CK2 Dev Diary #33: Let's Talk About Sects

[karl2025]

Are children of members going to have preferential treatment should they become members themselves?

 

[Keizer Harm]

2)Are the Freemasons included in the game?

Too late, by about a century.

 

[Fishman786]

Too late, by about a century.

That's what they want you to think!

 

[TheDungen]

Spoiler: Rather a large (and rather whiny) post

There is something for everyone.

Really? Because all I see is fantasy pandering.

Isn't it kinda against everything the popular culture teach us about secret societies?

Because popular culture is law.

Well, the Game Rule system allows us to do some rather interesting things.

Interesting is not the word that comes to mind to me, but sure whatever.

no heresy improvement then?

Yeah I would have much preferred for them to make church doctrine more malleable, and the expansion about trying to push your religious ideas though to be adopted as doctrine without getting declared a heretic first.

Perhaps not in the way you expected... but there will be something.

Again I would have taken that any day over what you've shown us thus far.

The supernatural events game rule seems to have encouraged them to go off the reservation a bit.

Which is to bad I prefered the old ambiguously supernatural events, I'm guessing I'll never get so see any new one of those any more.

Will societies include guilds (for Merchant republic rulers for instance), royal chivalric orders (for feudals) or warbands (for tribals and nomads)?

Now we're talking interesting societies.

Do existing holy orders get anything from this? They easily fall into your definition of a Society.
To be honest, I'd be kinda disappointed if my characters won't be able to join the Knights Templar.

I would love to something along those lines but usually when joining an order you'd have to give up your lands and titles, but the whole family members want to join up could be made much better through this system.

- will you finally add rule that will exclude explicitly supernatural stuff ( devil son, immortality ) from "supernatural" events that could be reasonably explained ( werewolfs, old god etc )?

- in this expansion or next?

Seconded.

What if I turn off supernatural events in the game setup? How will that affect things if say, I worship demons?

Hopefully it simply won't be possible there is as far as I know no real evidence of demon worship ever happening.

The upside-down cross is a good indication of what is going on at the second screen-shot

Anarchronisms?

He is talking about the difference between supernatural events that can be seen as people simply attributing events or crazy people and actual supernatural events. Many people like the first but not the second so the rule is useless for them since it either allows or blocks both.

Yes I would hate to have to block all those interesting events just because I don't want my games to turn into warhammer.

I was ever a little disappointed (since theocracies remain unplayable), but now I am truly look forward to 2.7 version!

I would much have preferred playable theocracies to this.

Cautiously optimistic this isn't Sunset Invasion part II

I want to hear more about the mainstream elements and less about summoning demons.

Seconded.

Oh boy, I can't wait to become an imortal, Satan worshipping cannibal, who regularly eats his own sons and sacrifices his virgin daughters to Lucifer.

I hope you look forward to burning at the stake too then. Immortal don't keep you from getting killed as far as I know.

I'd like this too if only because I want the whining about fantasy in their realism soup to stop.

I hope I can use Dark Power to send plagues at my rivals houses too, that'll be fun.

It's not going to, I'll probably keep telling them they should add more ambiguously "supernatural" events whenever they add a supernatural one, even if they give us a supernatural and "supernatural" rule.
I love my ambiguously supernatural events, they make for great narrative.

I'd love a society for cannibals, that meet and feast. Similar to the carousing focus where you can invite members to join you for a meal...

Probably not going to happen. Inter-connectivity between different DLC mechanics tend to be low as to keep things modular.

Will there be Illuminati type societies? Can societies have goals of bringing down realms or dynasties?

You're over 300 years out of your time with Illuminati.

Remeber when Paradox said "We wont make naval warfare dlc because it would be unrealistic" but it seems they dont give a **** about realism anymore. I mean cmon devil worshipping, "summon a familiar" and all that other supernatural crap ? Yeah sure, thats "realistic" but god forbid they add something useful like naval warfare or rework the imperial system.

Well I would love to see them work on these issues, that said I prefer no naval combat mechanics to the bad ones that EU4 has. Now HoI4 seems to have some quite nice ones.

I like realism myself, but these things are able to be turned off in the game options. Something for everyone, you know?

Except doing so shuts of a huge number of events that aren't strictly speaking supernatural. Also they spend time writing these events that could have been spend on fleshing out real history stuff.

Paradox never, I repeat, never, said that. They said they did not add it because it was hard to do it right. It was the forumites who debated endlessly over whether naval battles existed or not.

They are correct then, I would rather see it not done than done badly like in eu4.

No one said Devil worshipers having actual powers is realistic, so no need to argue against that. I do think most people will find them fun since I can see most people keep supernatural events turned on. On the other hand, the problem with adding naval combat is neither the game or the AI is built around it and it'd be more than a DLC's amount of work to add it..

We've kept supernatural event on until now because the supernatural events (except the immortality one) hasn't actually been supernatural. Unfortunately with this crap I will finally be forced to turn them of, which I regret I liked the old ambiguously supernatural events.
I can understand not adding naval mechanics though, I've said it before. Please don't until you are certain that you've got it working right. EU4 is a perfect example of how it's not suposed to be done (though MN made it a bit better), fleets aren't armies that march on water, the sea us unimaginably vast. Hoi4 seems to do a good job on the naval game though I think you should look to that instead of to EU4.

Order of the dragon here I come!!!!

I would love to see them.

Does this mean that all the religions are getting their own unique sects (Norse is going to get several, obviously), or there will be "cloned" sects that certain religions will get instead of getting unique flavor? There are still religions on the map that barely have any flavor, after all.

I hope we'll get syncretic sects. Like hidden pagans amongst Christians and so on.

I'm going to second the request for dividing the supernatural game rule between supernatural and "supernatural" events. Your current data is skewed, as people might be leaving them on for the "supernatural" events, and having the supernatural events as an unavoidable side effect.

I totally think this is the case.

With all the sects and violins-excuse me, heresies-being promised here, I hope there wiill also be an Inquisition too...

Don't expect it

For people saying demon worship, familairs etc. is omg wtf unrealistic gto, come on seriously. It's the feudal age in Europe, people saw daemons and witches everywhere in everything. Plus this is a flavour/RP DLC, you might get your naval combat in the last DLC which I assume will be feature based. (And hey I woulden't mind naval combat either, just, I like the idea of having more RP stuff to do).

No they did not, the church considered any belief in witchcraft to be heretical. If you accused someone of witchcraft then you were more likely to be burned on the stake than they were.
The whole witch-hunt thing is revisionism and the actual witch-hunts much later to the point of barely being in the period of this game.

Are the Freemasons included in the game?

They're a bit out of their timeframe if they are. Also back when they were founded they were simply another guild, hence the name.

Too late, by about a century.

More than a century if you consider that they were a guild for a time too.

That's what they want you to think!

Funny. Not really its scary how many people believe that stuff.

 

[ReaverWT]

What religion will allow me access to the Secret Bear action?

 

[riadach]

This is so interesting. Would you mind sharing any source on this? I could not find anything in the fast google search.

McCone, Kim R. "Werewolves, Cyclops, Díberga, and Fíanna: Juvenile Delinquency in Early Ireland." Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies. Ed. Patrick Sims-Williams. University of Cambridge: n.p., 1986.

 

[Knotz]

It's not going to, I'll probably keep telling them they should add more ambiguously "supernatural" events whenever they add a supernatural one, even if they give us a supernatural and "supernatural" rule.
I love my ambiguously supernatural events, they make for great narrative.

Out of curiosity, if they add a game rule separating ambiguously supernatural events from unambiguously supernatural events and add one ambiguous event for every unambiguous one would you be happy? Or would you just take the opportunity to go "Yeah well that one unambiguously supernatural event was just a lost opportunity for another ambiguous one! SHAME!'

 

[Tweakee]

No one said Devil worshipers having actual powers is realistic, so no need to argue against that. I do think most people will find them fun since I can see most people keep supernatural events turned on.

My understanding is that current "supernatural" events land mostly in the "open to interpretation" category, where it can be argued that they have realistic explanations as well. Just because your character believes he's part wolf or has demon blood doesn't mean that he actually does.

Perhaps there should be a different category for events that are complete fantasy (like becoming immortal, unless Highlander was secretly a documentary).

 

[TheDungen]

Out of curiosity, if they add a game rule separating ambiguously supernatural events from unambiguously supernatural events and add one ambiguous event for every unambiguous one would you be happy? Or would you just take the opportunity to go "Yeah well that one unambiguously supernatural event was just a lost opportunity for another ambiguous one! SHAME!'

Of course I would. In a perfect world they'd have a version of each of these event for both rulesets. Looking for immortality in a supernatural universe and you might get it, in a real one you will get sold snake oil 100% of the time.
As you can see you don't know the power of the entitled side.

Jokes aside I'm guessing many of the supernatural players would like new versions of the old "supernatural" events, like the spawn of satan or the hellmouth, too.

My understanding is that current "supernatural" events land mostly in the "open to interpretation" category, where it can be argued that they have realistic explanations as well. Just because your character believes he's part wolf or has demon blood doesn't mean that he actually does.

Perhaps there should be a different category for events that are complete fantasy (like becoming immortal, unless Highlander was secretly a documentary).

Yeah allowed (all), disallowed (only the worst offenders are disabled) and strictly disallowed (everything remotely supernatural is disabled).

 

[Slavicist]

For God's sake, stop with the K

Can I take over Europe as an evil satanic lord and slaughter all the Karlings?

arling hate already

 

[ChrisFox]

We have black magic, immortality, and Aztec invasions - not going to critique those they are great additions to the game. But when (or even if ever) are we going to get playable theocracies, republics, or landless characters? All three seem easy enough to do even in a rudimentary sense.

You all have added a lot of fun stuff to several religions so far, and this adds even more - it would be fun to finally be able to play as one of the theocracies.

 

[Bravewolven]

Y'know, I wonder if it would be at all possible to make an 'Invite Missionary' action on the Decision Menu. I mean, it could be for Pagan leaders who, although having faith in their beliefs, is curious about their neighbor and their strange God(s). It could be like the Search for Physician action. Player would click it, and it triggers an event where the player's character makes it known that he's interested in learning about another faith (selected from a popup menu of sorts?) and it possibly attracts a missionary to the player's country. No more waiting for your catholic or orthodox or islamic etc, neighbors to decide to send their prophets and blokes to you. You can bring them in yourself. The missionaries could be from any nearby organized religion, even a reformed pagan one should it happen.

I think that would make an good addition to this DLC, given that it is religiously themed and such.

 

[Cruxador]

Well, the Game Rule system allows us to do some rather interesting things.

I can see most people keep supernatural events turned on.Sure.

Right now, supernatural events are all questionable in nature – they might be supernatural, but other reasonable explanations are also possible. Something outright supernatural like performing magic spells is on a whole nother level. That's not to say that it's bad and a lot of people may enjoy it, but it might be a good idea to make sure that the granularity of the option settings reflect this.

But when (or even if ever) are we going to get playable theocracies, republics, or landless characters? All three seem easy enough to do even in a rudimentary sense.

I don't know where you got your seeming from, but they don't seem that way to me. In the first place, we already got republics and they're a mess. Fun for a playthrough or two, but the mechanics only work well if you do more or less what Venice did historically. If you expand it gets wonky, if you have characters who are members of a republican house and a ruling dynasty it gets wonky, and if you try to mod anything it turns into a bigger mess than a roll of toilet paper coming out of a wood chipper. And that's easier than theocracies or landless characters, because there were relatively accessible hacks to get around the landlessness, and the need to jump from one family to another (as in theocracies) was dodged.

No, things like that might be on the table for CK3 but not in this game.

 

[ChrisFox]

I don't know where you got your seeming from, but they don't seem that way to me. In the first place, we already got republics and they're a mess. Fun for a playthrough or two, but the mechanics only work well if you do more or less what Venice did historically. If you expand it gets wonky, if you have characters who are members of a republican house and a ruling dynasty it gets wonky, and if you try to mod anything it turns into a bigger mess than a roll of toilet paper coming out of a wood chipper. And that's easier than theocracies or landless characters, because there were relatively accessible hacks to get around the landlessness, and the need to jump from one family to another (as in theocracies) was dodged.

Simply have the player play as whomever the designated heir is, in the most basic sense.

Beyond that, political dynasties, playing as a faction rather than a dynasty, etc could all be used and the mechanics for such a thing are already in the game!

I do agree it would be harder to do in-land republics than theocracies, which is why I'm at least hoping to have theocracies. But all three are easily possible without waiting decades for ck3, which is not even on the development block as of yet considering that ck2 is still being updated and having dlc made for it. Not to mention that the engine itself could easily support these features and the only obstacle would be the amount of effort put into the implementation of them.

No, things like that might be on the table for CK3 but not in this game.

I'm sure people have said the same about India as well at one point, as well as more fleshed out pagans. As well as things like immortality and underground cults, and yet here we are. I understand if you dislike the idea, but that doesn't mean you should vehemently oppose the mere thought of others enjoying such a feature.

 

[Rags17]

I am not that interested in the black magic one in the base game; though I am 100% fine with magic in fantasy settings ala Game of Thrones or Warhammer. I am fine with this one because I see far more possibilities for the historical applications of the Open and Closed societies(hello secret plots to strike for independence) I do have a number of questions though @Doomdark :

1.) can we tell people to join certain orders? Say telling a 2nd son to join a particular Monastic Order?
2.) Can we mod it so that there are certain requirements to joining the society? such as have to be female? have to be of a certain culture?
3.) Can there be goals and objectives of different societies? Such as forming a secret society to get independence for Wales?
4.) Can the societies have relations with other societies? For example, two guilds in Venice getting into a trade war between one another.

1)Can you form your own society?

2)Are the Freemasons included in the game?

Can you have them on a box ?
Can you have them with a fox ?
Can you have them here and there ?
Can you have them anywhere ?

Oh I DO like secret societies Sam-I-Am !

I do like them on a box !
I do like them with a fox !
I like them here and there !
I like them ANYWHERE !

 

[Xenrek]

The upside-down cross is a good indication of what is going on at the second screen-shot

hopefully not, an "upside-down" cross has about as much in common with devils/evil/etc as a pentagram does, hell at least a pentagram is pagan, an reversed cross is literally the cross of St Peter

 

[Cruxador]

the mechanics for such a thing are already in the game!

They're not. I'm not sure you actually understand what is going on here.

I do agree it would be harder to do in-land republics than theocracies

If you think the opposite of what I said, that's not agreeing.

the only obstacle would be the amount of effort put into the implementation of them.

Yeah but when the amount of effort is significantly more than what can be done in a DLC cycle, that means it's not coming as DLC. Reworking the fundamentals of the game falls into that category.

I'm sure people have said the same about India as well at one point, as well as more fleshed out pagans. As well as things like immortality and underground cults, and yet here we are.

Nobody said that. India is just more map, and another religion. Pagans are just more religions, and the reform mechanic (not complicated) and a few over-time effects when units are in a foreign province. Not at all the same as reworking basic fundamental conceits of play upon which the entire flow of the game is predicated.

I understand if you dislike the idea, but that doesn't mean you should vehemently oppose the mere thought of others enjoying such a feature.

I don't dislike it. It would be great if they could do these things. I am also not opposing it, merely explaining since apparently you don't really know that much about how CK2 (or, perhaps, software development in general) works.

 

[chrnno]

Simply have the player play as whomever the designated heir is, in the most basic sense.

Beyond that, political dynasties, playing as a faction rather than a dynasty, etc could all be used and the mechanics for such a thing are already in the game!

I do agree it would be harder to do in-land republics than theocracies, which is why I'm at least hoping to have theocracies. But all three are easily possible without waiting decades for ck3, which is not even on the development block as of yet considering that ck2 is still being updated and having dlc made for it. Not to mention that the engine itself could easily support these features and the only obstacle would be the amount of effort put into the implementation of them.



I'm sure people have said the same about India as well at one point, as well as more fleshed out pagans. As well as things like immortality and underground cults, and yet here we are. I understand if you dislike the idea, but that doesn't mean you should vehemently oppose the mere thought of others enjoying such a feature.

There will be only one or two expansions after this one so major extras like you want are unlikely and there is plenty of things currently ingame that could use the focus.

As for CK3 I imagine it is half a decade away at the farthest.

 

[Hannibal Barcid]

so, are we going to have a "Create the Elixir of Life" ambition leading to a chain of events (gaining high learning if 'supernatural' is off or immortality as the ultimate prize in case it's turned on?)
and another ambition or decision for mystic alchemists to transmute metals (earn actual gold)?

 

[ChrisFox]

They're not. I'm not sure you actually understand what is going on here.

They are. I'd appreciate if you would refrain from insults.

If you think the opposite of what I said, that's not agreeing. Yeah but when the amount of effort is significantly more than what can be done in a DLC cycle, that means it's not coming as DLC. Reworking the fundamentals of the game falls into that category.

My apologies, I assumed from how much you were attacking the current republic mechanics that you thought that repubilcs would be harder than theocracies.

And once more, it would not require a rework of the fundamentals of the game. In fact in the most recent patch did they not already implement something that changes succession?

Nobody said that. India is just more map, and another religion. Pagans are just more religions, and the reform mechanic (not complicated) and a few over-time effects when units are in a foreign province. Not at all the same as reworking basic fundamental conceits of play upon which the entire flow of the game is predicated.

Prior to the announcement of the Raja dlc I'm sure if I had posted a thread asking for India I would've been laughed off the forums. People would've said the same things you are saying now - that implementing a new government type like that with a caste system would be too much effort for the game and would likely result in a half-done system best left to a successor game. I'm sure I could even find where that happened if I looked hard enough.

I don't dislike it. It would be great if they could do these things. I am also not opposing it,

Great, then I'm not sure what we are fighting about. All I did was ask the developers if they are going to add it or have plans to do so. I didn't demand they do it.