Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Are pagans worth an entire DLC?

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 69868 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Torf the Great

Torf the Great

Sergeant
10 Badges
Feb 20, 2012
82
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Sengoku
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • BATTLETECH
I've heard a lot of speculation lately about what the next 4 dlc packages are going to be, and one of the major requests/suggestions is a dlc that would make pagans playable and expand on their culture and society. But it seems to me that pagans would not be a very interesting expansion to the game and would not warrant a dlc expansion for a number of reasons:

Firstly, this time period is one in which pagan culture was in decline and Christianity was sweeping across Europe. The Viking Age ends right at the beginning of the game and no other major pagan culture ever emerged. The inevitable Pagan empires that would emerge in a Pagan DLC would be dramatically unhistorical. To make it more realistic would be to make the pagan factions almost impossibly difficult.

Secondly, pagan culture, no matter how you look at it, was was less institutional and complex than Christian Europe. Social structures were based around old tribal systems with chiefs who often ruled by might not right. The dynasty focused play of CKII would not translate to pagans very well.

I really want CKII to be fully playable and I believe that the pagans are an important part of that. But I would hate to see an entire DLC dedicated to them. A DLC focused around the Northern Crusades that made the Holy Orders (especially the Teutonic Knights) playable as well would be worth my money, but there is no way that pagans alone are worth $9.99.

These are certainly not all of the reasons just the ones I could come up with off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
Less institutional perhaps, but I wouldn't say less complex is certainly not true. At least from a purely religious standpoint, as to whether they'd off the same amount of in-game complexity, I can't say.

As for making a Pagan DLC work, they'd expand the timeline. Clearly we're not going to have the timeline move too far back from where the game ends (EU3 and MM territory), but moving it forward makes complete sense. I would say the life of Duke Rollo of Normandy in the 930s would be a great starting point. The Carolingian Empire is fractured, the Muslims have moved in and the Normans have arrived in France. It allows for everything that happens later in history and gives much more leeway in selecting a Pagan to play.
 
I'm not sure that I completely agree with the specific points you brought up, but yes, I also have to wonder about how exactly a pagan DLC could be done. There are far fewer sources (and AFAIK none of them are by pagans, only by Christians and Muslims), pagan societies were less complex and less stratified, and for many pagan 'faiths' very little is actually known, like Baltic and Slavic paganism.
e:
justin6477 said:
Less institutional perhaps, but I wouldn't say less complex is certainly not true.
Click to expand...
Pagans had fewer people and lower agricultural productivity, which in turn means they had less specialization, less stratification, and less complex forms of government. They were less complex by definition. Nobody's saying their culture was inferior, or that they deserved to be conquered by Christians, but you can't really argue the numbers.
 
Calanctus said:
Pagans had fewer people and lower agricultural productivity, which in turn means they had less specialization, less stratification, and less complex forms of government. They were less complex by definition. Nobody's saying their culture was inferior, or that they deserved to be conquered by Christians, but you can't really argue the numbers.
Click to expand...

For the Pagans during this period, yes. Clearly the same wouldn't be said about the vibrant pagan cultures of Rome, Greece and Persia.

However, I think to do this properly the devs would have to employ mechanics to reflect the tribal nature of Pagan societies. For example the duchies would have to be local tribes, making Kingdoms more of a tribal confederation. These duchies would probably employ the tribal name mechanic the Muslims will be using. You wouldn't have "laws" to influence tax and levies like the christians do, instead you would probably have a prestige system similar to the Muslim decadence system. Another issue could be the difficulty in holding on to Christian and Muslim lands. Generally Pagan invasions were done for ransoms and slave raids, not for territorial gain. CBs and revolt risks would have to reflect that.
 
I can think of many Slavic pagan events to put into the game. Surprisingly a lot of information was preserved about the pagan gods and customs to this day (I remember studying them for weeks even in the middle school years). Unfortunately most of it is not translated to western languages, but PI can find a way to get their hands on that history.
 
The truth is that 99% of the playable characters in this game fall into the uninteresting category. You, the player, have to make them interesting. The pagans are no different. The pagans have a rather large portion of the map to themselves at the beginning of the game. Khazaria is massive and home to many characters in the pagan religion group. Dismissing them would just be a really ethnocentric thing to do. Are the Cumans inventing the steam engine in CK2? No, they are not. Just because they aren't as "advanced" doesn't mean they're uninteresting. The three most powerful factions in the game are the Il-khanate, the Golden Horde, and the Timurids. Two of these three start out pagan. If you could ask the average AI how well their superior cultures and technology lasts against horsemen wielding bows, they'd probably give you a less than optimistic response.

If you feel that pagans aren't worth any money, then simply don't buy the pagan DLC. It's completely optional. If someone at Paradox attempts to force you to buy the pagan DLC, tell a teacher or an adult. :p
 
What they should do is make it like Heir to the Throne and shove the start date back

Then deal with pagan Viking hordes rampaging across western europe.

Also Charlemagne.
Yes.
 
Joel M Bridge said:
Thing is they Use Pagan in this game which umbrella term. diferent bewteen culture was very wide.
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose that's part of the difficulty I'm having here. It's not a cohesive group with common characteristics. It's a miscellaneous grabbag of non-Christians and non-Muslims. What does a Zoroastrian have in common with a Tengriist? What do either have in common with an Odin worshiper? Yet they are all in the same religious group, and a proposed pagan DLC would presumably have to come up with mechanics and flavor for all of them.
 
Calanctus said:
What does a Zoroastrian have in common with a Tengriist? What do either have in common with an Odin worshiper? Yet they are all in the same religious group, and a proposed pagan DLC would presumably have to come up with mechanics and flavor for all of them.
Click to expand...

The Zoroastrians probably don't have much in common with a Tengriist or someone who worships Odin. That probably explains why Zoroastrianism is not in the pagan group with those two religions! ;)
 
Jia Xu said:
The Zoroastrians probably don't have much in common with a Tengriist or someone who worships Odin. That probably explains why Zoroastrianism is not in the pagan group with those two religions! ;)
Click to expand...
You're right, I'm thinking of an older version of the game. But thank you for engaging with my actual point instead of smugly and pedantically correcting minutiae.
 
Calanctus said:
You're right, I'm thinking of an older version of the game. But thank you for engaging with my actual point instead of smugly and pedantically correcting minutiae.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Are you really acting bitter over the other topic? Don't be like that. It's not my fault Ibn Khaldun and other sources said you were wrong. I don't want to talk about this here. This topic is about paganism. If you have some kind of silly grudge because of the other topic, please vent at me there so this topic doesn't get derailed. Thanks.
 
Jia Xu said:
Oh come on. Are you really acting bitter over the other topic? Don't be like that. It's not my fault Ibn Khaldun and other sources said you were wrong. I don't want to talk about this here. This topic is about paganism. If you have some kind of silly grudge because of the other topic, please vent at me there so this topic doesn't get derailed. Thanks.
Click to expand...
No, actually, I was literally just pointing out how pointless and glib that particular post was. But thanks for revealing to everyone how touchy you still are!
 
Thure said:
I want wo play Eric the Pagan and restore the Pagan Swede!
Click to expand...

You probably actually don't want to play a pagan in 1066. People have tried (through modding) and what happens is that all of your Christian neighbours have the holy war CB and they dog pile you ruthlessly. It would be interesting if a pagan DLC rolled the time line back to a point where the Scandinavian pagans are still a majority in the nobility though.
 
Calanctus said:
No, actually, I was literally just pointing out how pointless and glib that particular post was. But thanks for revealing to everyone how touchy you still are!
Click to expand...

My post pointing out your objectively factual error in your point was "pointless and glib?" Please. You seem to have an issue with people kindly telling you you're wrong. If you don't want to play nice, I'll just stop talking to you and allow you to continue to tell us how pagan the Zoroastrians are in CK2. :D
 
Jia Xu said:
My post pointing out your objectively factual error in your point was "pointless and glib?" Please. You seem to have an issue with people kindly telling you you're wrong. If you don't want to play nice, I'll just stop talking to you and allow you to continue to tell us how pagan the Zoroastrians are in CK2. :D
Click to expand...

You're completely missing the point of his post. What he was saying, and what he was responding to, is that the religions in the Pagan group are incredibly varied, meaning a Pagan DLC would have to cover a lot of ground. More than Sword of Islam, for instance, since it would be dealing with multiple, unrelated religions.
 
Jia Xu said:
You probably actually don't want to play a pagan in 1066. People have tried (through modding) and what happens is that all of your Christian neighbours have the holy war CB and they dog pile you ruthlessly. It would be interesting if a pagan DLC rolled the time line back to a point where the Scandinavian pagans are still a majority in the nobility though.
Click to expand...
Because this I hope for a Pagan DLC ;) A little bit more power for the Pagans would be nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back