Religious divisions in CKII

[unmerged(2456)]

CK1 has a fairly poor representation of religion, even when you consider its representation of Christianity, let alone the other religions.

Beyond stuff like realm-rulers not being able to convert, lack of jewish courtiers spawning and the poor implementation of Islam (which did cause serious gameplay problems), the heretical system was poorly implemented and the game treated catholics and orthodox as a separate religion entirely.

Part of this was caused by the previous engine's finite limit on tags, something that should be fixed in this version. Beyond allowing for tiered structures like Sunni/Shiite under Islam and Catholics/Orthodox under Christianity, it also allows for some of the minor divisions still present on parts of the CK map such as Oriental Orthodox (i don't think its necessary to divide the various groups) and Nestorian (especially with the chance of mongol invasion being Nestorian).

So what you'd ask is the purpose beyond superficial for these divisions? Well they all act independently of each other by this period and generally do not do more than tolerate the other (especially the RCC). While the Pope and Patriarch are on amicable terms, that is not the case for these church leaders. In addition to the obvious tensions created between the two religions, a Mongolian force sweeping through and bringing with it Nestorian beliefs, could get some converts and give a chance for a for a different kind of dilemma for the Church even if the horde is beaten down. If CKII is suppose to be a sandbox type game, this fits right in.

For Islam, depending on how the maps go, we could place the Kharijites in present-day Oman, but in CK1 that area was conviently cut out. Other than that, Sunni/Shiite is the only worthwhile division.

In addition to spawning as Pagan and Muslim (and possibly Nestorian), mongols could spawn as Buddhist giving them more unpredictability.

As for heretics, there was an effort early in the CK public beta to get some event chains going to essentially try to create a new religion, likely early Protestantism, early Church of England (or Church of XXX), or Calvinism for Catholics. Not sure about Orthodox, but something there would be nice too. It would be nice to have this get implemented if things really get out of hand.

Also while we're at it, Muslims should be able to have heretics. Christianity does not have a monopoly on that. Even if its not much, this doesn't need to wait for an expansion to get something basic implemented. Also a Sufi trait that gives bonuses to various culturally-related events and mechanics could be added now and fleshed out in an expansion.

 

[MXD]

... Actually not related to the above message, but would it make sense to implement catharism as an official religion? (or as an official, "named" heretic religion?)

I mean, there was a crusade against them, after all.

 

[Hakudoushi]

Why not be able to try and re-merge the church? The Great Schism only happened in 1054. I realize that the eastern and western churches had major differences, but the option should be available for the Pope and the Emperor in Constantinople. It doesn't mean that it has to work, because none of the real attempts did, but it could make for some interesting diplomacy.

While we're at it, how about forcing religion as a term of surrender? And giving piety to those who force-convert?

 

[Stratagyfan101]

I feel we will see some aspects of EU 3 added to the game. Such as force religion. Also Sunni/Shiite as seperate religions.

Maybe Religion groups. Again from EU3 where Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in a "Christian Group" and Sunni Shiite are in a "Muslim Group."

Unrelated to topic but EU3 thing that was good. The siege progress in the top right corner. Made it more reasonable for the player to keep tabs on multiple sieges. Not necessary but offers better interface IMO.

 

[Orinsul]

the great schism didnt happen in 1054, it was formalised in 1054. The division had been there for centuries. 1054 was the aknowledgement that was permanent, it wasnt the start of it.

and early protestantism shouldnt be possible at all, none of the things that allowed it to happen can happen during the time period, and if it was included in the game that would be incredibly nonsensical and offensive to all involved.
but the Heresies of the time, the Manicheans and Lollards, hussites and ulta-plantonics.
But the Albergesian heresy and the Crusade and Dominician movement against it are vitally important, not just to the period covered but everything that comes after it. And so something to address the lack of it in the first game is needed.

But the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox divide does need to be clearer but also not total. Maybe people with theological traits, church education etc, would have have relationship hits with people from the otherside
but the average man who knows little of politics, let alone theology would have no problem with the division.

 

[Hakudoushi]

the great schism didnt happen in 1054, it was formalised in 1054. The division had been there for centuries. 1054 was the aknowledgement that was permanent, it wasnt the start of it.

But it doesn't have to be. Just because the real attempts the reunify the church failed doesn't mean the player or the AI shouldn't make the effort, if only to have it fail. Think of it this way, if the Byzantine Empire has retaken Italy and crushed the HRE, what right does the Pope have to say that the Patriarch of Constantinople isn't the rightful leader of the Christian Church?

 

[Orinsul]

But it doesn't have to be. Just because the real attempts the reunify the church failed doesn't mean the player or the AI shouldn't make the effort, if only to have it fail. Think of it this way, if the Byzantine Empire has retaken Italy and crushed the HRE, what right does the Pope have to say that the Patriarch of Constantinople isn't the rightful leader of the Christian Church?

because they did that, and a couple times too. try reading any book with a title like 'a history of the medieval [and/or early] church' half the dark ages are the second rome invading the first and setting up a exarch. It didnt work. because it will never work.
Its not just who you listen to, orthodox christians arent blind slaves of the emperor and catholics of the pope. Cut off the head, it wont change the colour of the snake. You have two very different churches with a 1000 year long division, on policy, theology and entire universal concepts.
You cant just say, alright now youre one and accept anyone to listen.

You have on one side, the church should be free from secular control and consistent in policy. and on the other, the Church should be subjugated under the state and loyal above all to the secular authority and so subject to the whims and fashions of the imperial court.

Being forced at the sword to pretend to be reconciled wouldn't end the schism.

the divisions were too strong, you can conquer the world as one and convert the lot probably, but there shouldn't be any possibility of reconciliation.

Its belief, what people know to be true. And just because the Emperor conquers Rome and Germany, does suddenly make people willing to forget everything they KNOW and suddenly adopt something they know to be wrong.

I suppose if america was conquered by people who thought that gravity didnt work and that frogs were people too, you would suddenly adopt that position that even though you wont ever be able to believe it because everything you know to true is violently incompatible with it.

 

[Sternness]

I think it would be cool to put more detail into the types of heretics. I'd love to play a Cathar French count for example.

 

[Hakudoushi]

because they did that, and a couple times too. try reading any book with a title like 'a history of the medieval [and/or early] church' half the dark ages are the second rome invading the first and setting up a exarch. It didnt work. because it will never work.

I know, that's exactly why I think it should be an option. It always bugged me that so few would hate me when I took Rome as an Orthodox leader and this would help with that. The 4th Crusade did create the Latin Empire, which in theory was supposed to be the leader of the Eastern Church. This isn't all that different.

You have on one side, the church should be free from secular control and consistent in policy. and on the other, the Church should be subjugated under the state and loyal above all to the secular authority and so subject to the whims and fashions of the imperial court.

That an awful lot like how the Investiture Controversy got started, something I would also like to be able to see happen. It had Antipopes and Normans sacking Rome. How wouldn't that be fun to play?

 

[RedRooster81]

That an awful lot like how the Investiture Controversy got started, something I would also like to be able to see happen. It had Antipopes and Normans sacking Rome. How wouldn't that be fun to play?

As I understand it, the Investiture Controversy was in part an attempt by the Holy Roman Emperor ultimately to create something like Byzantine caesaropapism in western Christianity. Many Western European monarchs in the eleventh century (and continuing for seven more) worked towards harnessing the wealth and power of the Church within their realms for their own ends. That is the political dimension to religion, what the English Reformation was about, at least for Henry VIII initially. I can see a break with Rome earlier in some places than happened historically, but we still have the examples of the Cathars and Hussites. As a political organization, the Roman Catholic Church did not really come into being until the early sixteenth century, when it became vital to confront the challenge of Lutheranism and define what it meant to be Catholic. For most people, there was a vague sense of belonging and much greater local variation and autonomy. What was necessary was to recognize the supremacy of the Pope, much like that of the HRE.

 

[WanderingKnight]

the great schism didnt happen in 1054, it was formalised in 1054. The division had been there for centuries. 1054 was the aknowledgement that was permanent, it wasnt the start of it.

and early protestantism shouldnt be possible at all, none of the things that allowed it to happen can happen during the time period, and if it was included in the game that would be incredibly nonsensical and offensive to all involved.
but the Heresies of the time, the Manicheans and Lollards, hussites and ulta-plantonics.
But the Albergesian heresy and the Crusade and Dominician movement against it are vitally important, not just to the period covered but everything that comes after it. And so something to address the lack of it in the first game is needed.

But the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox divide does need to be clearer but also not total. Maybe people with theological traits, church education etc, would have have relationship hits with people from the otherside
but the average man who knows little of politics, let alone theology would have no problem with the division.

I like the bolded parts.

Some small parts of the game that I would change from CK1, regarded to east/west Christian church. The titles, for example, especially Bishop – Episcope, Archbishopric – archiepiscopate etc. In CK”1” the only difference was Duke – Prince, but that’s nice for than, step forward is needed in sequel, please.

 

[Negru Voda]

Right now, in my CK1 game, I'm watching from Moscow how the Muslims are knocking on France's door. Constantinopole fell once, could fall again. South of Italy is held by Muslims.

So if the Muslim threat is incredibly high, should there be some sort of ability for Christians to band together a bit more? I don't know.. I personally think there should be a way to unify the churches politically... but I don't see how that could be done.

Even if one church would unite with another, or absorb the other, I expect pretender popes and patriarchs to pop out. It would probably worsen and weaken both churches.

I dunno, for Roleplaying's sake, this idea is worth considering, don't know if it would be too important to implement

 

[REJS7]

As a massive fan of the first game, personally I think the religious aspects of the game need to be better defined in respect of the characters, in as much as having the nuance between actual faith and political faith are concerned. The Normans had avid faith, yet amply ignored it when it suited their ends to deal with the pope in Italy for example. Plus things like the sacking of holy cities by opposing religions should have a profound impact on the game.

Plus it is worth fleshing out the pagan side of the equation as well, as if the pagan counts are playable the ability to convert to another faith, or convert others back to the old ways, would make for good game mechanics.

 

[unmerged(59077)]

Definitely more room for religious effects, even if the basic game data is simple.

If you won't add the different Muslim movements, smaller Christian churches, Zoroastrian remnants and Gnostics of the Persian, Muslim and Christian varieties, at least let me do it with notepad and paint.NET.

 

[Orinsul]

What about religious divisions within the faith

The degeneration and decline of Platonic and Augustinian theology and the birth of the new movements, the Friars [Francis & Dominic] being the greatest and the most profound in its effect on the whole of europe. The restoration of Rationalism under Thomist thought and the all the other competing schools of thought and theology within the Faith.

This isnt the reformation, a time of sundering from the chuch, It was one Church and one Faith, with many varieties wherein.
Reformists rather than Separatists. Maybe Traits and event chains and province modifiers.
But i'd love to see Monastic and Mendicant orders and movements as a Mechanic. Not just an arbitrary building type and events.

And should the Albergesians be represented as a different religion or should they be handled another way as it seems to me the standard way of handling legitimate religions wouldnt fit the nature of the heresy. Mostly academic and underground, atleast until the actual crusade against them.
But playing a Catharite in Catholic France, shouldn't be anything like playing an Orthodox in Catholic France. thats the point.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

and early protestantism shouldnt be possible at all, none of the things that allowed it to happen can happen during the time period, and if it was included in the game that would be incredibly nonsensical and offensive to all involved.
but the Heresies of the time, the Manicheans and Lollards, hussites and ulta-plantonics.

The problem is without the chance of spawning a seperate branch of christianity, heresy doesn't have as much of its historic impact. Many of the reasons heresy was so feared by the RC officials is the same reason early protestatism was feared - it subverted the church authority and teachings seeking (in the latter) to formalize its own set of beliefs. That or the indoctrination of heretical beliefs to the point they become mainstream within the church (and thus likely undermine the overall authority and power it has in the game) as elements that cannot be represented without that threat of a formalized spliter.

 

[unmerged(93108)]

Right now, in my CK1 game, I'm watching from Moscow how the Muslims are knocking on France's door. Constantinopole fell once, could fall again. South of Italy is held by Muslims.

So if the Muslim threat is incredibly high, should there be some sort of ability for Christians to band together a bit more? I don't know.. I personally think there should be a way to unify the churches politically... but I don't see how that could be done.

Even if one church would unite with another, or absorb the other, I expect pretender popes and patriarchs to pop out. It would probably worsen and weaken both churches.

I dunno, for Roleplaying's sake, this idea is worth considering, don't know if it would be too important to implement

Thing is, they tried that. Around 1420, I believe, in Florence, there was an attempt to unify the two churches against the Turkish threat. The agreement they came up with was accepted by the religious and political leaders on both sides, but regular people refused to accept it and the effort came to nought. What people actually believe trumps any negotiation by the higher-ups, no matter how serious the threat.