pagans cant persecute christians

[hurepoix]

I think it s a bit strange. Game is very oriented for you play monotheist. Probably too polytheist hindouist, but I get only old god dlc.

As christian king I can dismiss a noble if he become an heretic, probably too, a pagan or a muslim, but it never happened to me. Nobody protest if I withdraw a title to a non christian.

As pagan king I cant dismiss a christian lord or bishop without all pagans hate me.
I did it anyway only because my slavic pagan king was 76 year old and succession was clear.
Like on such scale dismiss, jail or execute have no importance, put under arrest all christians of the realm, withdraw title and redistribute it to slavic pagans. Then I exceuted all christians except child I send on eduction under pagan mentor.

result -1090 for vassal opinion, including for pagan clergy I gave back temple took from christian.

Hated by pagans for persecussion against christians

King died shortly after the massive religious cleaning, from agying and not assassinated like expected.

situation is anyway ludicrious.

[Surimi]

The titles of characters of a different religion can be revoked freely with medium crown authority, it has nothing to do with monotheism. The only thing (unreformed) pagans can't do is demand that their subjects convert to their religion.

[Nehebsis]

Deep Hurting is right. All you need is the right law. That you will have to adopt feudalism first (otherwise you only have Organization).

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by Deep Hurting:

The titles of characters of a different religion can be revoked freely with medium crown authority

Sadly no.

The problem is not revokation but consequence.

I m able as pagan like as christian to revoke title from people of the different religion.

Problem is as pagan I suffer opinion damage if I do. As christian I can revoke a non christian and nobody care.

edit . Point it s a bit more complicated. To revoke a title as slavic pagan you must first jails the noble. Reason is It s not allowed to reach medium crown authority, even you have requiered legalism. Perhaps it need to be reformed that is about impossible for slavic.

Summary like said christian can persecute other religion without harm to opinion but pagans cant.

[Cryten]

I can with certainty say that with medium tribal organisation that you can strip titles of infedels with no opinion penalty to your other vassals. Ive done it about 15 times and I think I would notice a -150 opion penalty malice if it was there.

[hurepoix]

pagans cant be medium crown authority. christian can, probably muslim two.

To be exact as slavic you must take a county that is most time under byzantine rules. Even you imagine you succeed this, your population will be christianized long before it happen.

However question is not really here. Do you imagine in an historical context you need any reason/pretext to jails a guy just because he have a different religion ? ingame it cause you opinion penality, and it s the only solution to dismiss a bishop to put a pagan priest instead.

The system is here a bit hypocrit anyway, condition to act like christians does, require conditions impossible to fill.

[Weizen1988]

unreformed pagans maybe cant? in which case get your holy sites and reform.

[hurepoix]

like said, slavic pagan main holy site (like rome for catholic) is under byzantine control. Time needed to be able to deal with such power, is a bit too much. You re infiltrated form inside by christendom before, even you succeed to military resist holy wars.

As unreformed I can dismiss great noble without trouble, but not baron, bishop nor mayor.
I have slavic county with a church and bishop and I cant dismiss him without suffer penality for tyranic action.

Anyway Old god DLC seems allows you to play pagans only to become christians.

[Rene]

I took a look at the wiki and this is my conclusion:
Limited crown authority (CA after this) allows revocation of titles, but CA has to be raised to medium to get free revoking of infidels and heretics. Unreformed pagans can't raise their authority to medium, so cannot freely revoke infidels, until they reform.
I can understand the reasoning behind this. As a Catholic (or other Christian) you have the power of the pope (or other religious head) behind you, you have a holy book to tell you other religions are bad, and (with high enough CA) legal secular power to back your demands. Unreformed pagans don't have any of this, but they adapt it upon reforming. You could argue they should get higher CA even unreformed, but historically, the pagan people in the CK2 timeline have tribal government and that's not too well known for it's centralisation.

So that's my answer to your:

Originally posted by hurepoix:

Do you imagine in an historical context you need any reason/pretext to jails a guy just because he have a different religion ?

Note that you can just put the guy in jail without reason, but people won't like that as they think stuff like "I will be next". (= negative opinion modifier)

Originally posted by hurepoix:

To be exact as slavic you must take a county that is most time under byzantine rules

You don't need all five holy sites to reform, though I would say Slavic has the worst placed holy sites of the pagans.

[Weizen1988]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

like said, slavic pagan main holy site (like rome for catholic) is under byzantine control. Time needed to be able to deal with such power, is a bit too much. You re infiltrated form inside by christendom before, even you succeed to military resist holy wars.

As unreformed I can dismiss great noble without trouble, but not baron, bishop nor mayor.
I have slavic county with a church and bishop and I cant dismiss him without suffer penality for tyranic action.

Anyway Old god DLC seems allows you to play pagans only to become christians.

As far as I know theres no such thing as a "main" holy site, any three of them is all you need, and 750 piety and some number of moral authority, all 5 are only needed to reform without requirements I think. Ive played other pagans (norse), pretty much exclusively and far as I know theres no difference in how reforming works for the other pagan religions.And no, you can absolutely take over the world/beat up the pope as pagan, you dont have to convert to anything. Just stop being a dirt farming tribal, reform and upgrade to castles or cities.

[hurepoix]

I was probably unclear.

I will try to correct this.

1 It s right you can reform without the main holy site. For what I understand It s need to found the #slavic church# and probably have a slavic pope.

My bad here to have mixed two different things.

2 If you can reforme with three holy sites you also need 50 % religious morale authority. To raise it as unreformed, there is few options and you really need at least 4 holy sites to reach such score.

Point I dont protest or crying about challenge. I chose to play slavic and knew it will not be easy.

My only concern is just I cant expel infidels without people hate me. It s really stupid and unbelievable.

some historicals exemple. I play Elisabeth the catholic queen of castilla and leon. I took Grenade, then dismiss the iman and made a bishop instead. Will catholic vassal hate my for that.

Playing as a french king I ban jews for the realm. Of course all my catholic vassals will hate me lol.

I presume when Turks took byzance, the sultan had been hated to have made St Sophia cathedral a mosque.

how could we imagine pagans would have different reaction or feeling ?

Point also pogrom and such things are not news. In a realist game probably an infidel religious leader or mayor would be at risk to be kill by populace revolt. % each years.

[Weizen1988]

Because you are a loosely affiliated tribe with no strong centralized power or unifying religion, while all of those are more rigid clear power structures with written codified laws and such. and yes, so long as the local populace is a different religion or culture from the leader, they will and do have problems.

So really the short answer is your tribe are not organized enough and your rule is not absolute enough for anyone to feel you have the right to strip people of their lands over that, your power over your vassals is very limited and they dont much care for the idea that you can just take away land yet. You want to reform, do ♥♥♥♥ to raise piety, or raid churches in the area. I admit its way easier for norse, I just rampage around wrecking peoples ♥♥♥♥ and sacrificing people to the gods until my moral standing is high enough. usually in the form of a yearly venice and rome sacking

Anyway, the tribe you are chief of doesnt agree with you that you have the authority over them to strip lands yet, and thus you can do it, and it makes them unhappy still, you are just asserting a power they never agreed that you had, and until you reform and expand your authorities as ruler to include that ability, they will not agree with you using it. Reforming and doing all that is basically the whole challenge of playing pagan, its difficult to do, and by the looks of it slavic may be one of the harder ones.

[kesat]

Being an infidel isn't a sufficient reason for a revocation of any title within an unreformed pagan religion - it's just an unlawful act. You are just missing any centralized laws which justifies a revocation.

Your nation & religion are just too decentralized and therefore you can't dictate the belief of your rightful subjects (or punish them due to their beliefs). And that's the reason why you can't compare any catholic or muslim realm to a pagan one.

[hurepoix]

the slavics rulers who lead the slavic dymasty I play is not a tribeman but a western feudal slavic pagan. The situation is even more difficult because of that, being rather close to catholic christians is not a good position. Hopefully they are divided and fight each other without care about me.

Despite main fiefs have feudal structures, the ruler have tribal vassal. Mostly polish at this time.

where the situation is ridiculous is I was able to dismiss a polish high chief (duke), just because he was a christian. I took two fiefs from him. Here I had the comment ; Like he is an infildel nobody will care. However I cant with christian baron or bishop without suffer the -20%.

I fail to find any logic here.

I dont complain about political structure limitation for pagans. Simply I feel very strange I can dismiss a christian duke but not a christian baron or bishop who are my direct vassals.
I also feel strange my slavic clergy will hate me if I banish a bishop to give them back fief Temple.

I simply would feel more realist the slavic clergy for exemple approve I banish christians from the realm, instead of hate me.

[Alien]

If I'm not wrong:
As a feudal lord, you can freely revoke tribal vassal. It's not because he was christian.

Also:
And unreformed pagans have actually no benefits like that. They don't have free revocation. See it like that: even if the vassal you're revoking is christian, it's seen as an act of haughtiness by your other vassals. They think "ok he's a chritian, but does this mean that he can also revoke my title ?". They don't really care about the religion. Which is rather realistic, by the way.

And be aware that you're playing as an almost uncivilized, pagan, ruler. Your situation is not comparable with the ones of a french king or a levantine emir. And you don't have a proper clergy, as you don't have an organized religion. Actually, all the priests, shamans and others in your kingdom can have a different opinion of what is his religion. Until it's reformed, of course.

You have other advantages, like better cassus belli and a defense bonus against the other religions.

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by Ejmir:

... They don't really care about the religion. Which is rather realistic, by the way....

...You have other advantages, like better cassus belli and a defense bonus against the other religions.

At least I understand your point of view, but dont completly agree.
Point I m not in seek of advantage or complain about a balance prb.

Anecdote. Slave, slavic enslavement. It s the same root. You know why ? In Europe when christendom become dominant it was fordiden to enslave a christian. Consequence was they took the closest pagans, slavics people. It s why a man reduced to animal status is named a slave. It s an analogism. I m not sure Slavics have some reason to love their christians neighbours.

Point I m not slave nor have slave roots (afaik) no nationalism here.

Reading carefully each one comments, it s seems for various reason this situation shock only me. It s probably no more neccessary to make this post live .

Anyway thanks for attention and interresting answers.