-
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.
The deities from Imperium 1 are back, in the form of province modifiers.
I really like the way you have designed the HUD or GUI or whatever, it's very eyecatching and in the spirit of the game.
Hi there, Descartes! You've asked me to point out anything that seems ahistorical to me, and I've browsed around a bit and found that the treatment of religion as introduced in DD 4 is rather problematic. It seems that you are not going to keep it that way in 2.0, but preaching about ancient religion is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so here I go:
Giving a province some modifier based on the deity venerated there predominantly is alright, but the former treatment, where you hinted that if people venerating deity X from pantheon A conquer a province with people venerating deity Y from (the same) pantheon A, they are going to have trouble, is very problematic.
Ancient polytheistic religions, unlike the monotheistic systems we are familiar with, were totally inclusive. A Roman soldier adhering to the Roman pantheon would find himself frequently turning to Mars -- but not because he thought Mars somehow superior to the other Roman gods, but rather because in his walk of life -- soldiering -- he did often find himself in a position where Mars was the proper god to turn to. If the same soldier was wooing a woman, he wouldn't hesitate a second to sacrifice to Venus, and if he should stop soldiering to become a farmer, he'd most probably begin to venerate first and foremost Ceres, goddess of agriculture. In ancient polytheism, there was no religious rivalry between gods of the same pantheon, no more than there is rivalry between one Catholic saint and the other -- everybody's got his own sphere of influence, and one turns to the god (or saint) best equipped to help in the situation one is currently in.
There was in fact even little religious rivalry between the different pantheons, too. Lacking an organized theology, ancient people had different, highly personal ways of coping with the multitude of pantheons all around them, but more often than not, they totally acknowledged the existence of the other pantheons and the validity of the gods within them. The probably most common explanation were regional concerns -- the gods of one pantheon were thought to be interested mainly in one region or a certain people and to concentrate their attention upon them. If you were a Roman, it made sense to venerate Roman gods, because Roman gods were thought to be interested in Romans. What would not make sense, not even in the eyes of Romans, would have been to venerate Roman gods when you were for example an Egyptian -- in that case, you were better off venerating Egyptian gods. But even these distinctions could blur; when you were for instance a Roman merchant doing business in Egypt, it might be wise to sacrifice to the Egyptian patron god of merchants -- you were after all in Egypt, and here, the Egyptian gods were probably stronger than any others. Mercur, the Roman god of merchants, wouldn't mind you sacrificing to another god (unlike the god of the Israelites, ancient deities were not "jealous gods"), and once you were back in Italy, you'd once again sacrifice to him.
And none of this has anything to do with conversion -- a Latin term meaning at the time exclusively "to bodily change direction", without any spiritual meaning to it. Ancient people were pretty flexible about religion.
This rant is all about cautioning not to build religious tensions into the game. There certainly was none within one and the same pantheon, and there was very little of it in between different pantheons.
But once again, giving slight local modifiers because fo the deities venerated predominantly in a province is a nice touch adding colour without detracting in any grave way from historicity. Anyhow, if you want me to stop popping in with my advice now and then, when I've got time on my hands, please say so and I'll gladly shut up.
Giving a province some modifier based on the deity venerated there predominantly is alright, but the former treatment, where you hinted that if people venerating deity X from pantheon A conquer a province with people venerating deity Y from (the same) pantheon A, they are going to have trouble, is very problematic.
Ancient polytheistic religions, unlike the monotheistic systems we are familiar with, were totally inclusive. A Roman soldier adhering to the Roman pantheon would find himself frequently turning to Mars -- but not because he thought Mars somehow superior to the other Roman gods, but rather because in his walk of life -- soldiering -- he did often find himself in a position where Mars was the proper god to turn to. If the same soldier was wooing a woman, he wouldn't hesitate a second to sacrifice to Venus, and if he should stop soldiering to become a farmer, he'd most probably begin to venerate first and foremost Ceres, goddess of agriculture. In ancient polytheism, there was no religious rivalry between gods of the same pantheon, no more than there is rivalry between one Catholic saint and the other -- everybody's got his own sphere of influence, and one turns to the god (or saint) best equipped to help in the situation one is currently in.
There was in fact even little religious rivalry between the different pantheons, too. Lacking an organized theology, ancient people had different, highly personal ways of coping with the multitude of pantheons all around them, but more often than not, they totally acknowledged the existence of the other pantheons and the validity of the gods within them. The probably most common explanation were regional concerns -- the gods of one pantheon were thought to be interested mainly in one region or a certain people and to concentrate their attention upon them. If you were a Roman, it made sense to venerate Roman gods, because Roman gods were thought to be interested in Romans. What would not make sense, not even in the eyes of Romans, would have been to venerate Roman gods when you were for example an Egyptian -- in that case, you were better off venerating Egyptian gods. But even these distinctions could blur; when you were for instance a Roman merchant doing business in Egypt, it might be wise to sacrifice to the Egyptian patron god of merchants -- you were after all in Egypt, and here, the Egyptian gods were probably stronger than any others. Mercur, the Roman god of merchants, wouldn't mind you sacrificing to another god (unlike the god of the Israelites, ancient deities were not "jealous gods"), and once you were back in Italy, you'd once again sacrifice to him.
And none of this has anything to do with conversion -- a Latin term meaning at the time exclusively "to bodily change direction", without any spiritual meaning to it. Ancient people were pretty flexible about religion.
This rant is all about cautioning not to build religious tensions into the game. There certainly was none within one and the same pantheon, and there was very little of it in between different pantheons.
But once again, giving slight local modifiers because fo the deities venerated predominantly in a province is a nice touch adding colour without detracting in any grave way from historicity. Anyhow, if you want me to stop popping in with my advice now and then, when I've got time on my hands, please say so and I'll gladly shut up.
I'm totally with you on this one, Guiscard. My first approach to ancient religion was indeed problematic, which is why I abandoned it. I'm glad to hear you like my province modifiers, because imo, they're a pretty harmless way of reminding the player of the great role religion played in ancient societies.
Keep it coming, your post was a nice read. Don't hesitate to suggest new features for the mod if you come up with any interesting ideas.
Keep it coming, your post was a nice read. Don't hesitate to suggest new features for the mod if you come up with any interesting ideas.
Yes, I cant recall much religious tension in the ancient era, nothing like the crusades or jihad.
The only tension I recall, mainly stemmed from temple robbing (Antiochus III died doing this) and control of a sacred site, for example Delphi.
The interface looks great, clean and precise just like Ceaser writings.
The only tension I recall, mainly stemmed from temple robbing (Antiochus III died doing this) and control of a sacred site, for example Delphi.
The interface looks great, clean and precise just like Ceaser writings.
Talking about sacred sites like delphi, couldnt main religion not be biased too much on which god you pray to (bc. its only a preference WITHIN the Pantheon) but which sacred site you dedicate yourself to? So sacred sites would be a province modifier that is something like a CoT in EU III, giving you benefits like money and prestige. All provinces would have to choose a sacred site, there should be decision with bad modifiers if you change a province to another site (even CBs perhaps), you can create holy sites with a lot of effort and destroy them. Events could change provinces from one site to another, destroying holy sites could give you massive badboy but increase change people flock to your site, or lower the cost or even make it possible in the first place to create your own holy site, also the temple treasure would surely be a nice addition to your treasury...but as i said:BB and perhaps the gods wont be happy either... ;-)
Perhaps you could even ask the oracles for advice or they give advice to you not even wanted ;-) like a rare event that says an oracle was asked and said you should got to War with nation X or do whatever, basically working like the EU III missions perhaps.
Think there are a lot of possibilities here, you like them?
P.S. Also having the same holy site was a kind of alliance of early greek states wasnt it, perhaps could put this into the game too, like same HS states garuanteeing each other, or if this is too strong, perhaps at least give a relations bonus. Or you can decide how much you want to be involved with a HS, more bonuses give you the guaranteeing way, less the better relations one. Also there could be tensions in a country that has provinces that belong to different HS...guess there could be a lot done here, and make a very nice game experience.
Perhaps you could even ask the oracles for advice or they give advice to you not even wanted ;-) like a rare event that says an oracle was asked and said you should got to War with nation X or do whatever, basically working like the EU III missions perhaps.
Think there are a lot of possibilities here, you like them?
P.S. Also having the same holy site was a kind of alliance of early greek states wasnt it, perhaps could put this into the game too, like same HS states garuanteeing each other, or if this is too strong, perhaps at least give a relations bonus. Or you can decide how much you want to be involved with a HS, more bonuses give you the guaranteeing way, less the better relations one. Also there could be tensions in a country that has provinces that belong to different HS...guess there could be a lot done here, and make a very nice game experience.
Last edited:
Indeed. Good to hear you like the interface btw.
Yep, it sounds good. Creating something similar to CoTs is outside the boundaries of modding, though; I would have to work through decisions, modifiers and events. Perhaps each country could have a country modifier explaining what holy site they belong to, and then triggered modifiers would give certain bonuses depending on whether this holy site was controlled or not. That would remind a little of being the papal controller in EU III.
Again, it would be quite complicated to implement, but I agree it would improve the game.