• 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.
you posted nothing more than what I learned in 10th grade biology. simplified or not.

this is meandaering into the the "Show Off" thread. Is this about CKII anymore?

I'm not showing off, my post was just answering the debate about phoroahs/emperors' inbreeding habits and whether it will result in huge imbeciles. My comment at the end was just to back up what I say as well as put off potential replies that say my response is too simplified. And I'm pretty sure year 10 genetics don't teach you the long term effects of inbreeding, that would be a very very very bad education class.
 
touchy touchy.

let's talk about CKII.

and my second comment you quotd was not about you anyway
 
Last edited:
So one generation of inbreeding after normal breeding will often end you up with "weird/uncommon" problems.
But no, 100s generations of inbreeding does not end you up with idiots (providing you don't breed those idiots).
But it will result in a lack of genetic diversity.

Unless you where Charles the II, who no in his immediate ancestors had no relationship that was in the true "danger zone" of inbreeding, but due to generations without a outcross, ended up being the poster child of bad inbreeding. his nbreeding coefficient was higher then a brother-sister cross.
 
Don't be absurd. People are quite capable of failing to survive all on their own. But to be a good Christian, you have to do everything you can to prevent that from happening. Regardless of circumstance.

So, you're honestly suggesting that Islamic (and presumably every other non-Christian) society has historically left people to fend for themselves (and get disqualified by natural selection) while Christian society has taken care of its unfit population?
 
Unless you where Charles the II, who no in his immediate ancestors had no relationship that was in the true "danger zone" of inbreeding, but due to generations without a outcross, ended up being the poster child of bad inbreeding. his nbreeding coefficient was higher then a brother-sister cross.
I don't know why you'd say his ancestors weren't in the 'danger zone.' (Cue Kenny Loggins) He was himself the product of an uncle-niece pairing (which only one step better than a sibling or parent-child pairing, the closest possible), and there were two more such pairings in the three previous generations.

Quite a family tree on that guy. And if Philip IV had just married some random woman on the street instead, their kids would almost certainly have been fine.
 
now she is in love with me :S and she got pregnant... gawd =_=

It seems to me this is the perfect opportunity to attempt to recreate Charles II in the game. Better get some of your siblings involved in this, though. It's gonna take a few generations of inbreeding to get to the level of Charles II.
 
Last edited:
In one my games the Duke of Aquitaine has had a bastard daughter - with her own daughter, with no seeming penalty at all. Squick. :eek:

I must admit that there should be a heavy malus for this. I am NOT saying that it shouldn't be impossible, sickos and incestual fathers do exist. But it should be heavily frowned upon and a sign of utmost villainy, so much that the odds of the father recognizing the child as its should be very, very low. Otherwise it should destroy a reputation and call for almost immediate excommunication, really.
 
Actually it's neither a real 1-hander nor is it a 2-hander. That's why it is called a bastard-sword.


....

way to ruin it.

(and I know that's why, i disregarded fact for the sake of humor, jesus,... do you feel etter about yourself now, Debbie Downer? did you even read anything before that post so you could have taken it into context?)
 
764C877A013645D04806F30C0E6140BE9E1199DE


Not intentional, but each was a marriage of expediency, so I am breeding like the Hapsburg.
 
Incest. A game the whole family can enjoy!
 
What a simple family tree you have!

Does your king has the inbred trait?
'

So far i had only one inbred child in my family, can't remember who, but she died young, she was a few generations back, the reasons why this current lineup happened is that my eldest son and his son was killed by someone (not me) so my 2nd oldest son became king, but the eldest son had tons of property that was now his daughter's, so i did a marriage to keep my kingdom in order.

Yep, it gets confusing since I had a duke named Raolf who was heir, but he died (the king was the "the old" and outlived some of his sons) but Raolf son Raolf became king, had a son named Raolf, who made it to duke, but died so his brother became king, and married his brothers daughter to merge the two lines.
 
it does look like as if someone married the daughter of his brother. thats just dirty

That is exactly what happened. She was the heir to his brother, who already was given a few duchys of land for when he was king, and i couldn't afford those properties to go out of the family. Or to a rival kinsman. After she was married off, my family no longer attacking me, now it just the scottish dukes who want to get rid of my yoke.
 
My game as king of France (started as count of Lusignan) is now somewhere around 1380 or 1390 and by now my family has well over 100 living members, which leads to the AI marring family members with each other like crazy, it is rather disgusting.
 
That's only true if a family has bad genetics in the first place. If not, it remains unaffected. Just remember that the Egyptian Pharaohs always married their sisters, and we don't have records of inbreds or rulers who were worse than anywhere else.

Also, by your suggestion almost all Muslims in the Middle East should be 'wrecked' inbreds by now, as marrying a cousin is seen as the best possible marriage in the region (cousin marriages reach over 50% of all marriages in some cities in Saudi Arabia, for example). And that has been going on for over a millennia, at least. Probably more.

Inbreeding is evidently casuing problems in Saudi Arabia http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/w...rils-of-inbreeding.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

One thing about the Egyptians, most of their dynasties seem to have died out within 5-6 generations. Also there was often a certain amount of fresh blood flowing into the royal line.

Thutmose II may have married his half sister Hatshepsut, but his successor Thutmose III was the progeny of a minor and probably unrelated wife. It is not clear whether Neferure the daughter of Thutmose II and Hatshepsut married Thutmose III and was the mother of his son Amenemhat, but in any case Neferure and Amenemhat predeceased Thutmose III and the eventual successor Ahmenhotep II was the offspring of a minor wife. In ancient Egypt the full inbred heirs seem to have died early and many of the brother sister couplings do not appear to have resulted in the eventual successor.

Tutankhamun was the product of a brother sister coupling between Akhenaten and an unknown sister, but he died early as well and his children with his half sister Anakhsenamun seem to have died early too.

Incest in ancient Egypt does not have been conducinve to fertile royal successions. Now the Ptolemies engaged in it, but there was often a certain amount of fresh blood coming into the gene pool via Cleopatra I, the unknown mistress of Ptolemy IX who was the mother of Ptolemy XII Auletes etc.