Effects of Religious views

[Roran]

Here I am, after browsing the wiki, wondering what for IG effect it has if a religion views another religion as 'misguided' or even 'evil'.


Does it have any direct effects, or is it just cosmetic? I looked for it in the wiki but it only said

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Religion

Religious Views
Religions have official views on other religions. The details are explained in the in-game context help.

If anyone would be as kind as to enlighten me about this, it would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

[Bronnen]

Some might be that if you follow the religion you can tear down the shrines and temples of the religion you view as "Evil" but I think that's it.

Peasants also will attack priests if they believe his religion is "evil"

[Chenier]

I don't recall any effect being mentioned as far as misguided-ignore-variant is concerned, though I think it has been hinted that it may have some impacts.

Declaring a religion evil, however, does a number of changes. It's easier to persecute them, the nobles can loot their temples, the faithful attack their priests and protest their lords.

[Penchant]

I don't recall any effect being mentioned as far as misguided-ignore-variant is concerned, though I think it has been hinted that it may have some impacts.

Declaring a religion evil, however, does a number of changes. It's easier to persecute them, the nobles can loot their temples, the faithful attack their priests and protest their lords.

With misguided, it also allows persecution whereas variant and ignore can not be persecuted.

[Stabbity]

I believe it also affects regional stats too. I believe, (don't quote me on this, its been awhile since I've seen these conditions) if a Lord is of a religion that the peasants view as a variant, they don't get quite so bent out of shape for him not sharing their faith. I do also believe it affects conversion rates too. Easier to convert someone from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy than it is to convert someone from Shia Islam to Norse Neopaganism after all.

[Chenier]

Easier to convert someone from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy than it is to convert someone from Shia Islam to Norse Neopaganism after all.

Is it? Really? The game might think so, but I think that's rather flawed thinking. If it was so easy to convert orthodoxs to catholicism, don't you think the catholic church would send more preachers to Russia? After all, the catholic church LOVES converting as many people as it can. Are there really that many shiite muslims converting to sunni islam? Doubtful.

I'd be tempted to say that the closer the religions are, the harder it is to change from one to the other, as far as real life is concerned. Someone who has a spiritual crisis and who tells himself "Oh gosh, I've been wrong all of my life! The true nature of things is..." Will that sentence end with "something almost exactly to what I believed in but with a few minor cosmetic or administrative differences", or "something completely different then what I previously thought!"?

People undergoing serious enough spiritual questioning is not likely, in my mind, to hop on for a variant church. Not any more likely than a completely foreign one, at least. Part of this conversion is usually an act of social rebellion of sorts too, seeking a break with the surrounding social norms that aren't in harmony with the person's values.

The game probably thinks as you do, but I'd think it wrong. And prone to discourage religions to name anyone as being "variants", on the sole fear that it may help others convert their flocks.

[vonGenf]

I'd be tempted to say that the closer the religions are, the harder it is to change from one to the other, as far as real life is concerned. Someone who has a spiritual crisis and who tells himself "Oh gosh, I've been wrong all of my life! The true nature of things is..." Will that sentence end with "something almost exactly to what I believed in but with a few minor cosmetic or administrative differences", or "something completely different then what I previously thought!"?

That's very modern thinking. A medieval peasant with no education and no free time is most likely never going to have any epiphany of the sort. However, a peasant who sees warfare on his land, his liege Lord and local priest killed and replace with a foreign one, is more likely to accept him if the only change he brings is "from now you are going to do the sign of the cross with your left hand rather than your right one" rather than "take your pants down, you are going to be circumcised today".

[Chenier]

That's very modern thinking. A medieval peasant with no education and no free time is most likely never going to have any epiphany of the sort. However, a peasant who sees warfare on his land, his liege Lord and local priest killed and replace with a foreign one, is more likely to accept him if the only change he brings is "from now you are going to do the sign of the cross with your left hand rather than your right one" rather than "take your pants down, you are going to be circumcised today".

Really? Mind sharing historical proof to support this?

The only cases of conversion between close churches are also relatively modern, being the great schisms in Catholicism. But I wouldn't consider that to be actual conversions from one church to another, rather a gradual split from one main church into many.

If it was so easy to convert among similar faiths, why then are there so few Catholics in abrahamic Israel, and so many in then polytheistic Rome/Europe? Why did christianism grow faster in polytheistic lands than in monotheistic ones?

[vonGenf]

Really? Mind sharing historical proof to support this?

Take the Iberian peninsula for examples. Between the fall of the Roman Empire, there was a mishmash of different versions of Christianity: Roman Catholicism, Aryanism, Priscillanism and Catharism. However after the muslim invasion conversions remained rare.

More generally, in the early european middle ages there were many offshoots of the church that were later repressed as heresies but would rapidly take hold of some areas if a leader decided to convert, but I can't think of any area of leaders who made up a whole new faith: they were all clearly based on Catholicism.

It's not true that the only cases of conversions are modern; rather the only variant faith who survived are modern, but there were others before.

[De-Legro]

Really? Mind sharing historical proof to support this?

The only cases of conversion between close churches are also relatively modern, being the great schisms in Catholicism. But I wouldn't consider that to be actual conversions from one church to another, rather a gradual split from one main church into many.

If it was so easy to convert among similar faiths, why then are there so few Catholics in abrahamic Israel, and so many in then polytheistic Rome/Europe? Why did christianism grow faster in polytheistic lands than in monotheistic ones?

Until the Romans got involved, Christianity's proportional make up had a high percentage of Jews, after all it was a Jewish sect for many years. Until the 4th century when the pretty exceptional event of being declared the state religion of Rome, replacing all others its main growth was not in Europe, but Syria, Egypt and the surrounding areas.

It also converted significant numbers of Zoroastrians in the early years, and it is from that tradition that concepts like angels were introduced into the Christian faith, Gnostic's were also common converts.

Even after the Roman conversion, it was centuries of work converting most of Europe. As with all things religion, look not always to reasons of faith and similarity for why conversion was quick or slow, but also to politics. The Orthodox Church for example was able to make inroads into Eastern Europe primarily based on their willingness to provide the liturgy in the native language of the people, while the Roman Church insisted on Latin.

When Islam first made its way to Africa many of the inroads Christianity had made were destroyed, and the native Christians converted to Islam. Egypt for example when from a mostly Christian nation under the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria to a majority Islamic country by the 12th century.

[Roran]

I thank you for the quick replies.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Until the Romans got involved, Christianity's proportional make up had a high percentage of Jews, after all it was a Jewish sect for many years. Until the 4th century when the pretty exceptional event of being declared the state religion of Rome, replacing all others its main growth was not in Europe, but Syria, Egypt and the surrounding areas.

It also converted significant numbers of Zoroastrians in the early years, and it is from that tradition that concepts like angels were introduced into the Christian faith, Gnostic's were also common converts.

Even after the Roman conversion, it was centuries of work converting most of Europe. As with all things religion, look not always to reasons of faith and similarity for why conversion was quick or slow, but also to politics. The Orthodox Church for example was able to make inroads into Eastern Europe primarily based on their willingness to provide the liturgy in the native language of the people, while the Roman Church insisted on Latin.

When Islam first made its way to Africa many of the inroads Christianity had made were destroyed, and the native Christians converted to Islam. Egypt for example when from a mostly Christian nation under the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria to a majority Islamic country by the 12th century.

I was going to dispute this post, but it actually is correct. I would say that conversion has more to do with circumstance rather than any closeness or distance between different religions. Also, Christian before the 4th century is actually a bit of a misnomer. There were so many widely conflicting variants, some that actually worshiped many gods, that considering it one religion at that point is ludicrous. The one thread that connected them at all is the inclusion of Jesus, and that's about it. From there the sky was basically the limit.

What many people are forgetting is that Rome made a habit of actively assimilating foreign religions into their own. The main reason that the romans clashed with early christianity had nothing to do with religious ideals, and everything to do with social and economic pressures. Many Christian sects refused to eat the meat of sacrificed animals. Since that meat was sold on the market, this hurt both the vendors of said meat and the temples who more than likely got a cut of the sales for upkeep purposes. The vendors, seeing a threat to their livelihoods, would put pressure on local governors to do something about the Christian sects that would not buy their cuts of meat. I could go on about this, but you see the point. 

[Roran]

On topic of that: The Christians were mostly arrested for holding 'secret' gatherings. Every gathering had to be registered. The Christians simply didn't bother.

[Chenier]

Christians were burned, crucified, and whatnot because... they wouldn't buy meat?

[Stabbity]

Christians were burned, crucified, and whatnot because... they wouldn't buy meat?

You find this a hard concept to stomach?

Pun!

Also, seriously, meat in those times meant money. What do you think causes systemic violence? 90% of the time its money. If its not meat, its land, if its not land, its gold, if its not gold, its oil.