Tinto Talks #71 - 9th of July 2025

[anbory]

Thank you for another interesting TT! I would suggest to give another name for "Reformed Ritualism" religions. In the end, every religion is about ritualism, I don't think current name differentiate enough old uncodified system from new codified one. Maybe, something like "Nahua Church" would fit more? Also, it would really be nice to see more options for reforms, e. g. more centralized approach like Catholic and Orthodox Christianity or more decentralized like Islam and Asian religions, each with its pros and cons

 

[BuchiTaton]

It's good to see a base game mechanic for Mesoamerican religions. Objectively EU5 would start with more content than EU4, so we can wait for a later DLC that could expand even more Mesoamerican beliefs with further variety and accurate traditions.

Meanwhile here is a small example of how the different religions of Mesoamerica perceived each others and how they reacted to their “doom”:

This fragment of the Relación de Michoacán presents the deliberation of Zuangua, Irecha of Tzintzuntzan (emperor of the Purepecha) after having listened the Tenochca (Aztec) emissaries who went to ask for help against Hernán Cortés forces. Zuangua decided to not help Moctezuma asserting that the Mexica’s doom was the result of their “bad way of living” for not honoring their gods properly, since the Mexica offered only chants to their gods instead of bringing wood for the fires in the temples. Then Zuangua commanded them to intensify the firewood offering to please their gods.

 

[Haleth]

You're the one that keeps calling me a weasel.

I don't see why a law informing a religion doesn't mean that the religion isn't practicing human sacrifice. Why don't you give your definition of human sacrifice, because mine is 'religious rules stipulating the ritualistic execution of other human beings'.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I would define sacrifice as "offering something as a gift to a deity, usually by (partially) destroying that thing".

The thing offered could be incense, bread, money, an animal, something metaphorical like "time" or "a contrite spirit", or indeed a human. But the point is that a human is 1) giving something valuable to a deity, 2) because the deity enjoys or requires it, 3) in order to build a relationship with that deity and in expectation of receiving something back.

Witches were not being offered as gifts to God, they were being executed as dangerous criminals. The Aztecs, on the other hand, were giving human blood as a gift to the sun in order to strengthen it. Therefore, completely irrespective of morality, one is human sacrifice and the other isn't.

 

[viola]

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I would define sacrifice as "offering something as a gift to a deity, usually by (partially) destroying that thing".

The thing offered could be incense, bread, money, an animal, something metaphorical like "time" or "a contrite spirit", or indeed a human. But the point is that a human is 1) giving something valuable to a deity, 2) because the deity enjoys or requires it, 3) in order to build a relationship with that deity and in expectation of receiving something back.

Witches were not being offered as gifts to God, they were being executed as dangerous criminals. The Aztecs, on the other hand, were giving human blood as a gift to the sun in order to strengthen it. Therefore, completely irrespective of morality, one is human sacrifice and the other isn't.

It's not meant to throw shade at you or anything, but I just thought the conversation got pretty funny.

"Your honour, while this might be a case of ritualistic murder of innocent people in the public square, this can't be technically considered human sacrifice. The authorities never officially framed it as a gift to God in the legal forms."

 

[Haleth]

"Your honour, while this might be a case of ritualistic murder of innocent people in the public square, this can't be technically considered human sacrifice. The authorities never officially framed it as a gift to God in the legal forms."

I agree this discussion has reached a silly point, but I do want to point out that if "ritualistic murder" were the definition of human sacrifice, it would include every form of state execution as well.

 

[titan.bevel]

Your argument is based on the idea of the 1,000,000 thousand people sacrificed, as popular culture portrays it.
The historical reality is different. Human sacrifices did occur, but not many people were sacrificed.
The following arguments apply:
1. Archaeologists have not discovered thousands of bone remains from the sacrifices that the Spanish claim the Aztecs (mainly) performed.
2. The population of Mesoamerica could not support such a huge number of sacrificed people.
3. The number of human sacrifices reported by the Spanish conquistadors are inflated figures intended to justify the conquest.

Please, we should educate ourselves and inform ourselves more through scientific articles and books by researchers, and less through blogs.

P.S. The existence of human sacrifices is not being denied, but they were not performed in the numbers mentioned.

Except most people don't have the time for all that reading, and the polarisation of current society DOES include science and confidence in expert is at an all-time low, imo quite justifiably. (the crisis of replicability doesn't come from nowhere, and if "hard" science suffer from that low trust, "humanities" science are quite likely to suffer even more). All that to say the argument of authority, depending of when that authority comes from can't "conclusively" decide a debate.

Regarding the claims, I honestly DON'T know the actual numbers of people that were sacrificed, and mainly googled it quickly, assuming google would "by default" be erring on the side of "favouring morally the aztecs" rather than "defavouring them".

1. I suspect 1 is debatable by some historians, or can be supposed to have been burned or removed otherwhise, but I'll honestly let that debate to other more scholarly people than I am.
2. I thought that the population of pre colonisation america was a wide unknown because of the lack of much records of that period, and the biological shock that came with the europeans, so I don't see how one can conclusively base a conclusion on the population, since it is quite unknown. Besides for representation it'd probably be more accurate to see how much it represented in percentage AND ritualisation / official support than in absolute value, and the problem is that human sacrifices DO have a tendency of lowering the population, making the relations between the 2, when the initial population is unknown, a bit of an egg and chicken problem (do you consider human sacrifices in these number impossible because the population was low ? Or the cause for such a low population ?)
3. That I read enough magazine to know any "ancient" numbers are to be taken with handfull of salt, so by all means, numbers aren't to be taken at face value. Doesn't mean they don't indicate a kind of tendency / ritualisation.

The only time I mentioned a number was for the tbh quite ridiculous comparison between witch burning and human sacrifices but otherwhise am all in for a more nuanced representation, and don't base much of my arguments on the numbers of people sacrificed (except when comparing the importance of this human sacrifice against other ritualised killing). Unless you claim that the number was SO low it was actually very sustainable for the long term, which I tbh doubt very much.

 

[titan.bevel]

only if the religion historically had the possibility of "reforming", should that option be added. Unless the devs are saying that there's a more universal mechanic of reformation of religions, in which case every religion should have that option, given that some prerequisites are fulfilled.

I'm fine with reformations for slightly alt hist scenarios when the religion historically disappeared and is supposedly "not viable" in its current form. But if a more universal / individualised mechanic of reformation could be added, I'd love it.

 

[Daamned]

I am going to be honest: EU5's simulation-over-boardgame philosophy train seems to have completely missed the Religion station

Yeah, honestly I am disappointed.

Believable World

You should be able to play the game and feel like you are in a world that makes sense, and feels rich and realistic. While not making the gaming less accessible, features should be believable and plausible, and avoid abstraction unless necessary.

Edit:

 

[titan.bevel]

I'm not saying they happened in the same scale. I'm saying the represent the same behavior. A point you seem eager to divert away from.

Except the motivation, ritualisation and as such, the way they should be represented as game mechanic wouldn't have anything in common. To start being alike, you'd need for the witch burning to become something required / extremely incentived (so the initial law would become "burn at least X witches every year or else"). And that burning should become a necessity / ritualised thing as a way to honour the gods rather than a punishment for someone disobeying them. Or, the other way around, aztec sacrifice should have been a way to kill the people who angered the gods by disobeying them too much, requiring them to be killed in a violent manner to appease them. But both are simply not the case...

With that being told, if witch burning can be represented by something else than an event, I'd be all in for that too.

 

[Fawr]

I'm very curious about Coatlicue as her bonus to disease resistance seems most significant? Is picking her before 1450 a no brainer, or won't she have a big impact? Does the AI know how important she is? Does the new world population end up at historical levels by 1550 (whatever you have estimated that to be) if every AI country that can select her does, or do you assume some do and some don't, or that none do?

I'm also curious if there were some Mesoamerican groups found plague less severe because of their religious beliefs and customs. Or is this a fantasy bonus?

 

[titan.bevel]

I think the reforms can be supposed to be something that "historically" happened before contact with the spanish. And am fine with a reformed versions which is alt hist for religions that disappeared before the end of the game, since requiring said religions don't change after their historical disappearance seems... not so fun.

But I think the reforms are indeed sorely lacking. To get back to Lord Thanatos comment, maybe the various reforms should give a choice of which way you want to go for that particular law. And have a way of "tracking" how much each law makes you nearer or further from other religions, and eventually the number of human sacrifices / importance of it.

 

[LordThanatos]

I think the reforms can be supposed to be something that "historically" happened before contact with the spanish. And am fine with a reformed versions which is alt hist for religions that disappeared before the end of the game, since requiring said religions don't change after their historical disappearance seems... not so fun.

But I think the reforms are indeed sorely lacking. To get back to Lord Thanatos comment, maybe the various reforms should give a choice of which way you want to go for that particular law. And have a way of "tracking" how much each law makes you nearer or further from other religions, and eventually the number of human sacrifices / importance of it.

That sounds like it'd be a much more fun system. But even if the devs don't have time for something like that right now, I just want to know what the reformed faith is meant to be, and then to see reforms which actually look like they're making progress toward that version of the faith.

If the reformed faith is in fact meant to be the form practiced by the Aztecs just prior to the Spanish arrival, then I have a lot of questions, like what made that form of faith so different to what was practiced in 1337 that it needs a whole new religion. Because of that, I doubt that that's the aim - and I feel pretty confident that it's meant to be a version without belief in needing sacrifice to keep the fifth age going. That would mean that the reforms need to be changed - which at minimum means more sensible flavour text and maybe a change of effects to match.

@Pavía Could you explain what the reformed Nahua ritual faith is meant to represent, please? The description in that screenshot doesn't really reveal anything. Is it an alt-history revision requiring less/no human sacrifice, a stage of the faith representing what the Aztecs believed in their later periods, or is it something else entirely?

 

[ArVass]

Not much to add other than disappointed to see that the way religious faiths are depicted here (and in many non christian religious tinto talks) in a way that doesn't really fit or match the actual faith (DOOM anyone).

It's also disappointing to see that these faiths have to be reformed, yet others don't, I can't help but feel this needs another pass based on some of the great feedback here already.

It appears that the Doom system is meant to lock Nahuas in this system of Altepetl organization, and the "Reformation" is actually not a religious organization but a societal/political one. A lot of the Aztec "reformation" mechanics could've instead been part of some sort of "cultural" system, in which these "religious actions" such establishing a Cihuacōātl or instituting the Flower Wars would instead be political decisions (adding/removing laws, privileges, government reforms etc).

I see the vision and I think I understand the intended design, but I'm not convinced that the ideal way to depict this change is through the religion.

 

[Guaire123456789]

Nezuahcoyotl, philosopher king of Texcoco. Tried to basically create a new tonal faith, per aztec sources. Will this be represented?

 

[Bozkurt]

Okay, seriously, Doom is back?

Why, when it has no links to real Nahua religion do you insist on bringing back the most inaccurate aspect of EU4's mechanics? Where do you get the idea that people rose and sacrificed their rulers? Most sacrifices were prisoners of war, and were not to placate angry gods, but to return the divine energy in a person's heart - their Teyolía - to the sun and keep it - the god Tōnatiuh - shining. This is because the Nahua believed that the world has ended four previous times and is now in the fifth age. The day the world could end was marked as being every 52 years, at the intersections of their solar and ritual calendars, this is the day of the largest ritual observance, the New Fire ceremony.

I can see a mechanic for mass unrest if you don't contribute enough for the New Fire ceremony, but that sacrifice is not only composed of captured prisoners, but also food, drink, and goods. There might also be goods given to the rain or harvest gods or to ancestors for favour.

Where is all the stuff that actually feels like authentic Mesoamerican religion? Where is the practice of stealing defeated group's gods for your pantheon or the effigies of gods brought for rituals and to war - where they might be captured? Where are the god impersonation rituals? Where is the new fire festival that you're actually adulterating with the doom mechanic? The human sacrifice is also far more fascinating than you're making it out to be. Sure, some sacrifices were nobodies, but others were dressed as, and treated as gods for a year before sacrifice - and I don't mean that as a metaphor - they were actually seen as being a living god.

Hopefully that stuff just wasn't talked about, because this is by far the least accurate religious setup so far - and I don't even think it looks nearly as fun as it could be. This is a fascinating religious group and you're just representing the pop-religious aspects. Armies literally stealing the gods of their defeated foes and putting them in their own temples is metal and entirely real, but you focus instead on Apocalypto level representations instead.

(P.S The religion practiced by the Maya should be called 'Maya ritualism', not 'Mayan ritualism'. Mayan is just the name of the language, Maya is the adjective and demonym)

Why do you think doom mechanic is innacurate? It sounded fun to me as a game mechanic but I have no idea about aztec religion so I am just curious. Also would you consider making a seperate thread for it too like other religions?

 

[Kvesir]

It appears that the Doom system is meant to lock Nahuas in this system of Altepetl organization, and the "Reformation" is actually not a religious organization but a societal/political one. A lot of the Aztec "reformation" mechanics could've instead been part of some sort of "cultural" system, in which these "religious actions" such establishing a Cihuacōātl or instituting the Flower Wars would instead be political decisions (adding/removing laws, privileges, government reforms etc).

I see the vision and I think I understand the intended design, but I'm not convinced that the ideal way to depict this change is through the religion.

Yeah, after thinking about this for a while I do understand the intended design. You are intended to be be picking the "religious focuses" to help reduce your Doom, as per:

The more you expand as a Nahua the more Doom you get, making your realm unstable and vassals disloyal, because you should be doing more to appease the gods or something. Thus you are incentivized to make your state religion more Aztec-like to reduce Doom easier and maintain your empire.

What I dislike is that this is all framed as leading to that ahistorical religious reformation - something that is not sufficiently explained and justified. From the point of view of the Aztecs all the actions described as "religious focuses" here were positive, but they don't grant positive modifiers beside reducing Doom (and they definitely could). Instead they're framed as:

These Focuses are a necessary pain, as they give a debuff to your country while they’re active, but you need to accumulate some of them to be able to reform the religion. Here you have some of them.

So your goal as a Nahua in-game is to power through these painful "focuses" to get to the reformation, even though the actual Aztecs weren't intending for any reformation to happen. That's wack. A very odd design choice in my opinion.
If I play as the Aztecs, I don't want to view my religion as a bad thing that needs to be reform-rushed, I want to view it from the POV of the Aztecs.
It might be better if the reformation - which is, again, ahistorical - was the reward for surviving the initial contact with the Europeans, justified as the Nahua society's reaction to the plagues or something.

Besides, as others here have said, Doom is gamey.
When a religious mechanic is copied from EU4 (which unfortunately happened too commonly) it is often seen as too gamey because EU5 has more intricate systems and the capacity of making it more interesting, if only it was reconsidered. This critique is also aimed at other religions that got a poor reaction for copying EU4 systems, like Islam.
I don't know exactly how to restructure Doom to be more historical and fit EU5's systems better (and maybe it should even be renamed and reframed), but I liked some suggestions in this thread, such as:

• Introducing the New Fire ceremony as a "doom check" once every 52 years, giving you a significant modifier for how prepared you were for it, similarly to the Maian K'atun.
• Tying Doom more directly to Clergy estate satisfaction - if Clergy satisfaction was the source of gaining/losing Doom and things like sacrifices merely influenced Clergy satisfaction it might be better (assuming you can't easily cheese estate satisfaction in unrelated ways).
• Tying Doom to plagues and natural disasters.
• Removing the silly "entire dynasty is sacrificed" penalty for reaching 100 Doom. Maybe nothing should happen to a Nahua state that reaches 100 Doom (beside unrest, unstability, disloyalty and the worst outcome in the New Fire).

(by the way, why does Clergy satisfaction impact research speed, and doesn't impact the various forms of religious "mana" - influence, doom, whatever - that so many religions got? If anything, it should be Clergy satisfaction that is the source of religious mana, and not the other way around.)

 

[DeadlyPancakes]

Yes, fixing it.

It would also make more sense to "recruit" units rather than "build" them. The current wording is strange.

 

[Tecumseh23]

It appears that the Doom system is meant to lock Nahuas in this system of Altepetl organization, and the "Reformation" is actually not a religious organization but a societal/political one. A lot of the Aztec "reformation" mechanics could've instead been part of some sort of "cultural" system, in which these "religious actions" such establishing a Cihuacōātl or instituting the Flower Wars would instead be political decisions (adding/removing laws, privileges, government reforms etc).

I see the vision and I think I understand the intended design, but I'm not convinced that the ideal way to depict this change is through the religion.

I think this is an issue that paradox has fallen into a few times, both in EUIV and CK2, where they put various random mechanics and modifiers that don't fit anywhere else into religions or religion groups, when really they are more societal things that aren't directly related to religion. Like the whole idea of becoming "reformed pagan" in these games is more of becoming a more centralized society while keeping your old beliefs, allowing you to be part of the "modern" world.

And absolutely, from the flavor text here, reforming seems all about dropping the altepetl system and becoming a centralized state, which... I mean, it's tied to religion a bit, but definitely more just a system of government that could exist regardless of the people's faith in the Teotl or sacrifice.

 

[LordThanatos]

Why do you think doom mechanic is innacurate? It sounded fun to me as a game mechanic but I have no idea about aztec religion so I am just curious. Also would you consider making a seperate thread for it too like other religions?

It's inaccurate because the reasons for trying to keep doom down are not based in modern understanding of why the sacrifices were done, and the consequences for failing are totally ficticious so far as I can tell.

The description for a sacrifice action, 'Our gods are angry and need to be satiated,' and similar flavour text is just totally misrepresenting the Nahua beliefs. As I explained in my first post, angry gods were not the reason for at least the vast majority of sacrifices. That's just a pop-religion explanation with pretty much no basis in reality.

The majority of sacrifices were to return some of the divine essence that give humanity life to its source - the sun - so that it and other gods can continue battling darkness and keep the end of fifth age - our current age - at bay. Others were to bring the rain god Tlaloc's attention so he might end droughts, or to gods of fertility so they might bless harvests, though these were more often sacrifices of goods rather than people. The other form that was common was sacrifice to Huītzilōpōchtli, the Patron god of the Mexica and the god of war, to grant favour in battle - though this was most often done through self sacrifice, that is ritual bloodletting. Either way those last few examples are not what's being represented by the existential Doom mechanic, but you should see that none have to do with 'angry gods,' but rather in hopes of tangible benefits to the living situation.

As for the actual mechanics and their consequences: there are no historical examples of the consequences that the mechanics lay out for doom, so far as I'm aware. If there isn't a verifiable pattern of such behaviour, it should not be a core mechanic of a religion. The current mechanics lay out the rulers being sacrificed by the people if they fail to keep the doom counter down, but I don't believe we have records of that ever happening historically, and if it did, it certainly wasn't common, or the way failure to enact rituals would be managed. Like I said, I can see there being unrest if a ruler is seen as neglecting their duties in helping in this cosmic effort to keep the world from falling as it had in the prior four ages - but I think that'd mechanically look a lot more like what we have for the Maya K'atuns than what we have for the Nahua, right now.

So basically the reasons stated for the Doom counter are inaccurate, and the consequences of failing to manage Doom are inaccurate on a very junior level. Even an enthusiast or someone who read just a little actual scholarship on the subject should be able to pick that up, it's not a doctoral level mistake that can be easily made if you're trying at all to do the due diligence and research. Let's put it like this: If the devs had purely used Wikipedia as a source, they might have actually gotten something more accurate (Though the result would probably take the Spanish on their word a little too much)

And yes, I'm considering making a thread for this topic, or on one to encompass other 'pagan' religions outside of the Abrahamic or Dharmic groups, if we get more Tinto Talks on similar subjects if they're also error-ridden (Let's be honest, based on the track record for these religious posts, they will be). Otherwise I'm considering a larger post on the errors across all of the religions we've seen so far - or one on the topic of just how they keep making these fundamental mistakes.

 

[Birchinjaro]

And yet

View attachment 1331655

Yeah i don't know how i didn't see that