Liege converted me, I had no option to refuse

[ancistrus]

This is extremely annoying, how can I avoid it in the future?

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by Zodiac:

And since he asked in person, with no chance for you to form an army..... the game is over. You're not king just a vassal.

That doesn't change anything. Even "Convert or game over" is more of a choice than "Your
converted now because I say so".

Maybe you already had an army raised doing something else? Maybe you have allies that would support you in a war? Maybe the king is old and has gavelkind inheritence and you think you can last long enough for him to die and for the realm to split up. Maybe you have a cousin on the other side of the map and you'd rather fall back to him then switch religions?

Just because you are a vassal does not make you a slave to your liege. Even NPCs have more choices in this regard; some NPCs have the "true believer" modifier, meaning they won't convert to your religion even if you imprison them. Player characters should be allowed to do this.

[Zsrai]

Did your liege ask or did you get converted via his Chaplain proselytizing in your capital? When that happens I'm pretty sure you don't get any option to refuse, it just happens.

[ancistrus]

Originally posted by Zodiac:

Originally posted by Das Boot:

That's right. You should get player choice in things like this.

And since he asked in person, with no chance for you to form an army..... the game is over. You're not king just a vassal.

But I am a king.
And by your reasoning, one should be able to always revoke titles with 100% success rate, force any marriage, make a vassal convert to a Jehovas witness while spanking himself and singing Falalalan at the same time...

[Edge]

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that fanboys will defend literally anything. No matter what the consquences of refusal, it still takes a decision on the part of an individual to convert his religion. And if you're playing that character, it would naturally be you making that decision. You say the king could just remove you if you refused. Okay, so let you refuse and it causes an automatic DOW from the liege. The character has that option. It's not like he just wakes up one day and his memory of being a pagan has been magically erased and he has become Christian by a supernatural intervention. I mean, come on, the guy's point is obviously correct. I can almost guarantee you this was an error on the part of the developers and even they would agree that he should get a decision box. But until they fix it, their fanboys will defend it with the zeal of a convert (see what I did there?). Then the day they fix it, the fanboys will be all like "great fix Paradox, this is why you are the greatest company on the face of the earth."

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by Edge:

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that fanboys will defend literally anything. No matter what the consquences of refusal, it still takes a decision on the part of an individual to convert his religion. And if you're playing that character, it would naturally be you making that decision. You say the king could just remove you if you refused. Okay, so let you refuse and it causes an automatic DOW from the liege. The character has that option. It's not like he just wakes up one day and his memory of being a pagan has been magically erased and he has become Christian by a supernatural intervention. I mean, come on, the guy's point is obviously correct. I can almost guarantee you this was an error on the part of the developers and even they would agree that he should get a decision box. But until they fix it, their fanboys will defend it with the zeal of a convert (see what I did there?). Then the day they fix it, the fanboys will be all like "great fix Paradox, this is why you are the greatest company on the face of the earth."

You make a good point.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by Das Boot:

Originally posted by Edge:

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that fanboys will defend literally anything. No matter what the consquences of refusal, it still takes a decision on the part of an individual to convert his religion. And if you're playing that character, it would naturally be you making that decision. You say the king could just remove you if you refused. Okay, so let you refuse and it causes an automatic DOW from the liege. The character has that option. It's not like he just wakes up one day and his memory of being a pagan has been magically erased and he has become Christian by a supernatural intervention. I mean, come on, the guy's point is obviously correct. I can almost guarantee you this was an error on the part of the developers and even they would agree that he should get a decision box. But until they fix it, their fanboys will defend it with the zeal of a convert (see what I did there?). Then the day they fix it, the fanboys will be all like "great fix Paradox, this is why you are the greatest company on the face of the earth."

You make a good point.

No he really doesn't

You currently have the ability to say no if your opinion of your leige is low enough you can infact say no and you get the ability to they fight a revolt war as you don't instantly end up in Jail....

But if your opinion is high enough and he toss's you in jail and selects Demand Religous Conversion you have the NON choice of accepting or game ending because your in jail and your about to be stripped of your title there is no inheritance because your no longer landed and your still alive.....

so this is working as intended...

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by jfoytek:

No he really doesn't

You currently have the ability to say no if your opinion of your leige is low enough you can infact say no and you get the ability to they fight a revolt war as you don't instantly end up in Jail....

But if your opinion is high enough and he toss's you in jail and selects Demand Religous Conversion you have the NON choice of accepting or game ending because your in jail and your about to be stripped of your title there is no inheritance because your no longer landed and your still alive.....

so this is working as intended...

Even a choice between conversion or game-over is still more agency. And if I tried that on an NPC with the "true believer" modifier (such as a Jew or a Germanic Pagan that sometimes appears from physician hunts) he's still refuse to convert.

Forcing the player to convert because the player is imprisoned, or because the player has high opinion, is the equivalent of a first person game that puts invisible walls up to prevent the player from going anywhere other than the chosen path.

Games are supposed to give agency, that means the choice of losing. If I was a player roleplaying a devoutly religious character and the King imprisoned me and threatened to revoke my only title if I refused then I would refuse and get a game over for the sake of seeing the Roleplay to it's end. If I was forced to convert just because my character had a high opinion of the King then I would be really upset.

If your only argument is "you souldn't be allowed to choose defeat" then you are missing the point.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by Das Boot:

Originally posted by jfoytek:

No he really doesn't

You currently have the ability to say no if your opinion of your leige is low enough you can infact say no and you get the ability to they fight a revolt war as you don't instantly end up in Jail....

But if your opinion is high enough and he toss's you in jail and selects Demand Religous Conversion you have the NON choice of accepting or game ending because your in jail and your about to be stripped of your title there is no inheritance because your no longer landed and your still alive.....

so this is working as intended...

Even a choice between conversion or game-over is still more agency. And if I tried that on an NPC with the "true believer" modifier (such as a Jew or a Germanic Pagan that sometimes appears from physician hunts) he's still refuse to convert.

Forcing the player to convert because the player is imprisoned, or because the player has high opinion, is the equivalent of a first person game that puts invisible walls up to prevent the player from going anywhere other than the chosen path.

Games are supposed to give agency, that means the choice of losing. If I was a player roleplaying a devoutly religious character and the King imprisoned me and threatened to revoke my only title if I refused then I would refuse and get a game over for the sake of seeing the Roleplay to it's end. If I was forced to convert just because my character had a high opinion of the King then I would be really upset.

If your only argument is "you souldn't be allowed to choose defeat" then you are missing the point.

in Chess your not allowed to move into Mate this is basically the same thing you are not allowed to do something that ends up in the end of the game but this is more or less just to simplify things for the game itself its not a conspiracy to take away human rights....

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by jfoytek:

in Chess your not allowed to move into Mate this is basically the same thing you are not allowed to do something that ends up in the end of the game but this is more or less just to simplify things for the game itself its not a conspiracy to take away human rights....

Why are you so quick to defend less agency? Changing religions beliefs is at the fundimental level a persional choice, so you should at least get a pop up box.

We don't want a simplified game; if we did we'd just watch a cutscene of the screen telling us we win. We play CKII because it is a complicated game, and because we have agency and choices. So stop defending when agency is taken away; it's not fast, it's not fun, it's not reasonable, it is just annoying.

You know what, forget it. I don't want to talk to you anymore. Don't reply to this, and if you do I will ignore it. I already blocked all contact from you. That's how much you pissed me off; I don't want to talk to you anymore.

[Blue Knight™]

Originally posted by jfoytek:

Originally posted by KoA Blue Knight™:

its a historical simulator is you were being educated by him, then he is a farther figure you will do as he says, but if you are just a normal guy and got converted then well, sure relgion was kinda a big deal but on the lower scale of the Fedual system it didnt matter, Carthars lived very good lives in France for a very long time, same with many other religion

Cathars did not live good lives in France EVER 1143 - 1321

First off the Heresy didnt actually emerge till 1143-
And by 1321 the Catholic church wiped it out of existence!

Not sure where your getting this idea that life as a heretic was easy!

It is now generally agreed by most scholars that identifiable historical Catharism did not emerge until at least 1143

The Cathars spent much of 1209 fending off the crusaders. The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. Arnaud-Amaury, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesarius of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, thirty years later was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"—"Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own". The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there.
Elsewhere in the town, many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud-Amaury wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex." "The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000."

From May 1243 to March 1244, the Cathar fortress of Montségur was besieged by the troops of the seneschal of Carcassonne and the archbishop of Narbonne. On 16 March 1244, a large and symbolically important massacre took place, where over 200 Cathar Perfects were burnt in an enormous pyre at the prat dels cremats ("field of the burned") near the foot of the castle.Moreover, the Church decreed lesser chastisements against laymen suspected of sympathy with Cathars, at the 1235 Council of Narbonne.

Annihilation

After several decades of harassment and re-proselytising, and perhaps even more importantly, the systematic destruction of their religious texts, the sect was exhausted and could find no more adepts. The leader of a Cathar revival in the Pyrenean foothills, Peire Autier was captured and executed in April 1310 in Toulouse. After 1330, the records of the Inquisition contain very few proceedings against Cathars. The last known Cathar perfectus in the Languedoc, Guillaume Bélibaste, was executed in the autumn of 1321.
From the mid-12th century onwards, Italian Catharism came under increasing pressure from the Pope and the Inquisition, "spelling the beginning of the end". Other movements, such as the Waldensians and the pantheistic Brethren of the Free Spirit, which suffered persecution in the same area, survived in remote areas and in small numbers into the 14th and 15th centuries. Some Waldensian ideas were absorbed into early Protestant sects, such as the Hussites, Lollards, and the Moravian Church (Herrnhuters of Germany).

Yeah blah blah there was a Crusade multiple crusades, but they had multiple strongholds where they lived normal peacful lives the only reason why they were wiped out was for the political prestige of destroying a heresy, AND you cant destroy a religon, the Carthars are not wiped out they were scared hide and practiced in silience, same as all religions that are being oppressed, and what i was pointing out was not that Carthars were completly ♥♥♥♥♥♥ by the Crusades, but that before then especially on the lower class of the Fedual system its didnt ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ matter, Muslims and Christian merchants traded for years, Orthodox/Coptics and Muslims lived peacfullly for many many many years.

JUST because there was a crusade at some point of time doesnt mean that before that moment things WERE ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ BRUTAL, you assume to much friend, its history, not fact

[Blue Knight™]

P.S those Carthar crusades were political motivated, by both the Pope and the dukes and counts envoled, they wanted land and money and power, Brutuality was normal, having entire towns masacared wasnt unheard of, especially during a crusade, mass murders wernt unheard of either, whenever you see the tradedy of a certian people or religon or country, its already happened to so many others before and after that, just these people knew how to write it better then the others

[Segovax]

Originally posted by KoA Blue Knight™:

P.S those Carthar crusades were political motivated, by both the Pope and the dukes and counts envoled, they wanted land and money and power, Brutuality was normal, having entire towns masacared wasnt unheard of, especially during a crusade, mass murders wernt unheard of either, whenever you see the tradedy of a certian people or religon or country, its already happened to so many others before and after that, just these people knew how to write it better then the others

They were politically motivated but not in the sense you're talking about. Politics and religion were deeply intertwined, so suggesting that there was some sort of purely secular motivation - which is frankly what you're implying by saying they were politically motivated - is simply wrong.

The Cathars weren't wiped out overnight and it wasn't like the Pope woke up one day and said "♥♥♥♥ these guys." It was a fairly long process, and it was almost universally religiously motivated. The consolidation of French power to form what was essentially the first real monolithic monarchy was an example of opportunism, not motivation. The king of Navarra, who had just been kicking all kinds of ass during the Reconquista, challenging the Pope's declaration that the Count of Toulose was a little ♥♥♥♥♥ and not a legitimate ruler was an example of a direct clash between secular and spiritual powers - they were both using the situation as a means to an end but they were at the heart of it religious issues. For France it was a Catholic-sanctioned means to expand territory - something they likely never would have done if the opportunity hadn't presented itself - and for the opposing lords it was about whether or not the religious powers that be should have the power to rescind the nobility's 'divine right to rule.'

Yes, in places like Toulose the Cathars lived relatively peacefully for a time, but it was because they weren't widespread enough to be taken notice of. Once a movement becomes large enough to be considered a heresy, life becomes pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥ for them.

The Cathar heresy was a really interesting piece of history. Whether or not you want to agree or understand what's being discussed here you might want to pick up a few books about it, definitely worth reading about that period in history.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by KoA Blue Knight™:

the Carthars are not wiped out they were scared hide and practiced in silience, same as all religions that are being oppressed,

After the depredations of the Inquisition in the fourteenth century, the chain of succession was restored in the Languedoc by two brothers who travelled to Piedmont to receive the Consolamentum from a Parfait there. But this line was apparently exterminated with the burning of Guilhem Belibaste in 1321. The Italian line was exterminated by the Roman Church soon after, and in the fifteenth century the Balkan line was suppressed, or absorbed, by Islam, which shares the characteristically Gnostic belief that it was a divine phantom, not a man, who was crucified when the authorities thought they were executing Jesus (c/f Koran 4:157: "they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them").

Did a secret succession survive from any of these traditions, or from any of the more remote Eastern ones? Perhaps. No one seems to know for sure. But either there their one of the best kept secrets in history or its highly unlikely!

However if you think they still exist today then:

It depends what you mean. If you mean "Are there people living today who claim to be Cathars ?", then the answer is Yes. If you mean "Are there people who live like Cathars, and believe what the Cathars believed ?", then the answer is also Yes.

But neither of these answers tells the whole story. For example, quite a few of the people calling themselves Cathars will tell you that they are reincarnated Cathar Parfaits. But a central Cathar belief was that on their deaths Parfaits were released from the cycle of rebirth. Which means that either these modern Cathars hold to a belief system that they know to be wrong, or that they are impostors who have not troubled to do their homework.

[ancistrus]

jesus christ...

[Edge]

This is a pointless argument, because fanboys are not arguing in good faith. Their points make no sense and they know it. If you hold a gun to my face and say give me your money, I still have the choice to say yes or no regardless of how compromised my situation is. Now, what I don't have a choice about is whether you will ultimately get my money. Since you have a gun and I don't, you are very likely to get my money whether I give it to you or not. But I still have the choice whether to give it to you voluntarily.

So okay, if I don't convert I'm going to roast over a fire. Seems like a pretty easy choice. But it's still a choice. And believe it or not, a significant number of people have chosen the fire.

I mean, come on, we're reduced to explaining common sense here. This is just stupid.