Yet another idea for a schism mechanic

[pcw27]

Since the topic has come up I'd like to share an idea for this I've never seen before.

If you're a region lord and a priest, you get a new option "found schism". You can only found a schism of a religion you belong to.

A schism of an existing religion functions similar to its parent religion with a few exceptions.

First, anyone in the parent religion can switch to the schism at a temple of the parent religion. The idea is they've gone to the temple to profess their faith to the reformation.

Second, region lords with temples will have the option "Rededicate temple" which can change an existing temple to be of the new schism. Rededicating a temple will cause unrest but not as much as closing or destroying one. In addition when a temple is rededicated a random percentage of peasants will convert to the schism.

This link between the parent religion and schism works both ways allowing for an ongoing conflict between the competing sects. In the case of multiple schisms all sects are to be considered on equal footing. For example if religion B is created as a schism of religion A and Religion C is created as a schism of religion B, a member of Religion A can join either B or C as well as rededicate temples.

[Anaris]

For some time, the dev team's idea of how to manage schisms has been to allow sects within a religion, and then allow a given sect to "secede" from the religion, thus causing a schism. I think that's really what you're asking for here, basically.

[De-Legro]

For some time, the dev team's idea of how to manage schisms has been to allow sects within a religion, and then allow a given sect to "secede" from the religion, thus causing a schism. I think that's really what you're asking for here, basically.

Just to clarify, the concept would then be that the temple belongs to the Lords sect, so that if a schism was called the temple would automatically be transferred with the sect.

[pcw27]

For some time, the dev team's idea of how to manage schisms has been to allow sects within a religion, and then allow a given sect to "secede" from the religion, thus causing a schism. I think that's really what you're asking for here, basically.

The version I heard usually involved a lot of complicated mechanics like a voting system.

Instead of a complicated way to split a religion in two just make a way for a new religion to be linked to an old one and allow for easier conversion. This makes it more player controlled. There'd probably have to be an anti abuse rule that the new religion must be based on the old one.

[De-Legro]

The version I heard usually involved a lot of complicated mechanics like a voting system.

Instead of a complicated way to split a religion in two just make a way for a new religion to be linked to an old one and allow for easier conversion. This makes it more player controlled. There'd probably have to be an anti abuse rule that the new religion must be based on the old one.

You assume making religions "linked" is actually easier to code. I'm not saying that it is or isn't, been too long since I looked at that database structure, but chances are it's not actually reducing the implementation effort even if it is conceptually "simpler"

[OFaolain]

You assume making religions "linked" is actually easier to code. I'm not saying that it is or isn't, been too long since I looked at that database structure, but chances are it's not actually reducing the implementation effort even if it is conceptually "simpler"

Basic idea was inside a religion is a "sect" (so for Christianity you'd have Roman Catholic, Lutheran, etc.) and nobles can choose to join either the main line religion or one of the "sects".  Would it be easier to just add sects but not schisms until a good way of implementing the schism is decided on?

[De-Legro]

Basic idea was inside a religion is a "sect" (so for Christianity you'd have Roman Catholic, Lutheran, etc.) and nobles can choose to join either the main line religion or one of the "sects".  Would it be easier to just add sects but not schisms until a good way of implementing the schism is decided on?

I've not been part of the discussions about the changes in a serious way. The first thing to consider is currently guilds and religions are heavily linked in terms of implementation. If we don't want Sects in guilds that means more code to differentiate the two, or finally severing the links between their implementation. Once Sects exist the schism is probably relatively easy. The hard part is how do Sects work?
Do they have a separate rank Structure, do they have a rank structure linked to the main religion? Who control the Sect, who has the power to call for a schism? What kind of support do they need if any?

[pcw27]

Once Sects exist the schism is probably relatively easy. The hard part is how do Sects work?
Do they have a separate rank Structure, do they have a rank structure linked to the main religion? Who control the Sect, who has the power to call for a schism? What kind of support do they need if any?

In essence sects shouldn't have any control over one another. The pope can't make Lutherans do !@#$. The supreme Ayatollah has no authority over Sunni Muslims. Having sects exist within a religion that's still beholden to the main religion's authority doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

That's why at least conceptually it makes more sense for sects to be represented by making a mechanic for two religions to be linked in such a way that it's easier to convert from one to another and thus a new opposing philosophy within a religion can quickly gain traction.

[vonGenf]

Second, region lords with temples will have the option "Rededicate temple" which can change an existing temple to be of the new schism. Rededicating a temple will cause unrest but not as much as closing or destroying one. In addition when a temple is rededicated a random percentage of peasants will convert to the schism.

I'm not certain it's either good or important that the unrest caused be smaller than in the case of closing the temple.

In fact right now, closing a temple and building a new one is always an option, but it's not a very good one because
RP-wise, it doesn't make much sense, it's costly in gold, and most importantly if the new religion is founded far away, it may require an enormous time investment for a character who has better things to do.

The option to re-dedicate a temple would solve these issues, but if unrest is smaller than in the case of temple destruction, then you need to add many safeguards to ensure it is done only in the case of a real schism and not as a way to switch religion for cheap.

I would propose a different setup. What if Region Lords could at any time rededicate a temple of their region to any other religion, with the caveats that:

-It creates more unrest than simply destroying the temple
-It costs more gold than destroying the temple and building a new level 1 temple
-The peasants don't convert immediately (but with the new temple, they will over time)
-The temple size goes down

This nerfs the proposed mechanic a bit, but it also makes sure that people will only use this option when it makes RP sense to do so, without having to add all these safeguards to ensure it's a real schism. And in the present case of interest, I imagine many people would avail themselves of this possibility.

[Feylonis]

What happens to the peasant followers, though? Would it be easier for SectB to preach to SectA (original) for X amount of time (to sway those with 'weak' faith), and then after it would be more difficult (since those left in SectA are ones with 'strong' faith)?

[vonGenf]

What happens to the peasant followers, though? Would it be easier for SectB to preach to SectA (original) for X amount of time (to sway those with 'weak' faith), and then after it would be more difficult (since those left in SectA are ones with 'strong' faith)?

It could be so, but I don't think this level of complication is needed. Not touching the follower numbers could make things easier to implement, and their numbers would settle in time.

[De-Legro]

In essence sects shouldn't have any control over one another. The pope can't make Lutherans do !@#$. The supreme Ayatollah has no authority over Sunni Muslims. Having sects exist within a religion that's still beholden to the main religion's authority doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

That's why at least conceptually it makes more sense for sects to be represented by making a mechanic for two religions to be linked in such a way that it's easier to convert from one to another and thus a new opposing philosophy within a religion can quickly gain traction.

We have been using the term Sect to refer to factions within a group. So for example Jesuits would be a sect within the larger Catholic Church. For Lutherians/Catholics, the current mechanics for separate religions are fine, simply set up the relations between them and you are sorted. I really don't believe it is any easier in general to convert a Protestant  to Catholicism then it would be to convert them to Buddhism or Islam.

[OFaolain]

I really don't believe it is any easier in general to convert a Protestant  to Catholicism *snip*

For real; Lord knows I've tried with my wife.

I really like vonGenf's idea, by the way.  It makes sense in a historical context as well; with Islamic nations racing forward in terms of conquest, many Christian churches and cathedrals were rededicated into mosques.  The Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is a prime example, though it is toward the tail end of "period".  How hard would something like that be to implement?

[De-Legro]

For real; Lord knows I've tried with my wife.

I really like vonGenf's idea, by the way.  It makes sense in a historical context as well; with Islamic nations racing forward in terms of conquest, many Christian churches and cathedrals were rededicated into mosques.  The Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is a prime example, though it is toward the tail end of "period".  How hard would something like that be to implement?

Yeah, of all the people I know who have been "converted" it has been Christians to Buddhism. While it would make sense to be able to convert temples to a new religion, regardless of the relationship between the groups it would need to be balanced somehow in terms of needing a reasonable gold cost to do so. Really though the appeal to this feature would be if the game recorded the History of the Temple. While we could do the same via the wiki I guess.

[pcw27]

I'm not certain it's either good or important that the unrest caused be smaller than in the case of closing the temple.

In fact right now, closing a temple and building a new one is always an option, but it's not a very good one because
RP-wise, it doesn't make much sense, it's costly in gold, and most importantly if the new religion is founded far away, it may require an enormous time investment for a character who has better things to do.

The option to re-dedicate a temple would solve these issues, but if unrest is smaller than in the case of temple destruction, then you need to add many safeguards to ensure it is done only in the case of a real schism and not as a way to switch religion for cheap.

I would propose a different setup. What if Region Lords could at any time rededicate a temple of their region to any other religion, with the caveats that:

-It creates more unrest than simply destroying the temple
-It costs more gold than destroying the temple and building a new level 1 temple
-The peasants don't convert immediately (but with the new temple, they will over time)
-The temple size goes down

This nerfs the proposed mechanic a bit, but it also makes sure that people will only use this option when it makes RP sense to do so, without having to add all these safeguards to ensure it's a real schism. And in the present case of interest, I imagine many people would avail themselves of this possibility.

This kind of works but I feel it needs something more. See imagine you've got a temple somewhere. The priest of that temple has a great report with his congregation. If that priest has a philosophical disagreement with the main leadership and decides to sever his temple from their authority he's unlikely to get a lot of flack from his congregation unless he's also going wildly outside the accepted teachings of his faith. I've tried to close down temples before and it drove my region rogue.

Would it be a challenge to make the stance of a religion subject to the same restrictions as realm diplomacy? By which I mean you can only go one step at a time, friendly to ignore, then ignore to evil. Lets say when you found a schism the stance starts at "friendly" which makes conversion way less problematic. From there the main authority can start trying to counter the sect and move their stance to ignore, and then down to evil if they so desire. This gives people founding a schism two days to make an impact and rededicate a few major temples before they hit the same resistance they'd encounter when founding a completely different religion.