Kemmy Suggestion: Shia Improvement (thoughts anyone?) and also a short heresy thing.

  • 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.

kemmy23

Colonel
76 Badges
Mar 14, 2011
982
590
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Empire of Sin - Deluxe Edition
  • Empire of Sin
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • King Arthur II
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Magicka
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
Here are my suggestions for the improvement of the Shia:

I believe that it is highly important to strongly differentiate the two main Schisms of Islam from one another. Due to the more clerical nature of the Shīʻatu ʻAlī (Party of Ali), I believe that the Shia must play more like a clerical religion. Perhaps a Shia ruler could send his child away to a Shia Hawza (seminary) to become a Mujtahid, to go down the path of becoming a Shia cleric. On the death of his father, this Mujtahid heir would become the ruler; his rule would become more theocratic but not a theocracy per say. His rule would be seen as being supported by God and therefore Shia who rebel against him would gain Moharebeh trait (Moharebeh referring to a war against God) giving him a negative relationship modifier against other Shia rulers, and a slight piety drain. They would lose this trait if they converted, or were forgiven. There is the concept of Qadar (divine predestination) within Islam and if the Shia rebel won the war, he would lose the Moharebeh trait for it would be seen as part of God's will.

It would be interesting for any Mutjahid to be able to rise up the ranks of the Shia clergy, eventually becoming Ayatollahs (and later Grand Ayatollahs); giving prestige and a special relationship boost to other Shia rulers. The Grand Ayatollah's would work somewhat similarly to the College of Cardinals (CoC) within SoA, as there would only be a select few of them and only the highest Mutjahids would be able to join their ranks. The difference between the CoC and the Ayatollahs would be that any ruler could become one, be it a 'baron' or an Emperor. Unlike the Papacy in CK2, it would be possible for the Ayatollah's to all die out and subsequently fade into obscurity, to refound them would require a pious Mutjahid to pay for a new group to be set up.

The Ayatollahs would have the power to issue Fatwa against rulers and courtiers in the game, such as something similar to excommunication against Shia rulers. As well as being able to bestow honourary titles upon Shia rulers.

An important aspect would be the improvement of the Sayyid (descendants of Muhammad) in regards to the Shia. Due to Shia theology, descendents of Muhammad are even more highly regarded amongst the Shia than they are amongst other Schisms of Islam. Shia Sayyids would be encouraged even more to join the Shia clergy, and only the highest rank within the Shia clergy would open to them. This would be called the title of 'Imam'. The 'Imam' would be bestowed by election (again similar to the CoC) upon a very pious Ayatollah by election (or perhaps a pious Ayatollah could appeal to the Grand Ayatollahs for it) within the Grand Ayatollahs, and could only be bestowed upon a Sayyid. Like before, any Mujtahid could become the Imam. The Imam would work similarly to the Pope except he would act more as a 'first-among-equals' rather than a ruler among the Grand Ayatollahs. When there is no Shia Caliph, he would act as the 'head' of the Shia.

I have read a number people saying they want the Twelver and Sevener worked into the game, but without knowing fully what will be introduced in SoA regarding the Muslims it is difficult to recommend anything really. I guess if the Shia do not get anything out of it, they could get 'Twelver' and 'Sevener' traits like the Sunnis get Ash'ari and Mu'tazilite...

I also believe there should be some general Shia changes. For example, as well as the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca there should also be a pilgrimage solely for the Shia to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf. I also believe there should be an event for the Shia to represent the commemoration of the 'Day of Ashura'; a very important part of the Shia calender.
Though I'm not fully versed expert on Shia Islam (my interest is solely as an academic hobby), I do know there is some debate amongst the Shia as to whether the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is considered holy, or as holy as some of the other Shia sites; such as the Imam Husayn Shrine in Karbala. I therefore recommend further study, and perhaps the movement of the Shia holy site from Jerusalem if necessary.

Clothing is another important aspect that could be explored. Non-Sayyid Shia clerics wear White turbans, while Sayyid Shia clerics wear black ones.

In regards to heresies, we know that we have two options with SoA. Either the heresy, takes over and becomes the new Orthodoxy or it carries on as a heresy. In my mind however, I think having 3 options is the best (and most historical); there is every possability that a new theological viewpoint that starts out as a heresy could stamp out the orthodoxy or become a schism of the religion (through a similar process to reforming the pagan religions) as time progresses. Therefore new fully fledged religions could come into existence later on in the game. This would allow for the Ibadis to become a proper Schism of Islam, and would be able to carry through to EUIV.


Congrats for reading this far, now TELL ME WHAT YE THINK!

(Might be a good idea to register your support)

Clerical robes a must!

*bump*

Either my ideas is amazing, or so absolutely terrible that it needs no mention.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty much dead and not on its first page.
 
Then let me be the first to be positive, and say that I think your ideas could make for some quite interesting gameplay. I'm no expert on the field, but I don't know of any reason that mechanics like these shouldn't be implemented in some capacity - Except for time constraints, naturally.
 
Then let me be the first to be positive, and say that I think your ideas could make for some quite interesting gameplay. I'm no expert on the field, but I don't know of any reason that mechanics like these shouldn't be implemented in some capacity - Except for time constraints, naturally.

Thanks.
 
I approve will full enthusiasm!
 
Yeah I like your suggestions, most importantly though the Shia need a buff to even make an appearance, in my games it's usually a handful of counts every once in a while and they get converted back by the Sunni Emperor in short time.

I also want heresies becoming mainstream religions without making the original a heresy itself.
 
Did Shia secular rulers really often become ayatollahs? If it was possible but not common IRL, it will probably be very over represented in the game compared to IRL, given difficulties of implementation.

However, in general I really like your ideas, and agree that the Shia definitely need more flavor.

One thing that would add to the experience is proper representation of the political realities. Shia can't get started up properly in 867, because the Abbasids are too strong, and often can't fail in 1066 because the Fatimids are too strong - and the latter I feel is very important, as Shia Islam is very closely tied to the sense of struggle against an unrighteous oppressive world, which doesn't really play out if the Fatimids convert all of the Muslim world.

Now, it's very interesting to imagine how Shia Islam would be different if it became the permanent dominant religion of the heartland of Islamic civilization, and I don't believe in giving the Fatimids for crap on their plate than they historically did (which was absolutely enormous though, and it IS a major problem of this game that Fatimids rarely collapse - IRL they were on their deathbed from internal strife and corruption and etc. in 1066). However, it is something to think about, as the Shia of a pan-Arabian Fatimid Caliphate, that is essentially THE mainstream Islam, should feel different from the Shia of an upstart realm struggling to survive against a Sunni world. It'd be crude, but it could perhaps be modeled solely by a Ismaili-Twelver split.
 
Last edited:
Did Shia secular rulers really often become ayatollahs? If it was possible but not common IRL, it will probably be very over represented in the game compared to IRL, given difficulties of implementation.
Due to their theology, the Shia tend to mix secular and religious power argueably more than their Sunni or Ibadi counterparts. There are a number of examples where Shia rulers sent their sons off to seminaries to gain some level of religious understanding. Al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah, the fourth Fatimid Caliph and 14th Imam of the Ismaili reportedly spent a number of years at a seminary before being pulled out and educated by his father. There are other examples of minor Shia rulers having being low-ranking Mutjahids (clerics) throughout history.

My recommendation does have a groundwork in history, Shia rulers did send their children off to gain some clerical religious education, but the extent varies from ruler to ruler. It is extremely far from unthinkable to believe that sons of Shia rulers would never have allowed their kids become clerics, and then secular rulers in their own right. The followers of the early Shia imams were argueably clerics as well as soldiers/warriors.
Having some form of clerical rule exists in the Shia idea of Vilayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists) which was put forward by Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid (948-1022 CE). Vilayat-e Faqih is also the current system in modern day Iran.

However, in general I really like your ideas, and agree that the Shia definitely need more flavor.

Good to hear!

One thing that would add to the experience is proper representation of the political realities. Shia can't get started up properly in 867, because the Abbasids are too strong, and often can't fail in 1066 because the Fatimids are too strong - and the latter I feel is very important, as Shia Islam is very closely tied to the sense of struggle against an unrighteous oppressive world, which doesn't really play out if the Fatimids convert all of the Muslim world.

Now, it's very interesting to imagine how Shia Islam would be different if it became the permanent dominant religion of the heartland of Islamic civilization, and I don't believe in giving the Fatimids for crap on their plate than they historically did (which was absolutely enormous though, and it IS a major problem of this game that Fatimids rarely collapse - IRL they were on their deathbed from internal strife and corruption and etc. in 1066). However, it is something to think about, as the Shia of a pan-Arabian Fatimid Caliphate, that is essentially THE mainstream Islam, should feel different from the Shia of an upstart realm struggling to survive against a Sunni world. It'd be crude, but it could perhaps be modeled solely by a Ismaili-Twelver split.

To be honest I've never had the Fatimids survive very long in my games, they are almost always weakened by wars with the Seljuks and Crusades then internal struggles usually finish them off.

It would be interesting to explore the Ismaili-Twelver split, but it is questionable whether it can be accurately depicted in the form CK2 currently sits in.
 
Last edited:
Stop with the fucking bumps. You had 4 posts in a row at the start thinking that nobody must've seen your thread but guess what? We did and people either didn't care or had nothing to add.

As much as I appreciate the comments and opinions of the community (as demonstrated by the very existence of this thread), I will not take lectures on forum convention from someone who thinks it's acceptable to dig up threads from 3 years ago.
 
Before this turns into sh*t flinging contest between you two, Bjorn has a point. Self-bumps are shameful forum activity. 1 may slide from time to time, but you started the post and bumped yourself 4 times!

And you decided it was deserving of a bump again. If no one has anything to say they won't say it. Let the thread live a natural life please.
 
It wasn't my thread at least. You're an attention whore, I'm a troll.

I would say you're both. Although I'm somewhat confused how something not being your thread changes anything.
 
I would say you're both. Although I'm somewhat confused how something not being your thread changes anything.
You're advertising your own ideas, idiot. That's the difference. Making 3 replies in quick succession to a thread on the first page(in which you whine about no one replying and nump), try to bump the thread some more, and then after some people finally replies bumping it AGAIN are just proving how much of an attention whore you are. The thread was on the first page every time you did it but just because no one replied to another thread about the Shia(only about a page back, you could've bumped that), you bumped it up to the top of the page several times when everyone could already see your thread.

Attention whore.
 
You're advertising your own ideas, idiot. That's the difference. Making 3 replies in quick succession to a thread on the first page(in which you whine about no one replying and nump), try to bump the thread some more, and then after some people finally replies bumping it AGAIN are just proving how much of an attention whore you are. The thread was on the first page every time you did it but just because no one replied to another thread about the Shia(only about a page back, you could've bumped that), you bumped it up to the top of the page several times when everyone could already see your thread.

Attention whore.

My dear boy, I still do not see the relevance of your point in any shape or form. I also don't quite understand why you, a self-confessed troll believe that you are in a position to lecture me over anything.
To use an analogy, I wouldn't lecture you about the state of your garden if my house was on fire.