Muslims consider Zoroastrians to be people of the book. Literally nobody is getting bent out of shape though.
Muslims consider Zoroastrians to be people of the book. Literally nobody is getting bent out of shape though.
I think what people are pointing out is that the connotations applied to "pagan" weren't generally applied to Zoroastrians, even if they technically were pagan.
how are such connotations not applied? it's textbook definition.Originally Posted by kingofparades
as for being people of the book, I find that spurious... source? Zoroastrians do not have any stock in the same God that Muslims believe themselves to worship alongside Christians and Jews (who they DO consider "of the book" for that very reason). I have never heard Zoroastrians being included.
So, how can the symbols be added / modified?
Storm over Tintagel - A Cornwall AAR for CK: DV and TASS ... Started: 26.07.2008 ++ Updated: May 2009...
Final Patch - Ideas for new conditions and effects
connotations are things that are ASSOCIATED with a word that aren't actually part of the definition. In this case, the connotation for pagan is a bunch of barbarians in the woods.
you are indeed correct concerning the nature of connotation. but in simple terms, connotation is simply a widely espoused assumption, and does not trump actual meaning. and in the context of CKII, the Zoroastrian set better falls under a pagan classification anyhow. It's not a heresy of Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Islam, nor does it fit the standard of being classed as a fourth established religion insofar as why the first three are such in the game.
Just did a Google search for Zoroastrians people of the book. Seems to be still an active topicgiven how many threads came up from Islamic forums with titles like "Are Zoroastrians people of the book?"
There's a site called shiachat and another called sunniforum? I know this might sound silly but I've gotta say I was caught off-guard and laughed a little. Who would've known? (not me obviously)Just did a Google search for Zoroastrians people of the book. Seems to be still an active topic
I remember hearing that Zoroastrians were people of the book to shiites but not to sunnis. Which is probably a over-simplification and doesn't matter much when iran is mostly shiite and debatedly interested in tolerating their religious relatives.
I suppose that makes some sense, since most of the original Muslim population were force-converted Zoroastrians. One would hope they would have some decency towards those who didn't break under pressure.
I certainly don't have a problem with them being their own group -- they're certainly not run-of-the-mill Baltic-style pagans.
Lemon yellow sun,
Arms raised in a 'V'
This is the whole point of the thread I believe. Having all pagans in one group is silly. What does norse paganism have to do with zoroastrianism? We could have north/south/east pagan groups or something...
While I agree from an IRL standpoint it doesn't make any sense at all, please keep in mind in-game abstractions before championing a change like this. Religions and Religious Groups carry very real opinion-modifiers, so if you split the group up they'd also have ahistoric animosity towards eachother, rather than simply "Religious differences". Ethnic faiths probably should be in the same group, since they don't hold expectations that other peoples ought to be a part of their faith.
Well I'm pretty sure that Norse pagans didn't consider Zoroastrians to be their brothers in faith. Not to mention that pagan counties are religiously homogeneous, namely the Cumans, since they're the only ones that survive the first 5 years of the game. As for the Hordes, they never stay pagan so it wouldn't matter that much to them either.
Zoroastrians aren't in their group. I said Ethnic religions (the polytheistic ones). Zoroastrianism isn't, they were of the Persian Empire. Don't know what you're on about in the second bit. Doesn't seem related at all. It isn't just inside your own private realm.
This is what I was talking about. Other than the Cumans and a few independent dukes, there's no pagan realms. That's what I was trying to say. Realistically, it's just the Cumans and the 2 Hordes (that always convert), so how exactly is this 'ahistoric animosity' going to occur? Worst case scenario, it might prevent a tengri cuman from marrying some random lithuanian courtier(it's ok though, the lithuanians get wiped out by the HRE within 3-4 years from the start date anyways). Other than that, it won't have any effect on gameplay, unless you become pagan on purpose or use the 'play' console command. No difference whatsoever.Religions and Religious Groups carry very real opinion-modifiers, so if you split the group up they'd also have ahistoric animosity towards eachother, rather than simply "Religious differences"
On the other hand, you might argue that since there are very few pagans, there's no real reason to work on them, but that's a different issue altogether. What I'm trying to say is that having all the pagans in one group is about as non-sensical as having a group called 'Abrahamic Religions', with both Christianism and Islam in there... Splitting up the pagans makes sense and won't 'break' the game, or even affect it at all, tbh.
Except that it obviously would? First of all the thing to "Fix" in your situation is the survivability of Pagans, not "they're wiped out on Day 2 so who gives a shit!", but even disregarding that how would you possibly make it "more historical"? Ásatrú doesn't really have anything to do with Romuva, so are they separate groups now too? Is every single Pagan just their own isolated island, hating every character in the world? You don't solve any problem and you just create new ones.
Also I was clearly talking about opinion-modifiers, so no matter what excuse you present it'll be wrong, because those will always be there. It doesn't matter if they're a King or not. They should not be hating others for their ethnic religions, when that wasn't a real point of contention.
So a caution on making a Zoroastrian Kingdom; if you started Catholic it doesn't look like you can change investiture laws once you go Zoro...you can yank Bishopric titles and hand them off to loyal Zoroastrians in your court (in which case they become Baronies{?} but you still get church taxes from them). I'm testing again by changing investiture before my Zoro heir takes over; and I'm hoping that will let me introduce my own claimants so that the Pope doesn't keep putting Catholics in place.
You can declare holy wars against other realms (I assume they also can declare holy wars against YOU, but nobody did to me). I'll put in another update later after my tests are done tonight.
I'm echoing this.
Exactly which files need to be added to change the religious icons?
How exactly does the game deal with religious differences? Do catholics look more kindly on orthodox than on muslims? Are christians nicer to muslims than to pagans? I couldn't find it in the manual or the in-depth guide.
If there's a uniform penalty to all character not of your own religion, it doesn't make much difference IMO where Zoroastrians are grouped. If there are different penalties, then the game should probably take into account that Muslims historically thought Zoroastrians a step above the common Pagan. There was and is a difference of opinion on whether they could be considered people of the book but at least (according to Muslims and those Christians who still knew who they were) they were monotheists. I don't even know if Judaism is included in the game, but if so, the opinion modifier for Zoroastrianism should be comparable.
Posting Permissions