Dynamic religions, how dynamic would you like them to be?

[manager2525]

Pretty much what the title asks.

Personally i don't mind having some freedom to make small changes to your religion but i would like to have a cap so we don't get bloodthirsty Jains or peacefull Norse. Even idol worshiping Muslims is a stretch (plus some might find it offensive). So maybe we could get a game rule so you can get full ahistorical if you wish to but otherwise religions would have only a limited flexibility.

I am curious about what you would like to see from this feature (dynamic religions).

 

[Metz77]

Frankly I'd like to have them be as dynamic as possible. The AI is restricted to historical heresies, so if you don't want to have bloodthirsty Jains, don't reform them that way.

 

[MateuszS]

I wouldn't mind to being able to create bloodthirsty temporal judaism or sexist-feminist autonomus christianity, but AI should be limited in that matter.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

I agree with the others.
The devs, made it clear that it is a way to give players agency and freedom in their games while the AI will be reasonable in its heresies/reforms.

I won't do it, but if someone wants to get those cannibal incestuous Christians, at least they can.

Now we should be able to model religions previously void of content, such as the Druze.
I'm eager for the diaries on this subject to see the real extent of the mechanic!

 

[Metz77]

Now we should be able to model religions previously void of content, such as the Druze.
I'm eager for the diaries on this subject to see the real extent of the mechanic!

Hell, if the mechanic is deep enough, it should even allow modders to very easily create religions that are overlooked by the devs.

 

[Arona]

Well i hope there is hundreads of doctrines and unlimited changes to reform.

 

[rklrj]

Well i hope there is hundreads of doctrines and unlimited changes to reform.

Oh no, I can already see myself spending hours picking and choosing from all of the possibilities.

 

[Metz77]

Oh no, I can already see myself spending hours picking and choosing from all of the possibilities.

I look forward to it.

 

[CommanderL]

Frankly I'd like to have them be as dynamic as possible. The AI is restricted to historical heresies, so if you don't want to have bloodthirsty Jains, don't reform them that way.

I would not mind a setting to allow the AI to go crazy with it

 

[Cassilda]

I'm also curious if the "falsely profess religion" interaction is still there or not.

 

[Metz77]

I'm also curious if the "falsely profess religion" interaction is still there or not.

If it is I hope it's more restrained than in CK2 — secret religions got kind of out of hand sometimes.

 

[Cassilda]

If it is I hope it's more restrained than in CK2 — secret religions got kind of out of hand sometimes.

Yes, that's also true. I personally liked that you can chose the false conversion when playing dukes or counts under a vastly powerful liege that implements the "religious revocation" law, but I will like more if it the secret religion trait could be automatically inherited by your character dynastic line, but not so prone to randomly spilling around as happens with a society.

 

[Dunaedine]

Pretty much what the title asks.

Personally i don't mind having some freedom to make small changes to your religion but i would like to have a cap so we don't get bloodthirsty Jains or peacefull Norse. Even idol worshiping Muslims is a stretch (plus some might find it offensive). So maybe we could get a game rule so you can get full ahistorical if you wish to but otherwise religions would have only a limited flexibility.

I am curious about what you would like to see from this feature (dynamic religions).

No limit to the choice but with a "social" cost: the more your heresy is far from the original dogma, the more the follower of the original doctrine will hate you.

 

[Metz77]

No limit to the choice but with a "social" cost: the more your heresy is far from the original dogma, the more the follower of the original doctrine will hate you.

I agree with this, and I also think it should lower the conversion chance.

 

[Metanetwork]

My wish list of religious features:

• Cult: the state religion allows one or many rites. For christians, these would be Latin rite, Byzantine rite, West and East Syriac rites, etc. For jews: German (ashkenazi), Spanish (sephardi) and karaite rites. For muslims, they would have to choose a school of fiqh. Peasants and religious heads might like or dislike some rites. A ruler who sticks to liked rites will be liked but his religious features will change slowly, and the opposite if the rite is disliked.
• Leadership: each state religion should have some choice over their religious head (eg. Will my church knell to the Pope or to an orthodox patriarch?). This should be much harder to change than cult. Obvious example: for a muslim denomination, who is the Imam/caliph?
• Dogma: the way that the religion interprets its holy book. Would affect AI behavior (aggressivity, proselytism, etc). Christian choices could be based on Christ's nature (eg. Hypostatic union for catholics and orthodox vs. Docetism for cathars), and muslim choices on the createdness of the Quran (ashari and mutazilites would fit here but not be the only choice). Jewish choices: rabbinic or karaite. Changing holy book altogether should be very hard. The religion group should be decided at this level. Hindu, buddhist, jain could essentially be different dogmas of a "dharmic" religion.
• Minor features: changes such as inserting or abolishing cannibalism or incest. If the features fit the cult and dogma (eg. monasticism with a christian group dogma), they should be easier to add and harder to remove. If they run counter to the cult and dogma (eg. monasticism with a muslim group dogma), they should be harder to add and easier to remove.

 

[Metz77]

My wish list of religious features:

• Cult: the state religion allows one or many rites. For christians, these would be Latin rite, Byzantine rite, West and East Syriac rites, etc. For jews: German (ashkenazi), Spanish (sephardi) and karaite rites. For muslims, they would have to choose a school of fiqh. Peasants and religious heads might like or dislike some rites. A ruler who sticks to liked rites will be liked but his religious features will change slowly, and the opposite if the rite is disliked.
• Leadership: each state religion should have some choice over their religious head (eg. Will my church knell to the Pope or to an orthodox patriarch?). This should be much harder to change than cult. Obvious example: for a muslim denomination, who is the Imam/caliph?
• Dogma: the way that the religion interprets its holy book. Would affect AI behavior (aggressivity, proselytism, etc). Christian choices could be based on Christ's nature (eg. Hypostatic union for catholics and orthodox vs. Docetism for cathars), and muslim choices on the createdness of the Quran (ashari and mutazilites would fit here but not be the only choice). Jewish choices: rabbinic or karaite. Changing holy book altogether should be very hard. The religion group should be decided at this level. Hindu, buddhist, jain could essentially be different dogmas of a "dharmic" religion.
• Minor features: changes such as inserting or abolishing cannibalism or incest. If the features fit the cult and dogma (eg. monasticism with a christian group dogma), they should be easier to add and harder to remove. If they run counter to the cult and dogma (eg. monasticism with a muslim group dogma), they should be harder to add and easier to remove.

Actually, having the various rites might be a good path towards implementing the Great Schism.

 

[vyshan]

My wish list of religious features:

• Cult: the state religion allows one or many rites. For christians, these would be Latin rite, Byzantine rite, West and East Syriac rites, etc. For jews: German (ashkenazi), Spanish (sephardi) and karaite rites. For muslims, they would have to choose a school of fiqh. Peasants and religious heads might like or dislike some rites. A ruler who sticks to liked rites will be liked but his religious features will change slowly, and the opposite if the rite is disliked.
• Leadership: each state religion should have some choice over their religious head (eg. Will my church knell to the Pope or to an orthodox patriarch?). This should be much harder to change than cult. Obvious example: for a muslim denomination, who is the Imam/caliph?
• Dogma: the way that the religion interprets its holy book. Would affect AI behavior (aggressivity, proselytism, etc). Christian choices could be based on Christ's nature (eg. Hypostatic union for catholics and orthodox vs. Docetism for cathars), and muslim choices on the createdness of the Quran (ashari and mutazilites would fit here but not be the only choice). Jewish choices: rabbinic or karaite. Changing holy book altogether should be very hard. The religion group should be decided at this level. Hindu, buddhist, jain could essentially be different dogmas of a "dharmic" religion.
• Minor features: changes such as inserting or abolishing cannibalism or incest. If the features fit the cult and dogma (eg. monasticism with a christian group dogma), they should be easier to add and harder to remove. If they run counter to the cult and dogma (eg. monasticism with a muslim group dogma), they should be harder to add and easier to remove.

Some good ideas though I am curious how the Pagan faiths fit into this design idea.

I can see cults actually referring to the cultus of the gods, and thus can reflect the different priesthoods. But what about the fact that most polytheistic faiths were religiously inclusive? also would Dogma have to explicitly refer to a Holy Book, since most of the polytheistic faiths do not have a holy book.

still as mentioned good ideas. I like it.

 

[Metz77]

Some good ideas though I am curious how the Pagan faiths fit into this design idea.

I can see cults actually referring to the cultus of the gods, and thus can reflect the different priesthoods. But what about the fact that most polytheistic faiths were religiously inclusive? also would Dogma have to explicitly refer to a Holy Book, since most of the polytheistic faiths do not have a holy book.

still as mentioned good ideas. I like it.

Honestly I'd like to see more expression of the idea that pagan faiths were syncretic. There wasn't a lot of religious tension between pagans simply because they believed all gods existed and other cultures' gods were either their gods with different names or entirely new gods they may or may not decide to worship themselves.

 

[GreyJack]

peacefull Norse.

Would that be so much of a stretch? The Norse weren't insane killing machines. Most Norsemen were not Vikings.

 

[Arko]

Let it be full dynamic, I am pretty sure there will be game rules to limit it to please everyone.