Two faces of Anglicanism

[moscal]

What is wrong with Anglicanism? Fact, that in game Anglicanism have main feature in Henry VIII style. But IRL Anglicanism had tendencies and faces of Anglicanism changed and were not similar to the Henry period.

What can there do about it?

Anglicanism had two extreme 'orthodoxy' faces.
1. Royal supremacy. In radical form Jacob I/VI done self-deification (he declare himself as god); a few anglican philosopher (eg. Hobbes) call king to creation of "king-bishop" institution.
2, Puritanism. They thought the English Reformation was not over and more waves of change were needed. Democratization of the church and social life was to be important.

Excluding individual cases, Anglicanism was between these extremes. And I think, that also in game Anglicanism can have similar things.

How this can look? I think, that this can look similar to "shinto isolationism and incidents". Start in central point, and every new incident can change position. Every position have own individual church actions and eg. extremal royal supremacy can declare himself as god or create institution king-bishop.

Examples of incidents can be connected with actions of english dissenters and continental heretics (connections with Hussites and Reformed should go to "Puritanisms branche"; with protestants should go to "Royal supremacy branche"). Other can be connected with higher lvl of administration or situations in HRE.

Modifiers? I have no idea But I think, that this more dynamic system will be better than current system, where situation from Henry VIII is constans (and still you can "Dissolve Monasteries" even if your realm haven't even 1 monastery).

BTW1 - incident connected with digger should give risk transform country into "peasent republic")
BTW2 - every greater anglican country should have risk of civil war in english style.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

(...) Changing church rules is not easy, making rapid changes is often impossible, to changes are needed significant problems etc.

Again, Oliver Cromwell, the solution to all the problems Britain did not have before Oliver Cromwell.

The Historiography in game is so unrealistic that we have to assume the transition and origin of historical-social-economic-cultural-religious processes happened and we, mere players, do not see it because it is not a role playing game or something (albeit the game do lacks personality) or else nothing makes sense, as in revolts, revolutions, Institutions, Ideas, canonizations and mercantile issues imply something happening before we simply click the button and it magically happens overnight. So, while making things plausible is vital for a balanced and immersive game, there is that.

 

[moscal]

Again, Oliver Cromwell, the solution to all the problems Britain did not have before Oliver Cromwell.

Mechanism of English Civil War. Separate name this is "English Revolution". Revolution mean, that this do radical and great changes. And rapid jump to extremal position will be solution, but in "normal situations" changes will not radical, great etc.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

I think, that "mechanism similat to piety or karma" will not be good.

Piety and karma are dynamic and individual system. Based on image or real attitude of X ruler. New ruler must work (again) on piety/karma. Build from zero.

Second problem with bar in piety/karma style is fact, that extremes (or centrism) are profitable. Similar mechanism for anglicanism will be unreal, because church structures and volk are more durable, often independent of the monarch's individual ideas of ruler. We must remember, that religion of country isn't this same as religion of ruler or even nation - France can be catholic state but ruler can be reformed.

Therefore also my concept will be good. Each level has different rules. Puritan England can be as profitable as England with monarchist Anglicanism. Changing church rules is not easy, making rapid changes is often impossible, to changes are needed significant problems etc.

I'm just not a fan of the current School system, it's too flexible and becomes gamey in the sense of choosing the best ability at the time instead of sticking to a faith and shifting slowly over time. I was propsoing Piety just as a quick suggestion for a way Anglicans would have to choose between being closer to Catholicism or the other Protestant religions, or perhaps seeking a compromise and sticking in the middle to please both sides. I think it works as a quick fix, but I would love to see Anglican get a full rework, it's a meme right now.

 

[moscal]

1. Church communes +7,5% product. eff; +10% limit army
2. Dominancy of Low Church +7,5% trade sharing; +7,5% infantry combat ability
3. Balanced Church +2 dip. rep.; +5% morale
4. Dominancy of High Church +5% tax; +10% manpower
5. Centralized Church -10% integration costs; +7,5% shock defensive

Incidents
1. Wave of begging - old catholic care systems for the poor were liquidated, mainly through the liquidation of monasteries. The lowest classes are looking for a livelihood through begging. They can contribute to the increase of support for radical social-religious movements or support for recreate new and alternative church system support for poor.
2. Catholic remains - anglicanian reformation weren't radical like many continental reformations. Many elements of traditions weren't eliminated, sometimes were intact or reinterpretated. But influences from continental reformations work also on minds of our subjects. Will this perpetuate the tradition or rejecting it?
3. Mass hysteria witchcraft - great fear of witches took over country. Many witch hunters, mystics and pseudo-scientists have appeared. Maybe this will strengthen the religious zeal of the low church, or maybe they will be compromised?
4. Diggers movement - radical movement that demands the liquidation of private property, open marriages and other strange practices. How will they be treated by the state, church and people?
5. Freedom of translation - printing and better education resulted in the creation of numerous and new forms of translation of the Holy Bible. Translations are often done unprofessionally, without knowledge of contexts, history or knowledge of geography. But what is more important? Freedom of the people or control and correctness?
6. New Chosen Nation - a new idea was born, according to which our nation is new Chosen Nation, new Israel. How should this idea be treated?
7. Sacral Monarchy? - many philosophers write, that monarch should have real sacral power. Should be pierst or even bishop. Many simple people are hostile to this idea, although it could greatly strengthen central power.
8, Predestination and savages - we know more about world, but this is also source of new problems. People from the rest of the world often do not know Christianity, they are also significantly different in terms of culture and civilization; they are poor and weak. Should the popular doctrine of predestination be extended to collectives? Or maybe use elements of Catholic theology and show that all people are equal, individual deeds are important, not birth?

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

(...)
3. Mass hysteria witchcraft - great fear of witches took over country. Many witch hunters, mystics and pseudo-scientists have appeared. Maybe this will strengthen the religious zeal of the low church, or maybe they will be compromised?
(...)

Scotland has a Witchcraft Act event (a very bland one may I add), so there could be variables to that one since laws were different in the two countries.

 

[moscal]

Scotland has a Witchcraft Act event (a very bland one may I add), so there could be variables to that one since laws were different in the two countries.

Event "Scottish Witchcraft Act" is extremal incorrect event. Jacob I/VI was hard anglican and this event can give Papal Influence bonus...

Generally mechanic of "incidents" is good for individualisation of religious denomination by country by other reaction on common historical challenges. Therefore np. scottish anglican church can be more "Low church" and cornish anglican church can be more "High church". Scottish monarch may use hysteria to weaken bishops, but the Cornish duke may use hysteria to give bishops new judicial powers.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

Small correction: King James I and VI, as in "Jamestown", "James River", "King Jame's Bible" and "King James was a spineless baboon who allowed Mary, Queen of the Scots, to have a extremely dehumanising life and a dishonourable death despite he being her blasted son who should have known better, bloody hellfire".


But I always play as a Catholic Scotland (then Britain) in honour of Jacobite Era Stuarts instead of that one, so Papal Influence applies to my gameplay. Albeit I always denounce the act instead of endorsing it. That was the King's idea and I am not very found of the man, in case that was not clear.

But literally, laws were different in Scotland and England (and I assume Wales). The example everyone always uses is that Scottish courts had lawyers for the defendant while the English had not, and if I remember it right the Kirk was less concerned with hunting down every single recusant Clan/city/family/person than the English were. At least I remember something about Ireland shyly influencing Scotland and the whole thing about Clan Chieftans and lairds wanting a certain autonomy from the Crown, meanwhile England exterminated every missionary and envoy that arrived from the continent, but I will have to find that book to make sure if I remember it right.

 

[moscal]

Spoiler

Maybe good option would be rename anglicanism to other name. This can free this denomination from regionalization. Like a "Episcopalians". As also next wave of reformation can lead to more interesant chaos in Europe. Ofc - in history was very more connected with British Islands, but in Alt-History scenarios also other nations can take "via media".

 

[AirikrStrife]

Love the ideas for an overhauled anglicanism, would work a bit more on tweaking the modifiers and give each option a more distinct reason to be the choosen option, so you really feel the difference between high anglicans and puritans.

Talking amish it's just a splinter group from the mennonites who were one of the movements in the radical reformation
I have a sketchwork on an anabaptist mechanic using a version of the faction system to let the religion take different paths (pacifist, spiritualist or rationalist)

Fixing anglicanism like this and adding radical reformation, would complete the 1st reformation.

Then is only the question of later reform movements in the 18th are relevant to include (for me only relevant if playing colonial nationis seriously revamped)

 

[moscal]

@AirikrStrife - about reformed and changes about this I open separate topic. To deeper rework about reformation 1,2 etc. stages, first should be general rework mechanics of religions (also in central gov. and too in local, provincional). In current mechanism, any deeper fragmentation of reformation would be counter-effective (how I think - maybe I'm wrong).

 

[AirikrStrife]

So I looked more into the english-scottish reformation, and it's true that in theory reformed fate could represent presbyterians of scotland andd england, and possibly the puritans though they developed different church doctrines. Still a lot of the dissenters didn't see themselves as break aways from the church of england, but pushing for internal reform.

Taking notes from Moscal idea of using a reworked shinto mechanic I did make some changes to your idea based on a couple of reasons:

My "Anglican" (would like another name but don't know what that'd be) only have 3 different modes, or church structures: Episcopal (high anglican) presbyterian and congregational (primarily representing puritans).

Reason for my reduction of possible modes is that these three are really what was options that happened in history, groups like diggers/levellers failed to hold power.
I would also have seriously fewer incidents than shinto.

This in parts holds because anglicanism arrives a century later than shintoism, but also because anglicanism wasn't constantly flipping between these mods once per 50 years or so.

Tentative modifiers:
Anglicanism base modifier
-10% development cost
+50% innovativeness


Episcopal modifiers
+20 global settler increase (would make it expel minorities if that had been a decent mechanic)
+10% tax modifier

Presbyterian modifiers
-20% cost to promote mercantilism
-25% cost to increase stability

Congregational modifiers:
-25% harsh treatment cost
-20% war score on other religions.


There would need to be a few incidents, the main one being the english civil war and war in the 3 kingdoms, to allow moving between the different church structures. English civil war could then be ocmpletly reworked from the current rather bland disaster.
Problem is how to deal with incidents in separate nations, unlike shinto incidents that are universal (or at least apply to all of japan), there's no guarantee an incident in england has to have an impact in scotland or in the colonies, so that would need some work.

Not sure if I would try to fit first greak awakening and methodists into the picture.

 

[moscal]

My "Anglican" (would like another name but don't know what that'd be) only have 3 different modes, or church structures: Episcopal (high anglican) presbyterian and congregational (primarily representing puritans).
(...)
Reason for my reduction of possible modes is that these three are really what was options that happened in history, groups like diggers/levellers failed to hold power.

You know. When I wrote this I more base on original mechanism. I treated the extreme positions (on line open/close doors) as alt-historical. More fantastic way, when radical high church or radical low church can have long-timed and full victory. IMO - more alt-historical scenarios are more fun and way of reformation based on Hobbes proposals (sacral monarchy, king-priest etc.) can be very interesting (when somebody play with roleplay or for AAR or something other).

IMO now EU4 have deep problem, because too many concepts are radical limited to "mainstream historical ways". The best representation of this is "only absolutistic Russia, even if is united by more liberalian Novgorod". I think, that similar way of thinking lead devs to current form of anglicanism as religion for "thiefs and wife-choper". Because propably devs look only on Henri VIII and forget, that this denomination work not only in times of Henri, had many actions, occasions to evolution or revolution.

This in parts holds because anglicanism arrives a century later than shintoism, but also because anglicanism wasn't constantly flipping between these mods once per 50 years or so.

Incidents can had place not only one by 50 years. This is more moddable and can work one by one. Actions of player (human or AI) can lead to change position or standing in place. Also the specificity of anglicanism was prone to the monarch's volatility - anglicanism in time of Henri VIII was other im time of Elizabeth I and also other in time of James VI/I etc. So noticeable change after one genetion also will have base on real history.

Next extra point is fact, that this would be representation that reformation was real problematic thing. Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda

Anglicanism base modifier
-10% development cost
+50% innovativeness

IMO base modifier should be change. In fact anglicanism hadn't any point for this. I think, that devs of Pdx made this only for representation of the "cool" new innovativeness mechanics + any real mechanic reason for anglicinization.

Problem is how to deal with incidents in separate nations, unlike shinto incidents that are universal (or at least apply to all of japan), there's no guarantee an incident in england has to have an impact in scotland or in the colonies, so that would need some work.

Therefore my next concept was change of name this denomination. Breaking the nationalized name and introduce the more general and the also mechanics of starting this reformation. Eg. in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were few concepts to create own "polish national church in english style" (eg. 1555). So in alt-historical situation church similar to anglicanism can also start work in PLC, have own solution to problems etc.

 

[AirikrStrife]

IMO now EU4 have deep problem, because too many concepts are radical limited to "mainstream historical ways".

I get your sentiment, but I feel EUIV is not really designed to be that complicated, picking humanist ideas is about as liberal as one can play.

I like the game to have a lot of flavor, makes it feel more immersive but there are a limitation to how much that flavor can have an impact on the game, and the directions the game can go

Incidents can had place not only one by 50 years. This is more moddable and can work one by one. Actions of player (human or AI) can lead to change position or standing in place. Also the specificity of anglicanism was prone to the monarch's volatility - anglicanism in time of Henri VIII was other im time of Elizabeth I and also other in time of James VI/I etc. So noticeable change after one genetion also will have base on real history.

Ofcourse the religion changed, by the different monarchs but this is very difficult to replicate in game and most of the changes made by monarchs themselves fits well with the episcopal church structure.

IMO base modifier should be change. In fact anglicanism hadn't any point for this. I think, that devs of Pdx made this only for representation of the "cool" new innovativeness mechanics + any real mechanic reason for anglicinization.

Sure, modifiers are debatable,
I stayed with original modifiers cause why not. Then tried to have some form of logic for the modifiers for different structures.

Therefore my next concept was change of name this denomination. Breaking the nationalized name and introduce the more general and the also mechanics of starting this reformation. Eg. in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were few concepts to create own "polish national church in english style" (eg. 1555). So in alt-historical situation church similar to anglicanism can also start work in PLC, have own solution to problems etc.

That was the original point with protestant church aspect, design your own church, obviously it didn't work that well, a church which decides everytime it goes to war that saints actually do accept prayers, and then at peace again they don't. Also with more branches of protestantism being made in the game protestantism becoming more specifically lutheranism, which then makes the different aspects rather inappropriate (like allowing adult baptism, something obviously cartered to baptist and anabaptist churches).

Episcopalian as denomination wouldn't work if it's supposed to include presbyterians and dissenters, that' the whole point of the term.

Also I don't see the need for creating a bunch of possible alt-history churches, IMO if you play poland and want to break with roman it's acceptable that protestantism and reformed are the main options, having a third choice by reappropriating anglicanism and allowing any country to switch to it (somehow) is not a mechanic I'd desire, but admitedly it's about personal preferances.

And in regards with incidents, the point I'm raising is the issue if an anglican incident only affects the country that have it, like if the english ends up in their civil war, does that mean every anglican country faces a civil war? With that in mind I find it rather appropriate to have few incidents, some like neglish civil war targeting only one country, and can only happen once in the game, and soem targeting the entire anglican communion (like maybe the first great awakening) also the incidents need to have a clear way of connecting to why the church changes, like I don't see some witchcraft hysteria lead to the fall of episcopalicy and lead to presbyterianism all of a sudden in a large empire liek england (maybe work in an isolated colony). In that regard I also don't see the shinto form of moving one step at a time as the logical for the church of england, but rather a faction taking over power and making their system the dominant.

 

[moscal]

And in regards with incidents, the point I'm raising is the issue if an anglican incident only affects the country that have it, like if the english ends up in their civil war, does that mean every anglican country faces a civil war?

IMO nope. Every separate anglican (or how this would be renamed) nation would have own risk on "war high church vs low church". Via media is always very hard to secured. In real history this problem had place only in England, but in alt-history, where eg. Scotland is rising power and England is still great power, "war high church vs low church" should have place also in Scotland. And resoult can be other.

You know. Main problem with Anglicanism is fact, that in common sense work concept "strong connection with throne of London". But in "anglicanian family" were many smaller and greater branches, even with full democratisation of church. So "democratic anglicanism" can win in Scotland but "monarchist anglicanism" can win in England. This solution would be more interesant, that "England as nowe Papal State".

Also I don't see the need for creating a bunch of possible alt-history churches, IMO if you play poland and want to break with roman it's acceptable that protestantism and reformed are the main options, having a third choice by reappropriating anglicanism and allowing any country to switch to it (somehow) is not a mechanic I'd desire, but admitedly it's about personal preferances.

In theory "polish reformation" would was similar via media like a original anglicanism. Not servilitism of church, like in protestantism. Not decentralisation and regionalisation of churches, like in reformed. In theory situation, where continental power take via media can opend new "Pandora Box" in Europe, create "reformation of reformation".

But how you wrote - there are risk, that EU4 haven't good designe to deeper concepts...

That was the original point with protestant church aspect, design your own church, obviously it didn't work that well, a church which decides everytime it goes to war that saints actually do accept prayers, and then at peace again they don't. Also with more branches of protestantism being made in the game protestantism becoming more specifically lutheranism, which then makes the different aspects rather inappropriate (like allowing adult baptism, something obviously cartered to baptist and anabaptist churches).

And this is sad. Any change in "aspects" should give side effects or reaction or something other. Full controlable always lead to "one and only right way of game".

 

[AirikrStrife]

IMO nope. Every separate anglican (or how this would be renamed) nation would have own risk on "war high church vs low church". Via media is always very hard to secured. In real history this problem had place only in England, but in alt-history, where eg. Scotland is rising power and England is still great power, "war high church vs low church" should have place also in Scotland. And resoult can be other.

You know. Main problem with Anglicanism is fact, that in common sense work concept "strong connection with throne of London". But in "anglicanian family" were many smaller and greater branches, even with full democratisation of church. So "democratic anglicanism" can win in Scotland but "monarchist anglicanism" can win in England. This solution would be more interesant, that "England as nowe Papal State".

Sure each anglican church would have their own church structure
The issue is more if the events are local or not. In shinto each shinto nation faces the incident.
With anglicanism it's possible that some incidents only happens natiobally and some happens to all anglucan nations at the same time, but then each country goes it's own path.

So for example englush civil war happens but only affects one country. For such a big event, with specifically desigbed flavor around the historical civil war, I think the incident should be unique to england/gb and only happen once per game, though a more generic civil war incident could be created for other anglican nations.

The great awakening (if an incident could be modelled on this event) would happen on a global level triggerin for all anglican at the same time.

I think having more select major incident to be preferable, that would actually be able to change church structure/whateve we call it. As both our proposals are primarily about how the church is organized and not about theolocical differences.
But there could potentially be minor incidents with other effects (adding removing modifiers to church structure)
For example the theological issue of predetermination does bot hinge on the church being centralized or not. William Laud and John Wesley both being against predetermination but being on vastly different political basises

For example in regards to the incident you listed, they're all interesting things to explore, but I don't see most of them radically changing the church along the lines either I or you propose, especially if anglicanism is sliding in a fixed order. Imo it should be possible to jump from congregationalist to episcopan without passing presbyterian/go from church communes to high church in one go.


So I'd be interested in figuring out the incidents that really fundamentally reworks the organized religion itself and how they can beapplied in the game.

English civil war happening with the possibility to go episcopal, presbyterian or congregationalist in one go

The king of a presbyterian country wanting to reassert authority and forcing an episcopacy (as the stuarts tried in scotland), exiles founding their own congregations in colonies

With this the constant question of tolerance or pursuit of orthodoxy.

Im also not insisting on exclusively the three church structures I proposr, but I find it more helpful if the possible church structures are clearly based on at least somewhat possible scenarios aswell as being somewhat concrete (low church is only useful on a binary scale oposing high church, but not then it's optioned with church communes and presbyterianism)
Also unterested to hear if any of the previous contributors are still in on this thread

 

[moscal]

With anglicanism it's possible that some incidents only happens natiobally and some happens to all anglucan nations at the same time, but then each country goes it's own path.

I think if there was a "global incident" that might be a good thing.

I can image situation - king of England (and ENG is great power) is executed by fanatics from "low church" and this lead to deep shock in anglican Sweden. Do this will be wind in its sails for "swedish low church" or swedish king use this situation to create theocratic quasi-totalitarism?

I think having more select major incident to be preferable, that would actually be able to change church structure/whateve we call it. As both our proposals are primarily about how the church is organized and not about theolocical differences.

I think, that both things are connected

Eg in my project "Wave of begging" can start few theological concepts in anglicanism. Do this incident have source in predestination, and riches are intended to salvation and poores to hell (similar concept like in calvinism)? Or maybe this is only consequence of human free will and actions can be source of salvation (more catholic concept)? Do wealth show level of blessing?

Similar things had place IRL in ECW. In controversy "do England should be democratic, monarchy, oligarchic, theocratic etc." every side have used quotes from Holy Bible. Secularization of policy in England had place in restauration period (or later - now I'm not sure). So main spiritual and/or biblical interpretation of incidents have own close-to-historical base.

So I'd be interested in figuring out the incidents that really fundamentally reworks the organized religion itself and how they can beapplied in the game.

In shinto, for changes to occur, incidents count points. I think, that in situation where "spirit of nation" (aka AI or human player) still will support one interpretation of situation, would lead to deep change. If popular and elite groups, church and gov., said, that X interpretations and solutions of incident is correct, lead to "de facto" changes in church.

Ofc - EU4 haven't good mechanics to representation delicate, subtle and long-period processes. Any changes are (de facto) represent as radical and rapid revolution. And therefore I think, that always needed be form of simplification.

It would be good if your interpretation was in the game This looks good.

 

[annulen]

>Ofc - EU4 haven't good mechanics to representation delicate, subtle and long-period processes. Any changes are (de facto) represent as radical and rapid revolution.

What about disasters, reformation, spread of institutions? They don't happen momentarily and spawn various events in the process.

 

[moscal]

What about disasters, reformation, spread of institutions? They don't happen momentarily and spawn various events in the process.

Disasters dont work good.

Reformation and institutions are exceptions, and I don't see that devs want go this way

 

[AirikrStrife]

think if there was a "global incident" that might be a good thing.

I can image situation - king of England (and ENG is great power) is executed by fanatics from "low church" and this lead to deep shock in anglican Sweden. Do this will be wind in its sails for "swedish low church" or swedish king use this situation to create theocratic quasi-totalitarism?

I don't think a separate swedish 'anglicanism' would care what happenes in england.
There was actually an attempted via media period in sweden during the rule of Johan III because he had a catholic wife and was more inclibed to catholicism. Actually forgot about this, need to read up on it.
Also it'd be hard gor incidents to sync between different countries: england ends up in civil war because conflict between king and parliament - meanwhile sweden: who we need to start a civil war because the english did it?

Similar things had place IRL in ECW. In controversy "do England should be democratic, monarchy, oligarchic, theocratic etc." every side have used quotes from Holy Bible. Secularization of policy in England had place in restauration period (or later - now I'm not sure). So main spiritual and/or biblical interpretation of incidents have own close-to-historical base.

In reality though Cromwell made himself a de facto monarch, like ceasar he just died before it was properly defined, unlike napoleon who could make himself emperor.

So there's no necessary connection between certain religious group and a political ideology. Cromwell and most puritans were against levellers and diggers.

In shinto, for changes to occur, incidents count points. I think, that in situation where "spirit of nation" (aka AI or human player) still will support one interpretation of situation, would lead to deep change. If popular and elite groups, church and gov., said, that X interpretations and solutions of incident is correct, lead to "de facto" changes in church.

In shinto incidents change how open the country is to foreign influence (in theory)

In anglicanism we're really looking at changing the structure of the church polity. So the change is not just in somd ideological/theological way predestination or free will, but will the church be ruled by bishops tied to monarch, council of elders or be indeoendent, so the incident actually need to force that structurak change