Why can't we play Muslims or pagans?

[Calanctus]

The fact that they didn't include it? Mildly irritating, but fair enough. The fact that they purposely hardcoded it in so that it was unmoddable? Indefensible.

Indeed. The worst part of this is the hardcoding means modders can't add new playable religions. They crippled moddability, one of the biggest selling points of Paradox games, just to sell some DLC. It's disgusting.

[Nuril]

Hrafnkels saga is a solid example of this, as Samr chooses to banish Hranfnkel rather than executing him ...

Well you certainly know how to win me over real quick, don'tcha?

1. Norse societal structure isn't dramatically different from the rest of Feudal Europe. In fact, even as "pagans" there were instances of Vikings serving in courts or owning lands under a Christian lord. Much of their own structure is roughly comparable to Christian nobility positions, and is mostly already in game (Jarl similar to Duke, Chief similar to Count, ect). So... that's a plus, at least as far as Norse is concerned.

Indeed. I never did understand why people think all the places would have such massive issues with the base mechanics. The only thing really needed is to set Crown Authority really low so vassals can pretty much do what they want when it isn't directly conflicting with their Lord's basic rights. The biggest Mechanic-problem is the Religious screen, since it'd need reworking for more proper Hofgoðar/polytheism functions, not a "Pope of Óðinn".

This is why terms like "Pagan" are so very terrible. They aren't one thing, yet people pretend that they are (and are still somehow able to explain in minute detail the distinctions between Waldensian and Cathar heretical philosophies..). Tengriism is not Ásatrú, Ahura Mazda is not Ukko (Finnish Sky-God) and there is no such thing as "Paganism". It's just a Christian-centric superiority complex (and somehow Zoroastrianism was uniquely excluded from this group even though Christian texts from East-Rome explicitly calls them "pagan fire-worshippers").

3. In Christian society, mercy is viewed as a good thing. In Norse society, it can be seen by some as a sign of weakness. Right now when you release someone from prison, all your vassals approve due to your merciful actions. Norse folks shouldnt' work like that: with maybe a few exceptions of the less-violently inclined traited folks, you should gain respect for executing a defeated enemy, and lose respect if you allow them to survive. Hrafnkels saga is a solid example of this, as Samr chooses to banish Hranfnkel rather than executing him, and everyone views Samr as weak for doing so... and then don't help him out when Hrafnkel builds a new force to come and reclaim his home from Samr. Of course, afterwards Samr is given the option to either die like a man or survive, and he chooses life (despite it ruining any chance he had to be looked upon with honor again for the rest of his life). So all of that could make for fun game mechanics... choosing between killing someone to appease your fellow vassals/peers and risk the potential wrath of their relatives, or let them live in order to not piss off their family but be looked on by your vassals/peers.

Yes, the results of traits should have modifiers for their effects that'd state "christian = { }" or "norse_pagan = { }" to let there be exceptions to the rule (so stated religion or religious group uses the modifiers within the parameters instead). The Tooltip for the trait "Lustful" in CK1 goes into this, for example, since it mentions that even though it's considered sinful behaviour for a Christian it would be positive for heathens since the associated fertility would be viewed as a blessing (I mean find me a Vanir that doesn't have some mention of fertility as an attribute!).

It'd also help with good ol' situations like Normans keeping their "Danish wives" (legitimized mistresses). Just because they convert to Christianity doesn't mean they don't still keep attributes that used to be positive for them, all of a sudden they could be marks of great shame and targets for ridicule. Holdovers from the old ways when "they didn't know any better". Might find themselves in a really strange world if they play the Norseman straight for gameplay advantages but ends up pressed to convert if eventually losing against Christians, then being stuck with decisions made when they were the Min-maxing thing to do.

Just a few random thoughts, like I said. Figure the Norse would (compared to some of the other Pagans and the Muslims) be easier to nudge into the right direction than the other non-Christians, since they have such a strong history and shared ancestry with the rest of Europe, thus their society isn't as dramatically different from Christian Europe (as the other non-Christians.)

Of course, they're also one of the smallest non-Christian groups and seem to have a potentially short shelf-life (especially because Erik The Heathen seems intent to convert to Christianity at his first opportunity, and he's just about the only Norse leader with any major pull). But hey, I can dream can't I? Maybe I'll figure out the character ID numbers for Erik The Heathen and Olaf Green and some others, just so I can have fun still if or when they became playable regularly.

They're not huge any more - although they're dramatically underpowered in Sweden to give the Christians an edge in winning. It's rigged to usually have Uppsala lose even without the shady honourless tactics resorted to in the actual Civil War - but they're still one of the biggest potential game-changers for non-Christians. Lithuanians and their kin, while resilient and longer lasting, were still an enclave in hostile lands. Vast land-based Christian forces on all sides but the sea and when Uppsala fell to Christians even that sea became a front in the war. But if Ásatrúar end up winning Sweden then it'd also mean that the Baltic is foreign water for all Christian nations (surrounded by Lithuanians, Finns and Swedes - all "pagan"). The Northern Crusades become a much tougher ordeal to successfully accomplish and Swedish warriors would not be dying in the forests of Finland to create "Österland" and Christianize the Suomenusko heathens. Who knows what might happen.

Though the hyper-interventionist Emperor might be trouble for that in the Game-Universe. When was the last time a German Emperor had 20 000 soldiers trying to occupy Närke, again? Must've missed that in History-class.

[LodovicoAriosto]

In CK1 it is possible to mod this in and it actually has been done. Not in CK2? Strange.

[Pallen]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...n-A-Mini-Guide

That guide is for those who dont like to exploit or do something some might consider gamebreaking. For the lazy ones do following;

1) Make a savegame
2) Find the savegame in documents/paradoxinteractive/CK2/savegames
3) Open it with text
4) Find the line player=yes
5) Delete that line and write a new one at the desired character you want to play as.

[James_Manring]

I would gladly pay another $20-30 for an expansion that enables play as ALL countries. I am one of the player types that likes the challenge of overcoming historical obstacles that destroyed empires in real life. "Crusader Kings" had to fight against someone, therefore being able to play as the opposition to the Crusader Kings has great appeal to me. It has even more appeal to a multiplayer game where players might want to play ideological enemies instead of bratty Christian neighbors. I suppose I would call these Counter-Crusader Kings. It may not be an official holy war, but the kings fighting back against the holy war were every bit as much an important part of this as the kings prosecuting them!

I believe there is enough interest for Johan to sit down with the Producers and discuss a budget plan for implementing more playability within the sandbox environment. If I am willing to pay that much more money for more options in historical plausibility, that means there are enough others out there willing to possibly make this idea profitable. DEVs, please consider a serious exploration of your options here despite the hesitation towards this idea during project development.

[Darkrenown]

I like the game and all, but this was a pretty clear decision in order to be able to sell a DLC down the road. In the Demo, the "exploit" allowed one to play Muslims and Pagans, however they have now hardcoded it so that it is impossible without cheats to load up as one at all. The fact that they didn't include it? Mildly irritating, but fair enough. The fact that they purposely hardcoded it in so that it was unmoddable? Indefensible.

We fixed a bug that let you play as religions we didn't design to be playable? How terrible of us!

[KonradRichtmark]

People, be realistic. Paradox is making games for a niche market. CK1 sold poorly compared to other Paradox games. A niche within a niche. You should be grateful that Paradox even took the risk of making CK2, rather than some safer bet like EU4. Considering what budget constraints they've had to be under, they had to chose between width (making everyone playable) and depth (making Christian feudal realms deep and involved), they could hardly have afforded both. I'd rather have Christan feudal realms with all the nifty mechanics than a shallow system where everyone is playable but the differences ones of flavour.

Wishing for Paradox to make a commercially sold expansion that makes Pagans and Muslims playable is entirely valid. Demanding to get it into the basic game, to demand even more for your money from a game which was pretty much fan service to begin with, is just entitlement-minded and whiny.

[Pallen]

I just posted a guide how to play pagan, but if you want to continue being unhappy then fine with me. Il just go over here ->

[Aardvark Bellay]

LOL. FYI, Paradox's search function has an extremely poor history. Yes, they just hobble it a bit now, rather than disabling it completely, so it is usable. But it's laughable to knock people for a failure to rely on a feature that many still assume is not even there. Plus you have to be logged in, for it to work at all, and you have to wait between searches.
.....

-You can search inside a thread.
-You can search with "Advanced Search", i'd then change to "Search Single Content Type", put in "keywords" what you are looking for,
then choose the Forum and/or subthread (you can add the "search in child forums" box), choose "posts" at "show results at" -> tada!

You will get the post and see if that matters to you. Pretty good i find. Used the search mechanic this way a lot and it helped faster
than asking again in the forum most of the time.
Cheers and have fun,
Nik

[allahuakbar]

We fixed a bug

God damn, am poppin the champagne as I type this.

[Jestor]

Well, I still love the game. Never said I didn't. And I still hope there's eventually an expansion/DLC that will allow the various flavors of paganism and Islam to be playable. If/when there is, I'll be first in line to buy it *and* first in line to write an AAR about it.

[anomanderus]

The game is called "Crusader Kings"

This is not a real argument. Frustration and repetition ad infinitum.

It's called Europa Universalis, why are you able to play non-europeans?
It's called Rome Universalis, why are you able to play non-Romans?
It's called Victoria, why are you able to play countries besides Victorian Britain?
It's called Hearts of Iron, why are you able to play as countries that didn't historically participate in WWII?

[flame7926]

This is not a real argument. Frustration and repetition ad infinitum.

It's called Europa Universalis, why are you able to play non-europeans?
It's called Rome Universalis, why are you able to play non-Romans?
It's called Victoria, why are you able to play countries besides Victorian Britain?
It's called Hearts of Iron, why are you able to play as countries that didn't historically participate in WWII?

Its called Crusader kings because it models the crusader kings. Which muslims and pagans arent, so you arent them. Its not an argument, it a what did you expect with a game modelling European feudal societies.

[contecorti]

Its called Crusader kings because it models the crusader kings. Which muslims and pagans arent, so you arent them. Its not an argument, it a what did you expect with a game modelling European feudal societies.

People which bought the game and expected to play as Muslim or Pagans have only to blame themselves becuase it was made very clear that they weren't playable.
Anyway i don't buy the argument that only because the game is called Crusader Kings it should be focused only on European feudal societies. This game is an historical simulator of the period between 1066 and 1453 so Muslim, Pagans, Heretics, Merchant Republic should get their own specific mechanics.
I'm sure that if in 2 years there is no DLC or expansion regarding them, a lot of fans of this game would be annoyed.

[Calanctus]

Its called Crusader kings because it models the crusader kings. Which muslims and pagans arent, so you arent them. Its not an argument, it a what did you expect with a game modelling European feudal societies.

I can easily play entire games of CK2 without being either a king or a crusader (and have fun doing it!). Those things aren't really what the game is about at all.

It's called Crusader Kings because it's a catchy title and it gives you some idea about what time period it's set in. That's literally all there is to it, please stop acting like Paradox uses the title as some kind of guiding principle for game design. Games are often titled long after the design docs and much of the programming is finished.

[birdboy2000]

Indeed. The worst part of this is the hardcoding means modders can't add new playable religions. They crippled moddability, one of the biggest selling points of Paradox games, just to sell some DLC. It's disgusting.

They can if they make them Christian sects, just not if they make them religious groups. It appears everything about religions is moddable except which ones are playable without cheats.

(And honestly I think there wouldn't be half as much complaining if DLC which let you play muslims/pagans was already out.)

[flame7926]

People which bought the game and expected to play as Muslim or Pagans have only to blame themselves becuase it was made very clear that they weren't playable.
Anyway i don't buy the argument that only because the game is called Crusader Kings it should be focused only on European feudal societies. This game is an historical simulator of the period between 1066 and 1453 so Muslim, Pagans, Heretics, Merchant Republic should get their own specific mechanics.
I'm sure that if in 2 years there is no DLC or expansion regarding them, a lot of fans of this game would be annoyed.

Its not because the game is called Crusader Kings that it is focused on that. That has just been the intent from the start and was the intent of the original game. Its not about the era, its about the European societies. Its not like EU3 with pretty generic mechanics for all countries, just different tech groups and religions. There would have to be some pretty fundamental differences to play as muslims and mongols.

[louie97]

See, I wouldn't mind if people kept making this exact same thread if it wasn't clearly stated in the game description (even on steam, it overtly says this) that you can't play heathens.

[Kyoumen]

We fixed a bug that let you play as religions we didn't design to be playable? How terrible of us!

I don't begrudge you fixing a bug, but making it impossible to mod CK to other settings (or even any non-Christian-dominant time periods) by hardcoding is a pretty big restriction, and one hard to find a parallel to in other Paradox games. Now, it seems apparent (whether true or not) that the reason it is hardcoded to not play pagans, muslims et al is so DLC making them playable can be sold later, and while that's disappointing to me, I understand it from a financial point of view.

But I won't be impressed if Johan gets his way and we never get playable Muslims.

[Robert Wyatt]

CK II is a magnificent game and much more moddable than 99% of the games on the market, it is a shame if they've restricted religious playability (purely for the purposes of modifcations such as the Game of Thrones mod or ones of this ilk) but its pros outweigh its cons.

If you can indeed simply edit saves etc, people CAN make modifications to make Muslims etc "playable" (adding events etc), the selection of countries will simply take a little bit more effort which is annoying but you can work around it.