Since everybody is commenting and not just voting I will too.

I personnally think that all religious officials in question can be either PC or NPC, and I would leave that as a personal choice of the player who is a candidate for a certain position, be it Pope, Bishop, Ajatollah or whatever.

Of course ruler of any nation must be a PC but whether it is necessary that a ruler is also a religious leader, I think not. He/she can be both a ruler and a religious leader but not necessarily.

As I see it, a religious position is one that has consequence only in RP therefore it can be performed either by a PC or a NPC, in case of ruler it has consequence both in game mechanics and in RP. So a ruler must be a PC.

I would allow every religious leader to be an NPC (of course the role can be played by a PC - no restrictions).

Whether the Pope is a special character or not, I would say this:

Yes, the Pope is a special character in a way that he holds more power over many nations than any Bishop, Cardinal, Patriarch, Ajatollah or whoever (PC or NPC). On the other hand I think there is no need for the position of Pope to have a special rule that it must be played by a PC. The role can be played just as well with a NPC. Perhaps we could somehow separate the title of a ruler from the title of a Pope. Of course both roles could be played by the same player as a PC holding both titles or preferrably one PC who is a ruler and one PC or NPC who is Pope. A ruler would have to have support from his knights (as any other King or Queen), the Pope would be elected by Church officials, which could mean that both titles would be held by one player or by two different players. Depends on who would get the needed support for each of the two roles. I think with such system we would have better religious RP and a ruler would be more free to indulge in earthly matters (politics, wars etc.), exactly as any other ruler does. But of course if the both roles are played by same PC, actions of that PC will naturally be judged as actions of both king and Pope. And we all know that some in-game actions (in which of course a PC participates) can be viewed as wrong to be done by a Pope (like fighting etc.). The player who plays both roles with one PC must be aware of the fact that sooner or later this would happen. So it is difficult since actions of a king are judged or seen as actions of a Pope. Would be perhaps better if the roles were separated.

And there is one question I would like to pose. What is to be seen as more truthful, in-game facts or RP (if they don't coincide). In my mind the game facts are game facts and should be seen in that way. I can not RP that I won a duel if I actually lost it or haven't even fought it, for example. But that is how I see it, others may agree or disagree. But personnaly, I would make a rule out of it.

I would vote:
NPC allowed in POPE: No

NPC allowed In Cardinal: No

NPC allowed In Bishop: Yes

NPC allowed in Patriarch: No

NPC allowed in Shariff: Yes

NPC allowed in Ayatollah: No

NPC allowed in High Priest: No

My reasoning is based on the need to have a consistent standard in the religious patterns.
A task which is best enforced player to player. (No offense Sergios)
Most agree that the lowest contrrol over dogma and doctrine is not the common priests Nor their first level superior. Only above that does direct affect begin.

Players NPC will always work in loose common cause with the PC. Or they will simply ...Not post in favor of a side against the PC . Either way makes NPC a comrade by action or inaction to the owners PC.
I argue based on... silence is not an acceptable answer in Most actions.


My solution would be to King Rome Italian,
Current Italy is Lombard... as they RP it anyway....
and all the Religious Leaders be given Chancellor Roles. (so they may RP at diplomatic levels and commit conclaves and High -regional- Rituals)
** The 3rd Chancellorship Is actually free of extra charge in silver ...just is without official name.

Any other workable solutions??

I must say I totally agree with Bruno Faustus, only about chancellors have a proposal to make:
We have two chancellors with different names but who do the same thing! Except the name, there isn't any difference between them, not to mention it can be more than one with the same name. Until Hoern will accept to introduce a specific religious one as the third chancellor, we can use the actual ones. All high rank religious PC to be chancellor, that is my proposal.

First of all, there seems to be a view that only Chancellors (and Kings) can be ministers (War Minister, Foreign Minister and the proposed Religious Minister). Actually, Counts and even ordinary Knights can be Ministers (Erasmus Luegger was temporarily an example of the former: he was Foreign Minister of Ireland whilst Count of Botten and Izajah is an example of the latter: he is War Minister of Vatikan whilst only an ordinary Knight)

Second, the best solution---and the one stipulated by Hoern---is to do nothing. Leave things as they are. In the very rare cases when someone uses an NPC in an abusive fashion, I am sure the moderators will intervene. The only problem with the approach of doing nothing is that Gregory accuses various players of cheating from time to time. I am sure that every player who he has already accused of cheating is quite able to take it, so as long as he confines his accusations to those players, there isn't really a problem.

As an aside, I personally find the idea of multiple intersecting games (one military+diplomatic, one religious, one merchant oriented etc.) quite interesting. This isn't KH of course (it's far too radical a change) but it might be KH 2.0, for example. It might be a good idea to set up another board inside Technics called "New Game Ideas" for such ideas. There would be intellectual property issues of course; Moser und Wetter GbR would need some (probably non-exclusive) rights to implement an idea.

As a further aside, consider:

QUOTE:
13. Severability Clause

The ineffectiveness of one of these points does not affect the effectiveness of other points.

which is funny English but actually makes a lot more sense than the typical:

QUOTE:
Part or all of any clause of this Agreement that is illegal or unenforceable will be severed from this Agreement and will not affect the continued operation of the remaining provisions of this Agreement.

You still have not addressed the actual or default agreement these NPC hold with the PC Smelgar.

Regardless of the validity of the initial intent, (to use your own legal quotes) The question IS valid about abstain RP and agree RP being the only RP between the PC and NPC.

Find me One example of PC against owned NPC disagreement. Please.
(other than Devil's Advocate style or humor related.)

The current position - which Hoern has confirmed is satisfactory is:

NPC allowed in POPE: No if the Pope is the ruler of Vatikan, yes otherwise

NPC allowed In Cardinal: Yes

NPC allowed In Bishop: Yes

NPC allowed in Patriarch: Yes

NPC allowed in Shariff: Yes

NPC allowed in Ayatollah: Yes

NPC allowed in High Priest: Yes

Any attempt to restrict the use of religious NPCs based on the level of their office will lead to endless disputes over the level at which an NPC is operating. For example, what if an NPC is critically influential in a religious debate without being a member of the clergy? This is quite possible in the East, since (unlike in the West) many laypersons were educated; a few lay persons even became Patriarchs. Historically in the West during the Middle Ages, only clergy were educated. This was the primary factor leading to the structure of the medieval Catholic Church. I suspect that KH will turn out more like the East, since everyone playing is educated.

As for the example requested by Bruno: Macarias has stated he disagrees with a number of things stated in the Synod at Constantinople; he takes the Antiochine position, not the Byzantine position. It is quite possible for a PC and NPC to have separate characters---as is the case with both Sergios and Macarias---and in fact it would be a sign of immaturity for anyone to have a PC and NPC with the same character.

I regretfully acceed the Point of Bruno. I have found no disagreement RP between PC and NPC.
@-Smelgar, the point was from the SAME players creations....not between seperate players.

I prefer the Lombard-Italy-3rd Chancellor solution.

You are right also though to support NPC in all levels....provided Hoerns limitations are used.
I simply believe the Highest levels play-better as players and not as NPC.

Hm,
then you did not look properly. I had once a priest in my realms who plotted against Florian, as he was of the opinon that only a cleric can rule a country properly. After he was not able to negotiate with the pope to condem the duke he tried open rebellion when Florian was in Rome.

For the voting, I agree with Erasmus. Any religious role can be filled with an NPC, except when the pope is also ruler of the vatican.

For the formal reasons: This thread can collect the votes, afterwards you can bring it as a petition to the knights council and to Hoern.

Kind regards
Florian

Won't be needed if the votes for changing nothing because everything is fine increase more.
GO NPC's!!!

@ Florian---
Were the Priest who plotted and the king he plotted against controlled by the same player? (you)

It does not answer the statement if they were controlled by two different players.