Playing as Norse Religion

[Zakath]

But your logic for norse and catholic is way off.
Just google it. The norse gods and Greek gods have the same root ancestry.
As for the exact customs I can't say.

I view it kinda like how catholic and Coptic are related. Same root, but they were not in contact with each other for long period so had some drift.

To be honest that's the first time I've heard that claim. I'll grant you there are quite a few similarities, and there has probably been some borrowing of ideas from the Romans, but it's far from the same root. You can find a brief, but decent, comparison here http://blog.juliealindsey.com/julie...k-roman-and-norse-myths-by-katharina-gerlach/. I won't reiterate any of those comparisons here.

Other differences between the religions is the fact that Hellenic was a religion, while Norse was more a cultural set of mores. They had their gods, but it's quite likely that worship was more personal and flexible. You could stick with Thor or Odin if you liked to go a plunderin', or if you were more of the farming type you might revere your ancestors, or possibly the elves and spirits of the woods. The Aesir were the universal parts of the religion, while the rest was more personal or localized.

Organized worship was less of a thing as well for the Norse. You had some priests, called Godi, but in general worship was handled by the head of the family / warband / village / farm. Godi were more there as a conduit to the gods, able to ask the gods for favours on behalf of the folk. It's quite unlikely they ever claimed the Hellenic / Christian bit of actually speaking for the god(s), just speaking to the gods.

Interestingly I've seen the Norse name for the religion called "Sejdr", which is an older form of "Sed" which is again an archaic form of the Norwegian word for "Customs".

Source for "Sejdr" was in Illustrert Vitenskap, so it's a paper magazine I can't link to, but the rest is probably sourcable here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_religion


So, no. It's nowhere near the relation between Catholic / Coptic. It's far closer to Catholic / Islam, parts of the origin match, you have many of the same religious figures, but it's entirely different.

 

[Kapitalisti]

Saying that religions "copy" from others because they share similar elements is pretty inaccurate. Religions share things because they were all invented by people and people have the basic psychology regardless of era or area. Naturally things like sacrifice, redemption and purpose are pretty universal. Even "political religions" such as Soviet socialism and general hardcore Marxism had these elements. And let's not even get into the Fascists.

 

[Aed]

To be honest that's the first time I've heard that claim. I'll grant you there are quite a few similarities, and there has probably been some borrowing of ideas from the Romans, but it's far from the same root. You can find a brief, but decent, comparison here http://blog.juliealindsey.com/julie...k-roman-and-norse-myths-by-katharina-gerlach/. I won't reiterate any of those comparisons here.

They are very much from the same root, both Norse and the Ancient Greek religions are decendants of the original Indo-European pantheon. As were pretty much all the pagan religions of Europe, such as that of the ancient Celts, Romans, Germans, Slavs and Balts. This was one of the reasons the Romans found it so easy to adapt local gods into their own system, as many were basically the same.

So yes, the Ancient Greek and Norse religions were both from the same source, unlike Catholicism, which in fact copied a lot of pagan elements, is ultimately derived from the Semtic religious group and very different in its core from the other two.

Your analogy to the relationship between Christianity and Islam is probably closest, although still quite off the mark as those two are actually more closely linked. Norse and Hellenic had the same basic stories and deities, but there was a large expanse of time separating them, so a lot of the detail had changed.

Other differences between the religions is the fact that Hellenic was a religion, while Norse was more a cultural set of mores. They had their gods, but it's quite likely that worship was more personal and flexible. You could stick with Thor or Odin if you liked to go a plunderin', or if you were more of the farming type you might revere your ancestors, or possibly the elves and spirits of the woods. The Aesir were the universal parts of the religion, while the rest was more personal or localized.

That holds true for the Greek religion too, there was no central authority or anything like that, it was just a collection of interlinked holy sites representing different deities and cults. And individuals worshipped what ever gods they thought necessary at the time, not all at once.

 

[Zakath]

They are very much from the same root, both Norse and the Ancient Greek religions are decendants of the original Indo-European pantheon.

That's like saying that all European cultures and languages at the time came from the same shared ancestry. While more or less true it's been long enough that similarities are superficial at best.

That holds true for the Greek religion too, there was no central authority or anything like that, it was just a collection of interlinked holy sites representing different deities and cults. And individuals worshipped what ever gods they thought necessary at the time, not all at once.

True enough for the Greek part of the Hellenic religion, but it still had priests and organized temples to a much larger degree than the Norse ever did. Parts of that is quite likely to be related to Greek society being much more urban, but you still had an organized and influential priesthood.

Of course for all we know the Norse had an influential and powerful priesthood, there just might not be any records of it. The best source for much of what we know of the Norse is the Sagas by Snorre Sturlason, and he was a Christian Icelander living about two centuries after Norway was christianized, making him a dubious source.

 

[Kwami]

Doesn't make sense. It barely makes sense to have Zoroastrianism, Tengri and Judaism. With the exception of Tengri, none of them really had much influence, and Tengri died out as an influential religion rather early. I know all three religions still exist, Judaism having it's own state, Zoroastrianism being a decently sized religious minority in India / Pakistan and Tengri being in a revival in parts of the former USSR, but none of the religions really exerted much influence in the 1444-1821 period.

Norse and Hellenic really don't exist at the time. Both were pretty much rooted out in the CK2 timeframe. There are a few fun mods which allow you to revive relevant religions for your culture / religion, and they can be great fun at times, but sadly that's where the older religions belong.

Why does any of this matter? EUIV features Italy, Germany, and any number of other non-historical ideas. That's the whole point of alt history. A return to Norse mythology is entirely plausible, even if it didn't actually happen.

As I see it, adding a decision to change to the Norse religion could have a great impact on game play. I don't actually see a reason not to add it, except that it takes up some developer time. Currently, one of the most interesting religions in the game is almost never used. That's a shame.

 

[Chaos_TLW]

Why does any of this matter? EUIV features Italy, Germany, and any number of other non-historical ideas. That's the whole point of alt history. A return to Norse mythology is entirely plausible, even if it didn't actually happen.

As I see it, adding a decision to change to the Norse religion could have a great impact on game play. I don't actually see a reason not to add it, except that it takes up some developer time. Currently, one of the most interesting religions in the game is almost never used. That's a shame.

Italy and Germany were titles inside thr HRE.
The game is alternate history from the point you unpause the game. Norse was already dead by then and there is no plausible reason for a revival to occur.

 

[NetherViking]

Or they could have all become like Nazis only worse. Tbf if that had happened the world would be a different enough place that we aren't able to make effective guesses without a lot of time and historical knowledge in order to be able to plot even one alternative version of history.

For the sake of example; If Europe hadn't Christianized, a lot of the legal structure may well have been different. Feudalism may never have caught on, for example. If we're just taking about Scandinavia and eastern Europe (the pagan regions during Charlemagne or Old gods?), the Normans may never have been christian. The hundreds years war could have been a Grand Holy war for West Francia. Or more likely not happened. It was a significant enough event, far enough in the past to have possibly changed most history.

I think that the repercussions of a change in the past become harder to determine the further back they go goes without saying. My comment about modern Scandinavia was really intended to be tongue in cheek.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Why does any of this matter? EUIV features Italy, Germany, and any number of other non-historical ideas. That's the whole point of alt history. A return to Norse mythology is entirely plausible, even if it didn't actually happen.

As I see it, adding a decision to change to the Norse religion could have a great impact on game play. I don't actually see a reason not to add it, except that it takes up some developer time. Currently, one of the most interesting religions in the game is almost never used. That's a shame.

You don't seem to know what "plausible" means. Reviving a long-dead religion with 0 adherents in a fiercely Christian religious environment was basically impossible, and would be even if you reran the real-like situation a million times over.

Whereas Germany and Italy existed as theoretical kingdoms, and like most formable nations have a strong historical basis.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You don't seem to know what "plausible" means. Reviving a long-dead religion with 0 adherents in a fiercely Christian religious environment was basically impossible, and would be even if you reran the real-like situation a million times over.

Whereas Germany and Italy existed as theoretical kingdoms, and like most formable nations have a strong historical basis.

Plausibility is a subjective concept here anyway. There are certainly degrees of likelihood given a 1444 position, for example Tengri was more likely to have a revival/takeover than Norse, but both were less likely than Hindu or Sunni. A Norse revival does seem a tall order given the start position though.

 

[Styliaan]

Add an event to bring it back in. Make sure its hard mode(difficulty with alliances etc).
Add some BS Achieve for it similar to 3 mountains.

It would be fun to try out in Ironman with its own events etc.

 

[Zakath]

Add an event to bring it back in. Make sure its hard mode(difficulty with alliances etc).
Add some BS Achieve for it similar to 3 mountains.

It would be fun to try out in Ironman with its own events etc.

Zoroastrian already has an achievment I believe, and Tengri could do with one as well. Purely for the fun of it, doesn't have to be all that hard either. Just be challenging and force you to remain Tengri.

For Norse, it's pure fantasy and has almost no plausible explanation for popping up. I guess you could argue that a unified Scandinavia might bring about a revival, when the reformation started fracturing the church, but it's on the level of an existing Norse realm in North America in 1444.

It's something I like seeing it in mods, but if you start adding it to EUIV you might as well have events to reform the Roman Empire, bring back the Egyptian faith, reform the Hellenic faith etc. Where does it stop being a fun thing to see, and start being absurd decisions the AI starts enacting?

 

[Kwami]

You don't seem to know what "plausible" means. Reviving a long-dead religion with 0 adherents in a fiercely Christian religious environment was basically impossible, and would be even if you reran the real-like situation a million times over.

Whereas Germany and Italy existed as theoretical kingdoms, and like most formable nations have a strong historical basis.

Except that it didn't have zero adherents. And anyway, it presently doesn't have zero adherents, so it's clearly not impossible to revive it. All I'm asking for is the option to revive the religion earlier. I didn't say that it should be easy. But if a king can suddenly decide that his country is Christian and then forcibly start converting everyone, then why can't he also go the other way? Sure, it'll cause a lot of problems with the Pope and with the other European nations. So what? That sounds fun.

Besides, the Norse religion is already in the game. Therefore, the development efforts to include something like what I suggest are probably fairly minimal. It's just a decision script, plus maybe a few events to make it more interesting.

EDIT: If you're worried about the AI having too much fun, then you can just add the "is not AI" requirement to the decision.

 

[BrokenSky]

I think that the repercussions of a change in the past become harder to determine the further back they go goes without saying. My comment about modern Scandinavia was really intended to be tongue in cheek.

Oops. Sorry. I actually took it as serious.

Zoroastrian already has an achievment I believe, and Tengri could do with one as well. Purely for the fun of it, doesn't have to be all that hard either. Just be challenging and force you to remain Tengri.

For Norse, it's pure fantasy and has almost no plausible explanation for popping up. I guess you could argue that a unified Scandinavia might bring about a revival, when the reformation started fracturing the church, but it's on the level of an existing Norse realm in North America in 1444.

It's something I like seeing it in mods, but if you start adding it to EUIV you might as well have events to reform the Roman Empire, bring back the Egyptian faith, reform the Hellenic faith etc. Where does it stop being a fun thing to see, and start being absurd decisions the AI starts enacting?

I can think of one. If you flip to animist, the local population might start worshiping the local old gods as opposed to the Suomi ones you'd spread in. So If there were an event it would have flip provinces which start as catholic but are currently animist to Norse.

 

[t6.28]

During and (more so) shortly after the EU4 time frame, many countries started to get interested in the old traditions and some form of enthusiasm for the Germanic and Norse culture existed. I don't think it is that unrealistic to allow some Norse revival movements to emerge in the game. Of course they would not be the same as the original Norse religion, but I think they are close enough to have both of them be represented by the same in game religion, especially since it is very unlikely that both, neopagans and true Norse countries would ever coexist in one EU4 game.

 

[Promanco]

How about a decision for a country to convert to Norse just for fun but super challenging to archive?
Country must be Scandinavian culture
Country must be Pagan
Country must own X provinces
Country must only own Pagan provinces
Capital is on Scandinavia Region
Country must be at least a Kingdom
Every province on Scandinavia Region must NOT be Christian
If Sweden converted to Shamanism in this timeframe it is VERY realistic that they would at the very least claim to be Norse lol
Plus the AI would NEVER be able to archive this so no dangers there.

 

[Ricox]

You know. Somehow having a ruler of a Scandinavian country attempt to return to Norse Paganism would be epic, though I imagine it would make the Papal Controller mad enough to call a full on crusade against you.

Mmm, wouldn't the Hellenistic Faith technically still be viable by 1444? Or did it 100% die out earlier than Norse Paganism?

i don't think i've ever, ever seen the AI call a crusade in EU 4.

 

[t6.28]

How about a decision for a country to convert to Norse just for fun but super challenging to archive?
Country must be Scandinavian culture
Country must be Pagan
Country must own X provinces
Country must only own Pagan provinces
Capital is on Scandinavia Region
Country must be at least a Kingdom
Every province on Scandinavia Region must NOT be Christian

I'd not restrict it to Scandinavia, but also allow it for northern Germany. Their religion was pretty similar.

 

[NetherViking]

The more I think about it, being able to convert to Norse through a heresy/rebellion might be fun. Obviously it wasnt very likely in real life but conceivably such beliefs were still in existence into the 15th century.

According to Wikipedia (there is a link to a source that appears to be written in Swedish) Gotland used a law code that included laws against traditional sacrifice:
"The Gutalagen (a Gotlandic law book from the 1220s) officially in use until 1595 but in practice until 1645, stated that performingblóts was punishable by a fine.[29]"

Of course these are laws that may have not seen use for centuries but remained in place, I couldn't say.

It would have to be a rare event that would come to nothing 99% of the time without human intervention. It would be like seeing Byzantine survive to the end of the game in AI hands rare but they could include the option and an achievement perhaps. It isn't probable but it would be fun.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

i don't think i've ever, ever seen the AI call a crusade in EU 4.

I haven't seen it in recent patches. It used to be quite common with the old Curia rules, with some derpy garbage like crusades against Inca or Maya etc...occasionally something more reasonable like Morocco. Under the new Curia rules I'm not sure I've seen it.

 

[NetherViking]

I haven't seen it in recent patches. It used to be quite common with the old Curia rules, with some derpy garbage like crusades against Inca or Maya etc...occasionally something more reasonable like Morocco. Under the new Curia rules I'm not sure I've seen it.

The only crusade I have ever seen was one I started that no one ever took up. Maybe because it was against the Ottomans.