I'll not debate someone who can't even distinquish Confuscianism from Anscestor Worship. Your obviously just so out of it i can't hold a proper debate.Yakman said:
Religion in EU
- Thread starter unmerged(2456)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
If you don't have a rudimentary understanding of Chinese Religion on the ground, just say so.Jinnai said:
You should. Your confusing practiced religion with core tenants. Its like saying that the tolerance of worship of greek deities under the guise of chrisitanity is part of the dogma of chrtisitanity (which did and still does happen).Yakman said:
That is correct. However, you won't find confucian dogmatists in great numbers on the ground in China. You also won't find pure Buddhists, or pure Taoists. It's all mixed together--which is why calling them Confucians is the best way to go about it. Chinese will go to a Buddhist shrine and then head home and set a candle in the shrine of their family ancestor and firmly believe that the Emperor is the Son of Heaven.Jinnai said:
The dogmatic conflicts--the wars between Buddhist and Taoist factions that tore China apart for centuries--are over by the time EU2 starts. If this were an earlier game, I would side with you, but it isn't. So we have to, for accuracy and for gameplay, mash the Chinese into a single religion.
You will find them in the upper echilons of governement. The beurocratic system of China was based around the knowledge and practice of Confuscianistic ideas, thus only the most knowledgable, hard core got to the top of the civilian governement, which was second only to the Emperor. The Miliary always took a subserviant seat, even though its abosulte power waxed and waned.Yakman said:
Why its this important? Well because it goes to the heart that Chinese ruling strucutre is more like RC structure for the Chruch in that only the most dogmatic get high positions and the lower you go, the less pure the members are. This would be fine the Vatican actually ruled all of europe, but it doesn't. You can't use a western religious model to incroperate confuscianism and Chinese system into it. It's like trying to compare an apple to a gorilla.
And if you say well then it should be what the Empeor is, well the Emperor's Mandate of Heaven is rooted in Taoist beliefs modifed with Buddhist ideas more than Confuscian ones.
I'm saying:Yakman said:
Busshism (EU2) = devide Mahayana/Therveda
Confuscianism (EU2) = Ch'n or Zen
Heh, i think you'l find that some popes were definitely lacking in purity.Jinnai said:
BtW i think you are more or less right that trying to treat confucianism as a western reluigion is not going to fly. The only possible reason for doing it is that the term is at least recognisable to most players. (although their conception of what it is might vary)
But that doesn't make any sense in the Chinese system.Jinnai said:
Where would you put the Mahayanas?
Mongols, Tibet, parts of SEA that aren't therveda or pagan.Yakman said:
China, Korea, Japan would be Ch'n/Zen mostly, with some bleed over.
But the Chinese aren't Zen. They are Chinese Folk Religionists.Jinnai said:
Neither are the Koreans, who are Korean Folk Religionists.
The Tibetans aren't really Buddhists. It would be better to lump them with the Mongols as "Lamaist," keep China, Korea, and Japan the way they are as "Confucian," and maybe stick Vietnam with them.
Unfortunalty EU2 can't handle that level of differention between religions. Yes, Chinese are more folk-religionist, but a form of Buddhism known as Ch'n buddhism is what links them together, even if they actually are say Pure Land Buddhism.Yakman said:
However, they share very little in common with Therveda uddhist and not really that much with Mahayana buddhists because of the traditional taoist religious influence. And tibet is closest thing to Buddhism. It would be nice to have very detailed religous tree, but we can't.
Again,, you fail to grasp that the religious model can't, on a basic fundimental level, deal with Confuscianism. And Confusciansim in China is completely different from Confuscianism in Japan. Atleast Zen and Ch'n buddhism are similar.
But Chinese aren't Zen Buddhists. IT would be horrifically inaccurate to claim they were. Just make them, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, and the Japanese, Confucian like in the present setup.Jinnai said:
They aren't confuscianist either, especially Japan.Yakman said:
And the model can't handle Confuscinism. In AGCEEP we managed to do a lot, but even with all the setup changes there are still things dunfimentally we cannot change. The steup in EU2 Vanilla is as bad as saying all of Europe should be Greeko-Roman because many of the influences of Christianity come from this religion.
Listen:
At its core, a western religious system can't handle Confuscanism as a religion in EU game.
At the same time making them all pagan is equally as bad.
Yes, Chinese and others (aside from Japan) were hardly Ch'n buddhist, but they were moreso than Confusciansit. The state was very much Confuscianst, but not its populace. I guess we could go with even more religions and make Taoism for China, Shintoism for Japan, others fror Korea, etc, but do you really want that?
It simply doesn't make sense to call the Chinese Zen Buddhists. None at all. Absolutely zero. I can't think of one solitary reason to call them Zen Buddhists. On the other hand, calling the Confucian makes a lot of sense. I'm just arguing for the EU2 setup to be applied to EU3. I don't see the issue--I don't want to change anything--except perhaps adding a mahayana/lamaist religion for Mongolia and Tibet, which isn't a radical change in the least.Jinnai said:
The government calling them Confuscianst is fine, but the population makes 0 sense. I just simply can't see how anyone could come across with that idea. On the other hand, calling them Ch'n Buddhist atleast makes some sense, not as much as Taoist, but more than Confuscianst.Yakman said:
I'm saying the setup for EU2 was fundimetally flawed for Asia as far as the orient went. If it weren't for the restictions and whatnot on pagans, it would in some ways be better than the use of Confuscianism. That's how bad it is.
I am hoping for a pop type system a la victoria. None of that job, railroad, or factory micromanagement (which I found hellish), but just pops that migrate and convert on their own. Allow the state to pick religion(s) and build structure(s) that might have an effect on conversion rate in the pops. Ditto for cultures, many states had deliberate programs to impose a state culture and national identity on their populations, which achieved varying degrees of success. Even today this is the case.
Depending on state policies, minorities should be more or less militant (another system I really liked from Victoria). For example, allowing the construction of catholic churches, while not permitting mosques might increase your conversion rate to catholicism and enrage islamic pops. Etc, etc.
Depending on state policies, minorities should be more or less militant (another system I really liked from Victoria). For example, allowing the construction of catholic churches, while not permitting mosques might increase your conversion rate to catholicism and enrage islamic pops. Etc, etc.
So can we agree that China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam probably should all have one religion, and that religion should be different from whatever religion is given to most of SEA and Mongolia/Tibet?Jinnai said: