Confirmed CK III - Starting as a custom character overrides Gender Equality Game Rule

[Plancklength]

Short summary of your issue
Starting as a custom character overrides Gender Equality Game Rule

Game Version
1.4.0

What OS are you playing on?
Windows

What platform are you using?
Steam

Do you have mods enabled?
No

Have you tried verifying your game files (Steam only)?
Yes

How much "pain" is this causing you?
3

Please explain the issue you experienced in the most condensed way possible
If you start the game as a character created through the ruler designer, while using the Gender Equality = "Equal" game rule, your realm will still use its default succession law, such as "Male Preference." This only affects the custom character's realm. Other realms have "Equal" succession as would be expected under the Gender Preference = Equal game rule.

Please explain how to reproduce the issue
Create a custom character. Set the Gender Equality game rule to "Equal." Start the game. Upon checking your own succession law, it will be the default gender law, as if you had not changed the gender equality game rule.

Is there anything else you think could help us identify/replicate the issue?
If you start as a non-customized character, the Gender Equality = Equal game rule works as expected-- all realms, including your own have Equal succession. Your religion does start with the Equal view on gender doctrine, as expected.

I have attached a save game
Yes

Upload Attachment
File(s) attached

 

[NamelessTheSecond]

Hello Plancklength,
Thank you very much for your report! The issue has been added to our database and the team will have a look at it.

 

[Mordh]

I'd like to remember this issue is not solved in the lastest patch and DLC update, 1.5

 

[Mordh]

New Update, 1.5.1 and this issue is still not solved.

 

[Mordh]

Aaaaaaand still not solved.

 

[saffronsnail]

I know this thread is old but as of 1.8.2 this is still a problem... any chance this is getting fixed in T&T?

 

[Emperor 1997]

I know this thread is old but as of 1.8.2 this is still a problem... any chance this is getting fixed in T&T?

Why did you want equal succession law so hard?
It is the most broken and dangerous law in the game, becaue the AI under Equal is more than happy to marry their direct heir into the wrong marriage, because under Equal, it is only a -200 penalty and not the -1000 penalty, so the Devs should fix that first.

 

[saffronsnail]

I don't get that deep into the mechanics, I like the game as role-playing/alternate history fantasy, and I enjoy the game more when the sexes are equal. I agree that both bugs should be fixed.

More to the point, the option exists, so this is a valid bug. I shouldn't have to defend my decision to select a particular setting. It's a game, it's made to be enjoyed.

 

[Emperor 1997]

I don't get that deep into the mechanics, I like the game as role-playing/alternate history fantasy, and I enjoy the game more when the sexes are equal. I agree that both bugs should be fixed.

More to the point, the option exists, so this is a valid bug. I shouldn't have to defend my decision to select a particular setting. It's a game, it's made to be enjoyed.

I don't wanted to attack you, but I only wanted to warn you about the AI under Equal, you need to keep a close eye, if you land any close relative, because they are more than happy to lose their titles via wrong marriages for their heir.

 

[saffronsnail]

So I added this block to the on_ruler_designer_finished effect in common/on_action/ruler_designer.txt:

if = { limit = { has_game_rule = full_gender_equality } game_rule_full_gender_equality_effect = yes }

It's the same block that's in the on_game_start_after_lobby effect in common/on_action/game_start.txt. It looks like this fixes it - I started a new game with a custom character, and succession laws were correct. Surprisingly, this worked even if I set the rule after creating the ruler. I'm not sure if the bug also applies to inversed_gender_equality, the code block is the same except "inversed" instead of "full". This probably isn't the most elegant solution, but it seems to work.