Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
Tartışma Kuralları ve Yönergeleri
Bu iletiyi bildir
Turn people into toads, then hop on the broom and fly off into the moonrise?
you do have regular events, you occassionally get witch exclusive event responses where it makes sense to do so. But it's like everything else, your character is doing that stuff in the background, it's just not as important except when you make big event about it and invite a bunch of people or you get an event where your witch insights prove unexpectedly useful. (it's also much more common if your religion actually accepts witchcraft, since then you can actually public rituals instead of having to keep them secret).
Magic in Ck2 was straight up magic. It wasn't superstitious nonsense, it was actually affecting the real world immediately and effectively.
A lot of our tropes about feudal history didn't exist, are misplaced for the presented era, or aren't presented in the way of how things were viewed at the time.
Heck, the last game had a non-existent Aztec invasion of Europe. And in CK3, you can already play in such a way that you form nonsensical Norse Republics in India - which I promise is pretty fun, by the way (except having your holy sites so far away). But you can still do it.
This game also does do a lot of things that make me say "at this point, nobody's allowed to use 'realism' or 'didn't exist' as an argument against something in CK3".
I managed to empower my blood line in just 2 generations cause all my playable leaders lived up to +80 with ~10 children each (A lot of cousin to marry). The Health Bonus combined with Diplocmacy and Education is great to spread your witchcraft cult over the whole Orthodoxian Church.
My Bloodmother tried to mess with the Emporer but was sentenced to death after killing off all the heirs of the Emporer.
In the next generation the weakened Emporer was killed by her Sons and I managed to take over the Byzanthinian Empire with over 100 Dynasty Members and a lot of them have all the 4 Perks already (Fertility, Genius, Beautiful, Hercules, No Pure Blood yet but some inbreeds ^^).
An early Witchcraft Circle allows you to farm at least 5-10 Extra Perk Point over a Life Span, if you use the Circle Event on Cooldown, which can be a real game changer.
But getting perks from being a witch is better than nothing. CKIII is pretty stingy with perks and abilities, so having access to them through witchcraft is - proportionally speaking - still quite good.
Quite so. Today, we define witches as "those who believe Wicca wields power", generally. Back then, witches were defined in much broader strokes. Many would argue that that there are no "true" witches on the grounds that magic doesn't actually work. All very different points of view. Whose are we to consider when we say witches didn't actually exist?
If being a witch meant nature-worship, for instance, there were many who were guilty of that in those days. There was a whole island full of people who descended from druids, I'm sure at least a few hundred of them kept on with the old traditions. The law of the day would have classified that as guilt. Sure, today we would deem it innocence... But then, today we deem relations with teenagers illegal, which was deemed innocent in the middle ages.
The point is, it's incredibly difficult to apply blanket judgments across vast stretches of human history. Standards change, and it's therefore impossible to be objective about such things. Obviously we're going to measure things based on our modern sensibilities, but this isn't a game of modern society.
Wikipedia suggests they drew this from a rather more modern place...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_God
... which in turn allegedly drew it from here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_deity
Probably not Baphomet, as that was actually an Egyptian god. It seems the rest are largely myths with woodland associations, so in my opinion, it probably does indeed equate to a generic nature spirit in CK3. Satan pretty clearly had a name that was known back then (several in fact), so if it meant to represent Satan-worship, it probably would've said so.
More likely, I think Satan-worship was deliberately left out of CK3 as while it was an iconic element of the supernatural additions to CK2, there wasn't really any historical devil worship during that time. People came in two general varieties when it came to Satan: Either they considered him the enemy (Christians), or they didn't believe he was a thing (non-Christians).
(If we're keeping score, I'm fairly sure the majority of modern Satanists don't actually believe Satan is a thing either...)
Reinforcing this presumption is the fact that witches in CK3 tend to be herbalists and generally skilled, if unorthodox, physicians.
I mean, if you want to interpret a "horned god" as Satan, I'm sure plenty of people would be fine with that - both in the middle ages, and today. And on all sides of the religious divide, too.
The "Horned God" thing is probably just a dev writer who is into Wicca. Wicca's a new religion, and doesn't really have anything to do with historical paganism or medieval occultism (both of which were real things, both of which are lacking in primary sources, and both of which are difficult to research today due to misinformation from the Victorian and modern periods) but since it's just a fun fantasy game anyway - eh? Just go with whatever headcanon feels right to you, I guess! "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"
The notion of "witches" worshipping "a Horned God" is indeed a modern trope - it's a claim that comes from neopaganism (Wicca in particular). However, there really were "Horned Gods" in numerous traditional pagan belief systems; that claim is true. We also know that medieval sources did allege that Baphomet was worshipped in secret by the Knights Templars. So there's definitely period-accurate precedent for the Horned God being Baphomet, if you want to go with that interpretation.
I mean, there probably was. Period sources do mention the existence of theistic Satanists, and even if we discount all of the more lurid accounts, it's still reasonable to assume that, for example, many Hermeticists of the late medieval period "worshipped" the various demons they wrote about and believed in.
I disagree. I think you're trying to read the medieval experience through a modern lens - where the attitudes towards Satanism promoted in popular culture are either antagonistic, or atheistic, and where, in the context of the historical past, atheism/ rationalism is viewed as the "Other" against which the premodern Christian world order struggled - but if we're talking about what MEDIEVAL people believed, then a modern perspective is of no use to us.
I really don't think there were many atheists back then. While attitudes varied, the idea that demons literally existed would have seemed as natural and self-evident as the idea that germs and hydrogen atoms exist seems to us today.
That's another modern trope, yes. Paradox devs are modern writers, so they tend to write witches as a modern writer would see them.
I'm sure there were exceptions, of course, but it wouldn't have been organized by any means. At least, I've yet to find evidence of a truly organized medieval Satanism.
Demon worship... That's another story, now that you mention it. That's one I haven't really looked into and may well have had one or three organized followings in those days.