• 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.
New week, new dev diary! This time, I am going to talk of the new religions and their intricacies. As I mentioned last week, there is now a new Indian religion group with three religions; Hindu, Buddhist and Jain. What you get when you buy Rajas of India is the ability to play as a ruler of one of these religions, with all the associated mechanics.

ck2_RoI_dd_02_De_Jure_Empires.png

The general idea with all three Indian religions is that they are pluralistic and tolerant, especially toward each other. Thus, none of them have any heresies to worry about. Instead, low religion authority will cause various negative events to fire, much in the same way that having negative money does. This tolerance is also reflected in province revolt risk and vassals' opinions of their lieges. Instead of heresies, characters may belong to an accepted branch of their religion. Thus, for example, a Hindu can be a Shaivist, Shaktist or one of several other denominations. This is a character trait. It is also possible to pick a specific patron god for various bonuses.

Characters of all three religions can take one wife only, but are allowed concubines, like pagans and Zoroastrians. Another great thing about the Indian religions is that they allow the designation of a favorite child as heir, regardless of the specific succession law (though abiding by the gender preference law, of course.) Lastly, and quite importantly, it's possible for players to switch between the three Indian religions (tentatively, once per lifetime at a steep Piety cost) in order to take advantage of their special mechanics when needed. Right, so those are most of the major commonalities. Of course, there are also some similarities in the kinds of events that characters of all three religions tend to get (but I'm saving that for a later dev diary!)

ck2_RoI_dd_02_De_Jure_Kingdoms.png

Hinduism is the most warlike of the three; Hindu rulers have access to the normal Holy War casus belli. In addition, they are allowed to raid neighboring provinces of non-Indian religions. Hindus, however, also need to deal with the caste system. All Hindus can be born into one of the three castes that we represent in the game; Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya. This is represented as a character trait. Priests are expected to be Brahmins, feudal rulers Kshatriyas and burghers Vaishyas. Marrying into the wrong caste - or worse - being the wrong caste, gives serious opinion penalties with other Hindus. Children born to mixed caste parents will get the lower of the two. Characters with no caste at all are the lowest of all - the untouchables. This system limits your marriage options and tends to cause strife in your realm. It is possible to get a higher caste trait through a special decision, but it is hard and costly.

Buddhists are represented as the most philosophically minded of the Indian religions. (While perhaps not entirely fair, they were historically known for their huge universities and libraries.) They don't have to worry about caste, but rulers who ever plan to switch to Hinduism might still want to take heed of it. Buddhists cannot raid and their Holy War CB is less powerful (currently, counties instead of duchies), but they do get a great bonus to Learning, meaning that they will have unmatched long-term technological progress - if they can survive...

Finally, we have Jainism, which is probably the most peaceful religion on the planet. For Jains, the concept of Ahimsa - non-violence - is the cornerstone of their faith. Thus, Jains do not have any kind of Holy War CB, and violent acts have more serious repercussions on Piety (called Karma for the Indian religions) and opinions. Too limiting? Perhaps, but there are some serious benefits as well; Jains can have much bigger demesnes, get a flat opinion bonus from their vassals, and basically don't have to worry about provincial revolts (though the effect is less on characters and provinces of non-Indian faiths.)

That's a brief summary of the new mechanics, but I should mention that although the information I've outlined above is true in the current build, it might change quite a lot for balance reasons. For example, it's rather tricky to make the three Indian religions equally beneficial, only suitable for different circumstances and play styles.

ck2_RoI_dd_02_De_Jure_Duchies.png

That's all for now. Until next week, folks!

(Regrettably, I have no relevant screenshots for you this time since a lot of the graphics is still missing. The ones I do have are of the de jure map modes in India, as promised.)
 
The Mughal Empire was founded six years after Cortes conquered Mexico and six years before Pizarro landed in Peru. But the Muslims were invading India from roughly 1000 AD on, and had achieved enough success that by Tamerlane's time that there was a Sultanate based in Delhi for him to conquer.

Sindh is Muslim at the start date, I think the kingdom screenshot shows this. Muslim conquest of India before 1453 would not be glaringly ahistorical. Christian or Norse conquest of India should be worth an achievement.
 
My apologies, the line above had 'Holy War', and the phrase 'total war' was right below it, so I saw it as another mention of Holy War.

Though, I don't think the Greeks did much total war; the Romans certainly could be said to have.
In fairness, my paragraph wasn't well-written.

The Peloponnesian War was pretty brutal, but, yes, more the Romans than the Greeks.

@Mudcrabmerchant: thanks for the information; good post :)
 
... Regrettably, I have no relevant screenshots for you this time since a lot of the graphics is still missing. The ones I do have are of the de jure map modes in India, as promised.

Thank you very much for showing off all three de jure maps. It gives us a lot to contemplate in between developer diaries.
 
I've read a couple of examples of Norse pagans taking/emphasizing extremely heavily a single deity in Icelandic Sagas. Rare, yes, but "never" is overstating it.

Yeah i remember this one Goði Hrafnkell having a real boner for Freyr (Get it!? Boner for Freyr hah!)
 
Think there'll be some Buddhist nuns?

I'd imagine Buddhist rulers would be able to make people monks and nuns, it happened historically, though the prominent cases I can vaguely recall are mostly from east Asia/the Sinosphere.
 
What's ironic here is that the word "religio" was coined by the Polytheistic pagan Romans before the birth of Christ, which we know from the fact that Cicero used it in his speeches.

Even the meaning of the latin word religio for the Romans themselves doesn't translate straightforwardly into the modern word religion and the presuppositions that comes with it.

Within the system of what we would now call "Roman religion (in the modern sense of the word), the term religio originally meant an obligation to the gods, something expected by them from human beings or a matter of particular care or concern as related to the gods,[5] "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety".[6]

In this sense, religio might be translated better as "religious scruple" than with the English word "religion".[7] One definition of religio offered by Cicero is cultus deorum, "the proper performance of rites in veneration of the gods."[8]

Religio among the Romans was not based on "faith", but on knowledge, including and especially correct practice.[9] Religio (plural religiones) was the pious practice of Rome's traditional cults, and was a cornerstone of the mos maiorum,[10] the traditional social norms that regulated public, private, and military life. To the Romans, their success was self-evidently due to their practice of proper, respectful religio, which gave the gods what was owed them and which was rewarded with social harmony, peace and prosperity
 
What I am hoping for is for a more nuanced play for the polytheistic faiths. Right now they do not feel much like they are the polytheistic faiths. They don't capture the polytheism nor the pluralistic nature. I like for this to be represented, I want gameplay for pagans to be different from the monotheists, gives more replayability :)

I don't think polytheism is an innately pluralistic practice. This is a pretty common conceit among neo-pagans, but I've yet to see any evidence of it. The problems that religion causes are pretty much immaterial to whether the religious person believes in one, two, three or a million gods. Ironically, given the subject of this thread, we need only look to India to see examples of devout polytheists acting in decidedly non-pluralist ways.
 
Even so, I do welcome some variation. I mean, would be terribly boring if India had one distinct pacifist religion and two which are basicly slightly altered "Graah, holy war teh infidels!" muslims/christians.

The real issue here is that, even though some faiths were more militaristic than others, even Christianity and Islam didn't work in the current "Holy war until extermination of the infidel" style that the game posits. As another astute poster stated somewhere, this is more like 40K than actual history.
 
The real issue here is that, even though some faiths were more militaristic than others, even Christianity and Islam didn't work in the current "Holy war until extermination of the infidel" style that the game posits. As another astute poster stated somewhere, this is more like 40K than actual history.

CK2 holy wars don't look like "extermination of the infidel" to me, but rather "they're infidel! that's a perfect pretext to take their land!"
 
The real issue here is that, even though some faiths were more militaristic than others, even Christianity and Islam didn't work in the current "Holy war until extermination of the infidel" style that the game posits. As another astute poster stated somewhere, this is more like 40K than actual history.

So how to model it then? Subjugation casus bellis? Does the same thing pretty much. Takes the land, forcibly converts everyone involved (due to +75% modifier). Just because it was not the usual style of things, all Abrahamic religions at some point engaged in warfare which was nothing short of extermination towards "infidels".

I do not see need to sugarcoat conquest by somehow making it less tolerable when we are dealing with a game where religion is what is what created for. Tool of political domination and population control and nothing else (and despicable one at that).

After all, most holy books (Abrahamic religions especially) are only products of fictional literature that deal with incest, racism and genocide while being read in public to non-adults :D
 
Last edited:
To be honest, it's not the presence of holy wars that irks me so much as the lack of any other way to interact with members of other faiths. You're either ignoring them or attacking them, but that's all. This is fairly historical - there are plenty of instances of interfaith marriages and alliances, and of christian courtiers in Islamic courts (and vice versa). Right now that is all impossible.