Incest marriages for all religions

[CheesySnake]

I can kind of see where OP is coming from. Allowing marriage of close relatives would increase player freedom to some degree, letting you RP some fairly bizarre characters. However, I agree with the consensus in the thread: there's no way such a thing would fit with the time period. Even if King Bob managed to cajole a priest into marrying them to their sister Princess Bobette, there's no way the marriage would be seen as legitimate.

One could argue that it would make an interesting RP angle (in sticking a massive black stain on your dynasty that you would aim to get rid of), but it would be essentially like shooting yourself in both feet prior to running a marathon. Any resulting children would be seen as bastards by the world at large, so it would essentially leave your titles up for grabs to the strongest bidder. When King Bob dies, the children would not be seen as his legitimate heirs by anyone (likely including others within the family who could otherwise stand to inherit) so by the rules of the game, you'd essentially have Game Over unless you had a siblings line to pass on to.

Arguably, CKII's aim is to make your dynasty stronger and last through the ages. Something like this would be kind of counter productive. Admittedly, the same kind of thing occurs when you seduce a sibling (etc) through the focuses and pop out some weans, but "forbidden love" is probably a step or two below "I'm going to marry my sister, and the abominations our union produces will be the legitimate heirs to my kingdom. Screw you guys."

 

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

essentially like shooting yourself in both feet prior to running a marathon.

Yes, this is exactly what I want

 

[Fitzjacob]

I don't agree with adding sibling-marriages, but I definitely want the pope to be more involved in matters of consanguinity. After all, he excommunicated Robert the Pious for marrying his cousin Bertha of Burdundy and more interfering from a currently rather docile pope can only be a good thing.

 

[hagagaga]

OP, if you want us to take you seriously, you have to do something other than come up with increasingly ridsiculous explanations for why your idea should be implemented and stop ignoring that a marriage has to be recognized by society in order to be valid.

While a strong argument can be made for relatives to be concubines, it is the exception, rather than the norm for such a relationship to be considered a valid marriage. That is why it is Zoroastrian and Messalian only.

 

[DPS]

I can kind of see where OP is coming from. Allowing marriage of close relatives would increase player freedom to some degree, letting you RP some fairly bizarre characters. However, I agree with the consensus in the thread: there's no way such a thing would fit with the time period. Even if King Bob managed to cajole a priest into marrying them to their sister Princess Bobette, there's no way the marriage would be seen as legitimate.

OTOH, you can seduce your sister, and if she doesn't rebuff your advances, you can legitimize any resulting bastards. So, arguably, the game already does allow you to do what the OP wants. Seduce your sister, consider yourself married to her, legitimize your bastards with her--other than others recognizing your coupling with your sister as a valid, legal marriage (and he says that it doesn't matter if anyone else but the couple recognize the marriage as valid), what more does he want? But then, I don't see his complaint; the game already lets him do what he wants, and the cost is only that the legitimized bastards have a -1 to their diplomacy rating, and the "spouse's" ratings don't contribute to your state ratings. He says that penalties for doing it are OK with him, and those seem like reasonable penalties to me.

Oh, and BTW, for those guys perverted enough to want to have sex with their own daughters, the game provides a way to do that, too. Father a bastard daughter, don't acknowledge her, and neither society nor the game recognizes her as your child. When she turns 16, you can seduce her, make her your concubine, or even contract a valid marriage with her. It's a loophole that is probably only there because Paradox never dreamed that any of their customers would be deviant enough to try such a thing.

 

[RoverGrover]

I don't agree with adding sibling-marriages, but I definitely want the pope to be more involved in matters of consanguinity. After all, he excommunicated Robert the Pious for marrying his cousin Bertha of Burdundy and more interfering from a currently rather docile pope can only be a good thing.

I like the idea of a more active pope. Really in general,but consanguinity would be a great place to start.

 

[Rationalsanity]

Middle Ages. You are NOT an almighty emperor. You are an emperor bound to feudal and social consense. Absolutism wasn't a thing during the middle ages.

And even absolute rulers, or at least those who kept their crowns and lives, paid heed to basic social rules and taboos.

 

[SovereignGrave]

But seriously, if they love each other so much that don't care any punishments like excommunity, imprison, opinion penalty or even death threat....Why not?
As long as they can stand together against world.(Rulers around them will attack them for excommunity CB, their subjects will revolt, people in their count will not loyal to them...But, if a ruler is so determined, why he cannot?)
Medieval rulers can be mad, can be lunatic, can be zealous, can be ridiculous. But, they cannot marry their sister when they really want no matter the cost? Really?

I wouldn't have a problem with there being extremely rare events that could happen if the ruler was insane or somehow managed to fall in love with a close relative or whatnot. But it's not something any ruler should be able to do at any time (and it should provoke the appropriate response of excommunication and all your vassals hating your guts).

 

[Red Barron]

Is this the Game of Thrones syndrome, I have sister and a daughter, playing a game or whatever there is a big ick factor to it, short of throwing up . Whatever floats people's boats I guess, who am I to judge. I will not be using such a feature ever.

 

[hagagaga]

It's a loophole that is probably only there because Paradox never dreamed that any of their customers would be deviant enough to try such a thing.

They must never have looked at the forums, then.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Furion Matsuya,

Why you cant undrestand, point is not sticking your closerelative, even marring him/her. Point is what people can do. And act and punishment with it. If it is forbiden and you still do it then there will come chaose what will destroy your power and dynasty if you cant handle it.

All might emperor of Britannia as i am. My count vassal come to me to ask blessing to marry his sis, so i have power to give blessing, but i dont have power to deny them marriage. And lets say i give them blessing, but pope wants him killed, so i have to power to defend him from pope, if i decide. And even if i deny him marriage, i can try to imprison him for not following my almight command, or kill him. But im dont unseer divine force what can build mental wall between them and stop them considering to be married,i only can enforce my law and decision by force.

Don't take that done with me!, take a chill pill and get it through your head that this isn't going to happen and that your arguments don't hold weight. Even absolute rulers had things they couldn't do and CKII isn't in the age of absolutism which even for monarchical times was fairly short in length. The Bourbon Kings would not have gotten away with incest (cousins don't count but I don't recall them ever going Hapsburg).

What if my hearts content is to inbreed in ironman mode?

You see where I am going with this?

Thank you for insulting me as a newbie, oh and you should proof-read what you post.

Then play a mod that lets you do so, mod the game you're self or find the dynasty you want to play as and add divine blood = yes under it in the dynasty name list shesh.

You can't have everything and I don't see the devs doing this, if only because they don't want to deal with any potential controversy from certain elements. They didn't give the Muhammad a portrait for likely the same reasons instead using that symbol instead.

I mean EUIV already gets criticized by some people off site for it's colonization which lets you basically commit genocide and exploit natives etc, I dunno if it's SJW's or not and it doesn't matter the point is that they do get criticism.

So no I don't see your point or where you are going and I don't think it's a valid one whatever it is.

Also I called you a newbie because you accused me of shutting down discussion and you are a far newer member then I am, it wasn't a freaking insult.

 

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

snip

The good thing about insults is, you are not the one to decide if what you said is insulting or not

I think you are missing the whole point of this discussion.
It is not about, what was realistic at the time or what should be expected to happen.
The thing is to give the player more freedom in their gameplay, soft-borders vs. hard-borders.
I play CK2 because it gets really crazy (when you are playing a homosexual king and you seduce the homosexual pope for money) but that is only possible because we have that amount of freedom.
It clearly wouldnt have happened or would have been realistic in the middle-ages (or was it?).

But it is fun.
Restricting players is not.

 

[Gamengervi]

The good thing about insults is, you are not the one to decide if what you said is insulting or not

I think you are missing the whole point of this discussion.
It is not about, what was realistic at the time or what should be expected to happen.
The thing is to give the player more freedom in their gameplay, soft-borders vs. hard-borders.
I play CK2 because it gets really crazy (when you are playing a homosexual king and you seduce the homosexual pope for money) but that is only possible because we have that amount of freedom.
It clearly wouldnt have happened or would have been realistic in the middle-ages (or was it?).

But it is fun.
Restricting players is not.

I play Crusader Kings II because of my interest in medieval marriage law.

 

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I play Crusader Kings II because of my interest in medieval marriage law.

which is perfectly fine. I should have explained "soft-borders" a little bit deeper.
Soft-borders are not changing the game, instead they keep it as is but if you step out of line (marrying your close relatives) you get punished for it, harshly.

 

[hagagaga]

The good thing about insults is, you are not the one to decide if what you said is insulting or not

I think you are missing the whole point of this discussion.
It is not about, what was realistic at the time or what should be expected to happen.
The thing is to give the player more freedom in their gameplay, soft-borders vs. hard-borders.
I play CK2 because it gets really crazy (when you are playing a homosexual king and you seduce the homosexual pope for money) but that is only possible because we have that amount of freedom.
It clearly wouldnt have happened or would have been realistic in the middle-ages (or was it?).

But it is fun.
Restricting players is not.

This would be more like the king marrying the pope.

 

[Gamengervi]

which is perfectly fine. I should have explained "soft-borders" a little bit deeper.
Soft-borders are not changing the game, instead they keep it as is but if you step out of line (marrying your close relatives) you get punished for it, harshly.

I was making a joke. What you guys want is ridiculous in that the sheer thought of it is ahistorical to the period in which the game takes place. A game which is, ultimately, a simulation and supposed to be relatively historically accurate. Marriage between close relatives was completely illegal in the Christian world and even more so in the Islamic world, where Islam's primary holy text forbids it.

 

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I was making a joke. What you guys want is ridiculous in that the sheer thought of it is ahistorical to the period in which the game takes place. A game which is, ultimately, a simulation and supposed to be relatively historically accurate. Marriage between close relatives was completely illegal in the Christian world and literally going against the religious laws in the Islamic world.

Well, if I wanted realistic accuracy, I would go to the library.
Ridiculous events are (for me) the most funny things in this game

 

[Gamengervi]

But the game is a historical simulation...

 

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

But the game is a historical simulation...

Oh is it?

 

[Gamengervi]

Oh is it?

According to Paradox Interactive, yes.

Also, Wikipedia.