Difficulty of province-wide religious conversions

[Malthus]

Alexandre,

I like the idea of "prostheletizing" and "faithfulness"! This would add reality to the system and help to further differentiate the various religions - which, in my mind, is a very good thing.

One suggested addition to your system would be a third criterion -- "fanaticism/pacifism". This would model the destabalizing effect of certain religions, i.e. their % revolt risk based on ruler-set tolerance. A religion with low "fanaticism" quotent would put up with considerable persicution before revolting, whereas a religion with a high "fanaticism" quotent would revolt against even a most tolerant ruler -- if he or she was not of their true faith!

So, for example, Judaism during this period would be a v.low "prostheletism" religion (few converts), v.high "faithfulness" (almost impossible to convert) and low "fanaticism" (rarely, to my knowledge, rebelled even under extreme persicution). Catholicism would be a high prostheletism, medium faithfulness (many converted to protestantism), medium fanaticism. Sh'ite islam would be high in all categories, particularly fanaticism.

One correction would have to be made to the system. A "matrix" of values would have to be created to reflect the fact that, historically, certain religions were more likely to convert to others -- for example, it was much easier for the varieties of christianity to convert each other than to convert muslims (and vice versa), although under the right conditions both happened (I am thinking reconquesta Spain and Turkish anatolia). I suggest that converting within a category (suggested: christians/muslims/buddhist and hindu) should get a bonus %, outside a category a penalty. All organized religions should get a bonus against shamanistic religions, aztecs, incas.

 

[Spruce]

Good points,

but keep in mind that the religions should be balanced out a bit. Also some bonusses should be awarded to each religion. Ohtherwise the feature should have little or no effect on gameplay.

Other options to increase effect on gameplay?

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by Malthus
Alexandre,

I like the idea of "prostheletizing" and "faithfulness"! This would add reality to the system and help to further differentiate the various religions - which, in my mind, is a very good thing.

One suggested addition to your system would be a third criterion -- "fanaticism/pacifism". This would model the destabalizing effect of certain religions, i.e. their % revolt risk based on ruler-set tolerance. A religion with low "fanaticism" quotent would put up with considerable persicution before revolting, whereas a religion with a high "fanaticism" quotent would revolt against even a most tolerant ruler -- if he or she was not of their true faith!

Makes sense. But, if we're looking at religion's influence on internal politics, should we also add economic values to reflect things like the Protestant work ethic?

One correction would have to be made to the system. A "matrix" of values would have to be created to reflect the fact that, historically, certain religions were more likely to convert to others -- for example, it was much easier for the varieties of christianity to convert each other than to convert muslims (and vice versa), although under the right conditions both happened (I am thinking reconquesta Spain and Turkish anatolia). I suggest that converting within a category (suggested: christians/muslims/buddhist and hindu) should get a bonus %, outside a category a penalty.

Agreed.

All organized religions should get a bonus against shamanistic religions, aztecs, incas.

Here I don't completely agree: I think that the organization should be based on missionary religions -- which means only Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. Hindus shouldn't get a bonus. If the requests for the inclusion of Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and who knows what else are eventually granted, those religion should also not get a bonus since they are not missionary religions either.

Alexandre

 

[Aetius]

Originally posted by Malthus
On the other hand, there are some historical precidents. I am thinking of the Catholic Churchs' bid to Christianize Japan, and the building of churches in Mexico (often on the same sites as as Aztec temples!) seems, to me at least, to represent part of a concious attempt to spread or impose Catholicism.

With regards to Mexico and so on the principles were the same in Europe, many old churches and cathedrals are placed on the sites of the older religion's temples. The problem as I see it is that the state was separate from the church, i.e. it should be the Vatican building all the churches with the help of tithes paid by the faithful. I also believe that the Vatican made a deal with the Portugese and the Spanish on giving them the world outside Europe in exchange for them converting heathern to christianity. I am not arguing that a cathedral isn't an important and expensive building but that the few things that are actually buildable in the game are things built by the government historically and churches/temples and so were not until the emergence of state religions which were in effect all protestant. The king or queen then financed churches as a part of their role as head of the church. In a catholic country the head of the church is the pope so he decided ultimately how and when a cathedral should be built. There are several examples from catholic countries where a cathedral was proposed and the plans were changed by the pope.
I believe in a gradual drift towards the state religion which can be augmented with investments (which would represent outlays on missions and conversion, but also losses caused by repression of alternative religions).