Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Brun

3 (4.7%)

Bubbles

41 (64.1%)

Claire

2 (3.1%)

Clinton

2 (3.1%)

Dora

0 (0%)

Emily

0 (0%)

Faye

3 (4.7%)

Hannelore

9 (14.1%)

May

3 (4.7%)

Momo

0 (0%)

Marten

0 (0%)

Other

1 (1.6%)

Total Members Voted: 61

[Eternal_Newbie]

So that's the real reason conservative Catholics have such a hate for Vatican II. Understandable, in this case.

[Cornelius]

You know, crossbows , when they first came to Europe, were banned for use against fellow christians.

[WoaLG]

Specifically on the subject of the comic: I consider it the worst and most unforgivable discrimination that nuns are allowed to run around in skin-tight armoured robes and cutting the heads off of various fell monsters whilst priests are relegated to sitting in wooden boxes whilst listening to parishioners' problems and solving the occasional genteel murder mystery in the English countryside or suburban Chicago.

Um, unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing preventing the priests from running around in skin-tight armoured robes and bashing in the skulls of various monsters. They just can't use an edged weapon. Clerics I play in DnD tend to be partial to maces anyway. Less blood, so that's disappointing. But there's more bone crunching noises, so it all evens out.

[Bollthorn]

You know, crossbows , when they first came to Europe, were banned for use against fellow christians.

This is very true, but every weapon that was banned in Europe ended up in service anyway because they realized how fecking awesome it was. Like the German "Gute Nacht" variation of the morning star, which had two spiked balls on chains. One was slightly longer than the other, so the shorter one hooked the shield while the other whipped around the side and shattered the elbow. It was banned in 11 countries, and within two years 9 of the same countries were using them xD

Um, unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing preventing the priests from running around in skin-tight armoured robes and bashing in the skulls of various monsters. They just can't use an edged weapon. Clerics I play in DnD tend to be partial to maces anyway. Less blood, so that's disappointing. But there's more bone crunching noises, so it all evens out.

That actually became a thing because in the 12th century the Pope decreed that priests weren't allowed to hack bits off in battle, because the idea was that when you're resurrected on the day of judgement, you're raised whole in your body, but if you have bits missing, this couldn't happen and you were automatically damned (which is why traitors were always beheaded), so it was decided that by hacking bits off people, the priesthood were pre-determining god's will, which was a big no-no. That's why priests started using maces instead, because you can smash someone's head into their chest no problem, but it doesn't hack bits off, so its okay But also, if you look at the bottom end of priest's staves, they still have a flanged mace head at the opposite end.

Sorry, used to do medieval re-enactment, so my history nerd is coming out ^_^

[Bollthorn]

Another big beef people had with crossbows is that peasants now had weapons that were perfectly capable of killing a knight or lord, which went against the code of chivalry.

In fact, you know how Richard the Lionheart died? He was scouting a castle at dawn that his army were going to attack that day, and the castle cook saw a silhouette of one of the enemy force riding outside, so he just picked up his crossbow and stapled him to his saddle.

That's right, Richard the Lionheart didn't die in glorious combat or of ripe old age, he was shot by a cook with a crossbow.

And then, the cherry on the cake was that the cook was hanged, because he'd broken the code of chivalry! xD

[WoaLG]

You're such a nerd and it's wonderful! I didn't know any of those things and now I can share them with my history nerd coworker.

[Killspree]

I do like me some Adepta Sororitas, the Sisters of Battle.

[oddtail]

I love the priest's dialogue. That is all from me.

[Is it cold in here?]

This could be a fun spinoff topic.

Jeph said "free will" applies to synthetics so they are not to be thought of as we usually think of machines.

They are created in a human-designed process. Even if you make the step from that to posit that they are created by humans, there are religious ideas that humans are one of God's tools for creating in which case Momo is a divine creation.

[WoaLG]

This could be a fun spinoff topic.

Jeph said "free will" applies to synthetics so they are not to be thought of as we usually think of machines.

They are created in a human-designed process. Even if you make the step from that to posit that they are created by humans, there are religious ideas that humans are one of God's tools for creating in which case Momo is a divine creation.

If it's true that we have free will, then we cannot be God's tool for creation, as that would mean we were acting under God's will, and not our own.

[Zebediah]

Speaking as a former Catholic, I have heard this kind of theological debate before. Based on the priest’s equivocating, I would guess that Rome has not yet issued a definitive ruling on this and that it is a topic of much argument among the Vatican’s army of theologians, but that this priest himself leans towards the “Yes they have souls” camp.

[Neko_Ali]

I do like me some Adepta Sororitas, the Sisters of Battle.

Praise the Emperor and pass the promethium.

[LilShortstuf]

This last comic makes me want an arc covering the Nun Wars that were mentioned long ago by Marten.

[TheEvilDog]

Little known fact, the reason why nuns and priests carry rosaries around with them is to get past the Papal Laws forbidden the clergy from carrying weapons. They make for decent knuckle dusters and improvised whips/flails. Trust me, I'm a lapsed Catholic.

[OldGoat]

I prefer "recovering Catholic."  You're never quite rid of all of it.

[TheEvilDog]

Its like the song Hotel California, you can check out any time you like, but you never leave.

[brasca]

It’s been nice taking a break from controversy which may be why these bonus strips were chosen.

[Pilchard123]

That's right, Richard the Lionheart didn't die in glorious combat or of ripe old age, he was shot by a cook with a crossbow.

Other sources apparently say that he was shot by a young boy in revenge for killing his father and brothers, while laughing at the cook, and died of the injuries caused by his surgeon. He forgave and pardoned the boy, and ordered that he be given 100 shillings.

After Richard died, the boy was flayed and hanged anyway.

[JimC]

I had no idea the connection between priests and maces (in D&D and things inspired by D&D) was based on actual history, thanks for this!

Trouble is there's history and history, especially in these days of click bait history pages and Wikipedia, although there is nothing new about 'historians' presenting us with the stories that most appeal to them, or think will most appeal to their audience, even 'interpreting' them a little.  Herodotus, Titus Livius, they were all at it...

[Cornelius]

The more colourful story has it that the Lionheart saw a boy with a crossbow, using a pan to shield himself from arrows, and was consequently shot by the boy, while he was laughing at so daft a sight.

Actually, at the time he was besieging the castle of Chalus-Chabrol, where his entrails are buried in what still remains of the castle's chapel. Nobody really can explain why he was walking the perimeter that morning, without his mail -  a mistake, some claim, a seasoned warrior like himself should not have made. The motives of the bowman, likewise, remain obscure - though as a defender of the castle, I don't think we need look much further. As he was not a knight, the code of chivalry does not apply to him. However, as the bowman who killed the king, who was repressing a revolt, at the time, I think they simply decided he could not live. Treason, or some such. They didn't look very kindly on that.

I do doubt the connection between priests and maces, as expressed. The crozier has always been the shepherd's staff, quite distinct from the formal maces some dignitaries carry in processions. In fact, priests were decidedly non-combatants, and were only allowed non lethal weapons for self defence, when present as chaplain or confessor on the battlefield. Shedding blood disqualified one for priesthood, much like how a church where blood has been shed must be reconsecrated.

Edited for clarification. And I just thought of the parallel with churches.

[TheEvilDog]

The real reason why crossbows were banned was because they were superior to the bows and longbows at the time, in England in particular.

Under English law, levies and retainers were required to spend several hours on a Sunday practising the use of the longbow, with many already serving as hunters for their lords or themselves. In fact, it was this reliance on the longbow that let the English win the Battle of Agincourt (what historians consider to be the peak of the longbow) and suffer a rout at the Battle of Patay. Every longbowman in English armies relied on their bows to provide for their families, thus necessitating a level of skill. Bows and longbows, while having a simple design, required a specialised method in their construction, so a well crafted bow might pass down from father to son. Not to mention the fact that a longbow took a great deal of strength to draw the string (current estimates put the draw of modern bows at about a third of the potential of English longbows), to the point where archaeologists can tell if someone used a bow by looking at the skeleton.

Conversely, the crossbow was a simple enough design to be mass produced; didn't require any great deal of training in their use, to the point where a crossbowman could be quite proficient within a week, compared to years with the bow. For a small outlay, you could quickly arm a large force of people with a weapon to could penetrate the armour of knights. Which the Vatican didn't like and declared them un-Christian and works of the devil. Which didn't stop most of Europe arming themselves with them very quickly.

[Cornelius]

There are some advantages to the longbow, though, such as speed of firing, and the fact that it is easily r setting. Some sure that that is the major point that won Agincourt, as the rain had made the French crossbows useless, while the longbowmen had kept their bowstrings dry.

It seems that even then, there was no authority that could keep the evolution of arms at bay.

[TheEvilDog]

The speed advantage came from being able to draw the bowstring, which if you wanted it to be effective required a good deal of upper body strength. To the point where the skeleton deformed slightly, particularly in the arms and shoulders. To be really effective with a longbow, you needed to be in (for the period) peak health.

Volume wasn't the best advantage, especially as armour evolved through the medieval period to the early Renaissance.

Meanwhile:
- Crossbows were easy to use, anyone could use them with only a little training.
- The quarrel fired along a flatter arc rather the arrow, allowing a lighter quarrel to travel faster.
- Easier to supply. Quarrels require less materials to make than an arrow, in less time too. Meaning you could make more for the same amount. And arrows need a spine that was flexible enough to allow it to move when it was released from the bowstring.
- Crossbows made siege warfare more dangerous. Where a bowman had to remain in the open to draw their shot and release, leaving them open to be fired upon, crossbowmen could remain behind a shield or pavise or battlement, reload, aim and fire. And in a siege, accuracy was valued over speed.
- Obviously, the crossbow's main advantage was the penetrative power. When an arrow was released, the potential energy stored was partially dissipated through the wave movement of its arc. A quarrel was less flexible but able to withstand far more force than the arrow, and was less likely to lose potential energy through its arc.

Bear in mind that the Battle of Agincourt was fought during the Hundred Years War, which the English eventually lost, the Battle of Patay being one the final nails in the coffin, due to the knights charging the English Longbowmen before they had even gotten into place.

I'm sorry if I seem to be harping on about this, its just that I'm from a historic town that has a strong connection to the longbow (we supplied most of the yew wood for their creation for several hundred years) and I'm something of a history buff.

[Bollthorn]

I do doubt the connection between priests and maces, as expressed. The crozier has always been the shepherd's staff, quite distinct from the formal maces some dignitaries carry in processions. In fact, priests were decidedly non-combatants, and were only allowed non lethal weapons for self defence, when present as chaplain or confessor on the battlefield. Shedding blood disqualified one for priesthood, much like how a church where blood has been shed must be reconsecrated.

Well before the 12th century law was passed, priests were just as capable at fighting as any soldier of the time. When they excavated Lindisfarne, they found two sets of graves from the 793 AD Viking raid, one inside the priory for the monks who fell, and one outside the priory for the Vikings who were killed. And all the skeletons they dug up all had similar gashes, breaks and holes from swords, axes and spears.

[Morituri]

I just wanted to say I think it's interesting that Melon seems to live in her own peculiar version of the universe.

And, looking at the weapons they had in the 12th century, and what kind of range they fired to and what kind of damage they did, if I'd been looking for a combat edge by developing a version that separated the powering-up from the aiming/launching procedure, I'd have been looking at the sling.

That rock-flinging device with the long flexy handles, which apparently took freakin' FOREVER to learn properly to aim and use, had a range very similar to the shortbow and landed these massive bonebreaking blows that crushed most kinds of protective gear and took people straight out of the fight.  If somebody had done for that what the crossbow did for archery, we'd - oh, wait. 

Guns. 

Never mind.

[Perfectly Reasonable]

Souls? Dunno.
But robots definitely have buddha nature.

[Gyrre]

I was approaching it from the same angle I took for the question of whether animals had souls or not.
I ultimately settled for the conclusion that they had the capacity to earn a soul. Which is very likely the notion behind the expression "all dogs go to heaven". Granted that saying isn't true as I'm certain I've met soulless dogs (which is a super weird vibe since my family has always had a dog or 2).

Being that the A.I. in QC are much more intelligent than most animals, they have a much greater capacity to earn a soul.


EDIT: fixing typos

[hedgie]

I prefer "recovering Catholic."  You're never quite rid of all of it.

One mass is one too many.

[Morituri]

I think my first rumination on the topic, when I was 15 or so, resulted in the conclusion that no matter how smart a soulless creature was, it would not care whether or not it had a soul.  (This conclusion rests on some assumptions about what a soul is and the idea that it makes spiritual issues *relevant* to a being).   

And that the correct answer to "Do I have a soul", whether it comes from a robot or a biologically engineered animal or whatever else is, "The fact that it matters to you, means that you do."

I don't think I'd be quite so quick to simply assert those assumptions about a soul and its making spiritual issues relevant now as I was at age 15, but I still think it's a fairly reasonable approach to the issue. 

[sitnspin]

My answer, of course, would be "No, but neither do humans, so I wouldn't worry about it too much." 😁

[Gyrre]

I prefer "recovering Catholic."  You're never quite rid of all of it.

One mass is one too many.

I've been to Eastern Orthodox, Episcapalian services, is it really that different than those?

(BTW, I was raised Nazarene, so I can see why Protestantism really took off.)

[Gyrre]

My answer, of course, would be "No, but neither do humans, so I wouldn't worry about it too much." 😁

Pretty sure that's a mixed bag answer. *side-eyes Congress*

[OldGoat]

I've been to Eastern Orthodox, Episcapalian services, is it really that different than those?

(BTW, I was raised Nazarene, so I can see why Protestantism really took off.)

Anglican Communion (including Episcopalian) services are liturgically very familiar to Roman Catholics, and vice versa.  Henry VIII considered himself a devout Catholic to his death - he just ditched the Roman part for English.

[Cornelius]

Henry VIII just wanted to be pope in stead of the pope.

Eastern orthodox services do drag on. In some places, 5 hours is not an exception.

[hedgie]

I've been to Eastern Orthodox, Episcapalian services, is it really that different than those?

(BTW, I was raised Nazarene, so I can see why Protestantism really took off.)

It's more like the motto for some people who have quit drinking that "one drink is one too many".

[traroth]

There are some advantages to the longbow, though, such as speed of firing, and the fact that it is easily r setting. Some sure that that is the major point that won Agincourt, as the rain had made the French crossbows useless, while the longbowmen had kept their bowstrings dry.

It seems that even then, there was no authority that could keep the evolution of arms at bay.

At the battle of Azincourt in 1415, in the middle of the Hundred Years War, 6000 to 9000 english bowmen (so commoners) with longbows defeated 12000 to 36000 french knights (so noblemens) in armor. It was the end of knighthood in it's literal meaning.

[TheEvilDog]

There are some advantages to the longbow, though, such as speed of firing, and the fact that it is easily r setting. Some sure that that is the major point that won Agincourt, as the rain had made the French crossbows useless, while the longbowmen had kept their bowstrings dry.

It seems that even then, there was no authority that could keep the evolution of arms at bay.

At the battle of Azincourt in 1415, in the middle of the Hundred Years War, 6000 to 9000 english bowmen (so commoners) with longbows defeated 12000 to 36000 french knights (so noblemens) in armor. It was the end of knighthood in it's literal meaning.

To be fair, the Battle of Agincourt was won because the French lost the main advantage of their knights, that of speed and mobility, because the battlefield had turned into a mudbath due to heavy rain, allowing the English archers more time to pummel the knights with arrows.

In truth, if the battle had been fought days later or if it hadn't been raining,  the battle should have been a rout of the English, or an outright massacre. In fact, the Battle of Patay 14 years later, was a victory for the French because they were able to charge the lines of English archers before they even finished getting into place.

[Cornelius]

That, and the crossbowmen's strings were pretty much useless, again due to the rain.

When it comes to commoners against knights, may I offer the battle of the Golden Spurs, 1302? 9.500 Flemish citizens, and militia, of whom 9.000 foot soldiers, against  an army of 8.000 French, with 2.700 mounted knights, and 1.000 crossbowmen. Again, the French were defeated mostly due to the terrain. It wasreported to the pope as the first battle where infantry defeated an army of knights. Though, to be fair, there was Bannockburn, and the old Swiss Confederation, before that.

[Gyrre]

I've been to Eastern Orthodox, Episcapalian services, is it really that different than those?

(BTW, I was raised Nazarene, so I can see why Protestantism really took off.)

It's more like the motto for some people who have quit drinking that "one drink is one too many".

Generally, or are you singling out the really preachy, self-righteous  ones?

[pwhodges]

It's more like the motto for some people who have quit drinking that "one drink is one too many".

That's more than just a facile motto - it's an important recognition of the nature of addiction.

[Morituri]

It's more like the motto for some people who have quit drinking that "one drink is one too many".

Generally, or are you singling out the really preachy, self-righteous  ones?

That one doesn't refer to others drinking.  That's how they express their own personal capacity for drinking without getting out of control, and it's spoken with neither pride nor the intent of being taken as advice to others. It's not "preachy" in the slightest, it's an acknowledgement of weakness.

[Gyrre]

It's more like the motto for some people who have quit drinking that "one drink is one too many".

Generally, or are you singling out the really preachy, self-righteous  ones?

That one doesn't refer to others drinking.  That's how they express their own personal capacity for drinking without getting out of control, and it's spoken with neither pride nor the intent of being taken as advice to others. It's not "preachy" in the slightest, it's an acknowledgement of weakness.

Apologies for the miscommunication.

Alcoholism runs on both sides of my family. Some of the former alcoholics simply refuse alcohol for themselves (as you stated in your reply), and some of them get really self-righteous and vocal about their newfound sobriety.