Exalted Priesthood doesn't need government restrictions

[Lucas Trask]

In its current state, Exalted Priesthood requires you to have either oligarchic or dictatorial governments. It doesn't make sense for a few reasons:
1. RP wise, the civic is pretty flexible, so it should be able to fit with a democracy or an imperial government.
2. It's basically the spiritualist's version of technocracy, which doesn't have any government restrictions.
3. It shouldn't create anything that's really broken, but it'll open up some nice options for unity builds.
4. Easing up the requirements would let you combine it with Imperial Cult, which would be really amazing from an RP perspective.

What do you think? Also, how do you tag people on this forum? I was told to make a post and tag a certain dev in the discord Q&A earlier today.

Question
imperial cult + exalted priesthood makes so much sense, but it can't be done because exalted priesthood is restricted to only oligarchic and dictatorial governments. Imperial cult makes sense being restricted as is, but EP seems like it could be way more flexible for RP. Pretty please lift the government requirements for exalted priesthood?
Answer
Drop this as a suggestion on the forum and tag me in it and I'll bring it up in our next design meeting.
Answered by
<@@Alfray Stryke (Design)>

 

[TranscendentalDragon]

@Alfray Stryke

 

[Archon87]

As an add-on to this, can we get rid of the weird anti-synergy between Exalted Priesthood and Death Cult? Maybe have Exalted Priesthood give additional unity to death priests as well as normal priests?

 

[SirBlackAxe]

Imperial authority should very much have access to Exalted Priesthood; in that case it's thematically just a more devout Aristocratic Elite. For Democracies there's an argument that they should be using elected politicians, but a) the same argument applies to Technocracy, and b) maybe your High Priests and Science Directors are democratically elected.

As an add-on to this, can we get rid of the weird anti-synergy between Exalted Priesthood and Death Cult? Maybe have Exalted Priesthood give additional unity to death priests as well as normal priests?

While I admit I haven't played a Death Cult recently, looking at the code it seems like this should currently work (the unity bonus stopped being applied by manually by each job's script and became an empire bonus that effects all priest jobs sometime between 3.1 and 3.3). Death Priests are in the priest category, so modifier = { planet_priests_unity_produces_add = 1 } from the civic should effect them; if it doesn't you should probably file a bug report.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Also, how do you tag people on this forum?

you put @ in front of their name like this @Lucas Trask

 

[SeraphAscending]

I disagree that exalted priesthood should be available to democracies.
The very idea of Exalted Priesthood is that spiritual leaders are exalted. They are distinctly better than everyone else.
So this very much implies that there is a ruling class.

Posted this in a different discussion, but authorities represent abstract concepts, not detailed internal workings.

• democracy implies that the general public has political power or has chosen representatives
• oligarchy implies there is a ruling class
• dictatorship implies leaders are chosen (irrespective of how), but permanent
• imperial implies there is a hereditary system to power

Having an exalted ruling class is possible with all authorities, EXCEPT for democracy.
The concept is inherently undemocratic and the two just don't work together.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

I disagree that exalted priesthood should be available to democracies.
The very idea of Exalted Priesthood is that spiritual leaders are exalted. They are distinctly better than everyone else.
So this very much implies that there is a ruling class.

Isn't whether or not you have a ruling class determined by the political power bonus your stratums get from their living standards, not your authority, though? You've got one unless you're using Utopian Abundance, Shared Burdens, or Chemical Bliss.

Posted this in a different discussion, but authorities represent abstract concepts, not detailed internal workings.

• democracy implies that the general public has political power or has chosen representatives

Your high priests could be democratically elected.

The concept is inherently undemocratic and the two just don't work together.

Do you think democracies should also be unable to take Technocracy? If not, how is it different?

 

[HFY]

I disagree that exalted priesthood should be available to democracies.
The very idea of Exalted Priesthood is that spiritual leaders are exalted. They are distinctly better than everyone else.
So this very much implies that there is a ruling class.

That's an argument for Exalted Priesthood to exclude Egalitarian, but you don't need to be Egalitarian to have a Democracy.

Anyone who isn't Authoritarian can have a Democracy.

So you could have a Spiritualist + Militarist Democracy with no Egalitarian in it, and as far as I can tell that Democracy would be compatible with Exalted Priesthood.

 

[SeraphAscending]

That's an argument for Exalted Priesthood to exclude Egalitarian, but you don't need to be Egalitarian to have a Democracy.

Anyone who isn't Authoritarian can have a Democracy.

So you could have a Spiritualist + Militarist Democracy with no Egalitarian in it, and as far as I can tell that Democracy would be compatible with Exalted Priesthood.

I think it should exclude both, because it doesn't make sense.
The idea of an exalted caste of people combined with "everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" or free democratic elections that make no distinction between exalted and non-exalted people is quite frankly a bit absurd.

But even if you don't want to exclude democracies, egalitarianism should be excluded.

Your high priests could be democratically elected.

Do you think democracies should also be unable to take Technocracy? If not, how is it different?

Having elections does not make it a democracy.
The main idea of democracies is not the voting part, but the representation part. (although the voting is important, too)
Anyone can theoretically work their way to public office and represent themselves and their peers. That's one of the main ideas of a democracy.
The political offices are open to anyone who finds enough support.

I am uncertain about technocracy.
But it should probably exclude fanatic egalitarianism, because even the description states elitism.
The main difference to exalted priesthood is that scientific prowess is different from a spiritual caste of people, because having an exalted caste that anyone can get into is highly unlikely at best, but having a somewhat egalitarian society that just significantly rewards people with scientific merit is more likely.

To summarize:
I think i can at least comfortably state that fanatic egalitarianism probably does not fit either civic, because they imply elitism which is directly opposed to literally everything fanatic egalitarianism stands for.

 

[HFY]

I think it should exclude both, because it doesn't make sense.
The idea of an exalted caste of people combined with "everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" or free democratic elections that make no distinction between exalted and non-exalted people is quite frankly a bit absurd.

But even if you don't want to exclude democracies, egalitarianism should be excluded.

Egalitarianism is what says everyone is equal before the law, not Democracy -- there have been quite a few historical democracies with very uneven legal treatment of different people.

Democracy just says you pick the ruler from some number of candidates.
- In a Technocracy, all 4 candidates might be prominent scientists.
- In a Merchant Guilds civ, all 4 candidates might be wealthy.
- In an Exalted Priesthood, all 4 candidates might be priests.

 

[SeraphAscending]

Egalitarianism is what says everyone is equal before the law, not Democracy -- there have been quite a few historical democracies with very uneven legal treatment of different people.

Democracy just says you pick the ruler from some number of candidates.
- In a Technocracy, all 4 candidates might be prominent scientists.
- In a Merchant Guilds civ, all 4 candidates might be wealthy.
- In an Exalted Priesthood, all 4 candidates might be priests.

I think you're glossing over the "Exalted" part of "Exalted Priesthood".
To my understanding the term implies some assigned divinite heritage or innate power or nobility.

This might just be a semantic disagreement on what we would call democracy, but going by definitions (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.)

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

Oligarchy for comparison (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.)

1. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
2. Those making up such a government.
3. A state governed by a few persons.

(Those are just the first definitions that popped up on my search engine. I didn't pull up more than that and make no claim to comprehensiveness, but i think they fit.)

"elected representatives" implies "of the people" - if you would have a ruling class or noble houses to choose from, it would not be a democracy in my opinion. Choosing from a small select powerful group of people is an oligarchy - not a democracy.

Unless literally anyone could hypothetically become "exalted" in this exalted priesthood. But that is not how these things work. That's a very unrealistic standard of "exalted" if anyone can become it.
There is some assigned spiritual power to some people - from bloodline or something like that. Choosing from those is not choosing your representatives, it's choosing your oligarch.

 

[HFY]

I think you're glossing over the "Exalted" part of "Exalted Priesthood".
To my understanding the term implies some assigned divinite heritage or innate power or nobility.

That's the point of disagreement then.

There have been priesthoods which were castes -- which were segregated by birth -- but that's not part of the definition.

In most places, priest is a job, just like politician is a job. The job can be open to anyone (though again this varies by society).

For a Democratic Exalted Priesthood, the road to high political office starts in the seminary.

 

[SeraphAscending]

That's the point of disagreement then.

There have been priesthoods which were castes -- which were segregated by birth -- but that's not part of the definition.

In most places, priest is a job, just like politician is a job. The job can be open to anyone (though again this varies by society).

For a Democratic Exalted Priesthood, the road to high political office starts in the seminary.

Most places priests are not exalted.

Catholic priest are certainly given a lot of privileges, but they are not seen as exalted.
Not every spiritualist society is exalted - that's why this is a civic and not a default bonus of spiritualist empires.

 

[HFY]

Most places priests are not exalted.

Catholic priest are certainly given a lot of privileges, but they are not seen as exalted.
Not every spiritualist society is exalted - that's why this is a civic and not a default bonus of spiritualist empires.

Priests do get privileges in my country -- no taxes on churches, for example, is a very special benefit.

There are places where people will only eat meat which was slaughtered by a "man of god" (which usually means a cleric of some kind is overseeing).

There are places where religious professionals serve as arbiters of justice.

All of those are about non-hereditary clergy.

 

[SeraphAscending]

Priests do get privileges in my country -- no taxes on churches, for example, is a very special benefit.

There are places where people will only eat meat which was slaughtered by a "man of god" (which usually means a cleric of some kind is overseeing).

There are places where religious professionals serve as arbiters of justice.

All of those are about non-hereditary clergy.

Yes, and all of those are absolute standard in what stellaris would classify as "spiritualist".
What of this distinguishes a normal spiritualism focussed nation from one with a very distinctly "exalted priesthood" one?

Shouldn't exalted priesthood be default spiritualist bonuses then?

Because non of the things you mentioned are unusual at all.
Most not even in non-spiritualist countries. Churches don't pay taxes in any major western country to my knowledge, but those are probably some of the least spiritualist countries in the world.

 

[HFY]

Yes, and all of those are absolute standard in what stellaris would classify as "spiritualist".
What of this distinguishes a normal spiritualism focussed nation from one with a very distinctly "exalted priesthood" one?

Direct participation in government by those religious people. A specific reserved state role for their priesthood.


E.g. every colony has a mundane administration ("Politician") and also a prestigious religious figure ("High Priest").

The real-world situation where the state's justice system is based on the laws of a specific religion, and where the judges are priests, might qualify as Exalted Priesthood. It's not the only way to have a reserved state role for religious professionals, but I think it's one way to qualify which does happen IRL.

I think those states are compatible with Democracy. It's just that to get into the reserved religious branch of government, you'd do so as a priest rather than a politician. If that means the judicial branch, you would first study what your religion considers to be god's laws, and your precedence case studies might be more like Apologetics.


This is probably not the best place for me personally to live (as an atheist), but it might be much nicer than my worst Stellaris despotic slaver hell-holes.

 

[SeraphAscending]

Direct participation in government by those religious people. A specific reserved state role for their priesthood.


E.g. every colony has a mundane administration ("Politician") and also a prestigious religious figure ("High Priest").

The real-world situation where the state's justice system is based on the laws of a specific religion, and where the judges are priests, might qualify as Exalted Priesthood. It's not the only way to have a reserved state role for religious professionals, but I think it's one way to qualify which does happen IRL.

I think those states are compatible with Democracy. It's just that to get into the reserved religious branch of government, you'd do so as a priest rather than a politician. If that means the judicial branch, you would first study what your religion considers to be god's laws, and your precedence case studies might be more like Apologetics.


This is probably not the best place for me personally to live (as an atheist), but it might be much nicer than my worst Stellaris despotic slaver hell-holes.

Okay, then we just have very different ideas of what the "exalted" part of the civic name implies.
Because to me a theocratic democracy does not necessitate "exalted" religious leaders.
All of what you described as society is just covered by the basic "spiritualist"/"fanatic spiritualist" ethics. There is nothing that significant about the priesthood that would warrant the "exalted" label. That is just my reading of the word, though.

But i don't think we can prove to be right either way, because it's more a semantics discussion than a discussion about data and facts.

Edit:
I would also prefer to live in a theocratic democracy of a religion i don't share than be exterminated, necro-purged or enslaved like 70% of stellaris pops not living where they'd like to.

 

[HFY]

Okay, then we just have very different ideas of what the "exalted" part of the civic name implies.
Because to me a theocratic democracy does not necessitate "exalted" religious leaders.
All of what you described as society is just covered by the basic "spiritualist"/"fanatic spiritualist" ethics. There is nothing that significant about the priesthood that would warrant the "exalted" label. That is just my reading of the word, though.

But i don't think we can prove to be right either way, because it's more a semantics discussion than a discussion about data and facts.

Edit:
I would also prefer to live in a theocratic democracy of a religion i don't share than be exterminated, necro-purged or enslaved like 70% of stellaris pops not living where they'd like to.

"Exalted Priesthood" to me meas active participation in government, replacing some civic organizations with religious ones.

Spiritualists and Fanatic Spiritualists by default don't have priests in their ruling class -- they have the same number and structure of Politicians as any non-Spiritualist empire.

These religious positions might be elected (like Sheriffs and Mayors are elected, so might be Inquisitors and Elders), or they might be appointed (as Judges, so might be Arbiters).

In either case, the overall structure is compatible with Democracy: we have a large number of Democracies which include both elected and appointed positions for different types of official.