CK3 - Dev Diary #22 - A Medieval Tapestry

[Trex41]

This isn't how hinduism works at all. Most Smarthas and Shaktists are Advaitas also. The difference between Shaiva, Shaktists, Smarthas, and Vaishnavas are which deities they consider to be the supreme. The difference between Advaita and Dvaita can essentially be that Dvaitas believe that there is a God seperate from the universal spirit that makes up all reality, while Advaitas believe that god is the material that makes up all reality.

 

[LordofLight]

I hope we can alter all of this stuff

Your reading comprehension is bad because the point is exactly that. You can alter things. Honestly I didn't think I could see someone misunderstand the entire sandbox point of CK. It's sandbox, being able to tweak things is a part of that for fun. This DD goes more into that. I'm confused by what annoyed you.

Ahistorical stuff maybe? The ability to alter the game to have ahistorical stuff is fun. I mean who doesn't want to change the game to have Genghis Chan and her horse loving posse of lasses ponying down to kill us all. I for one, find that absolutely hilarious.

 

[Subcomandante]

I can't tell whether this is a well-observed parody or sincere criticism.

nd

Neither I fear.

 

[Shadeseraph]

Overall, very interesting. I admit I'm not quite sure I will use the alternative choices - I like the idea of, when playing a female ruler in a male dominated middle ages, try to wrestle power from men, rather than having it given to me from scratch - but it's a nice addition nonetheless.
Also, given the combination of info in this and prior dev diaries, it seems that there will actually be resistance to reformation when it's too different - while I loved the idea, it did feel a bit jarring to see how everyone happily accepted to give up their titles on ck2 when reforming to Enatic clans quite quickly.

Finally, probably not for the base release, but tbh culture could probably use some kind of mechanic like religion does - it's basically a combination of identity (sometimes built on ethnicity, but not always) and tradition that actually can and does severely affect how religion interacts with that same traditions - including acceptance of new religions. In CK2 it was something that could already be "imposed" on lands by a mix of population shifting and education, so it would seem logical that you can also "build" cultures like what is being done with religions. Stuff like "raiding" is already linked to culture, so it's an example of a "trait" that can be on culture instead of on religion.

Alternatively, adding something like "religion trait preference" for cultures, which can evolve over time, would also be more inmersive, I feel. As an example:
A county which initially holds italian population has a "preference" for catholic-like tenets - so when a new ruler of italian culture but muslim religion settles in, there is resistance - higher effects on revolts, harder to convert the county to that religion and easier to "undo" (because it's easier to convert back to catholic due to trait affinity) and so on. A ruler can either force a new culture with higher affinity to the new religion in (which basically would be replacing or re-educating population by force) or otherwise over time the culture would evolve to something like "italian - muslim" (example name) where favored traits change to those of muslim religions.

 

[Trex41]

Overall, very interesting. I admit I'm not quite sure I will use the alternative choices - I like the idea of, when playing a female ruler in a male dominated middle ages, try to wrestle power from men, rather than having it given to me from scratch - but it's a nice addition nonetheless.
Also, given the combination of info in this and prior dev diaries, it seems that there will actually be resistance to reformation when it's too different - while I loved the idea, it did feel a bit jarring to see how everyone happily accepted to give up their titles on ck2 when reforming to Enatic clans quite quickly.

Finally, probably not for the base release, but tbh culture could probably use some kind of mechanic like religion does - it's basically a combination of identity (sometimes built on ethnicity, but not always) and tradition that actually can and does severely affect how religion interacts with that same traditions - including acceptance of new religions. In CK2 it was something that could already be "imposed" on lands by a mix of population shifting and education, so it would seem logical that you can also "build" cultures like what is being done with religions. Stuff like "raiding" is already linked to culture, so it's an example of a "trait" that can be on culture instead of on religion.

Alternatively, adding something like "religion trait preference" for cultures, which can evolve over time, would also be more inmersive, I feel. As an example:
A county which initially holds italian population has a "preference" for catholic-like tenets - so when a new ruler of italian culture but muslim religion settles in, there is resistance - higher effects on revolts, harder to convert the county to that religion and easier to "undo" (because it's easier to convert back to catholic due to trait affinity) and so on. A ruler can either force a new culture with higher affinity to the new religion in (which basically would be replacing or re-educating population by force) or otherwise over time the culture would evolve to something like "italian - muslim" (example name) where favored traits change to those of muslim religions.

I think that is interesting since there are many religious changes occuring during the game's timespan - Christianization of Northern and Eastern Europe, reconquista, decline of Jainism and Buddhism, continued spread of Islam, etc. but I feel like this only works in Europe because Sunni and Shia islam don't become extremely tied to geographic location until after the scope of the game and Indian faiths were never tied to culture - Hinduism was prevalent throughout India even when there were areas that were ruled by Jains and Buddhists.

 

[Shadeseraph]

Sunni and Shia islam don't become extremely tied to geographic location until after the scope of the game

Well, I understand that while there are differences between both branches, in regards to overall tennets they are not that different to each other, which makes them "easily" interchangeable within the same territory. Religion hostilities (which already has been mentioned as a feature) should already be able to represent the hatred caused by different religious dogmas even when the two religion tenets are not that different
EDIT: for clarity - my idea is that converting a county or a character to a new religion would be more or less difficult based on (at least) two variables: how compatible is the character/county culture with the new religion, and what are the views of the character/county's old religion on the new one - such as, heresies and orthodox religions in Europe do hate each other's guts despite being fairly similar - this might not be the same in, for example, Eastern religions which tend to be more "permissive" of each other.

Hinduism was prevalent throughout India even when there were areas that were ruled by Jains and Buddhists.

I acknowledge that I am not at all familiar with the differences nor dynamics in different culture groups in India in the middle ages, but as far as I understand, the ruler being of a certain culture or religion does not mean that the county's population is of the same culture and religion, isn't it? This comes into play if the ruler decides to try to proselityze his own religion on the county, and maybe when a given ruler attempts to convert another ruler to his religion.

in this case what I intend to model is the idea that a local population will have an easier time accepting a new religion if their day to day customs do not conflict with it - and the fact that mainstream religions locally adopted local cultural traits to be easier to adopt by the people - like christianity adopting popular festivals from pagan religions. This could come as a player creating a new branch of their religion to incorporates traits that are more closely linked to the culture groups he lords over to facilitate conversion.

 

[J.B.]

Pertaining to the subject of the Marrano faith, of all of the terms mentioned, Marrano, Converso, or Anusim to represent its name, I think I favor Converso. It does not exclusively imply the reluctance that Anusim does, nor does it imply the insulting meaning in that Marrano represented. Conversos were historically most likely reluctant to adopt Christianity, particularly during Spanish Inquisition times, but there were indeed Jews who sought out Christianity as their new faith, in departure from Judaism, throughout history.

There were certainly Medieval examples of such willing converts, such as Moses Sephardi in the 11th century, and Petrus Alfonsi through the 11th and early 12th centuries. Up until the Early Middle Ages, I believe that there was a Christian Jewish community in the Middle East, the Nazarenes, although they faded away from records of existence past the 7th century. England even had an institution referred to as Domus Conversorum, meaning Converts Home, in both the cities of Oxford and London, intended for Jews and possibly other non-Christian converts to Christianity (Just as the name Converso's meaning describes, whether willing or not). I advise people to read "The History of Jewish Christianity," by Hugh Schonfield, which is where I have derived my information from, particularly around the middle of the document for references to Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Converso appears as the most neutral term to approximate in the game a Christian denomination of Jews during the Middle Ages and Renaissance eras who both willingly converted, or were coerced to convert by external pressures around their lives. If the faith is meant to exclusively depict reluctance, then Anusim is a better title to use than Marrano, although it is understandable to use Marrano in a scholarly context, despite its deprecating meaning.

 

[Zhetone]

if Conversos are represented though I am curious about what the implications of being a separate faith are. A syncretism between Judaism and Christianity could be interesting, but it's not as if converted Jews followed a different sort of Christianity from everyone else.

 

[Trex41]

I acknowledge that I am not at all familiar with the differences nor dynamics in different culture groups in India in the middle ages, but as far as I understand, the ruler being of a certain culture or religion does not mean that the county's population is of the same culture and religion, isn't it? This comes into play if the ruler decides to try to proselityze his own religion on the county, and maybe when a given ruler attempts to convert another ruler to his religion.

in this case what I intend to model is the idea that a local population will have an easier time accepting a new religion if their day to day customs do not conflict with it - and the fact that mainstream religions locally adopted local cultural traits to be easier to adopt by the people - like christianity adopting popular festivals from pagan religions. This could come as a player creating a new branch of their religion to incorporates traits that are more closely linked to the culture groups he lords over to facilitate conversion.

Ah, that would be interesting for India. I don't know that much about North India, but for most of this time period in South India, Jainism and Hinduism were coexisting, but peacefully. Many kings would patronize temples for the other religion. The reasons Jainism declined was twofold
1. The rise of Advaita sects such as Shaivism and Smarthism which appealed a lot to Jains and incorporated Jain beliefs - this happened in the 800s so generally before the game
2. The conversion of kings from Jainism to Hinduism - this happened continuously throughout the game's timeline, beginning in the 700s and ending by the 1200s.
I think in your system, then all India would have equal levels of respect for Hinduism and Jainism, and the non-Dravidian areas would also have respect for Buddhism.

 

[Chlodio]

All gender-related restrictions in CK3 are controlled by the Faiths, either directly or indirectly. As we have an awesome dynamic Faith system, all such restrictions can be changed during a playthrough.

Not what I'd describe as "awesome" nor "dynamic". Bundling all restrictions to three bundles and locking them into religion is an extremely simplistic approach. What about the Catholic Basque whose society was more egalitarian than the rest of Christendom? Different ethnoreligious groups have different social standards, even if they share the same religion.

 

[Slayen]

Not what I'd describe as "awesome" nor "dynamic". Bundling all restrictions to three bundles and locking them into religion is an extremely simplistic approach. What about Catholic Basque whose society was more egalitarian than the rest of Christendom? Different ethnoreligious groups have different social standards, even if they share the same religion.

It's, or at least in the case of groups like the Basques, being discussed/

I've written down the concerns regarding the use of "Marrano", Poganstwo, and the gender status in the Basques and will make sure that this is discussed in the team!

 

[IFWanderer]

Again, if it's supposed to represent some kind of Jewish/Christian syncretic religion, and not a CK2-esque Secret Faith (which I think it would fit the best), we could go more creative about the name.

If that is what is supposed to be, it's probably even worse to use Marrano, since we're talking about a name used for crypto-Jews and forced converts from Judaism to Christianity, and making it a Jewish-Christian syncretism (or the other way around) heavily misrepresents what they were. For a syncretism, I think you'd do better trying with Judaizer if you are representing a Christian faith that's trying to be closer to Judaism, if you are going the other way around (a Jewish faith that tries to be closer with Judaism), well, I don't think that there's a good name, I would suppose that either using a name of an early christian sect (in a way that in the flavor text makes clear they are "borrowing" that name from such a sect for theological reasons) or if the game devs wanted to go in an extremely controversial direction (like, this is basically a last resort, we have to have them and can't use any better name), maybe go with Messianic Jews and have everyone else in the Jewish religion see that faith as heretical (the way that most Jews today consider Messianic Jews to be Christians and not Jews).

I don't think any of this alternatives is good: Converso is simply someone who has converted to a different religion, in this case from Judaism to Christianity, and Anusim is someone who has been converted forcibly or against their will; none of which convey the meaning of still practicing the old Faith behind closed doors.
According to the Converso page in Wikipedia, a synonym for Marrano would be Judaizante (Judaizer), but this has a meaning of a Christian adopting Jewish customs, not someone who still keeps their Jewish beliefs with a Christian façade.
Since I mentioned Wikipedia, the Marrano entry states that there are more probable etymologies to it than the Swine one, and also that "marrano is the term the Spanish Hebrews prefer."

Just to clear up things, I'm of the idea that Marrano shouldn't be in the game, because nobody professes it openly. It could be included as a flavor event for an Iberian Christian realm in which the Jewish population is forced to convert rather than being expelled or facing a pogrom, and then a Zealous (or the CK3 equivalent) ruler deals with it, maybe.

First of all, I ultimately agree with you that it should not be in the game for that reason (or if anything, the way province/regions are converted should model people who only pretend to convert but privately still follow their original religion and Conversos/Anusim/Marranos/"Nuevos Cristianos" could work as a historical base for how to model that), so since we agree on what may be the underlying issue, I'm willing to just set aside the naming discussion if you're okay with it. But first I'd like to answer a couple points in this post:

So, I tracked down the book (link in Spanish, I'm afraid) that Wikipedia quotes as the source for "marrano is the term the Spanish Hebrews prefer" and while I haven't read it entirely due to time constraints, I did read the first chapter, which covers the history of the Sephradi and the etimologies of different terms to talk about Spanish Jews, including marrano, and did a search for the word through the book, and I could not find any mention that Spanish Jews prefer the term marrano as a self-identification, so I find Wikipedia's claim that they do to be lacking in credibility. Furthermore, while Wikipedia suggests alternative etymologies, the second one (from "marrar" which is "to err) is unsourced, while for the third, the source given for that only brings it up to suggest that there could be an alternative etymology, but the etymology of marrano coming from "swine" is still acknowloged as the strongest candidate for the true etymology.

As for Converso and Anusim, those terms are both widely used to refer to this community without the use of the slur, and had been used during the game's era. So while the charge of imprecision could be valid they are still preferable to a slur. and I'm not entirely sure that the charge of imprecision is valid, as the wikipedia articles for both clearly show that the terms were used to refer to this community: and if anything, with anusim being also used for other communities of forcibly converted jews and crypto-jews, it's actually a good argument for the use of anusim, as it can be used if the game has to model multiple communities of crypto-jews in different areas and regions in-game, which it might have to, given the sandbox nature of the game. Beyond that, I would say that a third option for naming this community, that keeps the geographical specificity without using a term that's considered a slur by many jews is calling them New Christians (or Cristianos nuevos if for some reason you want to keep it in Spanish).

 

[tpd24]

Marranos were christianized Jews from portugal and spain, that practiced Judaism in secret to savoid the inquisition and general jewish persecution, it seems odd to make marrano its own faith when its more of a culture than anything and in game it would be a Public christian with Jewish secret faith

 

[J.B.]

Marranos were christianized Jews from portugal and spain, that practiced Judaism in secret to savoid the inquisition and general jewish persecution, it seems odd to make marrano its own faith when its more of a culture than anything and in game it would be a Public christian with Jewish secret faith

Although the regional title may have been different in the case of Sicily and any other Italian possessions of Spanish rulers, I would like to add that there existed in Sicily and Calabria many Marrano/Converso/Anusim Jews, as well. There were in fact large Jewish communities in Sicily and Calabria, derived from both the Sefardim (Usually Spanish and Portuguese Jews, could also be found in North Africa, Italy, and even the Eastern Mediterranean) and the Italkim (The name for the main, continuous Italian Jewish community since ancient times). These converts to Christianity have also left many modern descendants among both the Iberian and Italian populations, as well in the New World during the Age of Discovery.

 

[Kapitalisti]

I can't tell whether this is a well-observed parody or sincere criticism.

nd

A fine example of Poe's Law in action: "...without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied."

Weird how it seems to be perfectly fine to murder babies and kids of all ages but having an event where a kid hitting puberty basically starts figuring out girls don't have cooties is beyond the pale.

 

[DingoWalley]

Regarding the problems with Marranos: Yes, using a racist term is a bad idea. My guess is that Paradox wanted a term for a Jewish-Christian Synchratic Faith and this was one of the first terms they found. If this is Paradox's intention, I would instead suggest using Ebionites instead; sure they didn't exist anymore by this time, but the term is much better then Marrano, and would probably be a better fit for Paradox's intentions (if that is their intentions).

 

[J.B.]

Regarding the problems with Marranos: Yes, using a racist term is a bad idea. My guess is that Paradox wanted a term for a Jewish-Christian Synchratic Faith and this was one of the first terms they found. If this is Paradox's intention, I would instead suggest using Ebionites instead; sure they didn't exist anymore by this time, but the term is much better then Marrano, and would probably be a better fit for Paradox's intentions (if that is their intentions).

The historical term Judaizer could be used for a syncretic (as opposed to coerced faith) faith of one's own volition to take up. However, Judeo-Christian and Messianic Jewish are other terms that could be employed, though their currencies of usages are more of the Modern Age than the Middle Ages. For those pressured to convert to Christianity, Conversos or Anusim are more applicable, though the usage of Marrano is entirely historical, as well, if originally demeaning. Modern Jewish genealogists and historians refer to Marranos, as well as using the terms Conversos and Anusim, though Marrano is usually intended to be used as a historical note than a primary title to describe those people, so as to dignify them with a nicer or neutral term.

 

[lilmik552]

Children develop their sexualities around the age of 10 and once set, it will not change. It’s worth noting that we don’t model sexual and romantic attraction separately in the game, so a character’s sexuality sets both their sexual and romantic preferences.

I know I will catch a lot of flak for this but I always thought that homosexuality in the game should be a decision. Or at least an option in the rules to enable it as a decision. Especially for role playing purposes. In CK2 it annoyed me greatly when I'd have a fantastic heir who had almost everything I wanted and then get slapped with the homosexual trait. While I realize this doesn't ruin the game play or make my heir necessarily worse skill wise, I still didn't like it and sometimes if possible would try to disinherit that person. I really recommend at least adding a rule that allows this to be a decision in the lifestyle or intrigue menu. Where the player could decide to be homosexual versus them becoming it. That way the player has more control over it. The default setting could be what is in place above.

 

[J.B.]

It seems that players wish for greater flexibility, rather than having to stick for the rest of their character's life with otherwise non-medical condition traits (such as permanent injuries or a comatose state, for example). I propose that if a player wishes to work hard enough towards such an end, that they can remove certain traits from their player, whether it causes much stress or less stress (or none, in some cases?), so that they may weather through the storm and see their character develop his or her personality to the state envisioned during a player's role-playing journey through a period of the Middle Ages.

For instance, Augustine of Hippo (Often referred to as Saint Augustine) was known in his writings to encourage Christian followers to develop themselves towards a state of continence (celibacy/chastity), rather than lustfulness, and he was known to encourage a monastic state of lifestyle. A process such as this is no easy journey, but it is a possible one, if arduous and stressful, depending on certain factors. One example of this was Augustine's exhortations to the Roman general Bonifatius (Whom Aetius defeated, and also later went on to defeat Attila the Hun) to follow such a proscribed lifestyle, although to Augustine's disappointment, Bonifatius had decided against lifelong celibacy after the death of his first wife, and had married once again.

Let's see what Paradox thinks of this proposal. It may appear as though reverting mostly to CK2's system of gameplay, but I believe it is more realistic. Please consider my following opinions on the way functions such as both how the traits of homosexuality and celibacy work in the game, through which I propose the lack of any mandatory permanence about their presence on a character's list of stats/lifestyle, if it is so desired by a player that, for role-play reasons, they wish to try to act in accordance with their character's religion, or even their character's personal ideals, which may conflict with whatever the trait represents (celibacy, homosexuality, or possibly other game features that appear to contradict with one's intended role-play).

I do believe that such matters should be represented in the game as traits (I'm not sure if I understand what they are supposed to be, now), with options to make decisions about them, even the removal of the trait, if one's character lives their life acting against the grain long enough, as sometimes happens to real people, whether due to religious revelations or personal reasons about the trait in question. I think permanence of anything (Even death, and perhaps even immortality! However, death is realistic, and I also want immortality as a possible trait to achieve) in the game is scary, and traits should be more flexible than arbitrarily of a variation of "this, or that" nature. Additionally, the celibate trait should be made according to the same framework I propose, that if one receives it as a trait, it can also be disabled by a decision in the usual intrigue menu, or by way of an event to possibly decide against keeping it. Both of these probably shouldn't be as easy as to obtain the trait by just activity an intrigue menu decision, that suddenly you gain it, as in real life, once these ideas come about, they are difficult to suppress the thoughts of, yet if one acts strenuously against the grain, it is possible, I believe, to change one's lifestyle, that the trait is no longer reflective of what they are like in personality and action.

In summary, the lack of permanent traits imposed upon the player can lead to greater flexibility, and stronger role-play potential, for the sake of either maintaining or attempting to remove a reputation that one has become known for adopting at a previous stage of their life. People are not always the same throughout their life, even if it means going against the grain of a more pleasurable state of existence, in other words, and Crusader Kings II, with room for exceptions, I believe reflected this aspect of living more accurately. I am left with the impression that Crusader Kings III is proposing "either this way or that way," as far as a life's sense of direction is concerned, without much room to change their route and possibly go against type/expectations, as people truly do carry out the unexpected in real life.

 

[PhilzuNeide]

I know I will catch a lot of flak for this but I always thought that homosexuality in the game should be a decision. Or at least an option in the rules to enable it as a decision. Especially for role playing purposes. In CK2 it annoyed me greatly when I'd have a fantastic heir who had almost everything I wanted and then get slapped with the homosexual trait. While I realize this doesn't ruin the game play or make my heir necessarily worse skill wise, I still didn't like it and sometimes if possible would try to disinherit that person. I really recommend at least adding a rule that allows this to be a decision in the lifestyle or intrigue menu. Where the player could decide to be homosexual versus them becoming it. That way the player has more control over it. The default setting could be what is in place above.

Nobody decides to be homosexual, you simply are or aren‘t.

In addition to some others that have likewise expressed such concern over one particular event, as well as perhaps the implication that other, possibly similar events will take place within the game, I urge Paradox Interactive to take the right action, an action becoming of the mindset of caring parents that love their families, and drop the sexually-implied "intimate games" subject amongst the ten year old characters.

Leave the children out of that matter. That is a realm we cannot in good conscience breach. Perhaps you may leave it in the game as an event that takes place upon the character's ascension to adulthood, if you must leave in that event at all.

I am thinking that this game may as well become rated M for Mature, based on some of the sexual implications ("experimentation") coming from this, which I believe have gone too far, on the basis that some here have already mentioned about the ten year old children. Adults Only (AO) is not a rating that seems to be given much at all, though it would be fitting based on the aforementioned event which merits the notorious rating . Crusader Kings III seems to be going far beyond the pale of acceptability with how younger characters are depicted, that they will not receive rated T for Teens for however the "Sexual Themes" of Crusader Kings II (Second game, whereas the first game was rated E for Everyone) were received by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).

Please carefully examine the implications of including that type of character event for children, and return to the system in place for Crusader Kings II. Though allowing Crusader Kings II, with some parental guidance to start off, I would not allow my children to play Crusader Kings III.

Sorry but I don’t get you at all. In CK2 you can sleep with your siblings, have Sex with a horse, slaughter children and close family, burn heretics at the stake and many terrible things more. But an event which tries to justify why the game tells you the sexuality of a character well in advance is somehow bad and potentially ruins the game?