Evil looking Muslims

[TacticalRetreat]

Yikes! Yeah one of those definitely stands out.

I know, the naked guy on the floor is very disturbing. But the people hanging from trees creep me out as well...

At least the muslim one is very fitting. But I want Paradox to change the other ones.

 

[Kapitalisti]

I highly doubt the artist is implying any of that!

Yeah, this is one of those cases where over-interpreting really leads nowhere. Yes, the picture is a bit unfortunate, both from a thematic and artistic perspective, but I seriously doubt that there's any sort of agenda behind it.

 

[Chamboozer]

No, the implication being that insane and decadent rulers were a standard feature of Muslim Absolute Imperial Autocracy. Which kind of is what the entire system of decadence is all about anyway.

Islam is based on a very strict and clearly established set of laws, because there is no separation of state and church, unlike the other European religions of the time period. Arbitrary dictature was more common in the European mindset, it was "normal". In Islam, the big autocratic dictators ignoring the Quran were indeed batshit crazy most of the time. The second Caliph even believed that Allah actually took example from him.

So no, the implication isn't that every Muzz leader is crazy, just that the absolute ones were.

Uhh, no. There was nothing about centralized Muslim realms that made their rulers any more crazy than the rulers of any other principality. And where do you get the idea that centralization is meant to represent the Sharia being ignored? Centralization in this game does not represent the ruler gaining absolutism over the law, it just represents the degree to which he reigns in the independence of his vassals, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with his adherence/non-adherence to the Sharia. The Qur'an does not dictate how one should manage vassal relationships.

And by the way, read any book on Sharia law in the Middle Ages. It was neither strict nor clearly established, rather it was flexible and adaptive. A good place to start is here:

Hallaq, Wael. An Introduction to Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Yeah, this is one of those cases where over-interpreting really leads nowhere. Yes, the picture is a bit unfortunate, both from a thematic and artistic perspective, but I seriously doubt that there's any sort of agenda behind it.

There's no agenda behind it, but it can still imply things without having an intentional agenda. Random people playing the game can look at it and have stereotypes about 'despotic' Muslim government reinforced, without Paradox ever intending it.

 

[mr_human_555]

I dislike it simply because it's somewhat incongruous with the other two which have more going on in the background....it also looks a bit goofy.

Do the other religious groups like Tengri or West African have different images?

Indian religions

I like this one more than the other three, since it feels more glorious and less... personal?

 

[Tapio]

There's no agenda behind it, but it can still imply things without having an intentional agenda. Random people playing the game can look at it and have stereotypes about 'despotic' Muslim government reinforced, without Paradox ever intending it.

Random people playing CK2 will get false stereotypes about the Orthodox, the Vikings and especially Zoroastrians. To me part of the fun in is in the Monty Pythonesque feel of it.

 

[Zsrai]

I like this one more than the other three, since it feels more glorious and less... personal?

That's also just some reused artwork. Isn't that the old splash screen for RoI?

 

[AndrewT]

Several off-topic posts deleted.

No infractions as no harm done, but stay on topic please folks.

 

[Audoucet]

Uhh, no. There was nothing about centralized Muslim realms that made their rulers any more crazy than the rulers of any other principality. And where do you get the idea that centralization is meant to represent the Sharia being ignored?

I don't have Conclave. All I see is "Absolute blabla". Centralised is one thing. Maybe "Absolute" doesn't mean the same thing in English as in French, I don't know, but when I hear absolute, I think Louis XIV.

 

[Chamboozer]

I don't have Conclave. All I see is "Absolute blabla". Centralised is one thing. Maybe "Absolute" doesn't mean the same thing in English as in French, I don't know, but when I hear absolute, I think Louis XIV.

It's just a function of your crown laws, which don't pertain to anything other than your relationship with your vassals. It doesn't mean the same thing as an "Absolute Monarchy" in the seventeenth century sense.

Nowhere does the game allow you to claim supreme legislative authority, for example.

 

[Secret Master]

Nowhere does the game allow you to claim supreme legislative authority, for example.

With Conclave enabled, you can more or less claim supreme legislative authority by taking away the right to vote for laws from the council.

I guess there is nothing comparable without the DLC enabled.

 

[Mathrafalovich]

Yeah, that's the old Paranoid/Lunatic muslim artwork (equivalent to the crazy looking king for christians). Is there really no "Sultan on a Throne" type of artwork?

What do the other Muslim government types look like?

 

[Chamboozer]

With Conclave enabled, you can more or less claim supreme legislative authority by taking away the right to vote for laws from the council.

I guess there is nothing comparable without the DLC enabled.

But the laws which you are claiming supreme control over are those pertaining to military obligations and taxation of the upper class. Sharia Law consisted mostly of private law concerned with settling disputes, or stipulations on proper religious practice, both of which are entirely outside of the purview of the game.

Those government/administrative issues which Sharia did address, such as taxation, are things which the player can't interfere with. You can only shave off some of the income of your vassals, you can't directly increase the tax burden on your provinces. Thus there's no way to say that absolute monarchs in CKII act contrary to the Sharia, as Audoucet had claimed. The player simply doesn't have the option to legislate on issues which the Sharia would have covered - it's just not part of the game.

That being said, Muslims can't vote on laws anyway; the player just spends piety to change them. Unless it's been changed since I last played, of course.

 

[Secret Master]

Those government/administrative issues which Sharia did address, such as taxation, are things which the player can't interfere with. You can only shave off some of the income of your vassals, you can't directly increase the tax burden on your provinces.

Your steward can. In addition to the event-spawned money, it's a flat bonus to a province's tax income. And sometimes he makes the peasants mad. It doesn't affect all provinces, though.

And the tax laws in Conclave can be pretty harsh if you go all the way to maximum taxes and non-existent levy contributions. But you are restricted to certain laws based on technology.

 

[Chamboozer]

Your steward can. In addition to the event-spawned money, it's a flat bonus to a province's tax income. And sometimes he makes the peasants mad. It doesn't affect all provinces, though

You're right, the steward is the exception, although his use can perhaps be interpreted as causing greater efficiency in the collection of legal taxes, rather than the imposition of new and illegal ones. But it's a fair point. Doesn't have anything to do with centralization, though, as it's an option open to everybody at all times.

And the tax laws in Conclave can be pretty harsh if you go all the way to maximum taxes and non-existent levy contributions. But you are restricted to certain laws based on technology.

Yet those taxes merely effect the percentage of a province's income which goes to the liege instead of the vassal. The population is still being taxed at the same rate. In other words, the realm's laws determine how the aristocracy divides its taxation revenue, rather than determining what those taxes actually are.

 

[Soviet_Union]

Wow, really paradox? ffs.

 

[gdj]

I find the muslim picture inappropriate too.

The other ones signify in one way or another absolute authority (punishment for offenders included), corpses hanging before a palace, a prisoner bullied etc. concentrate on the negative sides of it. Considering that CK2 is a game of power sharing between dynasties it may be legitimate (though one-sided) to potray absolutism as an evil.

But the muslim picture shows nothing of that. Why should eating a scimitar (?!?) imply authority..?

 

[AchedTeacher]

Subjective opinion is subjective.

 

[Moarice]

In case somebody wanted to know: This is what it looks like for Zunists once all requirements are met. Arguably the least terrifying one.

 

[Audoucet]

I don't know, it's pretty terrifying, to see a bunch of jaffa waiting for the Goa'uld mothership to land. I wouldn't want to be the poor palestinian guy who'll get screwd over in the process because Ra's body is getting old.