Higher Political Relevance of Marriages

[InquisitorZork]

In CK2 it was often preferable to choose a spouse wirh a low born background but good stats and traits than someone of your own (characters) rank. In CK3 this might be even more extreme regarding to higher impact of genetics.
But this is a very unhistoric behaivior and I would like stronger mechanics to prevent this. In CK2 we only had a one time prestige hit.
I suggest a permanent effekt like the one for crowning and baptising to reflect respect / discrimination of high/low borns. In addition there could be flavor events for behaivior (of the spouse with the wrong background) against the etiquette.

What do you think? Should there be more social pressure to marry in its own ranks?

 

[guinea prince]

Scandalous =/= ahistorical. The social penalties exist because it is always a possibility. If the king decides that a capable woman of lower birth is more meaningful than a political marriage of influence, that is a valid cost-benefit analysis. It's enhancing internal stability, at the cost of future claims for his children and allies outside the realm.

The consequences of actions, socially or mortally, should be all the pressure there is against marrying low, rather than making things even more boardgamey. The solution should be to make social costs, be it renown or prestige or whatever, be more meaningful. More prestige costs or more benefit to having higher prestige, to use CK2 terms.

 

[InquisitorZork]

Of course, it should be modelled via higher penalties, not simply be forbidden. Just the cost/benefit situation is in my opinion ahistorical. You can benefit greatly from a talented lowborn spouse while the risks are completely limited.

 

[Denkt]

Medieval women, atleast in parts of Europe was espected to be involved in their husband’s craft and that maybe mean noble women as well. So having a competent wife (or husband) would be an useful asset.

Alliances are super good in CK2, like I have been able to defeat much more powerful enemies with alliance swarming which also dont cost me anything but a bunch of children.

Another advantage of marriages are that children Will inherit claims which allow you to spread your dynasty. Which Will be more encouraged in CK3 due to renown from dynasty members that are rulers not under another dynasty member.

 

[Rubidium]

Marrying a lowborn shouldn't be a thing the AI does unless they are absolutely desperate for an heir and have literally no other option. While rulers married "down" on occasion, that would be something like an English prince marrying a countess, not some random peasant (and even then, it was generally for her lands/dowry, not for her skills, and certainly not for her genes). Likewise, it should be strongly penalized for players as well.

A medieval king expected his wife to be at least capable of handling the basics of running a court (or more accurately, supervising the folks who actually ran the court, as it was far too much work for any one noble to handle on their own), and to manage the usual etiquette expected of a queen. Kings didn't just go around and marry random commoners, no matter how skilled/attractive/intelligent they were. At most, you might take one as a mistress.

 

[Varren]

Note that random lowborns should be much rarer now that most characters come from the wanderer system. If you even *have* a lowborn woman available, she'll be someone of import.

 

[DPS]

There was already discussion of this in the "Can I stop my idiot son from marrying the peasant girl?" thread.

 

[Denkt]

Note that random lowborns should be much rarer now that most characters come from the wanderer system. If you even *have* a lowborn woman available, she'll be someone of import.

Well there are peasant dynasties but if these are something you Will have in your court is another question.

 

[JSB217118]

I heard your house gets bonuses for marrying into another powerful family so that should put a check on people marrying outside their station.

 

[Ixalmaris]

I really hope so. But as the spouse now gets its own council job to buff you, her stats abd with it traits will now matter even more than in CK2 instead if her station.

 

[Denkt]

I really hope so. But as the spouse now gets its own council job to buff you, her stats abd with it traits will now matter even more than in CK2 instead if her station.

Yes but land and allies is generally more important than the attributes of your characters, atleast that is how I feel in CK2.

Scandalous =/= ahistorical. The social penalties exist because it is always a possibility. If the king decides that a capable woman of lower birth is more meaningful than a political marriage of influence, that is a valid cost-benefit analysis. It's enhancing internal stability, at the cost of future claims for his children and allies outside the realm.

Was there ever a case like that, all cases I can think of that something like that would happen would be because of love. Some women actually preferred to not marry because it let them be more free and relevant. And for some like Jeanne d'Arc it was basically a requirement to never get married.

Kings didn't just go around and marry random commoners, no matter how skilled/attractive/intelligent they were. At most, you might take one as a mistress.

It actually did happen such as Karin Månsdotter.

The consequences of actions, socially or mortally, should be all the pressure there is against marrying low, rather than making things even more boardgamey. The solution should be to make social costs, be it renown or prestige or whatever, be more meaningful. More prestige costs or more benefit to having higher prestige, to use CK2 terms.

Well you give up an alliance which can be worth alot, you also lose prestige and claims for your children. And what do you gain, some extra state attribute points that seldom is going to make a difference and a better chance to get better children. So yes you give up quite alot to perhaps gain some doubtful advantages.

Of course, it should be modelled via higher penalties, not simply be forbidden. Just the cost/benefit situation is in my opinion ahistorical. You can benefit greatly from a talented lowborn spouse while the risks are completely limited.

The problematic word is here can, and you can benefit alot more from an completely talentless spouse that bring with like 10k ally troops and some serious claims which allow your next generation to control that realm while you can put the ally troops to good use and maybe go from duke to king or something like that.

 

[Ixalmaris]

Yes but land and allies is generally more important than the attributes of your characters, atleast that is how I feel in CK2.

For claims you still have your courtiers. You don't even need to land them now before pressing their claim.
And unless the AI got better I rather have a higher martial stat than an AI ally except for some really powerfull ones. And for such an alliance you only need to marry off one unimportant child.
Those who matter will likely still get the high stat good trait marriage.

 

[MartinSWE]

From my limited experience the main reason why Rulers end up marrying lowborns in CK II is often because they:

A. Are to high-rank and have trouble finding a spouse thatt won´t cost alot of prestige, ironically the lowborn they end up with cost even more but anyways. This is mostly the case for King or Emperor level characters.

B. Place to much emphasis on never marrying a relative of an enemy. IRL it was actually the opposite and marriages where often a result of peace treaties or to try limiting hostilities between historical enemies. Good examples of this would be England-France and Sweden-Denmark where the nobility married frequently to strengthen the bonds between the nations.

 

[Denkt]

For claims you still have your courtiers. You don't even need to land them now before pressing their claim.

It is not always a claim on a certain title is available and having a claim on something like another kingdom is pretty nice. Later in the game it may matter less but that is perhaps something that can be said about everything.

And unless the AI got better I rather have a higher martial stat than an AI ally except for some really powerfull ones. And for such an alliance you only need to marry off one unimportant child.

Again in the early game you may not have many children so you have to make what you have count. I think it is only your own material skill that matters for troop number and the spouse if a wife can't generally lead armies. So it is only a rather long term thing in which you get a better child since child attributes is in some way based on parents attributes and getting traits such as genius.

 

[Ixalmaris]

It is not always a claim on a certain title is available and having a claim on something like another kingdom is pretty nice. Later in the game it may matter less but that is perhaps something that can be said about everything.


Again in the early game you may not have many children so you have to make what you have count. I think it is only your own material skill that matters for troop number and the spouse if a wife can't generally lead armies. So it is only a rather long term thing in which you get a better child since child attributes is in some way based on parents attributes and getting traits such as genius.

As in CK3 the spouse can buff your martial stat based on her own (See DD6 about the council) so it matters also in the short term.

 

[Denkt]

As in CK3 the spouse can buff your martial stat based on her own (See DD6 about the council it matters also in the short term.

But only by like 20% which is not that much and we don't know what the bonuses for attributes are and you can only do that if the spouse is landless. Also there is no state attributes anymore so that also change stuff.

 

[Ixalmaris]

But only by like 20% which is not that much and we don't know what the bonuses for attributes are and you can only do that if the spouse is landless. Also there is no state attributes anymore so that also change stuff.

Not sure where you get the 20% from. "This adds a large portion of their skill directly to yours" sounds like more than 20%.

We will see what martial will do in CK3, the point that the stats of the spouse are now even more important than in CK2 because of the buffing mechanic which incentivises marrying low for stats (if needed) than marrying high for prestige still stands.

 

[Denkt]

Prestige is now divided up in two components which make the prestige opinion boost more permanent than it is in CK2 and piety have also been divded into two components.

About attributes, given we don't know what they actually (or exactly) will do or what the value of a point is, it is hard to say what value they will have. If you get only 20% of the attributes of the spouse assuming you run the help in everything option, the difference between a 0 material spouse and the maid (33 material? lowborn character) would only be like 6-7 points difference. Obviously you can run the chivalry mission for the spouse which is just based on material it seems so that would be a good option for the maid who is pretty limited in all attributes expect for material but what chivalry does I do not know.

However assuming stuff will be as in CK2 is perhaps a mistake so we cant really tell value of alliances or even how easy it is going to be to get a claim.

 

[tribnia]

The idea of marrying a lowborn woman itself sounds a little...strange.
I mean, as a ruler, why not just make her a noble woman with your power?
Well, it should cost much prestige and piety, I think.

 

[guinea prince]

Well you give up an alliance which can be worth alot, you also lose prestige and claims for your children. And what do you gain, some extra state attribute points that seldom is going to make a difference and a better chance to get better children. So yes you give up quite alot to perhaps gain some doubtful advantages.

Exactly, the loss of an opportunity for non-aggression pacts, alliances, potential claims etc IS a disadvantage. That is already a cost to marrying low, and meaningful prestige/etc costs added to it can make it hurt.

But you make it sound like getting extra stats is meaningless. To speak in CK2 terms, since we haven't played CK3 yet, a wife's skills are imperative to my realm. She can make a mediocre ruler more capable, and makes a capable ruler phenomenal. I'm often asked why I focus so hard on stewardship, and it's because land is wealth is power. I can expect to hold 13-15 counties of my own, to work towards maxing them out with cities. The more land I hold, the more cities, the more tax. The more economic strength you develop, the more force you can project.

And if I'm not there yet, some extra martial advice from my wife can help push my troop count where I need it. Or her diplomacy can keep me under my vassal limit if I'm focusing hard enough on stewardship to neglect my diplo.

Again, bear in mind that these are still likely noblewomen. Some princesses, daughters of barons, low nobility not from great houses, etc. On the rare moments we are romancing peasants, a la lovers from the wilderness, we're still within the realm of possibility to occasionally take a commoner lover. But in regards to marrying a woman for her skills and management instead of her blood, it's a fair marital tactic. The loss of an ally-by-marriage and the loss of claims potential come with their own advantages, and for sure putting yourself in a weaker position in one sector does mean having to address those shortcomings.

Which, again, makes it a cromulent risk-reward decision. Less respect and no ally/claim this pairing, but with tangible benefit.