Yea, deities would change when they go through syncrenizaion. in my world religion class I recall my teacher explaining for instance one Hindu god became a female bodhisatva when transfered to china and japan. In a synchronized graeco-buddhism, instead of saying Athena-Buddha, it would just be Athena but she would be viewed as a Bodhisattva that helps people seek wisdom and enlightenment. When I wrote up the Eusebian faith, I went with the idea that the gods are now Bodhisattvas, perhaps some heroes should also be regarded as Bodhisattvas as well? In a synchronized faith, perhaps Odysseus or Herakles could be viewed as Bodhisattvas, with their quests being their journey to enlightenment?
Bodhisattvas in the true Buddhist sense are without gender, and since many are combined with gods in other places who embody similar aspects and who also have a sense of gender associated with them, they retain the gender qualities. This explains why Quan Yin is seen as a motherly figure in China, while in India the depictions of Avalokitesvara are either of both genders or no gender at all. While Athena may seem like a good Avalokitesvara candidate, in early Buddhist iconography, there are three main figures who surround Buddha:
Mañjuśrī, the embodiment of Buddha's wisdom,
Vajrapani, the manifestation of all the Buddhas' power as well as the power of all five tathāgatas, and
Avalokiteśvara, who embodies the Buddha's compassion. Of all of these, Athena fits Mañjuśrī the best. As for the compassion deity, as a mother figure, I feel Hera would probably take the place. Eleos makes the most sense, but as I said, she's quite minor (really only worshipped in Athens even in Ancient Greece). For the other gods, it would make sense that they'd become bodhisattvas, and since the religion is more Indo-Hellenic than Buddhist, it isn't imperative that every single one correspond to an actual bodhisattva, but it would make sense that deities who embody non-Buddhist concepts would either be less popular or have what they stand for changed. A good example would be Ares, who would probably lose his connotation with bloodthirsty battle and probably instead either not be worshipped or would be worshipped to escort the souls of departed soldiers or something that doesn't directly contradict the teachings of Buddha.
Yea that works for the most part.
Speaking of culture ascendency's shouldn't the indo-hellenic religion have an indian ascendency? Also what makes indo-hellenic different from Sindhian Hindu?
Something about the term "Indo-Hellenic" that is rather misleading: it doesn't necessarily refer to a fusion Greco-Indian culture, it's more of a location marking prefix. "Indo-Hellenic" as in the Greeks of the Indus. Indo-Hellenic by nature does not necessarily have to be heavily drawn from Indian influences (while the Indo-Greeks did indeed adopt many Indian styles, deities, and practices, they maintained their own culture for the majority of their time there, and were eventually assimilated some time after the invasions of the Sakae and subsequent invaders IRL). The reason the reason the Indo-Hellenic religion doesn't have an Indian Ascendant is simply because it isn't really all that Indian. I kind of see it like... British vs. Australian. They came from the same people, but time and distance has resulted in the formulation of a new culture that isn't really the same as the old one nor is it that much of a fusion of the old one and the indigenous one. It's just kind of its own thing now.
Sindhian Hindu (name pending, looking for suggestions) is the result of Hellenic interference on the Indian peninsula (not unlike Vidharma). From the scripture:
155 BCE: Menander completes the conquest of India and Sri Lanka. He creates a new religion that brings Hellenic influence to the Hindu pantheon, with a temple network headed by the state. Beginning of Hellenization in India.
This one is more of a syncretism between the Hellenic and Hindu pantheons, with a lot of influencing concepts of
dharma, reincarnation, and other Hindu concepts, but with practices and depictions closer resembling Greek style.
Aha! but that's the conundrum I found myself in when adding the evil_god names... not ALL religions have a defined figure that represents the "idea of evil", a demiurge, or whatever you want to call it as abrahamic, dualist, gnostic religions do.... so I had to come up with (really) stupid fillers like Xiaoren for the Confucians. I reckon that maybe a generic demon name like, continuing with the Confucian example, Yaoguai, might have been better... but the Yaoguai is not something that is an opposing thought to all that represents "proper behaviour" to Confucianism like a Xiaoren is. We must also remember that the evil_god_name also pops in the "devil child" event chain... that declares that your child is actually the son of X evil god. While this works for Hades for example (I remember HBO's Rome series, where one of the character declares himself "son of Hades" in an attempt to threaten someone, and everyone is shocked not because Hades is evil, but because that's such a taboo thing to say in that society), and son of Chaos is looks like a badass thing to say, "son of Xiaoren", or "son of Ignorance"... sounds really stupid. I'll study the situation though, lest I become a xiaoren myself
Suddenly the name Bethesda Studios chose for the bears in Fallout 3 makes sense
Effin' yaoguai.
I get where you're coming from. Maybe we can just go through and pick out the ones that don't make sense, leaving the rest intact and coming up with more appropriate alternatives for those who don't.
There isn't really a whole lot of references in Confucianism about demons or malevolent spirits, really; a lot of superstitious beliefs like that in China come from Shenism (I'm guessing, since they certainly don't come from Confucius' or Buddha's teachings).
And here's me failing at English again, that's why I'm never gonna get a job in a foreign country
.
I didn't mean it was
real thing, just that Shaytana/Cèsar suggested that it was a syncretism that brought together those elements in LI.
Ah, no, that wasn't a criticism of you, Numahr used the same word (Pyromantism). I could be wrong (and this wasn't really directed at you so I probably should have quoted from another post, sorry about that), I was just wondering if the "Pyromantism" in discussion was a real thing that I've overlooked or if it came from the actual practice of pyromancy.
Your English is more than satisfactory
Come on... rewarding infanticide has been in CK2 like since day 1, when you had to kill that stupid weak child heir that got in the way of your eugenics wet dream übermensch.
Heheh. Back before there were limits on who could babysit your brats, I used to send my kinds off to get a different culture so they'd come back Turkish and rule the Imperium Romanum or something :3
As I said... the option to offer an animal sacrifice will be there for the
compulsory, required sacrifices (like the ones you'd have to offer at a blot or whatever we name the Canaanite ritual). "Voluntary" sacrifices like the killing of prisoners at the Irminsul or burning them in Sol Invictus name though, are completely up to the player to do or not for that extra, juicy piety/authority...
And look my in the face (avatar?) and say that a cult worshipping Fenrir shouldn't have compulsory human sacrifices to appease the Great Wolf...
Alright, I cannot deny that :laugh: Though I would think that they would target members outside the flock; maybe not so much out of spite of non-believers but a sense to preserve what small community of crazy people would be willing to partake in such rituals.
Yes and no. In principle, you are agreeing with my suggestion to go for a wide understanding and give syncretic religions an advantage. But in the details, it depends and common sense must prevail here due to the way I originally defined civilizations.
Some civilizations have a wide scope to incorporate many different real "civilizations" that are assumed to have the same overall characteristics, in an effort to simplify the system: the "Barbarian" and "Archaic" civilization are too wide and incorporates religions which would be foreign to one another. Here the religious groups must prevail.
So in practice, while what we said stands true for Hibernicist and Scandinist, it is not the case for those. Luwian will happily marry Tarhuntites but not Ancient Egyptian although they share the same "Archaic" civilization - that would be way too cosmopolitan for LI's "bastillon" mentalities.
-> the civilization AND group is a general guide, which needs to be tweaked in specific instances, mostly the Barbarian and Archaic civilizations.
As for martial religions being able to inter-marry, this is close to the border. Tarhuntite is a good example as it is a Martial religion that would be most happy to marry Luwians based on lore. Ghazi Islamic could work, too.
Unless they were sectarian or communitarian, I would think that any religions which are common throughout the same group of people (in the most broad senses, the Greeks and Romans) would be far less taboo to intermingle, unless they have distinct doctrinal differences. Would it be hard to imagine a Solar emperor taking an Imperial Cultist or Mithraic wife? Not at all; politics is politics, and an accepted religion of the empire is an accepted religion of the empire.
Your approach on using religion groups to further filter the Archaic and Barbarian religions has a point. I had something else here earlier, but after thinking about it more, it actually does make more sense for those religions to be more based on group, since most examples are rather localized in group anyway. I do ask that Shamanic be added to that list, though.
The idea behind Athena-Buddha was not, actually, to have syncretism between Buddha and Athena, but rather, like you said, that Athena was another Boddhisatva, perhaps one of the most prominent. I brought it up because Menander was specially fan of Athena and he's the one that, supposedly, besieged and conquered Pataliputra (him, or his Lux Invicta proxy), so I thought that Athena needed to be there.
As for Sindhu or Sindhian Hindu, I also suggested Kresnerakles, or Kresnes Herakles, the Krishna-Herakles that was reported to be the god worshipped by King Poros and his subjects (assumed by the Greeks to be Herakles).
I first came up with the adjective Pyromantic, and everything went on from there. It's supposed to be a fire-worshipping religion as seen by Greek mystics like the disciples of Porphyrius or Ammonios Sakas, with a cosmology centered around the idea of heroes and their quests and tests. The example of these heroes standing to the tests of the Divine inspired its subjects to do and be better. These heroes can be Herakles, Zoroaster, Manes, Krishna, David and Moses, for instance. I think it gives a nice blend. Ancient times had this thing in which all gods seem to live in the same crossover world. It's like the Avengers movie.
Given the martial ascendant Mithras worship got during its years as the Army religion of Rome, I think it's best to make Mithraics sacrifice war prisoners, the more important the better, in cases of dire necessity.
I'd also assume Zeus would also be a primary figure; perhaps crossed with Vishnu to form a sky-god who preserves the world below?
I had it all in a nice fitting way in my head until "Avengers" :rofl: I get what you mean though. That's actually really cool.
Agreed; Mithras or not, Romans have a reputation as civilized peoples to uphold.
I see... I don't think we should use the term "Boddhisatva" with Indo-Hellenics though... I guess we could use an Ancient Greek word for "enlightened one" here.
And by the way... I ended equating up the Mara with the greek
Aite. I think it's appropiate enough, but if you have any suggestion for it, I'm open.
Interesting. I was mainly interested in knowing this because I'll be writing up some flavour religious decisions on them in the future... and participating in a pyromancy divination ritual is just too cool a thing to write to let it pass by.
As I said before with the "Barbarian" civilization... I'll code the option without any restriction and leave it up to the player to sacrifice prisoners of war instead of coding it into some draconian restrictions like only be able to sacrifice when losing wars and so on.
Hmm... We know the term "eusebeia" from the Edicts of Ashoka, who used the term to best convey "dharma" to the Greeks. There was no such mention of bodhisattvas in those Edicts, so we don't know for sure. I would say the word
parakletos ("helper", used in Christianity to refer to the Holy Spirit as a
paraclete) could convey the same concept as a bodhisattva.
Mara the Buddhist demon descends from Mara the Hindu goddess of death, and most of the references to Mara (in Buddhism) seem to refer to it as a metaphor, with only one
devaputramara referring to it as the son of a deva (in early Buddhism, Mara was seen as both a literal being and a representation of the concept of temptation, though I think it could be possible that this former came about as an attempt to explain Buddhist precepts to polytheists). In Buddhist lore, Mara's main role is seen just before the Buddha reaches enlightenment, when Mara attempts to distract the Buddha by trying to tempt him with three daughters. These daughters are known as Taṇha (Craving), Arati (Boredom), and Raga (Passion). The Greek word used for "temptation" in the Bible in virtually the exact same way is "Peirasmos". "Tanha" would be closest to "Epithumia" and "Raga" would be "Pathos", "Arati" was a bit more difficult to come up with since it doesn't
quite mean boredom; it means non-attachment or aversion. One would think "Apatheia" would work, but the concept in Greek actually translates closer to what the goal of Buddhism actually is (that is, detachment from attachment). The closest other term I can think of would be "Ameleó", which roughly means "I neglect, am careless of, disregard". (Thank you Strong's Greek.)
Sad we can't go as far as the mad Julio-Argead who were particularly ... inventive in terms of sacrifice
"39 CE: Aretas V defeated in a great battle near Hebron. He flees East. Alexandros II proclaims himself a God, Neos Helios, has all of the prisoners executed, and to the horror of his generals drinks the blood of an executed Nabatean prince."
"61 CE: Alexandros II defeats the Iceni in battle near Viroconium. A dying, wounded Boudica is brought before Alexandros II who rapes her proclaiming that "she is receiving the favor of a God before her death".
"64 CE: Alexandros II besieges Hecatompylos. The city falls after a 2 month siege. Alexandros II has 1 in 10 inhabitants chosen by lot sacrificed to himself. He then chases Vologases into the East."
"65 CE: Alexandros II catches Vologases I near Antiocheia Margiana. The Parthian King is ritualy sacrificed to the glory of the Divine Alexandros II. Alexandros II returns West"
Perhaps a lunatic Solar-Imperial imperator could have options to do these but well it is very sadistic ( even if IMHO it does not compare with Leo II who is assurely the worst character of the TL ) :
-If he commands an army and takes a city he can sacrifice 1) the soldiers 2) 1/10 inhabitant ( bonus in piety and prestige, city gets looted ) 3) The WHOLE City ! ( holding destroyed but moar prestige and piety )
-If he captures an ennemy woman, he can "honor" her ( need the lustful trait ) and then choose to continue to honor her ( sort of sex slave who becomes pregnant ) or kill her after receiving "divine favor"
-Drinks blood maybe ?
Well you see the idea ...
That was Lux-Nero, right? Or was he Alexandros IV?
There are a lot of features we could implement that come into a gray zone in terms of acceptability. There many despicable things that have happened throughout history and continue to happen to this day. We should not be afraid to acknowledge them for what they are, but there are some things that we don't need to put in as a game mechanic. For the sake of those who may have sensitivity pertaining to these areas (and for our public image in general), I think that rape and genocide fall under this category. The reason I say this is because they are still a plague in the modern world. Sacrificing babies would be absolutely disgusting and horrible if it happened today, but it is no longer common practice and is not something that would affect the vast (99%+) majority of the population. Rape and genocide are both regular - if not daily - occurrences and to include such features in game is rather abhorrent.
This "razing cities" mechanic you speak of is not actually genocide in itself, since it targets the holding and not a group of people. So long as we don't ever incorporate any "ethnic cleansing" CBs or anything of the sort, this is perfectly fine. And it's quite frankly sorely needed for immersion, since what's so scary about invaders who
don't slay the populace? As for the "honoring the captive" idea, the very furthest I'm willing to see that go is forced concubinage and may the game take its course. Anything more than that is unnecessary detail and would probably be breaking Paradox rules in some form.
If we do the drinking blood, maybe we could add some kind of vampire reference?
o
Alexandros II had the "possessed" trait. Indeed, special gameplay options should open to such characters. Shaytana intended to introduce some interesting things for them, that is why he inserted so many events making people go "stressed" and then possibly worse. In our case, we could branch off the possessed trait to an equivalent of the "become Arinniti's avatar/consort" for other religions that don't have a landmark to rebuild. These "avatar/consort" traits could be the base for accessing one of the powerful CBs Shaytana created and handed to a few religions, and all sorts of side features such as special treatment of your prisoners.
I'll keep this in mind, let's discuss it again once the Arinniti's avatar/consort is well implemented for Luwians...
If we're going to make the Possessed trait associated with divine things, it should be far less frequent; damn if I don't get that or Lunatic every game I play. Also, sociopathy seems to affect half the people in the Lux world, but according to the American Psychiatric Association, it affects no more than 3-5% of the general population. There are a few traits like that that could use a change in frequency.