I vote for having a set of boobs as mark of bastardry.
Because boobs are the main cause of illegimate children.
Because boobs are the main cause of illegimate children.
Two religion-related matters
- Thread starter NewbieOne
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
It's my church as well. Yes, while they regarded one another as heretics, their relationship was closer than with the Roman Catholics, at least after 1204.
CoAs are there as a matter of simplification and standardisation, I think, especially given that most major characters are already fictional several decades into the game. They're also separate for dynasties and lands, while this was more complicated in real life. This is okay. As for the baton rouge (/sinister), it's not really appropriate for the time-period but it has a universally recogniseable meaning, doesn't look off place etc. And I'm not talking about giving those characters a coat of arms with the red bar (unless cadets make it into the game with a DLC) but about using the red bar or an empty shield with the red bar as the bastardry icon. Instead of the inverted cross. Unless the inverted cross really was intended as a reference to St. Peter's cross but what data do we have to base this suggestion on? I can be ignorant of some minute theological or artistic or even heraldic symbolics from the time-period but I think I'd most likely have come across this information if St. Peter's cross actually had been used to denote bastards. More on this below.
And what exactly do you think is that basis of my points, and why do you think it's less than good?
All I'm saying in connection with the upside down cross for bastardry is that in typical modern symbolics the upside down cross gets a connotation with the pop culture version of satanism, which seems to take the stigma of bastardry to a new level. There is no real connection with St. Peter's cross and to say that just because an upside down cross could be St. Peter's cross with a relevant connotation therefore it certainly must be so, would be poor logic. Just like when someone calls a person a bastard in real life, just because it would be a neutral word in a history book when used with reference to an illegitimately born character, doesn't yet mean that the name-caller intends to offer an erroneous opinion of his target's parentage. It's the same here. I may be wrong (I have a life-time interest in mediaeval history and heraldry but I don't have a degree in it or anything like that) but I don't see a real connection for St. Peter's cross. The upside down cross does seem to be a likelier association. And I'm not saying that oh no, you used that evil, forbidden symbol. I'm saying that bastards don't deserve that type of stigma.
As for the other point: the pitchfork (trident) associated with typical folk imagery referring to the devil is not a felicitous way to mark someone who gets visions. Sure, people in his lifetime who disagreed with the content of his visions would believe him to be mentally ill (especially closer to modern times) or actually possessed, just like in the two examples other posters brought up: St. Jeanne d'Arc (condemned by a Catholic ecclesiastic court, cleared by the Pope on a posthumous appeal with a finding that the original court acted maliciously) and Maria Valtorta (controversial up to this day, the Vatican tending to be against, while a biblical scholar has recently been beatified who had believed in the authenticity of the visions).
I'm not saying that the person can't be mentally ill. Or actually possessed and just thinking the visions are from God (in fact, for example in Catholicism the official teaching is extremely discouraging anybody who believes he's having private revelations from taking them for granted and similarly anybody who believes himself to be possessed is first sent to a psychiatrist for examination, which I believe probably happens to those claiming apparitions as well). My point is that when those strange visions and locutions are clearing up to be of divine origin--as suggested by the game itself--then the pitchfork and the associated folk demonology are not appropriate. For the record, lunatics are separate from the possessed, so it's not like the Possessed icon is the mediaeval translation of mental illness in CK2.
A trace of that can be found in English nomenclature, where non-Chalcedonian Churches are referred to as "Oriental Orthodox". Apart from 1204, I think the cultural divide between the East and the West possibly plays a role there.
Last edited:
You seemed to argue your points from a religious stance, which I would consider inappropriate (as in, not the appropriate venue, not like urinating on porches inappropriate). You last post though, seems to argue it somewhat better, so my reading of your initial sentiment may have been off, my bad, certainly. Aplogies.
Back to your points though:
It seems to me that reading the inverted cross of the bastardry symbol as the Satanic rather than Christian symbol is being overly adversarial, looking for the worst possible interpretation. While using the inverted cross might have some tangiental connotations to satanism (no, that does not merit capitalisation
) it has far STRONGER connotations to St. Peter, so reading it in good faith (which to me seems like the way to go) would have left you wondering what they were saying about St. Peters parental status I know nothing of his parental status. And since one of the strongest connotations with his cross is "unworthiness" that, again read in good faith, seems the most likely intended meaning. That this is still ODD I won't dispute. It's not the apropriate (rather meant like above) symbol.
And I can't for the life of me think of a BETTER symbol than the one you promoted. That's a very good thought.
For Possession, I shall just leave that as a don't care one way or another. I would personally not have included the "Voice of Jesus" bit there, but then I would probably not have included the "Voice of Jesus" bits at all. Nor the Possessed trait. I would have limited it to Lunacy or other medieval descriptions of mental illness.
Back to your points though:
It seems to me that reading the inverted cross of the bastardry symbol as the Satanic rather than Christian symbol is being overly adversarial, looking for the worst possible interpretation. While using the inverted cross might have some tangiental connotations to satanism (no, that does not merit capitalisation
) it has far STRONGER connotations to St. Peter, so reading it in good faith (which to me seems like the way to go) would have left you wondering what they were saying about St. Peters parental status I know nothing of his parental status. And since one of the strongest connotations with his cross is "unworthiness" that, again read in good faith, seems the most likely intended meaning. That this is still ODD I won't dispute. It's not the apropriate (rather meant like above) symbol. And I can't for the life of me think of a BETTER symbol than the one you promoted. That's a very good thought.
For Possession, I shall just leave that as a don't care one way or another. I would personally not have included the "Voice of Jesus" bit there, but then I would probably not have included the "Voice of Jesus" bits at all. Nor the Possessed trait. I would have limited it to Lunacy or other medieval descriptions of mental illness.
Thank you. Rest assured I can tell the difference between the two. Just because someone says he's an atheist or doesn't have a religion, I don't presume him to be a Misguided Warrior about it. I'm sorry to hear that this is the association you suffer from when it comes up in your conversations.
There is no good uniform symbol for that time-period but IMHO the baton rouge is okay. I'm not talking about putting it on actual shields but using the big fat diagonal red bar with a well-defined meaning as the mark of bastardry, in a similar fashion to the black drop of blood instead of a red one.
As for why taking it that way, again, like I said above, there's no reasonable connection for St. Peter's cross here.
Thanks for a substantive proposal finally.
Again, my point is that acting for God is different from acting for the devil, in the abstract, without presupposing that you or any other person believes in the existence of either. Or that anybody in particular has a specific opinion of the origin of whatever afflicts the character with the Possessed trait. I'm saying that once the game presents the visions or voices as those of the Christian God or saints, it's not a good choice to keep them together with the standard possesed trait, which represents people who are believed to have a demon living in them (of whom almost all are probably mentally ill people). Point being that God and the devil are simply not "just one thing anyway", for a non-believer that would be an ignorant statement to make, a lack of knowledge not justified by not sharing the dogma, and pretty much any reasonable person who is not trying to be unreasonable on purpose can tell the difference between an angel and the devil and feels that the two don't belong in the same category.Yeah, spltting it into two attributes does make sense:
1) voices that tell you to do good things
2) voices that tempt you and try to get you to do bad things
If you are lucky you can get a character with both.
EDIT: Actually I think what made this thread a flamewar between angry christians and angry atheists is 1) that it discusses two subjects in one thread, and 2) the display of ignorance about the Cross of Peter.
Regarding #1, I just didn't want to start two separate threads but maybe I should have. Regarding #2, there is no display of ignorance about the Cross of Peter, it's just the convenient assumption that some people made here without noticing that there is no solid connection between the Cross of Peter and bastardry. If somebody feels better believing that I (being a Catholic BTW) have no idea about Saint Peter's Cross, then I guess I can't forbid him, but it's just an assumption that has no basis. I'm not going to write 1,000 times "I wasn't ignorant of the Cross of St. Peter," and even if I did, it wouldn't help anyway. The impression will probably stick but it's your choice if you want to believe it conveniently (because it's always easier to dismiss anything said by a supposedly ignorant person) or consider the points. Like I said, it has no basis. What was I supposed to do in the OP? Add a disclaimer saying, "Oh, I know St. Peter's Cross looks just the same, so don't presume I don't know about it?"
Here is my take on the issue.
If the inverted cross is so much of an issue (Which I really don't see it as. Were you born out of wedlock, NewbieOne? You are awfully concerned about how modern day "bastards" would feel. I mean no insult. It would make a lot more sense if you were. You have apparently chosen to personally champion their cause for some reason, so it makes me a bit confused.) I think that Paradox could just go back to the older symbol that they used in CK1 is was a shield with a diagonal bar across the front. I assume that this is representing the baton sinister. I really don't think it is much of an issue, though.
As for the possession trait, I just pullled up the game and fired the event that gives you the trait, and it seems pretty obvious that the possession is seen as a bad thing. It references uncontrollable screaming and hearing voices. I also fired the "voices from Jesus" event, and I saw nothing that should be a problem. It never implies that the voice is actually Jesus. It makes the claim fairly dubious. Even if you argue that possession by Jesus is possible (and I am not arguing otherwise) the event makes it sound like the character is actually just schizophrenic. The effects of the modifier seem to reflect this idea. It makes the character gain more piety because they are probably acting more holy, but it makes the church not like you because the Catholic Church of the time was probably fairly suspect of people claiming that Jesus was personally talking to them. The event makes perfect sense especially when you take the initiation of the "possessed" trait into account.
A possible "fix" for the "problem" would be to make a separate event with less distinct wording that gives more positives i.e. "filled with righteous thought" that could give the positive religious traits.
Though, honestly, I don't see what the big problem is. I have been playing the game four hundreds of hours and I never associated the bastard symbol with Satanism or anything. I honestly thought that it looked cool. I do understand OP's objection, though. I just think the connection is tenuous at best. I wouldn't be against a move to the old bastard symbol, though. As for the possession trait, I think that the events that have to deal with the trait make it pretty clear that the case is more along the lines of schizophrenia. Maybe the trait could be renamed to schizophrenia like it was in CK1? Though again, I really don't see the problem. It don't find it insulting in the least.
As for changes in symbols and traits from CK1 to CK2, does anyone know why the second level theology education symbol is still that of "martial cleric" from CK1 with the sword and all? It doesn't match the description at all?
If the inverted cross is so much of an issue (Which I really don't see it as. Were you born out of wedlock, NewbieOne? You are awfully concerned about how modern day "bastards" would feel. I mean no insult. It would make a lot more sense if you were. You have apparently chosen to personally champion their cause for some reason, so it makes me a bit confused.) I think that Paradox could just go back to the older symbol that they used in CK1 is was a shield with a diagonal bar across the front. I assume that this is representing the baton sinister. I really don't think it is much of an issue, though.
As for the possession trait, I just pullled up the game and fired the event that gives you the trait, and it seems pretty obvious that the possession is seen as a bad thing. It references uncontrollable screaming and hearing voices. I also fired the "voices from Jesus" event, and I saw nothing that should be a problem. It never implies that the voice is actually Jesus. It makes the claim fairly dubious. Even if you argue that possession by Jesus is possible (and I am not arguing otherwise) the event makes it sound like the character is actually just schizophrenic. The effects of the modifier seem to reflect this idea. It makes the character gain more piety because they are probably acting more holy, but it makes the church not like you because the Catholic Church of the time was probably fairly suspect of people claiming that Jesus was personally talking to them. The event makes perfect sense especially when you take the initiation of the "possessed" trait into account.
A possible "fix" for the "problem" would be to make a separate event with less distinct wording that gives more positives i.e. "filled with righteous thought" that could give the positive religious traits.
Though, honestly, I don't see what the big problem is. I have been playing the game four hundreds of hours and I never associated the bastard symbol with Satanism or anything. I honestly thought that it looked cool. I do understand OP's objection, though. I just think the connection is tenuous at best. I wouldn't be against a move to the old bastard symbol, though. As for the possession trait, I think that the events that have to deal with the trait make it pretty clear that the case is more along the lines of schizophrenia. Maybe the trait could be renamed to schizophrenia like it was in CK1? Though again, I really don't see the problem. It don't find it insulting in the least.
As for changes in symbols and traits from CK1 to CK2, does anyone know why the second level theology education symbol is still that of "martial cleric" from CK1 with the sword and all? It doesn't match the description at all?
Thanks.
It seems to me that reading the inverted cross of the bastardry symbol as the Satanic rather than Christian symbol is being overly adversarial, looking for the worst possible interpretation. While using the inverted cross might have some tangiental connotations to satanism (no, that does not merit capitalisation
That's not much different from what I think. If there were an official explanation saying that, "yeah, this is really the Cross of St. Peter," then I would take it at face value. But this is just a very remote theoretical possibility, it feels rather fanciful as a connection to make. When deciding that a symbol is rather unfelicitous you don't need the same certainty "beyond reasonable doubt" like when accusing someone of doing something bad, especially intentionally, which is not what I'm talking about here. Admittedly, I could have worded the Opening Post more clearly. There isn't much "good faith interpretation" in presuming that I didn't know what St. Peter's cross looked like, as some posters insist on claiming. I insist on saying that just because St. Peter's Cross looks the same doesn't mean it must be the Cross of St. Peter if the connection would be very remote.
Thank you. And again, wouldn't be saying anything about the possible connotation with pop culture satanism if St. Peter's Cross actually were a symbol of bastardry. That would indeed be misguided fanaticism looking for a problem when there's none.
Well, let's say that anybody who believes he's hearing the "voice of Jesus" is much more likely to be insane, which I'm saying as a religious person who does believe that some apparitions actually have been real. Like some other poster brought up, from the PoV of Christian theology dealing with apparitions, pretending to be an angel, saint or even God would be an expected modus operandi for a demon trying to control a person. No argument here, of course. My point is that I'd like to see a clearer distinction.
Speaking of all this religious stuff, I would love to see more historical "flair" put into the game.
Back in the middle ages, big victories and unexpected events were always attributed to religious causes, even in warfare. I would love to see more of that silly sort of thing.
Back in the middle ages, big victories and unexpected events were always attributed to religious causes, even in warfare. I would love to see more of that silly sort of thing.
Suffice to say it's both a fairness concern to me and a personal matter to me. I see no harm in asking for it to change and giving some reasons, although admittedly I am somewhat worked up by the mental connection of the inverted cross and bastardry. The CK1 shield with bar that you're speaking about is precisely what I'm talking about. So this means it actually was there in CK1. I wonder why I don't remember it, but it's been a couple of years. I wonder why it was changed then.
I don't have an issue with a character being possessed or mentally ill and it manifesting itself in a false belief that he's hearing some voices from God. But someone who only hears voices that don't prompt him to do evil things shouldn't be lumped with the same Possessed trait with a pitchfork icon and stats maluses with the description of behaviour that shows in the tooltip. It's basically inconsistent. I'm not taking it as an intended insult but just asking for some clarity here to avoid putting the two things together. For example, if St. Jeanne were in the game, many people would accuse her of being possessed but she shouldn't have the Possessed trait. Or St. Bridget of Sweden, who actually might be in the game but I'd have to check.
There are traces of it in child education dialogue, where you can choose to say or do some really silly things. Crusade and jihad success or failure messages come with that type of opinions too as you must've seen.
Last edited:
I hate threads where the lead troll starts typing textwalls and it looks like they're in the right all of a sudden.
How do you know its not the Devil actually talking to you pretending to be Jesus ? In that case the trait fits perfectly well. Devil in disguise. Possessed.
Btw, i dont know the event, can you tell which one and in which file it is, please.
I really don't mind when a misengaged conversation becomes clearer, so I don't really understand your point. If he says something interesting, lets just read it and comment it.
For my part, I tend to agree with him about the baton rouge, moreover if it was in CK1, but it won't trouble my sleep. The same can be say about the possessed trait, which could be the view of the Church toward it. Like said above, the Church didn't looked with a good eye those who said they were talking personally to Jesus or any other saint or religious symbol, because their power would have sufffered. They didn't encourage people to read the Bible either. So in my opinion it would make sense that the immediate reaction of the Church when someone tries to tell that it hears the voice of Jesus would be to declare it false. About the possessed trait itself, I tend to agree with what seems to be the general consensus here, that it represent the view of people of those years regarding what we call today schizopherina, epilepsy and other mental illness. About the lunatic trait, I find it less linked to a sickness and more to a general tendency to often be in the clouds, but I could be wrong.
This is a game about medieval politics, and you want it NOT to be offensive?
I vote that they take out the ability to crusade because it promotes and glorifies religious intolerence.
Correct me if I´m wrong but doesn´t the "Jesus whispers in your head" from the posessed really mean 'Jesus' whispers in your head. In other words the posessed character believes he/she hears Jesus speak when in truth it´s something/someone else.
Actually the posessed trait could be devided in a 'posessed' and 'divinely inspired' trait which gives different modifications and events.
Actually the posessed trait could be devided in a 'posessed' and 'divinely inspired' trait which gives different modifications and events.
I don't think so. "Possession" could be seen as a gamble, as someone said in this thread. Stplitting it in a "good" and "evil" part would destroy this principle. You could however change the name for : "influenced by external spirits", yet this isn't exactly a short name, and I think there are limits to character that we can use for one or another trait. Possessed could be viewed in a positive way, like I said in my first post in this thread.
so if i make an mod where the Holocaust is represented no one will mind?
- Status