Please Make Dynamic Religions Optional

[Prince Ire]

The RPS article mentions that religions, heresies etc. will be 'designable'. While it might be interesting from time to time, I also want to be able to play games where religions and their rules stick with what they were historically. I don't want to worry about Catholicism embracing incest or Sunni Islam cannibalism every game.

 

[2000wires]

I don't think you have to worry. It was stated that making changes to the religion of your kingdom will have consequences, and I doubt such changes would affect the entire religion, it's more like making an off-shoot. In fact, I think this means any change to a religion you make will slowly become it's own heresy, basically meaning you can't just replace catholicism with an "Incest-Loving Faith" with a click of a button, the change instead will be more local, and you'll likely have to spread it manually, by whatever means CK3 gives us.

 

[fodazd]

Maybe there will be a game rule for it. I for one am excited by the possibility of overthrowing Catholicism with a divine marriage heresy.

 

[JJDXB]

Catholicism wasn't a static religion between 867 and 1453. Masses and confessions were taken a lot more seriously towards the end of the game period. Orthodoxy went through it's periods of Iconoclasm. Islam for a time did not have a major problem with alcohol.

The cannibalism was obviously mentioned as the most extreme possibility, but I seriously doubt there's any chance of seeing cannibalistic incestuous Catholics popping up naturally as the game progresses unless something goes seriously wrong with the fortunes of the faith and faithful.

As the game takes place over centuries, there needs to be a mechanic whereby the characteristics of a faith can change or be made to change. Otherwise it would be unrealistic.

 

[junassa]

Maybe there will be a game rule for it. I for one am excited by the possibility of overthrowing Catholicism with a divine marriage heresy.

Well I'm pretty sure CK 2 has games rules for both pagan reformation and Hellenic revival so I'd be surprised if there was no game rule here.

 

[Serenity84]

It sounds more like making major changes will result in heresies. Which is nice. Heresies were a huge thing in the middle ages, but the way they're represented in CK2 is not good. A lot of people want the pagan reformation system applied to that

 

[Poliut]

Wonder how what impact Demanding Religious Conversions and Secret Cults will have on that.

 

[Federalist girl]

I don't want to worry about Catholicism embracing incest.

Just start an inquisition to stamp out the heretics, then

 

[Mundane]

I do not trust Paradox to make a nuanced religious evolution system that mirrors or matches the general detail seen historically. Theological points of contention from the day Christ died to beyond are in the tens of thousands, and while I dream of a Christian heresy system that allows for a realistic 'split' of belief between the vulgate and the priests starting with minor points, I think CK3 will just go ham-fist into crazy stuff and have 'custom' religions have a completely different aesthetic from its parent religion. Or even worse, feel detached from the socio-political situation it appears in.

 

[Prince Ire]

I do not trust Paradox to make a nuanced religious evolution system that mirrors or matches the general detail seen historically. Theological points of contention from the day Christ died to beyond are in the tens of thousands, and while I dream of a Christian heresy system that allows for a realistic 'split' of belief between the vulgate and the priests starting with minor points, I think CK3 will just go ham-fist into crazy stuff and have 'custom' religions have a completely different aesthetic from its parent religion. Or even worse, feel detached from the socio-political situation it appears in.

Almost certainly. Because most theological points, important as they are to the religion, aren't exciting to either Paradox or players, and the theological ideas necessary to get to "incest is ok" are going to have huge knock on effects across society in wholly unrelated areas that I'm sure won't be examined at all.

 

[fodazd]

Almost certainly. Because most theological points, important as they are to the religion, aren't exciting to either Paradox or players, and the theological ideas necessary to get to "incest is ok" are going to have huge knock on effects across society in wholly unrelated areas that I'm sure won't be examined at all.

What would a good examination of the implications of this belief look like in your opinion?

CK2 had the messalians, who according to their description practice incest because the children of adam and eve practiced incest (I don't know how historical that is).

 

[MartinSWE]

I actually like the idea of dynamic religions. I also find it kind of interesting that Paradox are chastised for not being 'historic' on some issues but when they as it seems will make religion more realistic then in earlier versions of the game it's seen as a bad thing.

 

[Slaughter]

This is actually great, heresies are very much boring in CKII right now with the sole exception of a few weird heresies like Catharism, Messalianism and the Manicheans. Manicheans were their own religion, should't even be a heresy. People were asking for the application of the new Pagan Reformation system to heresies.

 

[Mundane]

I actually like the idea of dynamic religions. I also find it kind of interesting that Paradox are chastised for not being 'historic' on some issues but when they as it seems will make religion more realistic then in earlier versions of the game it's seen as a bad thing.

In what way will they make religion more historical with 'dynamic religions'? The company's known for being way too memey with their mechanics. CK2's religion reformation is proof of that. No build-up, no reason for the changes allowed to you in the reformation process, nothing logical about it.

If PDX was going to be reasonable about religions being 'dynamic', they'd have implemented the many, many, many theological debates seen throughout the history of Europe and the Middle-East in order to give any plausible religious 'development' a realistic bent. Instead, I am going to assume, no, EXPECT that CK3 throws 'lol we incest now' and 'oh shit, we're cathars now even though there is no cultural or social reason for said development to appear in our province'.

 

[Vivs]

Of all the things that people are already complaining about CK3 (which is absurd in and of itself) this one baffles me the most. People have talked for years about how bad it is that we have catholics and orthodox in pre-Great Schism scenarios, how Celtic catholicism isn't really in the game, how heresies are bland, etc. Yet, when we hear about a mechanic that at the very least has the potential to address those issues in the next game, it's automatically a bad thing that ruined the game (which won't come out for several months yet).

Even if people don't think this mechanic has any potential to improve this stuff, shouldn't they at least admit that it's different enough (when compared to what we have in CK2) for them to wait until they learn more about it? I mean, all we have on CK3 is five screenshots from Steam, two or three talking points from the reveal stream and an RPS article. Can't we wait for at least, I don't know, one dev diary before this becomes a dogpile?

 

[MartinSWE]

In what way will they make religion more historical with 'dynamic religions'? The company's known for being way too memey with their mechanics. CK2's religion reformation is proof of that. No build-up, no reason for the changes allowed to you in the reformation process, nothing logical about it.

If PDX was going to be reasonable about religions being 'dynamic', they'd have implemented the many, many, many theological debates seen throughout the history of Europe and the Middle-East in order to give any plausible religious 'development' a realistic bent. Instead, I am going to assume, no, EXPECT that CK3 throws 'lol we incest now' and 'oh shit, we're cathars now even though there is no cultural or social reason for said development to appear in our province'.

If you assume that any change to a game is going to be the worst possible implementation then it will obviously be a bad thing. I choose to believe that Paradox will take the opportunity to improve an already great game (CKII) instead of making a horrible new game. I guess we will see who is right.

 

[Prince Ire]

What would a good examination of the implications of this belief look like in your opinion?

Not sure, can't think of any off the top of my head.

had the messalians, who according to their description practice incest because the children of adam and eve practiced incest (I don't know how historical that is).

Most scholars think the Messalians didn't practice incest and it was made up by their enemies to discredit them, along with cannibalism. They did teach that one who had experienced the "essence of God" was freed from all moral obligations.

 

[Prince Ire]

Of all the things that people are already complaining about CK3 (which is absurd in and of itself) this one is the most baffling to me. People have talked for years about how bad it its that we have catholics and orthodox in pre-Great Schism scenarios, how Celtic catholicism isn't really in the game, how heresies are bland, etc. Yet, when we hear about a mechanic that at the very least has the potential to address those issues in the next game, it's automatically a bad thing that ruined the game (which won't come out for several months yet).

Even if people don't think this mechanic has any potential to improve this stuff, shouldn't they at least admit that it's different enough (when compared to what we have in CK2) for you to wait until you learn more about it? I mean, all we have on CK3 is five screenshots from Steam, two or three talking points from the reveal stream and an RPS article. Can't we wait for at least, I don't know, one dev diary before this becomes a dogpile?

You can't really complain about Celtic Christianity not being separate from the rest of Catholic Christianity and at the same time complain about Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity being separate prior to the Great Schism. The differences between the Latin and Greek Churches were much greater than the differences between the Celtic Churches and the rest of the Latin Church.

Personally, I fall onto the side of combining Latin and Greek into Chalcedonian Christianity prior to the Great Schism.

 

[Vivs]

You can't really complain about Celtic Christianity not being separate from the rest of Catholic Christianity and at the same time complain about Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity being separate prior to the Great Schism. The differences between the Latin and Greek Churches were much greater than the differences between the Celtic Churches and the rest of the Latin Church.

Personally, I fall onto the side of combining Latin and Greek into Chalcedonian Christianity prior to the Great Schism.

I'm not complaining about any of that, actually, hahaha.

 

[Mundane]

This is actually great, heresies are very much boring in CKII right now with the sole exception of a few weird heresies like Catharism, Messalianism and the Manicheans. Manicheans were their own religion, should't even be a heresy. People were asking for the application of the new Pagan Reformation system to heresies.

The 'Religion Reformation' mechanic introduced in Holy Fury is terrible though. It offers wildly different 'doctrines' for your entire religion, sans reactionaries, to suddenly follow even though they have no reason to believe, follow, or even accept said changes. It generalizes things into twelve or so different doctrines with no care or respect to what people were thinking about in real life back in these centuries.

Will they represent the GRADUAL evolution of the Filoque controversy? Doubt it. What about the debates with churchmen marrying and having children? Naw, PDX will have the player choose stuff like 'pyramid building' for pagans with little to no contact with the closest pyramid-building civilization (one that has been dead for a millennia at this point), or allow Gnosticism to appear in the middle of Austria despite the corresponding Paulician/Bogomilist influences not reaching that region in-game yet. What about the small yet infinitely important distinctions between the 'true' successor of Mohammed? Is PDX willing to hire an Islamic scholar or theologian to explain all the different sects and how to implement their differences and beliefs in a system that allows the player and AI to diverge from one another religiously?

For a company like PDX, even this, the least amount of effort and care required to both please me and be respectful to these ancient traditions, seems far out of reach. They will adopt the low-brow approach and do as they always have done.