Muslims consider Zoroastrians to be people of the book. Literally nobody is getting bent out of shape though.
how are such connotations not applied? it's textbook definition.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
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.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.
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.
Just did a Google search for Zoroastrians people of the book. Seems to be still an active topic given how many threads came up from Islamic forums with titles like "Are Zoroastrians people of the book?"
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 certainly don't have a problem with them being their own group -- they're certainly not run-of-the-mill Baltic-style pagans.
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.
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"
Splitting up the pagans makes sense and won't 'break' the game, or even affect it at all, tbh.
performer said:So, how can the symbols be added / modified?