[Proposal] Matrilineal Marriages

[Knotz]

Because the game is supposed to be both a simulation of medieval times, and also a strategy game. Most people want the AI to behave as real medieval lords did, which means rejecting matri-marraiges more often. That's not an unreasonable request.

The "Don't do it" argument is terrible. All it does is promote lazy game design. Why bother balancing anything in a simulation game under the "Just don't do it" attitude? Why not have the AI agree to every alliance or deal the player propose and just use the "Well don't do it" control for every single interaction in the game. It'd sure help the programmers in not having to deal with all that pesky math and system design if they can just rely on the player to police himself. Why have the AI say no at all? Why not let the player decide how many of his forces die in every combat? You'd end up with a godawful terrible game, but it'd apparently be okay in some people's eyes because the player could just police himself.

We pay for games so the programmers can write good AI, not so they can write abuseable AI systems where we have to constantly keep trying not to exploit. As for one way to play the game, that's just not true. Just because you don't allow people to move pawns in chess like queens if they feel like it, doesn't mean there's only one way to play chess. It does mean there's a lot of things that do not work, but that's fine for a strategy game. If every path leads to victory then there's really not any strategy, is there?

There's so much wrong here. "Keep trying not to exploit," I like that. As if cheating is the natural thing to do and it's a constant, manly struggle to not indulge. Lazy game design? I dunno. I figure you'd have loopholes no matter how slick your programming skillz are, people will find them but they don't have to exploit them. The AI doesn't abuse matri-marriages, so the coding is fine, it's the PLAYERS that abuse the system. Or are the devs supposed to account for all the foibles of humanity as well?

The dynasty/marriage system here is an abstraction like most of the game, in the old days I don't imagine dynasties were as wickedly rigid as the paradox community is, if a noble woman of significant status married someone significantly lower in social standing I doubt she'd drop her fancy maiden name for countess of Turnipsville or whatever. That's what it's supposed to represent and as long as humans don't interfere I think it does an admirable enough job.

 

[unmerged(666796)]

There's so much wrong here. "Keep trying not to exploit," I like that. As if cheating is the natural thing to do and it's a constant, manly struggle to not indulge. Lazy game design? I dunno. I figure you'd have loopholes no matter how slick your programming skillz are, people will find them but they don't have to exploit them. The AI doesn't abuse matri-marriages, so the coding is fine, it's the PLAYERS that abuse the system. Or are the devs supposed to account for all the foibles of humanity as well?

The dynasty/marriage system here is an abstraction like most of the game, in the old days I don't imagine dynasties were as wickedly rigid as the paradox community is, if a noble woman of significant status married someone significantly lower in social standing I doubt she'd drop her fancy maiden name for countess of Turnipsville or whatever. That's what it's supposed to represent and as long as humans don't interfere I think it does an admirable enough job.

Actually, his post was very balanced and thoughtful.

You do raise a good point about the abstraction of how marriage works, however just because it is an abstraction doesn't mean the current system is perfect.

 

[Knotz]

You do raise a good point about the abstraction of how marriage works, however just because it is an abstraction doesn't mean the current system is perfect.

And your idea of improving it is by basically making it impossible? Can only matri-marry when the woman is already landed? With agnatic preference in the majority of the popular played areas? That or make the scion of your house marry some landless, titleless, familyless nobody? And for what, exactly? I'm still not clear on that last bit. And he was doing that thing where you snowball your argument so it looks like it has more weight than it actually does. 'Allow gay marriage? Why not allow us to marry our DOGS next?!'

 

[unmerged(666796)]

And your idea of improving it is by basically making it impossible? Can only matri-marry when the woman is already landed? With agnatic preference in the majority of the popular played areas? That or make the scion of your hoes marry some landless, titleless, familyless nobody? And for what, exactly? I'm still not clear on that last bit. And he was doing that thing where you snowball your argument so it looks like it has more weight than it actually does. 'Allow gay marriage? Why not allow us to marry our DOGS next?!'

I prefer it being near impossible, and essentially acting as a "back-up plan", rather than being able to matrilineally marry with wild abandon.

And his post was less slippery slope and more metaphor.

 

[Onisuzume]

Why not allow us to marry our DOGS next?!'

My court guru has been pestering me about that, something about wanting to clear his kharma...

'Allow gay marriage?

Engine would need a recoding to actually check for genders before trying to mate married couples.
As-is, using SGE to get gay marriage results in men get impregnated by their husbands (also women and their wives).

I prefer it being near impossible, and essentially acting as a "back-up plan", rather than being able to matrilineally marry with wild abandon.

And I reiterate: ruin the fun for people trying to have a matriarchy throughout the centuries.
Because everybody knows that your heir is best kept landless until xe inherits to ensure no properly educated and married offspring.

 

[Ruwaard]

@ Onisuzume: IMHO recreating a matriarchy is more mod material. They may facilitate it, like ennatic succession or something different like extra options regarding de jure drift in the defines, but IMHO it shouldn't be the standard setting.
I guess you could argue, that this also may apply to some of the more strict rules proposed here, still the medieval society was patriarchal.

Anyway, just like with many other, you'll always keep people advocating more strict or more lenient rules, often at the same time.
Again people tend to approach this game from different angles, hence any ''fun'' arguement is inherently subjective, and the vanilla game needs to navigate between the extremes.

 

[Onisuzume]

And creating a misogynistic game is also mod material, imo.

 

[Ruwaard]

I didn't touch misogyny nor misandry for that matter. However the middle ages were rather patriarchal by our modern standards. Matrilineal marriages were quite rare (which still putting it generously) and so the proposed strict rules make more sense, than anything, which would turn the middle ages into a matriarchal world, which they were not.
OTOH it doesn't mean that the world was black and white, even when looking at various regions, both women and men had rights and obligations and women could often inherit land*, when there weren't any male heirs (otherwise the latter were preferred, those could also include her son (-s));but this still doesn't change the general fact that it was a patriarchal society.
(*= there was some dispute whether women were allowed to inherit land, but women were always entitled to their share of the rest (wealth etc.) of the inheritance; at least in western Europe)

So I stand by my remark in the previous post.

 

[Katsue]

Try as I might, I struggle to understand why people complain about matrilineal marriages. Really, with the exception of a few cultures like Ireland, characters should take the surname of their highest ranked parent. Not that, say, the royal house of France should have a surname in any event.