Why do so many people want playable Pagans?

[Sarog]

If you didn't care about the ones you thought those lesser resources should be redirected to either then I retract it being a "selfish" statement, it's just a ridiculous and inconsiderate one, then.

You've lost me. I've no idea how you got there.

The presence/success/influence of the tengri, or any other specific group, doesn't justify the playability of any other group. Which goes to my point that I've said time and again that a pagan megapack would be an inefficient way to lump together religions that had nothing to do with each other. Which you agreed with, at least part way. How that becomes several different permutations of inconsiderate I don't know, but I don't really care. Let's forget it. I'm not offended, just I'm finding it difficult to cut through the sarcasm to have a discussion with you.

*Bunch of stuff I already said I agree with or have already raised specific - and unaddressed by you - concerns with, which you should know and not need to write two pages about*

If you say so. Restating my position is productive, mind, given the amount of time we're spending accusing each other of attacking strawmen. It might help if you could list the stuff that I haven't addressed? I'm not aware of any important points I've ignored but if you feel differently.

I'm just as baffled by this argument as you are btw. To my thinking, nothing I've said has been that controversial or objectionable at the core.

All I said was that removing the Norse component of the Pagan DLC and throwing the resources at which-ever-else part you think could benefit more from them would in fact be worse for the DLC's profitability, leading to less overall resources being justified to be spent on it in the first place. It's not like that's some outlandish statement.

Asking for clarification isn't a lie. I wasn't sure where you were going with that, so forgive me the confusion. Yes that would hurt the DLC's profitability. But the alternative is a less focused product. That becomes a judgment call of which is better, a more tightly focused product or a more broadly inclusive one. I would argue that doing a tightly focused product for one group, and a tightly focused product for the other group, is better. I don't agree that narrowing the focus makes the commitment of resources less justified.

I appreciate the return to levity here. It's more like "Abraham Who? A pagan smörgåsbord covering one continent!", though, since again: Zoroastrians aren't in the Pagan group and don't hold any land for the past hundreds of years and the Africans are practically unknown, a recent addition and barely modelled at all in the game.
You also seem to be arguing against a person who isn't really there, considering I've repeatedly stated that I advocate a "Northern Pagans"/"Steppe Horde" DLC split for their cultural similarities, but was just saying that that isn't realistic to expect from Paradox. That was all. That doesn't mean I support a "Super-pack" of pagans.

You said "especially if it's going to lump so many together for marketing purposes" so I was asking if there's been any official indication of that or not, in case I'd missed an announcement. I'm glad we can agree on the split anyway.

I actually don't think that mande paganism would be that hard to represent actually. Or at least compared to what the lithuanians practiced. African paganism is still very much alive. The practices differ in some respects from the south of the continent to the north but the bulk of what is practiced today is common. A convincing representation isn't so implausible.

Isn't that what people generally do in arguments? Demand that people justify their positions to other people? I'm actually fine with you saying we'd have to justify such a DLC to you, I just think it's silly to not see it as self-evident.

That was rather why I was a bit baffled by the original statement but yes, let's move on.

You just don't read posts at all, do you? Give that a try and then re-read yours.

You can't openly state your bias and then get snarky with me when I recognize it. I didn't even call you biased. I recognized your comment that you have an interest in playing your native religion and moved on. You then said the word bias a lot.

I don't care where you live or what your preferences are. I promise not to judge you by them if you don't wave them in front of my face like a sign at picket line. Don't pin it to your chest and scoff when I notice it.

Which is synonymous with arguing History when talking about appropriate representations within a historical setting. Again, I'm not insulting you by calling you ignorant of obscure documents from pre-centralized Sweden. That isn't a reasonable expectation to have knowledge of.

I'm not arguing history with you. I recognize that paganism wasn't dead and gone in 1066.

If you want to have the "was paganism doomed to fail?" conversation, I'm not really interested.

What I have asked you for is your vision of how meaningful norse gameplay can be implemented without bringing back the start date. You mentioned that the christian kings had to placate pagans in their realm. Okay, that could spawn a few events, maybe a religious authority deal. But by itself it isn't enough. Starting as a catholic king and managing unruly pagans isn't what people keep asking for. Yes there are a small amount of pagan lords you could play, hoping to overthrow your liege, but your options will still be incredibly narrow.

This is where I'm actually interested in talking about the subject. It would be great if you could convince me that a norse DLC would be good enough without bringing the back the start date. I don't think that is at all an unreasonable claim on my part. Playing norse when norse was at its height would obviously be better than a limited scenario where you have to bring it back and nurture it yourself from a tenuous starting position in Catholic scandinavia, just for the amount of options it would give you. That would be Norse done properly. I have a hard time believing that tacking norse onto the current game would satisfy people longing for the viking age.

Being naïve isn't an argument. Paradox obviously won't be doing separate DLC-expansions for every pagan religion. Or if they start then it'll be many years from now. And again: You're arguing with someone that isn't me, since I've clearly said multiple times that my ideal situation IS NOT one super-pack of Pagan-DLC.

You've said that, yes. You do keep coming back to referring to what is or is not included in a single dlc, which is where I keeping hitting the "have I missed an announcement?" wall. Maybe you are right and it is obvious that they will come bundled, but for a DLC that is scheduled for next month that seems like a bit of a rush order. If I'm wrong I'll just hope it is done well.

Just for a few.

Fair enough. I'll grant you that zoroastrianism is more tenuous.

That's exactly how you wrote your posts, though. Don't expect people to be psychic (seeing as how those aren't real). You literally wrote that there aren't any in the game.

I then said "in case I've missed one or two obscure counts or dukes somewhere in the timeline." Which I did. Like the one independent norse lord.

It is gosh darn upsetting to catch me out in something I said I might be wrong about and then spring a "gotcha!" on me like I'm lying.

Not that matters. One free norse lord who isn't subject to a Christian king is hardly reason why a start date shift isn't necessary to make a DLC have full effect.

Edit

And for the record, Sarog, of course I'd like for the game to start earlier! I'm practically days from publishing a decently working year 1000 mod I've been working on since CK2 was released, which, as you'll recall from my above post, is 8 years before the King of Sweden converts to Christianity!

I just don't think it's necessarily something we should expect Paradox to do.

Which we sort of agree on. I started out by saying that a date shift would be a big deal for its own reasons, that may/may not be in the scope of the game. And we certainly can't expect it next month. I am stuck on this belief that it would be necessary to do in order to do a norse DLC right. Don't do it if you don't do it properly, etc. Which is fair to disagree with.

 

[tuareg109]

Nuril, Sarog, pls.
Pls stop.
pls

 

[NoMoreSanity]

Because it'd be fun.

 

[Cymsdale]

Multi-quote debates are lame.

 

[Bialaska]

As I see it, the main issue here is that the holy wars against the various pagans should not be an option. Scandinavia was not converted through violence, but through 'peaceful' conversion (peaceful in that no huge armies were fielded and beat eachother up). Also the nobility of many pagan lands were not really replaced by foreign invaders, but instead they were asked (sometimes at swordpoint) to convert to Christianity.

Maybe a casus belli, in which the guy you declare war on, is forcefully converted to a different religion, would be a far better option than the current holy war option.

As for playing pagan, I do somehow find it fascinating and would like the challenge of keeping the paganism alive, even if there is strong pressure from others.

 

[tuareg109]

As I see it, the main issue here is that the holy wars against the various pagans should not be an option. Scandinavia was not converted through violence, but through 'peaceful' conversion (peaceful in that no huge armies were fielded and beat eachother up). Also the nobility of many pagan lands were not really replaced by foreign invaders, but instead they were asked (sometimes at swordpoint) to convert to Christianity.

Maybe a casus belli, in which the guy you declare war on, is forcefully converted to a different religion, would be a far better option than the current holy war option.

As for playing pagan, I do somehow find it fascinating and would like the challenge of keeping the paganism alive, even if there is strong pressure from others.

Maybe there should be a titular Kingdom of the Danelaw.
Must hold all of: Northumberland, Lancaster, York, and Hereford.

 

[Kalderus]

It's like people I know thinking that because somewhere, somewhen, their great-great-great-great-great-grandfather actually dug potatoes out of the ground, they're Irish-American.

And what should these people call themselves instead, Native American? Brazilian? Japanese? Antarctican? Since North America has been a melting pot for so many centuries, this is sort of all we have to determine our ethnicity, by fractional quantities, since just saying you're American or Canadian isn't an identifier of ethnicity, just citizenship of a geographic landmass. I'm afraid this is a concept Europeans who currently live in a similar place to their distant ancestors can't seem to and probably will never comprehend.

 

[tuareg109]

And what should these people call themselves instead, Native American? Brazilian? Japanese? Antarctican? Since North America has been a melting pot for so many centuries, this is sort of all we have to determine our ethnicity, by fractional quantities, since just saying you're American or Canadian isn't an identifier of ethnicity, just citizenship of a geographic landmass. I'm afraid this is a concept Europeans who currently live in a similar place to their distant ancestors can't seem to and probably will never comprehend.

They could possibly call themselves...European Americans? Or just White North Americans?
I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Comradebot]

They could possibly call themselves...European Americans? Or just White North Americans?
I don't see what the problem is.

So... you don't understand it, yet feel the need to criticize it and tell people they're wrong? That seems like a rather ignorant, border-line offensive thought process.

 

[stars2heaven]

You know...if we really want to go down the ancestry tree...we all come from the same place anyways. Not a big deal.

 

[tuareg109]

So... you don't understand it, yet feel the need to criticize it and tell people they're wrong? That seems like a rather ignorant, border-line offensive thought process.

I may not understand it, but where was I criticizing it?
Nowhere did I say anybody was wrong; I was making suggestions as to what they can call themselves.
If they're having such a crisis of identity that they take my comment as offense, then they should be in a mental hospital.
Your position seems ignorant and border-line offensive.

 

[Tempestra]

Given this is your second sarcastic post (lol, the first one backfired) in this thread, I have to ask... why are you so butthurt over the notion of playable pagans in CKII?

I'm not actually against the idea of playable pagans but as I said in another thread, I just hope any such DLC focuses more on peaceful interactions and non-violent conversion (somebody mentioned downthread the impossibility of historical marriages between pagan and christian rulers) than on this ahistorical Killzor The Christians Viking Empire (let alone Celtic Empire) of Wherever stuff.

I find the modern idea of Scandinavian and Celtic pagans as living in some kind of imaginary society of freedom, violence and easy sex extraordinarily juvenile and would really, really hate to see it in CK. I realise CK does ahistorical stuff, but there's a big difference between an ahistorically successful Byzantine Empire and something based off of crappy Hollywood films.

 

[Bialaska]

And what should these people call themselves instead, Native American? Brazilian? Japanese? Antarctican? Since North America has been a melting pot for so many centuries, this is sort of all we have to determine our ethnicity, by fractional quantities, since just saying you're American or Canadian isn't an identifier of ethnicity, just citizenship of a geographic landmass. I'm afraid this is a concept Europeans who currently live in a similar place to their distant ancestors can't seem to and probably will never comprehend.

IMO it has to do with keeping some of their original culture alive. That is the reason there are Irish-Americans, who are Americans, with some Irish culture. Or Italian-Americans, who are American with some Italian culture. Or native Americans, who also keeps some of their original culture alive.

 

[Comradebot]

I may not understand it, but where was I criticizing it?
Nowhere did I say anybody was wrong; I was making suggestions as to what they can call themselves.
If they're having such a crisis of identity that they take my comment as offense, then they should be in a mental hospital.
Your position seems ignorant and border-line offensive.

It's like people I know thinking that because somewhere, somewhen, their great-great-great-great-great-grandfather actually dug potatoes out of the ground, they're Irish-American.

They could possibly call themselves...European Americans? Or just White North Americans?
I don't see what the problem is.

Yup, none of that comes off as critical. The implication that he shouldn't call himself Irish-American, or that he should call him himself something you suggested for him would be that he is wrong and you are right. Maybe said guy is primarily of Irish descent, maybe its the part of his ancestry he's the most aware of or feels the deepest connection to.

But the fact is, by your own admission you don't understand it. Its much like the episode of South Park where Stan is trying to understand why Token is offended, but he's completely incapable of reaching that understanding. If you don't get it, you should just leave it alone.

 

[Theddude]

IMO it has to do with keeping some of their original culture alive. That is the reason there are Irish-Americans, who are Americans, with some Irish culture. Or Italian-Americans, who are American with some Italian culture. Or native Americans, who also keeps some of their original culture alive.

Kind of. Part of it probably comes from the fact that many immigrants banded together and were often discriminated against, hence the strong ethnic communal identity. You won't see too many English Americans talking about their English heritage. :laugh: But it's more than that, Europeans have the benefit of living in a region where the history of their culture and their ancestor's culture was built up over millenia by their ancestors. Most just have to walk out their front door to be right in the middle of that. America's identity is just so new, and so close to English culture anyways, not to mention people want to feel a connection to that really ancient history that all but their most recent ancestors were a part of. People love to base things off where their "heritage" is, and some people often (annoyingly) just call themselves "German" or "Irish" straight up.

Additionally part of it could be the guilt of existence, the fact that American culture exists because of the mass destruction of the Native cultures that used to inhabit the area. Not that the same thing hasn't happened elsewhere, but it happened so recently and a small number of American Indian cultures still exist (in horrible poverty, often) as an unwelcome reminder of our country's history. Plus slavery. Who wants to remember that or tie their identity to that when they can glorify a romanticized version of their "ancestral homeland". The good old myth of "the old country", I've heard it many times, some people even have grandparents or great grandparents from Europe to talk about it and solidify the romanticism.

This really just scratches the surface of the horrendous insecurity in the American identity. I don't know if it'll ever be fixed, our history has carved bloody lines on the idea of race, so people seemingly have to construct the mythos of a sort of homeland of Europe where they could live and not feel guilty for what their ancestors or their country's culture did. Maybe this is a bit out there but I think there are a lot of people who probably think like this on some level. I do hope, however, that we can get over the obsession with all of this stuff and just move on.

I hope that possibly explains a little bit to our European friends, however seeing as this is really off topic I will do my part to try to steer it back on course. The Holy War CB is probably the single biggest issue with playing in the Baltic area. I was just playing a game as Sweden today and the whole thing felt like a rush to take Finland before Norway and Denmark. I tried to keep the Lapps and Finns and the Norse Swedes, but I was pretty much punished at every turn with an independence revolt from every person who wasn't a Swedish Catholic. So much for trying to keep Lappish and Finnish culture alive, I guess.

 

[Comradebot]

I'm not so sure "guilt" has much to do with it. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally don't see the logic in feeling any guilt over the actions that occurred centuries ago (and in my case, well before any of my ancestors set foot on North American soil). If you dig deep enough, you'll find blood has been spilled on the ground of nearly every corner of the world.

I think looking back at our ancestry is just something that's deeply ingrained into most of European culture... or heck, maybe that's just human. We love to look back at the past and see what our ancestors did, what accomplishments they achieved and to know that their blood still runs through us, and they've set a bar to be beaten or matched. And I feel more comfortable leaning towards this line of thought that your's, Theddude, because many Americans of European ancestry are just as proud of being American as they are of being from Italian or Irish or Swedish descent. And its not like the line ends there: people of Mexican heritage have zero "guilt" to feel over the bloodshed that helped lead to America today, but that doesn't stop many of them from being ridiculously proud of their Mexican heritage.

And it doesn't stop the fact that I know more than a few people who are the first generation on American soil from whichever country they were born, but are happy in America but still hold a deep connection and pride in that old homeland, a pride they most certainly ingrain upon their children. The Macedonian man I know today will no doubt have grandchildren one day who are proud of their Macedonian heritage, not because they hate being American, but because their grandfather told their father how awesome it was to be Macedonian.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

I'm not so sure "guilt" has much to do with it. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally don't see the logic in feeling any guilt over the actions that occurred centuries ago (and in my case, well before any of my ancestors set foot on North American soil). If you dig deep enough, you'll find blood has been spilled on the ground of nearly every corner of the world.

I think looking back at our ancestry is just something that's deeply ingrained into most of European culture... or heck, maybe that's just human. We love to look back at the past and see what our ancestors did, what accomplishments they achieved and to know that their blood still runs through us, and they've set a bar to be beaten or matched. And I feel more comfortable leaning towards this line of thought that your's, Theddude, because many Americans of European ancestry are just as proud of being American as they are of being from Italian or Irish or Swedish descent. And its not like the line ends there: people of Mexican heritage have zero "guilt" to feel over the bloodshed that helped lead to America today, but that doesn't stop many of them from being ridiculously proud of their Mexican heritage.

And it doesn't stop the fact that I know more than a few people who are the first generation on American soil from whichever country they were born, but are happy in America but still hold a deep connection and pride in that old homeland, a pride they most certainly ingrain upon their children. The Macedonian man I know today will no doubt have grandchildren one day who are proud of their Macedonian heritage, not because they hate being American, but because their grandfather told their father how awesome it was to be Macedonian.

Considering Mexican culture and bloodshed. There's going to be one huge bloodshed once Pagan DLC is published, when my proud Mexican armies march through the Africa to Egypt and drag the Fatimid Caliph to obsidian altar and sacrifice him to Tezcatlipoca.

It might take some editing to get Aztecs into 1066 scenario, but I assume that Aztec conquest of Egypt would be fun thing to play.

 

[Darkgamma]

I then said "in case I've missed one or two obscure counts or dukes somewhere in the timeline." Which I did. Like the one independent norse lord.

And two Swedish kings and one revolting duke, (near) equal in power to the catholic king, who was really close to getting the crown, but perished in battle. Yep, small lords.

 

[Sarog]

And two Swedish kings

Are there two sitting kings of Sweden with the norse religion in the game? Dates? I can't find them.

 

[Nuril]

Are there two sitting kings of Sweden with the norse religion in the game? Dates? I can't find them.

Well, for one Hákon hinn Rauði (Håkan the Red in vanilla) is an Ásatrú King of Sweden in 1070.12.1, after Hallsteinn and Anund being deposed. The North is still filled with Ásatrú vassals and some independents afterwards, though they lack as strong of an advocate as Erik the Heathen or Håkan. Although they changed him to Catholic to make the realm more stable (which is strange, considering it was a very turbulent period).

As for the second one he might be talking about Blót-Sveinn, King between 1084-1087, but I talked to the devs about that prior to CK2 being released and they went with Adolf Schück's hypothesis which conflates Håkan and Sven into one person. It is pretty much just his opinion on some inconsistent accounts, though, so either representation is valid.