• 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.

Dev Diary #47 - Conversion and Assimilation

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday! Today our topic returns to Pop mechanics, with a discussion around some of the finer details on how Pops may change their religion and culture over time depending on your nation’s legal system. The mechanics themselves are quite straightforward, but as always in Victoria 3, the applications of them can have quite different outcomes in different situations.

Let’s begin by reviewing the mechanics around Discrimination, since this will be important later in the discussion. We’ve already talked about most of this in other dev diaries but some details here may be new.
dakotaculture.png

Discriminated Pops have barely any Political Strength and cannot vote. This means the only way they can impact your country’s politics is by agitating for change through Political Movements, or by starting a civil war for self-rule through a Cultural Secession. In addition to being hamstrung politically, they also get paid substantially less than their non-discriminated counterparts, have a harder time developing Qualifications for certain Professions, and their presence in your country is a potential source of radicalism and Turmoil.

Whether a Pop is discriminated against or accepted depends on who they are, the national identity of the country they live in, and the laws of that country. Both culture and religion are potential reasons for discrimination, and these are controlled by different laws. Your Citizenship laws determine which Pops are discriminated against on the basis of their culture, while your Church and State laws determine which forms of worship are considered acceptable in your country. To be considered non-discriminated by these laws, Pops must pass a more or less stringent selection criteria based on how much they differ from the primary culture(s) and state religion in the country.

For example, under the Racial Segregation Citizenship law, only Pops whose culture’s heritage trait matches that of their primary cultures heritage trait will be accepted. The heritage trait indicates which region of the world the culture originates from (e.g. European, African, Indigenous American), and under this law that is the only thing that matters - whether the Pops speak the same language, or are both transplants in the New World, is unimportant in determining their status. By contrast, under Cultural Exclusion, any similarity between a Pop’s culture and one of the primary ones qualifies them as equal under the law.

The total set of options are:

Ethnostate: only Pops of primary cultures are accepted
National Supremacy: Pops whose cultures share both heritage and another trait are accepted
Racial Segregation: Pops of the same heritage are accepted
Cultural Exclusion: Pops whose cultures share any similarities are accepted
Multiculturalism: no cultures are discriminated against

State Religion: only Pops who adhere to the state religion are accepted
Freedom of Conscience: Pops who adhere to a religion in the same family as the state religion are accepted (e.g. any branch of Christianity, any form of Buddhist)
Total Separation: no religions are discriminated against

citizenshiplawsus.png

The practical impact of these laws therefore depends on what the state religion and primary cultures of your country are, as well as who actually lives in your country. An Ethnostate operates no differently in practice than a Multicultural state if only Pops of primary cultures live there. Since Pops are unlikely to mass migrate to your country if they’d be oppressed there once they arrived, until you expand your borders and populace by force you may not see a practical difference (except for a curious lack of immigrants). But if you were to form a Customs Union with a poorer neighbor, resulting in a lot of economic migration within the market to your country, you might have to deal with substantial political strife until you take steps to loosen up your Citizenship laws. If the option exists for you, as an alternative you might consider attempting to unify your nations instead (which we’ll learn more about next week) in order to accept both cultures as “primary”.

Alright, now that we’ve cleared up how countries can adapt to the Pops, we will consider how Pops might adapt to their country.

culturesus.png

First let’s tackle Religious Conversion. Pops who are discriminated against on the basis of their religion will always be in the process of converting to an accepted religion. The religion they convert to is not necessarily the state religion, though - it could be any accepted religion that is dominant in the state where they live. An Indigenous American following an Animist religion in a United States with Freedom of Conscience instead of Total Separation is eventually going to convert to some form of Christianity to avoid religious persecution, but if they live in a Nebraska that has been settled by predominantly Catholic rather than Protestant Pops, they would convert to Catholicism even though Protestantism is the dominant religion in the nation as a whole.

Pops convert at a percentage-based rate, currently set to a base of 0.2% / month (as usual, numbers such as these are subject to balancing and change before release, and are always moddable). A percentage-based conversion rate naturally means a diminishing number of actual converts over time, so at this rate it would take almost 30 years for ½ of your discriminated population to convert. If you find this rate too ponderous for your strategic goals, you have two primary tools at your disposal to speed it up.

The Religious School System law + institution combination increases this rate by +20% per investment level, up to a potential maximum of +100% (i.e. twice the speed). It also increases the Education Access of Pops overall and increases the Clout of the Devout Interest Group.

The other method is the Promote National Values decree. Like all decrees, it is issued in a certain state and costs Authority for each state it is issued in, so in a larger country you will have to focus your efforts. Promote National Values doubles the rate of both conversion and assimilation.

berbersunniconversion.png

Using a combination of both methods, you could speed up religious conversion such that ½ of a minority population can be converted to an accepted religion within the span of a 10 years. Of course, your school system only extends to incorporated states, so if you’re trying to mass convert Pops in conquered land or colonies you will have to do so by decree - or embark on the often lengthy and painstaking process of incorporating a part of the world that’s culturally alien to your country.

This leads us to cultural assimilation. The conditions for assimilation are a little more complex than conversion, and in some ways operate by the reverse logic. In order to start assimilating, a Pop must already be culturally accepted. After all, if they can’t get citizenship, can’t vote, can’t participate in politics, can’t get paid a fair wage on the basis of who they are, there simply is no way for them to assimilate - by which we mean, integrate themselves into a primary culture such that they are both accepted as such by others and genuinely consider themselves part of that culture. Renouncing one’s religious beliefs and practices can be a very practical and concrete choice, but adopting and being adopted by a different culture is not a utilitarian decision.

In addition, Pops will never change culture if they live in a state they consider their Homeland. A Franco-Canadian in Ontario might over time adopt the ways and tongue of their Anglo-Canadian neighbors, but a Franco-Canadian who resides in Quebec?! Plutôt mourir!

(And of course, if a confederated Canada has been created with both Anglo- and Franco-Canadian as primary cultures, none of those types of Pops would be changing cultures in the first place.)

If a Pop should be assimilating, the culture they will be assimilating into will always be a primary culture. This is because, again, this is not a practical decision that’s just up to the Pop in question, but a two-way-street of assimilation into the dominant national identity. In the case of countries with multiple primary cultures, the one selected will be the Homeland of the state the Pop lives in, or in case none or several apply, the dominant one among Pops who already live there. A Czech Pop living in a unified Germany (North + South German) in the state of Silesia (North German and Polish Homelands) will assimilate into the North German culture; if they lived in Bavaria they would be assimilating into the South German culture; and if they lived in Bohemia they would not assimilate at all, since Bohemia is a not only a South German but also a Czech Homeland. If this Pop instead lived in Transylvania (with both Hungarian and Romanian primary cultures and Homelands), they would be assimilating into whichever of those cultures is more dominant in the part of Transylvania where they live.

The rate of assimilation is the same as for religion, 0.2% per month. As mentioned, the Promote National Values decree can be used to double this rate on a per-state basis. In addition, a Public School System will provide an increased assimilation rate of +12.5% per investment level, representing perhaps a less overt approach to indoctrination than their religious counterparts. With maximum effort, this means you can assimilate half of a minority population in about 18 years.

northgermanprotestantassimilation.png

I’ll end on a small design note. While our primary motivation while developing these mechanics was to provide a logical and believable simulation, a nice side effect of the asymmetry between conversion and assimilation is that there’s no way to benefit from both without an asymmetry in your laws as well. An inclusive, accepting, discrimination-free society won’t also become religiously homogeneous over time, nor will an oppressive, xenophobic country be able to assimilate their cultural minorities just by waiting them out while throwing resources at integrating them. Culture-wise, Pops need to be either accepted or harshly dealt with, now or in the future. Being accepting of all faiths today means there will be problems if you backtrack in the future. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for dealing with heterogeneous populations.

There are of course a few good examples of countries that already start out with asymmetrical Citizenship and Church and State laws. The Ottoman Empire, home to a lot of cultural and religious minorities, has fairly lenient Citizenship Laws but zero separation of Church and State. As a result they will initially have a lot of both assimilation and conversion, and increasing the rate of those further might be one way for them to try to minimize Turmoil due to discrimination long-term. Meanwhile, the United States has total separation of Church and State (zero religious conversion, but no religious discrimination either) but Racial Segregation laws that cause considerable population segments to be discriminated against, particularly Indigenous- and African-American. Since none of these populations will ever be assimilating unless the Citizenship policy changes, this problem will not just go away on its own. Either the United States changes course legally, or they will have to continue dealing with trouble caused by the oppression of these minorities for the following century.

That’s all for this week! Like I hinted above, next week Martin will get into how Unifications work in Victoria 3, which I for one am very excited about!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 175Like
  • 50Love
  • 22
  • 20
  • 16
Reactions:
On the topic of cultures not approving of each other, I feel like the correct way to handle this is through the interest groups that a state has represented within it. Interest groups will likely have opinions on topics surrounding conversion and assimilation, i.e. the religious interest group should support enacting church schools while the intellectual interest group should support enacting public schools. In cases where a state has interest groups which support conflicting laws represented within it, it should gain an amount of unrest (which I believe Vicky 3 calls turmoil) proportional to the portion of the state belonging to each interest group and inversely proportional to the amount of clout each interest group has. (More influential interest groups should be more likely to attempt to change the system through legitimate means.) This way, if pops of one culture disapprove of pops of a different culture, such as Yankee pops disapproving of Irish pops, that can be modelled through the two pops likely belonging to different interest groups because of their place in the nation, and since those interest groups will have conflicting views, they will create simulated violence. This also can have the affect of isolating certain cultures or religions within a nation as they live in higher turmoil(?) states, which should hurt the rates of conversion/assimilation. This can even model situations where primary cultures disapprove of each other such as when Yankee and Dixie pops mix in, say, pre-incorporated Kansas (though Bleeding Kansas is already modelled with a Journal entry)) or Scottish and English pops interacting in the borderlands of England and Scotland.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
you argument falls short somewhat once we take into consideration two thing, first the colonial policy it set at for all colonies and not colony by colony, meaning the kind of nuance you desire is simply not in, hopefully it will be added at a latter date, second doesn't this contradict your own point? you have just made a case that maybe France shouldn't have total separation of church and state, the next best one then, which would then result in a small percentage of Muslims converting to Christianity, this dynamic seems to be represented well(ish) by the current system, sure the 0.20 value might be high, but then again few of the number shown thus far have been final

I have re-read the dev diary, and it is only laws that apply at reduced rates in colonies, edicts as you well pointed out, do not.

A thing i feel the need to point out, is that most of the effective conversions in Africa only came in later in the games timeframe, and more to the point as you well said many of them converted, for the most part the reason why Muslim regions in Africa remained such, is in good part because there where no realistic attempts at converting them, besides at best individual missions, I do not think it unreasonable or unrealistic that had the colonial powers actually truly wanted to convert them they would have, but they didn't, so to me the issue is not that we can convert everything, it's that we will convert everything whether we want to or not.
I think a compromise that make sense is by tieing passive conversion (both religious and cultural) to the tipe of colonialism practiced, in settler colonialism it's active and in exploitation based colonialism it's in active

I was not making an argument for gameplay modification. Someone quoted me saying my example with French occupied Algeria was mooted because of the supposedly French Separation of Church and State and so I decided to explain how in real life it was literally the opposite as despite the effective separation in the Metropole (very late in Victoria III time frame) the state did not stop to be aggressively religious discriminatory. Quite the opposite and this is an important feature of French colonialism and even French interior and foreign policy.

Your assertion there was no effort to convert Muslims population within the French Empire is wrong but I am not going to derail further the thread.
 
I was not making an argument for gameplay modification. Someone quoted me saying my example with French occupied Algeria was mooted because of the supposedly French Separation of Church and State and so I decided to explain how in real life it was literally the opposite as despite the effective separation in the Metropole (very late in Victoria III time frame) the state did not stop to be aggressively religious discriminatory. Quite the opposite and this is an important feature of French colonialism and even French interior and foreign policy.

Your assertion there was no effort to convert Muslims population within the French Empire is wrong but I am not going to derail further the thread.
I'll admit I'm not overly familiar with the specificities of French colonialism, but my general impression was that in Muslim areas the colonizers in general did not really try to impose their religion in the same way they did in the "pagan" areas, such as missions, state subsidised preachers, mass conversion campaigns and so on, as a matter of course.

If you are not arguing for gameplay modification then what are you arguing for exactly? like even if you wanted say a law that de-activated religious conversion in integrated states but kept it in the colonies, which is a valid suggestion, that is a gameplay modification.

Dude discussing French colonial policy in terms of assimilation and conversion, specially in relation to a perceived "standard", is about as on topic as it get here
 
  • 1
Reactions:
There wasn't a binary or religious based rule, it was about politics and it was also more racism than religion. Mission to civilise missionaries were sent into asian and west/south/east africans harder than north africians as the europeans saw north africans as already civilised through their centuries of interactions with europe and legacy of carthage and egypt and other victorian junk theories. Often missionaries were used to play ethnic and tribal groups off each other to divide and rule too, and Algeria didn't have the conditions for that, as well has having a long legacy of french merchant connections and etc. Algeria isn't really an example to set a rule from except as the exception. The french didn't really have the same approach to assimilation that britain did, seeing her colonies as for extration and empire rather than potential sites for settler colonialism which was mostly a british specialty.

Different regions of India got different approaches to assimilation, just depending on the individual administrators let alone on the ground conditions. Nagaland got heavily converted, with confiscations of infants into missionary schools and harsh economic penalties for not converting, simply because the Brits running it believed you could make white people through assimilation. Regardless of the fact that it wasn't just the same colony but the exact same policies and orders from London as governed the provinces where a hands off benign neglect could even see missionaries banned in the interests of stability. To the British Empire it wasn't whether the people were religion X or Y, but was it in the financial advantage of the empire to promote missionaries with the side addition of is the local bureaucrat in charge especially racist.

NZ got especially missionarised because missionaries did much of the intial work of colonisation, followed by liberals migrating to NZ to create a progressive model society that 'uplifted the natives' through education and assimilation. It wasn't because of anything to do with Māori or their culture, NZ took up assimilation solely because of a social movement among liberals in britain who believed that was the best course and wanted a colony to experiment on.
Canada got missionaried and assimilated because treaties and old laws from before V2's era left loopholes that if natives assimilated you could steal their land.
Korea got so many missionaries and conversations because of a personal relationship between one government minister and the missionary doctor who saved his life after a failed coup, opening the door to protestant missionaries at the same time as the US manifest density was coming to a close and the 3rd great awakening was in full swing so the US had alot of missionaries demanding missions and nothing to do with them.

Like, point is, there is no pagan=yes switch, even within single empires and even with uncolonised countries, there was never a single policy or driving force.
You can't just point at algeria and say no muslims, when vast christian populations were created in Asian and west African muslim nations. You can't say yes 'pagans', when the Australian government and parts of SA and Asia, couldn't care less about converting just exterminating, ignoring or taking land and who cares about indigenous populations.

It's complicated and you can't build a model of off colony, least of all algeria, so might as well go with what Paradox have atleast until we see it in practice.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
...

Like, point is, there is no pagan=yes switch, even within single empires and even with uncolonised countries, there was never a single policy or driving force.
You can't just point at algeria and say no muslims, when vast christian populations were created in Asian and west African muslim nations. You can't say yes 'pagans', when the Australian government and parts of SA and Asia, couldn't care less about converting just exterminating, ignoring or taking land and who cares about indigenous populations.

It's complicated and you can't build a model of off colony, least of all algeria, so might as well go with what Paradox have atleast until we see it in practice.

This is even more of a reason for them to consider state-based laws, which would deal with local autonomy and rights/protections of local minorities/ruled-over populations of different cultures, religions, heritages etc. There is no way to model the system well otherwise.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
This is even more of a reason for them to consider state-based laws, which would deal with local autonomy and rights/protections of local minorities/ruled-over populations of different cultures, religions, heritages etc. There is no way to model the system well otherwise.
we all understand that it varied on a colony by colony basis, but what is equally clear is the current system is design with IG's in mind, which makes sense since to a degree colonialism was influenced by internal dynamics at home, so the question is, how would a colony by colony approach interact with with the IG's?

on a more salient point, this was the age of centralization and uniformaization, two verry potent trends, that provoked more than a few civil wars (the relevant ones for the game being primarely those in Latin America), the sheer existance of said local laws, would necessitate that IG's have not only opinions on the content of said local laws, but also whether they should exist in the first place.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
we all understand that it varied on a colony by colony basis, but what is equally clear is the current system is design with IG's in mind, which makes sense since to a degree colonialism was influenced by internal dynamics at home, so the question is, how would a colony by colony approach interact with with the IG's?

on a more salient point, this was the age of centralization and uniformaization, two verry potent trends, that provoked more than a few civil wars (the relevant ones for the game being primarely those in Latin America), the sheer existance of said local laws, would necessitate that IG's have not only opinions on the content of said local laws, but also whether they should exist in the first place.

There could be a way to "place" different IGs on certain regions, not necessarily in a literal sense, but to have some laws that encourage intelligentsia or the devout or some other group to take their efforts there. This could interact and affect the laws that can get passed in each area or the scope of available actions the player can take in each colony. It would, on one hand, allow a player to sap some strength away from an interest group by getting them to care for colonial or politically irrelevant regions, but it would come at the cost of having little control over those regions themselves.

The colonial administration of a place may have been appointed or sent by the government back home, but they necessarily did things in their own way to an extent, out of experience, necessity, personal viewpoints, or a variety of these.

This works for regions, instead of colonies, in cases like Spain or the Austrian empire. The still very feudal model of administration in those areas was strong and local charters of autonomy and liberty still dictated relations between the capital/core lands and other areas.

You are correct to point out that this is an age of centralization, but to centralize you have to start somewhat decentralized originally, and throughout this entire period there were serious reactions against centralization. This deserves to be modelled as well.
 
I'll admit I'm not overly familiar with the specificities of French colonialism, but my general impression was that in Muslim areas the colonizers in general did not really try to impose their religion in the same way they did in the "pagan" areas, such as missions, state subsidised preachers, mass conversion campaigns and so on, as a matter of course.

If you are not arguing for gameplay modification then what are you arguing for exactly? like even if you wanted say a law that de-activated religious conversion in integrated states but kept it in the colonies, which is a valid suggestion, that is a gameplay modification.

Dude discussing French colonial policy in terms of assimilation and conversion, specially in relation to a perceived "standard", is about as on topic as it get here

1) Why be so rude ?

2) If you actually started by reading post instead of going full censorship, maybe you realised I started by talking about the gameplay only then someone replied I had nothing to worry followed by some really ignorant wrong ignorant statements on history. Naturally I replied to it trying to be as concise as possible. And here you come.

3) Here an incredible discovery for you : people go to forum so they can express themselves. You should try it instead of going here to censorship people with different perspective than you.
 
There could be a way to "place" different IGs on certain regions, not necessarily in a literal sense, but to have some laws that encourage intelligentsia or the devout or some other group to take their efforts there. This could interact and affect the laws that can get passed in each area or the scope of available actions the player can take in each colony. It would, on one hand, allow a player to sap some strength away from an interest group by getting them to care for colonial or politically irrelevant regions, but it would come at the cost of having little control over those regions themselves.

The colonial administration of a place may have been appointed or sent by the government back home, but they necessarily did things in their own way to an extent, out of experience, necessity, personal viewpoints, or a variety of these.

This works for regions, instead of colonies, in cases like Spain or the Austrian empire. The still very feudal model of administration in those areas was strong and local charters of autonomy and liberty still dictated relations between the capital/core lands and other areas.

You are correct to point out that this is an age of centralization, but to centralize you have to start somewhat decentralized originally, and throughout this entire period there were serious reactions against centralization. This deserves to be modelled as well.
Brilliant idea, my main contention would be that the ig's that emerge in those regions should emerge from the local economy, since to me the potentially overwellming local power of any given IG seems to me like something the player should have to deal with rather then something the player determines, having a sort of regionally dominant IG mechanic would further allows to represent, stuff like political bosses, and caciques, heck this could make civil wars more unpredictable, now it's not only necesserely in regions with high militancy that might revolt, regions with Dominant IG might also potentially revolt, or at least "wait it out" withholding potentially vital resources from the player, on the matter of law and regionally dominant IG's, I don't think they should block what laws the player can pass, but they should definitely decrease the effectivity of laws they don't like as well as increasing the cost in regions they are dominant .

No, I'm aware of that, what I am asking is how would this be represented in gameplay? because my main concern is that we should above all else avoid the highly disjointed mess of separate and bespoke mechanics that EUIV has become, how would stuff like the different operation between colonies impact the IG's? what would be the potential opinions they could have, which one would each have and stuff like this, of course not asking for a design document here, I have heard multiple times people say that by and large colonial policy varied from colony to colony, and this is true, what has always been unclear to me, is how would having such mehcanically be the case would interact with the rest of the game (mainly the IG's).

Yeah your above mentioned regional IG system would really help with this (tough i would disagree that Spain was even remotely Feudal in administrative terms duing the time frame, had they been the carlists would not have rebelled) a ,admittedly simplistic, way this could represent stuff like those dynamics is whit a decentralization law, the more decentralized the less authority you get and the easier it is for IG's to become dominant and their impacts get buffed, but discrimination (cultural mainly) no longer applies to the majority culture of those region (at maximum decentralization) this sort of representing how these local dynamics could have been more tolerant than the center (the particular case of the rights granted to Romanians post 1848 only to have them abolished whit the Austro-Hungarian compromise comes to mind.

My main concern is that out side of say the rural folk and the landowners, and regional variations of the Military IG's (both bazil's and china's would be likely candiates, tough not at game start) it's becomes unclear which IG's would support centralization versus decentralaization, your regionally dominat IG mehcanic could help, say we could make support for either or, dependent on how much said IG's benefit in terms of political clout from being decentralized, tough my concern with this is that it would be odd, that on the centralization versus decentralization ideology would be the sole one that would be variable, yuo know being the one that had multiple civil wars about it.
 
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
(And of course, if a confederated Canada has been created with both Anglo- and Franco-Canadian as primary cultures, none of those types of Pops would be changing cultures in the first place.)​

If a Pop should be assimilating, the culture they will be assimilating into will always be a primary culture. This is because, again, this is not a practical decision that’s just up to the Pop in question, but a two-way-street of assimilation into the dominant national identity. In the case of countries with multiple primary cultures, the one selected will be the Homeland of the state the Pop lives in, or in case none or several apply, the dominant one among Pops who already live there. A Czech Pop living in a unified Germany (North + South German) in the state of Silesia (North German and Polish Homelands) will assimilate into the North German culture; if they lived in Bavaria they would be assimilating into the South German culture; and if they lived in Bohemia they would not assimilate at all, since Bohemia is a not only a South German but also a Czech Homeland. If this Pop instead lived in Transylvania (with both Hungarian and Romanian primary cultures and Homelands), they would be assimilating into whichever of those cultures is more dominant in the part of Transylvania where they live.

While this seems better than the old Vic 2 system, I always thought that could also do with some particular rules that you could implement in cases where certain conditions are met to ensure assimilations path into the 'right' culture. As specific examples a French pop in Canada where Franco-Canadian is accepted should probably be assimilating into Franco-Canadian even in areas where this is not a majority, similarly Dutch and Boers in a united South Africa. Or to give another example African 'heritage' pops would make sense to be assimilating into Afro-American in the US regardless of state composition.
 
1) Why be so rude ?

2) If you actually started by reading post instead of going full censorship, maybe you realised I started by talking about the gameplay only then someone replied I had nothing to worry followed by some really ignorant wrong ignorant statements on history. Naturally I replied to it trying to be as concise as possible. And here you come.

3) Here an incredible discovery for you : people go to forum so they can express themselves. You should try it instead of going here to censorship people with different perspective than you.
1) where exactly have I been rude?

2) huh, what? censorship? what are you talking about?

3) I... how would I be censoring yuo? like on a real level, have i at any point said that yuo can not talk? News flash: disagreeing with someone specifically of how the game could represent x or y historical situation, is not censorship it's having a different opinion.
 
While this seems better than the old Vic 2 system, I always thought that could also do with some particular rules that you could implement in cases where certain conditions are met to ensure assimilations path into the 'right' culture. As specific examples a French pop in Canada where Franco-Canadian is accepted should probably be assimilating into Franco-Canadian even in areas where this is not a majority, similarly Dutch and Boers in a united South Africa. Or to give another example African 'heritage' pops would make sense to be assimilating into Afro-American in the US regardless of state composition.
This would mean: always assimilate into the accepted culture that is closest to your traits and heritage, regardless of state composition
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm sorry, but it really was as simple as "pagan = yes". If you overlay maps of African and Asian religion in 1800 and 1950, the distribution of Islam will look almost exactly the same, while almost all of the pagan regions have turned Christian (or are well in the process of doing so).

Mali is 2.8% Christian. Senegal is 2.8%. Burkina Faso is 23.2% Christian, but also 15.3% "indigenous beliefs", and I would bet that almost all of the Christian converts came either from an originally larger "indigenous belief" population, or from people who were Muslim in little more than name.

Likewise, India. Christians are <10% of the population (usually much, much smaller than that) in almost every region of what was British India. There were occasional converts among the lowest castes, but the only groups to accept Christianity in full were remote mountain peoples that, in classical Paradox game terms, would probably be classified as pagans.

Likewise, Indonesia. Despite hundreds of years of Dutch rule, it was only remote pagan groups that embraced Christianity at scale. Conversion among Muslim and Hindu populations was minimal.

Now let's look at East Asian/Sinitic countries. I don't think Christians were ever more than 10% of Vietnam's population, even before many fled from communism at the end of the Vietnam war. The French ruled for 70 years, and missionaries were active throughout the period. By the game's logic, way more than 10% should have converted even before the 1905 law on the separation of church and state (which AFAIK had little effect on proselytization efforts or rates, but let's keep with game logic for now). Korean Christians were very few in numbers until after the Korean War, where Christianity took off largely due to cultural contact and influence from America (from what I've read, catalyzed by the especially close military contacts and universal male conscription). 12% of Hong Kong is Christian. 11.1% of Malaysian Chinese are Christian. So, conversion was more common among colonized East Asians than colonized Muslim populations, but still relatively rare.

The rates of conversion in this dev diary don't apply anytime, anywhere, except for "pagan" populations being introduced to evangelical religion for the first time. A big reason why Europeans didn't try so hard to convert Muslims was because they knew it would cause a lot of trouble for little gain. Belief systems are not the same, and some are simply harder to convert people out of than others. A conversion system that applies equally to all religions is not anthropologically or historically accurate.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm sorry, but it really was as simple as "pagan = yes". If you overlay maps of African and Asian religion in 1800 and 1950, the distribution of Islam will look almost exactly the same, while almost all of the pagan regions have turned Christian (or are well in the process of doing so).

Mali is 2.8% Christian. Senegal is 2.8%. Burkina Faso is 23.2% Christian, but also 15.3% "indigenous beliefs", and I would bet that almost all of the Christian converts came either from an originally larger "indigenous belief" population, or from people who were Muslim in little more than name.

Likewise, India. Christians are <10% of the population (usually much, much smaller than that) in almost every region of what was British India. There were occasional converts among the lowest castes, but the only groups to accept Christianity in full were remote mountain peoples that, in classical Paradox game terms, would probably be classified as pagans.

Likewise, Indonesia. Despite hundreds of years of Dutch rule, it was only remote pagan groups that embraced Christianity at scale. Conversion among Muslim and Hindu populations was minimal.

Now let's look at East Asian/Sinitic countries. I don't think Christians were ever more than 10% of Vietnam's population, even before many fled from communism at the end of the Vietnam war. The French ruled for 70 years, and missionaries were active throughout the period. By the game's logic, way more than 10% should have converted even before the 1905 law on the separation of church and state (which AFAIK had little effect on proselytization efforts or rates, but let's keep with game logic for now). Korean Christians were very few in numbers until after the Korean War, where Christianity took off largely due to cultural contact and influence from America (from what I've read, catalyzed by the especially close military contacts and universal male conscription). 12% of Hong Kong is Christian. 11.1% of Malaysian Chinese are Christian. So, conversion was more common among colonized East Asians than colonized Muslim populations, but still relatively rare.

The rates of conversion in this dev diary don't apply anytime, anywhere, except for "pagan" populations being introduced to evangelical religion for the first time. A big reason why Europeans didn't try so hard to convert Muslims was because they knew it would cause a lot of trouble for little gain. Belief systems are not the same, and some are simply harder to convert people out of than others. A conversion system that applies equally to all religions is not anthropologically or historically accurate.

Do we find similar results with other "organized" religions proselytizing to pagans?
 
I'll check the list and see what organised religions the countries practicing forced assimilation under settler colonialism..
Sadly, all our examples are christian, most of them, britain, I wonder if some sort of global political and military hegemony could have restricted the examples?
 
Do we find similar results with other "organized" religions proselytizing to pagans?
Well, in Vicky's time period, the region of Kafiristan ("Unbeliever-Land") was conquered, forcefully converted to Islam, and renamed to Nuristan ("Land of Light") by Afghanistan in the 1890s. Can't think of any other major non-Christian examples in the period, but there's ancient precedent for it.

Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism all found rapid adoption in regions without a prior organized religion, even if conversion was usually just skin-deep at first, and even if an indigenous elite counter-reaction after a generation or two was common. Medieval Arab Muslims who visited far-flung outposts of Islam were regularly scandalized by the lax adherence to Sharia, but in the long run, devout Muslims cared more about religion than pagans and syncretists, so Islam won out in the end. Similarly in Tibet, Buddhists cared more about preserving and propagating their faith than traditionalists (and had a reservoir of eager missionaries in India to pull from), so Buddhism was able to survive and rebound from what ultimately provide to be a temporary decline, in a way that traditional Tibetan religion couldn't.

By 1836, this process has run its course over the vast majority of the world. Only sub-Sahelian Africa and isolated mountain and jungle regions remained unproselytized, and it just so happened that the first evangelical empires to reach into those zones were Christian. If somehow Sokoto gets its act together and colonizes Central Africa (and is able to keep out Christian missionaries), we should fully expect Islam to become the dominant religion there.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Well, in Vicky's time period, the region of Kafiristan ("Unbeliever-Land") was conquered, forcefully converted to Islam, and renamed to Nuristan ("Land of Light") by Afghanistan in the 1890s. Can't think of any other major non-Christian examples in the period, but there's ancient precedent for it.

Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism all found rapid adoption in regions without a prior organized religion, even if conversion was usually just skin-deep at first, and even if an indigenous elite counter-reaction after a generation or two was common. Medieval Arab Muslims who visited far-flung outposts of Islam were regularly scandalized by the lax adherence to Sharia, but in the long run, devout Muslims cared more about religion than pagans and syncretists, so Islam won out in the end. Similarly in Tibet, Buddhists cared more about preserving and propagating their faith than traditionalists (and had a reservoir of eager missionaries in India to pull from), so Buddhism was able to survive and rebound from what ultimately provide to be a temporary decline, in a way that traditional Tibetan religion couldn't.

By 1836, this process has run its course over the vast majority of the world. Only sub-Sahelian Africa and isolated mountain and jungle regions remained unproselytized, and it just so happened that the first evangelical empires to reach into those zones were Christian. If somehow Sokoto gets its act together and colonizes Central Africa (and is able to keep out Christian missionaries), we should fully expect Islam to become the dominant religion there.

Thank you, it sounds like there are multiple great historical cases to support your point.


Would you say that the proselytizing nature of the religions is something unique to organized religions?

For example, in game terms, would Shinto conversions of pagans act similarly to Christian/Muslim/Buddhist conversions of pagans, or not since that would be pagan to pagan conversion?


Where would nonreligious/communist/atheism conversions fall with regards to conversion speed?
 
It's less the proselytizing and more the organization at work, I think. An organized religion can simply put in more effort to spread its message more effectively. State Shintoism from after the Meiji Restoration IIRC created a similar organization with centralized education of religious leaders an established, approved and supported list of works, and explicit state support of the religion and its works.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
State Shintoism was never used to assimilate local populations, it was used to unify and centralise the 'national culture' into a single identity, but it was never used in the colonies the way britain used missionaries to 'civilize', but to create an us to exclude them from so i dont really see it being an example of that but the opposite. explicitly to stop assimilation of 'non-japanese' people like, the ainu and koreans.

It's not organised religion or any vague like that. Settler colonial assimilation policies were a specific policy that developed out of the economic and military goals of the colonial office and liberal social pressures within the british empire. Where it succeeded is where it was backed by genocide, mass enforcement or heavy economic incentives (look at NZ for all examples, initially converting was a path to access the missionaries trade connections, then it was forced by the army, then residential schools and assimilation policy.)
US Missionaries to Asia and the pacific came out of the 3rd great awakening, a decrentalised protestant movement that was born out of manifest destiny and the white supremacist belief in the destiny of americans to the pacific, and the US government ridding itself of that chaos by incentivising them to go abroad as part of it developing a trade and naval empire in the pacific.
I.e. Every instance of mass missionary influx and success has specific political, social and economic conditions. Not just religion_is_organised=yes subject={pagan=yes} or any simple black and white narrative.

If you go with the binary empire, organised, pagans convert then the ainu would become shinto and be integrated into japan by 1880 which you know, didnt.
Also, India has muslim and hindu populations and it's indigenous tribes didn't face assimilation pressures until the 1990s, driven by the government building dams, strip malls and now giant statues, on their land forcing them into hindu society. Another example of organised+'pagan' would see ahistoric results.
 
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions: