Significance of heresies

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Hi guys,

What do you think if all heresies have specific event chains that depict their struggles with the main religion and other heresies? Like theological debates that let you choose to adopt a specific point of views such as dualism, Holy Trinity's nature, et cetera. Then if your view is different than the main religion they can condemn you and cause a schism. Then you form your own heresy.

What I'm saying is that currently heresies do not feel very "struggly" in CK2. Like sure I'm a Messalian Christian in Lombardy but then the church didn't do anything against me. My views are never challenged and there was no events that show how significant our beliefs differ from each other. While hostorically, people died horribly for things like that.

It should be dynamic don't you think?

 

[dragonluke]

Heresies aren't even a thing anymore

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Heresies aren't even a thing anymore

Or equivalent.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Hi guys,

What do you think if all heresies have specific event chains that depict their struggles with the main religion and other heresies? Like theological debates that let you choose to adopt a specific point of views such as dualism, Holy Trinity's nature, et cetera. Then if your view is different than the main religion they can condemn you and cause a schism. Then you form your own heresy.

What I'm saying is that currently heresies do not feel very "struggly" in CK2. Like sure I'm a Messalian Christian in Lombardy but then the church didn't do anything against me. My views are never challenged and there was no events that show how significant our beliefs differ from each other. While hostorically, people died horribly for things like that.

It should be dynamic don't you think?

Have you read the dev diaries about religion, and how it works in CK3?

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Have you read the dev diaries about religion, and how it works in CK3?

Yup, I have. And no no, you guys misunderstood me. Currently, religion is a set of modifiers that give a player the option to do something via tenets and doctrines. What I want have nothing to do with tenets or doctrines, but decisions based on my religion/faith. For example:

• Hold a theological debate to make a point, for example discussing the nature of the Holy Trinity. Depending on the outcome, if I win this increase my faith's fervor and decrease the others. And if I have a decisive theological victory and gain enough fervor, other faith may be forced to adopt my theological view to lower the impact.
• Be pressured from the faiths around me to change my faith's beliefs to align with theirs or risk being persecuted.
• The main religion may hold councils and decide to adopt a belief if it is popular enough. Whoever disagree may schism off into their own new faith or change their official stance.
• Before being adopted into the main religion, a belief may be considered heresy, and having too many heretical beliefs may make your faith an enemy of the main religion and be prosecuted. You can reduce this by holding theoretical debates and win over people.

Or something like that. That's what I mean when I said faiths should be more dynamic.

I think it's still not clear but that's the best explain I have, sorry for the multiple edits to make this readable. To my knowledge this have not been added to the game yet. Currently once a faith is formed there will be no interactive events and interesting stories happening. It's like you have your own faith, now what? It's just there and you won't interact with it further.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Yup, I have. And no no, you guys misunderstood me. Currently, religion is a set of modifiers that give a player the option to do something via tenets and doctrines. What I want have nothing to do with tenets or doctrines, but decisions based on my religion/faith. For example:

• Hold a theological debate to make a point, for example discussing the nature of the Holy Trinity. Depending on the outcome, if I win this increase my faith's fervor and decrease the others. And if I have a decisive theological victory and gain enough fervor, other faith may be forced to adopt my theological view to lower the impact.
• Be pressured from the faiths around me to change my faith's beliefs to align with theirs or risk being persecuted.
• The main religion may hold councils and decide to adopt a belief if it is popular enough. Whoever disagree may schism off into their own new faith or change their official stance.
• Before being adopted into the main religion, a belief may be considered heresy, and having too many heretical beliefs may make your faith an enemy of the main religion and be prosecuted. You can reduce this by holding theoretical debates and win over people.

Or something like that. That's what I mean when I said faiths should be more dynamic.

I think it's still not clear but that's the best explain I have, sorry for the multiple edits to make this readable. To my knowledge this have not been added to the game yet. Currently once a faith is formed there will be no interactive events and interesting stories happening. It's like you have your own faith, now what? It's just there and you won't interact with it further.

Then if you've read through the diaries, you may have seen that the devs want to have an ecumenical council mechanic at some point - but it didn't make it into the initial release.

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Then if you've read through the diaries, you may have seen that the devs want to have an ecumenical council mechanic at some point - but it didn't make it into the initial release.

Huh they did? That'll be neat. I didn't see anything when I reviewed the two religion related diaries. Well anyways, the main idea I suggest is to have more event chains related to your faith to allow more interactions during normal play, a "dynamic struggle", not just the council. But yeah, that'll be neat. What do you think? Good/bad?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Huh they did? That'll be neat. I didn't see anything when I reviewed the two religion related diaries. Well anyways, the main idea I suggest is to have more event chains related to your faith to allow more interactions during normal play, a "dynamic struggle", not just the council. But yeah, that'll be neat. What do you think? Good/bad?

It depends how it plays out, and how often/who gets to call the important councils, and how the mainstream embraces any changes that are made.

 

[dragonluke]

I think councils will be more for changing a already existing faith's tenets and/or doctrines
Also,how would this apply to any religion outside of Abrahamic faiths?

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

I think councils will be more for changing a already existing faith's tenets and/or doctrines
Also,how would this apply to any religion outside of Abrahamic faiths?

Religious conversations are very common in India and China, and were the basis of many smaller sects that founded on some mixtures of beliefs from different religions. So when you put your court chaplain to convert a province, you may be able to encounter a clergy man from the other faith and start a conversation. Or you can directly send your court chaplain to a county in your neighbor state, and let him duke it out with the local court chaplain. Kinda like that rare event in CK2 where you send some missionaries to convert a province.

Or you can do it yourself as the Messiah if you finished that tree and want to go on a pilgrimage around the region spreading your newly founded faith.

As for a similar thing to the council, Buddhism did have some of that, and I believe it's just a bunch of dudes in the same faith get together and duke it out.

 

[Cyhort]

Yup, I have. And no no, you guys misunderstood me. Currently, religion is a set of modifiers that give a player the option to do something via tenets and doctrines. What I want have nothing to do with tenets or doctrines, but decisions based on my religion/faith. For example:

• Hold a theological debate to make a point, for example discussing the nature of the Holy Trinity. Depending on the outcome, if I win this increase my faith's fervor and decrease the others. And if I have a decisive theological victory and gain enough fervor, other faith may be forced to adopt my theological view to lower the impact.
• Be pressured from the faiths around me to change my faith's beliefs to align with theirs or risk being persecuted.
• The main religion may hold councils and decide to adopt a belief if it is popular enough. Whoever disagree may schism off into their own new faith or change their official stance.
• Before being adopted into the main religion, a belief may be considered heresy, and having too many heretical beliefs may make your faith an enemy of the main religion and be prosecuted. You can reduce this by holding theoretical debates and win over people.

Or something like that. That's what I mean when I said faiths should be more dynamic.

I think it's still not clear but that's the best explain I have, sorry for the multiple edits to make this readable. To my knowledge this have not been added to the game yet. Currently once a faith is formed there will be no interactive events and interesting stories happening. It's like you have your own faith, now what? It's just there and you won't interact with it further.

I like the idea of debates being able to influence other faiths if you win hard enough, especially mixed with some of the tenants.

Catholic scholar: We remember Christ's sacrifice with the holy sacrament of communion.

Heretic priest: Cool, cool. We do the same by eating people.

Catholic scholar: Eating people is bad.

Heretic priest: Eating people is delicious.

The people: That second guy makes some good points.

The Pope: Maybe we can eat people a little bit.

 

[vyshan]

Then if you've read through the diaries, you may have seen that the devs want to have an ecumenical council mechanic at some point - but it didn't make it into the initial release.

If there is a eucemenical council mechanic it should not be for changing tenets or possibly even core doctrines. Since at that point you are creating a new faith. instead it should be for the other doctrines. such as the role of the clergy, can the clergy be married and so on.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

If there is a eucemenical council mechanic it should not be for changing tenets or possibly even core doctrines. Since at that point you are creating a new faith. instead it should be for the other doctrines. such as the role of the clergy, can the clergy be married and so on.

Clerical doctrimes, including married clergy are in the "doctrines" screen.

But an ecumenical council could well be involved with important core doctrines - the natures of Christ were "resolved" by a series of ecumenical councils. Since agreement wasn't reached between all the assembled churches, they schismed and created a new "faith" as a significant enough body existed on each side.
Theoretically a question such as "do souls reincarnate or not" (an in game tenet) could be answered in a similar fashion by a council, with the minority view being given the choice to accept the majority position or to split (and make a new "faith").

 

[Dan the cynical barbarian]

Inter-faith dialogue should also occur. For example if you are pagan and want to convert, you should be able to summon different faiths to debate and then chose one to convert, which was what the Khazars are said to have done irl. Another form of inter-faith dialogue could be done by having a "laws on religion" mechanic where one could choose what status each individual non-state religion has in the kingdom and if a religion is accepted events can pop up of debates, tensions, distrust or cooperation between the state and the tolerated religion religions.

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Inter-faith dialogue should also occur. For example if you are pagan and want to convert, you should be able to summon different faiths to debate and then chose one to convert, which was what the Khazars are said to have done irl. Another form of inter-faith dialogue could be done by having a "laws on religion" mechanic where one could choose what status each individual non-state religion has in the kingdom and if a religion is accepted events can pop up of debates, tensions, distrust or cooperation between the state and the tolerated religion religions.

Agreed! As you can see religions have been way too passive of an aspect for a game that focus on crusades and jihads. That's why I sometimes feel like religions and cultures are such missed opportunities. Now that the new game gave them both new exciting mechanics, may as well add these struggles.

 

[Dan the cynical barbarian]

Agreed! As you can see religions have been way too passive of an aspect for a game that focus on crusades and jihads. That's why I sometimes feel like religions and cultures are such missed opportunities. Now that the new game gave them both new exciting mechanics, may as well add these struggles.

Yes and there is a lack of interconnectivity as well in CK2. If your state religion is persecuted in a neighboring state you should get events of people fleeing to your Kingdom or having the opportunity to intervening to stop the persecution. This could also be integrated with the "law on religion" mechanic that I suggested where states that have certain religions as tolerated will receive people from those religions fleeing states that persecute them.

 

[Ezumiyr]

For example if you are pagan and want to convert, you should be able to summon different faiths to debate and then chose one to convert, which was what the Khazars are said to have done irl.

That's kinda a simplified version though.
Nobody ever summoned priests of different faiths and let them argue why they are the best until they converted to it.
There are several indications that the Khazars tried to play at all levels with both the Byzantines and the muslim powers, so they couldn't just pick christianity or islam. But they couldn't stay pagans either.
They probably didn't care much about the nature and assets of each faith beyond the political implications of a conversion. Which is also the most common reason why pagans convert to either islam or christianity historically.

Religious dialogue is mostly something that happened between close faiths (catholicism and orthodoxy for instance), and even in India the existence of hindu-buddhist dialogue seems to be largely overestimated, if I am to believe my samskrit teacher. Those dialogues are a common idea that is floating around (and I also had it, but didn't remember where I got it), but there isn't actually a lot of evidence that it did happen, at least not as systematically as usually thought.

Let's be careful with inter-religious dialogues, because historically it was barely a thing. Most of the time, dominant faiths just impose their doctrines and that's it. Most theological debates happened between members of the same faith.

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

That's kinda a simplified version though.
Nobody ever summoned priests of different faiths and let them argue why they are the best until they converted to it.
There are several indications that the Khazars tried to play at all levels with both the Byzantines and the muslim powers, so they couldn't just pick christianity or islam. But they couldn't stay pagans either.
They probably didn't care much about the nature and assets of each faith beyond the political implications of a conversion. Which is also the most common reason why pagans convert to either islam or christianity historically.

Religious dialogue is mostly something that happened between close faiths (catholicism and orthodoxy for instance), and even in India the existence of hindu-buddhist dialogue seems to be largely overestimated, if I am to believe my samskrit teacher. Those dialogues are a common idea that is floating around (and I also had it, but didn't remember where I got it), but there isn't actually a lot of evidence that it did happen, at least not as systematically as usually thought.

Let's be careful with inter-religious dialogues, because historically it was barely a thing. Most of the time, dominant faiths just impose their doctrines and that's it. Most theological debates happened between members of the same faith.

Alright, you sound like you know what you're saying, I believe you. But stuff like Messalianism (closer to Zoroastrianism due to proximity) exist, so I wager that some degree of religious conversation was had, albeit not officially. From a gameplay point of view, we can romanticize it a bit to make in more interesting to play.

 

[Razmorg]

There's a perk in learning called prophet. "For example, a religious character might become a Prophet, making it cheaper for them to start a new religion.". We got that information in an interview but during the DD they didn't officially reveal the full extent of what it does.

I wonder if there's events related to it which might kind of fill what you are looking for? I really really hope a lot of the lifestyle perks have a lot of flavor events because if they do it's going to get really good (you'll get to play so much more unique feeling characters)

 

[Riamus]

I think we'll end up seeing a LOT of faiths in CK3, at least as long as the AI will create faiths. Having ways to split faiths into even more may not be the best idea. Is there real value in having hundreds of faiths in a game?

Still, I do like the idea of more events relating to faith. Having people flee to you because you state religion is theirs but they live somewhere with a different religion is a good suggestion above. Being able to fight others to help the populace who is your faith to gain dominance (a new CB that doesn't let you take territory, but if won can change the religion of the country -- it would need some restrictions so you can't just march across the world changing religion) could also be nice. Having events based around unrest caused be a religious division in your desmesne could also be good, though I don't know what results would be best - I don't want just a bunch of uprising caused be religion. We get enough of that just from culture. Events to get the liege/ruler to change culture to match the populace or suffer some kind of malus could work also.

I definitely like adding more depth to how faiths interact. I just don't think having a ton of faiths is worthwhile. In the end, it just means that 48% of the world is Catholic, 48% is Muslim (pick a specific one as it varies game to game which one comes out on top) and 4% are a mix of hundreds of "heresies" and other faiths. Obviously you can cause these numbers to change through your gameplay and I'm just putting equal numbers for an example, but the point is that you'll almost always have 2 or maybe 3 faiths by the middle to end of your game and everything else will be found in only a few counties each, making them pretty much irrelevant. So having more doesn't have much effect in the long run anyhow. Of course, if the game made it possible for the AI to bring any faith to strength in opposition to the main faiths of the world without the player doing all the work (the player would be hard pressed to bring more than one religion to supremacy at a time), then it would be different (and very interesting!).