Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Was Zoroastrianism actually added to the game?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69867 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Status
Not open for further replies.
faisent said:
So a caution on making a Zoroastrian Kingdom; if you started Catholic it doesn't look like you can change investiture laws once you go Zoro...you can yank Bishopric titles and hand them off to loyal Zoroastrians in your court (in which case they become Baronies{?} but you still get church taxes from them). I'm testing again by changing investiture before my Zoro heir takes over; and I'm hoping that will let me introduce my own claimants so that the Pope doesn't keep putting Catholics in place.

You can declare holy wars against other realms (I assume they also can declare holy wars against YOU, but nobody did to me). I'll put in another update later after my tests are done tonight.
Click to expand...

How did you get that to happen? Are there any characters (landed or just courtiers, w/e) anywhere that start off as Zoroastrian?

Except that it obviously would? First of all the thing to "Fix" in your situation is the survivability of Pagans, not "they're wiped out on Day 2 so who gives a shit!"
Click to expand...

I realise that the real reason that all pagans are grouped up is so that they can use religious defence to help each other... What you don't realise is that this is not effective because: a.The only real Pagan 'player' in CK2 is the Cuman Khanate and, guess what, they don't give a crap about those pesky Lithuanians. And why should they, anyway? The real problem here is the way that the HW CB works atm. So, yeah, I couldn't possible care less about what this will do to the survivability of the independent pagan realms because it shouldn't have anything to do with it. You said it yourself, these religions have nothing to do with each other, other than that they're not monotheistic and therefore should feel no loyalty to each other in times of war.

I don't want to see the Cumans rush to Lithuania to fight the HRE because, somehow, they feel that the Lithuanians are their brothers in faith; that's retarded. I DO give a shit about the pagans, but this is not the way to protect them. Instead, we should find a ssolution to the actual cause of the problem, the Holy War CB. I won't settle for anything less, like pitching all the pagans in the world against the Christians, which is not even working anyways, or is it now? If it did work, then I would at least feel that there's a reason for this ahistorical grouping. But I digress. This is a thread about the current in-game representation of Zoroastrianism, let's not derail it.
 
kingofparades said:
connotations are things that are ASSOCIATED with a word that aren't actually part of the definition. In this case, the connotation for pagan is a bunch of barbarians in the woods.
Click to expand...

Which, if you look at the etymology of pagan... is probably because paganus was somebody who lived in a rural area ({pagus} - and didn't pick up the city-slicker cult until later). So the religious connotation picked up a theological definition which... et cetera.
:)
 
moldeh said:
This is a thread about the current in-game representation of Zoroastrianism, let's not derail it.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because I didn't say a single thing about anything you just wrote about. I never mentioned Casus Bellis at all nor did I imply anything about what they felt was their "duties" as far as defending against Christendom were. While also ignoring what I did say, which is that what you want to do - for no reason whatsoever other than that it gets on your nerves - would create a massively ahistoric level of animosity between polytheists that simply did not exist. Why would you replace a completely irrelevant non-issue that only ever shows up innocently in the expanded tooltip with something that has serious consequences to every single pagan character in the game?

That makes no sense at all.
 
Nuril said:
That's funny, because I didn't say a single thing about anything you just wrote about. I never mentioned Casus Bellis at all nor did I imply anything about what they felt was their "duties" as far as defending against Christendom were. While also ignoring what I did say, which is that what you want to do - for no reason whatsoever other than that it gets on your nerves - would create a massively ahistoric level of animosity between polytheists that simply did not exist. Why would you replace a completely irrelevant non-issue that only ever shows up innocently in the expanded tooltip with something that has serious consequences to every single pagan character in the game?

That makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm derailing the thread and this will be my last post here.

A.You said that splitting up pagans will make them 'hate each other' because of the heathen opinion hit. Why should they like each other? You said it yourself, they had nothing to do with each other, so why shoudn't they view other pagans as heathens? Because they all believe in polytheistic religions? That's not true and makes no sense whatsoever. 'Pagan' is an umbrella term and should be used as such; it most definitely should not be used as a religion group for all polytheistic religions in the world, that's just wrong.

First of all the thing to "Fix" in your situation is the survivability of Pagans, not "they're wiped out on Day 2 so who gives a shit!"
Click to expand...

B, At this point, you should realise that you did mention the whole 'pagan survivability' issue and rightly so, in fact. Here's the thing, though, grouping all pagans together does not fix that problem (how many times have you seen any non-Cuman pagans survive the first 10 years of the game?). Furthermore, it's a roughspun method of protecting them; from a historical POV, it simply does not make sense. What would make sense, would be to alter the 'Holy War' Casus Belli when used against pagans, so as to avoid having every single pagan duke wiped out in a decade. No, you didn't mention that, but you probably should have. If you want to 'fix the survivability of pagans', like you said, that's the way to do it.

If PI are planning to make pagans actually playable (and by that, I dont just mean being able to pick them at game start), then this is anything BUT 'a completely irrelevant non-issue'. I understand that for some weird reason (or perhaps no reason at all, since we are after all on the internet) you feel the need to 'prove' your point, but pretending to have somehow forgotten what you posted and ignoring my posts isn't the way to do it. If I'm Tengri and you're Zoroastrian, then to me you're a heathen and I shall behave as such. If you're Orthodox and I'm Catholic, we both believe in the same God, but we have some religious differences; this shouldn't be the case with pagans. Anyway, I won't be be continuing this conversation, since it serves no purpose, other than to derail this thread. Have fun.
 
moldeh said:
A.You said that splitting up pagans will make them 'hate each other' because of the heathen opinion hit. Why should they like each other? You said it yourself, they had nothing to do with each other, so why shoudn't they view other pagans as heathens? Because they all believe in polytheistic religions? That's not true and makes no sense whatsoever. 'Pagan' is an umbrella term and should be used as such; it most definitely should not be used as a religion group for all polytheistic religions in the world, that's just wrong.
Click to expand...

You are clearly not listening to what I'm saying. They WON'T like eachother. Liking someone and not hating them is not the same thing. You still get a negative modifier to relations as a result of "Religious Differences", but what you're proposing makes them as much enemies as the Crusaders and Jihadists. That's nonsense. It doesn't work from a purely mechanical perspective and therefore has no place in the game. Just as how Culture-groups don't actually always represent having similar cultural/linguistic roots.

It isn't an issue of whether or not they'd view someone else as a "Heathen" from their religion's perspective, it's an issue of how severely they consider such a disagreement. Christians/Muslims etc. take it very, very seriously, but Pagans don't, so you'd be imposing an unreasonably harsh relationship penalty on them. It's breaking something that there's no problem with.

moldeh said:
B, At this point, you should realise that you did mention the whole 'pagan survivability' issue and rightly so, in fact.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. That was responding to you going off on an unrelated tangent, not bringing it up in relevance to a point in question. It was questioning the judgement involved in seriously considering the issue in a manner such as "They're already doomed, so who cares if we doom them even more by obsessively representing them 'accurately'. Even though it's in contradiction to what the game-mechanics actually do.". That's what's wrong. I was not talking about their survivability in the first place.

moldeh said:
Here's the thing, though, grouping all pagans together does not fix that problem
Click to expand...

"So what?" (Hint: Rhetorical. Not actually asking.)

moldeh said:
If PI are planning to make pagans actually playable (and by that, I dont just mean being able to pick them at game start), then this is anything BUT 'a completely irrelevant non-issue'. I understand that for some weird reason (or perhaps no reason at all, since we are after all on the internet) you feel the need to 'prove' your point, but pretending to have somehow forgotten what you posted and ignoring my posts isn't the way to do it. Anyway, I won't be be continuing this conversation, since it serves no purpose, other than to derail this thread. Have fun.
Click to expand...

Yes, I couldn't possibly think you're just ridiculously wrong about it. I've got to be "pretending". Also you're repeating something you're just blatantly wrong about, since the Zoroastrians aren't a part of the Pagan group. Something I've already clarified to you before in this very thread.

moldeh said:
If I'm Tengri and you're Zoroastrian, then to me you're a heathen and I shall behave as such. If you're Orthodox and I'm Catholic, we both believe in the same God, but we have some religious differences; this shouldn't be the case with pagans.
Click to expand...

Except that that's EXACTLY what should be the case with Pagans. They have some religious differences. That's all. Their "religious difference" is having a different ethnic religion. The Pagan group is a generalization of Ethnic religions. They do not take the concept of "Heathen" as seriously as imperialistic monotheistic faiths, so they should not suffer the same penalty. This is not a difficult concept.
 
Last edited:
Pnutmaster said:
Some consider Zoroastrianism the father of monotheism, yes?
Click to expand...

I think that is Judaism.

Nuril said:
imperialistic monotheistic faiths
Click to expand...

Monotheistic faiths establish empires? I think you should buy a dictionary. Armies and kings establish empires, faiths don't.
 
Last edited:
Sleight of Hand said:
moldeh is correct.
Click to expand...

..How? He's very obviously wrong as far as CK2 is concerned and my very first statement in the discussion is that it would be correct to split them with regards to the real world (which this isn't, and it'd be dumb to do so in CK2).

Bamilus said:
This thread stopped being about Crusader Kings 2 and turned into Forum Kings 2 a few pages ago
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense at all. It's entirely about how CK2 functions. Stop trying to sound clever.
 
Was there any significant number of Zoroastrians left in Persia at the time when the game starts? Thought most of the surviving ones were pushed out into India and further East (i.e., out of the game's map).
 
Nuril said:
..How? He's very obviously wrong as far as CK2 is concerned and my very first statement in the discussion is that it would be correct to split them with regards to the real world (which this isn't, and it'd be dumb to do so in CK2).



That doesn't make any sense at all. It's entirely about how CK2 functions. Stop trying to sound clever.
Click to expand...

Really? All I see is a bunch of people arguing about the definition of paganism and whether Zoroastrianism spawned monotheism. Neither seem to be related to CK2 (although I guess the former could be construed as such). Nice try, buddy!
 
Slaists said:
Was there any significant number of Zoroastrians left in Persia at the time when the game starts? Thought most of the surviving ones were pushed out into India and further East (i.e., out of the game's map).
Click to expand...

Yes, there were a lot of them in the Iranian Plateau. The Islamization of Iran was rather slow, but they had started breaking down by this point and were the minority.

"Richard Bulliet's "conversion curve" and relatively minor rate of conversion of non-Arab subjects during the Arab centric Umayyad period of 10%, in contrast with estimates for the more politically multicultural Abassid period which saw the Muslim population go from approx. 40% in the mid 9th century to close to 80% by the end of 11th century."

Bamilus said:
Really? All I see is a bunch of people arguing about the definition of paganism and whether Zoroastrianism spawned monotheism. Neither seem to be related to CK2 (although I guess the former could be construed as such). Nice try, buddy!
Click to expand...

Then you aren't reading the posts in this thread, obviously.

Also that still has nothing to do with trying to be "Forum Kings", that was just you trying to sound clever and failing.
 
Another attempt to get back on topic: Does anybody know if the fact that zoroastrians can wage holy war on pretty much everybody else is intended? Am I the only one who thinks that it's an oversight which probably wasn't fixed, because there aren't really that many zoroastrian characters?
 
moldeh said:
Another attempt to get back on topic: Does anybody know if the fact that zoroastrians can wage holy war on pretty much everybody else is intended? Am I the only one who thinks that it's an oversight which probably wasn't fixed, because there aren't really that many zoroastrian characters?
Click to expand...

Probably not, owing to the fact that they don't control any provinces so it likely didn't come up in testing, but I can't think of a reason why they should have Holy Wars, no. Personally I'd prefer having regional ones for them [Pagan group and Zoroastrians], so if you have a title then you can Holy War within that region (If Sweden turns Ásatrú then they'd be capable of Holy Warring against Catholic lords inside of Sweden, but needing to fabricate outside the De Jure Kingdom, Zoroastrians that take Persia can try to throw out Muslim lords, etc.). Probably pretty complex to write, though.


Skullheadhq said:
I think that is Judaism.

Monotheistic faiths establish empires? I think you should buy a dictionary. Armies and kings establish empires, faiths don't.
Click to expand...

As in "the extension or attempted extension of authority, influence, power, etc, by any person, country, institution, etc: cultural imperialism"? I fail to see how that does not apply to this situation. I was specifically distinguishing it from non-proselytizing religions such as Judaism, which do not attempt to extend it's authority over others. It was not derogatory, it was a consideration to show that I am not equating such behaviour specifically to Monotheism. It's Monotheistic, but not imperialistic in that sense. Christianity and Islam build pan-national institutions of which adherents need to obey. Just as you can have a "Business empire". It is not an inappropriate comparison.
 
Last edited:
moldeh said:
This is the whole point of the thread I believe. Having all pagans in one group is silly. What does norse paganism have to do with zoroastrianism? We could have north/south/east pagan groups or something...
Click to expand...

"pagan" is a blanket term. a generalization. in the context of Christianity and Islam, everything else is pagan. That's the point.
 
AllThat4Nothing said:
"pagan" is a blanket term. a generalization. in the context of Christianity and Islam, everything else is pagan. That's the point.
Click to expand...

Considering that there's a lot of people (myself included) that expect a future expansion to make pagans playable (with the full meaning of the word), I can't agree with the whole 'it's ok, who gives a crap about pagans? they're not muslims and they're not christians so let's just put 'em all together because nobody cares' attitude. People do care. But can we please stop that discussion? It's off-topic and it's just derailing this thread. Can't we just let it go already?
 
moldeh said:
Considering that there's a lot of people (myself included) that expect a future expansion to make pagans playable (with the full meaning of the word), I can't agree with the whole 'it's ok, who gives a crap about pagans? they're not muslims and they're not christians so let's just put 'em all together because nobody cares' attitude. People do care. But can we please stop that discussion? It's off-topic and it's just derailing this thread. Can't we just let it go already?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry? How is it off topic? And how can you say "this is what I'm saying, now you can't talk about it anymore?" You need to relax.

I'm explaining to you what exactly "pagan" is. You're getting bent out of shape because you don't think Norse should have anyhing to do with Zoroastrainism. No one says it should. They are just both listed as "pagan" ingame because to the major Christian and Muslim powers, they are pagan. As for playable pagan factions in the future, PDox will cross that bridge when they get there. But for now it's fine and it makes sense, I don't see how what I am saying is so bothersome to you. You need to learn that just because someone has a different opinion, or because someone is stating fact to you, doesn't mean they are attacking you. And my tone is quite neutral also.

BTW, please show me exactly where I said "'it's ok, who gives a crap about pagans? they're not muslims and they're not christians so let's just put 'em all together because nobody cares'.
Otherwise, that's just you making an incorrect inference, or a blatant strawman just to support your argument.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back