He has yet law. actually you never get all on the same line and sworn for the RP, it also brings something else.

Therefore, I now have the conclave to 24.12. RL Time scheduled. There are many people participate and there will be a choice. In principle, the Vatican at the moment four votes. So if there's nothing wrong in principle, should it work anyway.

But rules should be discussed together since. If you want the vertretetn also to the outside and wants to destroy all existing not directly, then you must also ask just how does it best.

If you look at the top View the posts from a couple involved, then, that I work quite as well as goal-oriented and not authorizing a departure.

Smelgar wrote:

QUOTE:
Thus speaks the voice of experience?

very true, I have seen few conclaves myself going bad because everyone wants the RP high ground and the pope as his pet.

They will choose to vote and voted unanimously to Pope I will - and if his voice is just my own, in any case, the conclave that decide, what I want!

Bella wrote:

QUOTE:
Norbert Valentin wrote:

QUOTE:
Oh, the Vatican is not the UN, where they distributed according to the voting rights of peoples. The concept provides for a England the Archbishop of Centerbury, one of Krakow in Poland, Saxony one of Cologne, one of Italy gets me out of Milan and so on. Thus, these powerful nations a permanent vote in all matters in the Curia. Small countries should have a bishop who just has only an advisory function. Deviating from this will also be appointed cardinals. One cardinal principle must be at least a bishop. The cardinal is intended for the person, not the diocese.

I am definitely surprised to hear, that small Catholic nations should get no right to vote.

I would not want to support any idea, I (or the representative of my nation) was not allowed to vote on.

Why on earth shouldn't small nations be allowed to vote? If they are inactive and can't muster an RP writer that would be a different matter, but I think it a bad idea to deny any Catholic nation the right to exercise voting rights from the start.

Look at this, tiny Liechtenstein has an Archbishop ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Vaduz

I imagine it may have something to do with the size of the donations...

Compared with Eastern where isn't any system, pope elections and the representation concept (based on nations size or direct) do not bear any comparison.

Look what's happen there in the East:
There isn't any separation between the mundane powers and the church, in a ridiculous way the king is also the patriarch. The Eastern are using Christian titles in the way of Muslim concept of Caliph.
We can assume without the risk of mistaken that Eastern are in fact disguised Muslim.

C'mon, did you hear about Patriarchs being also Emperors, Kings, Chancellors, Counts?
The Patriarch position was not related to any earthly position.

QUOTE:
"G'day to you, Emperor-Patriarch. G'day to you too, King-Patriarch. Could you summon the Chancellor-Patriarch for me? I need to speak with him. The Count-Patriarch army commander will have to come later to discuss the battle plans."

A dialogue like that would be funny if they don't alter the substance of Christianity, making the religious RP not credible.

Their religious RP it should be better posted in Snuggery, having no connection with game events, but pure fantasy.

Well I'm not sure how one gets from a discussion about the the Archbishop of Vaduz to a discussion of the organization of the Roman church and state, but since the topic has been raised, the facts are:

1. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is in fact the ordinary Knight (Roman, but currently free due to RL issues) theodossios, who is neither count nor chancellor*. Serving as the Ecumenical Patriarch is in fact permanently incompatible with temporal roles, and it was a common tactic of the Roman Emperors to appoint their rivals to high Church positions, as this precluded their ever ascending the throne. So whilst it is correct to say:

QUOTE:
The Patriarch position was not related to any earthly position.

in fact a correct and stronger statement is:

QUOTE:
The holder of the Patriarch position can never subsequently hold any earthly position.

You will note that, since he became Patriarch, theodossios has neither dueled nor fought in the army.


2. The Roman Emperor does however hold a religious office, that is Vicegerent of God upon the Earth. From the moment of his coronation (typically by the Ecumenical Patriarch), the Emperor is regarded as holy, and named so by the people attending the coronation.

3. As for the other Patriarchs, Macarias of Antioch is a separate person (an NPC) distinct from the main character of his player, and Nikanor of Alexandria and Serbia is also a separate person (another NPC) distinct from the main character of his player, whom you may have noticed is a woman (which Nikanor is not). Thephilos of Jerusalem is a Templar Monk, and as a monk is fully entitled to ascend to a Patriarchal throne.

There is in fact little divergence from the historical precedent, and what divergence there is is an entirely reasonable alternative development from the starting point of 1000 AD, with the major exception of the situation with the Templars (who are ahistorically early and Orthodox in KH).


*If Religious Ministers were ever introduced, he would of course take that role.

Huh? A separate person? Double personality it's a serious mental illness. It's called Jekyll and Hyde Syndrome.
It's not a separate person, in fact it's the same person. Play Muslims if you want to be king and religious leader in the same time or else you won't be credible, in the way a NPC pope and king player wasn't.

The Roman Emperors was also Viceregent of the (pagan) gods, The Holy Roman Emperor was also Viceregent of God on earth and Muslim leader also consider himself the Viceregent of God on earth. It was merely the attempt of monarchy to take the church under control than a real religious office.

That result from the fact that The Patriarch of Constantinople was the Empire's highest-ranked cleric, but even he was subordinate to the Emperor. If Viceregent of God on earth would be a religious office, he will be subordinated to the highest religious rank, the patriarch.

There is a difference between Vicegerent (which I said) and Viceregent (which you said).

The concept of Vicegerency in the (Christian) Roman Empire applies to the Roman Emperor (one man), and predates the existence of Islam (and thus cannot by derived from it)

The concept of Vicegerency in Islam applies to mankind as a whole (initially to Adam as the first man, subsequently to all men and women) and is not derived from Vicegerency in the (Christian) Roman Empire.

In Orthodox Christianity, Christ is the Head of the Church, and his Vicegerent is indeed subordinated to him. The Patriarch are Bishops, though there is an order of precedence used for various functions. For example there was recently a conflict between the (now former) Patriarch of Jerusalem and his Synod (some matter relating to the sale of Church land, I don;t know the details). The (local) Synod dismissed the Patriarch (as it is empowered to do as the Synod of an autocephalous Church, providing it acts properly). There was a call for review of this dismissal, and the matter went before a Pan-Orthodox Synod, presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarch. The only exercise of the order of precedence in this case was the choice of President; the Pan-Orthodox Synod still held the power of decision, though no doubt the view of the Ecumenical Patriarch was regarded as important and he may well have held a casting vote (not needed since the original decision was confirmed overwhelmingly). In no sense did the Ecumenical Patriarch impose some kind of authority on the Church in Jerusalem (which is autocephalous);

Furthermore, everything you said about "split personality" could be applied to any NPCs at all. Excluding NPCs completely is a reasonable stance to take, but currently NPCs are permitted by the game rules and thus insisting on their exclusion would be contrary to the game rules. You could, of course, voluntarily eschew any NPCs of your own, and suggest that people follow your example. If enough people do so, and it proves to result in an improvement to the game, then I for one would support a change to the game rules.

Did I say something about excluding NPC's from the game? It was explained to you already, but you keep ignoring: NPC's should be used as intended, characters in the entourage of the knight, not as high ranks church playing characters.
By definition, NPC is a non playing character, while a pope or a patriarch hardly could be taken as a helper of the knight.

Could you be more specific about the difference between Vicegerent of the God on earth and Viceregent of the God on earth? What is exactly the difference?

I hope you wont mind if I take the questions in reverse order!

1. There are (at least) four related words we should include in the discussion: vicegerent, viceregent, viceroy and viceregal.

A vicegerent is simply an officeholder, so The Vicegerent of God is simply The Officeholder of God, but the use of the definite article implies there is only one (at a time), making the role very special indeed.

A viceregent is the deputy for a regent. So if Jessica is the regent of Saxony for King Alrik II, then Wik is her viceregent (or perhaps Rex is, which would be perverse given his name means King...)

A viceroy is the deputy of a King in a remote location (e.g. a colony). And viceregal is an adjective meaning "related to a viceroy".

2. Each NPC is a character (by definition, as I hope you will accept) and as such has a personality. Thus if one has even one NPC then one has multiple personalities, which was the situation that I though you were objecting to with your Jekyll and Hyde allusion (though I accept now I was mistaken). Now you seem to be saying that only NPCs who are "helpers in the entourage of the Knight" should be permitted, and in particular "high ranking church playing characters" are not permitted. Can you tell me in what sense St. Thomas Bennett, Archbishop of Westminster was a "helper in the entourage" of Gregory I, King of England, and not a "high ranking church playing character"?