As for 'marks of bastards', I can't recall one common to Spain, France, Germany and England (these being crusading kingdoms par excellence). As far as I understand polish heraldry doesn't know any such marks (we were always a bit strange, coats shared by dozens unrelated families etc.), neither does hungarian. If you find inverted crosses offensive to your taste, feel free to mod them out. I believe they were simply copied from good old CKI (?DV?).
As for "Jesus whispers to me" for possessed people - I'm afraid I'm no exorcist, so I can't verify this, but trying to pass for heavenly forces would seem to be preferred modus operandi for demons, according to catholic doctrine (vide controversies surrounding Medjugorje). So, yeah. It seems obvious that at least some schizophrenics/possessed (possesion being WHO-recognized disorder, mind you!) honestly believe(d) it is(/was) Savior talking to them.
As for good ol' "I'm offended ergo Christianity (my faith as a whole) is offended" fallacy, I can only reply "hit the road, Jack". As a christian I have become saddly accustomed to trolls having no respect to my faith and calling me weirdo/fanatic/s**thead/whatnot. You, my friend, need to develop thicker skin, otherwise you will end up as their food.
As for religious offensiveness of CKII, I was, until recently, enraged to see Copts and Armenians heresy of Orthodoxy. Not anymore, thanks PI!
Like you say, in Polish heraldry there's no common device for bastardry (in the west, it's generally the red bar, also called baton rouge or baton sinister) but in Polish nobiliary customs bastards didn't inherit nobility.
I strongly disagree with both points raised in the thread. Possessed is a historically accurate way to describe mental illness in the character that leads to hearing voices, while having an inverted cross is more commonly associated with St Peter than it is with the devil (having it associated with the devil is an innovation which is unhelpful and unorthodox in understanding its symbolism.)
Look, I'm not in any way ignorant of the meaning of St. Peter's cross, like people love to assume in this thread even after I specifically clarified it. But it can't be denied that the inverted black metal "satanic" symbol of the inverted cross is not the same as St. Peter's cross, even though both look the same. There is no specific connection between St. Peter and bastardry, and the exclusion of bastards from inheritance of noble titles was not because bastards born of noble fathers spontaneously believed themselves unworthy to succeed to noble titles and rejected the inheritance on their own (and some did succeed anyway, especially if they were legitimatised after birth).
The actual symbol used to denote a bastard was a diagonal red bar across his shield (the angle, direction or size depended on a number of factors). It's easier to make a mental connection with the modern usage of symbols which relate to a rejection of Christianity rather than anything to do with real satanism, like with all those guys using pentagrams and three sixes and thinking they're so badass for doing it--but I assumed this was common knowledge and people would react in a bit more sensible way. This is why the use of the supposed St. Peter's cross here would look out of place, suggesting rather something to do with the rejection--by the parents--of religious morality while having an extramarital or some other illegitimate affair of which the affected character was born. If St. Peter's cross were actually were used as a symbol of bastards, this would not be an issue merely on account of possible confusion by ignorant people. But nobody here, while suggesting the abstract mental connection with "unworthiness" of the potential heir, actually suggested that St. Peter's cross was a real symbol used to denote bastard children.
This connects with another opinion:
The upside-down cross wasn't ever anti-Christian until the late 20th Century. It is a very Christian image, an image representing the manner in which St. Peter was crucified. The point isn't to be "satanic" or "anti-Christian" but to illustrate the illegitimacy.
I never said it was anti-Christian. I said it created an impression that an extramarital affair or siring a child out of wedlock was judged in a certain way. Like I said above, there's no connection between bastardry and St. Peter. The standard symbol to denote bastards is the baton rouge (bar sinister etc., the naming varies but it's always a red diagonal strip running through the father's shield).
I actually laugh whenever I see idiots trying to be "rebellious" by spray-painting upside-down crosses, pentagrams and 666's on walls. They clearly don't know anything about what they are painting. As the upside-down cross (as i've said) is a very Christian image. The Pentagram isn't satanic and the "satanic pentagram" is actually usually upside-down. The vertical Pentagram is used by Christian communities to illustrate the 5 "wounds" of Christ, the hands, the feet and the crown of thorns. It also is used to represent God, with the Trinity as the top 3 points, and the 2 natures of Christ as the bottom two.
Also, 666 isn't a satanic number, but rather was a reference to the Emperor Nero and is symbolic of those who don't live according to Christ.
Like I said, the inverted cross and the Cross of St. Peter are actually two different symbols which look the same (the "satanistic" one created possibly in ignorance or simply despite the previous existence of St. Peter's cross), as opposed to simply ministerpreting one symbol. We all know the typical context and the typical meaning associated with it. It didn't occur to me that St. Peter's cross would be used in such a context as here on the basis of a mental connection with St. Peter's remark that he was unworthy to die in the same manner that Jesus did (like I said, the exclusion and stigma of bastards was not on account that they spontaneously believed themselves to be unworthy heirs and abdicated the honour, so the connection doesn't work). Given that there is no real ground to use St. Peter's cross, the typical association would be with symbolics used by the black metal garden variety of "satanism".
That because Paradox thought that Christians would be more reasonable. Apparently they didn't take into account people like this. But every religion has its NewbieOne's. Christianity has more just because it had more people. You never hear a Jew complaining because you rarely hear a Jew at all.
It's rather ironical that you would be so offended by the so called "fanaticism" (which exists only in your head because there's none here) while stooping to calling out names yourself. Double standard anyone? You freely allow yourself to act in the way you're accusing me of acting in, because you believe that to freak out is justifiable in your case because you're combatting fanaticism or some such... which you define in pretty much the same terms as should be used to describe your own behaviour. You're inconsistent.
I seriously agree.
Just kidding, but at least nobody's feelings would be hurt :happy: and then the whole world would be a better place :wub: lol
Again, another example of your double standard. When someone politely asks to change an icon and adjust a dialogue on account of some religious sensibilities, you and others lash out with accusations of fanaticism and all such. But then you jump on the not particularly intellectually bright clichés like, 'the world would be a better place withour religions.' Man, you seriously need a sober look in the mirror.
The possesed trait is a trait that shows that your character -believes- himself to be possesed, when he in fact is just mad.
Nope, it doesn't show what the character believes or else Brave and Craven would be what people think about themselves (Kind and Cruel too) as opposed to how they act.
It is a roleplaying trait. How this can be offensive to [insert religious group] I do not understand, unless you are nitpicking. In CKI you would get events like this aswell, "The angels talk to me", just like historical characters of this time period did, one of the more famous ones being Jean D'Arc.
In fact that's a good example. That type of voices St. Joan of Arc heard was not possession. (Hearing voices of daemons would still not necessarily already have been possession.) My point is that it shouldn't be lumped together with the possession denoted by the pitchfork icon, which is popular folk imagery relating to the devil. Sure, we're going to have a lot of people say it's the same to them but the game is based on certain rudimentary concepts such as theological virtues and theological differences between various denominations. In this context, distinction between God and the devil is fundamental.
As for the mark of being a bastard I personally do not see any reason to change it. It has been explained over and over that an upside down cross is not a satanistic symbol.
Nope, people have brought up St. Peter's cross, which looks the same as the inverted cross used in modern times to deface the standard Latin cross. But those are two different symbols, even though they look the same (the origins are different). Just because St. Peter's cross is not a satanistic symbol doesn't mean that the inverted cross is not or can't be in certain contexts--which is the prevailing use nowadays and only very rarely is the real cross of St. Peter used, and only in limited contexts (it remains in use as one of the more rarely used symbols of the papacy, which does cause some idiots to run around screaming that the papacy is a satanistic institution), or that when used in such contexts it's not offensive merely because in a different context the meaning could perhaps be different. For example, when referring to someone as an imbecile in the typical situation it doesn't stop being in insult just because in a narrow margin of situations "imbecile" can be an old-fashioned medical term.
In short:
No, we can't nitpick and cuddle with every religious group that finds it offensive that things are like x and y. It is a game. It is easy to mod and change things that you do not like yourself.
Again, the distinction between voices from God and demonic possession is fundamental, it's not a theological detail or a matter of simplistic presentation. As for the icon used for bastards, the connection with St. Peter's cross that has been proposed, which would be a very subtle theological allegory by the way, doesn't work.
I'm not very religious but I still think it's admirable that they're being respectful and impartial towards all religions, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that they had censored Muhammed's portrait for example. I don't think people should dwell on irrelevant things like these though, Jesus isn't going to strike you down because you're playing a game where the trait icon for illegitimate children has an upside down cross.
That's a very deep understanding, no doubt. One that I'm not going to pick up discussion with. Seriously, if you were a 13 year old, maybe it could be partly excusable but from someone adult more should be required.
The Op actually thinks you can be possessed by Jesus in which case it is a "good" posession
Unfortunately, the truth of your statement doesn't match the certainty with which you say it.
I hope he does not hear voices himself.
I'm still surprised by the level of extremely poor manners and sometimes even outright hostility expressed in this thread. It would be best if it were closed. I regret bringing it up and I am truly disappointed because I had no idea that this type of immaturity would surface in reaction.
All religions are human fairy tales, what is your point?
The "problem" is that he wants the posession mechanic removed or worded in such a way, that "posession" by Jesus is a legtitmate thing and thus does not "count" as posession, probably because whatever sect of christianity he is in
Look, I understand that in your head, you are very smart because you were able to "outgrow" Christianity or some such. But I'm not going out of my way to offend whatever believes you may hold and I would appreciate if you could repay the same courtesy. So far you reflect poorly on your ability to do so.
Next:
regards "posession of Jesus" as a positive and very real thing. As a critical human being it is my obligation to say that I find something like this completely and utterly insane. If you're hearing voices you need medical attention, because you're probably very sick and most likely shizophrenic.
As a critical being, you should employ logic more effectively. Nothing like that is in my opening post or any later posts. Hearing voices is most likely a sign of something wrong going on with one's mental health. The different thing is that God =/= demons, devils, whatever that pitchfork is supposed to mean.
And no, I do not think we should accomodate a more or less historical game
It's very critical of you that you bring up historicity with regard to a pitchfork. Historical reconstruction, seriously?
because someone claims on a forum that "posessions" by satan and jesus are not the same thing and thus wants the game edited in such a way that one of them does not count as "possesion". Because that's exactly and precisely what he is asking for. That's because he believes posessions of Jesus happen in the real world and are a good thing. I refuse to let such utter, stupid nonsense uncommented.
Not precisely but you're not entirely wrong, either. Point being that God =/= demons (including the popular imagery with pitchforks being misdiagnosed as causes of a psychic illness), which may sound like a strange claim to ignorant people who think it's all the same just because they think religion is superstition anyway or something equally "smart".
I refuse to let such utter, stupid nonsense uncommented.
I suggest you go somewhere for a fair comment on your manners, while your critical thinking does need a little attention too. Attention is precisely the problem here: just read instead of jumping to conclusions and spewing spiteful comments. I understand that you may have some beef with Christianity but your conduct resembles that of an angered child, not an adult man.
All religions are human fairy tales, what is your point?
His point is just what you're saying, and his short summary of what your behaviour reflects is pretty much accurate.
. Oh boy, what sort of utter and damning ignorance is this? And you think them so real that you need CK2 changed, because it is offensive that not everybody agrees that people can be posessed by demons and angels?
