Deus Vult - A Megathread (Read OP Before Posting)

[False_Prophet]

So, let me get you straight, what you are saying is, First Crusade atrocities were justified because there were also atrocities in other part of the world done by Muslims at same time?

Let me ask you a question in return: Do you think if they had commited similar acts at the exact same time, and those atrocities had been a direct and immediate response to such, would they then have been justified?

If not, how can you possibly read that claim out of my refutal to 'your' claim

I mean christian atrocities during crusades were bad, but Muslims have done the same, and worse (which no, they didn't. And if they did, please, provide source of that.)

.
And I have, I and others HAVE proven that "muslims" have "done the same and worse" as the atrocities the christians commited during the crusades. AT NO POINT, did I (or most of the others responding to you) even imply that the fact they HAD commited such atrocities made the ones commited by the Crusaders justified. But what you were doing was directly whiteashing the atrocities commited by muslim conquerors and even worse, outright denying them having happened.
It is not us who are trying to justify or deny crusader crimes during the crusades, it was you who did so for atrocities commited by muslims against jews, christians and many others.
So who of us has reason to think here about what the hell they are doing right now, when you find yourself having to deny atrocities having happened in order to make your poor argument?

Sorry for the edit, but my post limit is approaching in this thread and I wanted to adress this.

That’s just untrue everyone knows Islam was forged by the blood, it really had to be

Arab conquest was by the sword and by the pen, and the coin and all the other tools of conquest. In some cases they conquered by convincing minorities to join them against their persecutors. Islam was forged by blood literally just as much as Christianity or any other monotheistic religion.

 

[Mr Thursday]

Many current Anti-Catholic groups use accusations of cannibalism to attack current Catholic religious practices. One of the advertised features of CK3 will be to make a cannibalistic version of Catholicism. Surely this is more offensive than a reference to the phrase "Deus Vult".

 

[Severvus_septim]

/s Yes, this is all a conspiracy of SJW to turn your favorite game into their recruiting tool.

If it is normall for you, that tolerance and SJW slowly, but confidently censoring everything, that is not propaganda or supporting or situabe for tolerance\SJW I have bad news for you...

 

[deserk]

My dude, I am Christian. I was raised Catholic. And I will happily say that the crusades were bigoted wars of conquest

Meanwhile the Muslim conquests of the Levant, the Maghreb, Egypt and Iberia, of a quarter of the Christian world at that time, was just a happy Dark Age amusement park ride. Where absolutely no one got killed punitively, nor no women and children were mass enslaved or violated. Everyone peacefully bowed to their invading overlords, and eagerly sought their protection and the possibility of paying higher tax for being part of the wrong religion.

It is amazing that in today's society we do not deride and chastise that part of history EQUALLY as much as the Crusades. Palestine is a rather tiny, thinly populated piece of territory compared to vast regions that were conquered by the Early Islamic armies.

 

[Rakshasa]

Many current Anti-Catholic groups use accusations of cannibalism to attack current Catholic religious practices. One of the advertised features of CK3 will be to make a cannibalistic version of Catholicism. Surely this is more offensive than a reference to the phrase "Deus Vult".

It hits the "right targets" so no, it's not. At least it's not a child rape heresy.

 

[BrokenSky]

Oh please. I can't deal with all of this exaggerated Gamer aggrievement. How does it make it so that an audience can't ENJOY a product because 2 words of flavor text were changed?

Who loses here? If it actually was done, it would still be a positive PR move aside from for the babiest of Gamers. You can look right now. CK2 is being review bombed. There an equal amount of negative spammy reviews and positive spammy reviews.

Hyper opinionated gamer types think they're literally the only people who buy any said game they're commenting on. It doesn't occur to them for a split second that anyone else might enjoy the product.

I think you overestimate the value of good PR with people who don't as a rule, play games over those who are defined by the fact that they do ("Gamers").
Sure, there are people who play games among the former, but most of them don't - whereas all of the latter do (as I said, by definition).

Most of the backlash over this is over the fact that the review, which is linked on the Steam page for CK2 and hence being given some serious implicit legitimacy from paradox, is saying that "Deus Vult", a pretty standard meme on the CK2 forum, is being removed from 3 for reasons which, as far as the interview seems to imply, are primarily due to paradox deciding to side with "their" side in argument which has been going on for a few years now.

The underlying problem is that this debate, at least from where I'm standing, seems to be between a group of people trying to assert that all games, or at least all major games, should cater exclusively to their ideological position and people who mostly want games they like to continue to cater to them (whether that means catering to every ideological position or only theirs, or anything in between). The problem here is that the side I describe as perusing exclusive policies, where dissenting ideologies are excluded and often vilified, seem to believe what they are doing is making games more inclusive, which is basically the cause of the issue (from my own personal experience I've noticed that when people think they're doing something they are often disinclined to listen to anything which tells them they're doing anything else; "Stop it - you're getting in the way" / "What? No I'm trying to help" sort of thing, for example); by excluding people based on their ideology or some perception that they're "the bad guys" in some way, saying things like "these people have no place [in our community]" or "we should stop catering to these people", we're creating an equally toxic, equally exclusive environment and risk not only being bigoted and intolerant, but also massive hypocrites.

Ultimately the massive backlash over this isn't because of the removal of two words (although I'm sure most people who play the game would be sad to see it go), but more because of the fear that paradox is pandering to overly sensitive moral guardians at the expense of product quality. For a taste of what that feels like, imagine if instead they were pandering to a different group of moral guardians and were instead removing same-sex seduction related content (you can presumably see how that might be upsetting for quite a few people) but for people who are fairly centrist, it doesn't really matter which group of outsider-excluding moral guardians they side with (though how hard they're sided with would matter - while the given example probably isn't exactly a 1:1 comparison, though the emotional response is fairly similar); if you exclude people and ideas you have fewer people and less stuff, so it's not just "the babiest of Gamers", but nearly everyone who stands to lose from the game being more exclusive - that's what most of the people who are talking about this are worried about.

Of course since that point Henrik has commented on it, which has gone some way to alleviating these fears, but it's still not 100% loudly broadcasted yet and it's also not a completely committal comment, which is broadly why people were, and some people still are, worrying about this.

[Dunno if you've hit your post limit yet, but if you have feel free to conversation me if you want to reply to some or all of what I've said].

 

[Snowflake0000145]

Eh, yes and no. Islam managed to conquer vast swathes of the Byzantine Empire simply by virtue of persecuting them less than the Byzantines (with many Egyptians not adhering to strict Orthodox beliefs, but rather holding either being Nestorian or Coptic). That isn't to say Islam's hands are clean, by any means, especially since even its founder engaged in military campaigns and executions of civilians (ex. Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf), but to simplify Islam's conquests to being purely military is wrong.

No after uniting the Arabic tribes Mohammed led his forces into Syria were they were beaten back harshly by Byzantine forces with three Islamic leaders killed they retreated to medina and there Muhammad died and Abu Bakr made khalid ibn al walid his main general who successfully conquered the levant and with Egypt cut off was able to pretty quickly take Egypt Iran was harder to take and took time

 

[Marox]

In regards to the bolded bit, this is false. The Seljuks and Byzantines were in a state of on again off again war, with no real formal treaties. Most recent Byzantine reconquest prior to the crusades was 1094. This had essentially continued since Manzikert. Hell, the Seljuk's sieged Constantinople in 1091.

In regards to the Crusade calling for retaking Jerusalem, this is not actually true. Records of the Pope's speech say the closest he got was implying it by calling for the retaking of the churches of the east, but in context with him calling for the aid of Christians that could be read as just saying to retake what was recently lost

It appears to depend on which record you rely on for the pope's speech according to sources.

Guibert of Nogent's account:

"Consider, therefore, that the Almighty has provided you, perhaps, for this purpose, that through you He may restore Jerusalem from such debasement. Ponder, I beg you, how full of joy and delight our hearts will be when we shall see the Holy City restored with your little help, and the prophet's, nay divine, words fulfilled in our times. "

Robert the Monk's account:

"Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which as the Scripture says "floweth with milk and honey," was given by God into the possession of the children of Israel Jerusalem is the navel of the world; the land is fruitful above others, like another paradise of delights."

Baldric of Dor's account:

"We say this, brethren, that you may restrain your murderous hands from the destruction of your brothers, and in behalf of your relatives in the faith oppose yourselves to the Gentiles. Under Jesus Christ, our Leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem, in Christian battleline, most invincible line, even more successfully than did the sons of Jacob of old - struggle, that you may assail and drive out the Turks, more execrable than the Jebusites, who are in this land, and may you deem it a beautiful thing to die for Christ in that city in which He died for us. "

Fulcher of Chartres' account would support your argument more that there wasn't a call to retake Jerusalem or the Levant:

"On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it. "

 

[Dargaron]

I'm saying that you should be mad with the nazis for taking up your symbols and ruining everything. They are the ones who are responsible for the current situation in full. Would you blame a thief who has stolen your stuff, or the guy who accidentally broke it trying to stop the thief?

Um, no? As much as I hate to admit it, it is absolutely within neo-Nazi's rights to identify with the First Crusade, Deus Vult or, hell, My Little Pony, if they want to. Trying to police the usage of symbols (outside of actual, legal ownership) is a nightmare, and dangerously close to Thoughtcrime.

However, by Paradox removing Deus Vult from the game in the way that they did, they are tacitly acknowledging alt-right "ownership" of Deus Vult. This is a bad thing. "Gay" used to be a fairly unambiguous slur, but the Homosexual community reclaimed it by using it themselves in non-homophobic contexts, and now it's a perfectly legitimate part of the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transexual-whatever-they-tacked-on-the-end-lately acronym.

See your earlier post:

You have only one moral option, and that is to blame, rebuke, and drown out the neo Nazi troll by any means necessary.

I haven’t seen much effort by the people who are mad about this to reclaim the image of Deus Vult by declaring a holy and justified crusade against racists, fascists, and islamophobes.

Have you considered, for even a minute, that re-appropriating symbols from racists, fascists and islamophobes is part of that? That by caving in and declaring "Deus Vult belongs to neo-Nazis now," Paradox is giving ground to the very people you hate? If "they" can control the words you use, then they have power over you. Do you want to give Nazis power over yourself?

 

[Empires91]

Funny how you’re catholic yet you don’t capitalize God and put His name in quotes as if you don’t think He is real.

I like your attention to detail! Because you are right, I don't think that god is real. The one who orders crusades. I do like the one who went to the cross though. I think he's real, but I fail to see how any of it is relevant to the discussion.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Swords can kill people, War Elephants are cruel to animals, The Cross is an hate symbol, you can literally convert people and change their culture. So the point is... this is history, this is humanity. If you don't want to rapresent these kind of things you choose the wrong setting and the wrong target. With wrong target I'm not saying "racist, fascist" etc... I'm saying "Humans", people want to play an historical game because it tell about human doings in a human setting: Deus Vult is one doings.

 

[Andrzej I]

Everyone peacefully bowed to their invading overlords, and eagerly sought their protection and the possibility of paying higher tax for being part of the wrong religion.

Actually, yes. That did happen for several cities, and the jizya was lower than the taxes levied on some of the populations. Now, how this worked out for the people who surrendered, well... I'm sure you know. But a number did surrender quite willingly to the Caliphate, rather naively so.

No after uniting the Arabic tribes Mohammed led his forces into Syria were they were beaten back harshly by Byzantine forces with three Islamic leaders killed they retreated to medina and there Muhammad died and Abu Bakr made khalid ibn al walid his main general who successfully conquered the levant and with Egypt cut off was able to pretty quickly take Egypt Iran was harder to take and took time

I realized after I posted perhaps I may have been misunderstood. When I said their conquests weren't "military", I of course didn't mean that they didn't use armies to conquer the lands. Of course they did. What they didn't have to always do, however, was besiege the cities and massacre the inhabitants. As above, a number surrendered to the armies of Islam in defiance of the Byzantine Empire. My apologies if I was not quite clear in that original post.

 

[justneedafix]

I'll chime in; I won't be purchasing anything else created by, or published, by Paradox if this goes through.
I'm definitely only a drop in the bucket, though I'm unsure if the censors spend as much money on games as I.

What a nonsensical decision.

 

[viola]

No but you’re misinterpreting a counterpoint someone said that the croustades were uniquely brutal that was dismissing that claim

The croustades were definitely uniquely brutal.
It is stated in original sources how the Muslim and Christian armies met, their warhorses perfectly aligned. The Muslims expected it to be a normal pie battle, they weren't ready when the Crusaders employed their secret weapon: croustades. Their sharp, crusty surface caught the Ghazis completely unprepared, in utter confusion and with their faces full of crust and sweet sugar the Muslim army tried to route, but it was too late: there were no survivors.

Many Byzantine scholars describe how the Crusader army went spreading terror and pastry in the Holy Land, and that by the time they reached Jerusalem it is said that the sugar in the streets reached the knees.

 

[Snowflake0000145]

Actually, yes. That did happen for several cities, and the jizya was lower than the taxes levied on some of the populations. Now, how this worked out for the people who surrendered, well... I'm sure you know. But a number did surrender quite willingly to the Caliphate, rather naively so.

I realized after I posted perhaps I may have been misunderstood. When I said their conquests weren't "military", I of course didn't mean that they didn't use armies to conquer the lands. Of course they did. What they didn't have to always do, however, was besiege the cities and massacre the inhabitants. As above, a number surrendered to the armies of Islam in defiance of the Byzantine Empire. My apologies if I was not quite clear in that original post.

I understand your point now but while the Islamic conquest of Syria and the levant was rather peaceful for a war the same cannot be said about their conquest of Afghanistan and Iran which were rather brutal

 

[Rakshasa]

I'll chime in; I won't be purchasing anything else created by, or published, by Paradox if this goes through.
I'm definitely only a drop in the bucket, though I'm unsure if the censors spend as much money on games as I.

What a nonsensical decision.

Between this and the complete game likely costing over a quarter grand I don't think I'll be buying it either. I don't know why you'd try to alienate a lot of your audience like this when you're already doing so with your ridiculous DLC policies.

 

[redsimonDE]

So we have 20 posts, and then we are silenced forever? Ok, I'll try to make it count.

• The fact that Paradox blurted the whole thing out to RockpaperShotgun without discussing it first with their players is disappointing to say the least. We are the ones who should have been contacted by Paradox first with an invitation to a discussion about Deus Vult and censorship in historical games.
  
• The discussion shouldn't be limited in the first place. This thread and post limit only show that Paradox is afraid. Afraid of their user base and afraid of media company hit pieces. It also shows that Paradox is a strong supporter of censorship even outside of their games. If Paradox isn't willing to stand up for it's line of games and unite with its player base against media company and NGO pressure that is based on nothing (see below), then why should players buy Paradox games and support their decisions? The answer is obviously: they shouldn't.
  
• Deus Vult or any other phrase should not be excluded from the game based on pressure of biased media companies and extremist NGOs. Doing this is giving them the power to decide what is and what isn't in each and every game Paradox produces from now on. The only ones dictating what should or shouldn't be in your games are the players. Why don't you make a poll here only for people who own (have registered) CKII whether or not Deus Vult should be in CKIII? The people who buy your games, make mods, fill the wiki and support other players should have a say in this and their opinion should have the heaviest weight among all.
• It is not possible to appropriate a historical phrase, a symbol, picture or anything in subsequent time periods. This bogus concept belongs to an extremist political ideology (Marxism) and is used only to promote and spread this ideology. Accordingly, noone has appropriated Deus Vult and there is no reason to exclude it from the game.
• The phrase Deus Vult is not banned or regulated in any country (except perhaps China and North Korea). Unlike the omission of swastikas from HoIIV, there is absolutely noone forcing Paradox to remove it from the time period it belongs in.
• Where does Paradox draw the line for censorship? We, the players, need to have a statement from Paradox about this that is clear and understandable and leaves no room for interpretation. From what we know now, Paradox could censor everything based on media company and NGO pressure.

 

[Snowflake0000145]

The croustades were definitely uniquely brutal.
It is stated in original sources how the Muslim and Christian armies met, their warhorses perfectly aligned. The Muslims expected it to be a normal pie battle, they weren't ready when the Crusaders employed their secret weapon: croustades. Their sharp, crusty surface caught the Ghazis completely unprepared, in utter confusion and with their faces full of crust and sweet sugar the Muslim army tried to route, but it was too late: there were no survivors.

Many Byzantine scholars describe how the Crusader army went spreading terror and pastry in the Holy Land, and that by the time they reached Jerusalem it is said that the sugar in the streets reached the knees.

Oh good god how could I be so uninformed

 

[Kadayi]

Sure - this forum and this thread in particular represent highly biased data points and thus is why we generally don't allow polls or things like that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I dare say the tech is there to get your customer base to weigh in on mass about the subject via Steam.

 

[Evaris]

Not exactly rare few nutjobs from my accounting.

There's estimated to only be 15000 truly "far right" ethnonationalists in the US, based on statistical polling. Or less than 0.00005% of the population. Actual neo nazi's number below 1000, KKK members less than 3000.

So yes, the actual, true, far-right extremists who mean what they say, are unquestionably a tiny minority. Far more common to run into online are trolls, shitposters, and sociopaths who say and do dumb things online in order to get responses out of people to amuse themselves with.

Ultimately, it's an extension of fearmongering and the constant media spin that makes people perceive the numbers of the far right to be far greater than they are. The current culture of fear of the far right is born out of such overhyping of their presence, as well as the labeling of everyone from traditional conservatives to anti-war liberals as being "far right" by the far left, which has amplified the commonality of hearing about "far right" individuals on a day-to-day basis.



On topic; I am ultimately disappointed by this move. While I personally am largely unaffected by the removal of the phrase in and of itself, I do not support any forms of censorship, especially when being done out of transient, misled causes, and the meme, as historically used in good faith by the community, has had a long run of amusing spins on it. I personally believe it would be best included alongside a nations speak their language option, much as CK2 has title names able to be switched between english and a culturally appropriate one. I personally do not believe in giving power to fringe minorities over our language, especially when those minorities are hateful groups - power should be denied to them at every opportunity. Thus, I must protest paradox's decision to remove the phrase entirely, and hope that it will still make it's way into the game amidst optional cultural language selections.