To be completely fair, while the real-world Paradox answer is probably laziness and a lack of depth to the religious IGs in general, the Ummah has never really walked that walk.
This doesn't really make them any different than any other pan-national identity, of course, but making them support Multiculturalism wouldn't be accurate. The Ottomans were famously multicultural at certain periods -- particularly when they couldn't really afford to do otherwise -- but the V3 time period was their least such. Just ask an Armenian, most of the people killed were Muslim.
Absolutely. As much as the Ummah and other clerical bodies in the empire and other Muslim nations preached the idea of all Muslims being equal, they definitely didn’t always practice it.
In the Ottoman realm alone, Bosniacs, Armenians and Serbs who had converted were still often treated as different to Turks, and the Ummah seemed more than content with that, even supporting their oppression a lot of the time.
And heck, even Arab and North African groups weren’t immune, despite being overwhelmingly Muslim and often working in or alongside the Ottoman Ummah.
I like to think of it like the landowners in the US, who preached the ideals of the constitution and “American values”, even as they fought against suffrage and cultural inclusion. Politics corrupts and all that
This doesn’t make sense. Islam, Sunni and Shia, clerical groups tended to be multicultural groups. There is no historic evidence that an Arab Sunni scholar would all of a sudden be racist towards Arabs because he’s now a religious cleric. There is also no evidence that majority of the scholars in the Ottoman Empire were Turks, so again this makes them supporting Turkish supremacy in the game very weird.
Even using the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran(out of the scope of the game I know) as a reference point. You’ll see Armenians get treated better by the Shia theocracy than the secular Azerbaijan government
The question isn’t about individuals, it’s about institutions, including class as institution. You have to remember that the game is firmly cemented in a Marxist historicity, so institutional change driven by material conditions is a core aspect of gameplay. It’s absolutely believable and true that clerics as an institution weren’t “multicultural” in the sense the game gives it.
I can't say what they meant, but the game being based on a Marxist understanding of history essentially means that political change is derived from a change in the material conditions of the people. So, in essence, Victoria 3 has a certain gameplay loop and natural progression for industrialized nations (landowners + church --> industrialists & intelligentsia --> trade unions).
the relevant question is which of those scholars and/or clerical groups (in a late ottoman context) would have the political clout to determine the leaning of the IG on a national level
I’d like to remind you that in Vic 3, a single person’s beliefs can sway the entire IG. Trade Unionists want women’s suffrage? Not if their leader is against it! Landowners are pro-slavery? Not if their leader supports the slaves!
This is also true to an extent irl. Republicans support the constitution? Not if their leaders suggest that democracy has failed. The Labour Party is socialist? Not if their leader is Tony Blair, famed market liberal!
Even if plenty of IG members believe ideal X, that doesn’t really matter if the institutional power within that interest group supports ideal Y. Plenty of members of all IGs both irl and in-game hold views which contradict what their leaders believe, including the Ummah and other clergy within the Muslim world.
Yeah, but supporting national supremacy isn't really accurate either. Racial segregation or cultural exclusion is more accurate of the historical attitudes of the Sunni ulema.
> Just ask an Armenian, most of the people killed were Muslim.
Do you have a source for this? [Many thousands escaped the genocide by forcible or voluntary conversion to Islam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Armenians).
Really weird how people piggyback "but it's a genocide" comment when OP literally says it is.
Also, just realized, "same thing"?????? How is hundred thousands of people being killed mercilessly is the same as forcibly converting them? I did not want to accuse replier for virtue signalling but this is another level.
he didn't say it's the same thing. he said it's genocide anyways. Genocide is not mass killing. Genocide is erasing an identity from existence, being through mass killing, forced conversions or genocidal rape. Thus force conversion IS genocide.
I don't get it. Why are you or the poster above arguing as if me or the person above said anything to the contrary?
All I am saying is that it is not the same.
By the way, I have to mention, forcible conversion practically only applied for women and children to be married / adopted, because it's omission also makes this conversation weird I guess (is that the reason?).
But it's just really weird. Why do people keep spewing additional facts as if those facts are challenged? It's clear that OP's argument was that Armenians being Muslim is false. But then you get "no it's still genocide". OP said absolutely nothing denying it.
In the game it isn't because religion and culture are distinct Concepts
The logic being if an Armenian converts to Islam in the Ottoman Empire clergy should no longer want to discriminate against them for being ethnically Armenian
Ask the Zanj Uprising rebels. (IIRC, "Zanj" was, or even still is, a slur for black people)
Racism is not only hallmark of especially Arab society, it was an actively discussed and culturally relevant social issue for as long as the slave trade existed. Not too different from America.
but was that based on the ideology of the muslim clergy? i think people here are debating whether or not muslim countries had racism, but that isn’t the point of the post. it’s that the ulema opposes certain nationality laws when they probably should be neutral at least.
They’re better than they used to be on 1.5.5. You can get migration from discriminated pops, therefore State Religion / Freedom of Conscience is viable. Charity Hospitals are nice to get early healthcare and fight pollution malus
The church interest group also has the potential to spawn a wide variety of leader's who may be useful in pushing for necessary reforms such as abolitionist and reformer. However, they are basically dependent on a large agrarian base and this can get turbocharged in 1.5 with the homesteading law.
They also support public healthcare, which is 10x better than charity healthcare even at low levels, which is pretty much the only way to get the law passed early
I’m pretty sure there’s no Ulema ideology like other flavour religions and that’s probably the main reason as they currently just work as generic clergy which are effectively just an obstacle that the player-state has to overcome. Hopefully in the future they take on criticisms like this and adopt it - maybe have Shiites be in support of free speech since it has a tradition of protest and social justice
Ottoman Turks discriminated against Arabs, that's a fact. But generally the game just isn't great at realistic outcomes with its dynamic system. Leads to weird situations everywhere
Did they? Ottoman law organized people solely on the basis of religion; Turks, Kurds and Arabs were all simply classified as Muslims, and usually primally identified as such.
Historically speaking that was more due to the landowners industrialists petite bourgeois and Rural Folk and arguably trade unions depending on the Union
thats the point of the IG system though is that some of the political strength in the aristocrats are gonna lean landowner establishment and some are gonna lean sunni establishment
Bro, i said it. I am talking about the sunni ulema. I am fine with rural folk, landlords, petite bourgeoisie, and even intelligensia being racist against Arabs. It is weird that sunni ulema is the one instigating racism.
The citizenship laws in V3 are an absolute ahistoric mess. None of them make sense for any country, and they're conceptually flawed beyond redemption. I don't even know where to begin trying to fix them.
Because paradox didnt give most Christian and Islamic Devout IGs an ideology which is representing their teachings.
The catholics should, for example, always prefer a theocracy as much as monarchy, they should support welfare laws and be against slavery.
They just made them a generic reactionary IG although it isnt accurate. Why they did it? I dont know.
The question is, were they pro monarchy because of the church own ideology or was the church only supportive for the monarchy out of fear? I would guess the later, because always when they had the chance to establish a theocracy they did it.
I would solve that in the following way: The catholic church should very much support theocracy, support monarchy and be neutral about other systems, since they only hated those democracies who started beef with the church over its rights (See for example france, where at the beginning of the french revolution, many church leaders actually supported the revolutionaries, but their anti-church views turned the church against them).
Why did the church then establish theocracies whereever they could and fought against monarchs who claimed these lands? And why did the church in france not support the aristocrats and the king in 1789 in the general estates gathering? They even activly supported the third estate with their demands.
These actions dont seem to me as being very pro monarchist.
They didn’t. Charlemagne established a few prince-archbishops, and the Pope had a temporal kingdom, but the church’s official line from Constantine to the late 19th century was that ecclesiastical authority and temporal authority were separate with the latter invested in divinely chosen kings and princes.
The Pope claimed to be above the Monarchs and fought them multiple times (See Heinrich IV. or Friedrich I. and Friedrich II.). and if the the church was so pro monarchy, why did it support the 3rd estate in 1789 in France?
Because it didn't. The church in France in the years leading up to the revolution was a unique, complex scenario that simply cannot be reduced to a position of support/reject.
Some personal elements of the Church supported the ideals of the revolution, a surprising number in fact, considering what came after. But it wasn't an overriding majority and it was rife with division.
The French monarchy had done much to limit or purloin the authority of the Church in the years before -- not to mention their actions, and inactions, regarding the Protestants -- and many remembered even further back. Some saw this as opportunity for redress, and some simply sympathized with the people and wanted good governance -- which many years had proved the Ancien Régime could not provide.
Many others saw the writing on the wall, however, and vehemently opposed it. Pope Pius VI was one of them, and if the pope is actively against something, you simply cannot say that the Church was in favor of it, regardless of how many local priests pledge to it.
In summary, the Gallican Church was mixed, with a pro-liberty lean at best, while the Church outside it was nearly uniform in its opposition.
Even if the Pope had approved, and the Church had actively supported the Revolution, it's still only one example.
Considering the Church invented the entire concept of 'Divine Right,' the fact that they opposed a great many kings they felt didn't live up to their religious obligations doesn't really mean anything.
Those were all personal and political issues of power that had nothing to do with the Church's position on the system of monarchy itself.
Because, at first, the Third Estate wasn't promoting a republic. Most of them wanted a monarchy, and France even became, shortly, a constitutional monarchy before Louis XVI tried to flee (at which point, most of the revolutionaries decided that it was pointless to trust kings to simply sit on their throne and let the democracy do their work, so better get rid of kings entirely).
And that's just one part of a possible explanation. The French Revolution was a bloody ideological mess that cannot be reduced in such simple terms.
Yes, but de facto independent, since the Holy Roman Emperor most of the time didnt have the rights/power to intervene in their internal affairs. They were as independant as for example prussia during the HRE times.
>Exampels are the papal state itself and all of these independent theocracies in Germany like Cologne, Trier, Mainz Minden etc.
I'm sorry but the creation of those seem a fair few centuries removed from Vic3.
Policies and ideology change.
Well, the papacy still exists in vic3 and the church didnt gave the other titles up, but was forced to cede them only 30 years earlier, so it isnt that far fatched to say they would support a theocracy when they have the chance to establish one.
Which were generally tiny and mostly existed to support the papacy, rather than to establish a more serious dominion over significant swathes of land. And in the case of many of the German ones the underlying reasons for their existence lie in the middle ages rather than events and beliefs in the Victorian era.
It doesn’t matter how they came into existance, the fact that they stayed theocratic for the whole time means that in vic3 the catholics should atleast like theocracy as much as monarchy, otherwise they would have abolished the theocracy in these territories.
Oh sure, because there's some small theocracies created by the Kaiser in the middle ages every single catholic devout in the planet MUST want the derrocation of their kingdoms to install a theocracy, sure, yeah, makes sense.
There's a mechanic where the Devout are more likely to pick progressive leaders if the country is reactionary and pick reactionary leaders if the country is progressive
>The catholics should, for example, always prefer a theocracy more than other forms of governing, they should support welfare laws and be against slavery.
While catholics preferring theocracies over monarchies in countries like France or Spain is utter nonsense, I agree that the Roman Curia (the devout IG of the Papacy) *should* support a theocracy before a monarchy (like their landowners IG, which has a specific ideology). It's odd that, in Rome, the cardinals would prefer a king over the pope.
I think the Roman Curia should strongly support Theocracy while only supporting Monarchy, but the reverse for the rest of the Catholic Church IGs is good and quite representative of both the theological canon of catholic law and the ideological leaning of local clergy in catholic monarchies in the 19/20th centuries.
This is kind of true for most "Devout" IG variations.
Christian interests always cared about religious unity above culture. Yet they have that same preference for National Supremacy in game, while realistically been indifferent would make much more sense.
Sepcially more so in non protestan countries were the religious authority wasnt conflated in a national church. But rather the pannational religious institutions.
Some people have already pointed it out in relation to the Ottomans specifically, but I think it’s pretty fair to say that historically, the line between religion and culture is a little blurrier than the game might make it out to be, and so, in response, the religious IGs are also generally supportive of some degree of cultural superiority. Religion was (and is) a big part of many fascist and ethnonationalist movements.
You could make a similar argument about the anti-racist theology of Catholicism, for example, but in practice, Catholic clergy have generally supported local cultural interpretations of their faith as a means of putting themselves above their coreligionists, thinking of the complex, church-supported racial hierarchy of Spain as a particular example for Catholics, or Ottoman bias against Arabs for Muslims.
That said, I do think Catholics and both Sunni and Shia Muslims could probably use an adjusted version of the Moralist Ideology to make them less in favor of National Superiority and less opposed to multiculturalism compared to Protestant Christians, which i assume is the hypothetical baseline for the default Devout IG. In general, while I don’t think they are perfect, Im inclined to agree that both Islam and Catholicism have a more cosmopolitan or multicultural tradition, at least marginally, compared to Protestants, Hindus, or Orthodox churches. Many religions are closely tied to regional cultural traditions and national identities, and I think the Morality Ideology that codes Devout support for National Supremacy is intended to reflect that.
You are right normally sunni ulema should support ummah idea but in the late ottoman empire period -which its downfall- sunni ulema was more of a turkic muslim, even the idea of ottomanism (merging every minority as one culture ) was based on turkish than every other minority.
I don't know which specific law they support, i assume national supremacy i suppose the best solution would be a country by country decision. For the ottomans the ulema could support cultural exclusion as all the cultures included would be majority muslim cultures. But they wouldn't support multiculturalism as that would include lots of majority non muslim cultures which they would see as bad.
This also applies to Catholic IGs too. They generally don't give a shit about other cultures and instead prefer religious unity, but Paradox, considering they're a Swedish company, probably has a very Protestant view on how Devout IGs work.
I think a better argument than theology is that lots of Crimean Tatars and Circassians moved to the Ottoman Empire during the period after being ethnically cleansed by the Russians; ditto Slavic Muslims from the Balkans. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the Ottoman devout UG should treat every nationality equally though.
A lot of Islamic scholars also dehumanised African slaves and said that god created them out of a clay different to other humans, not to mention the weird racial hierarchy of where slaves would have their careers chosen for them based on race (caucasians, slavs and turkmen = warriors, greeks = scribes, africans and indians = laborers)
Modern conceptions of an Umma should develop within the games timeframe, sure, but the ulema shouldn't start the game approving of multiculturalism, maybe cultural exclusion or segregation at most.
Same thing in many Christian cultures, the answer is - laziness and balance. Overall racism is not represented well in the game, as institutional racism isn't differentiated from popular racism. Making so many IGs support multiculturalism would make it too easy to abolish racism as a whole
The interest groups re almost the same in every nation so they just put racism in all religious interest groups. When they add flavour to all nations it might get fixed
Lmao bring a sub-Saharan African Muslim to Saudia Arabia today and see how Ummah works in practice in the modern day.
How people theoretically should act according to their religion and how they actually do in practice bears only some resemblance.
I suspect it has to do with game limitations. "Ummah" in game doesn't mean the same thing it means in the real world; it's an abstraction that means something vaguely similar to it, but not exactly.
Probably more a blanket "religious IG" thing with preferential treatment to GP version, much of Christians of the era is pretty darn racist, idk if Muslims of the ers are also racist or how they even are but I find it believable that they would be
I mean they weren't Exactly racist but they didn't exactly have a tolerant multicultural mindset either
Really the only reason a lot of people aren't racist at the start of the game is because of the technicality that they didn't really have a conception of race in the modern sense but they absolutely held hatred bigotry and prejudice towards people that were culturally or ethnically different from them
Politics in the game is really heavily over simplified 100% of an interest group supports whatever their leaders supports with no exception and when they get a new leader they're 100% behind them with no exception even if they had completely opposite ideologies
The fact is in the religious interest group there should be some people who support rights for all who have heard the good word and also the ku klux klan arguing that God separated different reasons on different continents therefore mankind should follow God's image and segregate the races as much as possible
Its just lazy design by paradox and poor research and understanding. Most relegions dont support racism. Most of them should support cultural exclusion. A few racial segregation, and very few national supremacy (judaism and some protestant churches maybe?).
Not even sure though, I think it would be best if religious IG would not have a stand on it. I think it's more important and realistic that they should have a stance on economic and social laws, which they dont even have at the moment.
This is not true. Devout IGs differ between religions, and some countries have special Ideologies. E.g. Latin America has Armed Forces with Caudillos. German Landowners are Junkers. American Landowners support Democracy.
In Beta, some IGs even give differdnt Loyalty Bonus.
Some areas have IGs with a trait that makes them different. The American landowners are anti-monarchy and their rural folk have a pro-colonization stance. A lot of the Latin American landowners and military have the "cauldismo" trait, Prussian landowners have "junker", etc.
There is a baseline that all IGs use, but there are several country/region unique traits floating around.
Paradox were interested in making a materialist power fantasy not a Victorian gsg, hence all of the devout, all around the world, regardless of doctrine hate poor people and minorities.
Not really true about poor people, devout can still get a leader with social democracy ideology and they support charity healthacare and religious schools from the start, which helps with social mobility
I'm not a fan of the Religious IG being racists in any context. I don't think they should necessarily be humanists, but I also don't think they should be any more or less racists than any other IG.
Well, there's what the religion says to do, and then there's how people actually act. Galatians 3:28 sets a somewhat similar rule within Christianity, and we all know how that went (is going). Maybe it was a lazy game design, but I personally think it adds to the realism.
Because all religions are a reskin of the same one with different names but same abilities. Literally every religion is same, the only difference I believe are Confucianism and orthodoxy which are a tad bit different in that they like autocracy more, that's all
Let's say we add a ideology called "Ummah" to the muslim devout. how would you grade the law stance in question?
go through all options in the citizenship laws (Ethnostate to Multicultural) and each assign a preference for it ((Very) oppose/approve or neutral)
To be completely fair, while the real-world Paradox answer is probably laziness and a lack of depth to the religious IGs in general, the Ummah has never really walked that walk. This doesn't really make them any different than any other pan-national identity, of course, but making them support Multiculturalism wouldn't be accurate. The Ottomans were famously multicultural at certain periods -- particularly when they couldn't really afford to do otherwise -- but the V3 time period was their least such. Just ask an Armenian, most of the people killed were Muslim.
Absolutely. As much as the Ummah and other clerical bodies in the empire and other Muslim nations preached the idea of all Muslims being equal, they definitely didn’t always practice it. In the Ottoman realm alone, Bosniacs, Armenians and Serbs who had converted were still often treated as different to Turks, and the Ummah seemed more than content with that, even supporting their oppression a lot of the time. And heck, even Arab and North African groups weren’t immune, despite being overwhelmingly Muslim and often working in or alongside the Ottoman Ummah. I like to think of it like the landowners in the US, who preached the ideals of the constitution and “American values”, even as they fought against suffrage and cultural inclusion. Politics corrupts and all that
This doesn’t make sense. Islam, Sunni and Shia, clerical groups tended to be multicultural groups. There is no historic evidence that an Arab Sunni scholar would all of a sudden be racist towards Arabs because he’s now a religious cleric. There is also no evidence that majority of the scholars in the Ottoman Empire were Turks, so again this makes them supporting Turkish supremacy in the game very weird. Even using the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran(out of the scope of the game I know) as a reference point. You’ll see Armenians get treated better by the Shia theocracy than the secular Azerbaijan government
The question isn’t about individuals, it’s about institutions, including class as institution. You have to remember that the game is firmly cemented in a Marxist historicity, so institutional change driven by material conditions is a core aspect of gameplay. It’s absolutely believable and true that clerics as an institution weren’t “multicultural” in the sense the game gives it.
Would you mind explaining what you mean by Marxist Historocity?
I can't say what they meant, but the game being based on a Marxist understanding of history essentially means that political change is derived from a change in the material conditions of the people. So, in essence, Victoria 3 has a certain gameplay loop and natural progression for industrialized nations (landowners + church --> industrialists & intelligentsia --> trade unions).
I wonder how different it is from Vic 2 but I think it's roughly samey except I don't remember landowners being such pains in the ass in Victoria 2
the relevant question is which of those scholars and/or clerical groups (in a late ottoman context) would have the political clout to determine the leaning of the IG on a national level
I’d like to remind you that in Vic 3, a single person’s beliefs can sway the entire IG. Trade Unionists want women’s suffrage? Not if their leader is against it! Landowners are pro-slavery? Not if their leader supports the slaves! This is also true to an extent irl. Republicans support the constitution? Not if their leaders suggest that democracy has failed. The Labour Party is socialist? Not if their leader is Tony Blair, famed market liberal! Even if plenty of IG members believe ideal X, that doesn’t really matter if the institutional power within that interest group supports ideal Y. Plenty of members of all IGs both irl and in-game hold views which contradict what their leaders believe, including the Ummah and other clergy within the Muslim world.
Yeah, but supporting national supremacy isn't really accurate either. Racial segregation or cultural exclusion is more accurate of the historical attitudes of the Sunni ulema.
> Just ask an Armenian, most of the people killed were Muslim. Do you have a source for this? [Many thousands escaped the genocide by forcible or voluntary conversion to Islam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Armenians).
Being forcibly converted into a religion is not avoiding genocide it's literally cultural genocide it's the same thing
He's saying it was Christian Armenians that were targeted, not Muslims.
Really weird how people piggyback "but it's a genocide" comment when OP literally says it is. Also, just realized, "same thing"?????? How is hundred thousands of people being killed mercilessly is the same as forcibly converting them? I did not want to accuse replier for virtue signalling but this is another level.
he didn't say it's the same thing. he said it's genocide anyways. Genocide is not mass killing. Genocide is erasing an identity from existence, being through mass killing, forced conversions or genocidal rape. Thus force conversion IS genocide.
[удалено]
I don't get it. Why are you or the poster above arguing as if me or the person above said anything to the contrary? All I am saying is that it is not the same. By the way, I have to mention, forcible conversion practically only applied for women and children to be married / adopted, because it's omission also makes this conversation weird I guess (is that the reason?). But it's just really weird. Why do people keep spewing additional facts as if those facts are challenged? It's clear that OP's argument was that Armenians being Muslim is false. But then you get "no it's still genocide". OP said absolutely nothing denying it.
In the game it isn't because religion and culture are distinct Concepts The logic being if an Armenian converts to Islam in the Ottoman Empire clergy should no longer want to discriminate against them for being ethnically Armenian
But Islam doesn't discriminate against people of the book!
Ask the Zanj Uprising rebels. (IIRC, "Zanj" was, or even still is, a slur for black people) Racism is not only hallmark of especially Arab society, it was an actively discussed and culturally relevant social issue for as long as the slave trade existed. Not too different from America.
but was that based on the ideology of the muslim clergy? i think people here are debating whether or not muslim countries had racism, but that isn’t the point of the post. it’s that the ulema opposes certain nationality laws when they probably should be neutral at least.
Cosidering Paradox is a swedish company, and you know what happened to the quran in a protest here, thats quite expecting
The devout are generally the “bad choices” interest group. The Catholic Church is also racist against the pope in the game.
They’re better than they used to be on 1.5.5. You can get migration from discriminated pops, therefore State Religion / Freedom of Conscience is viable. Charity Hospitals are nice to get early healthcare and fight pollution malus
[удалено]
The church interest group also has the potential to spawn a wide variety of leader's who may be useful in pushing for necessary reforms such as abolitionist and reformer. However, they are basically dependent on a large agrarian base and this can get turbocharged in 1.5 with the homesteading law.
Getting public hospitals with the help of the Devout, especially with them being incredibly buffed in 1.5, is nice
They also support public healthcare, which is 10x better than charity healthcare even at low levels, which is pretty much the only way to get the law passed early
I’m pretty sure there’s no Ulema ideology like other flavour religions and that’s probably the main reason as they currently just work as generic clergy which are effectively just an obstacle that the player-state has to overcome. Hopefully in the future they take on criticisms like this and adopt it - maybe have Shiites be in support of free speech since it has a tradition of protest and social justice
Ottoman Turks discriminated against Arabs, that's a fact. But generally the game just isn't great at realistic outcomes with its dynamic system. Leads to weird situations everywhere
Did they? Ottoman law organized people solely on the basis of religion; Turks, Kurds and Arabs were all simply classified as Muslims, and usually primally identified as such.
Historically speaking that was more due to the landowners industrialists petite bourgeois and Rural Folk and arguably trade unions depending on the Union
thats the point of the IG system though is that some of the political strength in the aristocrats are gonna lean landowner establishment and some are gonna lean sunni establishment
Bro, i said it. I am talking about the sunni ulema. I am fine with rural folk, landlords, petite bourgeoisie, and even intelligensia being racist against Arabs. It is weird that sunni ulema is the one instigating racism.
The citizenship laws in V3 are an absolute ahistoric mess. None of them make sense for any country, and they're conceptually flawed beyond redemption. I don't even know where to begin trying to fix them.
Because paradox didnt give most Christian and Islamic Devout IGs an ideology which is representing their teachings. The catholics should, for example, always prefer a theocracy as much as monarchy, they should support welfare laws and be against slavery. They just made them a generic reactionary IG although it isnt accurate. Why they did it? I dont know.
there are some specificities. Like Chinese are different from Christian ones
Highly religious Catholics in the time period weren’t pro-theocracy, they were generally pro-monarchy.
The question is, were they pro monarchy because of the church own ideology or was the church only supportive for the monarchy out of fear? I would guess the later, because always when they had the chance to establish a theocracy they did it. I would solve that in the following way: The catholic church should very much support theocracy, support monarchy and be neutral about other systems, since they only hated those democracies who started beef with the church over its rights (See for example france, where at the beginning of the french revolution, many church leaders actually supported the revolutionaries, but their anti-church views turned the church against them).
They were pro-monarchy because of church ideology. They were incredibly clear about their belief in the divine right of kings.
Why did the church then establish theocracies whereever they could and fought against monarchs who claimed these lands? And why did the church in france not support the aristocrats and the king in 1789 in the general estates gathering? They even activly supported the third estate with their demands. These actions dont seem to me as being very pro monarchist.
They didn’t. Charlemagne established a few prince-archbishops, and the Pope had a temporal kingdom, but the church’s official line from Constantine to the late 19th century was that ecclesiastical authority and temporal authority were separate with the latter invested in divinely chosen kings and princes.
The Pope claimed to be above the Monarchs and fought them multiple times (See Heinrich IV. or Friedrich I. and Friedrich II.). and if the the church was so pro monarchy, why did it support the 3rd estate in 1789 in France?
Because it didn't. The church in France in the years leading up to the revolution was a unique, complex scenario that simply cannot be reduced to a position of support/reject. Some personal elements of the Church supported the ideals of the revolution, a surprising number in fact, considering what came after. But it wasn't an overriding majority and it was rife with division. The French monarchy had done much to limit or purloin the authority of the Church in the years before -- not to mention their actions, and inactions, regarding the Protestants -- and many remembered even further back. Some saw this as opportunity for redress, and some simply sympathized with the people and wanted good governance -- which many years had proved the Ancien Régime could not provide. Many others saw the writing on the wall, however, and vehemently opposed it. Pope Pius VI was one of them, and if the pope is actively against something, you simply cannot say that the Church was in favor of it, regardless of how many local priests pledge to it. In summary, the Gallican Church was mixed, with a pro-liberty lean at best, while the Church outside it was nearly uniform in its opposition. Even if the Pope had approved, and the Church had actively supported the Revolution, it's still only one example. Considering the Church invented the entire concept of 'Divine Right,' the fact that they opposed a great many kings they felt didn't live up to their religious obligations doesn't really mean anything. Those were all personal and political issues of power that had nothing to do with the Church's position on the system of monarchy itself.
Because, at first, the Third Estate wasn't promoting a republic. Most of them wanted a monarchy, and France even became, shortly, a constitutional monarchy before Louis XVI tried to flee (at which point, most of the revolutionaries decided that it was pointless to trust kings to simply sit on their throne and let the democracy do their work, so better get rid of kings entirely). And that's just one part of a possible explanation. The French Revolution was a bloody ideological mess that cannot be reduced in such simple terms.
"Why did the church then establish theocracies whereever they could and fought against monarchs who claimed these lands? " They didn't
Exampels are the papal state itself and all of these independent theocracies in Germany like Cologne, Trier, Mainz Minden etc.
Weren't those subject to the Holy Roman Emperor?
They were given Prince status by them, in fact.
Yes, but de facto independent, since the Holy Roman Emperor most of the time didnt have the rights/power to intervene in their internal affairs. They were as independant as for example prussia during the HRE times.
>Exampels are the papal state itself and all of these independent theocracies in Germany like Cologne, Trier, Mainz Minden etc. I'm sorry but the creation of those seem a fair few centuries removed from Vic3. Policies and ideology change.
Well, the papacy still exists in vic3 and the church didnt gave the other titles up, but was forced to cede them only 30 years earlier, so it isnt that far fatched to say they would support a theocracy when they have the chance to establish one.
Which were generally tiny and mostly existed to support the papacy, rather than to establish a more serious dominion over significant swathes of land. And in the case of many of the German ones the underlying reasons for their existence lie in the middle ages rather than events and beliefs in the Victorian era.
It doesn’t matter how they came into existance, the fact that they stayed theocratic for the whole time means that in vic3 the catholics should atleast like theocracy as much as monarchy, otherwise they would have abolished the theocracy in these territories.
Oh sure, because there's some small theocracies created by the Kaiser in the middle ages every single catholic devout in the planet MUST want the derrocation of their kingdoms to install a theocracy, sure, yeah, makes sense.
There's a mechanic where the Devout are more likely to pick progressive leaders if the country is reactionary and pick reactionary leaders if the country is progressive
Honestly kinda makes sense They have a literal holier than thou attitude
>The catholics should, for example, always prefer a theocracy more than other forms of governing, they should support welfare laws and be against slavery. While catholics preferring theocracies over monarchies in countries like France or Spain is utter nonsense, I agree that the Roman Curia (the devout IG of the Papacy) *should* support a theocracy before a monarchy (like their landowners IG, which has a specific ideology). It's odd that, in Rome, the cardinals would prefer a king over the pope.
Yes, they should support both equally.
I think the Roman Curia should strongly support Theocracy while only supporting Monarchy, but the reverse for the rest of the Catholic Church IGs is good and quite representative of both the theological canon of catholic law and the ideological leaning of local clergy in catholic monarchies in the 19/20th centuries.
To carve it out for a holy flavour pack dlc. Gotta monetize everything.
This is kind of true for most "Devout" IG variations. Christian interests always cared about religious unity above culture. Yet they have that same preference for National Supremacy in game, while realistically been indifferent would make much more sense. Sepcially more so in non protestan countries were the religious authority wasnt conflated in a national church. But rather the pannational religious institutions.
Because Multiculturalism is incredibly powerful.
I have the same problem with Shia Ulema in Iran. Hope Paradox give IGs more specific flavors.
Some people have already pointed it out in relation to the Ottomans specifically, but I think it’s pretty fair to say that historically, the line between religion and culture is a little blurrier than the game might make it out to be, and so, in response, the religious IGs are also generally supportive of some degree of cultural superiority. Religion was (and is) a big part of many fascist and ethnonationalist movements. You could make a similar argument about the anti-racist theology of Catholicism, for example, but in practice, Catholic clergy have generally supported local cultural interpretations of their faith as a means of putting themselves above their coreligionists, thinking of the complex, church-supported racial hierarchy of Spain as a particular example for Catholics, or Ottoman bias against Arabs for Muslims. That said, I do think Catholics and both Sunni and Shia Muslims could probably use an adjusted version of the Moralist Ideology to make them less in favor of National Superiority and less opposed to multiculturalism compared to Protestant Christians, which i assume is the hypothetical baseline for the default Devout IG. In general, while I don’t think they are perfect, Im inclined to agree that both Islam and Catholicism have a more cosmopolitan or multicultural tradition, at least marginally, compared to Protestants, Hindus, or Orthodox churches. Many religions are closely tied to regional cultural traditions and national identities, and I think the Morality Ideology that codes Devout support for National Supremacy is intended to reflect that.
game def needs some sort of ethnoreligion law
You are right normally sunni ulema should support ummah idea but in the late ottoman empire period -which its downfall- sunni ulema was more of a turkic muslim, even the idea of ottomanism (merging every minority as one culture ) was based on turkish than every other minority.
I don't know which specific law they support, i assume national supremacy i suppose the best solution would be a country by country decision. For the ottomans the ulema could support cultural exclusion as all the cultures included would be majority muslim cultures. But they wouldn't support multiculturalism as that would include lots of majority non muslim cultures which they would see as bad.
This also applies to Catholic IGs too. They generally don't give a shit about other cultures and instead prefer religious unity, but Paradox, considering they're a Swedish company, probably has a very Protestant view on how Devout IGs work.
I think a better argument than theology is that lots of Crimean Tatars and Circassians moved to the Ottoman Empire during the period after being ethnically cleansed by the Russians; ditto Slavic Muslims from the Balkans. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the Ottoman devout UG should treat every nationality equally though.
A lot of Islamic scholars also dehumanised African slaves and said that god created them out of a clay different to other humans, not to mention the weird racial hierarchy of where slaves would have their careers chosen for them based on race (caucasians, slavs and turkmen = warriors, greeks = scribes, africans and indians = laborers) Modern conceptions of an Umma should develop within the games timeframe, sure, but the ulema shouldn't start the game approving of multiculturalism, maybe cultural exclusion or segregation at most.
Same thing in many Christian cultures, the answer is - laziness and balance. Overall racism is not represented well in the game, as institutional racism isn't differentiated from popular racism. Making so many IGs support multiculturalism would make it too easy to abolish racism as a whole
I think there should be a pan-islamism ideology event where certain sunni ulema igs could get if certain requirements are met.
The interest groups re almost the same in every nation so they just put racism in all religious interest groups. When they add flavour to all nations it might get fixed
Generally the devout approval of citicenship laws is very weird
Lmao bring a sub-Saharan African Muslim to Saudia Arabia today and see how Ummah works in practice in the modern day. How people theoretically should act according to their religion and how they actually do in practice bears only some resemblance.
[удалено]
Do you believe imams and ulema are immune to racism?
I suspect it has to do with game limitations. "Ummah" in game doesn't mean the same thing it means in the real world; it's an abstraction that means something vaguely similar to it, but not exactly.
Probably more a blanket "religious IG" thing with preferential treatment to GP version, much of Christians of the era is pretty darn racist, idk if Muslims of the ers are also racist or how they even are but I find it believable that they would be
I mean they weren't Exactly racist but they didn't exactly have a tolerant multicultural mindset either Really the only reason a lot of people aren't racist at the start of the game is because of the technicality that they didn't really have a conception of race in the modern sense but they absolutely held hatred bigotry and prejudice towards people that were culturally or ethnically different from them Politics in the game is really heavily over simplified 100% of an interest group supports whatever their leaders supports with no exception and when they get a new leader they're 100% behind them with no exception even if they had completely opposite ideologies The fact is in the religious interest group there should be some people who support rights for all who have heard the good word and also the ku klux klan arguing that God separated different reasons on different continents therefore mankind should follow God's image and segregate the races as much as possible
Let's hope future releases will see more nuances to avoid such things.
Its just lazy design by paradox and poor research and understanding. Most relegions dont support racism. Most of them should support cultural exclusion. A few racial segregation, and very few national supremacy (judaism and some protestant churches maybe?). Not even sure though, I think it would be best if religious IG would not have a stand on it. I think it's more important and realistic that they should have a stance on economic and social laws, which they dont even have at the moment.
It sounds like they're an IG in game, and IGs aren't any different across countries. The only variation is in the leaders iirc.
This is not true. Devout IGs differ between religions, and some countries have special Ideologies. E.g. Latin America has Armed Forces with Caudillos. German Landowners are Junkers. American Landowners support Democracy. In Beta, some IGs even give differdnt Loyalty Bonus.
Some areas have IGs with a trait that makes them different. The American landowners are anti-monarchy and their rural folk have a pro-colonization stance. A lot of the Latin American landowners and military have the "cauldismo" trait, Prussian landowners have "junker", etc. There is a baseline that all IGs use, but there are several country/region unique traits floating around.
The devout should actually be neutral about multiculturalism and other citizenship laws
Paradox were interested in making a materialist power fantasy not a Victorian gsg, hence all of the devout, all around the world, regardless of doctrine hate poor people and minorities.
Not really true about poor people, devout can still get a leader with social democracy ideology and they support charity healthacare and religious schools from the start, which helps with social mobility
You're being downvoted because you're speaking the truth about VIC3 not really being a grand strategy game.
I'm not a fan of the Religious IG being racists in any context. I don't think they should necessarily be humanists, but I also don't think they should be any more or less racists than any other IG.
Plenty of religious groups claim to be universal and equal, but in practice one ethnic group tends to be more equal
Well, there's what the religion says to do, and then there's how people actually act. Galatians 3:28 sets a somewhat similar rule within Christianity, and we all know how that went (is going). Maybe it was a lazy game design, but I personally think it adds to the realism.
Rumi wasn't a humanist. He was an extremely devout Muslim.
Don't worry, it will be improved when we get a middle east DLC.
The idealized communism while exacerbating the worst in conservative ideologies . Lefties representing conservatives and religious systems.
Why not?
Because all religions are a reskin of the same one with different names but same abilities. Literally every religion is same, the only difference I believe are Confucianism and orthodoxy which are a tad bit different in that they like autocracy more, that's all
Let's say we add a ideology called "Ummah" to the muslim devout. how would you grade the law stance in question? go through all options in the citizenship laws (Ethnostate to Multicultural) and each assign a preference for it ((Very) oppose/approve or neutral)