• 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:
I think you have it backwards. You need to whip people up into a religious fervor to get them motivated enough to declare the Holy War, otherwise most people are just going to shrug and question why they're being asked to fight a war thousands of miles away. For the purpose of declaring holy wars, fervor is more like political capital.
I actually think calling a Holy War would be akin to a populist move: something people want to hear, that they've been waiting for.
I modeled my previous post in something closer in time, sine it's better understood and better documented than what happened in the Middle Ages, and since it must've been a similar feeling to a medieval mindset immersed in religious fervor: the nationalistic fervor at the outbreak of WWI. It was something that was brewing for decades, the troops marched to the front singing, confident in a quick victory and being back home for Christmas, but then the war extended, and the attrition and hardships melted the fervor away. Surely, by the Fourth Crusade some people may have gone "What we're fighting for, again?". But the initial reaction is what should be taken into account. NOTE: I'm not trying to discuss WWI here, I'm just explaining my mindset and what this mechanic made me think of.
Heck, even something mundane like an important football match could be used to parallel the effect: the people don't need to be stirred up for the match; they're stirred up because of it. And winning stirs them even more!

Like I said, I understand where the mechanic's coming from (at least I think so), but it doesn't seem all that realistic to me.
 
Okay, okay, now. On consideration, I actually am completely behind the idea that you cannot declare a Crusade/Jihad/etc. if there's low Fervor, because that both makes historical sense and is a good gameplay balance tool which should please both sides. I'm not sure about not declaring holy wars at all (not sure if that's what they mean?) however, unless Fervor hits 0, because yeah, there's always going to be someone who just wants a war and calls it holy.

Still don't think the actual declaration should be what causes the dip, or victory, though.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I actually think calling a Holy War would be akin to a populist move: something people want to hear, that they've been waiting for.
I modeled my previous post in something closer in time, sine it's better understood and better documented than what happened in the Middle Ages, and since it must've been a similar feeling to a medieval mindset immersed in religious fervor: the nationalistic fervor at the outbreak of WWI. It was something that was brewing for decades, the troops marched to the front singing, confident in a quick victory and being back home for Christmas, but then the war extended, and the attrition and hardships melted the fervor away. Surely, by the Fourth Crusade some people may have gone "What we're fighting for, again?". But the initial reaction is what should be taken into account. NOTE: I'm not trying to discuss WWI here, I'm just explaining my mindset and what this mechanic made me think of.
Heck, even something mundane like an important football match could be used to parallel the effect: the people don't need to be stirred up for the match; they're stirred up because of it. And winning stirs them even more!

Like I said, I understand where the mechanic's coming from (at least I think so), but it doesn't seem all that realistic to me.
But that fervor you describe is what is being represented. The fervor prior to the declaration of the crusade, the fervor drummed up by the fall of Nicaea (First), the fall of Edessa (Second), or the fall of Jerusalem (Third Crusade). The actual declaration of the crusade is just utilizing the pent up fervor to get people to go off to the war, when the anticipation of "someone must do something" is wiped out and the reality of the work and strife of the fight sets in. What you're talking about for the purpose of the CK3 time period is a reason to build up fervor in preparation for declaring a holy war, not a boost in fervor by declaring a crusade. If you declare a holy war at high fervor, it's not going to hurt the religious cohesion much because you've already swept the people up in the cause. If you declare a holy war at low fervor though, it's not going to suddenly make people less disillusioned, it's just going to look like a desperate and cynical ploy to drum up favor and people are going to be even more disillusioned by the idea of fighting for a religious head they don't have much faith in.

People don't take up arms and then invent a reason to justify having done it. They invent a reason to fight and then use that as justification to take up arms.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Mechanics should be a emulation of historical processes, not historical outcomes. The outcomes should be at the whims of the decision-making of the AI, the player, and chance.

I am sorry, but if you do mechanics that properly simulate historical processes. You are fairly likely to end up with outcomes similar-ish to history. Which is not what you want, you want 'gameplay' to take priority, which is your choice entirely. But 'gameplay' can mean different things for different people, not including the large section of the fanbase who just like immersing themselves in a historical setting.

Truth be told. I have always wanted Paradox to look at the games they are making this way 'With our current mechanics, would it, theoretically, be possible to recreate real history?'. The answer for most of their games would sadly be no, and that is fine. But they should strive to get close, in my opinion.
 
I am sorry, but if you do mechanics that properly simulate historical processes. You are fairly likely to end up with outcomes similar-ish to history.
Not necessarily. The processes would be capable of producing a similar outcome to history, but only if the same or similar players make the same or similar decisions to history, use the processes at the same or similar times to history, and have the same or similar luck as history continuously throughout the game. A process is merely that, a process. It can easily produce a wide range of different outputs based on different inputs.

Which is not what you want, you want 'gameplay' to take priority, which is your choice entirely. But 'gameplay' can mean different things for different people, not including the large section of the fanbase who just like immersing themselves in a historical setting.

Truth be told. I have always wanted Paradox to look at the games they are making this way 'With our current mechanics, would it, theoretically, be possible to recreate real history?'. The answer for most of their games would sadly be no, and that is fine. But they should strive to get close, in my opinion.
Theoretically, yes, in all Paradox games it is possible to recreate real history. If you have every controllable entity acting exactly as they did historically, you can recreate quite closely to real history in a Paradox game. But the player is very unlikely to do that, and you need to have the AI capable of reacting to the player's alternate decisions or to the alternate decisions of the other AI. A game that prioritized recreating real history would be either extremely limited and unfun in how the player could interact with it or be quickly made ridiculous by the player deviating because of their foresight as to what happened historically.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Not necessarily. The processes would be capable of producing a similar outcome to history, but only if the same or similar players make the same or similar decisions to history, use the processes at the same or similar times to history, and have the same or similar luck as history continuously throughout the game. A process is merely that, a process. It can easily produce a wide range of different outputs based on different inputs.


Theoretically, yes, in all Paradox games it is possible to recreate real history. If you have every controllable entity acting exactly as they did historically, you can recreate quite closely to real history in a Paradox game. But the player is very unlikely to do that, and you need to have the AI capable of reacting to the player's alternate decisions or to the alternate decisions of the other AI. A game that prioritized recreating real history would be either extremely limited and unfun in how the player could interact with it or be quickly made ridiculous by the player deviating because of their foresight as to what happened historically.


No, you really can't. There would be lacking mechanics all over the place, which is fine, you can't possibly represent every edge case. But you should definitely strive to do so. Ideally with mechanics that can be applied and interpreted broadly.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we have something similar to Fervour for culture, so that cultures have little holdouts against total annihilation? (It could also encourage massive cultures to fracture into regional variants).

You could even have it so that less valuable and controllable places (deep forest, mountains, deserts) are harder to convert than plains and farmlands, so even massive empires have little pockets and enclaves of "old" cultures in their hinterlands.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we have something similar to Fervour for culture, so that cultures have little holdouts against total annihilation? (It could also encourage massive cultures to fracture into regional variants).

You could even have it so that less valuable and controllable places (deep forest, mountains, deserts) are harder to convert than plains and farmlands, so even massive empires have little pockets and enclaves of "old" cultures in their hinterlands.
I would like this as well. The era CK3 covers, especially the late era, was the first emergence of modern nationalism, with (off the top of my head) unified French, Italian, Dutch, Swiss, Spanish, and English nations starting to be solidified near the endgame years. A more dynamic process for cultural shifts would be interesting too, with things like Tuscan, Lombard, and others lasting longer but perhaps in the later game being able to rise as the dominant culture of their group like Tuscan did with Italian (and yes I know that was primarily in the linguistic aspect of culture).
 
  • 1Love
Reactions:
People don't take up arms and then invent a reason to justify having done it. They invent a reason to fight and then use that as justification to take up arms.
Ok, we probably have different concepts. What I've been saying is that people would rejoice to take up arms if that's what they've wanted to do all along.
To sum up my previous post: Fervor shouldn't take a dip because a HW has been called, it should spike because that's what people have been wanting to hear.
I'll repeat myself (again) that I don't have anything against the mechanic, but I think it's a little unrealistic and probably should be tweaked to raise the fervor after the first HW is called, but later sink if this is exploited (e.g. if declaring another one before 50 years -or a century- has passed, but the cooldown being something like 30 years before you can call another; in this way, if the mechanic is abused, it'll wear out the previous Fervor, and the Fervor won after the HW)
 
Ok, we probably have different concepts. What I've been saying is that people would rejoice to take up arms if that's what they've wanted to do all along.
To sum up my previous post: Fervor shouldn't take a dip because a HW has been called, it should spike because that's what people have been wanting to hear.
I'll repeat myself (again) that I don't have anything against the mechanic, but I think it's a little unrealistic and probably should be tweaked to raise the fervor after the first HW is called, but later sink if this is exploited (e.g. if declaring another one before 50 years -or a century- has passed, but the cooldown being something like 30 years before you can call another; in this way, if the mechanic is abused, it'll wear out the previous Fervor, and the Fervor won after the HW)
But that's what I'm saying. They are rejoicing in taking up arms. That people have been wanting to hear and call for a holy war is represented by the preexisting fervor. Actually taking the action, they are expending that existing energy by taking up arms.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But that's what I'm saying. They are rejoicing in taking up arms. That people have been wanting to hear and call for a holy war is represented by the preexisting fervor. Actually taking the action, they are expending that existing energy by taking up arms.
Faith isn't a zero-sum game, though... although granted, the piety mechanic makes it seem that way, but that's getting a rework, too. Point is, you can stay excited while doing something, especially when you see how many other people are, too.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Faith isn't a zero-sum game, though... although granted, the piety mechanic makes it seem that way, but that's getting a rework, too. Point is, you can stay excited while doing something, especially when you see how many other people are, too.

But is it approximately Zero Sum?

Remember, declaring a holy war has a "slight" penalty to Fervor. In reality, religious fervor is an impossibly complex multidimensional phenomenon. But is it approximately true that a motivation of any kind can only be used to motivate a finite number of things. To declare a GHW, Fervor must be high. Declaring it will slightly decrease it - so it will still be high.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
We have the AI play automated games every night, and the 'big' faiths like Catholicism and Ash'ari generally remain quite powerful. Even though they regularly suffer from heresy outbreaks, their sheer bulk and military might means they almost always end up re-asserting themselves as a dominant power.
Also, on this note, it would be great if we could see a screenshot or two of the result of some of the automated games at some point. Just a thought.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Also, on this note, it would be great if we could see a screenshot or two of the result of some of the automated games at some point. Just a thought.

Not wanting to be a pessimist, but the border gore, which we all deep inside know will be there. Will probably discourage many players once they actually see it.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Is Religious Hostility going to be a static modifier? If so, shouldn't you consider to make it a more dynamic system, maybe letting each faith change his point of view towards other faiths?
 
So Fervour is an anti-blobbing mechanism however i'm unsure on what defines low Fervour ,amount wise, and what defines fervour which is reduced from declaring HW because i'm not too sure if being more susceptible to conversion after you defeated some infidels makes sense, i must be missing something here or im a bit stupid?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The game keeps track of individual relationships between characters with there being well over a hundred.

I'm sure it must fudge a lot of that, but if that can be fudged I'm sure this can be too.

I wasn't talking about performance in this case, but making it clear to the player: Having a list with the relation to each other religion wouldn't really work, so it would be at least a bit obscure.
 
  • 1
Reactions: