Bastards and their stats

[binTravkin]

Bastards.

I know they've been overdiscussed, BUT:

As it is now bastards are generated as one of their parents was all zeroes, which leads to bastards being a 'lesser race'.

Basically what CK now says to me is that 'if you're born with half blue blood, you're half a human/character/anything-you-wish-to-call-it'.

This IS discrimination.
One might even call it rascism (same went on with half-whites in past and it was called rascism).

I think if one wanted, he/she might fine Paradox for this kind of thing.
I know these are 'pixel people' and the stuff and Im aware killing children seems to be no legal issue, but in my opinion this is.

For the sake of:
1.Many people hating the current system.
2.Non-realism. No matter how you explain it, bastards never were lesser in their base stats. They were bastards, that was their malus, which usually meant they recieved less threatment, education et cetera, but not lesser genes or base stats if you wish! (base stats in this game work as genes being carried over to next generations via replication, thus they bear clear resemblance to genes).
And there are numerous historical examples in the timeframe of this same game were a non-prodigy bastard (meaning it's not a miracle or something he is so smart/whatever good he is) has higher stats than average (read inbred for generations) full 'blue blooder'.
According to genetics an average bastard should even be more able and healthier than average person originating from two inbred for generations (read full 'blue blood') persons.
3.Discrimination explained above.

I ask to instate a system where the bastards mother is not
0/0/0/0/0 (last one is health)
but
skill/health = random number[0,9] (in interval [0-9])

That way a usual mother of a bastard will be having 18 skill points (4.5 * 4) and 4.5 health per average (4.5/4.5/4.5/4.5/4.5).
Hardly an uber personality but still enough to not make the bastard a retarded character from the very birth (if he even survives to 16).

If it was to be made historical reality, it should even be like 6/6/6/6/6 per average mother of a bastard (note the heightened health in comparison to average 5 in the gamestart) or more.


Right now as it is the bastards as a feature:
1.Distracts from fun.
- I am not happy when one of my children dies, be it bastard or anyone. I am even less happy when I know my child will die with 90% chance (bastard case).
- I am not happy to have bad courtiers. They are no use of, just add a couple more popups for their education/whatnot.
- Each time I look upon a bastard's skills the thought about discrimination disgusts me.

2.Does not add to the flavour of the game.
- I NEVER run into heir problem, thus I never make bastards legitimate heirs (I used with prodigy events, but now they're gone) and I wonder if any adapt CK player does.
- If I need chaste/indulgent/lustful traits for my child, I usually have them through 'hedonism is repulsive'/'teachings of church' series events and other minor ones. I almost never use bastard events to gain traits.

Thus it(they) might aswell be removed if nothing is done to improve them on a basis on realism and without discrimination.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

[/IMG]

As can be seen above, not all bastards are 'idiots'. His legitimate sons are even better.

NEVER run into heir problem, thus I never make bastards legitimate heirs (I used with prodigy events, but now they're gone) and I wonder if any adapt CK player does.

If the oppurtunity/events is there I legitimize bastards.

 

[Riddermark]

yeah but this kind of bastard thing is rare most are idiots and die early 90%

 

[binTravkin]

As can be seen above, not all bastards are 'idiots'. His legitimate sons are even better.

Those kind of 'prodigy' bastards were usually created due to a bug in the latest beta prodigy event.
Now this event hardly ever appears, thus this is not an argument against.

If the oppurtunity/events is there I legitimize bastards.

Yes I do it too, but as things stand they are useless as heirs and I never run out of legitimate sons.
The point here was that if someone argues that bastard can be a 'backup' if all your legtimate heirs die, there's no fun in appointing someone with double chance to die and half the stats as your legitimate heir and an average player never has to do it anyway.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Well there is also the event that makes your bastard or a former basterd legitimate even if you don't want to and if that happens, your heir could change, so your heir is the 'idiot bastard' or one of his sons.

 

[binTravkin]

Veldmaarschalk, we're not talking about events and legitimacy of bastards here, it is only one of the minor uses bastards once had, but with stats like they have now, its nullified (has no use, no grip on the reality and distracts from gameplay).

We are talking about legal issue - the fact person which has born from an aristocratic father and non-aristocratic mother is retarded in all or almost all ways.
It is discrimination and I wonder why Paradox does not see this themselves.
They are basically saying 'all men are not created equal' with the current implementation of bastards (I am not talking about the trait 'bastard' here, but about the person, the character itself - it's retarded).

 

[unmerged(6777)]

A character's stats do not reflect the inate genetic abilities of a character; they reflect a benchmark as to the way that all other characters in the game will react to them. That they carry on and are influential from generation reflects a perseverance of a family's tradition, not the passage of genes.

Historically, the nobility rarely considered illegitimate offspring of a noble to be "noble" enough to obey, thus a character with the "bastard" trait should have correspondingly lower stats to reflect the fact that few nobles of "true blood" would be willing to obey their orders -- whether it be on the field of battle, the royal court, or the parlour.

To make characters with the bastard trait more interesting in the game, we have added events that can result in a fairly nice boost to their base stats (bringing them more in line with "regular" characters if they survive) and this can even result, on occasion, in uber-stat characters in a way that a non-bastards can never receive so in a strange way we are actually discriminating in favour of them at times.

I don't consider it a legal issue, nor does Paradox's legal department. If, however, these events offend you then please do not hesitate to remove them from your game. This is easily done by:

1. Go to the ...\CK\db folder and open up the events.txt file with a basic word processor (Windows installations include "Notepad" and "Wordpad", both of which are suitable. DO NOT use an advanced word processor like Word, Wordperfect, etc.)

2. Scroll towards the bottom of the events list and then add a "#" in front of the line that activates all of the bastard events.:
Change

event = "db\events\bastard_events.txt"

to

#event = "db\events\bastard_events.txt"

3. Save the file and exit.

You will never see another bastard in your game.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Veldmaarschalk, we're not talking about events and legitimacy of bastards here, it is only one of the minor uses bastards once had, but with stats like they have now, its nullified (has no use, no grip on the reality and distracts from gameplay).

We are talking about legal issue - the fact person which has born from an aristocratic father and non-aristocratic mother is retarded in all or almost all ways.
It is discrimination and I wonder why Paradox does not see this themselves.
They are basically saying 'all men are not created equal' with the current implementation of bastards (I am not talking about the trait 'bastard' here, but about the person, the character itself - it's retarded).

Well you were talking about legitimizing bastards yourself and you asked the question does any player do legitimize them.

- I NEVER run into heir problem, thus I never make bastards legitimate heirs (I used with prodigy events, but now they're gone) and I wonder if any adapt CK player does.

And since not all bastards are 'idiots' they can come in handy. Or if they are 'idiots' but they become your heir, this could result in some trouble for your kingdom, and the more troubles the better is my opinion.

And the legal issue you are talking about, that wasn't ment serious or was it ?

BTW not all bastards IRL are sons of nobles and peasants, the women might be a noble women herself but not married to the male, she might have been raped or it was a love child.

Bastards who became powerfull rulers were very rare, William the conquerer being an exception rather then the rule. Bohemund de Hauteville, was a legimite child. Robert Guiscard had been married to his mother, but when Robert Guiscard wanted to remarry he had his former marriage annulled on grounds of consanguinity. So Bohemond de Hauteville is not really a good example.

 

[unmerged(29883)]

You could argue on the same dubious logic that Crusader Kings naturally discriminates against women, by not allowing them a place in the succession order, and that it discriminates against non-christians by making them naturally non-playable and ripe for evicting from their lands and executing as you see fit, etc. etc. Or against any protestants (or indeed any variant of Christianity which isn't catholicism) since they're branded heretics and can be claimed-on or removed at will, etc. etc.

Hell, it discriminates against lazy people. It even discriminates against the lower classes by not allowing them the right to rise to major landholding status, or elect themselves into power.

What I think you're getting at, in a very roundabout way, is that CK is on dubious legal grounds because it is simulating the power structure, struggles and mindset of the medieval age. However, describing that this was the case via any medium, be it printed or interactive, happens to be factually correct. That medieval society was wrong by our standards is scarcely the point. We're wrong by theirs, so your argument should logically be declared illegal in-game and your vassals should instantly attempt to overthrow you for being a lunatic.

The only illegal thing I can think of is if you were to take CK's simulated medieval ideology and apply it to your doings in real life. Even the mods don't take the game that seriously. At least, I don't think they do...

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Veldmaarschalk, we're not talking about events
It is discrimination and I wonder why Paradox does not see this themselves.

Only actual people can be descriminated against, not fictional people.

 

[CatKnight]

You could argue on the same dubious logic that Crusader Kings naturally discriminates against women, by not allowing them a place in the succession order, and that it discriminates against non-christians by making them naturally non-playable and ripe for evicting from their lands and executing as you see fit, etc. etc. Or against any protestants (or indeed any variant of Christianity which isn't catholicism) since they're branded heretics and can be claimed-on or removed at will, etc. etc.

Hell, it discriminates against lazy people. It even discriminates against the lower classes by not allowing them the right to rise to major landholding status, or elect themselves into power.

I think Woz said it best.

CK is not meant to reflect reality. It is meant to reflect a different period of time when the order of the day was simply...different. MUCH different. Take a good look at that event file - there's stuff in there that would scare the heck out of me. Force conversions of children? Looting and vandalizing? Chickens? I don't think you can argue Paradox supports any of it...but that's the way it was, circa 1066. Movies, fantasy fiction and RPGs (and I'm a huge fan of the latter two) tend to gloss things over.

Mr. T's suggestion is valid: If it bothers you, don't use them. To argue that this is a legal issue though is akin to saying the murder mystery I'm currently reading has a legal issue because it discusses killings.

 

[binTravkin]

Heh, well my problem was not I didn't know the history, but I took the skills, health and such as genetic rather than perceptive (relative to nobility) values.
You're all completely correct once I think of them so, but I still think health halving for bastards is not right, because health is a genetic property and the difference between bastard's and normal noble chilren's health was because of different treatment, yet it didn't halve the bastard's chances to survive, a bastard was not less healthier than a sick noblechild.

Now bastards come with 3-5 health, whereas others 5-10 and sometimes even more, basically double the amount of bastards' health.
If we compare an average noblechildren in game who have 6-7 health and an average bastard who has 3-4, then it looks like a noblechild must be pneumonic (-3 health) to be at the same health, which seems quite illogical.

At optimal situation, bastards' avg. health would be equal or -1 from noblechilds and there would be a couple of events 'poor treatment for bastard leads to health problems', which would reflect the poor treatment effects by giving the bastard say illness trait or lowering health more.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Changing the system how bastards are generated would mean code changing for Johan. It might be easy, but it also might be hard and in any case it can't be attended before 1.5 is out.

 

[Swuul]

Now bastards come with 3-5 health, whereas others 5-10 and sometimes even more, basically double the amount of bastards' health.

Health for bastards sure is not "genetic" as you seem to believe. Or do you really think Bastards got same food as legitimate kids, as warm clothes in the winter time as legitimate kids etc?

Bastards had a hard life. Some (like William the conqueror) were exceptions to the rule, but most were ignored and perhaps even hoped to die away to hide away the "sin". Beta CK does IMO well simulating that.

 

[binTravkin]

Health for bastards sure is not "genetic" as you seem to believe. Or do you really think Bastards got same food as legitimate kids, as warm clothes in the winter time as legitimate kids etc?

Bastards had a hard life. Some (like William the conqueror) were exceptions to the rule, but most were ignored and perhaps even hoped to die away to hide away the "sin". Beta CK does IMO well simulating that.

Health as it is in game seems to be shown in it's genetic aspect, while environment changing the health is embedded in form of events.

Bastards had a hard life, I did not say they didn't, but a bastard was not as healthy as a pneumonic child, he/she was healthier and the health loss resulted from ilnesses which in turn were resulted from famine and other attitude related factors, therefore

- health is genetic
- ilness is a result of environment and is depicted as trait
- ilness and other health lowering traits are given by events

Bastards were not born unhealthy, it was the environment which made them be and even then it was not simple born-in unhealthiness, but a sort of illness (anything resulting from malnourishment counts too).

Also we can consider:
- most bastards still got better treatment than e.g. a peasant
- there were bastards which were dear enough to someone (can put 'mother' there) to be taken care of.
- a minor but still significant part of bastards became more healthier than their noble counterparts due to adapting to the harsh environment.

Beta does simulate it fairly well by numbers (only each 1/10 - 1-20) survives), but it would do it slightly better if instead of basically dooming the bastards from the very birth, there were events which depicted the hardships of bastards, while some bastards (you mentioned exceptions yourself) would be lucky and never get them (and that would depend on certain decisions and traits - merciful, fogiving on one side and cruel, proud on the other, of the father, e.g. event choices: 1.'banish the bastard/I hope he dies" and 2."no, every life is dear to me/he reminds me of his mother whom I loved so").

It is not realistic at all to have half the health from the very start, especially knowing that in later ages when inbred children were a commonplace amongst nobility, bastards were at birth much more healthy and developed than noblechildren, for the simple reason they were not inbred (and Im not talking about the trait here but about the genetical degradation happening in many noble families over centuries as they breed between themselves).

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Er...but that's exactly what I *have* done with the events.

A few lucky bastards will get none of the nasty events.
A few lucky bastards will actually get some amazingly good events that could conceivably catapult them to stats that are vastly superior to that that will result from a breeding program.
Some bastards will have the enjoyment of sneaking away to a foreign court, wreaking havoc on their father and killing off his legitimate children, and then can be made legitimate and ultimately inherit their father's realm.
But yes...most will probably not do the above, will lead boring lives where no one is really all that interested in them, and then will die an ignominious death in some backwater of the realm...surprisingly similar to historical reality.



And...


Health is used in only a limitted variety of events. In all such events, it's entirely consistent to consider the health value as perceptive, not genetic. Bastards have much lower health because they will probably not be living at court or have nearly as consistent a level of food/care. They are more likely to be exposed to plague and other disease. They have less exotic armour/weaponry available to them and are somewhat more likely to die if involved in battle. They are also subject to "plots" or general dislike that could see them die prematurely...but rather then script a bunch of additional events (that would tie up CPU cycles) it's all rolled into their health value which will increase their chance of dying.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Note: changed thread title so discussion can continue without alarming anyone.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Er...but that's exactly what I *have* done with the events.

A few lucky bastards will get none of the nasty events.
A few lucky bastards will actually get some amazingly good events that could conceivably catapult them to stats that are vastly superior to that that will result from a breeding program.
Some bastards will have the enjoyment of sneaking away to a foreign court, wreaking havoc on their father and killing off his legitimate children, and then can be made legitimate and ultimately inherit their father's realm.
But yes...most will probably not do the above, will lead boring lives where no one is really all that interested in them, and then will die an ignominious death in some backwater of the realm...surprisingly similar to historical reality.

But they get an illness trait with this event and it makes them nearly impossible for any to survive, even if they get the good events, because illness just lingers on and on...sometimes for decades.

 

[DPS]

Note: changed thread title so discussion can continue without alarming anyone.

What was the original thread title?

 

[Swuul]

But they get an illness trait with this event and it makes them nearly impossible for any to survive, even if they get the good events, because illness just lingers on and on...sometimes for decades.

I prefer to look at that "illness" in this case as an incresed danger of accidently falling backwards on a pointed dagger or the higher risk for unintended mushrooms ending on his plate. Nobles weren't necesarilly happily clapping their hands seeing their god-given rights to titles and land are "stolen" by the by-product of a sin. Besides, he might be cured of the Illness.

How many "William" -class bastards were there anyway compared to "Nobody-could-care-less-if-he-dies" -class bastards? I'd think the ratio is rather big (like 1:1000), and that CK reflects IMO rather well.