• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dev Diary #24 - Fervor, Religious Hostility, and Doctrine Showcase

Hello everyone, and welcome back to our final Dev Diary on Religion in Crusader Kings 3! Today I will be talking about what the mysterious Fervor is, how that ties into Heresies and Heresy Outbreaks, as well as how Religious Hostility works and some of the ways that Doctrines can impact it. To wrap things up, I will show off some additional never-before seen Tenets and Doctrines!

Fervor
Every Faith has a Fervor score, which is a representation of how strongly adherents of that Faith believe in the righteousness of their religious and secular leaders. While Fervor has a slow ticking increase over time, it is primarily influenced by the virtuousness or sinfulness of that Faith’s leaders. Virtuous priests can inspire a populace and rally the people behind themselves, while sinful ones (especially religious heads) can cause massive scandals that damage the faithful’s trust in their religious institutions.

DD_WM_Scandal.png

[A screenshot of the Pope looking very guilty after being caught in flagrante]

Adherents of a Faith with high Fervor are willing to fight and die for their beliefs. They gain bonus resistance to attempts to convert them to another faith, and both secular and religious leaders can declare Holy Wars to spread their Faith across the world. However, while these Holy Wars are ostensibly waged in the name of the divine, in practice they often tend to be little more than opportunistic land-grabs — as a result, every Holy War declared will slightly damage a Faiths’ Fervor, while losing land to hostile Holy Wars will actually increase your Faith’s Fervor as the embattled faithful dig in and fight for their way of life!

When a Faith’s Fervor drops, adherents of that Faith become vulnerable to conversion. Characters are more willing to accept a Demand Conversion when their Faith’s Fervor is low, and the Court Chaplain’s ‘Convert County’ task gains a scaling bonus against Faiths whose Fervor is lower than their own. In addition, if Fervor drops low enough, a Faith becomes vulnerable to heresy outbreaks!

Heresy Outbreaks
A heresy outbreak is what happens when a ruler becomes disillusioned with their current Faith and is swayed to join a different one. If there is already a heretical Faith present nearby, they will convert to that one automatically. If no suitable heresies are around, they will become a heresiarch and start espousing the doctrines of a brand new Faith, which is typically (but not always), one from their Religion.

A ruler who converts to or founds a new heretical Faith will then attempt to convince nearby rulers of their old Faith to join them, with the success rate of this being dependent on how low their old Faith’s fervor has fallen. This means that while heresy outbreaks can vary wildly in size, converts to the new heresy will tend to remain clustered together in a specific region — this both protects the burgeoning Faith while simultaneously limiting its influence in distant lands.

DD_WM_Heresy.png

[A screenshot showing an outbreak of Lollardy, originating in southern England]

As you can imagine, heresy outbreaks are incredibly divisive events; nobody wants to sit on the fence when your immortal soul is on the line! As a result, after a heresy outbreak occurs both the old Faith and the new heretical Faith will gain a substantial increase to their Fervor score. As this is likely to encourage Holy Wars for both sides, it is not uncommon for a new period of religious violence to follow as the two Faiths fight for supremacy!

Ultimately, the flow from scandal to heresy to zealousness and back will cause Fervor to vary wildly over the course of a game of CK3. Unlike the relatively static Mortal Authority in CK2, this means that even the big dominant religions will have periods of weakness, making them vulnerable to fractures and religious violence.

Religious Hostility
Speaking of religious violence, how does that work? With so many different Faiths and Religions in Crusader Kings III, how do they view each other? What is the difference between how an Orthodox ruler views a Catholic, a Bogomil, and an Ash’ari?

In Crusader Kings III this is all handled by the Religious Hostility system. For characters of a given Faith, every other Faith in the game will receive one of the following rankings:
  1. Righteous
  2. Astray
  3. Hostile
  4. Evil
Righteous is how a Faith views itself and, in a few rare circumstances, other Faiths that have certain things in common with it. Righteous Faiths have no penalties at all with each other.

Astray is how a Faith views other Faiths that have similar goals and ideals but are just a little… wrong. For example, Orthodoxy and Catholicism consider each other to be Astray. Astray Faiths have only a minor opinion penalty with each other.

Hostile is how most Faiths view their heresies and other significantly divergent Faiths. Opinion penalties are more substantial at this level, and rulers gain the ability to declare Holy Wars against rulers of Hostile Faiths. However, intermarriage is still common when it is politically convenient, and alliances can still be forged between rulers of Hostile Faiths.

Evil Faiths are considered to be an anathema, and cannot be tolerated. Evil Faiths suffer the most severe opinion penalty possible, and Holy Wars against each other become commonplace. Rulers will almost never accept marriages with characters of an Evil Faith, making alliances all-but-impossible.

So how is Religious Hostility determined? The primary factor is what Religion Family both Faiths belong to:

DD_Hostility.png

[A screenshot of a spreadsheet showing how base Religious Hostility is calculated, with Abrahamic Faiths being the least tolerant and Eastern Faiths being the most tolerant]

But wait, if Abrahamic Faiths view other Faiths within the same Religion has Hostile, why do Catholicism and Orthodoxy only see each other as Astray? The answer to that, my friend, is Doctrines!

Doctrine & Tenet Showcase
Now we’re going to take some time to reveal a bunch of the various Doctrines and Tenets available for Faiths in Crusader Kings 3. For starters, the Catholic, Orthodox, Apostolic, and Coptic Faiths all have the ‘Ecumenism’ Doctrine, which changes the Hostility of any other Faith with the same Doctrine to just ‘Astray’, thus allowing these Faiths to have cordial relations with each other.

DD_WM_Doctrine_Ecumenism.png

[A screenshot showing the Ecumenism doctrine, which reduces Hostility between certain Christian Faiths]

In a similar vein, the various Muslim Faiths all have a doctrine representing their belief in the true succession for Muhammad. The various Sunni Faiths all see each other as Astray, with the same being true for the collective Shia Faiths and the collective Muhakkima Faiths.

The embattled minority of Gnostic Faiths have an ever stronger version of this; having always struggled to have their beliefs accepted, they see all other Gnostic Faiths as being fully ‘Righteous’. This allows us to have coalitions of Faiths within or even outside of a Religion that see some Faiths as allies and others as enemies, completely changing the dynamic of how religious relations play out in Crusader Kings III.

DD_WM_Doctrine_Gnositism.png

[A screenshot showing the Gnosticism Tenet, which among other things eliminates Religious Hostility between Gnostic Faiths]

Finally there are other Tenets which can modify how your Faith sees, and is seen by, Faiths in other Religions.

DD_WM_Doctrine_Syncretism.png

[A screenshot showing various Syncretism Tenets, which reduce Religious Hostility across entire Religions]

Diplomacy not your thing? Try some warfare!

DD_WM_Tenets_Warfare.png

[A screenshot showing various warfare-focuses Doctrines and Tenets, including Armed Pilgrimages which enables Crusades]

Or is all of this just too secular for you? After all, isn’t religion supposed to be about spiritualism, a belief in otherworldly entities beyond our understanding? Well then maybe one of these tenets would suit you...

DD_WM_Tenets_Mysticism.png

[A screenshot showing various Tenets of a more spiritual nature: Astrology, Auspicious Birthright, Reincarnation, Sun Worship, Sky Burials, and Esotericism]

Of course, this is just a sample of the Tenets and Doctrines that we have in Crusader Kings 3. It would take too long to go into this level of detail for all of them, but here is a teaser of some available Tenets on the Faith Creation screen, showing both some previously revealed and unrevealed Tenets.

DD_WM_Tenets_List.png

[A snippet of a handful of available Tenets from the Faith Creation screen]

That’s all for now — hopefully this post has given you something to think about as you plan your first campaign of Crusader Kings III, and every one after that!
 
  • 70Like
  • 14
  • 12
  • 2Love
Reactions:
So whats a sun trial? Are we going to be able to execute people by strapping them to a rock and leaving them in a blazing desert if we become sun worshipers because thats pretty sick.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
So whats a sun trial? Are we going to be able to execute people by strapping them to a rock and leaving them in a blazing desert if we become sun worshipers because thats pretty sick.
It's something Zunists can already do in CK2. I think mechanically it's a way to gamble at executing someone with no penalty, but also with a chance of them overcoming the trial and be set free.
 
Just asking here, but which Christian denominations did intermarry with Muslims? I don't really recall any ...

Obviously one cannot generalize in these things according to denominations (not in real life). One does not even need to look to the Nestorians or the examples from Habesha (Ethiopia). There are loads of examples of Christian-Muslim marriages for instance from the Caucasus over several centuries. Often politically motivated, yes - but then again, which marriages weren't, in the period depicted? The Georgian ruling classes, in particular, are noteworthy

See, for instance, Andrew M. Sharp 2018, 'The Eastern Churches and Islam', p. 387, in D. Thomas (ed.), Routledge Handbook on Christian-Muslim Relations.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Obviously one cannot generalize in these things according to denominations (not in real life). One does not even need to look to the Nestorians or the examples from Habesha (Ethiopia). There are loads of examples of Christian-Muslim marriages for instance from the Caucasus over several centuries. Often politically motivated, yes - but then again, which marriages weren't, in the period depicted? The Georgian ruling classes, in particular, are noteworthy.

See, for instance, Andrew M. Sharp 2018, 'The Eastern Churches and Islam', p. 387, in D. Thomas (ed.), Routledge Handbook on Christian-Muslim Relations.
Point noted. Perhaps a special on-action for neighboring realms then, I think, would suit these situations best.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It should just be something baked in to the AI acceptance of interfaith marriages. Say:
  • The AI will always reject marriage with an Evil faith unless under duress (say, from a hook or peace deal) or if they'd get a non-aggression pact with a ludicrously more powerful empire (like how, even in CK2, you can marry a Chinese princess regardless of religious differences).
  • The AI will reject most marriages with a Hostile faith, but it will at least consider them when a non-aggression pact or potential claim is on the line. They'd still have a penalty to acceptance, but it wouldn't be impossible.
  • The AI will consider marriages with an Astray faith normally, with a small penalty to acceptance.
  • The AI will treat marriages with a Righteous faith exactly the same as same-faith marriage.
After that, it's just a matter of letting Cynical and/or Sympathic rulers treat the marriage as one tier higher (or, ideally, making Abrahamic faiths treat each other as Hostile rather than Evil), and you can get the occasional interfaith political marriage.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
With Zoroastrianism it's tough, and doesn't track through their whole history. On the surface, Iranian and Indian religions consider each other to be, basically, demon worshippers, with Ahura / Asura and Daeva / Deva basically flipping side from one religious group to the other in terms of good and bad. Proto-Mazdan tribes were likely engaged in horrible religious warfare that drove Deva worshipers to India and the near east.

In the earliest Vedic texts the term asuras is Sometimes used to refer to some Davas. The Term asuras gained negative connotations in later Hindu texts. In the case of Zoroastrian and Hindu using those terms its probably not due to Schism and more due to the root words being used somewhat synonymously, and the word respectively evolving in both religions to take on opposite meanings.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
CKII's Stonehenge was a little silly.
Let's be honest during the middle ages Stonehenge was an obstacle on good farming land. The church frowned upon heretical practices and tourism wan't bound to start before victorian times so... Stonehenge is useless :)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Let's be honest during the middle ages Stonehenge was an obstacle on good farming land. The church frowned upon heretical practices and tourism won't bound to start before victorian times so... Stonehenge is useless :)

I would not go, or God forbid farm anywhere near that! Do you want me to get cursed?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
what I will still say is the implementation if "Insular Christianity" is a mess - they were loyal to the Pope in Rome, yet you've implemented them to be like a third branch of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, where they will have the same attitude that they have to each other, as well as being wholly independent. This is going to make the Isles a mess religiously and politically and will make any sort of situation where the Irish fall back under Catholicism peacefully basically impossible. The best implementation would've been to at least make them a heresy of Catholicism but have some mechanic where they aren't being holy warred constantly, since apparently it's impossible to make them have the Pope as an authority while being "different". You should have just not put them in the game until a later patch/DLC allows for shared religious heads, to be honest.
Couldn't you just give Insular Christianity a doctrine making Catholicism viewed as Righteous.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Couldn't you just give Insular Christianity a doctrine making Catholicism viewed as Righteous.

That still would not represent them anywhere near accurately.

TBH I am just not sure why Paradox did this, they create smaller, new faiths, for no real reason (CK2 worked well enough in this area), but then don't go all the way to make them actually work properly.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I would not go, or God forbid farm anywhere near that! Do you want me to get cursed?
Sure you wouldn't you are from modern enlightend times, you know that Stonehenge is dangerous, but those poor stupid farmers in 1066, nah they'd first let their sheep graze there and in the evening enjoy their wives or vice versa...
 
In the earliest Vedic texts the term asuras is Sometimes used to refer to some Davas. The Term asuras gained negative connotations in later Hindu texts. In the case of Zoroastrian and Hindu using those terms its probably not due to Schism and more due to the root words being used somewhat synonymously, and the word respectively evolving in both religions to take on opposite meanings.
Well the earliest layers of Vedic texts are in common not just with the Avestas but also even as far as the Eddas (in very small fragments, themes, and a few lists) and in general these texts often conserve elements that, even at the time, were archaic. In the Time of the Buddha, only three of four Vedas had been composed, but Asuras and Devas were distinct opposed groups of preternatural beings. Yet, (presumably) later Hindu developments like the story of Holi include heroic Asuras like Prahlada (though most of the Asuras in the story are evil).

However, this conflation of devas and asuras does not exist in Mazdaism. From the earliest mentions, Daeva are always foreign, prohibited, adversarial, evil beings. The people who were able to win out and stay in Iran 'always' viewed the Daevas and Daeva worshippers as foreign and bad.

Now, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism both post-date the prehistorical Schism between the proto-Iranians and the Proto-Indians. I don't want to overstate the historical value or relevancy of the texts. My point is just this:

1) Prehistoric Mazdans pushed other groups out of Iran into India and the Fertile Crescent (the proof of this is linguistic and archeological)

2) The Zoroastrian religion is theoretically more violent and hostile towards other religions than is literally possible to implement (and thus, that theoretical hostility was never actually practiced)

3) Historical Mazdan states never acted that prejudicially against Eastern religions

4) Mazdans in the timespan of the game were mostly a peaceful minority that coexisted with other faiths.

And thus, their hostility is complicated.

As a side note, famously Cyrus the Great is the one to have basically saved Abrahamic religions by ending the Babylonian exile.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the Fervor mechanic makes sense You lose it on declaration of a holy war, this essentially is utilizing/investing the people's zeal to do something. Since you will gain piety and more from converting the land, you will regain the fervor over time for being a righteous ruler. The defender gaining it on a loss makes sense too, it is basically revanchism.

The other changes look great, I am feeling my first bit of hype for this now. Don't screw it up.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
My point is just this:

1) Prehistoric Mazdans pushed other groups out of Iran into India and the Fertile Crescent (the proof of this is linguistic and archeological)

2) The Zoroastrian religion is theoretically more violent and hostile towards other religions than is literally possible to implement (and thus, that theoretical hostility was never actually practiced)

3) Historical Mazdan states never acted that prejudicially against Eastern religions

4) Mazdans in the timespan of the game were mostly a peaceful minority that coexisted with other faiths.

And thus, their hostility is complicated.

As a side note, famously Cyrus the Great is the one to have basically saved Abrahamic religions by ending the Babylonian exile.
I will respectfully disagree regarding point 2. I mean, in an age where church structure doesn't exist, can tribal hostilities really be interpreted in terms of religion? The concurrent Old Chinese also drove the Miao and Yue peoples south into the mountains and hills of southern China, but I'm assuming the source of said hostility is not religion.

And in reality, the Sassanid Empire (which was the only state to have Zoroastrianism as a state religion and be relevant to the players that still exist in the game's timeframe) was a lot more hostile to Christians than to Hindus and Buddhists, as far as we know. Well, because they did not interact that much - the "White Hun" occupation of the "Buddhist Corridor" is also an important event in China, because it facilitated the transfer of Buddhism from India to China, until the Muslims occupied and cut off the route some two hundred years before CK3's earliest start date, accelerating a divide to appear between Mahayana (in East Asia mostly) and Theravada (SEA etc.) adherents.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Make the polygamy mormon...
It is possible to make a polygamy-endorsing Christian sect, but people at the time don't know enough about the universe to actually found Mormonism. There are limits to how ahistorical a game of CKIII could get, and I say science is one of them.
Also, I'm pretty sure any Christian sect of the age would not let Jews into their version of heaven.
 
I will respectfully disagree regarding point 2. I mean, in an age where church structure doesn't exist, can tribal hostilities really be interpreted in terms of religion? The concurrent Old Chinese also drove the Miao and Yue peoples south into the mountains and hills of southern China, but I'm assuming the source of said hostility is not religion.

I think you actually mean point 1. And the answer is that the "church structure" (of semi-hereditary priesthood with a strong oral tradition) already existed in the prehistoric era. I'm not saying that the source of the conflict was religion, but religion (and all other aspects of life) was part of it. This is prehistorical, so we don't know any of the details of what happened, but broadly speaking we can say that in prehistorical Iran there were proto-Mazdans and proto-Hindus (as well as proto-Mittani and proto-who knows what, and also to be clear these proto-Hindus aren't "where Hinduism comes from" as there were existing peoples in India who were co-sources for Indian religion), that they conflicted, that the proto-Mazdans remained, and that the Proto-Hindus (and proto-Mittani) were driven out.

Also, while Chinese Folk Religion isn't something I know a ton about, it is my understanding that the Mythology of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors is thought to be kinda-sorta-vaguely related to the actual prehistoric expansion of proto-Han culture. However, even in the mythology, the expansion reflects the cosmopolitan attitudes of the Chinese folk religion with acts of confederation, and their mythological enemies being deified.

And in reality, the Sassanid Empire (which was the only state to have Zoroastrianism as a state religion and be relevant to the players that still exist in the game's timeframe) was a lot more hostile to Christians than to Hindus and Buddhists, as far as we know. Well, because they did not interact that much - the "White Hun" occupation of the "Buddhist Corridor" is also an important event in China, because it facilitated the transfer of Buddhism from India to China, until the Muslims occupied and cut off the route some two hundred years before CK3's earliest start date, accelerating a divide to appear between Mahayana (in East Asia mostly) and Theravada (SEA etc.) adherents.

1) The Sassanid Empire was dead as can be by the game era

2) The Sassasanid Empire had it's own major branch of Christianity after the council of Ephesus and even had a partially-Jewish Shanashah (Shapur II)

Overall I think it's very very tough to generalize Mazdan religion's "religious hostility", especially since it only really matters for an alternative history where they rise to power, and giving them the "Oriental" default settings is, while not "100% Accurate" probably fine.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think you actually mean point 1. And the answer is that the "church structure" (of semi-hereditary priesthood with a strong oral tradition) already existed in the prehistoric era. I'm not saying that the source of the conflict was religion, but religion (and all other aspects of life) was part of it. This is prehistorical, so we don't know any of the details of what happened, but broadly speaking we can say that in prehistorical Iran there were proto-Mazdans and proto-Hindus (as well as proto-Mittani and proto-who knows what, and also to be clear these proto-Hindus aren't "where Hinduism comes from" as there were existing peoples in India who were co-sources for Indian religion), that they conflicted, that the proto-Mazdans remained, and that the Proto-Hindus (and proto-Mittani) were driven out.
Whoops, yes, I meant point 1.
Or rather the interplay between 1 and 2. Can prehistoric conflicts really factor in relatively late religious hostilities? I don't know, I think devs used a "ratings" and not numerical system do streamline the problem somewhat.
Also, while Chinese Folk Religion isn't something I know a ton about, it is my understanding that the Mythology of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors is thought to be kinda-sorta-vaguely related to the actual prehistoric expansion of proto-Han culture. However, even in the mythology, the expansion reflects the cosmopolitan attitudes of the Chinese folk religion with acts of confederation, and their mythological enemies being deified.
In addition to the confederation you pointed out, the Miao were warped from (relatively shorter and darker) people to outright demonic beings, with their leader Chi You having "many eyes, a roar that tears the earth," and he "eats rocks to grow his horns." Chi You is also said to wield wicked magicks. So ... yeah, you now have more or less an overview of the tale of Huangdi, the very first emperor of China's enemies.
1) The Sassanid Empire was dead as can be by the game era

2) The Sassasanid Empire had it's own major branch of Christianity after the council of Ephesus and even had a partially-Jewish Shanashah (Shapur II)

Overall I think it's very very tough to generalize Mazdan religion's "religious hostility", especially since it only really matters for an alternative history where they rise to power, and giving them the "Oriental" default settings is, while not "100% Accurate" probably fine.
1) Point is legit, but later Mazdan rulers did call upon their legacy, and in the event Mazdayasna regains mainstream status, Sassanian legal norms would likely also be recovered and reused;

2) The Nestorians did count on the Sassanids for protection ... in their capacity as king of kings, not protector of the holy flames. In fact, the Shahanshah most closely related to Jews (it's Yazdegerd I, not Shapur II by the way) was forced to move against Nestorians at the behest of his court, after Nestorians started attacking Mazdayasnaian fire-temples.

I agree with the last point. So long as hardcoded material is not that big of a problem, we can always resort to modding to change anything and everything. Devs even made a point of showcasing religion mod-friendliness.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
And in reality, the Sassanid Empire (which was the only state to have Zoroastrianism as a state religion and be relevant to the players that still exist in the game's timeframe) was a lot more hostile to Christians than to Hindus and Buddhists, as far as we know.

But this is also a very complex issue. We certainly know that at several stages the Sassanian approach to several Christian groups - especially non-Chalcidian and thus ones which were most often persecuted and sidelined in the Roman state - was either tolerant or explicitly supportive. At other times (i.e. under specific rulers) this could be reversed, but there very meager evidence for wholesale hostile stance towards 'Christians' as such.
 
  • 1
Reactions: