Religion type

[Nosferatus]

Based on some discusions on religion i thought about a fact that most mideivil religions would never ingore a diferent faith but rather seek out to convert these people by all means.
Offcourse there where also diferent religions in the east, but they where nothing compared to the major religions of that time and had little direct influence on europe.
Some say we should remove the ingore option and only be able to mark misguide as minimum view.
But shouldn't there be place for pacifist, budhist like religions?

That gave me an idea.
What if you could choose two or more kind of religion types like a goverment type for a realm, giving you some specific bonuses over the other type while also loosing a few.
For example we take two types, A is the secular kind of type B the non secular moneistic kind of religion(i am not sure how we should call the types, so a and b for now)
You would never be able to declare another type as varient .
A types have bonus in calm the populance like options(constructive) and perhaps do not have the option of declaring religions evil.
the B type would have more destructive options and won't be able to just ingore other religions.
They could get bonuses on demoralizing populance and inciting violence, unrest.
Type A could perhaps aquire followers more easy threw preaching then B, who could get a bonus on there temple conversion rate or the other way around.(allthough this has some balancing issues)

It's not really comlicated i believe and probably create more friction between relgions and above all make them more diferent and the b types more medieval

It also restricts using religion as only a startegic tool to a small extend.
If you want to be agresive and damging your enemy threw faith, you can but you can't as efectivley  preach for peace at the same time.

and now this smilly, just because it looks cool: 

[Draco Tanos]

It makes little sense that the "secular" type described by you wouldn't be able to declare opposing religions evil, when that type is the closest to the Catholic Church or Islam.  Both of which certainly declared some other faiths as evil.

[Heq]

I think he mean monastic.  While catholicism was quite capable of war and purging, and some forms of Buddhism also were, individual monastic sects rarely were.

Monastic religions have the problem of being non-interactive though, I'd rather see religion get buffed by either being militaristic or passivistic and have one make control easier when it is the dominant faith, and one increase troop recruitment.  The other option would be a centralized/decentralized set, which is closer to the division in europe between the decentralized and dogmatically diverse protestants and the centralized and organized catholics.

[Shenron]

I don't like the sound of secularism at all in a medieval context. BURN THE HEATHENS!

[Chenier]

Most of the "pagan faiths" of Europe, as far as I know, did not go on trying to convert the rest of Europe. And many who did, did so through peaceful means. It's not because Christianity got all militarized and imposed itself on the others that it becomes the only valid model, imo.

[Nosferatus]

Most of the "pagan faiths" of Europe, as far as I know, did not go on trying to convert the rest of Europe. And many who did, did so through peaceful means. It's not because Christianity got all militarized and imposed itself on the others that it becomes the only valid model, imo.

At that time, it was certainly the dominant model. These pagan faiths or other faiths like hindu and budhists where all eventually heavily prosecuted and even massacred or sold into slavery by Islam and Cristianity.

Either way, these models never where able to get along nor should they.

i'd also like to note that a feature like this should be kept simple and to the minimum, the amount of freedom for inovation and creativity should always remain.
Just some simple moderate bonuses and penalties
And perhaps give both religions one extra option for each type which only priests can use restrictedly with 50/60% oratory skill or more.

For the militant type you could perhaps instead of a region wide unrest, you could give them the option to hit a greater area of people.
With effects similiar to that of causing unrest but now on a larger scale. (hit 5 regions at the same time)
Or perhaps have the option to choose a hatred view towards a specifc religion where the effects would a dramatized version of evil, where just straight mobs are formed to masacre the members of the hated faith, cleansing certain regions brutally of the other faith. this option could also be region specifc instead of adding another kind of view.
Or the option to call upon jihad or crusade, where a region is beeing declared to be taken by a certain realm, if the realm gets the region, the realm or religion could be rewarded, or the region would be easier to takeover/maintin in the first weeks.

The other type, the less militant one could perhaps have an option to call for demonstration where everyone stops eating and working and goes on a hunger strike for a certain amount of time(droping production and morale).
Or also, an area effect but now to calm the populance/entralling populance.
Or perhaps a super preach option where when a priest preaches, it effects more regions at once.
Or perhaps temporarly reduce the amount of consumed food, like jesus deviding the food, making food consumption more eficient and showing the more richer that they are overconsuming.

just some ideas.

[Chenier]

Pagan faiths are not the same as Buddhism. I speak of European faiths present before the conversion to Christianity, and these models are just as valid. Also, I would advise you to look at the thread about religious freedom in the backgrounds forums: religions mixed and were tolerated more often than not on border regions. And since BM realms are so small, and almost all realms with a dominant faith neighbor another realm with a different dominant faith, it's perfectly normal and historically-accurate that, in the presence of so many faiths, that most of them be so tolerant.

If realms could be bigger, and every character was dumped on a single huge mega-continent, then you'd see blatant religious persecutions a lot more. Since now characters are distributed over a bunch of tiny realms in small islands (by RL standards), discrimination is more subtle.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Dwilight SA dynamics seems to moving in that direction of clearly defined borders.

[Shenron]

It's not pacifism thats the problem. It's secularism. I don't want to see anything in BM (well Dwilight at least because of the SMA) of the concept of separating religion from politics. It should all be the same thing.

[fodder]

.. depends on what you mean by separating religion from politics

seeking the removal of religion from a court is entirely legitimate, holy roman emperors and popes fought over who is the top dog, for example.

[Chenier]

It's not pacifism thats the problem. It's secularism. I don't want to see anything in BM (well Dwilight at least because of the SMA) of the concept of separating religion from politics. It should all be the same thing.

Secularism is a normal response to faiths being so much work to maintain and make grow. There is little incentives to become a priest, especially since they aren't an old character haven class anymore, and as such most faiths lack spreading power. In addition, it's much cheaper to support secularism than it is to support a religion, and with secularism you have the certainty that it won't be used against you as a religion could.

In other words, secularism is "easy mode" for governance. It takes a determined will to work any other way, as unless you have complete trust in the church leadership, it's either a handicap or a risk factor to allow faiths to grow strong in your realm. The council that loses their favor could see great internal damage, dukes and lords can see their regions taken from them, etc.

[Shenron]

Secularism is a normal response to faiths being so much work to maintain and make grow. There is little incentives to become a priest, especially since they aren't an old character haven class anymore, and as such most faiths lack spreading power. In addition, it's much cheaper to support secularism than it is to support a religion, and with secularism you have the certainty that it won't be used against you as a religion could.

In other words, secularism is "easy mode" for governance. It takes a determined will to work any other way, as unless you have complete trust in the church leadership, it's either a handicap or a risk factor to allow faiths to grow strong in your realm. The council that loses their favor could see great internal damage, dukes and lords can see their regions taken from them, etc.

I agree. Which is why I think the mechanics need to reflect that religion is much more important than it currently is... e.g. head of the faith annoints the head of state etc.

[Chenier]

I agree. Which is why I think the mechanics need to reflect that religion is much more important than it currently is... e.g. head of the faith annoints the head of state etc.

Such changes would need to be balanced from a gameplay perspective. Anointment by heads of faith does not look that way, because of the unelected nature of the heads of faith.