Heretic Commune [Government]

[moscal]

Unique government to few anti-feudal heresies like a lollards. This is stupid, that anti-feudal rebellion lead to new feudal regime, so this can be start to other way about thinking of heresies.

Features
*Can hold castles and cities
*Haven't normal vassal taxes and levies
*Can have temporary vassal taxes and levies but must paid by piety
*Have ability to call vassals into war like a tribes
*Succession laws limited to elective
*Enable raids - if target of raids will have "father-religion" is chance to conversion (look at Spanilá jízda - raids was used to "export of hussite reformation")
*Special retinues based on piety (like a tribal retinues based on prestige)
*Reduction of heavy units and more light infantry for every holdings
*Council laws limited to "Council authority"
*Extra maluses for opinion with feudal lords and doges
*Can't have loans from jews, holy orders etc.
*Tyranny maluses is higher than normal

EDIT

*Special holding (like a family palace) - familian commune. Can growth military, economical and piety bonuses, but give also risk of riot against your family (paranoia, that you want be new feudal tyrant)
*Centralization laws limited to "Decentralized"
*Don't have "Administration laws"

 

[klopkr]

I'd love to see communes in game. Peasant revolts should form them sometimes too.

 

[Rags17]

Create that government type !

 

[elvain]

would pretty much fit also to the Qarmatians. Yay!

 

[Rags17]

So - new government type in the Feudal category that looks a lot like Tribal or Muslim (eg Law changes for Prestige or Piety, raise vassal levies as allies rather than as vassals etc) and limited to Qarmatians, Lollards, Fraticelli, Peasant Leaders and Heresiarchs.

Does anyone want to see if this would work ?

 

[Snow Crystal]

would pretty much fit also to the Qarmatians. Yay!

Qarmatians confirmed?!

 

[moscal]

So - new government type in the Feudal category that looks a lot like Tribal or Muslim (eg Law changes for Prestige or Piety, raise vassal levies as allies rather than as vassals etc) and limited to Qarmatians, Lollards, Fraticelli, Peasant Leaders and Heresiarchs.

Cannot be in feudal, because this is anti-feudal gov And not every heresiarchs - eg. after restore pentarchy catholicism would be as orthodox heresy, but catholicism is pro-feudalism denomination so also leader of catholic-uprising shouldn't member of anti-feudal world

List of heresies, who can be part of anti-feudal-world (in my opinion)
*catharism
*lollardism
*bogomilism
*paulicianism
*zikri
*mazdaki
*samaritanism
*any old-paganic-heresy

 

[klopkr]

I think communes would be city or temple based. Religious communes could have cities as their primary title and also hold temples like muslims do in game. Peasant communes could just hold cities primarily.

Honestly holding cities and churches seems like one of the few combos not in game yet.

They could be locked in with full council powers and maybe even require votes for changing all laws. It would make playing as the commune a bit of a challenge. They could be either nonplayable non dynastic or playable and semi dynastic with a similar style to republics but using elections that either take pity or prestige. Familial Community (less ritsy than palaces) would be where you build little bonuses to prestige and piety. Examples of things you could build in it could be a poorhouse, chapel, forum, meeting hall, tradehouse, stables, armory, etc.

Instead of focusing on making money like normal republics communes could be more focused around getting piety or prestige. I would also suggest a special cb for literally everyone else to use against communes in order to enact order. And if your family builds up their commune and wins several elections in a row and own a barony maybe you can unlock a decision to become feudal.

These are just my thoughts on how it could look.

 

[Rags17]

I will happily defer to everyone else on what cultures, religions or trait holders should be able to have access to this government type. (Side note - imagine if we included Peasant Leader as one potential type then added a mechanic that allowed a character to "teach" this trait to his kids then I could imagine cases where a peasant paradise lasted until someone simply never picked up the Trait and the government type changed to something like Feudal.

"We all agreed that there would be no leaders in this realm right ? Now shut up and do as I say !"

As to government CLASS unfortunately the options are limited. I have experimented with all sorts of new government types and I can tell you that the only playable Republican government type is MR - if you add or edit an existing type that isn't an MR then you get game over when you try to play it. At the same time government class determines all sorts of other things such as the user interface, who has access to Jewish loans and the Hermetics and so on. Putting this government type (taking suggestions for names) in the Feudal category makes sens to me but I could be convinced that it should be in the tribal governments class.

I will happily make this up and post here if people can give me some more parameters.

 

[klopkr]

As to government CLASS unfortunately the options are limited. I have experimented with all sorts of new government types and I can tell you that the only playable Republican government type is MR - if you add or edit an existing type that isn't an MR then you get game over when you try to play it. At the same time government class determines all sorts of other things such as the user interface, who has access to Jewish loans and the Hermetics and so on. Putting this government type (taking suggestions for names) in the Feudal category makes sens to me but I could be convinced that it should be in the tribal governments class.

I'm pretty sure this could be changed by the devs. I think it's that way because the need hasn't existed. Usually if you want a non merchant republic republic then you can just give cities to a 'feudal category' or make your own category. The government categories don't really matter that much. Plus I would argue if they really can't put it in the republic group they should just make a commune group.

 

[moscal]

As to government CLASS unfortunately the options are limited.

NOW is limited Developers are able to freely change these limits. Current in republicanian types must have parametr "merchant_republic = yes" but in next patch devs can give new parametr like a "communists = yes"

Familial Community (less ritsy than palaces) would be where you build little bonuses to prestige and piety. Examples of things you could build in it could be a poorhouse, chapel, forum, meeting hall, tradehouse, stables, armory, etc.

Familial Community, as special-holding, should be (IMO) riddled with risk. For rest of society greater individual or family community, can be interpretated as "He wan't be new feudal king" (form of paranoia like in roman republic). Maybe by events or static modifiers?

And if your family builds up their commune and wins several elections in a row and own a barony maybe you can unlock a decision to become feudal.

No. Feudalization should be locked (without religion change) - therefore was antifeudal revolution, to creation "new regional/world order", not to replace one feudal regime into other.

I think communes would be city or temple based.

No. After change of religion (other than muslim) by player this will be "game over" - default transformation into republic or theocracy. Castles must be for safety

 

[Alfray Stryke]

Qarmatians confirmed?!

Who?!

List of heresies, who can be part of anti-feudal-world (in my opinion)
*catharism
*lollardism
*bogomilism
*paulicianism
*zikri
*mazdaki
*samaritanism
*any old-paganic-heresy

Plus add a "Commune" doctrine that pagans can reform into to get this government type?

 

[moscal]

Who?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarmatians

Plus add a "Commune" doctrine that pagans can reform into to get this government type?

IMO - not. Heretic commune haven't to be part of mainstream denominations, because... will not be a "heretic" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And therefore should be able only for "primitivistic pagan heresy"

 

[Alfray Stryke]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarmatians

Ain't listed here; https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Religion#Heresies
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

IMO - not. Heretic commune haven't to be part of mainstream denominations, because... will not be a "heretic" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And therefore should be able only for "primitivistic pagan heresy"

My argument for adding a Commune doctrine would be so players could choose to gain the government type if they wanted, adding more options is better

 

[moscal]

My argument for adding a Commune doctrine would be so players could choose to gain the government type if they wanted, adding more options is better

No, isn't better. Any additional element must be "rational". Feudalization is rational. Anti-feudal government is rational for anti-feudal folks. This will not be rational for modernized pagans. Look at laws in CK2 - next reforms of tribalism (tribal organization) lead to half-feudal government. Why do reforms in feudal-style should lead to anti-feudal government?

Therefore I described this as "heretic commune" - this shouldn't default government for mainstream religions and denominations.

Ofc - you can inspire by my idea and create a different non-feudal system. Or maybe Paradox rewrite my concept into other form. But in my vision this shouldn't be default government for mainstream religions and denominations. And reformed paganism is mainstream.

I have hope, that I good wrote my "path of thinking" My english isn't the best

 

[Alfray Stryke]

Oh yeah, it's a good point that increasing Tribal Organisation would go against any religion/culture that would value this government! What I'd therefore suggest is when reforming a faith in order to pick the doctrine I'm suggesting the reformer would have to either still be Tribal or Nomadic and it would grant the decision of "Adopt Communal Government", much like the current "Adopt Feudal/Republic Government" decisions. However this decision would instead require Minimum Tribal Organisation (instead of Maximum like the others).

 

[moscal]

Yes, this is any option. But first Pdx should write others govs

 

[Alfray Stryke]

Yes, this is any option. But first Pdx should write others govs

Agreed!

 

[klopkr]

Familial Community, as special-holding, should be (IMO) riddled with risk. For rest of society greater individual or family community, can be interpretated as "He wan't be new feudal king" (form of paranoia like in roman republic). Maybe by events or static modifiers?

The reason I think it should exist is because it's the only way you could set up a system in this game where when you lose an election you aren't stuck with nothing to do. A family palace would obviously make no sense in a strong commune. I say familial community because I think that should represent the base unit of a generally acceptable dynastic situation in a commune. Basically it's the extended family unit. Like a Longhouse to native americans. As long as you are not consistently winning elections there shouldn't be too much paranoia just for living in your familial community unless it's a heretic religion that specifically believed in abolishing the family. Having said that, paranoia about the elected leader sound fun and like a good idea. Maybe the more often you win elections the more it's counted against your election score? Then you'd need a REALLY popular character to caesar it up after a few elections in a row.

No. Feudalization should be locked (without religion change) - therefore was antifeudal revolution, to creation "new regional/world order", not to replace one feudal regime into other.

When I'm talking about commune as a government type I'm speaking for any form of commune, not just heretic ones. But I agree if the heresy is particularly communal than it should be locked from changing. I still think peasant revolts and less communal religions should be able to switch into feudalism after a few decades of dynastic rule with a heavy opinion penalty trait for not starting out noble.

No. After change of religion (other than muslim) by player this will be "game over" - default transformation into republic or theocracy. Castles must be for safety

Um that's not how the game works. When you switch out of a government that lets you hold a holding you just get the wrong holding modifier. Try it yourself in game, there's no game over.

 

[Blk82]

A castle holding simply corresponds to a political center of power in rural areas, aka farmland, rural villages, and castle-towns. The term "feudal" in game does not imply feudalism per say, but is the generic government form for post-tribal societies. The Lollards themselves were ironically pro-monarchist, as they wanted to king to act as a bulwark against the power of the church and nobility. That was not do far different than the actual policies of centralizing 16th century monarchs who allied with the merchant classes and lower gentry against the church and great nobles. Historically, the more radical Christian sects have either moderated when they obtained political power, ran a revolutionary dictatorship that imploded after a couple years, or decided that they were too holy to hold civil office.

There really isn't such a thing as an "anti-feudal" state per say, there are pre-feudal states, represented by tribal and nomadic governments, and post-feudal states, which really can't be represented in game. The game mechanics really can't represent a post-feudal state. (Well, it could, by creating a government type free revocation of all titles, an unlimited demesne, and no wrong-holding penalties, but that would be ridiculously OP.)

This seems like an attempt to create a playable theocracy to create a playable theocracy, rather than to represent a historical government type. Heretic communes were rare and generally very small, well below the equivalent of a barony tier holding in most cases. Also, they did not have noble or quasi-noble dynasties, but were as close to peasant republics as one can get.