I mean illiterate clergymen, intelligentsia, engineers and clerks? Come on. It should also make promoting to say, aristocrat or officer harder. Maybe it could be effected by laws too.
- 5
- 2
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I totally agree...and where exactly do the devs declare that this system - which has also been in Vic2 for as long as I remember - will not be included in Vic3?
- 3
A lot of DDs already mention "qualified" POPs when talking about positions a POP can have, so I'm pretty sure what you're proposing is already in the game.
- 6
illiterate clergymen can definitely exist for some cultures, especially cultures for which there is no written language and I think Comanche did not have one and they are in a screenshot. Lots of religions with only oral tradition.
- 2
One thing that should help somewhat is that promoting part of Pop would take their literacy with then. This would represent the best educated moving to better opportunities. Similarly demoting parts of Pop should take their illiteracy (if any) with them too, strengthening the stratification.
They are not "clergymen", then.
The clergy kept books and demographic archives, and was involved in politics, trying to sway the rural folk and all.
- 7
- 1
- 1
In Victoria 2 at least, Clergymen pops were connected to education levels and improving literacy. So the game seems to implicitly assume that clerics constitute the 'educated class' (which is accurate for Christian and Muslim societies, but not necessarily elsewhere).
- 1
Wasn't this already part of Vic 2? You required clerks to have high education to promote to that level, so it's simple as changing some values so that clergy, bureaucrats etc. also require high literacy levels.
That's a very narrowly Abrahamic view of religion and religious hierarchy.
- 2
- 1
I am not even religious. Simply put, "clergymen" are more than a religious figure. And need to be at least literate.
- 4
- 2
Nah, you don't need to be literate to fool illiterate people, just being good orator is enough.
Last edited:
- 2
Illiterate aristocrats were rather a feature of Europe in the time period. Books led to dangerous thinking like that maybe we should just start hacking everyone's head off, so education except in the most rudimentary sense was discouraged.
Clergy should be somewhat literate (in Europe) as the effect of the Protestant Reformation was that both non-Catholic and Catholic hierarchies placed great important on their clergymen not only being able to read their texts but also debate them. Still, this would probably only mean 50% literacy as your average priest was hardly a scholar. Anglican priests could also be quite shocking in their illiteracy, but that's more nepotism than anything else.
Clergy should be somewhat literate (in Europe) as the effect of the Protestant Reformation was that both non-Catholic and Catholic hierarchies placed great important on their clergymen not only being able to read their texts but also debate them. Still, this would probably only mean 50% literacy as your average priest was hardly a scholar. Anglican priests could also be quite shocking in their illiteracy, but that's more nepotism than anything else.
- 1
That's why I said it could make it easier to be aristocrats or officers, and why it could be dependent on laws. What I had in mind is how Abdülhamid II allowed more loyal but illiterate lower soldiers to become officers(called alaylı) and how these officers were far less eficient than and rivaling against officers from military academies(called mektepli). You could have a law to not to allow illiterate people into officering for example
