Dharmic Enlightenment

[daftrhetoric]

I've noticed casteless court officers in some Dharmic realms. Generally they're converted realms held by rulers of non-Indian provenance; Turks, Altaics.

My realm is a Hindu Merchant Republic in Sindh at the Indus Delta. I've found that talent is very difficult to recruit in the sliver of India available in the HIP mod. I've been paying more attention to developing the children in my court. The problem is that the ruling class is Vaishya Caste, and I'm having trouble finding Marshals.

My ruler's third son is a genius and a brilliant strategist with a martial attribute in the mid twenties, but he's ineligible for marshal and commander appointments. I've been able to work around this a little by appointing him captain of my mercenary band.

I'm slowly advancing the legal status of women in my realm. I'll soon be able to appoint female councilors to any position I choose. This gender enlightenment contrasts significantly with the absence of any pathway to reforming the caste system.

My strategy question is whether it's possible through cultural and religious conversions to become a casteless Indian ruler.

My development question is why the Dharmic religions can't be reformed to transcend the Varnas. Is it some kind of misguided political correctness to treat Indian religions as reformed? Aren't religious laws worth some attention? I know many players return to this game to explore the several religious systems, the game is definitely about religion by title and theme, why not provide some depth?

 

[thevmag]

Try Buddhism. Caste doesn't matter to anyone else but the Hindus.

 

[daftrhetoric]

@thevmag That's my trajectory right now. When I've expanded into Balochistan and maybe Fars with the superior Hindu CB I plan to convert and focus on building a medical buffer zone around my capital.

The purpose of this campaign is to explore the epidemiology and prosperity mechanics in a low tech start. I wanted India because there's such an abundance of learning attribute titans floating around. The Buddhist learning bonus for an edge in technical research and spread rate seemed like a compelling feature for experimenting. I suspect learning is significantly more important in a deadly Reaper's Due campaign than it ever has been before. Also the way epidemics decimate big patrician families is super interesting.

 

[thevmag]

Hm, might try Jain then. All the benefits of Dharmic, no Buddhism learning buff, and I don't think they suffer Hindu's caste adherence. Thing about Buddhism is: if you're worried about single county Holy War CB not being worth the effort for your current expansion plans, duke- and king-level claimants are always a favour away.

 

[daftrhetoric]

@thevmag Jain rulers are unique in this game for having no religious war CBs. My Islamic neighbors utterly reject invitations on the grounds of 'false religion', so expansion through recruitment is out the door. Also HIP introduced a kidnapping mechanic, but the heavy abduction opinion modifier aggressively prevents recruiting any claimants but those captured in battle.

 

[thevmag]

Hence the favour: a tiny bribe to make them accept the favour, then even the most devout zealot might be willing to join your court.

Newest patches/expansions also allow you to recruit prisoners, assuming your relationship with them is -25 or above. As this is a consensual agreement based upon how little they hate you, there's no negative opinion for it - not that it matters how much they think of you, if you're landing them just to push their claim and then unland them.

 

[daftrhetoric]

It seems like intrigues are an even better investment than before. Should I build a new holding, or kidnap a princess? That decision is getting easier and easier.

 

[daftrhetoric]

You'd think a society that recognized equal gender status would extend the same principle to marriage. It's silly that I'm able to kidnap a married woman from a different religion and culture, make her a concubine, set her aside, marry her to my heir, then make her my Marshal. But only if she's Kshatriya.

 

[Haldan]

Hindu Merchant Republic in Sindh at the Indus Delta.

how
i must know how

 

[daftrhetoric]

how
i must know how

The straightforward way, the Founder of The Republic mod. I'll never play another campaign without HIP so achievements be damned. Fortunately HIP has its own Ironman support. I also use the Destroy and Convert Settlement v9 mod.

Mods that prevent me executing lengthy exploits which I've already proven to myself I can do, or that allow me to overcome the stupidity of the AI are fine by me.

 

[Haldan]

The straightforward way, the Founder of The Republic mod

Oh

 

[daftrhetoric]

@Haldan At a certain point powergaming has to start flirting with modding and programming. It's a complex game, but 600+ hours in my habits have already optimized most problems a few hundred hours ago. You can abuse vanilla mechanics by repeatedly granting your son a city and imprisoning him until he declares independence or something. There is a post on this forum somwhere outlining a successful experiment with the precise character of the mechanics.

 

[Nyrael]

My development question is why the Dharmic religions can't be reformed to transcend the Varnas. Is it some kind of misguided political correctness to treat Indian religions as reformed? Aren't religious laws worth some attention? I know many players return to this game to explore the several religious systems, the game is definitely about religion by title and theme, why not provide some depth?

Because if there is one "pagan" religion in history that was actually reformed, it was Hinduism.

 

[daftrhetoric]

@Nyrael I suspect that's a specious claim. I know Hinduism is the form of paganism with the longest history, and probably the most adherents; probably it is more reformed than other pagan religions have become.

A little research suggests that since the 19th century there have been reformist movements, but it seems none have realized a reform. For instance Brahmoism was a doctrinal movement prevalent in Bengal that sought to create a cohesive, monist revision of Hinduism. People who visit India seem to suggest there's no limit to individual debasement there. I'd like to hear your thoughts on Samaj reforms.

 

[Rags17]

You'd think a society that recognized equal gender status would extend the same principle to marriage. It's silly that I'm able to kidnap a married woman from a different religion and culture, make her a concubine, set her aside, marry her to my heir, then make her my Marshal. But only if she's Kshatriya.

Humans are complex. Hitler was a vegetarian non-smoker and the communists favoured gender equality and strong education while also being rabid anti-semites.

I agree that the Dharmics should be reformable to a certain degree (hey, if the Muslims can get gender equality then the Hindus should be able to abolish the caste system), but one does not imply the other. I can easily see a truly equal land of opportunity for both men and women of the realm in all things, so long as they were born right and went to the right schools of course.

See also, USA.

 

[daftrhetoric]

@Rags17 You're bringing an absurd modality of reasoning to this problem.
The problem with such arbitrary definitions of rights is that the borders of identity are less regular. Rights are the capital issues in a very complex system of interdependent propositions. Overcoming ostensibly minor potential barriers in law ensues a multiplicity of consequence. For example when women's suffrage was established it entirely changed family law in the United States.

 

[Rags17]

@Rags17 You're bringing an absurd modality of reasoning to this problem.
The problem with such arbitrary definitions of rights is that the borders of identity are less regular. Rights are the capital issues in a very complex system of interdependent propositions. Overcoming ostensibly minor potential barriers in law ensues a multiplicity of consequence. For example when women's suffrage was established it entirely changed family law in the United States.

True, but when women got the vote it didn't immediately set off a wave of civil rights pushes for blacks and other minorities. In fact, at the same time that women got the vote in the US Woodrow Wilson instituted segregation in the military and White House. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

I think that it is entirely plausible for a society to allow rights for one class, social order, gender or group at the expense of the others and not see any contradiciton, especially in a world before the concept of universal rights had been conceived.

 

[daftrhetoric]

@Rags17
You're aware that the fifteenth and nineteenth amendments happened a half century apart, I'm sure.

It's plausible. Does thinking on the subject of individual rights relate to general human rights? History has shown it does. Should it be a hard boundary in the game that players can't overcome except through exploits and mods? No.

 

[Rags17]

@Rags17
You're aware that the fifteenth and nineteenth amendments happened a half century apart, I'm sure.

It's plausible. Does thinking on the subject of individual rights relate to general human rights? History has shown it does. Should it be a hard boundary in the game that players can't overcome except through exploits and mods? No.

You're aware that the Fifteenth Amendment didn't immediately lead to every black in the US suddenly getting the vote - in fact it was quite the opposite. After a false spring in which the South sent blacks to Congress for the first time ever nearly every single state of the old Confederacy set up new state constitutions that basically barred blacks from voting, being on juries and in many cases being able to own assets or buy a gun. It wasn't until well after the Nineteenth Amendment that blacks started to get some of the equality which they had been promised in the 1860's.

In any event I think that we are both arguing the same point - progress in one area of human rights (eg gender equality) mat/should lead to increased chanced of progress in others eg caste rights, racial tolerance etc.

 

[daftrhetoric]

@Rags17 Whatever dude. I don't trust your position much. I just smell couched mild disagreement and a little backpedaling.

Your pettifogging the point of race vs. gender issues in the U.S. to distract from the explicit matter of legal reforms only served to sustain the point that these issues are not generally separated, to the detraction of your original punctilious observation on the discrete nature of the two in alethic modality - at best a distractive irrelevant idea.

I can't imagine you're going to let me get off with any peace of mind except by ignoring your challenge.