Two cultures per character, please!

[unmerged(217556)]

I really like the idea of two cultures the more I think about it. The first could be like a primary culture and the second a secondary culture, and the two cultures could be inherited differently to represent shifts in culture.
For example, the primary culture could be 50% father's primary, 40% mother's primary, and 10% capital province's primary, and secondary culture could be like 35% mother's primary, 35% capital province's primary, 10% father's primary, 10% father's secondary, 10% mother's secondary. This way the primary culture should stick with the ruling family to some degree but the secondary will be more volatile.
The other good idea I saw was where a person was a % based in culture, but this would only work if after a few generations a culture was eliminated, otherwise after like 200 years all the rulers would be close to an even split on all cultures. But having each character have a % based culture with some being inhereted from each parent and the region as well as court members would be a great system too.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Exactly. (sorry for replying to such an old quote, but it makes sense.) Language was a continuum, as it is today (but more so before the rise of "national" languages--it's all politics). IIRC, it sort of went like this: A Norman could understand a Walloon, who could understand Dutch, who could understand Low German, who could understand High German, but if a Norman merchant tried to sign a wool contract with a Bavarian merchant at the Champagne fair, things were not so clear. In southern Europe, there was similarly an Occitanic continuity from Asturian to Lombard. But as to the real importance of culture, it was about group identity. The word nation was used, but it was much more amorphous.

The basic identity was native of X and vassal of Y and son of Z, who was son of L.--which in practice meant, you're not from around here, your king is not our king, and we have no idea who your grandfather was or what he did. So state your business or go away.

I think the same, although the common idea of linguistic continuum has its limitations. Usually, it's the language what limits the people inside your nation and the people outside. So, when a nation establishes it's "natural frontiers", they base it on the reach of the language. There is always a moment in which the continuum breaks, and "continues" no more. A river can mark such frontier (not a range of mountains). There is an approximation between two neighbouring languages, but not enough for them to be perfectly understandable. That's why the Franks in the XIIIth Century could say that Frankia ended at the river Loire. Beyond, people spoke different languages and had different culture.

 

[RedRooster81]

I think the same, although the common idea of linguistic continuum has its limitations. Usually, it's the language what limits the people inside your nation and the people outside. So, when a nation establishes it's "natural frontiers", they base it on the reach of the language. There is always a moment in which the continuum breaks, and "continues" no more. A river can mark such frontier (not a range of mountains). There is an approximation between two neighbouring languages, but not enough for them to be perfectly understandable. That's why the Franks in the XIIIth Century could say that Frankia ended at the river Loire. Beyond, people spoke different languages and had different culture.

I admit that was I was being a little excessive, but I also disagree with either assigning a single culture to each character or as some here have suggested assigning percentages based on ancestry and place of birth. IMO, the important distinctions are (1) religion (for which I could see having a primary and secondary, for Catholics a scale from the Pope to a recently baptized adult convert), and (2) what I would call "civilization" (scale of cosmopolitan [speaks Latin or Arabic or Greek fluently, knows etiquette, old prestigious family] to provincial [the opposite, values local customs, etc.]). Religion was the main division, not to say that culture was not important, but we are mostly talking about the very top of the upper class here, where many people speak more than one language and identify more with their counterparts in other kingdoms than with their own serfs. The notion of civilization encompasses a sense of belonging in the aristocracy, which with religion can affect chances of successful marriage negotiations, etc.; but also encompasses how much you will value local customs and be seen by your subjects, who might easily take offense by an ambitious outsider who inherits the throne.

The big question I suppose is how will culture be used in CK2? So far as I can tell, it did not play that much of a practical role in CK1, besides some considerations of who the AI goes after as marriage partners. Doomdark has already stated that provinces will not have cultures, but characters will. There should be some recognition of the difference (e.g., in the Byzantine court, you could say, that guy is Turkish, this one is Greek, that's definitely a Frank...), but in a practical sense, culture is about who we are, which is defined generally by who "we" are not, rather than a precise definition. "We are not like the neighbors. They do it this way, and we do it that way."

 

[PreXident]

Doomdark has already stated that provinces will not have cultures, but characters will.

I believe that he said that settlements would not have their own separated cultures, but I dont think province culture will be eliminated from game.

 

[RedRooster81]

I believe that he said that settlements would not have their own separated cultures, but I dont think province culture will be eliminated from game.

I stand corrected. After giving some more thought to this thread, I would say that characters should have one primary culture as well as maybe some trait for being accepted as a second culture, but I still don't like the idea of doing percentages.

I would add that the same should be done with religion: growing up in an area where the old religion was still rather important or still left its shadow should leave a mark, or maybe marrying into a family of converts. You could have character events where a character could decide to be flexible (and/or set a policy of flexibility for his realm) or for lack of a better word puritanical. All religions and cultures are by nature syncretic: some marks of the old way of doing things remain, at least subconsciously, often for generations. Scandinavians, Irish, Bretons, Sicilians, Castillians, Romans were all Catholics, but they were each different in their outlook. The Pope's Catholicism rested on its Roman foundations: he did eventually call himself Pontifex Maximus after all and incorporate many aspects of the Roman imperial culture into his court; all others were heretics

 

[Orinsul]

Why not just allow single cultures to be in more than one culture group?
Anglo-Normans werent half-anglo half-norman, they were a separate culture. Anglo-Danes werent half way between angles and danes, they were a separate culture born from the mixing of the two.
Just as African-Americans and French Canadians today [are there any other names like that around these days?] arent half and half but a separate and new thing that would be foreign to either of the peoples who use just one of the names they use.

But if Anglo-Danish can be both in the British AND Scandinavian culture group, then surely thatd do the trick.

rather than getting a new system thats all complicated just the give the current one alittle more wiggling ability

 

[Nick B II]

I do not believe in this idea. Firstly, it will most likely all go extremly unhistorical very quickly, secondly it all seems very complicated (Turko-cuman mother, franco-arab father and born in greece makes what?) and thirdly I believe this will be a hotbed of flamewars and annoyances over which culture a person really is. And if I am not completly wrong I believe Paradox removed provincial cultures from CK2...

He's probably gonna be immersed in the local culture, so he gets Greek. The other one gets assigned randomly from the four choices.

Flamewars won't be a problem, or at least won't be more of a problem then they already are. The second culture is probably not gonna be one anybody cares about today. Nobody gets worked up about whether some ancient German Duke acted more Saxon or Bavarian.

They do get worked up about Serb vs. Bulgarian vs. Bosnian vs. Croat, but this could actually make things easier there. Somebody who gets claimed by both Serbs and Bulgarians, for example, could be Serbo-Bulgar. Flamewar ended.

As for provincial culture, if it's gone in CK2 this is the first I've heard of it.

The only real problem I see with implementing the idea is that name-lists are gonna be static. Which makes naming a Serbo-Bulgar kid problematic unless you've taken the precaution of creating a list for each possible combo. You could make one culture primary and use that list. You could combine the lists and pick randomly.

Regardless I'm pretty sure the idea's already been nixed by the developers. It would be cool and realistic, but it would be mostly flavor. And it's a flavor-thing they decided not to do.

Nick

 

[RedRooster81]

The last few posts have some good ideas. Provinces do have cultures, not baronies. So if your county capital is considered to be Norman, then so are the two abbeys, one town, and two castles in the county.

On hyphenated cultures, I think that over time each realm within your dominions (if you have more than one) should move towards a singular culture. There should not be as in CK1 a shift towards all your subjects becoming Norman if you are King of England, France, and Egypt. Religion becomes uniform over time, but culture generally should not. Like succession laws, you should keep things separated, unless you want major unrest. That said, I would not discount any mods that create hyphenated cultures.

Because you have in effect one court even if you have three kingdoms, there is the issue of multiculturalism. Doomdark has said (in response to my question) that the numbering of rulers will not take culture into consideration, meaning that a France with an English dynasty could have successive monarchs named Jean II, John I, Jean III, John II. I'm almost tempted to just change everyone's names to Latin. So we can have Iohannes II-V to avoid the conundrum. Alternatively, maybe heirs apparent can adopt the culture of the dynasty upon succeeding to the throne and change his name; foreign heirs could do so, brides did so as well. Just some ideas. I don't know if they can be implemented, but I welcome your comments.

 

[Ruwaard]

The last few posts have some good ideas. Provinces do have cultures, not baronies. So if your county capital is considered to be Norman, then so are the two abbeys, one town, and two castles in the county.

On hyphenated cultures, I think that over time each realm within your dominions (if you have more than one) should move towards a singular culture. There should not be as in CK1 a shift towards all your subjects becoming Norman if you are King of England, France, and Egypt. Religion becomes uniform over time, but culture generally should not. Like succession laws, you should keep things separated, unless you want major unrest. That said, I would not discount any mods that create hyphenated cultures.

Because you have in effect one court even if you have three kingdoms, there is the issue of multiculturalism. Doomdark has said (in response to my question) that the numbering of rulers will not take culture into consideration, meaning that a France with an English dynasty could have successive monarchs named Jean II, John I, Jean III, John II. I'm almost tempted to just change everyone's names to Latin. So we can have Iohannes II-V to avoid the conundrum. Alternatively, maybe heirs apparent can adopt the culture of the dynasty upon succeeding to the throne and change his name; foreign heirs could do so, brides did so as well. Just some ideas. I don't know if they can be implemented, but I welcome your comments.

How about border areas? They could be Dutch/French, German/French etc. Or German/Czech, German/Croatian or German/Hungarian etc. and etc. in any case baronies should be able to change culture, especially since province culture changes were gradually...

 

[RedRooster81]

How about border areas? They could be Dutch/French, German/French etc. Or German/Czech, German/Croatian or German/Hungarian etc. and etc. in any case baronies should be able to change culture, especially since province culture changes were gradually...

Well, there are a lot of issues here. The first is the nobles represented in your and other courts. This is what I was trying to talk about. Culturally diverse dynasties (Spanish dynasties with Castillian, Catalan, BasqueB, Berber, Occitan members; German dynasties with Bavarian, Lombard, Umbrian, Frankish members) get a little confusing with things like numbering monarchs.

The other side of it is the provincial (or county) culture. Baronies are not supposed to have culture. Frontier provinces (i.e., marches) would tend to be more mixed than central provinces. So what to do? You could assign special cultures like Austrian, Lotharingian, Flemish or otherwise have a primary and secondary culture (e.g., provincial modifier for Frankish-dominated Antioch could say "significant Armenian minority" and/or "small Turkish minority").

 

[whatguts]

A simple requst that in CK2 all characters have two cultures, rather than just the one as in CK1. This would allow subtle cultural shifts to occur over time. For example in 1066 the nobles in England could start out as Franco-Norman, but over the generations of living in England can become Anglo-Norman.
This would also work well for nobles ruling over crusader states. Southern French conquerors may start out as Franco-Occitan, but further generations might form a Franco-Arab culture as they gradually adopt local customs.

nah, the number of cultures should depends on the country, and where you are.

 

[Keanon]

This all disuss natural development, how about when people CHOOSE to adopt the local culture? I'd actually like the decision to say as I AM playing my king, that "I am going to learn and speak their language, and my son will speak their language."

A german as King of Denmark would most likely stay german, more prestigious, but would a Danish duke of Brandenburg speak danish in his court?

 

[RedRooster81]

This all disuss natural development, how about when people CHOOSE to adopt the local culture? I'd actually like the decision to say as I AM playing my king, that "I am going to learn and speak their language, and my son will speak their language."

A german as King of Denmark would most likely stay german, more prestigious, but would a Danish duke of Brandenburg speak danish in his court?

It comes down to whether you can change a character's culture by event. But you make some good points. For political reasons along frontiers, people did decide to change cultures. Some times this happened with rulers, who wanted to conciliate with his subjects, or for a foreign-born wife to do so. It could also be a factor in religious conversion, as culture and religion were often considered to be intertwined, and which might go along with adopting a new name during the ritual of conversion (e.g., baptism).