CK3 - Dev Diary #22 - A Medieval Tapestry

[The Dreki]

I do hope we see the Romansh/Friuli/Ladins, aka Raetians, as a distinct group in CK3!

 

[Silversweeeper]

How will the different Hindu and Buddist faiths be treated? Will they be something like heresies, the divide between Catholicism/Orthodoxy, the branches of Hinduism in CK2, or something else entirely?

The historical ones will presumably be historically close (at least at the start; if e.g. Theravada rulers start oppressing Mahayana rulers/provinces during the game perhaps they'll become less friendly as time passes), so I'd imagine non-Zealous rulers wouldn't get particularly noticeable penalties.

 

[MinotaurWarrior]

(at least at the start; if e.g. Theravada rulers start oppressing Mahayana rulers/provinces during the game perhaps they'll become less friendly as time passes), so I'd imagine non-Zealous rulers wouldn't get particularly noticeable penalties.

This is something I wish they'd be able to implement, but I think it'd be too hard to code.

Historically, there were ~18 schools of Buddhism that coexisted in the early start dates, and these schools likely had "Mahayana" and "Hinayana" elements within them, as well as other diversity like monastic communities that practiced marriage and "wrong livelihood" like astrology and "witchcraft". While the more extreme local variations may have been treated differently, it is generally said that the 18 schools and their different aspirants coexisted in peaceful acceptance, even performing certain practices together that are analogous to being "in communion". It was through geographical splintering and secular leaders instituting reforms that we ended up with more discretely separated Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. In Sri Lanka, there were many, many back-and-forth examples throughout the era of the game, but the most prominent was King Parakkamabāhu I (1153-1186 CE), who, in game terms, basically revoked the holdings of all the "Mahayana" Buddhists because he was especially zealous. Outside of the context of the game, in China, it is my understanding that a lot of the reason why "Hinayana" and other schools (technically all "Mahayana" monks are Dharmaguptaka) wasn't because they were being oppressed by a zealous leader who wanted them to die out, but rather because they were living under an oppressive bureaucracy that just didn't care about their survival (imagine if every time you went to confession, you had to go to the DMV first).

What might be doable is an "intolerance of X" trait, like the opposite of "Sympathy for X" traits, that allows for characters who have it to take more serious action against religions that overall have good relations. But a system of gradually deepening schisms is probably too big of an ask.

 

[Danir]

I hope that the default setting will try to mimic real life distribution of sexuality as close as possible and not try to inflate non-hetero sexuality to make things more interesting. Encountering a 'sodomite' and using that information to your benefit should feel an interesting unique experience that might not present itself all too often. I do like these changes very much though, I just hope for it not to interfere with the historical immersion of the setting by applying modern concepts and standards.

 

[neutrondecay]

I hope that the default setting will try to mimic real life distribution of sexuality as close as possible and not try to inflate non-hetero sexuality to make things more interesting. Encountering a 'sodomite' and using that information to your benefit should feel an interesting unique experience that might not present itself all too often. I do like these changes very much though, I just hope for it not to interfere with the historical immersion of the setting by applying modern concepts and standards.

Do bear in mind that whether a character is a known criminal/sinner in this way will depend on their willingness to transgress the norms of their society and culture, their success in finding a partner, and their carelessness in getting found out, rather than just the underlying frequency of their orientation.

nd

 

[Danir]

Do bear in mind that whether a character is a known criminal/sinner in this way will depend on their willingness to transgress the norms of their society and culture, their success in finding a partner, and their carelessness in getting found out, rather than just the underlying frequency of their orientation.

nd

Of course the 'sodomite' situation was just an example I thought of. Point being that the best way for the whole system to feel natural in my opinion is sticking with the realistic proportions by default or at least have it covered among game rules. I really dislike the idea of making the game deliberately more unrealistic just to 'spice things up' or even for political reasons like some people have suggested.

 

[neutrondecay]

Of course the 'sodomite' situation was just an example I thought of. Point being that the best way for the whole system to feel natural in my opinion is sticking with the realistic proportions by default or at least have it covered among game rules. I really dislike the idea of making the game deliberately more unrealistic just to 'spice things up' or even for political reasons like some people suggested.

I'm not sure what you think realistic proportions are, or who you think is pushing a political agenda. I thought I had been agreeing with you, but it feels like we're saying quite different things now.

nd

 

[Wixelt]

Do we not have Indian Nestorians anymore?

 

[Danir]

I'm not sure what you think realistic proportions are, or who you think is pushing a political agenda. I thought I had been agreeing with you, but it feels like we're saying quite different things now.

nd

By realistic proportions I mean realistic proportions like they are in reality, whatever is most accurate. I am partially reacting to someone writing, that the realistic proportions of non-heterosexuals would be too low, so the game should have them multiplied or else it would just be tokenism (that was what I meant by being political about it). I must say I really love the idea of portraying how people of different sexualities didn't have it easy in the Middle Ages and I look forward getting to play as a character undergoing such a struggle. I just hope to have an option to keep it at a realistic level in order to have an immersive experience.

EDIT: For example wikipedia says about 97,5% of people are heterosexual, I do realize wikipedia has to be taken with a grain of salt, it might be less, it could possibly be even more, not that important now though. What I am trying to say is that I think the best way to handle this in my opinion would be to look at a study about the proportions and say: 'Well, according to this study the percentage of heterosexuals is 97,5% (in my example at least), so let's make the probability of heterosexuality in game also 97,5% (or whatever else the most accurate data suggests) or at least have a 'realistic' (or something) game rule which makes it like that." And not go about it in a way like: 'Well, the data suggests this, but we're going to amplify non-heterosexuals by 2 or 3 to make things more interesting.' (However, it could very well be a nice option to have as a game rule though)

 

[elvain]

I am partially reacting to someone writing, that the realistic proportions of non-heterosexuals would be too low, so the game should have them multiplied or else it would just be tokenism (that was what I meant by being political about it).

I don't think anyone has ever claimed anything like this, but I could have overlooked it. Could you please help me find such request?

 

[Danir]

I don't think anyone has ever claimed anything like this, but I could have overlooked it. Could you please help me find such request?

If we take the heterosexual ratio as the example default I would say non-hetero sexualities will likely make fifteen to twenty percent at a guess. That feels like the kind of range where it seems rare but you can still come across it, even if most characters don't act on their sexuality.

I'd say the real life range of 1.5% - 4% would be too small to be impactful for gameplay purposes, and I would guess that that would feel too much like tokenism as a opposed to a meaningful mechanical choice,

You can find it on page nine.
EDIT: It wasn't perhaps meant to advocate multiplying it necersarilly for political reasons, so I might not have been 100% correct, my bad. However the idea is still there. (I mean no offense to the sir or lady saying that of course)

 

[neutrondecay]

You can find it on page nine.
EDIT: It wasn't perhaps meant to advocate multiplying it necersarilly for political reasons, so I might not have been 100% correct, my bad. However the idea is still there. (I mean no offense to the sir or lady saying that of course)

The thing is, that's at the low end of estimates for the real proportion anyway. (I was arguing for 85% straight, 5% each gay, bi, and ace, as the default setting since that's easy to adjudicate and close to a generous but not ridiculous real-life estimate.)

nd

 

[elvain]

You can find it on page nine.
EDIT: It wasn't perhaps meant to advocate multiplying it necersarilly for political reasons, so I might not have been 100% correct, my bad. However the idea is still there. (I mean no offense to the sir or lady saying that of course)

I'm sorry, could you quote which post you mean, or at least mention who has posted it? We probably have different page settings and I can't see anything you claim to be on the page 9

 

[Danir]

I'm sorry, could you quote which post you mean, or at least mention who has posted it? We probably have different page settings and I can't see anything you claim to be on the page 9

I did quote it in the reply where I mentioned the page, it is above the text I wrote
I can't seem to find out how to quote it now, strange, please forgive my inexperience with the forums.

EDIT: You will have to find the exact quotation in my previous message, my internet did something funny which didn't allow me to put the quotation in here, the content was, however, this:

If we take the heterosexual ratio as the example default I would say non-hetero sexualities will likely make fifteen to twenty percent at a guess. That feels like the kind of range where it seems rare but you can still come across it, even if most characters don't act on their sexuality.

I'd say the real life range of 1.5% - 4% would be too small to be impactful for gameplay purposes, and I would guess that that would feel too much like tokenism as a opposed to a meaningful mechanical choice,

-HighChanceOfRai

 

[Danir]

The thing is, that's at the low end of estimates for the real proportion anyway. (I was arguing for 85% straight, 5% each gay, bi, and ace, as the default setting since that's easy to adjudicate and close to a generous but not ridiculous real-life estimate.)

nd

I just hope they'll make their decisions with a primary interest in realism. Or perhaps make a more conservative estimate game rule and a more generous estimate game rule, so that the player can experience the game in the way he or she wants.

 

[neutrondecay]

I just hope they'll make their decisions with a primary interest in realism. Or perhaps make a more conservative estimate game rule and a more generous estimate game rule, so that the player can experience the game in the way he or she wants.

You're carefully avoiding saying what you regard as realistic.

nd

ETA: Ah, I see you've edited it in further back.

You and I fundamentally disagree about this, not least because, when presented with a relatively low estimate for the number of LGBT people, you regard it as much more plausible that the real figure is even lower, rather than higher.

 

[Danir]

You're carefully avoiding saying what you regard as realistic.

nd

ETA: Ah, I see you've edited it in further back.

You and I fundamentally disagree about this, not least because, when presented with a relatively low estimate for the number of LGBT people, you regard it as much more plausible that the real figure is even lower, rather than higher.

I avoid saying what I consider realistic, because I don’t know what exactly is realistic, You’ve said the numbers listed on Wikipedia are a lower estimate, so in that case I would personally favour it to follow an estimate more in the middle, not an extreme on either end of the spectre.
And I mean no disrespect, but had You read my edit more carefully, You would have seen that I used those numbers only in an example explaining how I want them to stick to the real numbers, whatever they might be. I am not saying they should use those numbers, I even aknowledged they come from Wikipedia and as such must be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[holyvigil]

The character models are looking more and more better.

The eyes and the edges of the characters could use the most work.

 

[J.B.]

I do hope we see the Romansh/Friuli/Ladins, aka Raetians, as a distinct group in CK3!

I agree. I also want to see the Sorbians/Sorbs of the Central European Lusatia region represented. They are from in-between Germany and Poland, and their ethonym indeed points to a distant relationship with the Serbian people, who migrated to the Balkans.

Vepsian and Ingrian cultures would be welcome additions to fill out the pre-Slavic holdings of Ingermanland and Vepsia, in-between the Estonians and the Finnish tribes, and culturally filling out the land before the game has Norse or Slavic characters taking their place, representing the Rus.

The Ket culture, of the Yeniseian culture group, should be along the eastern central Siberian lands, east of where the Khanty culture dwells, and north of the Mongolians, Uyghurs, and other Turko-Mongolic peoples. They are a very unique culture group that is proposed to have once served as the ruling elite of the ancient Xiongnu Empire, and genetically, said to even have distant yet traceable connections to Native Americans, with some historians believing that they represent a backwards migration to Siberia from across the Bering Sea bridge that once existed to unite Asia and North America, or paradoxically, next to the Chukchi tribes, the Yeniseians were simply the next in line to be the latest, most closely-related groups of people to the Native Americans left in Asia, with other ethnic groups representing even further distanced genetic and linguistic relationships.

Paradox were nice to add in the Meshchera culture in CKII, which I appreciate. More Finnic and Ugric cultures, as well as Paleo-Siberian cultures would be welcome, to add more variety to those lands in Russia and Siberia, as well as reasonable non-Russian names for these lands if held by Uralic characters, or possibly with something extrapolated from the Yeniseian language, further east.

Do we not have Indian Nestorians anymore?

I hope they are represented, in some fashion. It is difficult to come up with any more historical ruler characters than Crusader Kings II had, I am sure. If they were not the province majority religion, then at least, I hope that there is a holding that is held by Saint Thomas Christians, as the Indian Christians were historically named, due to the possibility of the Apostle Thomas' arrival, himself. I am also hoping that Central Asia and Mongolia, as well as the Middle East, will have have representations of the Nestorians/Church of the East through as many characters as could be made possible to reasonably have them appear, without just seeing the culture or religion of a province, and no character in actuality to be seen, other than a Patriarch. These more eastern Christians are interesting, also because they are outside of the usual Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox frameworks and dynamics.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Do we not have Indian Nestorians anymore?

Comparing it to the CKII 867 start map, there appears to one small area of Nestorianism (literally one county) in India on the CKII map, under the control of a Hindu Tamil ruler.

Elsewhere I can find a Ugyhur duke, a Bedouin duke in Socotra, a Khan up on the steppes, a couple of mayors, a bishop, and the Patriarch of the East.