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

[VanguardZero]

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.

Um no, it's not due to the programmer being sexist. It's due to a flawed understanding of history. Nor is anyone here suggesting DoF should be restricted to males because they're sexist.

I mean, seriously?

 

[yerm]

Um no, it's not due to the programmer being sexist. It's due to a flawed understanding of history. Nor is anyone here suggesting DoF should be restricted to males because they're sexist.

I mean, seriously?

Yes. Seriously. Where does the title "defender of the faith" come from? ANY reasonable study of its history, and I mean literally any, finds women held that actual title. So, your choices are one of two: either it's fabricated based on total ignorance of history, and they decided to just conclude history was sexist so it must have been here and threw this in, or it's based on history and decided to block women anyway. I'm going out on a limb and assuming it's the former, mostly cause I mostly like these devs and all, and whoever put it in just assumed that history is sexist and so inserted their perception of history into this title when it was ahistorical and unnecessary.

I mean, seriously... if you google defender of the faith, the first result (fidei defensor) or the first link off the wiki for that phrase starts with a woman sharing it with her husband and ends with a woman holding it as I type this. There's just no way to get around the absurdity of males-only for the title without either inadvertent sexism due to ignorance, or overt sexism due to who knows why. I'm sorry if it offends you, and only a little sorry if it offends whoever put it in as males only, but they SHOULD feel bad about doing it. Assuming this title like so many other aspects of the Christian world at the time would be sexist and making it so, when it was not, is still a bad mistake.

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 modern misconception that is fundamentally false. The Catholic church did not oppose Columbus because the earth was flat, they opposed him because he was absolutely wrong about the distance he needed to travel. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can pick up a map or globe and very clearly see that the distance from Spain to the Caribbean is FAR less than the distance from Spain to India if the Americas didn't exist. The Greeks and the church knew, Columbus did not, he got VERY lucky his trip didn't end in failure and starvation/dehydration.

The idea that people can read and have books was pushed by religion. Religious leaders of the time had a huge interest in spreading knowledge. If you wholeheartedly believe that your God is the source of all knowledge, you will not be afraid of knowledge! The reformation spread literacy. The Jesuits spread education. Universities and schooling were promoted first for religious reasons. The most prestigious schools in the Christian/Western world today were initially established by and for religion.

Don't project a modern view of today's religious forces onto the world of the early 19th century and before. I am telling you this as an atheist myself. Religion didn't just not conflict with progress and innovation, it was the driving force behind it at this time!

 

[ShadowCammy]

"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 not saying it was a real thing. It's just a title in the game to make it interesting. But right now there IS, in fact, a legal, legitimate defender of the faith.

 

[BBMorti]

You have to admire how often you come across Social Justice Warriors in just about any nook and cranny of the internet, these days. They can turn anything into a sexist or social justice issue..

 

[FreeSoc]

You have to admire how often you come across Social Justice Warriors in just about any nook and cranny of the internet, these days. They can turn anything into a sexist or social justice issue..

Thank you for your fascinating, original and insightful contribution to what changes could/should be made to the Defender of the Faith title and whether or not female rulers should be allowed to hold it.

 

[BBMorti]

Thank you for your fascinating, original and insightful contribution to what changes could/should be made to the Defender of the Faith title and whether or not female rulers should be allowed to hold it.

Christ

 

[Zerodv]

Thank you for your fascinating, original and insightful contribution to what changes could/should be made to the Defender of the Faith title and whether or not female rulers should be allowed to hold it.

We'll, yerm accused the developers of being sexist no matter the reason or their intentions and that is not only exaggerated but is also provoking a reaction from other people amused by such passive aggressive behavior. Talking about the main topic, as the DoF hardly can follow a single set of rules that didn't exist OTL, I guess we could make the Defender available for everyone, but I wonder if there is something we could make a little different to represent the clergy or nobility questioning the power the monarch has, maybe mostly the ones of the female ones.

 

[Ame]

Because only men were... historically. It's just the mindset of the Europeans at this time. You had to be an insanely important woman to be able to get that kind of position.
But now, we have a female defender of the faith: Queen Elizabeth II. So maybe females being Defender of the Faith should happen, but myabe late game?

I call bs there was nothing with anything remotely resembling defender of the faith at any point.

 

[Ame]

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?

If Isabella is your example she was well known for her piety and treated well and promoted by the Church; yet

1. Conflicts with France

2. Conflicts over Italy (deployment of troops to Sicily only AFTER the French left Italy got the Pope very nervous)

3. Ignoring of Papal Edict to halt the Spanish Inquisition

4. Name any catholic country attacked that wasn't her own she came to the defense of solely because they are catholic; not because of realpolitic but purely religion.

Nobody from the EU IV era and no political entity even remotely resembles what is depicted by "defender of the faith".

To clarify considering France fought against the Hapsburgs and the Pope and the Pope celebrated the defeat of Louis XIV the whole Defender of the Faith concept is immersion breaking and a historical; but it isn't sexist.

France had a 200 year alliance with the Ottoman Empire against catholic powers; not exactly the medieval high fantasy depicted by defender of the faith is it? If any change is made it should just be to get rid of "Defender of the Faith", but as long as it is in Paradox is free to decide on whatever it wants it to be. It can't become a historical concept (unless it gives you a small amount of prestige once then is never heard from again and overall has no effect whatsoever on the game); so why not imagine it being the Grand Master of the Order (non-catholic? Just use your imagination and create one out of nowhere) and this is coming from someone who hates the DoF concept in EU IV.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

I call bs there was nothing with anything remotely resembling defender of the faith at any point.

There were lots of power plays in history that resembled the DotF mechanic, just nothing as absolute as DotF.

Denmark and Sweden basically claimed to be this during the 30 years war.

Russia claimed this in the mid-19th century, which is out of period.

Britain claimed this during the french wars of religion, which of course doesn't work with the mechanics at all since those would be rebels but every mechanic in this game is merely inspired by history while being unable to actually represent it.

 

[Shiniamith]

You people are maybe forgettimg that the defender of the faith title is not only limited to christians.

Muslim can have it to (The historical name is Defender of the faithfull normally but whatever)

Now it is true that women held the title (and still does it today) sometime historically. For christian nations...

When it comes to muslim women holding the title...it's another thing.

I don't say it is right or wrong for the DOF to be male only (in fact its a terrible design in my opinion) just wanted to point this out.

 

[Incompetent]

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.

DotF already gives papal influence, but this should indeed be generalised to other forms of church mana.

Relations/tolerance hit with heretics/heathens makes sense, unlike the tech penalty. Likewise 'embracing the Counter-Reformation' shouldn't slow tech, but it should sour relations with heretics.

DotF should perhaps give a small relations boost with countries of your religion (after all, you are effectively guaranteeing them).

-WE all the time is too strong, but -WE while defending against religious enemies would be perfectly reasonable. Same with the morale bonuses. If limited to such wars, you could even increase the power of these buffs.

The defining aspect of DotF, namely that you will be called into wars when countries of your religion are under attack by heretics/heathens, is sound. But as for the ongoing modifiers, I'd prefer them to be taken away from the realm of generic power-ups and turned into something that fits more closely with that mission of defending the faith.

 

[VanguardZero]

Yes. Seriously. Where does the title "defender of the faith" come from? ANY reasonable study of its history, and I mean literally any, finds women held that actual title. So, your choices are one of two: either it's fabricated based on total ignorance of history, and they decided to just conclude history was sexist so it must have been here and threw this in, or it's based on history and decided to block women anyway. I'm going out on a limb and assuming it's the former, mostly cause I mostly like these devs and all, and whoever put it in just assumed that history is sexist and so inserted their perception of history into this title when it was ahistorical and unnecessary.

I mean, seriously... if you google defender of the faith, the first result (fidei defensor) or the first link off the wiki for that phrase starts with a woman sharing it with her husband and ends with a woman holding it as I type this. There's just no way to get around the absurdity of males-only for the title without either inadvertent sexism due to ignorance, or overt sexism due to who knows why. I'm sorry if it offends you, and only a little sorry if it offends whoever put it in as males only, but they SHOULD feel bad about doing it. Assuming this title like so many other aspects of the Christian world at the time would be sexist and making it so, when it was not, is still a bad mistake.

I don't think anyone cares if you think they should feel bad. I agree that the implementation is unrealistic and assumes history was sexist, but your handling of the situation is a tad moronic. Anyway, it turns out we agree for the most part.

If Isabella is your example she was well known for her piety and treated well and promoted by the Church; yet

1. Conflicts with France

2. Conflicts over Italy (deployment of troops to Sicily only AFTER the French left Italy got the Pope very nervous)

3. Ignoring of Papal Edict to halt the Spanish Inquisition

4. Name any catholic country attacked that wasn't her own she came to the defense of solely because they are catholic; not because of realpolitic but purely religion.

Nobody from the EU IV era and no political entity even remotely resembles what is depicted by "defender of the faith".

Hence why I said "known for their piety." She wasn't a "Defender of the Faith" (most rulers weren't), but the Church didn't dislike her and ignore her just because she was a woman. I'm on the "DoF isn't a historical position" boat.

 

[moorsonthecoast]

The defining aspect of DotF, namely that you will be called into wars when countries of your religion are under attack by heretics/heathens, is sound.

I agree with you but I quibble with this. My issue is that it doesn't look like anything like what being the Defender of the Faith, as in the actual title, would be like in every instance of the Defender of the Faith. There are Defenders who do so without military involvement at all, and Henry VIII is just one example of that. Now, it should be an option, but it should not be the whole point of being the Defender of the Faith.

I get that it replaces the crusades with the religious turmoil of the 16th century, but it does so by approprating a historical title to a completely different and unrelated idea that has makes little sense historically and is not fun for most countries. (Moreover, it doesn't even really resemble, say, the Thirty Years' War all that well, which at one point had Catholics allied with Protestants against the Hapsburgs.)

 

[Incompetent]

I agree with you but I quibble with this. My issue is that it doesn't look like anything like what being the Defender of the Faith, as in the actual title, would be like in every instance of the Defender of the Faith. There are Defenders who do so without military involvement at all, and Henry VIII is just one example of that. Now, it should be an option, but it should not be the whole point of being the Defender of the Faith.

The historical title (which seems to be quite obscure apart from the English usage) isn't a good basis for an EU4 mechanic, because it didn't really have any specific consequences. In EU4, it's been defined as the guy who comes to the rescue of his co-religionists. If the DotF doesn't answer the call, he loses the title. I like this as a basic concept, although the implementation could be tweaked. You could give it a different name, but I think 'Defender of the Faith' sounds good and gives you a good idea of your job description.

 

[Ame]

There were lots of power plays in history that resembled the DotF mechanic, just nothing as absolute as DotF.

Denmark and Sweden basically claimed to be this during the 30 years war.

Russia claimed this in the mid-19th century, which is out of period.

Britain claimed this during the french wars of religion, which of course doesn't work with the mechanics at all since those would be rebels but every mechanic in this game is merely inspired by history while being unable to actually represent it.

Same Denmark and Sweden who's warfare helped the rise of Louis XIV that most militantly catholic king who built the largest galley fleet in Europe? Same Sweden that invaded neutral Poland because it's goals was purely economic and the ports of the Black Sea happened to be top priority (see initial treaty imposed on Poland before the Polish Parliament finally put it's weight behind the king; nothing religious in it)? Same Denmark that joined Poland and Russia against Sweden? This doesn't even come close to what DoF is in game, and does not save the concept from being purely fantasy.

Russia declaring an excuse to expand is not what is represented by defender of the faith; Russia's claims is much closer to the diplomat+forge claim then DoF.

[/QUOTE]Hence why I said "known for their piety." She wasn't a "Defender of the Faith" (most rulers weren't), but the Church didn't dislike her and ignore her just because she was a woman. I'm on the "DoF isn't a historical position" boat.[/QUOTE]

I agree; sorry I misread what you meant.

 

[Zelius]

Same Denmark and Sweden who's warfare helped the rise of Louis XIV that most militantly catholic king who built the largest galley fleet in Europe? Same Sweden that invaded neutral Poland because it's goals was purely economic and the ports of the Black Sea happened to be top priority (see initial treaty imposed on Poland before the Polish Parliament finally put it's weight behind the king; nothing religious in it)? Same Denmark that joined Poland and Russia against Sweden? This doesn't even come close to what DoF is in game, and does not save the concept from being purely fantasy.

Russia declaring an excuse to expand is not what is represented by defender of the faith; Russia's claims is much closer to the diplomat+forge claim then DoF.

What, that's basically exactly how DotF works in-game. Did Russia refuse a CtA by an Orthodox country in a defensive war? If not, still DotF. Did Sweden get a defensive CtA? No? Still DotF. Having that sweet -WE / +missionary / morale and prestige.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but almost everyone who claimed that title did so in a time when it had no meaning anyway, except to add more letters after your name, so to speak.

Yes. Seriously. Where does the title "defender of the faith" come from? ANY reasonable study of its history, and I mean literally any, finds women held that actual title. So, your choices are one of two: either it's fabricated based on total ignorance of history, and they decided to just conclude history was sexist so it must have been here and threw this in, or it's based on history and decided to block women anyway. I'm going out on a limb and assuming it's the former, mostly cause I mostly like these devs and all, and whoever put it in just assumed that history is sexist and so inserted their perception of history into this title when it was ahistorical and unnecessary.

I mean, seriously... if you google defender of the faith, the first result (fidei defensor) or the first link off the wiki for that phrase starts with a woman sharing it with her husband and ends with a woman holding it as I type this. There's just no way to get around the absurdity of males-only for the title without either inadvertent sexism due to ignorance, or overt sexism due to who knows why. I'm sorry if it offends you, and only a little sorry if it offends whoever put it in as males only, but they SHOULD feel bad about doing it. Assuming this title like so many other aspects of the Christian world at the time would be sexist and making it so, when it was not, is still a bad mistake.

Woah, man. So, we all agree that for most of its life only males could be made HREmperor, because history tells us the Pragmatic Sanction was a thing.

But now when we talk about DotF it's totally sexism. And what, inadvertent sexism? Because if a developer made the DotF title a thing in a game, and made it male-only due to a misunderstanding about history, it's not just a mistake but FULL ON SEXISM, THOSE BIGOTS!

 

[Ame]

What, that's basically exactly how DotF works in-game. Did Russia refuse a CtA by an Orthodox country in a defensive war? If not, still DotF. Did Sweden get a defensive CtA? No? Still DotF. Having that sweet -WE / +missionary / morale and prestige.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but almost everyone who claimed that title did so in a time when it had no meaning anyway, except to add more letters after your name, so to speak.




Woah, man. So, we all agree that for most of its life only males could be made HREmperor, because history tells us the Pragmatic Sanction was a thing.

But now when we talk about DotF it's totally sexism. And what, inadvertent sexism? Because if a developer made the DotF title a thing in a game, and made it male-only due to a misunderstanding about history, it's not just a mistake but FULL ON SEXISM, THOSE BIGOTS!

I understand some people like the mechanic; I don't I find the idea of Russians fighting at Constantinople and Kosovo to be well more of a fantasy then a reality.

The Crusades are over by the time the game began; Varna was the last one (and it was catholics protected orthodox so even that isn't covered by DoF).

 

[bbqftw]

lets be fair, DotF in current implementation is "smoke all these sweet bonuses, pay 500g every time someone of different faith attacks someone of your faith"

 

[User29]

We'll, the OP accused the developers of being sexist no matter the reason or their intentions and that is not only exaggerated but is also provoking a reaction from other people amused by such passive aggressive behavior. Talking about the main topic, as the DoF hardly can follow a single set of rules that didn't exist OTL, I guess we could make the Defender available for everyone, but I wonder if there is something we could make a little different to represent the clergy or nobility questioning the power the monarch has, maybe mostly the ones of the female ones.

What the hell? I did no such thing as claim sexism nor any false reasoning, this is outrageous.