Religious conversion

[Puckohue]

So... did you ever have a knight convert? I have a player who wants his knight to convert.

Apart from the obvious requirements for appropriate roleplaying, I also think the PK would have to have at least 10 in the target religion's virtue traits.

Is there anything else? How would the PK's family react? His entourage?

My campaign is still in 485.

[Morien]

43 minutes ago, Puckohue said:

Apart from the obvious requirements for appropriate roleplaying, I also think the PK would have to have at least 10 in the target religion's virtue traits.

Not necessarily. Lots of people converted to Christianity without actually fully grasping what the religion was supposed to be about. There is the story about Clovis, who after being told of the crucifixion, "Ah if I and my Franks had been there, we surely would have avenged him!" or words to that order. Not a very Christian sentiment, but he was instrumental for getting the Franks to convert to Catholicism. Also, there were a lot of 'convert or else'  type of mass conversions.

So I'd allow the knight to convert, even if he might be struggling with the idea of Modest and Chaste... (Assuming here that it is a Pagan -> Christian.)

47 minutes ago, Puckohue said:

Is there anything else? How would the PK's family react? His entourage? 

Assuming that this is in Salisbury and it is a Pagan -> Christian conversion, it is very likely that his peasants, liege and most of the entourage are already Christian, and would likely welcome such conversion. As for the Family, depends. Presumably the (already dead?) parents and siblings would be Pagan? They might not be happy about it, but chances are high that any random wife would be a Christian already, and no doubt happier about the conversion.

Now the other way around, Christian -> Pagan, might be more socially frowned upon, although this is up to you as the GM. I would be tempted to add some conflict with the village priest as well as the peasantry, although probably not anything too major. He might make new Pagan contacts, but some of the Christian ones might distance themselves from him, too.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Puckohue said:

So... did you ever have a knight convert? I have a player who wants his knight to convert.

Apart from the obvious requirements for appropriate roleplaying, I also think the PK would have to have at least 10 in the target religion's virtue traits.

Like Morien said, not necessarily. If someone walked into a church and told the Priest that he anted to convert the Priest isn't going to kick them out for not being Temperate enough. Chances are, especially back then, that they would convert the PK and then try to guide him a little towards the proper behavior (plus work on the children).

4 hours ago, Puckohue said:

Is there anything else? How would the PK's family react? His entourage?

It depends on where the campaign is set as Morien noted , and also on how much of a part the GM wants religion to have in the campaign. If the PK is in a area where multiple religions co-exist then probably not much happens. Maybe some friends and relative disapprove of it, but then some others might welcome it. 

 

In my campaign, currently set waaaaay back in 427, there is a bit of a conflict going on between the Roman Christians and the British Christians over the teaching on Pelagius. One of the PKs (a British Christian from Salisbury) managed to get his son married to a wealthy Roman family from Venta Icenorium (Norwich). The brides father is a staunch supporter of the Roman faction and insisted that the PKs son convert to Roman Christianity, and even legally change his name from Cian to Caius before he would allow the marriage. The player agonized about it for a week or so before deciding that the 90 libra dowry and a father-in-law with the largest salt mine in Britain was worth it. It will also strengthen his ties to the Archbishops of Salisbury and London, who the PKs have performed tasks for. There will be some fallout as far as some of the British Christians go, but the whole conflict does seem to die down over the years.

 

 

[sirlarkins]

Paladin has rules for converting pagans, though the focus is on Christian Player-knights converting Gamemaster characters (since there are no pagan P-Ks in the game). An interesting detail:

Quote

For the conversion attempt to be successful, both the [Christian] knight and his pagan opponent must succeed at their Honor roll. If the knight wins the contest the pagan surrenders and agrees to be converted.... At his baptism, his Christian godfather must choose a new name for him. Traditionally, the convert is then married to a Christian lady.

You might also allow the converting character to make a Religion roll, with a success granting rolls for checks in each of the new convert's Christian traits, and a critical granting automatic checks.

[Cornelius]

I would not put any requirements from the stats, but it would have an impact on how his conversion is viewed by the others.

For instance a Pagan converting to Christianity would be questioned of his reasons when he still has high Pagan traits. He would probably act in accordance with his former believe instead of that of his new christian beliefs. 

Of course if the PK is actively seeking to become a good christian he may even become a fanatic and this would mean that his traits will change and become more christian. As a GM I would help him out in this of course.

[Willow]

One of the knights in my game converted from Paganism to Christianity to marry a Christian woman.  We just changed his underlined traits, and gave him a check on Spiritual for the Baptism (which was a bit of a disadvantage for the character, since he was Famously Worldly!)

[Morien]

I'd be tempted to give the new convert a check in all of his new Religious Traits, if he is sincere about the conversion. Or maybe just give him a chance to roll all of those traits and grant a check on a success?

The 'conversion for marital gain' would not qualify as a sincere conversion in my book, though.

[Hzark10]

I would think that if he/she succeeds in a Love check, then it would be a sincere conversion however.  Overall, I would want to see it acted out through RPing and decide then.

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Morien said:

The 'conversion for marital gain' would not qualify as a sincere conversion in my book, though.

It might my their book, though.

I remember reading up on medieval romance and courtly love, and one of the justifications for falling in love with somebody was their having "huge tracts...of land". By my book that would be very insincere, but apparently telling a woman that you loved here for his green fields and forest was a thing back then. 

"Darling, I love you for the 5000 acres of undeveloped land you have near the express way, perfect for an industrial park. I love you for your beach front property. I even love you for your fens and marshes." No, I don't get it.  

[KingofElfland]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It might my their book, though.

I remember reading up on medieval romance and courtly love, and one of the justifications for falling in love with somebody was their having "huge tracts...of land". By my book that would be very insincere, but apparently telling a woman that you loved here for his green fields and forest was a thing back then. 

"Darling, I love you for the 5000 acres of undeveloped land you have near the express way, perfect for an industrial park. I love you for your beach front property. I even love you for your fens and marshes." No, I don't get it.  

I don’t know, maybe the honesty about the material advantages would alleviate a doubt about sincerity? Maybe. 

[Atgxtg]

Just now, KingofElfland said:

I don’t know, maybe the honesty about the material advantages would alleviate a doubt about sincerity? Maybe. 

I know. To us is so" You don't love me, you only want me for my wealth!" But to them..It might just be a cultural gap. Medieval people would go ballistic over the whole ideal of people electing their leaders and governing themselves. They would point out to is as the reason why we have womens sufferance, civil rights, sexual preference, volunteer armies, separation of church and state, and a host of other things. And they'd be right. Only in their eyes all those thing would be proof of how badly the commoners messed it all up by going against the natural order of things. 

 

[Khanwulf]

On 4/7/2019 at 2:03 PM, Atgxtg said:

I know. To us is so" You don't love me, you only want me for my wealth!" But to them..It might just be a cultural gap. Medieval people would go ballistic over the whole ideal of people electing their leaders and governing themselves. They would point out to is as the reason why we have womens sufferance, civil rights, sexual preference, volunteer armies, separation of church and state, and a host of other things. And they'd be right. Only in their eyes all those thing would be proof of how badly the commoners messed it all up by going against the natural order of things. 

Yes and they'd point to all of society's ills as side-effects. 

The church of the time apparently preached that marriage was an economic union for the procreation of the family line and its continuation as a going concern. Commoners to work the land and support those whom God had chosen to rule, and among nobles it ensures an orderly succession and management. For both, family honor and decency came first. 

Meanwhile love wasn't part of the equation, and considered a volatile and unwelcome element (as was hate); but commitment, adherence and covenant promises were a big deal, so showing you were serious about all that was... attractive.

Especially if you were a woman whose social value was tied to your ability to manage men and the family fortune--discretely of course, and while popping out lots of heirs and piously tending to the church and poor.

I mean... it beat working in the fields and waiting to be abused by people physically stronger than you, so as a social system goes, you can't beat results, eh?

Back to the point on religious conversion: keep in mind that this is an age where you didn't have central credit bureaus, internet records and all that. "You" consisted of your personal word, and the testimony of your peers that your word was good and true. It dishonored you to have your word doubted, as that stain indicated to others that your credit was not good and should be questioned by them as well. Dishonouring a fighting man was dangerous, and so the least-worst option was to take someone at their word until shown otherwise.

So if you're a priest and so-and-so comes up to convert, you would welcome them with open arms, and then work on/with them to ensure they are outwardly (and later, inwardly) reflecting the nature of the church and its teachings. I'll point out that things such as "personal relationship with Christ" and the like was really more a matter for consideration by theologians in monasteries with time on their hands. "Real people" were busy not starving or in keeping others from taking their stuff.

 

--Khanwulf 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Khanwulf

[Atgxtg]

3 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

Yes and they'd point to all of society's ills as side-effects. 

Not just the ills either. Practically everything that we do differently or that doesn't conform with the medieval world view would be rejected. A few things might squeak by just on sheer evidence or because of practical benefits

T

[7dot62mm]

In my campaign the player of a Christian knight had rolled so badly on his Christian virtues that he was much closer to the Pagan ideals. So we just decided that he would convert over the Winter Phase.

Today I'd require a bit of roleplaying in order to achieve this (a visit to a Pagan temple, convincing someone of his sincerity) and also award a check to each of his Pagan virtues as he'd get religious instruction on how to be a good Pagan.

[Tizun Thane]

In my curent campaign,  one of my PK convert to Christianism, after he met un monk during a feast and keep him as a servant to learn the faith.

His conversion was motivated by his desire to wed a christian lady he was in love with, even before she raised any objection... He didn't care about religion, so why not? I just changed his religious traits, a chek in wordly,et voilà! If it was a sincere spiritual conversion, I would have give him a few checks in the religious virtues and spiritual.

The next year in game, but the day after IRL, PK go to war against Rome, the monk always in his entourage. I designed a special encounter with sire Priamus from Mallory, the sarracen who wants to convert to christianism. Canonically, Priamus met Gauvain. After a duel (with the player crushed by he way), Priamus talks about his curiosity for christianism.

The Player then said "I just convert myself recently, and I have a monk, an expert, just for you!" They became fast friends, Priamus was baptized after the Battle of Milan, and the rest is history...

True story

[Craiger]

I'm currently playing a pagan knight that has converted to Christianity. (He witnessed the procession of the Grail, and the healing powers the grail had.) All of his stats are still pagan stats, and I role play him as a new convert that is trying his best to understand his new religion. It has created a very interesting story arc. I really think it's all about how your player portrays him.

[Atgxtg]

Just now, Craiger said:

I'm currently playing a pagan knight that has converted to Christianity. (He witnessed the procession of the Grail, and the healing powers the grail had.) All of his stats are still pagan stats, and I role play him as a new convert that is trying his best to understand his new religion. It has created a very interesting story arc. I really think it's all about how your player portrays him.

Yeah, although with the Grail procession a conversion might not have been required. It's an item that has as much Pagan history to it as Christian. A lot of British Christian stuff in KAP is a mix of the two religions.

[Hzark10]

Might want to research and see if any pagan stuff made it into Roman Christianity...

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Might want to research and see if any pagan stuff made it into Roman Christianity...

It sure did. Ultimately one of the ways that Christianity spread was to adopt local deities and then reinvent them as "Saints". Then years later, when Christianity was established they might drop them or keep them. Some are still "Saint's today.Since the goal was to "save the souls" of the converted, just about any means of doing so were acceptable. 

The problem with discussing this is that as many of those local deities are still considered saints you risk ruffing some peoples feathers if you question the validity of a popular saint. 

And then there are a lot of local hero type Saints whose resistance and actions are not really well documented or contradictory or otherwise on shaky ground. But, ultimately as this is a matter of faith, people will often choose to believe in something even if there is little or no evidence to support it. 

The Holy Grail is a prime example. Sources all indicate that it was based on old Celtic beliefs and that Joseph of Arimathea, if he existed, had nothing to do with it. Yet to the people of Britain and Medieval Europe (and even some people today) it is considered to be a real artifact of Christianity, which might have been kept by the Knights Templar.

[Hzark10]

Exactly, and my point was what you correctly stated:

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It sure did. Ultimately one of the ways that Christianity spread was to adopt local deities and then reinvent them as "Saints".

So, think about the various editions of KAP. KAP4 assumes a start date of 531. Boy King supplement backed it up to 510. KAP 5 (and 5.1, 5.2) moves it back to 485. The Great Pendragon Campaign starts in 485 (and its supplement "Book of Uther" moves it to 480).  The Pelagian Heresy came about and reached its height about this time.   Book of Sires specifically mentions that in 403 Victricius, the Bishop of Rouen, visits Britain to bring peace to the island's clergy. In 418, Pelagiusm the theologian of British Christianity, is declared a heretic.  In 447, St. Germanus returns to Britain to condemn and combat British Christianity. With the situation with Vortigern and the Saxons during this time, we can assume there is much more going on than stamping out this sect. So, British Christianity is still vibrant in 480. However, by 530, one can argue it has been stomped out and can be removed as a choice of religions.  Or not, as you would prefer.  The addition of Grail Christianity may also be problematical as it traces its roots back to Joseph and he came over way earlier.  So when did Grail Christianity start?

[Atgxtg]

You forgot Germanus "other visit" in 429 (part the infamous dating controversy in the 400s.)

 

What it looks like is British Christianity is Pelaganism, and although officially defeated, it seems to have mostly continued on. 

9 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

So when did Grail Christianity start?

Well, since KAP has the Joseph of Arimathea story as true, then at the death of Jesus. As Kahnwulf and I found out when researching some of this, there is some tentative links between Joe of A and the legend of Longinius and the Holy Lance/Spear of Destiny. Both seemed to have arrived in Britain during or before the 43AD invasion.

[Hzark10]

Didn't forget it, but didn't mention it either.  Thank you for doing so. 

True, Joe of A did bring it with him.  My emphasis was, this has been around for centuries.  Yet, is not listed as a religion for PKs.  BC is, at least during the time of 480-510 and dies a true death sometime early in the 500s, so can be removed as a choice by 530.

[Atgxtg]

20 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Didn't forget it, but didn't mention it either.  Thank you for doing so. 

True, Joe of A did bring it with him.  My emphasis was, this has been around for centuries.  Yet, is not listed as a religion for PKs.  BC is, at least during the time of 480-510 and dies a true death sometime early in the 500s, so can be removed as a choice by 530.

I think it is. British Christianity = Grail Christianity. 

I think what happened was that Greg introduced Grail Christianity back in KAP 3/4 for Merlin when he shifted him from Pagan to Christian, and ended up blending Paganism and Christianity into a sort of middle ground -- which is pretty much what happened historically. 

BTW, I wonder why the British Christian religious bonus is +3 hit points, +2 damage? It would seem to me that +3 hit points, +1 healing rate would be a better fit.

 

[Hzark10]

I don't have my notes in front of me, but Grail Christianity is NOT British Christianity.  They have different requirements and benefits. Maybe someone else can enlighten us?  Otherwise, will have to wait until I find my notes on this.

[Atgxtg]

46 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

I don't have my notes in front of me, but Grail Christianity is NOT British Christianity.  They have different requirements and benefits. Maybe someone else can enlighten us?  Otherwise, will have to wait until I find my notes on this.

Well these sections from KAP5.2 strongly suggest that it is. 

Quote

KAP 5.2 p. 163

Two types of Christianity are practiced in Arthurian Britain. One is ancient, having been established in the first century A.D. by Joseph of Arimathea. It is called British Christianity.

The above indicates that there are two forms of Christianty in Brtian, not three, and that Bristish Chsristian was established by Joseph of Arimathea, the keeper of the Grail.

 

Quote

KAP 5.2 p. 163-164

Joseph of Arimathea, who had lent his tomb for Christ’s temporary burial, was arrested, tried, and sealed into a tower in Jerusalem for his beliefs. He was freed many years later, having
been kept alive by the presence of the Holy Grail. With a band of followers, he left his homeland and migrated westward to Britain in 55 A.D., where he settled and taught the Christian
religion. Many people, including druids, remembered their sacred visitor and converted to the new faith, establishing the early British Church.
Joseph established a chapel at Glastonbury and planted a miraculous thorn bush there, which bloomed every Christmas. He brought many precious relics, including Longinus’ Spear,
which had pierced the side of Jesus while he was on the cross; and especially the Holy Grail, a drinking vessel used at the Last Supper for the first Communion, and which later caught
Christ’s precious blood at the crucifixion. Afterward, Joseph’s family kept these sacred objects in their care when they moved from Glastonbury to other regions.

And the above really back that all up. 

Now KAP3, Knight's Adventurous did note differences between Celtic Christianity and Grail Christianity, but the latter isn't mentioned in KAP5 (possibly not even in KAP4). But it seems odd that Josepha of Arimathea would establish two versions of Christianity, and KAP5 seems to indicate that Grail Christianity either doesn't exist or is a sect of Celtic (British) Christianity.