-
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.
I think of East Asian "religions". Mahayana bridges Buddhism and Animism in East Asia, while other Buddhist traditions are distinct from those in the different systems. It is clear that the pairs from the two systems existed in East Asia
- Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet - Bon
- Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia - Tengrism
- Tibetan Buddhism in Manchuria - Shamanism
- Azhaliism - Benzhuism
- Japanese Mahayana - Shinto
- Korean Mahayana - Neo-Confucianism
- Chinese Mahayana - Neo-Confucianism & Daoism
- 6
- 3
My only criticism of this mod is that it's overdone.
- 1
I would say that this is also true for Theravada populations.
While modern Theravada countries identify themselves as >90% Buddhist, the presence of local animist or folk religious beliefs are just as common as found in East Asia.
For example, taking a glance at a description of Burmese religion, it reads incredibly similarly to the type of description you would see of Chinese or Japanese religion:
| 
|
Even in local folk religions, such as Satsana Phi (Tai folk religion), often regarded as separate "non-Buddhist" beliefs, there is a heavy influence of Buddhist ideals, festivals, or folklore. In countries such as Thailand, Cambodia, and pre-Islamic Indonesia, there is also an especially heavy influence of Hinduism into local beliefs.
I think the reason Buddhism was able to coexist with and integrate into various cultures and folk religions was summarized well by Leslie Milne in her book Shans at Home:
In game, I think there should be a consistency between all the Buddhist regions. If East Asia has representation of syncretism then so should Southeast Asia. Additionally, one important factor needs to be consideredn - Buddhism was more influential in some regions compared to others, favoured by some governments and disliked by others, and all of this could change.
When only allowing for a single religion which represents syncretic populations, you have two options for a consistent view:
1. Local beliefs or polytheism as the primary religion in each country. "Shintoism" in Japan, "Shenism" in China, "Natism" in Burma, "Hinduism" in Cambodia and Indonesia. Buddhism would then be represented through other means, perhaps as an International Organization.
2. Buddhism as the primary religion in each country. In this method, local beliefs can be represented through country or religion mechanics, you could have a slider or societal value denoting the influence of "Local beliefs vs Orthodox Buddhist beliefs" in a country. Differences between local beliefs in each country would be indicated by the culture of a pop.
In my opinion, I find both of these options unintuitive. I think that every belief should be included separately, and their syncretism represented through high tolerance and interactions between these religions. This would obviously solve the issues with naming conventions and potentially favouring one faith/culture over another. However, the main issue with splitting them is what to do with the pops. In my view, "pops" represent communities of people rather than distinct individuals, and in this interpretation there is not really an issue with dividing a Chinese location into, say, "30% Buddhism / 70% Shenism", because it would simply be an abstract representation of the relative influence of both beliefs within that community. When pops are viewed in a more individualistic way, that division becomes difficult to make sense of and looks arbitrary and inaccurate.
Since pops require a "confessional" view of religion, both methods will be inaccurate simplification in one way or another, and someone will always find an issue with either interpretation. For the most part, I don't think there is anything inherently arbitrary about representing each faith separately compared to a single syncretic faith.
- 2
Well, the separation will make sense in many contents, particularly the struggles between native animism and Buddhism.
"Local beliefs vs Orthodox Buddhist beliefs" is just a re-categorization of population. Take China for example, suppose everyone follows a highly syncretic Shenism (or you can call it Confucianism as Confucians made it) more or less, which agreed with both Buddhism and Daoism, while there are some exclusive Buddhists and Daoists, who rejected some part of other people's principles and should be considered "protestants" in this literally "catholic" system. Or to make it simple, just count who are the loosely Buddhists and who are not, make it proportion of Buddhist and non-Buddhist influence.
Historically, Catholicism also accepted many heretic traditions, notably the holidays:
No wonder that Puritans strongly condemned the celebration of Christmas, citing it as a Catholic invention. In East Asia, the Three Teachings was made by Confucians as the "catholic" system, literally "broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests" according to the Webster.
Satsana Phi could be an easier case, for which I give two solutions and the existing solution from the dev to illustrate my idea:
1. pure Theravada, pure Satsana Phi, and some other people holding no particular opinion on both sides.
2. Satsana Phi and Theravada to represent the Buddhism and non-Buddhism influence in this country.
3. Theravada and Satsana Phi are the same, just add some flavors to make it interesting.
I stongly recommended the first solution for Chinese religion, as we already have perfect terms (Shenism and Confucianism) for the third opinion within the religions and emphasized my view on China as an de facto politically and confessionally irreligious country that never had an official "state religion" in history, not like what Christianity and Islam did. Ideally, we will have a majority of Shenism, some Doaists, some Buddhists, and the small proportion of Confucianists, or just use the term "Confucianism" to label Shenism. However, this solution might be rejected by Orientalist imagination of Eastern Asian religions, e.g. (1) Confucianism holding an ignorant stance on other religions like Christianity without noticing the
the Church's hostility (see my previous post); (2) so-called "inclusive" Confucianism imposed Inquisition-like harsh and bold purge against Buddhism in Korea (see); (3) Chinese believe in foolish ideas like Mandates by disasters instead of more reasonable religions without noticing deism-like neo-Confucianism (see); (4) Fiction a powerful, influential clergy class like what it did in Europe (see).
No, religions did not really matter in China, and neither did the clergy; in ancient China and Korea, priests of Buddhism and Daoism were considered the middle lower strata of the society. For example, Daoist and Buddhist priests were only ranked the 16th and 17th among the listed 27 occupations (上中下九流) in ancient China, only better than outlaws, hookers, and coolies. That's why I frequently argued for the religious neutrality in the government and allowing more interaction to support this feature. Since I had no idea how the dev thought about the religion right and whether this splitting would benefit the gameplay, my stand won't go with an "Eastern Buddhist" stance of the WIP right, as I pointed Buddhist priests are not the case in the Chinese politics. If China had to have a "state religion", it can't be Buddhism among the mass but Confucianism, that was always prevailing among the upper class, was always sponsored by the government, was always dominant in the Three Teachings System, and always made the final decisions involving all religions.
I will agree with the idea on "abstract representation of the relative influence" in the population system instead of the estate system as I am strongly against any clergy class in China. This could be my bottom line in the second solution. From my understanding, there are much possibility the situation of solution 1 falls into the situation of the solution 2. Solution 2 is just acceptable for me to escape from the Solution 3, but I agree it may work in many other countries as you said. Technically speaking, I have provided many materials from different countries and regions to support the feasibility of splitting population into two religion categories, and this should be a more plausible solution from the development perspective, though people may vary on the interpretation of these materials.
Last edited:
- 2
My proposal for Far Eastern religions would include native/Taoic traditions alongside Buddhism (Mahayana), specifically Shenism (China), Thanism (Vietnam), and Muism (Korea), with all nations having a significant Buddhist (Mahayana) population and possibly some scattered Taoist practitioners.
Additionally, I believe grouping all religions from India (such as Hinduism) to Japan (like Shinto) under a broad "Eastern or Oriental" category is overly odd. Instead, a division between Dharmic and Taoic religions would be more appropriate. East Asian Buddhism in the game, despite being Dharmic, should have unique characteristics that allow it to be tolerated (similar to one of the mechanics of CK3 tenets, it made specific faith be tolerated/will tolerate another faiths from another religious group) by Taoic religions.
Additionally, I believe grouping all religions from India (such as Hinduism) to Japan (like Shinto) under a broad "Eastern or Oriental" category is overly odd. Instead, a division between Dharmic and Taoic religions would be more appropriate. East Asian Buddhism in the game, despite being Dharmic, should have unique characteristics that allow it to be tolerated (similar to one of the mechanics of CK3 tenets, it made specific faith be tolerated/will tolerate another faiths from another religious group) by Taoic religions.
- 2
- 1
Think of any religion as juggling three things:
But over in East Asia, they usually spread those out:
If you squint at four East Asian countries, here's roughly how it shakes out (just my impression):
To pull this off, I'd lean on EU4's Confucianism and Tengri mechanics to reflect how different religious traditions coexist and complement each other.
I think it’s a good idea to transplant EU4's Tengri "Secondary Religion" feature into Shinto, then set Japan's default secondary religion to Mahayana (or Japanese Buddhism—maybe even calling it something like "Butsudoism")
- Supernatural (gods, spirits, miracles)
- Ethics (how we live and relate to one another)
- Metaphysics (big questions about reality)
But over in East Asia, they usually spread those out:
- Folk religion is mostly about spirits and rituals.
- Confucianism is mostly about how society and politics should work.
- Buddhism mainly focuses on metaphysical questions—like karma, emptiness, and the nature of the mind.
If you squint at four East Asian countries, here's roughly how it shakes out (just my impression):
| Country | Supernatural (gods/spirit) | Ethics (society/government) | Metaphysics (big questions) |
| China | Chinese folk religion, Buddhism | Confucianism | Confucianism, Buddhism |
| Vietnam | Vietnamese folk religion, Buddhism | Confucianism | Confucianism, Buddhism |
| Korea | Korean folk religion | Confucianism | Confucianism |
| Japan | Shintoism, Buddhism | Buddhism, Confucianism | Buddhism |
To pull this off, I'd lean on EU4's Confucianism and Tengri mechanics to reflect how different religious traditions coexist and complement each other.
I think it’s a good idea to transplant EU4's Tengri "Secondary Religion" feature into Shinto, then set Japan's default secondary religion to Mahayana (or Japanese Buddhism—maybe even calling it something like "Butsudoism")
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
I think the devs have already said that shinto is actually just Japanese Buddhism
- 1
How is this "Three teachings" idea gonna account for the nuances they had across broader East Asia. For example, while in China, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism were in relative harmony from the Ming onward, Korean confucian waged opressive policies against Buddhism, destroying many Buddhist temples etc, while in Japan Confucianism was perceived secondary to Zen Buddhism.
I never said there would be perfect harmony. That didn't exist in China like you claim it did. I think there should be court influence mechanics to represent that or some sort of mechanic to represent certain sects/schools/religions being favored and disfavored overtime. It's very easy to account for these 'nuances.'
Edit: Also, my proposal is NOT the Three Teachings proposal, I oppose it. My suggestion was that Japan, China, Vietnam and Korea all get their separate religions with Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism as mechanics within them alongside their ethnic faith.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
When you look at the clergy responsible for serving laypeople in East Asian religions (those who play a role similar to that of pastors in Christianity), you might get a very different impression compared to Christianity.
As I see it, the main duties of clergy who play a “pastoral” role in the major East Asian traditions are roughly as follows:
Mahayana Buddhism
- Conduct religious ceremonies and rituals
- Officiate believers’ life-cycle rites (this is especially common in Japan)
- Preach and pass on moral and philosophical teachings (again, more prominent in Japan)
- Offer care and support to laypeople, including charitable work
- Conduct religious ceremonies and rituals
- Officiate believers’ life-cycle rites
- There are hardly any clergy who take on a pastoral role
- Most Daoist priests are monks, focused on mysticism, alchemy, and divination rather than community guidance
- Conduct religious ceremonies and rituals
- Preach and pass on moral and philosophical teachings
A Christian can usually have a full and meaningful religious experience within a single faith. But in East Asia, if someone only connects with one religion, they might not get access to the full range of spiritual or communal support.
Because of that, I’m not sure it makes sense to model China as if some people just follow Buddhism and others just follow Confucianism. The overlap and combination of traditions seem too important to leave out.
The Joseon dynasty did not repress Buddhism as a religion, they privatised it. Basically all Joseon Emperors and even some scholar-officials were privately Buddhists and practiced the faith. What that the government at the time did was dismantle the organised aspects of Buddhist religion - the monasteries and the monks.
This is very easily displayed as a suppression of organized manifestations of the Buddhist faith within a broad singular "Eastern religion", with gameplay systems to simulate the dismantlement of a current. Disregarding gameplay, having a singular "Eastern Religion" is the correct way to portray Chinese/Korean faith, any other lines being drawn among the populace are basically an arbitrary fiction.
- 2
- 2
Theravada Buddhism cements the basis of religion and the belief systems in Southeast Asia. Animism predated Buddhism but came to exist within a Buddhist sphere, and with an overarching Buddhist theology. That is not the case in China - arguably the opposite happened there, Buddhism came to exist within a larger East Asian religious sphere and added to its theology but did not shape it.
The talk about dividing lines in the populace based on abstraction is going to be just arbitrary, because for the populace and even parts of the clergy, it was hard to truly talk about clear divisions in terms of practice and the world around them. The divisions of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism existed only in terms of philosophy/theology. This is not a claim that the religions were 'harmonious' or whatever, but simply that they are very hard to separate from one another in that context of China at this period - and even nowadays arguably, despite the increasing denominalization of religion caused by the influence of Abrahamic religions and Chinese modern attempts at integrating Tibetan Buddhism into the Chinese context for political reasons.
- 1
No idea why "pastoral role" is important here. When I discussed the role of the religious clergy, I placed it on the table of politics, because the so-called "pastor roles" had almost no influence in politics. As you can tell, the population that played so-called "pastor roles" was highly suppressed and so few for most of history. I don't know what experience will bring you to the conclusion that "Asian practitioners" could not have a full and meaningful religious experience within a single faith:
- All these religions can perform religious ceremonies and rituals, including believers' life-cycle rites (Daoists, Confucianism)
- Daoism and Buddhism did support the laymen (like Taoist-led Yellow Turbans, which began with the medical service), but their interaction with average people was highly restricted under the government.
- All EA religions will not reject "full range of spiritual or communal support" to almost anyone, even if they were not faithful or even hostile to them. It is a "free market" of religions, à la carte. Not necessary to be a follower of any of these services.
What I did was basically a redefinition of religious categories and transformed the existing factions into a realistic, feasible framework for development:
- If you accepted all three teachings, you are a Confucian "catholics";
- If you rejected any of these teachings, you are "protestants" for "Daoism/Buddhism/Shintoism/Muism/Confucianism".
- If you rejected all these teachings, you were a heretic.
The game is already fictitious, and I did not see why fiction could not be feasible for this part; if we could not make assumptions, all the alt-history games wouldn't work at all. You can't even make a game. Given the current design, I disagree with any claim that a single-religion system in EA will ever offer a better simulation; rather, it will oversimplify everything. Straightforward, arguing for syncretism and inseparability will only add fuel to the stereotype that the Asian religion was highly homogenous.
What I am extremely against is putting Chinese religions into the Christian confessional framework, under which Chinese religions were just a singular religion with a dubious umbrella word, e.g., "Eastern Buddhist" or "Mahayana". We could not even reach an agreement on what the name is for this "assumed religion" here. Thus, from my perspective, it is meaningless to discuss the naming convention or something similar, as we could never have reached a consensus; rather, the focus should be on designing a feasible workaround to make the system work.
Make a system. Look at how bad Islam went. If we cannot devise a feasible idea for how this system works, it will be through reselling outdated flavors. At least, we had some progress in harmonization in EU4 and acknowledged that the "Buddhism" label was not suitable for the religions. I don't really care how accurate it is if I were the dev, but rather how I can implement a feasible framework to make it sensible for everything. Make religious events reasonable. Make international connections of religions sensible. One single Asian religion could not stand because it would create events contradictory to itself.
- 4
Representing the religions as a single religion is exactly trying to escape the Christian confessional framework. Separating them into Daoism, Confucianism, Buddhism is the confessional Christian approach which cleanly separates faiths and assumes that them having different theologies implies they are different in practice and devotional following.
And look, the game is trying to represent history. Representing the religions as a single religion is based on history and how academic research and scholarly analysis of religion in China categorises faith there.
Take a look into the sources I provided in the thread "Why China Should Not be Buddhist" if you want to see more about religion in China and how scholars generally conceive it and analyse it. This isn't "stereotype", its the best assessment of its manifestation.
I have to add that religion in China and its manifestation there is not unique. It is how many religion manifested themselves in environments where Abrahamic religions were not present. It is the same case with ancient Greco-Roman religion - we can't treat Neoplatonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism or the mystery cults or Mithratism or folk practices as separate religions despite the fact they all disagreed heavily with each other and had totally different theologies. They were all part of a single religious framework, much like in China.
- 3
I am not interested in arguing why Chinese religion was the same according to your sources. This is highly controversial and not persuasive to many people, making it difficult to take an intermediate stance on this issue. Even academia can't agree on this. Scholars argued for it for years. This is not what experts discussed on a pure academic basis, or "trust me, I'm an expert in that," but how people perceived themselves. And, as I pointed out, the current system did not make sense for this game. It needs improvement, rather than just changing the names. My basic idea is to make it more dynamic, more sensible for the majority.
Furthermore, I really hate translation by analogy. Drawing direct analogies between EA religions and Greco-Roman religion risks flattening their unique features and imposing a universalist framework that overlooks Asian concepts and historical context. Instead, it's better to approach it on its terms and within its development. So, that's the basis of my argument - they should have a system with complex interaction, emphasizing they are the same from a non-emic understanding. Think out of the box. Not how pertinent they are to the current system, or how close they are to the religious studies acculturated in the EA religions, but how we can incorporate our terms under the system conditions with integrity.
Well, this is not how East Asian religions can be the same, but rather how to convey the meaning of information to represent their history. What I believe is that, in a cross-cultural relationship, it is rather essential to emphasize the heterogeneity instead of homogeneity. Lack of heterogeneity will inevitably lead to Orientalism, purely assumption from the existing knowledge. Your understanding of Asian religion may come from various academic sources with a more globalized perspective. Still, those broader and vague terms are not applicable to the local knowledge, which is more concerned explicitly with Asian religions. If we just apply that generalized religious knowledge to every religion, it won't be a flavor for immersion.
I did not attempt to understand "religion" in its English meaning, but rather from a Chinese perspective. I don't believe Confucianism is really a religion, but it can be a "religion", as "religion" was used for the Chinese term "jiao", and typically "sanjiao", three teachings. I do believe we need to put local knowledge, such as "three teaching", the dynamics between different "religions", into the system as a flavor, instead of emphasizing how it will work with something in Europe or something in Europe will work for this pattern. TBH, I don't really care why Stoicism isn't a religion in Europe for this game. I don't believe it does matter for the design of Eastern religions. We are not trying to find the lid for the pot from our inventory, but attempting to have the suits fit for ourselves.
- 2