While they had no monastic orders, the Eastern Romans would benefit from the inclusion of monasteries and monastics as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos
Monastaries, Abbeys, Monks and Nuns
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- 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.
This right here reminds me of the best argument in favor of Monasteries and Convents in the game. The moment (likely within 24 hours of release) that someone posts in the Strange Screenshot thread their picture of Mother Superior Achmed Khan.
I'm admittedly ignorant about the structure of Orthodox monasticism, but I do agree that they should have the option as well.
Meanwhile, Islam would probably benefit much less from monasteries; the closest I could find to the concept would be ascetic Sufis such as the Dervishes.
Yeah, I made a long thread about that a while ago, or two threads. Don't even remember. This has been mentioned time and time again.
Basically, some bishoprics should be swapped for monasteries and some monasteries should be nunneries, and ruled by abbesses (with a tendency to be the sister of a local duke). There'd probably need to be a different generic holding type icon but the buildings could differ mostly in name (while it would be cool if the differences were more than skin-deep).
Templar and other order heirs and councillors should have the Celibate trait. Some of their vassals should be proper Celibate members of the order (commanders and regional masters) rather than normal secular barons and counts.
Templar commandries generated via events or donations should be more common in especially France but also England and perhaps Spain. But definitely France. They should get cash that way (apart from donations), perhaps increase or decrease their normal stack accordingly.
Their power could be checked by making sure they take heavy casualties, due to being unlikely to pay ransom or even be offered the opportunity; unwillingness to retreat or give up ground (or land in treaties), propensity to volunteer for the more dangerous missions, and so on. But not the Hashashins, who should skip them on account of a belief that killing their officials is pointless because another will be appointed, just as good as the previous one.
I would also like to see younger sons and brothers of important nobles as members of orders, instead of generated courtiers. Occasionally, an AI-controlled ruler would abdicate and join them.
Also, there needs to be a more serious Celibacy restriction for chaplains. You just shouldn't be able to appoint your normal feudal son as the chaplain and vest him in a bishop's robes while he's making lawful babies as the future king with his alliance-giving wife. Sons of European feudal rulers just simply did not serve on temporary assignments a high-ranking but married priests. You should be forced to choose and commit either way.
Also, married people should be extremely unlikely to be chosen as bishops by the AI and appointing married people bishops should reduce the Pope's or the Patriarch's opinion because episcopal celibacy is crucial to the Orthodox too. A married man appointed as a bishop or chaplain should receive the Celibate trait and stop having relations with his wife. Even for the Orthodox because a chaplain is obviously more higher ranking than a simple parish priests, and the higher-ups are like bishops, they tend to be monastics, unmarried.
An ex-bishop shouldn't marry, either, as in he should be considered a bishop, just landless, still unable to marry.
Last edited:
Monasteries indeed were just as important for the Orthodox. The Monastery of Stoudios in Constantinople was quite famous. (by the way, the Emperor before the one that is at the start date, retired to that monastery as a monastic) Anyway, there were countless monasteries.
For all the people whining about "the Church is so important, why should we pay for a DLC to have it represented?" recall that all of the features in The Republic were available from a free patch. You only needed to pay for the DLC in order to play as a Merchant Republic, not to simply interact with them as a regular feudal lord. Presumably any DLC fleshing out the Church will be the same.
I don't care if the church DLC requires me to pay to play as a bishop or not, as long as its release means a more historical number of excommunications.
One idea that could work without ading a new holding: if one creates a new holder for a barony-level church then that character becomes an abbot or abbess while if one gives the church to an existing character he becomes a bishop. Abbots/abbesses would be excluded from free investiture and it would be impossible to give them any new holdings. That way monasteries would stay at barony level and it would be impossible for them to move up the rank. Abbots/abbesses should also be excluded from some of the plots and church-related events (and probably have some of their own).
the church holding represents all land held by the church, not just churches or abbeys or etc but all of them, probably half-a-dozen per holding. The temple is an abstraction of the spiritual property in a country. Just as there a numerous unrepresented lower nobility per province even if the capitol is the only castle holding.
A new holding type isnt needed.
Unless it was something landless and unique like the patricians mannors for international orders and the friars and etc. But nothing new in-province, as the temple holding covers it all.
A new holding type isnt needed.
Unless it was something landless and unique like the patricians mannors for international orders and the friars and etc. But nothing new in-province, as the temple holding covers it all.
It will get its own DLC or more likely some major patch love this year
CK2 is a great game. I commend PI for making it.
That doesn't mean that the sun pours from PI's every orifice, nor that CK2 is the most utterly perfect game ever made in the history of gaming.
No need to make it separate, I think it all fits in with everything that's been said in this thread about fleshing out Christendom, mainly the western Latin side of the church, so Catholics, but it could cover more.
I get what you're saying about church holdings being an abstract representation, and that was fine to begin with, but we are talking about expansions and adding flavour, fleshing out that side of the game, so adding some different things, and making it more accurate seems like as good a place to go as any. I think it can only make the game better if there are less abstractions and more detail.
Indeed, except that's not what I said. It's simple, it was a good game on release, now they're adding bits to make it better. As PAnZuRiEL above pointed out, like The Republic most people will get the main benefits for free, so this whole discussion is pointless, can we please just let this side-argument to the thread topic die now?
And, most importantly, we could blind/castrate people and banish them to a monastery.
Castrati cannot become priests. One can only take the vow of celibacy when one is whole and complete to begin with.
I didn't say anything about priests or it being done voluntarily. On several occasions, political enemies of the Basileus were castrated and sent to become monks.
Although after the vikings were gone their true necessity was starting to fade, I think it's still very important to be included in a game partially displaying the Dark Ages.
In fact, the just deposed Basileus Romanos IV Diogenes, was also sent off to a monastery where he died of his wounds after being blinded.