There's no reason to believe we will ever see that functionality, or that it's even possible, never mind in the upcoming patch.
[MOD] EMF: Extended Mechanics & Flavor
- Thread starter zijistark
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There's no reason to believe we will ever see that functionality, or that it's even possible, never mind in the upcoming patch.
Executions & Blinding: Impiety & Cruelty
I'd like to raise a minor mechanics topic that has long irked me, namely the anachronistic imposition of later, Western, morals upon the Greek punishment of blinding. Mutilating alternatives gained over the death penalty in successive Eastern Roman law codes as the law became more Christianized, i.e. they were seen as more merciful, moral, & pious. The theological questionability of shedding blood was handled differently in the Latin West, with its greater emphasis on Augustine's "just war" and more straightforward warrior culture origins; but in the East killing another person remained far more objectionable for far longer. This was generally viewed at the time by the Greeks themselves and by their Muslim & Latin neighbors as a positive cultural attribute.Yes, it is quite true that in some notorious cases (Irene comes to mind) blinding was done quite cruelly, but these actually tend to be exceptions that prove the rule: many of those notable, high-stakes political blindings were done so cruelly precisely because the perpetrator was seeking to get around the moral prohibition on killing by "only" blinding, but in such a manner that the victim might die soon after. (Thus it was not the commission of blinding that caused cruelty, but rather deviousness & cruelty which prompted the decision to blind so harshly.)
So why is it that executions have no penalty for a Greek (or any Christian frankly) if under "justified" circumstances, while blinding always comes with a piety cost and chance of becoming cruel? In short, because the game chooses to view these actions through a later lens of Western/Latin morality instead of as the participants themselves did. It perpetuates the myth, invented by Humanist and Enlightenment thinkers/moralists that the Greek incarnation of the Roman Empire was decadent, depraved, & barbarous, when at the time the consensus was quite the reverse.
I have no interest in starting a moral debate here. We are most of us products of that legacy of Western ethics and, speaking for myself, I am generally glad to be so. My only concern is that this game, which is striving to accurately represent an historical reality, do so to the greatest possible degree, without anachronistic moralizing. To that end I propose that the piety cost of blinding be reduced, the chance of cruel be reduced or eliminated, and that piety and cruelty costs for execution be introduced for Greek culture and possibly all Christians (though this last applies such a broad brush across so many cultural groups I hesitate to suggest it). (see note below)
Again, these proposals do not necessarily represent my morality—I don't think my modern morals should be represented in a game with a non-modern setting, seeing as they did not then exist.
(NOTE: I am well aware that I have been crisscrossing between culture and religion and that these are mechanically distinct in game. It's unfortunately one of those times where game mechanics create a hard separation between what were more often facets of one collective concept/identity. I've been deliberately ambiguous because I leave the ultimate mechanical implementation choices up to the devs. My personal preference is that blinding capability remain attached to the Byzantine culture group, while the cost addition(s) for executions be attached either to that same culture, Orthodox Christianity, or possibly Christianity generally. As for values, I propose the following: Blinding 25 Piety & a 10% chance of becoming Cruel; Execution 50 Piety, a 10% chance of becoming Cruel, & a 50% chance of losing Just. I see these values as being on the conservative side as far as scope of change goes and a good compromise between playability and accuracy.)
(NOTE 2: I have also deliberately avoided bringing up castration because frankly I am less well versed in its history during the time of the Empire and because it falls under the cloud of later condemnation even more heavily than other mutilations. I welcome the input of someone more reliably knowledgeable on the subject.)
I'd like to raise a minor mechanics topic that has long irked me, namely the anachronistic imposition of later, Western, morals upon the Greek punishment of blinding. Mutilating alternatives gained over the death penalty in successive Eastern Roman law codes as the law became more Christianized, i.e. they were seen as more merciful, moral, & pious. The theological questionability of shedding blood was handled differently in the Latin West, with its greater emphasis on Augustine's "just war" and more straightforward warrior culture origins; but in the East killing another person remained far more objectionable for far longer. This was generally viewed at the time by the Greeks themselves and by their Muslim & Latin neighbors as a positive cultural attribute.Yes, it is quite true that in some notorious cases (Irene comes to mind) blinding was done quite cruelly, but these actually tend to be exceptions that prove the rule: many of those notable, high-stakes political blindings were done so cruelly precisely because the perpetrator was seeking to get around the moral prohibition on killing by "only" blinding, but in such a manner that the victim might die soon after. (Thus it was not the commission of blinding that caused cruelty, but rather deviousness & cruelty which prompted the decision to blind so harshly.)
So why is it that executions have no penalty for a Greek (or any Christian frankly) if under "justified" circumstances, while blinding always comes with a piety cost and chance of becoming cruel? In short, because the game chooses to view these actions through a later lens of Western/Latin morality instead of as the participants themselves did. It perpetuates the myth, invented by Humanist and Enlightenment thinkers/moralists that the Greek incarnation of the Roman Empire was decadent, depraved, & barbarous, when at the time the consensus was quite the reverse.
I have no interest in starting a moral debate here. We are most of us products of that legacy of Western ethics and, speaking for myself, I am generally glad to be so. My only concern is that this game, which is striving to accurately represent an historical reality, do so to the greatest possible degree, without anachronistic moralizing. To that end I propose that the piety cost of blinding be reduced, the chance of cruel be reduced or eliminated, and that piety and cruelty costs for execution be introduced for Greek culture and possibly all Christians (though this last applies such a broad brush across so many cultural groups I hesitate to suggest it). (see note below)
Again, these proposals do not necessarily represent my morality—I don't think my modern morals should be represented in a game with a non-modern setting, seeing as they did not then exist.
(NOTE: I am well aware that I have been crisscrossing between culture and religion and that these are mechanically distinct in game. It's unfortunately one of those times where game mechanics create a hard separation between what were more often facets of one collective concept/identity. I've been deliberately ambiguous because I leave the ultimate mechanical implementation choices up to the devs. My personal preference is that blinding capability remain attached to the Byzantine culture group, while the cost addition(s) for executions be attached either to that same culture, Orthodox Christianity, or possibly Christianity generally. As for values, I propose the following: Blinding 25 Piety & a 10% chance of becoming Cruel; Execution 50 Piety, a 10% chance of becoming Cruel, & a 50% chance of losing Just. I see these values as being on the conservative side as far as scope of change goes and a good compromise between playability and accuracy.)
(NOTE 2: I have also deliberately avoided bringing up castration because frankly I am less well versed in its history during the time of the Empire and because it falls under the cloud of later condemnation even more heavily than other mutilations. I welcome the input of someone more reliably knowledgeable on the subject.)
- 6
- 3
Would it be possible to add a way to invite people to tourneys ?. Like how from what I can see the game of throne mod does. So that my vassals court invites me to a Tourny to fight in or for me to watch. Instead of just the head of the realm.. maybe make it that Dukes can invite the realm to a tourny they are hosting etc ?. just a rough idea will fleash out if need me.. But I kinda was thinking that a tourney would be something common place in this time period that ck2 takes places in.. And allowing Dukes to host their own might be a good idea ?.
Because I think the only one currently that can host one are Kings and Emperors right.. dukes cant host them i do not believe.
Because I think the only one currently that can host one are Kings and Emperors right.. dukes cant host them i do not believe.
- 1
Regarding eunuchs though, it would be nice if there were a better supply of them in the ERE, randomly generated perhaps. As it is, almost the only way to get a parakoimomenos is to wait for that super-eunuch event, otherwise you're dealing with the unsurmountable malus of castrating someone. Something a little more complicated would be a voluntary castration mechanic for the purpose of advancement—younger sons without other prospects & the like—something like the serve the empire option introduced recently, only more permanent. But maybe none of that's worth it from a gameplay perspective and we're better off leaving eunuchs underrepresented, I'm unsure.
Is the circa 1204 Bulgarian Empire supposed to be able to take advantage of the Imperial Invasion of Thrace CB? It doesn't look like they've got it as an option in my game.
To a degree they should, and to another degree they shouldn't. The Bulgarians, at least historically, had little intent to replace the Byzantine Empire with their own, rather preferring to be a second empire. Serbia had far more intention on ousting the Byzantines for themselves than the Bulgarians did, at least for the Second Bulgarian Empire.
So, I would say that the Bulgarians should be able to wage war in that region, but not restore the Byzantine Empire themselves.
So, I would say that the Bulgarians should be able to wage war in that region, but not restore the Byzantine Empire themselves.
- 1
I beg to differ somewhat. My understanding is that the Bulgarians saw their own legitimacy as resting on the imperial authority emanating from Constantinople. While you're right that they certainly were focused on building their own state, possession of that fount of prestige was highly desirable. So while I agree with this statement in principle and from an historical perspective:
I don't think it's the best guide for modeling the game. The trouble from a gameplay perspective is that right now the South Slavs have no CBs to get into the chaotic dog pile, while distant Byzantine group cultures do; Georgia just took Thrace three years into my 1204 game, which would never have happened historically, whereas John Asen II had maybe the best shot at doing so for decades. Heck, he probably had a better chance than the Megas Komnenos in Trebizond.
- 1
Crusade weights have been changed right? My Waldensian Arpitan game ended when the Pope called a Crusade against me and my mighty independant monarcho-socialist Kingdom of Bourgogne. (I didn't even use the decision to separate from the Church, it was an honest to God (pardon the pun) RNG crusade) Wish I kept a save file, but there were plenty of Muslim targets in Armenia and Georgia that should have been more appealing.
IMO, Messalian Perfection is too easy to get and/or has too big of an effect on Moral Authority:
I propose removing the "expel daemons"/"become perfect" decisions and turn them into a "perfect yourself" ambition (that would include the exorcism part), and add some additional events until the actual trait - even if the character is sinless, I would expect him at least to do some learning (and get the local Patriarch's blessing, if there is one) before he's considered a "master".
Also, one of my "perfect" bishops also happens to be wicked, which seems self-contradictory.
(On another note, what's with the patriarchy split? The Euchite Patriarch holds Antioch and is my Court Chaplain, why is the map colored that way? And it seems strange that the Patriarch list is different from the Holy Site list, I expected them to fit.)
I propose removing the "expel daemons"/"become perfect" decisions and turn them into a "perfect yourself" ambition (that would include the exorcism part), and add some additional events until the actual trait - even if the character is sinless, I would expect him at least to do some learning (and get the local Patriarch's blessing, if there is one) before he's considered a "master".
Also, one of my "perfect" bishops also happens to be wicked, which seems self-contradictory.
(On another note, what's with the patriarchy split? The Euchite Patriarch holds Antioch and is my Court Chaplain, why is the map colored that way? And it seems strange that the Patriarch list is different from the Holy Site list, I expected them to fit.)
Last edited:
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Only players from the south_slavic culture_group have the option. The AI doesn't.
- 1
- 1
No, crusade weights haven't been altered. To the pope's AI, a heretic burgundy is worse than Muslims in Armenia and Georgia.
- 1
Which, to be fair, is completely reasonable. Armenia and Georgia have always been peripheral. A heretic Burgundy represents a threat to the unity of Christendom in its heartland.
- 6
Thats what I figured. But given crusade weights havn't been changed I'm going to take a look at the mini-mod Sensible Crusades. I understand scenarios like that, but others not so much.
- 1
Curious what other scenarios you're referring to that don't make sense to you then?
EDIT: It looks like all of the example silly crusade targets on that Sensible Crusades mod's forum thread (mod seems to be gone, though, and BTW, I strongly doubt it's compatible) are not possible with EMF Crusades.
Last edited:
- 2
Last edited:
Well, thats good too. I had no specific scenarios in mind just I wanted to know if that was taken care of, I didn't realize something else was going on under the hood.
- 1
Are you planning on editting character histories to include historically canonized Saints and martyrs? Perhaps add an iconography event for Orthodox characters as well?
Never fear, for @Rylock is here. He is doing just that right now for at least EMF+SWMH. I suspect he'll do it for EMF+Vanilla too. [As far as 'an iconography event,' though, I'm not sure what you mean, and so I suspect the answer will be effectively no on that account for now.]
- 1
Addressed the outrageously large stacked religious authority modifiers due to Messalian Masters in our development branch. The RA modifier for becoming a master lasts a mere year now, whereas it lasted 10 years prior. Thanks.
- 1
Suggestion: Restoration CB
In one of my playthroughs, the Kingdom of East Francia was conquered by a rebelling mercenary band (Lombard Band), and the title was subsequently destroyed. The Lombard Band continued to rule over de-jure East Francia for decades later, never forming the kingdom or even any of the duchies - which seems to have saved them; the neighboring Karlings all had claims on the kingdom, and would be likely to pursue them had it been formed.
Disregarding for now the strange stability mercenary realms seem to enjoy (and their aversion for titles), it seems strange to me that none of the neighboring kings, all claiming themselves to be the legitimate rulers of East Francia, never could actually enforce their claims, each being fine that he isn't the king as long as no-one else is.
Therefore, I propose that strong claimants to a non-existent non-titular title would be able to declare de-jure wars for the title's territories as if they held the title, with the supposed intent to reestablish it (thus, <title> restoration CB); possibly with a big prestige cost for each war (they are, after all, fighting for something that doesn't exist).
In one of my playthroughs, the Kingdom of East Francia was conquered by a rebelling mercenary band (Lombard Band), and the title was subsequently destroyed. The Lombard Band continued to rule over de-jure East Francia for decades later, never forming the kingdom or even any of the duchies - which seems to have saved them; the neighboring Karlings all had claims on the kingdom, and would be likely to pursue them had it been formed.
Disregarding for now the strange stability mercenary realms seem to enjoy (and their aversion for titles), it seems strange to me that none of the neighboring kings, all claiming themselves to be the legitimate rulers of East Francia, never could actually enforce their claims, each being fine that he isn't the king as long as no-one else is.
Therefore, I propose that strong claimants to a non-existent non-titular title would be able to declare de-jure wars for the title's territories as if they held the title, with the supposed intent to reestablish it (thus, <title> restoration CB); possibly with a big prestige cost for each war (they are, after all, fighting for something that doesn't exist).
- 4