation of A Game of Thrones?
Cheers and apologies if it has been pointed out in the previous 16 pages that I have not read,
Mammoth

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Women can hold any of the non-martial, non-religious positions without too much controversy. I am only saying that by the justifications of the era, women should be disfavoured for ruling positions and marshal, as these have as part of their expected duties going to war.

Disfavored, yes. However, women acting as de facto rulers in the absence of a suitable male alternative does not seem to have been all that controversial. So banning them outright would not do if we are looking for historical verisimilitude.*

They should be disfavoured or banned from bishop/lord spiritual/religious leader as the faith bars women from such positions of leadership (- no women priests, arguements about whether they can be deacons etc.). In any case, women are not prevented from being put on a pedestal. For at least some, women were on a higher pedestal. As wife, mother, sister and daughter they were supposed to be loved, protected and cared for. In some cases this was abused, but so was acting as guardian for young men/boys. Women shared in some of the glory given to Mary, in her role as Mother of God, and as the period advanced the concept of courtly love developed along side chivalry.

You are mistaking the ideals of the medieval epoch with the actual practices of the era. Yes, women were "put on a pedestal" and many men of the era would have loved to see their wives and daughters shut away from society. But at the same time, you had female artisans, businesswomen, female landholders, and female abbesses, weilding power according to their rank in society, not their gender.


____________
*) And absent this problem, there is still gameplay to consider. Making half a player's characters literally useless in the game simply is not good game design.

 

[Nick B II]

Disfavored, yes. However, women acting as de facto rulers in the absence of a suitable male alternative does not seem to have been all that controversial. So banning them outright would not do if we are looking for historical verisimilitude.*

There should be events. And more plotting then usual. Especially if stability is low and/or the country is at war.

The "I could be a better..." series fire every few months if your Steward is a woman and any man at Court wants to be a Steward. If you make a woman a Baroness in her own right all the men you passed over who want to become Barons should become unhappy.

In other words Midieval sexism should be used to provide more of the stuff that makes CK great, and promises to make CK2 better.

You are mistaking the ideals of the medieval epoch with the actual practices of the era. Yes, women were "put on a pedestal" and many men of the era would have loved to see their wives and daughters shut away from society. But at the same time, you had female artisans, businesswomen, female landholders, and female abbesses, weilding power according to their rank in society, not their gender.

Many, many fathers today would love to shut their daughters up in an ivory tower. It doesn't work out that way very often. In fact most of the time what happens is the daughter manages to convince her father she's in an ivory tower when she's actually partying her brains out.

Female officials should definitly have some liabilities, but those should be caused by men convinced they'd be better at the job, not by Paradox banning women from ever doing anything moderately interesting.

____________
*) And absent this problem, there is still gameplay to consider. Making half a player's characters literally useless in the game simply is not good game design.

Unless you don't give girls stats, or bother educating them. Can you imagine having an only daughter who happens to be a Gray Eminence with 20 Diplo, and is also your heir, but you have to make your Diplo-3 hated rival Chancellor because the other guy at Court is a schizo who thinks he's Jesus? That would suck. It's not like RL Counts would have refused to deal with the Crown Princess just because she was a girl.

Besides half the game's potential market is women. And women really, really, really do not enjoy discriminating against themselves because some Swedish dude told them to. And that's how they'd see it if Doomdark made it impossible for them to make their 20-Diplo Crown Princess daughters Chancellor.

Nick

 

[Doomdark]

Hmm, I only just noticed the first line and obscure references.
Is that to the Lords of Midnight series of games? I used to play those excessively. I used to just stack up in Xajorkith and await the chance to counterattack
If winter is here is that a reference to George R R Martin's HBO adaptation of A Game of Thrones?
Cheers and apologies if it has been pointed out in the previous 16 pages that I have not read,
Mammoth

Good to see some other old timers around.

 

[Doomdark]

Besides half the game's potential market is women. And women really, really, really do not enjoy discriminating against themselves because some Swedish dude told them to. And that's how they'd see it if Doomdark made it impossible for them to make their 20-Diplo Crown Princess daughters Chancellor.

Nick

Not to worry, women will play a much bigger role in CKII.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Not to worry, women will play a much bigger role in CKII.

I like Nick B II's post, and I am very happy with your statement.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Disfavored, yes. However, women acting as de facto rulers in the absence of a suitable male alternative does not seem to have been all that controversial. So banning them outright would not do if we are looking for historical verisimilitude.*

I was never arguing for women to be banned from being a ruler or marshal, just that they should (under most law sets) be unlikely to obtain such a position unless there were no brothers that the throne could go to, or literally no suitable male candidates for marshal

You are mistaking the ideals of the medieval epoch with the actual practices of the era. Yes, women were "put on a pedestal" and many men of the era would have loved to see their wives and daughters shut away from society. But at the same time, you had female artisans, businesswomen, female landholders, and female abbesses, weilding power according to their rank in society, not their gender.


____________
*) And absent this problem, there is still gameplay to consider. Making half a player's characters literally useless in the game simply is not good game design.

And here we see that either I was not clear enough, or there has been a misunderstanding. When I referred to bishop/lord spiritual/religious leader, I am talking about the old Diocese bishop position - the most senior and influential churchman in the realm - not the person running a church "barony" in one of your counties. These, by all means could be an abbess, but would be more likely to be an abbot or (minor) bishop, or indeed just a priest. Most abbesses were nominally subject to a nearby abbot, or the bishop.

From what I remember of the other positions in the court, I can't think of any others that it would make sense to restrict to male courtiers.
Thus, to clarify:
Marshal I would restrict based on the martial function - leading armies.
Lord Spiritual I would restrict as a female bishop, or even a female priest, would be unthinkable during the era.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

There should be events. And more plotting then usual. Especially if stability is low and/or the country is at war.

The "I could be a better..." series fire every few months if your Steward is a woman and any man at Court wants to be a Steward. If you make a woman a Baroness in her own right all the men you passed over who want to become Barons should become unhappy.

In other words Midieval sexism should be used to provide more of the stuff that makes CK great, and promises to make CK2 better.

Essentially my point. Certain roles were seen as predominantly, or exclusively male preserves - warfare and leadership in the church. These should be restricted to male only roles.
Rulership would depend on the laws passed, but most codes should favour men because these are the laws that were used in the era! In general male-only, or male-preference laws were used, partially since kings were expected to lead armies themselves.

Many, many fathers today would love to shut their daughters up in an ivory tower. It doesn't work out that way very often. In fact most of the time what happens is the daughter manages to convince her father she's in an ivory tower when she's actually partying her brains out.

I'm fairly sure this hasn't changed since we were little more than slightly smarter rodents living in trees and trying not to be eaten or stood on by larger things.

Female officials should definitly have some liabilities, but those should be caused by men convinced they'd be better at the job, not by Paradox banning women from ever doing anything moderately interesting.

Unless you don't give girls stats, or bother educating them. Can you imagine having an only daughter who happens to be a Gray Eminence with 20 Diplo, and is also your heir, but you have to make your Diplo-3 hated rival Chancellor because the other guy at Court is a schizo who thinks he's Jesus? That would suck. It's not like RL Counts would have refused to deal with the Crown Princess just because she was a girl.

Besides half the game's potential market is women. And women really, really, really do not enjoy discriminating against themselves because some Swedish dude told them to. And that's how they'd see it if Doomdark made it impossible for them to make their 20-Diplo Crown Princess daughters Chancellor.

Nick

Again, I never argued that they should be prevented from doing "anything moderately interesting", just from the roles that historically they were prevented from entering.
Chancellor, Spymaster and similar positions could quite easily be open to women, and I see no bar to this being done. Admittedly, some courts might not allow this, but that would be a matter of taste for the player, and coding/flavour for AI courts, with only the most restrictive AI courts preventing women from having positions of influence.

 

[RedRooster81]

There's that line from Gladiator that Marcus Aurelius delivers to his daughter, "If only you had been born a man, what a Caesar you would have made." As the father of an only daughter, I understand the sentiment, but then again my patrimony consists thus far of only movable goods, and not very good ones at that.

It depends who the rival for chancellor is: if he is holds three ducal titles and his brother is the pope, then you should listen up. I recall, however, that one of the early released screenshots has a law called something like "Allow female chancellors," so maybe there is an event series surrounding that law. But it was not uncommon for powerful queen mothers to handle diplomacy or intrigue; but there is something to be said about keeping your powerful vassals in your castle where you can see them.

 

[Nick B II]

Essentially my point. Certain roles were seen as predominantly, or exclusively male preserves - warfare and leadership in the church. These should be restricted to male only roles.

I love it when debates end because everyone agrees that they were saying the same thing in the first place...

It's so much neater then flame-wars.

Nick

 

[RedRooster81]

From the E3 2011 trailer:

These laws for Harold II Godwinson's England show some possibilities: toggle-able scutage, investiture, etc., to easily see de jure laws. Also note laws concerning mobilizing levies: apparently, you can choose to raise the levies of the wealthiest fiefs or all; royal city charters and the king's peace look pretty self explanatory but exciting nonetheless.

Then there are laws that I would guess affect only your demesne: free peasants (hopefully with effects on revolt risk, army composition, taxation), female chancellors, and feudal contract all suggest some further possibilities.

 

[unmerged(9481)]

Will papal approval be necessary to marry a character off to a close relative?

Or - will a "voluntary donation" to the Holy See allow you to marry your daughter to her uncle or other close relative?

I can't remember seeing this matter further debated... The Pope had substantial income from issuing licences or papal bulls to allow marriages between close family members or for a man to marry inlaws, such as his brother's widow (like Henry VIII did when he married Katherine of Aragon who was his brother's widow). A voluntary contribution to the Holy See to secure a match would be great, particularly if marrying close family such as first, second or third cousins or uncle/niece etc.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

From the E3 2011 trailer:

These laws for Harold II Godwinson's England show some possibilities: toggle-able scutage, investiture, etc., to easily see de jure laws. Also note laws concerning mobilizing levies: apparently, you can choose to raise the levies of the wealthiest fiefs or all; royal city charters and the king's peace look pretty self explanatory but exciting nonetheless.

King's Peace and Crown City Charters, awesome!

 

[Maizel]

I only know the 'kings peace' from The song of Ice and Fire novels. Does it mean the same thing in CKII (I dont even know what it means in IRL for sure)

That vassals are forbidden to go to war with eachother? And that ingame it might translate to higher requirements to do and penalties if they do so?

 

[RedRooster81]

I only know the 'kings peace' from The song of Ice and Fire novels. Does it mean the same thing in CKII (I dont even know what it means in IRL for sure)

That vassals are forbidden to go to war with eachother? And that ingame it might translate to higher requirements to do and penalties if they do so?

I assume so. In many kingdoms, nobles had the right to fight and feud, but I assume that "the king's peace" denies them this right. You should be able to take legal action if your vassals are at each others' throats.

 

[Orinsul]

will elective work in a way like as described in the sengoku civil war DD?

Kings Peace might mean you intervene in inter-realm wars automatically on the side of the defender instead of being given the choice?