Why are Defender's of the Faith restricted to males only?

[VanguardZero]

Historically a lot of great women were known for their piety, so it makes no sense why they can't be DoF. What of Isabella?

 

[Kirkegaard]

Church did not always had the best view on women (responsibility of Eve) but women were considered real human with souls. Mary is an important figure, women could be baptized and saved (in the religious sense) as much as men.

Of course they could be saved but they also needed it more, because they where woman, and therefore more evil. But they where not equal, and not independent individuals. In most of the time frame they where a lot closer to an item or an pet than an individual. To get an perspective I think one can look at a country like Afghanistan and how the gender relationship is there. Therefore I think it is "fair" in an historical contest that womans can be "defender of the faith". It is one thing to control a country, but another to have legitimacy over an religion and region.

 

[QDI]

Of course they could be saved but they also needed it more, because they where woman, and therefore more evil. But they where not equal, and not independent individuals. In most of the time frame they where a lot closer to an item or an pet than an individual. To get an perspective I think one can look at a country like Afghanistan and how the gender relationship is there. Therefore I think it is "fair" in an historical contest that womans can be "defender of the faith". It is one thing to control a country, but another to have legitimacy over an religion and region.

I do agree with your first sentence (though I would say "more fallible" than "more evil"). However, they were closer to men than pet or items, by far. They were generally second to men but you cannot compare with the situation in Afghanistan. Some women were canonized and very important Church figures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_of_Whitby). Other were able to hold significant power and treat with men on an equal basis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine). Many wives of barons held significant responsibilities (stewardship in particular).

I won't pronounce on the "Defender" title question (because I don't have the historical knowledge to do so).

 

[yerm]

This is just a bullshit sexist implementation without any basis in reality, history, or good gameplay, or otherwise. There is not any semblance of historical justification for it, because we have BOTH of the realities in history of female defenders of the faith AND an absence of any instance where a female was specifically barred from claiming said title due to her sex.

This isn't a situation like republics never elected a women, or women almost never led armies except very rare instances, which IS historical. This is just some guy implementing a game mechanic based on his warped and ignorant understanding of historical patriarchy that is completely at odds with reality, and without a shred of useful gameplay for it either. Whoever barred women from claiming the title should frankly be ashamed of himself. This isn't something that was left off or mistakenly missed, someone specifically went in and coded the title to specifically bar women from claiming it, and there's no reason but the programmer was ignorant or sexist for it.

If you're in this thread arguing that the defender of the faith should be males only, you won't be able to prove it, the evidence is completely against you, and you should feel ashamed of yourself too.

 

[Grand Historian]

Perhaps it could also be expanded for Dharmic religions? Vijayanagara was a pseudo-defender of the faith in the sense that it used Hinduism as a rallying cry against the Islamic Invasions, and I'm pretty sure the Sikh Empire was the defender of it's own faith.

But a better question would be why it increases tech cost.

Byz. Emperor: I shall devote myself and the Roman State to the defense of our faith from the heathen's onslaught!

Advisor: Very good, sire, but sadly a public profession of our intent to protect our brethren shall slow our technological progress.

Byz. Emperor: What? Why?

Advisor: For stereotypical and clichéd reasons, sire.

 

[Grand Historian]

"Defender of the Faith" as implemented in the game is a complete fantasy anyway. It never existed. Using history as a justification on this is completely ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure it was a title that existed historically. Henry VIII, ironically, had the title 'Defender of the Faith' before breaking ties with Rome.

 

[moorsonthecoast]

I'm pretty sure it was a title that existed historically. Henry VIII, ironically, had the title 'Defender of the Faith' before breaking ties with Rome.

Indeed! After the pious Henry earned that title from (Thomas More allegedly ghost-writing) his refutation of the Reformation, he was, in EU4 terms, hit with a looming disaster of a succession crisis/civil war just after the Tudors won a civil war. Only way to stop the disaster was to embrace the Reformation.

There are several persons in history with this title, but it is, in its origin, not self-proclaimed. It is granted directly by the Holy See. The 20th-century journalist G.K. Chesterton was also granted this title, who noted the connection between himself and Henry VIII.

If you're in this thread arguing that the defender of the faith should be males only, you won't be able to prove it, the evidence is completely against you, and you should feel ashamed of yourself too.

I'm not sure anyone has said that at all. There have been some foolish comments about "hurr, hurr the Church hates women" but other than that, not so much.

Advisor: For stereotypical and clichéd reasons, sire.

Nice edit. Was about to quote you and say why and then you just say it. Right on!

 

[JagLover]

"Defender of the Faith" as implemented in the game is a complete fantasy anyway. It never existed. Using history as a justification on this is completely ridiculous.

This

It is a bit of a nonsense that seems very anachronistic late game.

 

[Bavarian Steve]

I think the tech increase makes sense when claiming DotF. If you go from devoting your time and energy on your own nation, then have to switch your focus to overseeing the protection of all nations that follow your faith, it makes sense that you have less time focus on your own nation.

 

[JagLover]

I'm pretty sure it was a title that existed historically. Henry VIII, ironically, had the title 'Defender of the Faith' before breaking ties with Rome.

It existed but the gameplay mechanic is flawed.

Just because Henry VIII had the title didn't make him called to war if Orthodox Russia attacked Catholic Lithuania.

attitudes between nations being affected by religion is fine and could be even stronger DOTF is a rather bizarre gameplay mechanic.

 

[yerm]

It existed but the gameplay mechanic is flawed.

Just because Henry VIII had the title didn't make him called to war if Orthodox Russia attacked Catholic Lithuania.

attitudes between nations being affected by religion is fine and could be even stronger DOTF is a rather bizarre gameplay mechanic.

The defensive call to arms aspect, just like the tech malus or the various other aspects of it which aren't related to prestige and maybe legitimacy, have nothing to do with the ridiculous limitation of this title to only males. In fact, the argument that there was no impetus to actually go to war due to the title should be a good counterpoint to any kind of silly logic that women can't be DOTF because they can't lead armies.

 

[moorsonthecoast]

DOTF is bad for everything.

That said, I think it should remain, and, if it does, it should grant devotion bonuses and/or additional Papal influence.

Suggestion forum, here I come.

 

[yerm]

I would argue it should be a prestige and legitimacy boost, a corresponding religious value boost (PI, piety, PA, etc), and allow relation-free guarantees for the same faith, possibly with a cap on how many of these you can toss around. The missionary is fine too.

The cost would be serious relations hit with heretics and heathens. I think -tolerance might even help balance it.

The military and tech aspects, not sure why they're there, and while it would really suck to lose the -WE aspect (the reason to grab it) I think it should go. It's honestly kind of OP for its -WE anyway.

 

[FreeSoc]

I think the tech increase makes sense when claiming DotF. If you go from devoting your time and energy on your own nation, then have to switch your focus to overseeing the protection of all nations that follow your faith, it makes sense that you have less time focus on your own nation.

No it doesn't. It does not even vaguely come close to making sense. Being called to defend another country in a war does not slow down domestic technological progress (not that being DoTF - unless, perhaps, you actually border the attacking infidel nation - should actually call you to a defensive war anyway).

As has been pointed out, DotF's current implementation is dually ridiculous - women are ahistorically and nonsensically barred from holding the title, and it feeds into the nonsensical "more religious = less able to make scientific/technological/societal progress because muh enlightenment hur hur hur" narrative that crops up depressingly often.

 

[moorsonthecoast]

Thread up. Took the liberty of quoting your post in full, yerm.

 

[Bavarian Steve]

In this game, claiming defender of the faith is akin to becoming a ruler who is focused on foreign affairs, rather than focusing on domestic affairs. The technology cost penalty makes sense for that reason because you cannot possibly be spending the same resources internally if you are focused on the going ons of your neighbors. You would have your best people working on the problems that you, as ruler, have decided are the most important. DotF is a militaristic title. Maybe there should be a large bonus to military tech and possibly a small bonus to diplomatic tech, but also a large negative to administrative tech to better reflect the fact that you are focused on war and diplomacy at the cost of lost time on internal aspects of ruling your country.

 

[Diceman]

I see no reasons why female rulers should not be able to claim the title. There are plenty of examples in history of strong women who took their destiny in their own hands and broke the usual conventions of the time. Jeanne 'd Arc springs to mind, who was in fact religiously motivated.

 

[yerm]

In this game, claiming defender of the faith is akin to becoming a ruler who is focused on foreign affairs, rather than focusing on domestic affairs. The technology cost penalty makes sense for that reason because you cannot possibly be spending the same resources internally if you are focused on the going ons of your neighbors. You would have your best people working on the problems that you, as ruler, have decided are the most important. DotF is a militaristic title. Maybe there should be a large bonus to military tech and possibly a small bonus to diplomatic tech, but also a large negative to administrative tech to better reflect the fact that you are focused on war and diplomacy at the cost of lost time on internal aspects of ruling your country.

This would follow if and only if technology was the result of some kind of mercantile internal focus, which reality completely contradicts history. Unlike some kind of modern tech lab, innovation at that time usually always involved idea dissemination. The major national advances put forward by the big names in scientific history are all accompanied by very heavy international correspondence. Scientific progress and innovation never happened in isolation. This is not an era of stealth aircraft and nukes. This is the era of gentleman and royal societies and universities.

The game gives tech advantages for neighbor bonus, western arms trade, and westernization. I don't buy the argument that an outward focus should slow down tech when the game clearly rewards it in other areas, and the only "outward" aspect slowing down tech would simply be conquest sharing the same limited MP resource. A war itself, without actual taking land, doesn't slow tech speed at all.

Instead, this is in all likelihood a continuation of the science vs religion mindset that is also reflected in other places. The closest possible analogy would be that philosopher event where you choose +missionary -tech or vice versa. I am reasonably certain that, like those style events, the idea here is that religion conflicts with science and therefore it is this focus on religion itself causing a tech slowdown, because theists hate science supposedly. The problem is that there ARE instances to support it (Pascal abandoning science to pursue ministry to Galileo type affairs), but these are actually rare examples that are offset by things like the Reformation encouraging literacy and the Jesuits encouraging education. In truth a focus on religion or piety at this period in time should actually encourage progress!

 

[Bavarian Steve]

This would follow if and only if technology was the result of some kind of mercantile internal focus, which reality completely contradicts history. Unlike some kind of modern tech lab, innovation at that time usually always involved idea dissemination. The major national advances put forward by the big names in scientific history are all accompanied by very heavy international correspondence. Scientific progress and innovation never happened in isolation. This is not an era of stealth aircraft and nukes. This is the era of gentleman and royal societies and universities.

The game gives tech advantages for neighbor bonus, western arms trade, and westernization. I don't buy the argument that an outward focus should slow down tech when the game clearly rewards it in other areas, and the only "outward" aspect slowing down tech would simply be conquest sharing the same limited MP resource. A war itself, without actual taking land, doesn't slow tech speed at all.

Instead, this is in all likelihood a continuation of the science vs religion mindset that is also reflected in other places. The closest possible analogy would be that philosopher event where you choose +missionary -tech or vice versa. I am reasonably certain that, like those style events, the idea here is that religion conflicts with science and therefore it is this focus on religion itself causing a tech slowdown, because theists hate science supposedly. The problem is that there ARE instances to support it (Pascal abandoning science to pursue ministry to Galileo type affairs), but these are actually rare examples that are offset by things like the Reformation encouraging literacy and the Jesuits encouraging education. In truth a focus on religion or piety at this period in time should actually encourage progress!

The closest analogy to prove your point is actually embracing the counter reformation. There is obviously a religion OR innovation choice in this game. The reason this exists is because religion was basically accepted as the source of knowledge for all things. And in this time frame specifically, innovation occurred because of the challenge to the status quo, which for the most part was provided by religion. The world is not flat. It is better for society that people can read and have books. The sun does not revolve around the Earth. Religious leaders of the time had a huge interest in limiting knowledge. If you are the ones in charge, your greatest enemies are change and knowledge that disprove what you have been spoon feeding the people who follow you. Progress, and a well informed populace lead to challenges of the status quo.

 

[FrigidSoul]

The closest analogy to prove your point is actually embracing the counter reformation. There is obviously a religion OR innovation choice in this game. The reason this exists is because religion was basically accepted as the source of knowledge for all things. And in this time frame specifically, innovation occurred because of the challenge to the status quo, which for the most part was provided by religion. The world is not flat. It is better for society that people can read and have books. The sun does not revolve around the Earth. Religious leaders of the time had a huge interest in limiting knowledge. If you are the ones in charge, your greatest enemies are change and knowledge that disprove what you have been spoon feeding the people who follow you. Progress, and a well informed populace lead to challenges of the status quo.

This is a common misconception. The Catholic Church did more to advance science over the course of European history than any other institution, and it was certainly more science-friendly at the time than the splinter faiths that arose from the Reformation.

Galileo, for example, wasn't oppressed because science. He was oppressed because of a personal/political dispute between himself and the current pope, who had actually sponsored Galileo to publish a book about astronomy. The idea that the church was comprised of a bunch of flat earthers who ruthlessly persecuted scientists is revisionist nonsense. The church funded scientific inquiry.