Religious DLC idea. "Ubi et Orbi"?

[DreadLindwyrm]

I have some suggestions that I raised in another thread relating to what DLC we'd like to see, and since my post got a couple of upvotes, I thought I'd post it here to make it more visible.

I stress these are requests, not demands, and ideas of what the DLC could give us.

It could:


GIve us the ability to have religious councils where we can adapt how a faith functions, the ability to mend schisms or absorb "heresies", and so on.

Give us shared heads of faith between those that *should* have such (Catholic and Insular).

Give us the ability to have tolerated degrees of straying from the core faith before we break off in a new schism (which might mean that "married clergy Catholicism" could coexist with "normal Catholicism", or that one area could have "fundamentalist Catholic" compared to "righteous Catholic" and "pluralist Catholic", with both ends of the scale having worse relations than the two ends do with the middle.
Maybe in this case forming a new faith wouldn't automatically break you away from the parent faith, but might leave you as a tolerated sect of the faith, if you hadn't changed too much.

Give us a more graduated scale of relations between faiths than "same", "astray", "hostile", "evil", and allow it to wander depending on how the faiths interact.
Maybe even give us a wider range of doctrines and tenets to work with, with religious councils allowing these to be changed if enough rulers of the faith agree - and can convince the Head of Faith.

Give us different methods to select a head of faith, in the case it's not hereditary, whether that's "most powerful <faith> realm priest", "realm priest of the most powerful <faith> realm", "elected by rulers of <faith>", "elected by realm priests of <faith>", "randomly selected by lot", "oldest living priest of <faith>", "highest piety priest of <faith>", a temporal head selected by highest piety or prestige, or whatever, with shared heads of faith *probably* all counting as the same faith for this purpose, although it would certainly be possible to have the head of faith only coming from one of the faiths that share a head (so Insular and Catholic might share a head, but the head is always Catholic, for example).

Now, the religious council *would* be complicated to do, and to make it fair, and so that the player both has some input *and* can't just reform the faith whenever they feel like it, dragging the whole faith with them, so that would take a lot of the work here.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Give us the ability to have tolerated degrees of straying from the core faith before we break off in a new schism (which might mean that "married clergy Catholicism" could coexist with "normal Catholicism", or that one area could have "fundamentalist Catholic" compared to "righteous Catholic" and "pluralist Catholic", with both ends of the scale having worse relations than the two ends do with the middle.
Maybe in this case forming a new faith wouldn't automatically break you away from the parent faith, but might leave you as a tolerated sect of the faith, if you hadn't changed too much.

Some great space in here for the Investiture Controversy.

 

[Blk82]

The doctrine system isn't set up for degrees of difference, though. Would sister-marrying Catholicism or ritual cannibalism Catholicism be tolerated? (Jokes about the sacramental presence aside). The religious doctrines don't really cover doctrines and tenets, so much as a relatively narrow band of interactions with the political sphere.

Historically, there was some variation within faiths, but that was due to the drift of tradition, not because some secular ruler decided that he would change doctrine. Rather, that is heresy. Heresy in the medieval context was not just a matter of how wrong someone was, but just as much if someone submitted to the lawful church authorities or not.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

The doctrine system isn't set up for degrees of difference, though. Would sister-marrying Catholicism or ritual cannibalism Catholicism be tolerated? (Jokes about the sacramental presence aside). The religious doctrines don't really cover doctrines and tenets, so much as a relatively narrow band of interactions with the political sphere.

Historically, there was some variation within faiths, but that was due to the drift of tradition, not because some secular ruler decided that he would change doctrine. Rather, that is heresy. Heresy in the medieval context was not just a matter of how wrong someone was, but just as much if someone submitted to the lawful church authorities or not.

Sister marrying wasn't much of a thing, but the attitude to how close a relation you could marry did vary over time.

And some doctrines and tenets are going to be more acceptable than others, I will admit that.
I would not generally expect "ritual cannibalism" to be one that most faiths would tolerate, no. But a Catholicism that switched a focus on Monasticism for Mendicant Preachers (i.e. replacing monks with friars as a focus) might be acceptable to reflect just that sort of drift of tradition that you mention.

A change in tenets might not reflect a complete change in the faith, just a change in the priorities - is it really heresy to encourage friars over monks?
What about an Orthodoxy that decides to get involved with Crusading, at the expense of a focus on monasticism?
Or if communal Monasticism gives way to hermitic Asceticism?

(Yes, I know I seem to have a focus on monks, but that's because they're an easy example of a tenet that could move between different strands of existing).

Perhaps a hedonistic faith moves to "ritual celebrations" or vice versa over time, or a (broad) faith tolerates both positions because they're not sufficiently different to split the church.




And sure, perhaps the doctrines and tenets need relabelling so they're more appropriately named.

And I can see the problem where we'd need some sort of distance mechanic between tenets to judge how related two branches are, and whether they're sufficiently different to be entirely different faiths.

Alternatively, perhaps mostly similar faiths could start with shared heads of faith, and potentially later one of them could appoint its own head of faith if there are severe disagreements at a Council.
I'm open to suggestions as to how make a slow, drifiting divergence work without suddenly going from "the same faith" to "hostile enemies of the faith" in one easy movement, especially where the change is something small or relatively insignificant.

 

[DukeLeto42]

This definitely requires reworking how tenets are marked out to note which ones are considered acceptable to the core faith, but that's not a bad thing.

As you note, switching out Monasticism for Mendicant Preachers is well within the variation we should see for local interpretations of Catholicism (at least so long as Catholicism follows the historical route by creating a limited space for mendicant orders and doesn't declare them all heretical). While there are (largely hidden) differing faith costs for tenets applied to specific faiths, it doesn't indicate which tenets belong in the same "family" or are considered acceptable foci to a specific parent faith.

 

[Blk82]

Having a focus on friars versus hermits versus regular monks is not an independent tenet, though, as all three can exist within the same denomination. Historically, proto-friars, i.e. wandering monks, were banned by some church councils in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Likewise, hermits and solely contemplative orders were discouraged in the early modern period by some nations. However, the Franciscan order wasn't created by some king. Rather, the mendicant friars were a popular movement that was accepted by the church hierarchy with some reluctance.

Historically, the definition of someone sitting around and making up new doctrines and practices was the definition of heresy. At the very least, you are rejecting the authority of the Pope, bishops, and councils to govern the church, and asserting the secular rulers can change church doctrine. So, even a slight chance with regards to in-game mechanics would be quite sufficient to make you hostile to the rest of Christendom.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Having a focus on friars versus hermits versus regular monks is not an independent tenet, though, as all three can exist within the same denomination. Historically, proto-friars, i.e. wandering monks, were banned by some church councils in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Likewise, hermits and solely contemplative orders were discouraged in the early modern period by some nations. However, the Franciscan order wasn't created by some king. Rather, the mendicant friars were a popular movement that was accepted by the church hierarchy with some reluctance.

Yes, but the tenets are the most prominent aspects of the faith in question, or at least the ones most represented in game.

If the focus of the church shifted so that it favoured friars over monks, then monasticism might no longer be considered a core tenet of the faith - and thus subject to replacement by the friars.

Of course they can exist together, and I'm not saying they don't or shouldn't. I'm saying that changes over time in the church can be potentially modelled by changes in tenets as the church drifts; with kings supporting or opposing the changes in some fashion. It wouldn't be a king creating the order, it would be them offering support to the order and backing it.

Historically, the definition of someone sitting around and making up new doctrines and practices was the definition of heresy. At the very least, you are rejecting the authority of the Pope, bishops, and councils to govern the church, and asserting the secular rulers can change church doctrine. So, even a slight chance with regards to in-game mechanics would be quite sufficient to make you hostile to the rest of Christendom.

No. It's not rejecting the authority of the Pope, bishops and councils, unless it is making large, unacceptable changes to the church *and* isn't done through councils.
It isn't necessarily changing church doctrine either. As in the case of the monks versus friars, it's which aspects of the church are promoted over others. Remember that no faith in reality only had those three tenets and *nothing else* as part of their makeup, it's just that they are the most prominent aspects.
For what the game considers doctrines, *some* of them are going to be more problematic to change, but a country becoming more strict (i.e. moving to fundamentalist from righteous) might not be one of those.
Changing your method of appointing the "court chaplain" was something that varied back and forth over time and didn't make you hostile to the other Catholic realms.
The degree of consanguinuity allowed for marriages changed over time - but at no point was it something that broke the church into warring hostile factions.

In your earlier post you mentioned "some variation within faiths" - that's one of the things I'm trying to see a way to have it happen. The drift of tradition is fine as a concept, but at some point it is still "I, as king of Portugal say we are following this rule, which may differ from the rule in Poland, but neither is at odds with the message of Rome". It can be seen as the king endorsing a particular minor change, with the tricky bit being what changes are acceptable one.

I'm also suggesting that these changes are done *through* a Church Council mechanic of some sort, that determines if a given change, or changes, would be acceptable to the church as a whole.

 

[IlPopa]

I love this suggestion as an alternative to spending piety to reform and to also allow you to remain friendly with your original religion or even to change the original religion itself if a ruler exerts enough control over it.

I also like how this could add the option of religious relations being due to political differences rather than theological ones. The allegorical end you break your boiled egg open on. A tiny difference that justifies huge conflict. Think of sunni/shia or catholic/anglican.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

So, it looks like we have the shared heads of faith implemented, thanks to Fate of Iberia.

It strikes me that the struggle system could be modified to handle the church council idea, with it being possible to have a faith split, and then a period where it's debated as to whether it is orthodox enough to be accepted (becomes mutually righteous), isn't orthodox but can be tolerated, or is heretical (and becomes hostile, or even evil); similarly for working on absorbing a faith back into the mainstream; or perhaps even debating whether to change a tenet or doctrine - does it change the main faith, or does it create a new one?