Some observations are pertinent:
High rank cleric cannot post in Diplomacy Board and cannot act as chancellor, therefore it will be no real impact in the game!
The solution is simple, we present it to Hoern, but he didn't give an answer:
Implement a third class of chancellors, the religious ones!
It won't cost anything, since every nation can appoint 3 chancellors without any cost.
We already excluded the possibility that the king have a high rank clerical NPC (bishop, archbishop or cardinal), but not entirely, since it's possible the king to be less active and in fact one of the chancellors to rule the nation.
(That's why appear so many confusions about Byzantium, nobody hear about Nicetius and in fact Julian rule the nation)
It's something like the separation of the powers in state, will not exclude to use religion as pretext for wars, but will make the difference.
About using the religion as pretext, most of the conflicts in real history had an economical, a military, but also a religious support: Crusades, 30 years war in Germany, the war in Pays Bass to give only a few examples.

The accusation of misconduct is based entirely on the fact some of us use a high clerical rank NPC at their convenience, but the pope cannot be a NPC.
I remind you the pope is a special character, not to be assimilated with a normal king:
- He is elected by the vote of catholic nations and no other king gain his position that way.
- The prerogative of Monarchy don't work in his case, his son don't inherit the throne.
The comparison of the pope with the other kings simply don't work.

The interest of the players for the religious RP depends on the impact of the religion in the game and I must contradict Smelgar, a lot of players are interested to be more than normal knights (even his case is an argument for this!), but not only for RP, but to interact with the game!
Why not orthodox have a synod and elect the patriarch who lead the orthodoxy in the same way catholic have? I'm sure it will be a lot of players interested from all the orthodox nations, it will be a religious leader for orthodox generally accept it, a true partner for Rome and it will boost the religious RP no doubt!
Why not? because the separation don't work in Byzantium case, Julian act as king and religious orthodox leader in the same time!
It's easy for Smelgar to complain about his NPC Macarius who don't have a home, but it's not the same with the pope, who left his fiefdom as player and have to start again from scratches.
Being the pope (other than a Vatican knight) imply some sacrifices, also risks. Even you was voted by the cardinals, the knights of the nation can reject you, to name just one.
It's easy to be in command in a nation and play a high clerical rank NPC, since you're the king or almost king, you don't have to worry..
That's why I'm determined to accept kings and chancellors only with bishop rank for NPC, enough for any religious RP and make the proposal that a new chancellor class to be added in the game for higher clerical ranks.
Only then we will have a true religious RP and a true religious action in the game!
Also, even it's not my business and I only suggest, the patriarch leader of orthodoxy to be elected by the orthodox nations. Self named, he can be easily ignored by the orthodox nations, like was the case of Alar.

I think the proposal is for:

1. Each nation to have a "religious minister", who, along with foreign and war ministers is allowed the post to the diplomacy board.

2. Unlike foreign and war ministers, the "religious minister" has to be an ordinary Knight (or at most a Count?, but not a chancellor or the national leader).

3. The religious ministers of each religion (catholic, orthodox, muslim, perhaps nordic) elect from amongst their number a "Patriarch". I.e. the "Patriarch" has to be a "religious minister".

I like Gregory's point about having the give up the previous fief, so

4. A newly elected Patriarch has to leave his current nation and join the nation where his religion's Holy See is located, giving up his fief and getting a new one in (Rome, Byzanz, Baghdad?/Mecca?, Telemark?). One of the ten fiefs in each of these castle shires would have to be "reserved", and would also need to be reset to empty somehow. The elected Patriarch becomes the "religious minister" of the nation hosting his/her Holy See. Most of this this can be done in RP/diplomacy, doesn't need a rule: there would be adverse consequences if the leader of the host nation refuses to appoint the elected Patriarch as religious minister.

5. There would also be a problem if the religion of the host nation changed, but again that can be resolved via RP/diplomacy/war.

I think this could work. I don't see what happens to the other three Orthodox patriarchs, but perhaps that doesn't matter?

As always Smelgar shows me new aspects that i wasn't aware when I made my proposal.
The only thing i have in mind is to make the rules as simple as possible.
Point 1. is obvious, no need any comment. the headache come with point 2.
It can't be a simple knight, being chancellor, but cannot be a chancellor with religious powers either, because it will be a super-chancellor and we will return from where we start it. He cannot be Count, since he is chancellor.
The only idea I have in this very moment is that he can set up/change the religion of the nation.
Point 3 is optional in my opinion (except catholic), since include a RP part. Of course all the religions can elect a leader (patriarch, imam, druid and so), but it's up to them.
Point 4 is not correct in my opinion, because except the pope, you will receive only an almost RP title, nobody will give up his fiefdom for that and the knights from the nations where the Holy See is situated will have an enormous and unfair advantage. Not to mention the difficulty to establish where is located "the Holy See" for nordic, nature linked and multicultural.
That's why the pope is primus inter pares and we must accept it as a special character. I would only ask a bit of consideration and respect for his sacrifices in order "to serve the God".

We are having another problem I fear.
This rule you are suggesting can not be generalized easily nor can exeptions be done without letting the game become unfair.
Yet some things have to be clear to base a proposal upon.

1. Nordics do not want or need a patriarch for the religions of the north never had any international authority.
And as we see the troubles that a religious leader might cause I personnaly don't want to have anyone ruining this KH-religion.
2. The patriarch of Rome is not a special character. It was made to one by the players but he has not more authority than the other patriarchs of christian church for the christian comunity is one in RP. Nevertheless the game itself implies by having a nation of Vatican included that a shism took place. Regarding that the two patriarchs of Rome would need to have the exact same rights and dutys and each one leads a part of the christian church. Than we would need a nation for the orthodox patriarch as well or else there would be either no nation directly controled as we have it now or Byzantinum as official nation of church what would cause an extraordinary change of politcal power in the area.

The issue keeps within the behavior and rights given to the pope by being leader of a state and a morale advisor. The 10th century was a time were the papal editcs get their greatest power and no ruler could stand long term against the believe of the common people in middle Europe.

Their could be similar roles in the muslim world or in the orthodox east or the pope can have an non historic role. There are dozens of examples that bishops did take part as leaders in battles, but hardly any where a pope has fought (someone told me there was one, but I did not find it). Nevertheless the pope send out armies and tried to act as a statesman what was quite normal and never questioned.

Now we are on games facts. Who tells the results of a battle report? Currently I loose my last RL hair about the fact that a conclave believes a small farming boy and his accompagning priest. The boy met the pope before, as he identified him? He was on the battlefield and got near to see him fighting and got away and everyone believes him? What an absolute nonsense. The only thing protecting me from a heart attack is the fact that this is a nice plot from the orthodox christs to get rid of the unliked Gregory, who had the bravery to act and fight the vikings, where their troopers chickened away. Because that would be a worthy medieval behavior. For the rest it is mixing up 21st century visions and romantics with a game engine.

Yet as the church is not divided there is no pope actually. Only a patriarch of Rome.
One of the fighting pope was the one that got a grave from Micheangelo but that was Renaissance already.

To your personal problems:
I already had an anser one the how can the boy know the pope question prepared for RP. Orthodox people have that whole icons thing in their church and by that they added a picture of this man in gold as he became patriarch of Rome and prayed for him in every mass. Until he attacked their homeland of course.

What is bravery and what is foolishness does not belong here and is surely seen different by all sides.

At least a united christendom not fighting each other and working together as you like to have it wanting only peace is also quite enlightened and non medival. If we would act strictly medival what I'd love to see and always want to reach none of you would fight for anything but his own interrests and kill other christians without any problems. The crusades barely united medival christendom and that was for a higher goal than giving troubles to some pagans. Your mission can be compared to the one of the Teutonic Order, beyond its time and abilitys.
And of course your beloved Emperor and most of your knights would be dead already and not going home or beeing imprisoned.

It is not true to say that Byzantium "chickened away". We had a strong army up there as soon as we could given that we did not receive any notice prior to the outbreak of hostilities (unlike Vatican, who seem to have been in place when the war broke out). This army conquered Pommerania (at Alrik's request, as I understand it), but was too late to do anything else (and the whole thing greatly annoyed the Knights who had marched up there). Then, when Alrik announced the peace treaty, our army started to return home.

The Synod in Constantinople is not a conclave (if it was, it would be secret and you would not hear of it). The primary evidence is the battle records, which make it clear that Gregory did fight (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that): the little boy (or whatever) is merely an RP reflection of the in-game fact.

I think you mean 11th Century (1001-1100), not 10th Century (901-1000, which included most of the pornocacy period, during which the Popes were too "busy" to do much) ... Whilst the Vatican armies acted defensively, and to end wars that had already started, I think you'll find that they dis not act offensively and at the start of wars.

What you are saying, Flo, is creating a complete separation of the RP from the game life. If there is no one credible enough to tell the story of reality, this creates a very serious problem in the future. I mean, if one opens this door (and I'm not sure, but I think it's the RP rules something about realism - one cannot post an action unless he is in that field, etc.) then one has to be careful to where this leads: next time, one can claim a battle never took place, or it had a different outcome. No?! I mean, following your logic, no reliable sources exist to tell the facts the game reality expresses, one can claim anything!!! I haven't duelled Palo two days ago, and if so, he beat the crap out of me... Of course, in game reality he didn't survive, so in game-reality he can't testify against my statement. So, does this make my story true, as a result?!

But let's get back a little, before the accusations of crime started. When one as Gregory decides to leave his nation and join another one (not a singular case in KH, also) and he's motivating his move on an RP, there are two options: that he plans for his game life to be consistent with his RP, or not think about it except on a short term.

In the first case, this is not applicable - the RP of the current pope is not consistent with the game reality, see paragraph one. So this only leaves choice two, which means shifting from RP consistency to non-RP consistency (with game-reality, of course) at own will, in certain moments.

Such case leaves, again, two options:
1. Forget completely about game reality and rely solely on RP, as changeable as is it, and rely only on what the RP tells us;
2. the RP is not to be taken seriously by anyone looking at the battle logs, or turneys, or duels or anything.

Have I bypassed any possibility?!

EDIT (sorry, I forgot): And please, let's not speak about the historical consistencies here in regarding papality. If you are looking for a historic figure like Pope, you would be having an old fart, sitting his arse on the throne in Rome, and aswering to political requests from the grands of the day (king of France, Spain or the German Emperor, sometimes) for proclaiming divorces between royal families, recognition of bastards as lawful heirs and/or blessing some wars, as instructed to. If he would have failed to comply, there was always a next pope waiting at the queue, or there was always the prospect of Avignon
That was for the romantic part with the history.

I'm sorry, but I must draw your attention that the subject of the topic is "Clerical NPC's" and even I enjoy the debate about pope, if he is or not a special character (the evidence shows he is a special one, not a king, since he prerogative of Monarchy don't work in his case, his son don't inherit the throne and he depends in his nomination and actions on catholic nations, this is not the case of any other king, the rest are only personal considerations..) I'm more interested to find a solution for the problem of high rank clerical NPC controlled by the rulers of the nations.
Because the separation of the powers (religious and monarch) don't exist, we hardly can have a religious RP/activity, religion become only a tool, not an institution!
It's easy to set a plot by accusing the pope he do what is the game for, using your NPC who cannot fight or "kill" anybody, but if you want realty, nobody really die in this game, this is the realty! SO, speaking of realty, I didn't kill anybody, the rest is only your fantasy!
About the boy, did he play with his toys on the battlefield to confirm it was me who hit his father?
Of course it's a byzantinum plot to remove me, it's a political act, not an act of justice, but since they have no jurisdiction on Rome, it will lead only to schism. The patriarch of Constantinople can never be the father of christianity as he dreams, it wasn't possible in real history and it's not possible in the game, where Rome is the only religious state.
@Den Uxi: of course you want to see christian fighting christian, I want to see north fighting north, but that's not the point! The point is religious RP, for those interested and since North act united, you are not interested.
It's a game, we re-write the history at some point, we have orthodox in Brittany, we are not forced to be 100% accurate with the real history, this is only the background!
In the real history, Swiss Guard never participate in offensive campaigns because it was merely a guard, not an army.
At this point of debate, let's reach at least a conclusion:
Do you think the proposal of a third class of chancellor, a religious one, must be implemented in the game?
It will have a beneficial effect on the religious RP?

Pardon me for being late, I had some technical problems that kept me away.

Concerning the topic
Like Smelgar, before I created the Metropolitan Bishop of Armenia Arsen as an NPC of mine to represent the Armenian Christians, I have asked our players at the nation's board, if someone would be interested in actually playing the guy. I got one reply, but the player revoked when he faced the enormous effort needed to get familiar with the religious setting. Playing a cleric is far more difficult than playing a knight or count, maybe even more than playing a king. You are a member of a nation, but have to judge your comrads' actions by a different scale / point of view. You have to lead, but remain a critic to your nation, and you have to make your king not banishing you, when you do.
I do not think Armenia is the exception. Every small nation can call itself lucky if there is a knights who wants to deny himself from the common game features and concentrate on church rp I understand this is what you guys expect a bishop/ ... to be. roleplaying instaead of gameplaying, to use Smelgar's terms.
So, I guess the smaller the nation is, the more would it suffer from a restriction of its clerical power, in case it is only able to enforce it by well-played NPCs.

I contradict Gregory's assertion, a clerical NPC would be less real than a PC, both are fictional and only the player behind the character can provide a fair roleplay. It should not make a difference for a PC if he is speaking to a PC or a NPC, right?
More obvious for misusing clerical leaders than the fictional character of clerical NPCs is in my opinion the inability of a player to distinguish from his PC and his NPC and his combined use of profane and sacral reasons to achieve one's desires by roleplaying.
Since it is not that hard to simply create a fake-account and have him play a clerical leader by puting one's own words into his mouth, it seems to be far more important to have an honest and fair player play the clerical leader, be it PC or NPC than to prohibit high-ranking NPCs.

Besides, I guess a high-ranking cleric, played by a simple knight, would suffer from reduced acceptation by his foreign respondent (like a king for example). So their should be some way to make that player stand out from the common (mostly click-only or not-roleplaying) knights of a nation. But what's the point in creating a religious chancelor? You would have a powerful position in a nation combined with the clerical rp again. What is the difference to our current situation?
I would favor a completely new and unique class without administrative power within his own nation, but enough options and board access to have an influence provided by rp and his acception as a leader like the king and his ministers by all the community?

I would love to hear the opinion of some muslim characters, concerning the separation of profane and sacral authority. If I am not mistaken the caliph is the mundane and religious ruler in one person, just like the Pope in Rome. That caliph is also not elected, but rules with the right of his heritage. KH also does not distinguish between shiit and sunnit muslims, an important difference especially concerning the role of the caliph.
The situation of the Pope is not as unique as one might think, it's only for our weak muslim nations here in KH, that we are not really aware of that fact, isn't it?


And off-topic
Contrary to Palomides, I do not think religion should be avoided to justify wars. The medieval period is not known for its secularism.

Contrary to Smelgar, I don't think the nations, that will be the home of the Patriarchs, would like to have a foreigner become their clerical leader. You have to trust this player, and trust has to be earned. Also I do not see any advantage of developing one's fiefdom all over again, the moment one becomes the religious leader. Alos this could be avoided by simply creating a new fake-account for that purpose.

Gregory, you want yourself to be recognised as unique, than act accordingly.
The Pope is just as unique as we make him. NPC or not is not the sole problem, when Gregory wants to duel and participate in battle, when he buys armor and weapons, this is the decision of the player to not concentrate on clerical matters himself. So his position does not seem to be so very different from mine, playing a chancelor and a bishop at the same time. We could decide if we accuse him for that or if we tolerate this as his way of having fun like every one else, and obviously this decision was made.
Personally I have no problem with the Papal states as a unique toy, available to the Pope in Rome, but that forces the Pope to be king and patriarch himself.
Also all our kings are different from the RL-ones, they need their knights' continued approval and can be exchanged by force. The right of succession is not given for the same reason. I do not think the elected Pope will ever be rejected as their ruler by the Vatican knights, there is too much happening behind closed doors in KH.

Gregory also speaks of sacrifices, I don't see what sacrifices that would be? Giving up one's fiefdom for the advantage of becoming the pope does not sound like a bad deal to me.