Originally Posted by Splorghley
You know its a good game when people are concerned with more events for being Homosexual then it being unplayable. Good job Paradox.
This is the most ironic thread in Crusader Kings II. The game...historically accurate about humans. Modern thought....fantasy regarding humans. What is the basic premise of this game? Intrigue, deceit, war, hatred, murder...ect... Yes, that is a true estimate of the human condition and it WILL continue. All this "Kumbayah" let's all pretend we are so fair and open stuff is just as fake as the courtiers and their better's were.
I can enjoy a gay party with gay music, and will put on some gay apparel for Christmas (to fit in) - though people would generally describe me as serious and rarely gay (though more often of simple good cheer).
What I am offended by is the gaily wanton misappropriation of "gay" to refer to homosexuality, which runs rampant through this thread! How homosexuality is referenced in this historical game is I think appropriate and sufficient in line with how other traits are represented. This isn't Fable, after all.
Wait, you think everyone in here who is voicing their progressive opinions while discussing what historically might be plausible or how homosexual people might've lived then is all fake to look better on the internet, on a game forum?
Originally Posted by kreissig
- PATRVM - For Crusader Kings II
SCVTA / TERRĘ - Shields / Map
Well the irony is that Lustful characters do engage in various activities from time to time. From the 'family man' view that is as troublesome as a homosexual relationship, possibly even worse due to the chances of bringing bastards into play. More civil wars have been caused by bastard children than homosexual rulers actually engaging in said activity. However anyone who would today be labled homosexual, would know the great personal risks of an active same gender relationship, thus it would only be fair that someone with the Homosexual trait would be less inclined to actually pursue it than a Lustful character. But it is somewhat silly to have a Homosexual ruler that is obviously having an extra marital relationship with one of the other sex. Why would they do that? Unless they are intended to be Bisexual... but since we already have the fairly modern term homosexual in the game, bisexual wouldn't be any stranger.
Considering the impact that some homosexual relations had in that era (Piers Galveston, for starters...)
There should be events about those.
I mean... If I was gay, I'd probably have gay sex. But I'm hetero, so I'm having hetero sex.
The "gay sex" part isn't covered in CK II.
And if somebody doesn't understand that gays tend to have sex... Well, I think it's not Paradox's job to explain him/her that.
It's pretty clear that the game treat bisexuality and homosexuality as the same thing. This makes a lot of sense. The number of Medieval people we can prove never slept with the opposite sex, and were actually attracted to their own sex, is zero.
Originally Posted by Kraxis
OTOH there are quite a few Medieval people who were apparently gay but had kids, sometimes entire families. Which makes sense. A gay medieval person didn't have access to an entire sub-culture of other gay people, willing to get gay married. He had a couple guys he knew about, he had a couple guys he suspected, and even if he turned out to be right they might snitch to the Church. Moreover if he's a lord, he's got a wife, and if she doesn't have a son our gay character is in trouble. In those circumstances it's perfectly rational to get some of your orgasms from a girl even if you have no interest in girls.
Ideally there'd be a whole set of gay events. A religious gay person could easily choose chastity to girls he doesn't want (or guys she doesn't want), others (especially the powerful nobles we actually play) could easily have gay lovers on the side. Probably no other powerful nobles, but that should be a possibility. I suspect some of these exist, but simply haven't been encountered by anyone on this thread yet because gay characters are fairly rare, and the game's only been out a week.
If they don't exist I suspect the reason they weren't written is time. The devs don't have forever, and devoting a man-week to 2% of the game (or whatever the exact number is) may not have made sense. Especially given that we'll do all this work for them on the modding sub-forum. "Controversy" probably doesn't enter into this, because it's fairly easy to represent homosexuality in non-controversial ways. Just have an event granting the trait, vents where the character wrestles with urges the Church strongly disapproves of, and events with same-sex lovers. It's certainly less controversial then a lot of other stuff in-game, such as where Serbian culture starts.
Basileus Autokratōr Rhōmaķōn
I shoulda changed my post title to "Don't you know how hard it is to be the only gay in the village?"
Originally Posted by Splorghley
You could just have a additional 'in denial' option in any gay-related prompt
Originally Posted by jossief
It's true that a few jurisdictions, at certain times in the Middle Ages, had harsh laws making proven homosexuality a capital offence. But they were the exception, not the rule - it certainly wasn't the standard thing some people here are claiming. And for what it's worth, these stricter laws were generally introduced only later in the Middle Ages, not in the period of the early game. That's also the same time that harsh laws against heretics and witches were also being introduced: society was just generally more intolerant of deviance after the Black Death.
Example: in 1049 Pope Leo IX wrote a letter, Ad splendidum nitentis, setting out what he thought were the appropriate punishments for clergy caught committing homosexual acts. Those who could be proven to have had anal sex ('the complete act against nature') were to be punished by... being stripped of Holy Orders. Nothing else. Those who had non-penetrative gay sex, 'by the hands of others' or 'between the thighs' for example, were to be given suitable penance for their sin, such as fasting, then forgiven and allowed to remain as priests.
As for ordinary people, homosexual sex was certainly considered a sin, but in general no more sinful than adultery or masturbation. It was punished by the ecclesiastical courts in the same way as those other offences. (As mentioned, though, the Church generally became more condemning as time went on.)
A well-known case made famous by the historian Le Roy Ladurie was that of Arnaud de Verniolle, a young trainee priest who was arrested, imprisoned and interrogated by the French Inquisition in the 1320s. The Inquisition's records reveal that he had a vast and varied gay sex life in the small French town of Pamiers, seducing multiple partners ranging from priests and students to shoemakers. Many of the people he named were also questioned by the inquisitors, and confirmed his story (though some of them claimed they were coerced into the sex.)
Here's the thing, though - the Inquisition was actually much more worried by Arnaud's heretical religious views and the fact that he was hearing people's confessions despite not being an ordained priest. That was why he was arrested, and while his homosexuality was certainly a factor in the case, it was his heresy that eventually got him convicted. And no, he wasn't executed, for either crime - he was given life imprisonment. As for the other witnesses who confessed to having sex with him, I can't find what happened to them: but there's no evidence they were even punished. Nor did the Inquisition bother to investigate further into what was apparently a rampant gay scene in the town of Pamiers. As long as the people concerned weren't heretics, the Bishop in charge didn't really care.
Another famous mediaeval gay person (allegedly) was King Edward II of England. On one level, you could say that he got into trouble because of it: both his 'favourites', Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser, were brutally killed by rebellious barons, and later on so was Edward himself. However, the (alleged) gay sex only caused scandalous rumours; what really annoyed the barons was when Edward went on to heap his (alleged) lovers with titles and riches and privileges and power. The barons rebelled because they were jealous, not homophobic.
(And also, for the record, Edward had five children. He knew his dynastic duty.)
Last edited by StephenT; 22-02-2012 at 04:58.
I agree this should have more events.. also reminds of the movie Lion in Winter. Richards little hunting trip with Philip... King Henry was quite sickened to hear that little story, although Philip loved watching it, and of course letting Richard know he never loved him essentially tearing the family up even more.
Some more background:
According to Prof. Jukka Korpela (specializes in Medieval studies) of University of Eastern Finland, Orthodox male partners did receive blessings in Medieval times.
The publication name is translated as something like Blessing of a male couple, five medieval orthodox prayers (2011).
I guess this is just one of the things they were more pragmatic about than we would like to believe.
Like said, heresy is much more important issue. Having the same religion = means of using power, enforcing or not enforcing ideals (like sexuality) = extent of power.
Homosexuality seems to have been quite trivial issue (compare for example how many times they changed the standard of acceptable cousin relationships).
Last edited by magitsu; 22-02-2012 at 05:52.
Earl of Pudding
Edward II of England took a lot of flak for having a relationship, that was presumed sexual, with one of his male courtiers.
Originally Posted by Diet of Worms
In response to the OP -- It'd be cool. Right now the trait just stops you from having a million children. Beyond that, it's clutter on the trait bar. It'd be nice if we had events triggered by it.
Why just because someone is gay should they automatically be attracted to other gay characters ?
its like saying that because one character is male, all females should be attracted to him and have more events.
gay doesnt mean desperate for every other gay person, im sure they like / are in love with all the other gay characters that dont exist in the world as actual people but instead are the faceless masses.
And thats from a non gay person.
Not always true. I had a gay count and lesbian countess that had 5 kids with each other, despite dad being chaste on top of it. I shudder to think how many children they would have had if they were straight and lustful...
Originally Posted by NezzeOne
Earl of Pudding
Those two must've been -really- dedicated to putting up an appearance, then! XD
Originally Posted by naggy
That's good to know, but the game isn't really smart enough to understand things like changing sexual morals, so we have to pick one rule that applies to everyone, of every faith, during the entire game's timespan.
Originally Posted by StephenT
Full toleration is out. Homosexuality was never normal*. It was always officially disapproved of, even when it was tolerated. At best it would be analogous to modern 'kinks,' and you'll never see a sane modern person, with the equivalent power of even a fairly low-level CK2 courtier, admit to owning fuzzy handcuffs.
Burning death is also out. While it was clearly appropriate for some time periods, I doubt a high nobleman would be burned simply for having gay sex. In fact I'd assume any high nobleman burned for having gay sex was actually a straight guy who really pissed off somebody with an awful lot of clout.
So gay characters can get events choosing celibacy, events starting relationships with other gays, and they can get into trouble with the Church. Probably not ex-commed, but if somebody catches wind of your gay affair it should be embarrassing, so you should lose piety.
The last of these events should also fire for straight people who happen to have pissed off somebody with really high intrigue.
*By this I mean it was not considered normal by Medieval society. Nowadays it's perfectly normal in most western countries.
Duke of Middle Italy
Congratulations, you win one internet
Originally Posted by bitparity