Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

There should be neutral genetic traits

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings III 17923 Console 206 Suggestions 5230 Bug Report 2433 Tech Support 1978 User Mods 1724 Multiplayer 148 AARs (After Action Reports) MP Open Beta Feedback 27
Ul90

Ul90

Second Lieutenant
Sep 10, 2020
195
1.022
Right now, albino, giant, dwarf, scaly are all 'negative genetic traits' in the same bin as lisping, club-footed, hunchback, sterile, wheezing, spindly, bleeder, etc. This means they're all affected by the lvl 3 Blood Legacy.
What do you folks think? Should we have a 'yellow'/'neutral' type of genetical traits, which are traits with some positive some negative?
 
  • 37
  • 11Like
  • 3
Reactions:
While you could make a case for Giant being more positive than negative, Dwarf/Albino/Scaly can hardly be said to be neutral. You actively cause fear and revulsion in the general populace by your mere appearance, so apart from game statistics I would say they are pretty negative.

You could perhaps make the exception that if you choose one of the negative/neutral traits as the trait to make more abundant in your dynasty, it would also be exempt from being affected by the level 3 legacy. That way you can make all your kinsmen dwarves if you want, but instances of dwarfism will still be reduced for the dynasties that would rather their members not have that trait.
 
  • 13
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Atalvyr said:
You could perhaps make the exception that if you choose one of the negative/neutral traits as the trait to make more abundant in your dynasty, it would also be exempt from being affected by the level 3 legacy. That way you can make all your kinsmen dwarves if you want, but instances of dwarfism will still be reduced for the dynasties that would rather their members not have that trait.
Click to expand...
That's what I had in mind, what's the point of choosing a dwarf legacy if the legacy just before reduces the chance of being a dwarf
 
  • 7
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Vanhal said:
That could be made some minor religious rule, like being albino/giant/dwarf etc. is a blessing from god.
Or a Nurgle's Rot :)
Click to expand...
I even thought this about scaly potentially, i.e. "dragon's skin" which could in a certain sense be seen as prestigious.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Vanhal said:
That could be made some minor religious rule, like being albino/giant/dwarf etc. is a blessing from god.
Or a Nurgle's Rot :)
Click to expand...
Hmm, yeah. Alongside doctrines like approach to homosexuality and adultery, you could choose approach towards each type of people with non-standard body. Albino atm gives -10 general opinion regardless of faith, but was it really such a heavily bad thing outside traditional African religions?
 
SMiki Lorebringer said:
Hmm, yeah. Alongside doctrines like approach to homosexuality and adultery, you could choose approach towards each type of people with non-standard body. Albino atm gives -10 general opinion regardless of faith, but was it really such a heavily bad thing outside traditional African religions?
Click to expand...

I have no evidence at hand, but I cannot imagine that it was easy being an albino in Catholic Europe, where people were burned for witchcraft and left-handed people were viewed with suspicion.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
In CK2 you had 'left handed', that could come to mind as a 'neutral genetic variation' which could still add some minor benefit / disadvantage

In CK2 it gave:
+15 Personal Combat Skill
+5 Same Trait
-10 Christian Church
-10 Muslim

There could be something similar in CK3 (with it giving some prowes), it made a little sense, since people would be less trained to fight against a left handed person, while the left handed person would be used to fight right-handed people, giving him a slight edge in combat.
 
  • 12
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Atalvyr said:
I have no evidence at hand, but I cannot imagine that it was easy being an albino in Catholic Europe, where people were burned for witchcraft and left-handed people were viewed with suspicion.
Click to expand...
Witch hunts were more an early modern thing, weren't they? But even if albino discrimination was prevalent in medieval Europe as well, I can imagine that a player would want to create a faith that doesn't discriminate them. We can already reform religions to accept homosexuality, these traits could be religion-dependent too.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Atalvyr said:
You could perhaps make the exception that if you choose one of the negative/neutral traits as the trait to make more abundant in your dynasty, it would also be exempt from being affected by the level 3 legacy. That way you can make all your kinsmen dwarves if you want, but instances of dwarfism will still be reduced for the dynasties that would rather their members not have that trait.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that you're limited to 1 "negative" trait this way. If you wanted to make a dynasty of natural dreadlords that are Giant Albino Cannibals, then you can not.
 
Ul90 said:
Right now, albino, giant, dwarf, scaly are all 'negative genetic traits' in the same bin as lisping, club-footed, hunchback, sterile, wheezing, spindly, bleeder, etc. This means they're all affected by the lvl 3 Blood Legacy.
What do you folks think? Should we have a 'yellow'/'neutral' type of genetical traits, which are traits with some positive some negative?
Click to expand...
I personally consider Albino and Giant to be mixed bag traits - some positive effects, some negative effects. :)

(Scaly does have +10 Natural Dread, but the negative effects are so overwhelming that I still consider it a negative trait.)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
SMiki Lorebringer said:
Witch hunts were more an early modern thing, weren't they? But even if albino discrimination was prevalent in medieval Europe as well, I can imagine that a player would want to create a faith that doesn't discriminate them. We can already reform religions to accept homosexuality, these traits could be religion-dependent too.
Click to expand...

I don't think albinos were prevalent enough for there to be any widespread discrimination against them, but judging by how other people deviating from the body norms were treated, I cannot imagine them just being accepted. The most I could dig up on short notice was that they were killed at birth in medieval Iran.

Regarding acceptance in reformed religions, I would perhaps handle it via the sin/virtue mechanic instead of via doctrines for each and every trait, congenital or otherwise. Tenets such as Adorcism that are limited to African religions could easily have some effects connected to the how albinos were treated there. Likewise you could connect some of the more "accepting" tenets with reduced opinion penalties or even regarding it as a virtue if there were any religions that regarded a certain physical trait as especially "holy".
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A few more congenital traits would be nice, yes. They could be neutral for many cultures, but have specific connotations to other cultures. e.g.

Probably a few other interesting ones.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Smiles_ said:
A few more congenital traits would be nice, yes. They could be neutral for many cultures, but have specific connotations to other cultures. e.g.

Probably a few other interesting ones.
Click to expand...
I hope they flesh out culture more, and bring back culture exclusive things, like Byzantine castration and Norse raiding. This could be a good way to decide for x culture if y genetic trait is positive, negative or neutral.

EDIT : I was wrong about Byzantine castration
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ul90 said:
Byzantine castration
Click to expand...
Already in there, bro. :)


Ul90 said:
Norse raiding
Click to expand...
As much as I enjoyed this in CK2, I'm happy it's gone. Culture-based raiding was just too powerful, and made choosing a raiding culture a no-brainer unless you were going for an achievement or for RPing purposes or something like that.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Every trait under Lv4 Dynasty should be considered Neutral
Whatever trait chosen by Lv4 should be dynamically considered Good (As soon as it's chosen by 4, it's considered Good)

Also, while not inherently needed, it would be good to see these 'neutral' ones slightly buffed or less nerfed. Some are already alright like Giant and Albino; but Dwarf and Scaly are comparatively pretty weak.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Ul90 said:
Oh great I didn't know, then I'm suprised they didn't put more culture exclusive things in

Yeah, maybe I used a bad example, my true wish is for the warmonger tenet (even reformed) to allow raiding
Click to expand...
There seems to have been a focus on distinguishing cultures through innovations. The sad thing (at least to me) is that almost all cultural innovations are just a new type of MAA, so in terms of gameplay there's very little difference. :(

Though, to be fair, 95% of cultures in CK2 had no gameplay effect whatsoever beyond determining what other cultures you had opinion penalties with.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back