Excommunication nonsense

[Vrky]

Hello,
I just want to say that I have some issues with how excommunication requests work, that I haven't seen discussed here before. Right now, you can only request excommunication if both you and the target have a same religious head.
This creates a ridiculous situation in which I played as Byzantine Empire and conquered Rome. At that point, a rational decision was to either keep Rome for myself, or install a catholic bishop there, because as soon as I appointed an orthodox one, a large part of my vassals had him as a religious head instead of Ecumenical one in Constantinople - and I could no longer excommunicate those vassals. Why is that so?
Roman patriarch is my vassal, he should still at least consider my proposal. I should be able to *ask* for an excommunication. I should even able to ask a Pope to excommunicate a catholic king - and any religious head should consider my proposal (of course, religious heads that have different religion than you should always refuse - unless they are cynical and your vassals).
Do you think that this should be changed?

 

[gdj]

Well, personally i find it a rather debatable mechanic that you can ask your head of religion for this at all.

 

[vandevere]

Well, personally i find it a rather debatable mechanic that you can ask your head of religion for this at all.

Agreed. Excommunication should only happen to a Ruler if he/she has committed *Major Sins*, like Kinslaying, or you're a "Known Murderer"...

It should *NOT* happen because the Duke of X wants your lands...

 

[Duke of Awesome]

This brings up an interesting point; Has a secular ruler ever asked the pope to excommunicate another secular ruler in history?

 

[Red Earth]

If it wasn't player initiated then the AI would have to have rules for who to target. Then you'd have either the AI excommunicating everyone or excommunicating some chosen at random and then it would just be luck if it ever happens to a character that at all interests you.
As for orthodox excommunication, I think the multiple religious heads is one of the defining features of the religion and getting around it defeats the purpose of it being different.

 

[Urzhail64]

Agreed. Excommunication should only happen to a Ruler if he/she has committed *Major Sins*, like Kinslaying, or you're a "Known Murderer"...

It should *NOT* happen because the Duke of X wants your lands...

Unless said Duke of X had quite a few allies/relatives among the cardinals and he'd bribed the Pope with land or money. Then yeah I can see that happening. Even if you were Mother Teresa. That's how political corruption really works.

 

[Vrky]

As for orthodox excommunication, I think the multiple religious heads is one of the defining features of the religion and getting around it defeats the purpose of it being different.

But if YOU control two different religious heads, wouldn't it make sense that you have authority over both of them?

 

[Red Earth]

But if YOU control two different religious heads, wouldn't it make sense that you have authority over both of them?

Yes. Yes it would. Is that not how it works now?

 

[Silversweeeper]

Yes. Yes it would. Is that not how it works now?

Nope. You can only ask *your* religion head for excommunications, and it only works for people with the same religion head, so autocephaly/the pentarchy works against you.

 

[vandevere]

Unless said Duke of X had quite a few allies/relatives among the cardinals and he'd bribed the Pope with land or money. Then yeah I can see that happening. Even if you were Mother Teresa. That's how political corruption really works.

Thing is, Historically, the Rulers who got excommunicated all had major sins. Henry II was connected to the murder of Thomas Beckett Archbishop of Canterbury, and King John also has some serious issues with the Church.

What did *NOT* happen was a zealous and Pious son of the Church getting excommunicated. For an excommunication to be valid, major sins-Kinslaying, other types of murder, and adultery-had to be involved.

 

[Finnway]

Agreed. Excommunication should only happen to a Ruler if he/she has committed *Major Sins*, like Kinslaying, or you're a "Known Murderer"...

Yep. And it should also happen a lot more frequently. In the Middle-Ages excommunication was actually quite common. A lot of the first Crusaders had relatives who were excommunicated, for example.

 

[Conan The Librarian]

Excomunication is nonsense in CK2. I'm playing as the holy roman emperor and I have about 30 vassal kings. An excomunication pops up in my messages a couple of times a week, its getting a bit boring.

 

[Alexander Seil]

There are two separate points to consider. One is whether Excommunication makes sense the way it's implemented, the other one is what this thread is about.

It's certainly absolutely ridiculous that a Byzantine Emperor who controls Antioch is incapable of interacting with the Patriarch of Antioch. It's an oversight on Paradox's part, whatever the merits of the system are otherwise.

 

[name_here]

Thing is, Historically, the Rulers who got excommunicated all had major sins. Henry II was connected to the murder of Thomas Beckett Archbishop of Canterbury, and King John also has some serious issues with the Church.

What did *NOT* happen was a zealous and Pious son of the Church getting excommunicated. For an excommunication to be valid, major sins-Kinslaying, other types of murder, and adultery-had to be involved.

It could be primarily political, like with the excommunications during the Investiture Controversy. Defying the authority of the Pope was plenty major enough as far as many of them were concerned. It doesn't matter how pious the character is, it matters how pious their religious head thinks they are, and how much that particular religious head actually cares. They can say anything they want to justify it.

 

[Burned Coffee]

What did *NOT* happen was a zealous and Pious son of the Church getting excommunicated. For an excommunication to be valid, major sins-Kinslaying, other types of murder, and adultery-had to be involved.

Can you do this? excommunication generally requires more than money, generally it seems you need the religious head to have a high opinion of you and a low opinion of the target. at least that's my experience.

 

[name_here]

The religious head must have a negative opinion of the target unless he's your vassal and therefore compelled to do what you tell him to. And it's fairly difficult even then. If a high-piety zealous ruler gets excommunicated they must have really pissed off their religious head or offended the liege of their religious head, enough to overcome their bonuses to church opinion from piety and traits.

 

[Urzhail64]

Don't forget the role of propaganda in blackening a potential excommunicate's good name. He could be a good and virtuous man for all it's worth and still get excommunicated with the right kind of propaganda, blackmail, bribery. And your delegates beating your foe to the Pope.

And the best known example of such a thing would be Joan of Arc. The English propaganda painted her as a "sorceress, witch, and whore who wore men's clothes" along with the complicity of their Burgundian lackey, Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais

 

[Vrky]

There are two separate points to consider. One is whether Excommunication makes sense the way it's implemented, the other one is what this thread is about.

It's certainly absolutely ridiculous that a Byzantine Emperor who controls Antioch is incapable of interacting with the Patriarch of Antioch. It's an oversight on Paradox's part, whatever the merits of the system are otherwise.

Thank you My goal was not to discuss how excommunication works in general, but just to point out this particular think that seems really off.

 

[Red Earth]

Don't forget the role of propaganda in blackening a potential excommunicate's good name. He could be a good and virtuous man for all it's worth and still get excommunicated with the right kind of propaganda, blackmail, bribery. And your delegates beating your foe to the Pope.

And the best known example of such a thing would be Joan of Arc. The English propaganda painted her as a "sorceress, witch, and whore who wore men's clothes" along with the complicity of their Burgundian lackey, Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais

That's exactly what a heretic would say.

 

[gdj]

Don't forget the role of propaganda in blackening a potential excommunicate's good name. He could be a good and virtuous man for all it's worth and still get excommunicated with the right kind of propaganda, blackmail, bribery. And your delegates beating your foe to the Pope.

And the best known example of such a thing would be Joan of Arc. The English propaganda painted her as a "sorceress, witch, and whore who wore men's clothes" along with the complicity of their Burgundian lackey, Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais

Even so, excommunication is religious tool, and using it for political means in feudal quarrels is strictly speaking corruption. Now, the way this works in CK2 causes at least two problems: 1) when a ruler asks the HoR to excommunicate someone, it has almost never religious reasons and 2) the game states openly what happened: "duke x has been excommunicated at the request of emperor y" i.e. it is known to everyone whos asked for it. This is a very open form of corruption and power abuse. The religion should at least get a hefty hit to moral authority for this.