Same Sex consorts hardcoded out?

[Faerakhasa]

52 minutes ago, loker123 said:

And that's not saying that homosexuality was not repressed, we have lots of tribunal deposition and legal documents about that for low middle ages.

 

But one big reason for that is that "sodomy" was a sort of generic tacked on crime for important people arrested, to make their crimes look worse, whether they did i or not. It's not as if you can prove he was not a sodomite when no one as looking, after all. It was sometimes even added for females.

 

But actual arrests for homosexuality (as opposed of "being on the wrong side of a court intrigue while also sometimes diddling twinks as a hobby") were far rarer. The medieval times weren't actually as sexually repressed as people think, that is a victorian idea (the hounding of homosexuals just for homosexuality was also a vitcorian thing).

 

The "middle ages" lasted for centuries, across a whole continent of many different cultures, so you have the whole spectrum of reactions against sexual crimes. Some times, and someplaces, more liberal, and some more repressive. But in general it is a safe bet to consider that "this random medieval sexual repressive thing" is actually a projection into the past from either Puritans or Victorians. Florence had a specialized magistry for the prosecution of sodomy, the Office of the Night, with laws that were considered strict at the time, and the punishment for sodomy was... a fine. You were only executed for sodomy after you were sentenced for a fifth time.

[loker123]

As i have studied it i know that, it was discoraged but on the end of the low middle ages sodomy process began and were particularly ferocious, some in Venice in particular with the process of Rolandina Roncaglia in 1354.

There is actually a sensible increase in hostility in the surviving documentation as centuries pass, what Boccaccio wrote in 14th century wasn't acceptable anymore to be printed in 15th century, You can actually feel the rapidly changing public morals.

Also while sodomy sometimes was used as an accuse at least in Italy it took a long time to be used in political accusation, i know that outside of italy things were much quicker and ferocious, like with the templars. 

Same with the jewish persecution really, they were moslty vibing on their own until 14th century, (again in italy) it took the papacy transfer in Avignon to actually start enforcing anti-jewish measures, which often weren't followed anyway. 

[Mange2020]

18 minutes ago, Faerakhasa said:

 

But one big reason for that is that "sodomy" was a sort of generic tacked on crime for important people arrested, to make their crimes look worse, whether they did i or not. It's not as if you can prove he was not a sodomite when no one as looking, after all. It was sometimes even added for females.

 

But actual arrests for homosexuality (as opposed of "being on the wrong side of a court intrigue while also sometimes diddling twinks as a hobby") were far rarer. The medieval times weren't actually as sexually repressed as people think, that is a victorian idea (the hounding of homosexuals just for homosexuality was also a vitcorian thing).

 

The "middle ages" lasted for centuries, across a whole continent of many different cultures, so you have the whole spectrum of reactions against sexual crimes. Some times, and someplaces, more liberal, and some more repressive. But in general it is a safe bet to consider that "this random medieval sexual repressive thing" is actually a projection into the past from either Puritans or Victorians. Florence had a specialized magistry for the prosecution of sodomy, the Office of the Night, with laws that were considered strict at the time, and the punishment for sodomy was... a fine. You were only executed for sodomy after you were sentenced for a fifth time.

Yeah, also "sodomy" generally just referred to "deviant" sex acts. Not specifically homosexual acts. This combined with the uneven enforcement was one of the reason Justice Kennedy invalidated american anti sodomy in 2003. 

Also just an interesting thing related to what I was talking about in terms of historical translations. Even the bible itself never actually referenced homosexuality until the middle of the 20th century (apart from one old testament verse in Leviticus). They translated the word "arsenokoitai" to mean homosexual but it basically means perverts.

[lunasmeow]

On 3/22/2021 at 12:12 AM, Mange2020 said:

Yeah this was a common pre-christian cultural perception. It was the same in Rome too iirc. Plus the homosexual trait is just gender orientation, not whether they act on it. Gay characters still have wives and kids. They are essentially "passing".

Not quite passing, more "doing their duty" as it was typically seen, by producing an heir.

 

Heirs were important back then.

20 hours ago, SamIAmHam said:

 

The response to the historical argument is, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of  absence. "

 

Just because we don't have evidence  doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

I'm as for homosexual content as any lesbian lover, but this argument is just as fallacious for this as it is when used for God.

 

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No, that is not reason to assume or even accept, presence.

 

The starting assumption is always no presence, then you gain evidence for presence. Otherwise you have to accept fairies, magical girls, godzilla, and superman too.

 

This is a nonsense argument. There are far better ones.

18 hours ago, SamIAmHam said:

When I am talking about antiquity I am referring the first recorded history to about 500 BC. There are sources showing that same sex relationships were common and sanctioned by the local governments. 

 

A particular story is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is roughly 1845 BC. That's just from the Tanakh.

 

The Tanakh criminalized homosexuality and it was the exception. That means their neighbors allowed it. The prohibition was to separate Israel from their neighbors.

 

There are other sources from that period also showing acceptance and recognition. Please don't try to say that the entire disappeared at certain year until the 1960s. That just strains credibility.

Yes, Isreal was the exception, but to assume the REASON for the prohibition was to be different than their neighbors is a step too far.

 

That sounds like an excuse so that you can handwaive the homosexuality issue in modern day for Abraham's faiths, instead of facing the issue they obviously have with it.

 

Why people like to make up extra shit is always beyond me...

 

YHWH, as described at least, hates homosexuality. He didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for "not being different". He considered them an abomination. Full of evil and corruption.

 

Now I personally think that's bullshit, if you're focusing on the gay aspect and not the whole "we're gonna rape those guys" aspect, which I agree THAT PART is evil, but trying to "clean up" for YHWH is pretty sad.

 

He is that he is. Believe in him or don't. But to pretend he's something other than he is just so you don't have to admit it...

‐-------------------------------------------------------------

As for the original point of this whole thread?

 

I think it's bullshit. Yes, homosexual MARRIAGES and should be out, (at least unless you have a custom religion that allows it) but I'm not so sure about concubines.

 

Marriage tends to be gatekept by the church, so unless your religion allows for homosexual relations it makes sense to have no homosexual marriages. However, concubine doesn't get held by the church in the same way. You didn't have to register your concubine concubine the church in many cultures, you just took one. So... I'd say that homosexual concubines should be default allowed (if the culture had no stigma against homosexuality historically) and then able to be overridden by religion. "Accepted" would make it allowed no matter the culture, "scorned" (or whatever the word is, I forget, shunned maybe?) would be a neutral position, leaving it up to the culture, and "Disallowed" would make it not allowed, even in a culture that previously accepted it. Simple.

 

This way, Romans would have the ability to take homosexual concubines, but not marriages - marriage was for children after all, in almost every culture. Let the few for whom marriage was not about children and tying families together through blood, have their homosexual marriages, unless the religion overrides.

 

It'd be harder to code, but not too hard, and it'd solve the whole damn problem in one swoop. Historicity preserved, but able to be changed by powerful players.

[SamIAmHam]

@lunasmeow That's a big strawman you built that parodies what I said. When you can actually deal with what I said without your hateful agenda let me know.

[Mange2020]

5 hours ago, lunasmeow said:

Not quite passing, more "doing their duty" as it was typically seen, by producing an heir.

 

Heirs were important back then.

I'm as for homosexual content as any lesbian lover, but this argument is just as fallacious for this as it is when used for God.

 

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No, that is not reason to assume or even accept, presence.

 

The starting assumption is always no presence, then you gain evidence for presence. Otherwise you have to accept fairies, magical girls, godzilla, and superman too.

 

This is a nonsense argument. There are far better ones.

Yes, Isreal was the exception, but to assume the REASON for the prohibition was to be different than their neighbors is a step too far.

 

That sounds like an excuse so that you can handwaive the homosexuality issue in modern day for Abraham's faiths, instead of facing the issue they obviously have with it.

 

Why people like to make up extra shit is always beyond me...

 

YHWH, as described at least, hates homosexuality. He didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for "not being different". He considered them an abomination. Full of evil and corruption.

 

Now I personally think that's bullshit, if you're focusing on the gay aspect and not the whole "we're gonna rape those guys" aspect, which I agree THAT PART is evil, but trying to "clean up" for YHWH is pretty sad.

 

He is that he is. Believe in him or don't. But to pretend he's something other than he is just so you don't have to admit it...

‐-------------------------------------------------------------

As for the original point of this whole thread?

 

I think it's bullshit. Yes, homosexual MARRIAGES and should be out, (at least unless you have a custom religion that allows it) but I'm not so sure about concubines.

 

Marriage tends to be gatekept by the church, so unless your religion allows for homosexual relations it makes sense to have no homosexual marriages. However, concubine doesn't get held by the church in the same way. You didn't have to register your concubine concubine the church in many cultures, you just took one. So... I'd say that homosexual concubines should be default allowed (if the culture had no stigma against homosexuality historically) and then able to be overridden by religion. "Accepted" would make it allowed no matter the culture, "scorned" (or whatever the word is, I forget, shunned maybe?) would be a neutral position, leaving it up to the culture, and "Disallowed" would make it not allowed, even in a culture that previously accepted it. Simple.

 

This way, Romans would have the ability to take homosexual concubines, but not marriages - marriage was for children after all, in almost every culture. Let the few for whom marriage was not about children and tying families together through blood, have their homosexual marriages, unless the religion overrides.

 

It'd be harder to code, but not too hard, and it'd solve the whole damn problem in one swoop. Historicity preserved, but able to be changed by powerful players.

So the most important problem with your argument that you don’t seem to be getting, your premise is inherently flawed. Marriages don’t tend to be gatekept by the church. This is a Christian invention. Many religions don’t have an organized priesthood, so how the hell would they gatekeep marriage? Romans for example just needed to generally acknowledge that they were married and poof done.

 

We don’t know of the customs of many pre Christian religions because they didn’t leave written records, but those that we have show that religious gatekeeping wasn’t even the norm. It has its basis in the early Christian church, theologians started saying that people should go to the bishop to get their marriage blessed by god. The fact it wasn’t assumed is telling. Your premise is just wrong.

 

The second big problem with your argument is that concubines are inherently different than spouses. Some cultures had a formal legal distinction but generally concubines are just partners of lower social status. That is the only difference. In fact some scholars argue that Ancient Rome had same sex marriage. The debate is over whether they were “spouses” or “concubines”. But the differentiation is tautological. The records we have tended to assume a Judeo Christian marriage, therefore same sex couples were of lower status. As I said before there are many examples of recognized same sex relationships, we just don’t call them marriage, although it’s not necessarily clear why.

 

Third, and not at all important you are wrong about the game mechanics. Homosexual characters in game are simply passing. We see their orientation but it’s obvious that it’s not publicly known information in the game world. If a male character ever acts on his same sex attraction (and the religion makes sodomy shunned/criminal) that male character gets the sodomy secret. If the secret gets revealed they get a criminal trait and can be arrested, so yeah, definitely not just “doing their duty”. 
 

The notes in the code indicate that lesbians don’t get the sodomy trait because cultures didn’t care about same sex relationships between women. That’s wrong though.

Finally you mention how "difficult" it would be to implement same sex relationships. But you talk about needing to compare cultural acceptance to religious acceptance and how difficult that would be. But that's not the way the game works at all (do you even play this game?). Culture is used to determine tech levels and some cultures get an extra innovation but that's it. Don't know why they would need to add a mechanic that doesn't exist to implement this. It would be included in the religious doctrines. Add an extra two steps to the homosexuality doctine.

Criminal
Shunned
Accepted
Parital Status

Full Status

 

Coding it? Easy. Under marriage trigger.
or = {
sex_opposite_of = $CHARACTER$
trigger_If = {
limit = { has_doctrine_parameter = homosexuality_full_status }
And = {
sex_same_as = $CHARACTER$
matching_gender_and_sexuality = $CHARACTER$
}
}
}

Done, I would have already done it if not for the hard code. But I guess I'm just smarter than paradox.

[GodSmack]

Should same sex consorting be fix, would there be a way to make a certain consort do actions a married partner would do to assist the rule through decisions menu?

[Mange2020]

3 hours ago, GodSmack said:

Should same sex consorting be fix, would there be a way to make a certain consort do actions a married partner would do to assist the rule through decisions menu?

You can. But it would take a TON of work and would essentially break with any update. Honestly at that point you might as well just make same sex marriage a thing. Although marriage is hardcoded to my knowledge most what makes a spouse a spouse isn't (the most important thing would be the spouse councilor position I don't know if this is hardcoded or not). You can create a character interaction easy enough. The only issue with marriage is that to make a character interaction into a marriage you have to use the marriage "special interaction" and that restricts the matchmaker to only allowing opposite sex matches. But you can create an interaction without the special interaction that creates a custom "scripted_relation" then mod the localization and the gui to make it look like a marriage. I've kind of done this actually when I was pissed at Paradox for hard coding out concubines. But in order to make the relationship feel like a marriage you have update all the places in the code that reference spouses to include the new scripted relation. And that is a ton of places. ~200 files (and no idea how many times in those files).

[Yurrii_The_Shark]

Man, I just here looking to see if some of the same-sex stuff was able to worked around because I want to relive one of my CKII games where a Futanari Viking took over everything west of the Urals and had fathered enough children that half of them still didn't have titles.

 

Sort of sad to see it have taken a step back...

[SamIAmHam]

Ya know when a company messes up is when the PR starts trying to spin negative things positively.  PDox has hit the normal outlets to use double speak to excuse their behavior.  Rock, Paper, Shotgun's article makes it easy to spot.

 

Someone on the official forums suggested people leave reviews on Steam due to the censorship. 

[GodSmack]

19 hours ago, Mange2020 said:

You can. But it would take a TON of work and would essentially break with any update. Honestly at that point you might as well just make same sex marriage a thing. Although marriage is hardcoded to my knowledge most what makes a spouse a spouse isn't (the most important thing would be the spouse councilor position I don't know if this is hardcoded or not). You can create a character interaction easy enough. The only issue with marriage is that to make a character interaction into a marriage you have to use the marriage "special interaction" and that restricts the matchmaker to only allowing opposite sex matches. But you can create an interaction without the special interaction that creates a custom "scripted_relation" then mod the localization and the gui to make it look like a marriage. I've kind of done this actually when I was pissed at Paradox for hard coding out concubines. But in order to make the relationship feel like a marriage you have update all the places in the code that reference spouses to include the new scripted relation. And that is a ton of places. ~200 files (and no idea how many times in those files).

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2277247790
something like this is what i meant

[Mange2020]

5 hours ago, GodSmack said:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2277247790
something like this is what i meant

Yeah seems to be the same type of modifiers as the spouse council position. Wonder if they tried to mod the council position and weren't able to.

[Lux Lux]

In my game I have the option but the person never actually becomes a consort. At least now I now its the game and not the mod. 

 

Something people never touch on in todays woke world is that people in the past didnt have the luxury of being "gay". You had to have a wife and kids to help work the fields or make the meal while you were chopping wood for 12 hours a day every day so you didnt freeze in the winter. And the nobles needed a bloodline and dowries and alliances. so it would be ahistoric . If it was 1215, the thought of being gay married would likely have never occurred to you. (the barons murdered that one english kings "husband").  Even straight guys just had to hook up with one of the 5 available women in their village whether they liked them or not.  There are numerous rulers who were more of less openly homosexual but most of them were married and had off spring by some means. If you wanted to be  "gay" your best option was to join a monastery or order  and brew beer with your bro's or some military. 

 

When you move east and they arent as monogamous, they still have the same political needs and hardships and religious issues, Catamites were not uncommon though.  But we couldnt even post that mod here. I cant remember his name but there is that one Islamic king in spain who had a husband but everyone pretended that he was a woman. its a funny historical story. 

 

All that said. My real issue with the game is that there is no point to homosexuality other than RP. There really arent any events or decisions etc other than vanilla. I just fuck people and then blackmail them hooks or improve opinion. They could add something similar to some of the events I mentioned. Like let your lover burn at the stake or face a revolt and excommunication. There is also an old story about one of the crusades was really about Richard the lionheart and the french king wanting to free jersalem and chill which they couldnt do back in france. So there could even be crusade related events

[Mange2020]

1 hour ago, Lux Lux said:

In my game I have the option but the person never actually becomes a consort. At least now I now its the game and not the mod. 

 

Something people never touch on in todays woke world is that people in the past didnt have the luxury of being "gay". You had to have a wife and kids to help work the fields or make the meal while you were chopping wood for 12 hours a day every day so you didnt freeze in the winter. And the nobles needed a bloodline and dowries and alliances. so it would be ahistoric . If it was 1215, the thought of being gay married would likely have never occurred to you. (the barons murdered that one english kings "husband").  Even straight guys just had to hook up with one of the 5 available women in their village whether they liked them or not.  There are numerous rulers who were more of less openly homosexual but most of them were married and had off spring by some means. If you wanted to be  "gay" your best option was to join a monastery or order  and brew beer with your bro's or some military. 

 

When you move east and they arent as monogamous, they still have the same political needs and hardships and religious issues, Catamites were not uncommon though.  But we couldnt even post that mod here. I cant remember his name but there is that one Islamic king in spain who had a husband but everyone pretended that he was a woman. its a funny historical story. 

 

All that said. My real issue with the game is that there is no point to homosexuality other than RP. There really arent any events or decisions etc other than vanilla. I just fuck people and then blackmail them hooks or improve opinion. They could add something similar to some of the events I mentioned. Like let your lover burn at the stake or face a revolt and excommunication. There is also an old story about one of the crusades was really about Richard the lionheart and the french king wanting to free jersalem and chill which they couldnt do back in france. So there could even be crusade related events

I would say that's the conventional view, but there's a growing realization in academic scholarship that we shouldn't just take sources at face value. There is a lot of evidence for gay concubinage in Rome and gay marriage is mentioned, although the historians that do mention it negatively. The academic debate is whether these mentions are basically slanderous or descriptive. Certainly pre christian Rome didn't actively persecute it, although there were all sorts of class restrictions. Nero specifically is interesting because he gets mentioned a popular  hero hundreds of years later. But the only remaining sources are virulently anti-Nero, hence the negative modern perception. He is also mentioned to have married men, and although the historians regard it negatively, it is not considered as bad as him acting.

Christianity idealizes chastity in a way other religions don't. So it naturally evolved to the point where all non-procreative sex was bad, hence why homosexuality was wrong. This is important because it means the Christian conception of marriage only included couples who could procreate, everything else was illegal. Our history was largely written by Christians Therefore any male relationships were not legal and thus were called "concubines." Of course this definition doesn't match our modern perception.

Islam and Judaism both had taboos against homosexuality too (they both had leviticus too) but not as much active persecution. So the religions that would become dominant were anti homosexual, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that taboo would inherently extend to non-christians or even that it would be unthinkable at that time.

TBH, I think this is just a really interesting topic because its a way to show how much less we know about history than we think. Like we think* that vikings had a taboo against a man being a bottom. But our evidence for this? Literally just guesses based on their language. There is no extant primary source text on Viking culture. Roman historians claim homosexuality was common in celtic culture, but it doesn't exist in their myths and legends. The prevailing theory is that it was scrubbed during the Christian era.

But in terms of homosexuality having no point. Well I think the key to doing that would be to make your character have sexual needs, which they currently don't. Carnalitas and the Arousal Framework do that for your character. And I'm working to set up a system so that something similar applies to everyone. I'd say the same thing applies to women too. The game gives little incentive for relationships at all. It honestly is the reason I started modding. I wouldn't mind if it wasn't present at all, but to me it feels like there's just enough that it's missing.

[Lux Lux]

26 minutes ago, Mange2020 said:

I would say that's the conventional view, but there's a growing realization in academic scholarship that we shouldn't just take sources at face value. There is a lot of evidence for gay concubinage in Rome and gay marriage is mentioned, although the historians that do mention it negatively. The academic debate is whether these mentions are basically slanderous or descriptive. Certainly pre christian Rome didn't actively persecute it, although there were all sorts of class restrictions. Nero specifically is interesting because he gets mentioned a popular  hero hundreds of years later. But the only remaining sources are virulently anti-Nero, hence the negative modern perception. He is also mentioned to have married men, and although the historians regard it negatively, it is not considered as bad as him acting.

Christianity idealizes chastity in a way other religions don't. So it naturally evolved to the point where all non-procreative sex was bad, hence why homosexuality was wrong. This is important because it means the Christian conception of marriage only included couples who could procreate, everything else was illegal. Our history was largely written by Christians Therefore any male relationships were not legal and thus were called "concubines." Of course this definition doesn't match our modern perception.

Islam and Judaism both had taboos against homosexuality too (they both had leviticus too) but not as much active persecution. So the religions that would become dominant were anti homosexual, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that taboo would inherently extend to non-christians or even that it would be unthinkable at that time.

TBH, I think this is just a really interesting topic because its a way to show how much less we know about history than we think. Like we think* that vikings had a taboo against a man being a bottom. But our evidence for this? Literally just guesses based on their language. There is no extant primary source text on Viking culture. Roman historians claim homosexuality was common in celtic culture, but it doesn't exist in their myths and legends. The prevailing theory is that it was scrubbed during the Christian era.

But in terms of homosexuality having no point. Well I think the key to doing that would be to make your character have sexual needs, which they currently don't. Carnalitas and the Arousal Framework do that for your character. And I'm working to set up a system so that something similar applies to everyone. I'd say the same thing applies to women too. The game gives little incentive for relationships at all. It honestly is the reason I started modding. I wouldn't mind if it wasn't present at all, but to me it feels like there's just enough that it's missing.

 

 Yes a lot of older and victorian academics (who wrote most of history)  have tried to downplay the gay even when its plainly obvious. Yes it was more accepted than we are led to believe. But most of our culture and morals and what not are actually all victorian. What we think of as "gay" is really post industrial revolution.  Like childhood as we know it didnt really exist before that either. The protestant religions that popped up in the 15/1600s probably also contributed to a change in attitudes as well. they didnt even want you celebrating christmas.  my point was really that a wife and family was more of a necessity than a lifestyle choice for the common person regardless of attitudes.  

 

The top/bottom thing is also why catamites were poplar. Its still going on today in Afghanistan.  I think Dracula 's brother and possibly he  himself were forced to be catamites to the Ottomans. So one would assume its would be a common practice in the Ck3 era. You could age it up and allow for eastern rulers or even vikings to keep catamites. The "man" wouldnt get the sodomy trait but the consort would get a catamite trait that would give them negatives. Prestige hit etc. Would also be useful in humiliating prisoners since they would get the negative and not you. 

 

Just as a tangent, there was one tribe in africa that had so many hetro sex taboos that they had ritualized homosexuality.  A man would take a boy at like 13 or 15 and train in warfare and hunting and what not while  the boy was expected to satisfy he needs. Once he reached manhood he would get a wife and boy of his own. 

 

[Mange2020]

3 hours ago, Lux Lux said:

 

 Yes a lot of older and victorian academics (who wrote most of history)  have tried to downplay the gay even when its plainly obvious. Yes it was more accepted than we are led to believe. But most of our culture and morals and what not are actually all victorian. What we think of as "gay" is really post industrial revolution.  Like childhood as we know it didnt really exist before that either. The protestant religions that popped up in the 15/1600s probably also contributed to a change in attitudes as well. they didnt even want you celebrating christmas.  my point was really that a wife and family was more of a necessity than a lifestyle choice for the common person regardless of attitudes.  

 

The top/bottom thing is also why catamites were poplar. Its still going on today in Afghanistan.  I think Dracula 's brother and possibly he  himself were forced to be catamites to the Ottomans. So one would assume its would be a common practice in the Ck3 era. You could age it up and allow for eastern rulers or even vikings to keep catamites. The "man" wouldnt get the sodomy trait but the consort would get a catamite trait that would give them negatives. Prestige hit etc. Would also be useful in humiliating prisoners since they would get the negative and not you. 

 

Just as a tangent, there was one tribe in africa that had so many hetro sex taboos that they had ritualized homosexuality.  A man would take a boy at like 13 or 15 and train in warfare and hunting and what not while  the boy was expected to satisfy he needs. Once he reached manhood he would get a wife and boy of his own. 

 

So I'm not referring to how the perceptions of older modern or Victorian historians comes into play. I'm referring to the perceptions of the people who wrote, and monks who copied primary source documents. We have so few that they massively influence what we think things were like. This was driven home for me when reading a book on the Norman conquest. One of the most major developments in history of Britain, and we have a handful of sources? All are flawed or biased. Why can't we trust what we know about Vikings? Well the sagas were written by 13th century Icelandic Christians, they had their own reason for writing things down (generally trying to validate Iceland's independence from Norway and demonize the influence of pre-Christian religions). History speaks through words, and for the time period of this game that means Christian monks.

[hallo1126]

Can someone just finally lock the thread? It's just a bunch of arguing on a non-paradox forum without any benefit to anyone apart from sewing hostility.