• 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.

CK3 - Dev Diary #22 - A Medieval Tapestry

Hello everyone! Today Virvatuli and I are bringing you a Development Diary about how we’re catering to different player fantasies in CK3. We will also showcase some of the content and gameplay you’ll encounter!

We are huge believers in allowing players as much freedom as possible to shape the game world in their image, which is reflected in the Paradox slogan “We make the games, you create the stories.” Of course, when trying to model history reasonably accurately as we do in CK3, your starting environment might be a far cry from the just and equal Realm you wish to rule, but determined players should be able to change the mores of their society over time - if that is their fantasy.

As you might suspect, the CK3 team consists of some very nerdy, passionate and compassionate people. Some of the things we’re outlining in this Dev Diary were part of the regular development process, and some have been passion projects. It has been very important for us to represent our players, the team behind the game, and the people who don’t feature heavily in most history books and media. We want everyone to feel welcome and to empower you to play your fantasy.

CK3 truly is a diverse game; it spans a map of nearly half the world and almost six centuries of history. This world is inhabited by a myriad of titles, cultures, faiths, and characters. It’s been our goal to represent all of these things with a great level of detail and accuracy to give you all a deeply immersive experience with more dynamic elements and player choice than ever before. Will you recreate history, build a brand new world, or something in between? It is all in your hands.

But we haven’t just added more diversity; that variety is also much more readily available than it was in CK2. For example, all Faiths and Cultures on the map are playable on release, and the dynamic Faith system will give you much greater power to change the world. We’ve also added many different Game Rules which allow you to tailor your CK3 experience. If you would rather play as a Queen than a King from day one, the Game Rules let you do that, without having to create a custom Faith during your campaign. There are other challenges out there to conquer and stories to explore!

We are incredibly proud of all the stuff we’ve made for you, so without any further ado, let’s jump into the juicy, juicy details!


Gender Options

All gender-related restrictions in CK3 are controlled by the Faiths, either directly or indirectly. As we have an awesome dynamic Faith system, all such restrictions can be changed during a playthrough. Our design philosophy for Faith Tenets related to gender has been to have the exact same options available for men and women. For example, the “View on Gender” Tenet has the settings “Male Dominated”, “Equal” and “Female Dominated”. All the restrictions for women in Male Dominated Faiths are applied to men instead in Female Dominated Faiths.

genderviewtenet.png


Even when men historically held the highest titles and womens’ rights were limited, women still had a vital impact on the world around them. In many parts of the medieval world, it was not uncommon for women to rule in their husbands’ absence, they were often advisors and took care of estates. We have chosen to represent this with the Spouse Council Position. Your Spouse’s skills have a direct impact on your realm and you will see events about your Spouse handling all sorts of duties, from negotiating with factions to raising additional troops.

the_guard_1.png


Like in CK2, we have a Gender Equality Game Rule, but with some improvements and added variation. The “Equal” setting (corresponding to “All” in CK2) covers more areas and has fewer exceptions than it did in CK2, largely thanks to our dynamic Faith system and the design philosophy mentioned above. It also comes with an “Inverted” setting where the historical gender statuses are turned on their head and women become the dominant gender in most religions.

Diversity_female_rules.png


Women are also more visually present in Crusader Kings than ever before. We have some awesome loading screens with a diverse bunch of characters, for example, but the biggest impact comes from the new event window. In CK2 we had lovely event illustrations, but the drawback was the lack of variation when it came to characters. In CK3 we use our gorgeous character models to bring the events to life, which will showcase the rich diversity of the cast of your playthrough in the event windows.

far_from_home_1.png



Sexuality

Sexuality provides added spice to character behavior and motivations, both in real life and in CK3, and it will also affect what is considered sinful or even criminal in a Faith in the game. It’s great for drama and intrigue, and in CK3 we’ve given sexualities more granularity. In addition to heterosexuality and homosexuality from CK2, characters can also be bisexual and asexual. Sexuality is no longer defined by a trait, but has its own system, which makes it easier to handle for us and more visible in the interface for you. It also means that we do not frame heterosexuality as the default in CK3, which was also important for us.

Children develop their sexualities around the age of 10 and once set, it will not change. It’s worth noting that we don’t model sexual and romantic attraction separately in the game, so a character’s sexuality sets both their sexual and romantic preferences.

budding_attraction.png


We do however differentiate between sexual preference and sexual behavior in-game. A character’s sexuality in and of itself can never be criminal, but certain sexual acts can be. For example, if a Faith’s “View on Same-Sex Relations” is not set to “Accepted”, two men who have sex will get the “Sodomite” Secret (no matter their sexuality). While the AI doesn’t pursue romance or sex with someone they’re not attracted to, the player can sometimes choose to act against their sexual preference (albeit with a penalty, and it can never lead to a lover relationship). This means a player’s heterosexual male character could get the “Sodomite” Secret if they seduce a homosexual or bisexual man.

We have two Game Rules related to sexuality: “View on Same-Sex Relations” and “Sexuality Distribution”. The former is very similar to the “View on Gender” rule I mentioned above; it can change all Faith’s “View on Same-Sex Relations” from their historical defaults to “Accepted”. The latter can change how common each sexuality is. The settings are “Default” which means Heterosexuality is the most common sexuality, “Equal” which makes all four sexualities equally common, and one setting each for Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Asexuality which makes them the most common sexuality instead of Heterosexuality.

accepted_same_sex_relationships.png



Faiths

As the dev diaries of the last couple of weeks have shown we have given Faiths a lot of attention, and as you might already know, all Faiths will be unlocked at game start. The dynamic Faith system has allowed us to add plenty of variation at release; we hope you’ll find that each Faith has its own flavor and quirks.

Even better, we now have more distinctions between different non-Christian Faiths, especially in Africa and India! African Paganism from CK2 has been replaced with at least six new Faiths; Roog, Bori, Siguism, Akom, Waaqism, and Kushitism, all with their own Tenets and flavor. For example, the Bori have a long history of matriarchs and worship the spirits. As they believe in spirit possession and that spirits can be either feminine or masculine, they are accepting of same-sex relations. The Siguics, on the other hand, worship their ancestors and believe that twins are blessed.

religion.png


Hinduism has been split into seven different Faiths. In addition to expanding upon and fleshing out the four main traditions of Hinduism (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism), CK3 also sees the addition of less well-known Hindu traditions such as Krishnaism and Advaitism. Buddhism has five Faiths, Jainism three, and many Religions across the map have received similar diversification. We have also added a Dualism Religion with seven different Faiths, for example Manicheanism, Mandeanism, and Sabianism.

india.png


And as you can create your own Faiths, you will be able to create the kind of society you want to play in. As I have mentioned, some things can be preset through Game Rules, but the challenge of changing the world to your liking can be a really satisfying experience.

For example, we have the Game Rules “Faith Acceptance” which makes religious wars and disagreements a thing of the past, and “Randomized Faiths” which gives everyone in the world a random Faith. For those of you who are sensitive to border gore, please proceed with caution as the following screenshot contains graphic imagery. For the rest, how many Faiths can you spot in the screenshot?

how_many_faiths.png



Ethnicities and Cultures

We have expanded the amount of portrait asset sets from the two in the CK2 base game to a grand total of seven in CK3! On release, there will be a visual distinction between Western Europe, Northern Pagans, the Middle East/North Africa, Byzantium, the Steppe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and India. We will also have an even greater number of ethnicities, so you will see variations within these seven groups.

Thanks to the new portrait system, ethnicities now blend seamlessly. When two characters of different ethnicities have a child, the children will look a bit like both parents. More on this in a later Development Diary!


The End

That’s all for this week, friends! Unfortunately, Virvatuli will not be around to answer your questions this time, as she has set out on a new adventure after four years at Paradox. But the rest of the team will be around, of course, so ask away!

Take care of yourselves and each other <3
 
  • 12Love
  • 9Like
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I've written down the concerns regarding the use of "Marrano", Poganstwo, and the gender status in the Basques and will make sure that this is discussed in the team!
Great!
just please, if you consider it, don't rename Poganstwo to Rodnovery or similar neo-pagan nonsense.
Although not ideal, it is still better than neo-paganist inventions.
 
Great mechanics, really. And the graphic... just wow. Sure enough, I would have liked a more fluid sexuality system, with more nuances than hetero- bi- and homo- premade boxes (a Kingsley scale like in some Rimworld mods?). But I guess this would have brought an unnecessary granularity with no real benefit in gameplay terms, so it's ok.

However, there are some point I'd like to raise, though:
  1. As remarked by many, the indications about claims seem confusing at best. I suppose and hope it was a bad wording, and that what you meant is that strong claims can't be inherited by the wrong gender, and that inherited claims by the wrong gender can be only pressed if special conditions are met? Otherwise, playing "wrong gender" rulers would be unnecessarily penalising. Say, for example, that Queen Urraca loses county x to whatever Occitan Duke she's warring with - in CK2, she would get a strong claim on the land, and be able to attempt a reconquest as soon as the truce period is over (or sooner if she's a treacherous bastard). The way it reads in the screenshot, it seems that won't be the case in CK3: not only (it seems) Urraca will not inherit any claim, but even the ones she rightfully (or not...) gets on her own will always be weak claims. Isn't that a bit too punishing and even ahistoric?
  2. As others remarked, I sincerely hope that the moment of the "discovery" of one's sexuality is more complex than a single "X is bisexual" event. I hope there will be an event chain leading to that "fatal" announcement, and also a chain of events after that. I am thinking, for example, of events that could lead the character, faced with the evidence of an impious attraction, to embrace chastity (and gain the relevant trait and a significant amount of stress), to quietly accept the fact and see where the vagaries of life will take him or her, or to get on the ride and make the most of it (gaining the lustful trait and a significant reduction in stress).
  3. I know that having the "homosexual" trait does not mean that a character will necessarily have secrets, but pretty please do so that this (not having secrets) is significantly the case! In a society where marriage is first and foremost a question of duty, and where religion is so pervasive, acting on desire alone - especially if that desire is condemned - must still be the exception. Married homosexual characters should have only little more incentive to sexually cheat on their spouse than any other heterosexual character in the game - after all, homosexual and heterosexual alike are just pursuing their duty, not their desire.
 
Last edited:
A very exciting dev diary!

One thing that I noticed was that Shaivism and Vaishnavism had adjectival forms of Shaivist and Vaishnaist. I am Hindu, and I’ve only ever seen Shaivite and Vaishnavite used as the adjectival forms for these branches. Luckily this is a Paradox game, so this can be easily adjusted via mods, but it would be great if they could be modified in the game itself. :)

Thanks for the note! If I remember correctly we had to make up adjectives for some faiths since we found little information during our research, so pointers like these are very welcome.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I've written down the concerns regarding the use of "Marrano", Poganstwo, and the gender status in the Basques and will make sure that this is discussed in the team!
Will Hussitism be added? It's technically in the frame of CK3 (14 hundreds). And if it's not already in the game can you discuss it too pls? I'm Hussite lover sry :p It's so interesting faith and all this "Hussite Crusades" were one of the most interesting events in medieval history :)
 
Thanks to the new portrait system, ethnicities now blend seamlessly. When two characters of different ethnicities have a child, the children will look a bit like both parents. More on this in a later Development Diary!
Oh I am looking forward to this. It was always neat to look back at my dynasty and remember how that and that couple had children that looked such and such reigning over some demesne I hand landed them with centuries ago. Really makes you feel invested in the Empire you build.
 
Very dense devlog ! Though I have one question :

It also means that we do not frame heterosexuality as the default in CK3, which was also important for us.

I don't really know how to understand this sentence. Is "the" in "the default" is implying the default sexuality in whole CK world ?
If it just imply the default sexuality for a population, it does not make much sense in my opinion. Society has dominants values, which create "defaults" principles and, yes, default sexuality orientation. This could be heterosexuality, homosexuality (like this science fiction book whose I forgot the name, to control birth on the Earth) or whatever.

Maybe a norm / deviance mechanic on the faiths would fit better for sexuality ? Like every faith has one or more "default sexuality orientation" (the norms), which could be from the four mentioned in the dev diary, and the others qualified of deviancy (being more or less criminal).
So sexual orientation would be known if it is a norm, and hidden if it is deviant (and could be detected and used in plots through acts motivated by this deviancy), instead of being visible through traits.

For exemple, let's take catholicism :
- Heterosexuality : Norm
- Asexuality : Norm (bonus if for religious motive)
- Bisexuality : Deviant (criminal)
- Homosexuality : Deviant (criminal)

Or old hellenistic faith (simplified, to show the interchangeability) :
- Heterosexuality : Deviant for men (tolerated), norm for women
- Asexuality : Deviant (tolerated)
- Bisexuality : Norm for men, deviant (tolerated ?) for women
- Homosexuality : Deviant (tolerated)

Just throwing an idea
 
Wow... Not 100% understanding this dev diary.

Crusader Kings is one of my favourite game series of all time and with good reason. It has successfully implemented a historically based sandbox with which people can rewrite history without falling too far from the historical norms. In essence is all about relationships within the human based social constructs we have built historically, a imo it has achieved this magnificently up until now.

This Dev diary completely changes this.

My questioning is that you are being selective with what is possible and not possible in the main game and with modding, but in particular have decided to build into the game the option to change default gender roles into the game which is a fantasy change, not a change to social constructs like the option to have a female dominated society.

It's like you're either saying that it would have been biologically possible to have an entirely or dominant homo/bi/asexual society during this timeframe, or that gender is a social construct and a choice... Neither are true right? Sounds like you are making this more a fantasy game and less a historical sandbox which is great for those that want to mod the game to be so, but it makes more sense to implement slavery and cross dressing than biology in the main game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
index.php


Regarding gender view in faiths, I see that the dominated versions are very rigid. You already answered a question about making exceptions for knights, but I'm more interested in claim inheritance.

I don't think there's any argument that actual Medieval Catholicism was "Male Dominated," but AFAIK there were still cases of pressing cognatically inherited claims. First example that springs to my mind is Svend II of Denmark who fought for the throne based on a claim inherited through his maternal uncle and grandfather. Will something like that even be possible in CK3's historical faiths if women do not inherit claims?

Women do not get implicit claims if the Male Dominated tenet is active, and vice versa, but they will still inherit claims just like anyone would. An implicit claim is a new type of claim in CK3 where a child has the claim even while their parent is alive. The tooltip is unclear on this, and it has been clarified!
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Very dense devlog ! Though I have one question :



I don't really know how to understand this sentence. Is "the" in "the default" is implying the default sexuality in whole CK world ?
If it just imply the default sexuality for a population, it does not make much sense in my opinion. Society has dominants values, which create "defaults" principles and, yes, default sexuality orientation. This could be heterosexuality, homosexuality (like this science fiction book whose I forgot the name, to control birth on the Earth) or whatever.

Maybe a norm / deviance mechanic on the faiths would fit better for sexuality ? Like every faith has one or more "default sexuality orientation" (the norms), which could be from the four mentioned in the dev diary, and the others qualified of deviancy (being more or less criminal).
So sexual orientation would be known if it is a norm, and hidden if it is deviant (and could be detected and used in plots through acts motivated by this deviancy), instead of being visible through traits.

For exemple, let's take catholicism :
- Heterosexuality : Norm
- Asexuality : Norm (bonus if for religious motive)
- Bisexuality : Deviant (criminal)
- Homosexuality : Deviant (criminal)

Or old hellenistic faith (simplified, to show the interchangeability) :
- Heterosexuality : Deviant for men (tolerated), norm for women
- Asexuality : Deviant (tolerated)
- Bisexuality : Norm for men, deviant (tolerated ?) for women
- Homosexuality : Deviant (tolerated)

Just throwing an idea
I agree with you about the religious model. However, that's not what the devs meant about heterosexuality not being the mean. There was a clarification on this upthread. Basically, CK2's engine assumes everyone is a straight man unless specifically marked otherwise. That's how the character files are written, and the way the events are coded reflects that. As I understand it, the CK3 engine doesn't have this assumption - each character's gender and sexuality is explicitly coded for, and each relevant event explicitly checks whether those attributes are suitable for it.

That doesn't mean heterosexuality won't be the most common option (unless you use the alternative rule to change this) or the social norm (unless you use the tolerance rule to change this). Default historical settings will still make sense.

nd
 
Great!
just please, if you consider it, don't rename Poganstwo to Rodnovery or similar neo-pagan nonsense.
Although not ideal, it is still better than neo-paganist inventions.
A reasonable compromise in my opinion would be to have generic "X Paganism" names for unreformed pagans (referencing the fact that these ancestral faiths didn't really have a proper name to define them originally, just like they lacked a systematic theology or a strong clerical organization) and fantasy or neo-pagan inspired names for the reformed versions of Paganism which are ahistorical anyway, so you get "Germanic/Norse Paganism" before reformation and "Asatru" or something like that after reformation.
 
I've written down the concerns regarding the use of "Marrano", Poganstwo, and the gender status in the Basques and will make sure that this is discussed in the team!
Thank you!
 
Wow... Not 100% understanding this dev diary.

Crusader Kings is one of my favourite game series of all time and with good reason. It has successfully implemented a historically based sandbox with which people can rewrite history without falling too far from the historical norms. In essence is all about relationships within the human based social constructs we have built historically, a imo it has achieved this magnificently up until now.

This Dev diary completely changes this.

My questioning is that you are being selective with what is possible and not possible in the main game and with modding, but in particular have decided to build into the game the option to change default gender roles into the game which is a fantasy change, not a change to social constructs like the option to have a female dominated society.

It's like you're either saying that it would have been biologically possible to have an entirely or dominant homo/bi/asexual society during this timeframe, or that gender is a social construct and a choice... Neither are true right? Sounds like you are making this more a fantasy game and less a historical sandbox which is great for those that want to mod the game to be so, but it makes more sense to implement slavery and cross dressing than biology in the main game.

I don't think you understood the dev diary, indeed.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Wow... Not 100% understanding this dev diary.

Crusader Kings is one of my favourite game series of all time and with good reason. It has successfully implemented a historically based sandbox with which people can rewrite history without falling too far from the historical norms. In essence is all about relationships within the human based social constructs we have built historically, a imo it has achieved this magnificently up until now.

This Dev diary completely changes this.

My questioning is that you are being selective with what is possible and not possible in the main game and with modding, but in particular have decided to build into the game the option to change default gender roles into the game which is a fantasy change, not a change to social constructs like the option to have a female dominated society.

It's like you're either saying that it would have been biologically possible to have an entirely or dominant homo/bi/asexual society during this timeframe, or that gender is a social construct and a choice... Neither are true right? Sounds like you are making this more a fantasy game and less a historical sandbox which is great for those that want to mod the game to be so, but it makes more sense to implement slavery and cross dressing than biology in the main game.

It's an open question whether orientation is biologically determined. But that's not the point here. Introducing (say) slavery would involve coding an entire new subsystem. These purely optional rules just put movable handles on the parameters of the existing system.

nd
 
It's like you're either saying that it would have been biologically possible to have an entirely or dominant homo/bi/asexual society during this timeframe, or that gender is a social construct and a choice... Neither are true right?
Well, I don't know about the first but the idea that gender is a social construct is an opinion that is subject of debate. As far as I'm concerned there's no doubt that our shared culture has created gender stereotypes and gender roles that through time have become extremely removed and unrelated to the biological differences between men and women. At the same time nobody just chooses what they're attracted to all by themselves. It depends on what you mean when you say "gender is a social construct and a choice", because those two things are different, if slightly related, concepts.

Sounds like you are making this more a fantasy game and less a historical sandbox which is great for those that want to mod the game to be so, but it makes more sense to implement slavery and cross dressing than biology in the main game.
It sounds to me that Paradox just expanded on the stuff that they've been doing through the entirety of CK2's life. They're adding more optional rules relating to sexuality for the people that want to mess with them while leaving the historical default as, well, default, and made things even easier for modders just like they've been doing with CK2's many updates.
 
Well, I don't know about the first but the idea that gender is a social construct is an opinion that is subject of debate. As far as I'm concerned there's no doubt that our shared culture has created gender stereotypes and gender roles that through time have become extremely removed and unrelated to the biological differences between men and women. At the same time nobody just chooses what they're attracted to all by themselves. It depends on what you mean when you say "gender is a social construct and a choice", because those two things are different, if slightly related, concepts.


It sounds to me that Paradox just expanded on the stuff that they've been doing through the entirety of CK2's life. They're adding more optional rules relating to sexuality for the people that want to mess with them while leaving the historical default as, well, default, and made things even easier for modders just like they've been doing with CK2's many updates.

Agree exactly, but I do question the motivation to place a modern lens on this optionality as it does change the scope and direction of this franchise and I don't understand what it provides otherwise. Then again I'm a former history teacher and prefer historical accuracy where it fits, and play a fantasy sci fi game if I want a genderless society etc..
 
Agree exactly, but I do question the motivation to place a modern lens on this optionality as it does change the scope and direction of this franchise and I don't understand what it provides otherwise. Then again I'm a former history teacher and prefer historical accuracy where it fits, and play a fantasy sci fi game if I want a genderless society etc..

maybe you should read the first article of the DD more carefuly then?
We are huge believers in allowing players as much freedom as possible to shape the game world in their image, which is reflected in the Paradox slogan “We make the games, you create the stories.” Of course, when trying to model history reasonably accurately as we do in CK3, your starting environment might be a far cry from the just and equal Realm you wish to rule, but determined players should be able to change the mores of their society over time - if that is their fantasy.

As I consider myself a big fighter for historical accuracy (and I believe those who got to know me on this forum would agree). Yet I don't see any conflict between content of this DD and historical accuracy.
This kind of content is meant to be fantasy possibilities for players who want it, not attempts to place a modern lens on medieval society. It is open for those who want to go this way. Those who don't want, will not be affected by this freedom for others in no way. I don't see why people keep seeing a problem in that.
 
Last edited:
I really like the portraits, and I like how Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism have been split up (though I'm less knowledgeable on Jainism).
However, once again, I have a problem with how Islam has been organised.
First off: "Muwalladi". Muwalladun (singular muwallad) was a term used in al-Andalus to refer to native converts to Islam, not a separate religion so unless there's some finickity gameplay reason Iberian Muslims need to be a separate faith, I don't see the need for it.

Is Masmudi meant to be the "religion" of the Almohads/al-Muwahhidun? I can see why you wouldn't want to tie it to just the Almohads, but naming it Masmudi also ties it just to the Masmuda Berbers, which would also be a bad idea because the "religion" was really just an extreme reaction to the perceived anthropomorphism of God that other Islamic denominations were allegedly engaging. I have no problem with a Faith like this being in game, but the name shouldn't have any ethnic or geographical connotations since technically it could appear anywhere in the Islamic world (this is all assuming that Masmudi is the Almohad ideology).

The Najdat seem like such a small branch of the Kharijites that it may be a bit pointless to have them, but I can't really comment further without seeing any of the Kharijite groups.

Nizari. A previous dev diary (where I disagreed with splitting up Sunnism into its theological schools) showed that you already have the Ismailis and this dev diary shows that you have the Imamis (Twelvers). I like that change. However, just how far down the rabbit hole of Shia denominations are you going? You've shown Nizari, but what about Musta'li or the further divisions down the line? The other important point is that these denominations were named after the people involved in the succession disputes: Nizari after Abu Mansur Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, Musta'li after al-Musta'li Billah ibn al-Mustansir, and so on. You can't really have Faiths named after people who don't/won't exist, especially as I think it's been that we now only have set starting dates.
 
Agree exactly, but I do question the motivation to place a modern lens on this optionality as it does change the scope and direction of this franchise and I don't understand what it provides otherwise. Then again I'm a former history teacher and prefer historical accuracy where it fits, and play a fantasy sci fi game if I want a genderless society etc..
I don't think there's a change in scope or direction since similar ahistorical options were already in CK2 and when playing with the historical default settings all it's going to change is that now there's a more defined and deep system for sexual orientation, which doesn't collide at all with historical accuracy and it's quite the opposite in fact.
People with different sexual orientations have always existed even in the Middle Ages when things like a "gay" identity was very far from being even conceived, with this system in place now the game will be able to do a better job at representing nobles who had non-standard sexualities in that era (since the Homosexual trait in CK2 was kinda bland) and even just from a gameplay point of view there's going to be more depth and more stuff related to who you will be able to seduce with your characters, how to handle stress if you're playing as an homosexual ruler and you're trying to have heirs and avoid being labelled as a sodomite, etc.
 
Women do not get implicit claims if the Male Dominated tenet is active, and vice versa, but they will still inherit claims just like anyone would. An implicit claim is a new type of claim in CK3 where a child has the claim even while their parent is alive. The tooltip is unclear on this, and it has been clarified!

@Heptopus, so do you confirm that all claims held by wrong gender characters will always be weak (i.e. unenforceable against adult males), or is this another thing that is unclear in the tooltip, as I hope?
 
Last edited:
I've written down the concerns regarding the use of "Marrano", Poganstwo, and the gender status in the Basques and will make sure that this is discussed in the team!
Thank you.