Why I always have difficult times when you come to answer to a simple question? I don't need to be told what viceregent, viceroy, vice whatever you please means.
Again my question:

QUOTE:
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?

You are extremely tiresome with that kind of attitude of ignoring the essential, while taking a detail as supreme argument: possibly a NPC have a character, but I'm not playing with him, claiming that he is independent of my playing character, the knight. He is a helper, serving his purpose in the benefit of my knight.

Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
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.

It's not me saying that, it was Hoern. You know that very well, it's not the first time that we had that conversation, I really don't know why you don't admit the evidence?
http://knights-honor.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,181/func,view/id,97345/catid,45/

Hoern wrote:

QUOTE:
First: NPCs are allowed. They are needed.

But if you take a look to the rules:
It has to be clear that the NPC is no character at the game - it is a third person.

You ignore the very definition of NPC (Non Playing Character)! You cannot play with him instead of your knight and you cannot play with him as a second character.
My knight character cannot compete with your invented character who can move all around the map at high speed, cannot be imprisoned, cannot be accused of anything because he interact with the game as your imagination wants. He is beyond the RP rules as the principle of location and the principle of reality.
Using him as playing character who avoid the game rules it's kinda cheating.

About my NPC St. Thomas Bennett, Archbishop of Westminster, I don't know what you are trying to insinuate (again!), if I were Deaglan Artavasdus definitely I would demand apologies (happily I'm not!), it's obviously for anybody in good faith that he was the helper of my knight and not my Hyde.
I never claim that my NPC St. Thomas Bennett have a will of it's own separate from my knight character and put my NPC to lead as Religious Leader.
In fact St. Thomas Bennett become in short time my secretary in Rome. You must admit that my knight as pope had a higher rank and St. Thomas Bennett was my knight helper.

About my personal example? I use to play for a couple of years and you should admit that i was an example in all that time: I wanted to be the pope? I step down as king of England and move to Vatican with my knight to play the pope.
I wanted to play a high religious rank (Archbishop of Canterbury)? I did not conveniently use a NPC to hide behind, but I used my knight character.
As old player I think that you should be ashamed pointing to me when it comes to bad usage of NPC's, I did not do the same with you, even I would have more reasons.

My purpose is not to point fingers, but to have a normal game within the rules. Taking advantage of a second character in the game, an invisible NPC avoiding the game rules, is not a normal way of playing in my opinion.

James wrote:

QUOTE:
Why I always have difficult times when you come to answer to a simple question? I don't need to be told what viceregent, viceroy, vice whatever you please means.
Again my question:

QUOTE:
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?

Well I explained what the vicegerent of God is, and what a viceregent is, and thought to leave it at that, since people could work it out themselves

However since you ask:

A. The Vicegerent of God (in the Roman sense) is as I have said previously.

B. A "Viceregent of the God on earth" would be the deputy for a Regent of God on Earth. A Regent of God would be like the Regent for a King; someone who stands in for God in the same conditions as a Regent stands in for a King (the primary party), which are:
- the primary party is not yet old enough to wield power (as with Alrik II)
- the primary party is incapacitated through illness or injury (as with Nicetius)

Now, when the primary party is God, these reasons obviously do not apply (God is neither not yet old enough not ever incapacitated). Therefore, there is never a Regent of God on Earth. Since there is no Regent, there is no Viceregent either, and so the phrase:

QUOTE:
Viceregent of God on Earth

describes a situation that can never arise. In other words the phrase does not have any useful meaning in practice. I'm happy to continue a theoretical conversation about it however, if you are keen...

James wrote:

QUOTE:
You must admit that my knight as pope had a higher rank and St. Thomas Bennett was my knight helper.

I am feeling disadvantaged as a woman. My female knight can never have a higher episcopal rank than my NPC Bishop Fenwick.
I have been reviewing things women in this game might do and exclude men from, but haven't come up with anything apart from pregnancy yet. And going into page-length further detail than general morning sickness and muscle cramps, the husband has to rub away, is not something most people here would care to read about I think.

James wrote:

QUOTE:
My knight character cannot compete with your invented character who can move all around the map at high speed, cannot be imprisoned, cannot be accused of anything because he interact with the game as your imagination wants.

That is a very valid point.
While it might be an option to forbid NPCs, with real characters and personalities of their own (not counting nameless messengers), outside of the close vicinity of their knights, that would be somewhat RP limiting.
I would consider it a better idea to create ties between knight and NPC, so that the NPC will be somewhat affected, too, by whatever happens to the knight. By which I mean ties of blood or very close friendships, etc.

That way, e. g. if someone managed to catch hold of Bella and Bishop Fenwick was declared her cousin, Bishop Fenwick could not dare to open his mouth in that period of time, for fear of what might happen to his kin. Holding kin and clan liable for the actions of their family, is an entirely viable medieval concept.

Likewise, if disgruntled knights forced their king Deaglan Artavasdus out of office, it would be reasonable to assume that his NPC, who ascended his position with the aid and approval of the king, would likewise lose his office or would be forced to resign. Or that someone might make war on Byzantine and name the actions of the NPC as the casus belli and make demands both on the real player knight and on the NPC a condition for cessation of the war.

It would also in my opinion be reasonable to have an ingame convention that if a real player knight and an NPC of another knight should ever compete for the same position, the NPC will automatically lose out, in order not to unfairly disadvantage the real player knight. For actually riding to where the action is supposed to take place, changing your real player's nation in order to confirm with your RP, is, one has to acknowledge, a much larger sacrifice than any NPC will ever be forced to make.

P.S. And everyone with active longterm NPCs, put them in your profiles for goodness sake, one can't expect newcomers to the game to know who is who in RP otherwise.

James wrote:

QUOTE:
Why I always have difficult times when you come to answer to a simple question? I don't need to be told what viceregent, viceroy, vice whatever you please means.
Again my question:

QUOTE:
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 have answered the above in my previous post.

QUOTE:


You are extremely tiresome with that kind of attitude of ignoring the essential, while taking a detail as supreme argument: possibly a NPC have a character, but I'm not playing with him, claiming that he is independent of my playing character, the knight. He is a helper, serving his purpose in the benefit of my knight.

Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
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.

It's not me saying that, it was Hoern. You know that very well, it's not the first time that we had that conversation, I really don't know why you don't admit the evidence?
http://knights-honor.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,181/func,view/id,97345/catid,45/

Hoern wrote:

QUOTE:
First: NPCs are allowed. They are needed.

But if you take a look to the rules:
It has to be clear that the NPC is no character at the game - it is a third person.

What Hoern wrote, in full, is below, I have underlined a particularly relevant point.

QUOTE:

First: NPCs are allowed. They are needed.

But if you take a look to the rules:
It has to be clear that the NPC is no character at the game - it is a third person. The NPC is not allowed to have a position of a king, chancellor, count. This positions are for players only.
The NPC can be a religious leader - but the importance of this comes from the other players or nations who give him credit.

So - you can play as much NPCs as you want - but they are only of importance if the other players want them to have. Otherwise, the NPC is not more than a messenger or an observer.

So Hoern says that the NPC can be a religious leader. Macarias is a religious leader who is an NPC. That is fine.

QUOTE:


You ignore the very definition of NPC (Non Playing Character)! You cannot play with him instead of your knight and you cannot play with him as a second character.
My knight character cannot compete with your invented character who can move all around the map at high speed, cannot be imprisoned, cannot be accused of anything because he interact with the game as your imagination wants. He is beyond the RP rules as the principle of location and the principle of reality.
Using him as playing character who avoid the game rules it's kinda cheating.

As it happens, I have from the start tried to follow the movement constraints when Macarias moves, and note he tends to spend years in one spot. I do agree it would be better if there were an in-game representation of NPCs so that the engine would enforce these constraints, but sadly there isn't.

QUOTE:


About my NPC St. Thomas Bennett, Archbishop of Westminster, I don't know what you are trying to insinuate (again!), if I were Deaglan Artavasdus definitely I would demand apologies (happily I'm not!),

If you feel I have insulted you as a player in any way then I apologize.

QUOTE:


it's obviously for anybody in good faith that he was the helper of my knight and not my Hyde.
I never claim that my NPC St. Thomas Bennett have a will of it's own separate from my knight character and put my NPC to lead as Religious Leader.
In fact St. Thomas Bennett become in short time my secretary in Rome. You must admit that my knight as pope had a higher rank and St. Thomas Bennett was my knight helper.

I agree that whilst Gregory I was Pope, St. Thomas Bennett was his secretary and part of his entourage. That is why my question was about the time when Gregory I was King of England (after he ceased to be Pope). At that time St. Thomas Bennett was still Archbishop of Westminster, a high church rank within the Roman Catholic Church, and not part of the entourage of King Gregory I or any other monarch.

Now it is an historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church is a supra-national organization that is not subject to any nation, and its high members are subject only to the Pope (and not to their national monarchs). There is in history an issue called the "investiture controversy" concerning whether monarchs or the Pope had the right to appoint high Church officials within the monarchs' nations, but even if the monarchs have the right of appointment, the Church officials once appointed are subject only to the Pope.

It happens that in the Orthodox Church the high officials are part of the Roman state and are (in fact) subject to the Emperor as Vicegerent of God. In fact, the Emperor can remove and appoint Patriarchs at will, and there are many instances of this happening. So in fact it would be historically accurate to assert that Orthodox church leaders are part of the Roman Emperor's entourage.

Given the way KH has developed, the Serbian Patriarch would be part of the Serbian Emperors entourage, of course.

As far as I can see, we have two logical options:
1. Do as Hoern says and simply allow NPCs to be religious leaders.
2. Voluntarily follow your rules and EITHER (as you are currently doing) play a high Church leader as one's main character (both the Archbishop of Canterbury and King of Denmark in your case) OR join an Orthodox nation and then (having become King) one may have religious leader NPCs as members of his entourage.

QUOTE:



About my personal example? I use to play for a couple of years and you should admit that i was an example in all that time: I wanted to be the pope? I step down as king of England and move to Vatican with my knight to play the pope.
I wanted to play a high religious rank (Archbishop of Canterbury)? I did not conveniently use a NPC to hide behind, but I used my knight character.

You seem to be drawing the line below the Archbishop of Canterbury but above the Archbishop of Westminster. If that's what you want to do then I agree such a distinction between two archbishops can indeed be made, but you would have to admit it is quite a subtle distinction and may be difficult to make in practice.

QUOTE:


As old player I think that you should be ashamed pointing to me when it comes to bad usage of NPC's, I did not do the same with you, even I would have more reasons.

I didn't and don't think you have used NPC's badly. I am entirely happy to congratulate you on your use of NPCs.

However, you have repeatedly accused me of using NPCs badly. This is not an insult; it is entirely legitimate to make such an accusation.

The only reason I raised the issue of St Thomas Bennett is to try to understand the problem you believe you have found. St Thomas is not a member of the King of England's entourage or subject to the King, he's a member of the Catholic Church, subject to the Pope. I would agree that if King Gregory had done exactly what Henry VIII did in history and asserted his supremacy over the Church, then St. Thomas could become part of his entourage. However, when you were questioned about this at the time, you indicated that Gregory I has not appointed himself Head of the Anglican Church in the way that Henry VIII, but had instead done something that allowed the Anglican Church to remain in Communion with Rome.

QUOTE:



My purpose is not to point fingers, but to have a normal game within the rules. Taking advantage of a second character in the game, an invisible NPC avoiding the game rules, is not a normal way of playing in my opinion.

I am not pointing fingers either. I do not believe that anyone has done anything wrong, so there is no-one at whom I might point fingers. I am simply trying (again) to understand the problem you believe you have found. Unfortunately, it seems that again I have failed.

More than that, before this digression begun, I made a joke about the Archbishop of Vaduz.

The digression has been entertaining, and I thank you for it, but perhaps we could get back to that topic?

In fact, the situation is even more peculiar than I had first thought. Until recently Liechtenstein was part of the diocese of Chur (in Switzerland). Then Liechtenstein was created as its own arch-diocese, whilst Chur (which previously had contained it) apparently remains a mere diocese. Talk about leapfrogging up the table! As I said, I suspect it has got something to do with the donations made by the(very rich) residents of Liechtenstein...

How many times I have to say to you that a NPC is a non-playing character?

You can make him a squire, a bandit or a religious leader, but he will remain a NPC. You cannot play with a NPC in the way you are playing with your knight character, pretending they are independent.
A NPC will always be a helper of your knight character, so the patriarch Macarias is a helper of Byzantine Emperor.
That is what Hoern says and that's it what any normal person not trying to twist the words would say.

So, stop pretending that Macarias have a will of it's own independent of your knightly character, the king, it's a Jekyll and Hyde Syndrome case, but they are still the same person, like Jekyll and Hyde was in fact.
It doesn't matter what you do with him, as long as he don't spit fire or something like that, it's a NPC, he don't have to submit to the Playing Characters rules (he cannot do that anyway, being not represented in the game).

I do not draw any line, it's the line between [b]a Playing Character- [PC] and a Non Playing Character - [NPC] that it seems you keep ignoring.
The Byzantine Emperor and the mostly Ecumenical Patriarch, His Beatitude Macarias are one and the same person and the Patriarch is the helper (servant) of the Emperor (your knightly character).

The papal supremacy become obvious, the pope is not a helper of a king, serving the named king interests, but a king itself, in representing the God on earth.

About the difference between Vicegerent of the God on earth and Viceregent of the God on earth it seems that I have to answer myself, since you failed to give a right answer, despite of so many words used in the attempt:

1. Vicegerent

QUOTE:

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
n. A person appointed by a ruler or head of state to act as an administrative deputy.
Century Dictionary
n. An officer deputed by a superior or by proper authority to exercise the powers of the higher authority; one having a delegated power; a deputy; a vicar.
Wiktionary
n. The official administrative deputy of a ruler or head of state; viceregent.
Webster
n. An officer who is deputed by a superior, or by proper authority, to exercise the powers of another; a lieutenant; a vicar.
WordNet
n. someone appointed by a ruler as an administrative deputy
Medieval Latin vicegerent-, vicegerens, from Late Latin vice- + Latin gerent-, gerens, present participle of gerere to carry, carry on

2. Viceregent

QUOTE:
n. A deputy regent; one who acts in the place of a ruler, governor, or sovereign.

n. The official administrative deputy of a regent; vicegerent

The only difference is that viceregent is strictly a deputy of a regent, while vicegerent is a deputy of a higher authority (a lieutenant; a vicar). A viceregent act as a delegated regent, while a vicegerent act as a delegated officer of a higher authority.

Viceregent of God on earth and Vicegerent of God on earth practically means the same.

Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
Viceregent of God on Earth describes a situation that can never arise. In other words the phrase does not have any useful meaning in practice.

How do you always come with the wrong conclusions using so many words? You make that on purpose or simply you cannot handle the ideas?
I will give you only a few examples from tons that could be founded that the situation in fact arise and the phrase have a practical value, since is largely used to describe the situation.

Qoran:

QUOTE:
But God's plan for man is to make him His agent or viceregent on earth "And God said to the angels : I am making a viceregent on earth". (2:30)

Divine right doctrine:

QUOTE:
regarding monarchy in which the monarch is God's viceregent upon the earth ...

Suleiman titles:

QUOTE:
'Suleiman the Magnificent - Vice Regent of God on earth, Lord of the lords of East and West, and possessor of men's necks, King of believers and unbelievers,... majestic Caesar ,..."

Proskynesis:

QUOTE:
With the conversion of Constantine I to Christianity, proskynesis became part of an elaborate ritual, as asserted by historian John Julius Norwich, whereby the emperor became God's vice-regent on Earth. Titular inflation affected the other principal offices of the Empire.

Please stop using so many words in order to reach the conclusion that you want and do not ignore others arguments because don't fit to your plans.
Yes, I do feel that you insult my intelligence ignoring the arguments I presented to you and keep using half-phrases to prove otherwise.

Bella, there isn't any problem with NPC's, the only problem is with the players pretending their NPC's are in fact Playing Characters, not related to their Knight Character and with a will of their own, distinct of their Knight Character = Playing Character (one allowed!).
You're allowed to make one knight, who is your playing character. Hoern state very clear, but they keep ignore it:

QUOTE:
But if you take a look to the rules:
It has to be clear that the NPC is no character at the game - it is a third person.

So, people, stop using your NPC's as characters in the game, they are only helpers in the antourage of your knight.

James wrote:

QUOTE:
How many times I have to say to you that a NPC is a non-playing character?

You can make him a squire, a bandit or a religious leader, but he will remain a NPC. You cannot play with a NPC in the way you are playing with your knight character, pretending they are independent.
A NPC will always be a helper of your knight character, so the patriarch Macarias is a helper of Byzantine Emperor.
That is what Hoern says and that's it what any normal person not trying to twist the words would say.

Hoern says that an NPC can be a religious leader. I have made an NPC that is a religious leader. You have also made an NPC who is a religious leader (St. Thomas Bennett, Archbishop of Westminster). Both are fine and within the rules.

QUOTE:


So, stop pretending that Macarias have a will of it's own independent of your knightly character, the king, it's a Jekyll and Hyde Syndrome case, but they are still the same person, like Jekyll and Hyde was in fact.

Macarias and all NPCs are independent people with independent will - they might take particular notice of people in authority such as the Emperor (though in fact Macarias tends to be rather obstreperous in relation to authority)

QUOTE:


It doesn't matter what you do with him, as long as he don't spit fire or something like that, it's a NPC, he don't have to submit to the Playing Characters rules (he cannot do that anyway, being not represented in the game).

I do not draw any line, it's the line between [b]a Playing Character- [PC] and a Non Playing Character - [NPC] that it seems you keep ignoring.

I agree with you it is easy to draw a line between a PC and an NPC. However, that was not the line I was referring to.

According to your actions it is OK for the Archbishop of Westminster to be an NPC.

However, if I understand you correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) it is not OK for the Archbishop of Canterbury to be an NPC.

So (if I understand you correctly), one Archbishop CAN be an NPC whilst the other CANNOT be an NPC and MUST be a PC.

I am not disputing the obvious fact that one IS an NPC and the other IS a PC. instead I am asking why one CAN be EITHER an NPC or PC whilst the other CANNOT be an NPC and MUST be a PC. The line is a distinction between CAN and CANNOT, not a distinction between IS and IS NOT.

QUOTE:


The Byzantine Emperor and the mostly Ecumenical Patriarch, His Beatitude Macarias are one and the same person and the Patriarch is the helper (servant) of the Emperor (your knightly character).

The Ecumenical Patriarch is Theodossios, not Macarias. There was an elaborate ceremony to raise Theodossios to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

QUOTE:


The papal supremacy become obvious, the pope is not a helper of a king, serving the named king interests, but a king itself, in representing the God on earth.

That is true, and in fact the Popes claim to be "God's Vicegerent on Earth".

Ecumenical Patriarchs do not claim to "God's Vicegerent on Earth"; the Emperor claims that and a Patriarch who did so would not last very long.

So - one can see that Popes and Ecumenical Patriarchs are different.

QUOTE:


About the difference between Vicegerent of the God on earth and Viceregent of the God on earth it seems that I have to answer myself, since you failed to give a right answer, despite of so many words used in the attempt:

1. Vicegerent

QUOTE:

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
n. A person appointed by a ruler or head of state to act as an administrative deputy.
Century Dictionary
n. An officer deputed by a superior or by proper authority to exercise the powers of the higher authority; one having a delegated power; a deputy; a vicar.
Wiktionary
n. The official administrative deputy of a ruler or head of state; viceregent.
Webster
n. An officer who is deputed by a superior, or by proper authority, to exercise the powers of another; a lieutenant; a vicar.
WordNet
n. someone appointed by a ruler as an administrative deputy
Medieval Latin vicegerent-, vicegerens, from Late Latin vice- + Latin gerent-, gerens, present participle of gerere to carry, carry on

2. Viceregent

QUOTE:
n. A deputy regent; one who acts in the place of a ruler, governor, or sovereign.

n. The official administrative deputy of a regent; vicegerent

The only difference is that viceregent is strictly a deputy of a regent, while vicegerent is a deputy of a higher authority (a lieutenant; a vicar). A viceregent act as a delegated regent, while a vicegerent act as a delegated officer of a higher authority.

I agree, you have expressed the difference correctly.

QUOTE:


Viceregent of God on earth and Vicegerent of God on earth practically means the same.

Well actually they don't. As you have (correctly) said, in the case of a vice regent there is an intermediate regent.

The term vicegerent involves only two persons: the one in authority (1) and the one who is his deputy (2).

The term vice-regent involves three persons: the one ordinarily in authority (1), the Regent temporarily in authority (2) and the Regent's deputy (3)

Saying that the two terms are practically the same is a little like saying that two and three are practically the same!

QUOTE:



Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
Viceregent of God on Earth describes a situation that can never arise. In other words the phrase does not have any useful meaning in practice.

How do you always come with the wrong conclusions using so many words? You make that on purpose or simply you cannot handle the ideas?
I will give you only a few examples from tons that could be founded that the situation in fact arise and the phrase have a practical value, since is largely used to describe the situation.

Qoran:

QUOTE:
But God's plan for man is to make him His agent or viceregent on earth "And God said to the angels : I am making a viceregent on earth". (2:30)

Viceregent in this case is a misspelling of vicegerent, which is the correct term, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice-regent

I didn't mention this before because I assumed that you were interested in how the word is used (correctly), not in how it is misused.

Also note that the correct spelling of vice-regent contains a hyphen (or a space, as in Vice Regent). If you type in viceregent as one word your spell checker may well put a red line under it. Again, I didn't mention this before because I thought it was too trivial to bother you with.

QUOTE:


Divine right doctrine:

QUOTE:
regarding monarchy in which the monarch is God's viceregent upon the earth ...

As above, the correct term is vicegerent

QUOTE:



Suleiman titles:

QUOTE:
'Suleiman the Magnificent - Vice Regent of God on earth, Lord of the lords of East and West, and possessor of men's necks, King of believers and unbelievers,... majestic Caesar ,..."

As above, although there is something further going on here as well, which we can talk about if you like.

QUOTE:


Proskynesis:

QUOTE:
With the conversion of Constantine I to Christianity, proskynesis became part of an elaborate ritual, as asserted by historian John Julius Norwich, whereby the emperor became God's vice-regent on Earth. Titular inflation affected the other principal offices of the Empire.

As above, vicegerent is the correct term.

QUOTE:


Please stop using so many words in order to reach the conclusion that you want and do not ignore others arguments because don't fit to your plans.

Well - I try to use words correctly; sometimes I fail but still I try.

QUOTE:

Yes, I do feel that you insult my intelligence ignoring the arguments I presented to you and keep using half-phrases to prove otherwise.

I apologise for the insult, it was unintentional. In fact, I quite enjoy these occasional discussions, so I've no intention to do anything that might curtail future such discussions.

I don't believe I have ignored all the arguments you have presented (I may have ignored some), in fact in some cases I have agreed with your arguments: not only did I not ignore them, in fact I agreed with you. There are other cases where clearly we disagree, and in those cases I'm afraid we must agree to disagree, since I am not convinced.

James wrote:

QUOTE:
Bella, there isn't any problem with NPC's, the only problem is with the players pretending their NPC's are in fact Playing Characters, not related to their Knight Character and with a will of their own, distinct of their Knight Character = Playing Character (one allowed!).
You're allowed to make one knight, who is your playing character. Hoern state very clear, but they keep ignore it:

QUOTE:
But if you take a look to the rules:
It has to be clear that the NPC is no character at the game - it is a third person.

So, people, stop using your NPC's as characters in the game, they are only helpers in the antourage of your knight.

Hoern actually said:

QUOTE:

The NPC can be a religious leader - but the importance of this comes from the other players or nations who give him credit.

So - one way to be rid of Macarias would be to persuade other players and nations to ignore him. There would be nothing he could do...

Also, it is well established that the most experienced of the RP-Mods in KH, Florian de Fecamp, had an NPC who claimed to be Pope Urban III!

So he saw little problem in an NPC even being Pope!

Now - I don't agree with Florian (and I guess you, James, don't either), but it nevertheless demonstrates that serious people (you, I and Florian) can reach radically different positions on this topic. I see strength in that diversity of opinion, and I thank you (James) for your part in it.

Why I should want to get rid of Macarias, one of the best NPC's in the game? That will be a great loss.
Of course a NPC can be a high religious rank, he can be anything, he can be God himself (I don't remember exactly, but I think I use to speak with Him a few times directly or at least with the angels send by Him).

It is alright as long as he stays NPC, because Hoern state: It has to be clear that the NPC is no character at the game - it is a third person.
As long as you don't use this NPC as your PC (Playing Character) instead of your knight or distinct, as a double personality, I am very happy to have Macarias and the other very good defined NPC's in the game.
Agree he could be very useful as Emperor helper, I use St. Thomas Bennett as my knight character helper and could confirm that it was very useful.

Florian pope was not a NPC (Non-Playing Character). You cannot play with a Non-Playing Character. It was his second character in the game, pretending to be distinct and without any connection with his knight character.
NPC's are persons in the antourage of the knight, while Florian pope was not.

Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
Macarias and all NPCs are independent people with independent will.

Allow me to contradict you: a NPC of yours will do what you want him to do. He don't exist outside of your imagination. You put the words in his mouth and you put him in action in the way you want.
I don't think he will grab the pen and change the phrases you write down in RP because "he disagree".
You dictate the way he interact with the other characters (real or imaginary) in the game.
Since there is one will, yours as player, it doesn't make sense to play more than one character, who act according to your will.

Archbishop of Westminster vs. Archbishop of Canterbury.

One was a NPC (St. Thomas Bennett) saying everything what James / Gregory wanted to say, a NPC helper in the entourage of my knight.

The other was my knight playing role (my knight title). I did not conveniently hide behind a NPC "acting" instead of my knight, pretending there is no connection between James (my knight) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (a possible NPC).
I did not say: hey, it's wasn't James doing all that crimes, James is innocent like a baby, it was my NPC, the Archbishop of Canterbury. You want him for a trial? Alright!
My NPC used like that against the rules would become a PC instead, he will be delivered to the trial location and conveniently die in front of the gates.
Well, a NPC is no character at the game and this it will be like cheating.

About the difference..

QUOTE:
Viceregent of God on earth and Vicegerent of God on earth practically means the same.

Well actually they don't.

Allow me to contradict you: in both cases, the authority is delegated to a deputy.

QUOTE:
Viceregent in this case is a misspelling of vicegerent, which is the correct term.

Why don't you tell that to the thousands or more references on the internet?
Viceregent (or vice-regent) word actually exist? Why a monarch cannot pretend to be God's viceregent upon the earth?
You simply state the quotes are wrong and in all the cases it must be corrected by replacing vice-regent with vicegerent.
Do you have any arguments or it's only your guess?
I'm start thinking that you're the only one person on earth knowing the meaning of the words, seeing all those thousands or more relevant quotes are all wrong. Well, I'm not an expert linguist (are you one?), so I will not contradict you in that point.