Religious Tolerance

[LAF1994]

The religion system of CK2 doesn't really work with the backstory of LI. Specifically, the system seems to be set up to reflect the Abrahamaic religions with the penalties for non-state religion in provinces and the usage of missionaries. However, this isn't really a fit for the various Classical religions present in the mod, or the timeline which seems to have featured more religious regionalism than OTL.
My idea is to have the Hellenistic religions (Solar, Greco-Roman and Mithraic) act like the Indian religions in vanilla CK2, so they will have less effective missionaries but fewer interfaith relations penalties.
Additionally, a new Reassert Authority CB could be added, which allows a ruler to vassalise de jure vassals by force- allowing the ERE to quickly reclaim their provinces without changing the religious setup.
Finally, religions without strong missionary traditions should not be able to use Holy Wars.

 

[richvh]

This is something that can be integrated into the integrated Tolerance Laws mod, once Numahr has defined which religions has defined which are more likely to be tolerant/more likely to be intolerant/can only be tolerant.

 

[DarkReborn]

Keep in mind that the religious wars can only be declared by zealous characters, and they're mostly there for balance (Much like the Jews and the Zoroastrians can use Holy War in vanilla, even if the have no clear historical precedent on this). If only the Abrahamics (Here I mean Christians and Muslims) could, the balance would be a mess and, since they have an enhanced conversion bonus, the map would be converted to them in no time. Also, I don't fell like railroading the player into a tolerant empire just because he choose X religion, specially when that religion starts very small (Like most do in LI). The interfaith penalty reduction for the Indian group religions is hardcoded as far as I know.


The Tolerance Laws mod severely restricts the tolerant realms that want to use the Holy War CB, so we could so something similar for our tolerant realms I guess.

 

[Numahr]

The religion system of CK2 doesn't really work with the backstory of LI. Specifically, the system seems to be set up to reflect the Abrahamaic religions with the penalties for non-state religion in provinces and the usage of missionaries. However, this isn't really a fit for the various Classical religions present in the mod, or the timeline which seems to have featured more religious regionalism than OTL.
My idea is to have the Hellenistic religions (Solar, Greco-Roman and Mithraic) act like the Indian religions in vanilla CK2, so they will have less effective missionaries but fewer interfaith relations penalties.

We actually have a division between proselyte religions and non-proselyte religions. This affects the effectiveness of missionaries. See the manual for more info in my signature.

When we developed the system, I argued for non-proselyte religions to be barred from missionaries, with this job being replaced by something else like increase of Morale Authority. However I was alone, and I bowed to the counter-argument of gameplay freedom, whereby a player should be always able to "paint" his empire by his religion. So we implemented a malus for non-proselyte religions.

As I think we should not re-open a major design debate, let's consider the universal access to missionaries as a firm decision. But do you think we should tone down further the missionary's chance of success for non-proselyte religions? (question not only for OP). I think there is room to go in this direction.

Additionally, a new Reassert Authority CB could be added, which allows a ruler to vassalise de jure vassals by force- allowing the ERE to quickly reclaim their provinces without changing the religious setup.

This is a very sensitive proposal actually. The obligation to vassalize existing rulers instead of having a chance to replace them would bring in more LI spirit, with all its strong provincialism; it would also go a long way towards reducing the speed of religious conversion by introducing inertia in the conversion process (rulers of the same local religion than a province not using their own missionary to convert in the same direction as the liege).

This can be linked to the new tolerance approach, either the law or the characteristic itself.

Finally, religions without strong missionary traditions should not be able to use Holy Wars.

I kind of agree that the zealous trait should not be enough for a whole realm to unite in a holy war. This needs to find a corresponding mentalité in the religious spirit of the population. I will have a look into this as well in light of the current work on tolerance and of the existing proselyte / ancestral / bastion of the faith segmentation.

 

[LAF1994]

This is a very sensitive proposal actually. The obligation to vassalize existing rulers instead of having a chance to replace them would bring in more LI spirit, with all its strong provincialism; it would also go a long way towards reducing the speed of religious conversion by introducing inertia in the conversion process (rulers of the same local religion than a province not using their own missionary to convert in the same direction as the liege).

This can be linked to the new tolerance approach, either the law or the characteristic itself.

Additionally, it might be possible in some cases for appointed vassals to 'go native' and adopt the local religion and culture.