What if, every time you cast lay on hands or a healing spell, it became weaker? In other words, you are not respecting your (bloody pagan) god's gift and wasting it on those who would see themselves come to harm.
The most powerful healing miracles would therefore take place out of sight, when no one was around, reserved for the particularly pious yet foolhearty.
I prefer the Dark Souls lore for Miracles, that the Power isn't gifted from a higher being, but that the power comes from the story of the miracle itself, from a song, epic, poem, etc - The recitation of when the impossible became possible inspires, and from that inspiration, power derives.
And as such, you can have Clerics and Paladins who use divine miracles for whatever reason suits them, whether they genuinely are trying to be heroic, or they seem heroic in order to gull and deceive.
But then again, I tend to prefer it when people get their own shit done without having to rely on higher powers deciding to dole out iotas of power for contrived reasons or rules.
Man, that is a lousy image.
Is it trying to refer to the Saracens in Italy, or the Turks who were giving Constantinople a tough time in Anatolia?
Neither of which I'd really call "invasions."
But what do I know? Dex Aie!
>I disagree with a historical fact
>so the fact is lousy
wow so THIS is the power of marxist programming
The fact isn't lousy. The image is.
Are we talking about the later Crusades, when the Saracen invaded the Crusader Kingdoms? Or are we talking about the First Crusade, which was ostensibly to help the Eastern Roman Empire reclaim lost territory but became a crazy party?
Marx and marxism can go smoke a dick for all I care.
I was under the impression the Crusades was part "oh shit, islam is a threat to christianity" and "oh shit, how do we stop knights from raping and pillaging and being dickbags, because chivalry isn't working"
Solution: Promise Knights a free ticket to Heaven if they bathe in the blood of muslims
>oh shit savages who take children as wives have invaded 50 of our countries
>but somehow it was actually to suicide a ton of knights
There was a little of that, but not a whole lot.
The Normans were fucking things up, but were generally doing the fucking outside of the Church's range.
Part of it was Pope Urban II trying to consolidate power, part of it was him trying to heal the break between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, and a lot of it was to try to help reclaim lost ground in Anatolia.
The "Free Ticket to Heaven" was taken out of context and wholly overblown by weirdos like Peter the Hermit.
The Crusades did combine holy penance and pilgrimage though, which is part of why it took off so well.
Look, no one is saying the Saracens were in the right.
I mean, no one, not even the Caliphates liked the Seljuk Turks and the Danishmandid Turks.
...
Dude, go back to /pol/. I think the Crusades are great, but they're not a response to invasion.
Pretty much. My family history is filled with crusaders, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them died fighting their fellow Europeans. Either fighting them back home after a crusade, or more commonly, fighting them WHILE ON CRUSADE.
Hell, one ancestor in particular got murdered while taking a crap. Some other knight walked underneath the garderobe (the overhanging toilet just above the moat) and shoved a sword right up the shitter.
Also, you should read up on the French during the Crusades. If you thought the Vikings were bloodthirsty raiders in it for glory and gold, you haven't heard of French crusaders.
>hey this is a bad time to charge frenchman, we have really low chances of victory - i think i'll retreat
>okay, fuck off then you english faggot. more loot and glory for me then!
Ill do it for you. Muslims are evil.
Christianity was too in its own way, but it went through reform so it can exist in a modern enlightened society, instead of burning people at the stake for proposing that maybe the earth isn't flat.
Thats what Islam needs. Reform. So it can exist in a modern enlightened society. Until then, its useless and backward and complete bullshit.
>I spent a whole lotta time lying and doing damage control just because I don't want to admit a historical fact happened
Why is it that "socialists" always immediately got for historical revisionism?
Stop fuckin' lying scumbag
so you're saying that every islam has every single problem that christianty used to have and they also think it's okay to blow shit up and rape kids?
I agree.
>okay, fuck off then you english faggot. more loot and glory for me then!
Your whole post made me giggle
>Reform
But that already happened in the '60s and '70s.
Then the Cold War intensified and the Middle East got double teamed by American capitalists and Russian communists.
Response? Religious fundamentalism.
Yeah. People tend to go towards extremes in times of stress and severe trouble as it's comforting and gives a sense of control and structure to your life.
The most hilarious thing is, given how (to our prudish Victorian-influenced modern standards) crude and vulgar medieval people talked, that might just be what the French knights said to the other crusaders.
Willing to bet that 50% of the "medieval people were dumb" meme that the Victorians created came from the Victorians being completely shocked from how commonly medieval people made vulgar comments in texts - regardless of stance in society.
>But that already happened in the '60s and '70s.
It literally did not. The middle east was enjoying western society because of western style govts, usually put in place because of western foreign policy. Iran is a good example of how the baseline people wanted islamic theocracy more then malls and universities.
In Islam, the baseline idiot will literally do whatever his imam tells him to do, because middle eastern societies praise obedience to law. And as such, Islam riled up the people to revolt against govts that didn't have their spiritual interest at heart.
Fast forward to now - a fundamental principle for ISIS is the whole aspect of sharia that says that trying to reform Islam is heresy and apostasy. As such, govts, even islamic govts, that aren't pure sharia are guilty of heresy and apostasy, and as such, are in the crosshairs.
Islam refuses to conform. But thats largely the result of Sykes–Picot
>how commonly medieval people made vulgar comments in texts
Cunt is a word that goes back a long ways in English
>ITS NOT THEIR FAULT THEY ARE BROWN AND THEY MAKE BAD DECISIONS I CAN TELL BECAUSE I'M WHITE!!!!!
When the FUCK are you idiots going to realize that you are the racists and that people should be judged on their actions not on how bad you think you should feel for them
Radicalism is also part of the growing pains from a religious to a secular society. Religious movements have to either adapt to the secularisation, or they must oppose it. By opposing it, there is no other path than radicalism. Either social radicalism (like say Jehovah Witnesses or Amish that completely cut off all social contact that's not with fellow believers) or violent radicalism.
This violent radicalism is kept in check by a strong police force (just look what happened to the Davidians in that Waco siege). Of course, when there's no strong police force, this kind of radicalism can spread unchecked (just look at ISIS).
There's a reason why ISIS is in Syria, but not in Saudi Arabia.
There's a reason why The Lords Army (a Christian rebel army) is in Africa, but not in the USA.
That reason is a (lack of) strong police force.
Yep, it's the reason that the Normans didn't keep the title of "count" in William's conquest of England.
Isn't cunt occasionally used in English street names? IIRC it has to do with streets where prostitutes worked in medieval times.
I don't think you've read his post.
His comment is clearly a general comment on human behavior that transcends time, space and ethnic group.
I was explaining the situation about WHY people would make such a decision. No situation is without factors that lead to it. ISIS are most certainly bad and should be stopped but they didn't appear from nowhere/without a cause.
>numale damage control
Keep on thinking what saudi arabia pays socialists to tell you to think
>That reason is a (lack of) strong police force.
Say what you want about Saddam, he was able to keep his country, filled with shia and suni, together, and kept those two groups from killing each other.
Eliminating Saddam single-handedly destabilized that whole region
>His comment is clearly a general comment on human behavior that transcends time, space and ethnic group.
Pretty much, yeah. It's why you see religious attendance rise in the aftermath of a tragedy (Such as 9/11 or a Hurricane). It's something that gives structure and a feeling of purpose when people are feeling like they have little control of their own life.
It's not remotely confined to the middle east.
You've only got Ad Hominems? Look, just point me to some scholarship on your 50 countries invasion theory.
I'd be more than willing to take a look at it and discuss with you the religion of peace and its trucks of peace.
...
You do realise that Saddam only made problems worse?
A strong police force only works when everyone is happy with it. A strong occupying force will only keep generating resentment, anger and revenge which will boil over as soon as the occupying force loses power.
As happened in Iraq.
The best solution is to just destabilize shit so the people in Iraq can figure it out for themselves. ISIS is actually a perfect oppertunity, because it's a group that's hated by shia and sunni.
A common enemy is always the best way to get a country together.
...
>everyone who's correct and I can't refute is a nazi and BY THE WAY the nazis aren't real socialism
...
Or you know the Moor invasion in the Iberian Peninsula
...
I like how /pol/tards are desperately trying to bait the thread into shit, but Veeky Forums just casually goes through historical discussion, while both completely ignore the OP.
Which I'm sure is exactly what Israel and Saudi Arabia want.
Which was totally unrelated to Pope Urban II's call to Crusade.
man, this happened like 300 years before the first crusade, what are you even talking about
>wasting it on those who would see themselves come to harm
So healing's only meant to be used on people who aren't hurt to begin with? A compelling argument, OP.
Oh, you're just retarded.
>what your dad spawned
>a noble son, raised to be a knight
>what the bishop taught you
>be kind be strong be good
>how you lived your life
>COME ON YOU EFFEMINATE ENGLISH FAGGOTS! WINE, LOOT AND WHORES FOR THE FIRST WHO SLAYS 10 MOORS!
...
>Moors invade Christian countries
>Moors invade again Christian countries
>Rinse and repeat for 300 years
>"Guys, how about we like kick their asses back?"
>"Sure, but remember everything that set this situation into motion has nothing to do with this situation ok?"
I'm talking about "talk shit, get hit".
Still retarded.
Man, there's stupid and then there's this guy.
I think he was making a case on "don't fix stupid"
This is a founding principle of two veteran D&D players in my group - when they play support\healers, they wont heal you if you did something dumb - you get what you deserve.
For example...
>antagonizing an enemy that could have been dealt with socially by the party face
>willingly triggering a trap instead of letting the rogue handle it, or refusing to let the rogue check for traps anyway
>taking a course of action that results in wounds without consulting the rest of the party
>putting anyone in the party in harms way through reckless action
>touching something you shouldnt instead of letting a more knowledgeable PC check it first
...
Sure, the Moorish invasion of Iberia is why the Council of Clermont called for action to help their Eastern brethren reclaim territory.
Just an FYI, the Moors were not a part of the same Islamic group as the Turks or the Egyptians. Not that it matters to you.
honestly looking back on it beavers stuff can contribute alot to good setting building so imma drop a few.
...
...
>babbies first "lemme smoke some weed and write five pages on society" post
Fuck off.
Last one, others may be too /pol/ for tg,
No, he Moorish invasion in the peninsula was one of the many reasons people went into action, is wasn't the last straw, but ones among the first ones.
>Not the same Islam as these, these and those
And? was still an invasion by the Islam, was still a reason why Crusades become to happen, Crusades weren't this spur of the moment action where evil Christians attacked peaceful Muslims, it was a response over a series of centuries of invasions
Christ this image is full of bullshit. Here's a good example - read Leviticus 25-35:37 rather than taking a single verse out of context:
>If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.
So no, it's no saying "smash the institution of banking." It's saying "if someone needs help, don't make money off of their plight." It says jack shit about most forms of lending, which are for people who can support themselves but need to draw on their future income in the present.
>This faction of Islam attacked some Christians
>This other faction of Islam attacked different Christians
>This thir faction of Islam attacked another Christians
>The last two are joing forces and still attacking a mix of Christians
>Buy hey, we shouldn't cram all together into the same sack but at the same time we should treat all Christians as the same faction. Also Islam is a religion of peace as proven by the evil Crusades
No one has called the Crusaders evil, nor the saracens good.
Then explain the relationship between Cairo and Constantinople.
...
Where does "getting stabbed by a monster because you didn't heal the fighter, and he was too wounded to successfully defend you" fall in this metric?
If its a legit fight, and not random stupidity, then everyone does their job. For the Healer, his job is the keep the front line healthy. Otherwise, the front line breaks, the rear line gets fucked (including the Healer)
>European Christians weren't a unified faction, they were a bunch of individual nations and subnations who fought each other constantly.
>Middle Eastern Muslims were a grand unified axis of evil
Man what.
Don't forget, they even fought each other on crusade.
>I can't read
You should have started with that before replying
Christians werent a united faction, neither were Islam, still Christians united due the multiple Islamic invasions doesn't matter it weren't done by the same Islamic faction, just becuase the Peninsula Invasion wasn't done by THIS faction doesn't mean it wasn't a Islamic invasion that set Crusades into motion
This sounds like some of most passive aggressive pettyness i can imagine play out on a tabletop.
It just has an air of
> How dare you take an action *I* the party healer, disagree with, i shall be no part of it.
For no actual roleplay reason either, just, "The X should do Z, and if you think Y should do Z then i'm taking my toys and going home."
/pol/, get out of Veeky Forums please.
Yeah, but that's like saying if Spain invades you then you're justified in going and declaring war on Britain.
Thats one way to look at it. Its definately one of those things that becomes common when your in a D&D group of people who play with shit in their brain.
>be party face
>haggling for magic items
>getting ready to roll my persuade
>party barb says "nah, fuck that, I intimidate him"
>dude, no, just let me roll my persuade man
>barb: i roll
>GM: you fail. shop owner calls for his guards
>barb fights the guards, gets fucked up
>party run out of town for attacking a shop keepers security
>barb expects to get healed
>healer tells him to fuck off
That kinda stuff
I guess i take for granted the fact my players usually roleplay and aren't complete morons.
>still Christians united
>barbarian trying to intimidate someone is not roleplaying and being a moron ooc
Wow, you must run really really good games
If Spain invades you, if Britain invades you, if France invades you, if Germany invades you, yeah, you should declare war to Europe
And again, for the 1001th time, I didn't say the Moor invasion on the peninsula was the only reason for the crusades, I said it was one of the many reasons
For the single goal of beat the Islam, yes, they did
Srly, reading comprension here is off the charts
A rightful Barbarian wouldn't be haggling for magical items in the first place. If they're going to intimidate, they might as well steal.
They didn't, they were different christian factions with no lead going to holy land and cleaving their way through no matter was christian, muslim, or whatever.
Congratulations, you're as shit deep in your narrative as feminists are in theirs.
>Everything bad is Marxism!
>Everything about Marx is inherently bad!
>A Marxist approach to history is bad!
Christ alive I hate the fucking child like approach to politics on this website.
Marxist history is incredibly important because it was Marxist historians such as E.P. Thompson who first properly started specifically studying the day to day lives of the normal common everyday people as opposed to mostly focusing on the ruling classes.
Marxist history, whether you agree with the bloke and his economic ideas, is incredibly important and influential with regards to historiography.
But Hurr leftism is a cancer! am I right my fellow /pol/ack?
I'm not even left wing and you've got me defending Marx. Christ.
>For the single goal of beat the Islam, yes, they did
>Srly, reading comprension here is off the charts
My own family history literally disagrees. One of my ancestors got fucking murdered by another crusader while being a guest to a knightly order in the Holy Land.
>Iran is a good example of how the baseline people wanted islamic theocracy more then malls and universities.
Didn't America put the religious fanatics in power because the Iranian people elected a communist president? Because I'm pretty sure what you said is the opposite of what happened.
Nah, it was more that Iran had the Shah, who let the Brits and the Yanks at the oil. Then at the start of the 20th century, Iran started becoming more of a constitutional monarchy, with an elected prime minister.
In 1953 the Brits(or was it the Yanks? Or both?) staged a coup against the prime minister, who had nationalised the oil production and was vaguely/very socialist (delete as appropriate).
They restored the Shah as absolute monarch, and he did the usual reign of terror for the best part of 30 years, then the Iranians got sick of his shit and had a revolution in 1979.
While the revolution was comprised of different groups, including liberals and marxists, the Islamist crazies ended up using it to take over.
This is mostly based on reading pic-related a long time ago, so make sure to take it with a salt mine.
Expanding upon this, the Shah had his political influence sharply impeded by highly influential imams and other Islamic religious leaders, many of them seeking to collate power in the region for themselves. Khomeini found his initial footing in his mad pursuit of total control here. Most of the extreme religious fundamentalism in the region today is a direct product of this, with imams holding almost all of the power in smaller communities and more advanced nations being stuck dealing with minor political parties composed of these extremists.
I think this is the first time ive seen fascism openly glorified on Veeky Forums.
Also, why is it that most of these anti communist memes completely ignore that a great deal of communism is also anti authoritarian?
I'm reminded of a map someone posted one day over on /k/, showing 'all' the muslim and christian religious wars, with the intention of the picture to persuade people that muslims did way more.
Of course that fell on its face and died pretty quickly when I pointed out that the Ottomon Empire was just doing what Empires do, meaning those weren't religious wars, and that they'd left out the crusades against the Cathars and the Baltic pagans.
>I think this is the first time ive seen fascism openly glorified on Veeky Forums.
Nah it's just /pol/. They have been doing this shit for a while, they think they're gradually going to redpill the rest of Veeky Forums by being 'subtle'.
>people should be judged on their actions
And when the extreme right wants to start doing that, let us know.
The Crusades were a response to multiple things - however the notion they were of 'good intent' is utterly falicious
Marxist history would tell you the Crusades were the result of economics and material conditions, you /pol/ cuck.
Daily reminder: the Crusaders were bandits whom allied multiple times with the Muslims you all claim to hate after they all settled down in embittered rump states.