• 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.
For the adoption option, if it ever gets into the base game, i think it should be still very hard to do.
E.g. having the head of dynasty accept it (or even somewhat of a elders ruling on it), followed by it needing to be accepted by the lords of the realm and any nessecary head of religion. And if they don't accept you still might be able to do it. But you'll end up with a faction to dethrone you.

Then again, seeing how the current AI acts - i'd still be more in favor of this option staying completly optional. E.g. gamerule that's turned off by default.
 
I don't think it should be in the base game. A large point of the game is the management of your linage and a gay marriage basically means game over. To make it workable you would also need to add adoptions which is a whole new game mechanic and in my opinion does not work well with the base game as you are then not anymore dependent on your own children and can simply conjure heirs out of thin air.

As a modding option sure, but not in the base game.

That's basically what I said in my post, but you only read the first sentence.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
OK, this is a topic I was quite vocal on during development, and I hope no-one minds if I weigh in again.

1) I am strongly in favour of the OP's proposals. Both as a queer person, and as a modder. The Faerûn mod, like the Warhammer one, will benefit greatly from these changes. Firstly, because it's a queer-inclusive setting, with canon LGB and trans characters. Secondly, because it has a bunch of non-standard reproductive options including vampirism, cloning, and illithid ceremorphosis.

2) I do think these changes should be incorporated into the base game, as follows:

A) Enable same-sex marriage through religious doctrines, which in vanilla should be handled with one of the following three models - I don't mind which:

i) Expand the 'Same Sex Relations' doctrine to have a 'Supported' level in which same-sex partners are eligible for marriage on the same footing as mixed-sex ones.

ii) Have separate 'Marriage Type' and 'Divorce' doctrines for same-sex and mixed-sex marriages, with the same-sex ones only being available if same-sex relations are not criminal, and costing a lot of extra piety if they are shunned.

iii) Have a 'Same Sex Unions' doctrine in the marriage category allowing blood-brotherhood, which becomes interpreted as a marriage under certain conditions. The levels would be none, chaste, open, exclusive. With 'None', no same-sex unions are possible. With 'chaste', same-sex unions are allowed, but they are expected to be chaste, and couples breaking this stricture gain a secret (sodomite if same-sex relations are criminal, adulterer/lover if same-sex relations are not criminal and the man is married to a woman, fornicator/lover otherwise). 'Open' is only available if same-sex relations are Accepted, and causes each partner to be treated as the other's secondary spouse if they are sexually compatible (that is, if neither of them is straight or asexual). 'Exclusive' means that people forming same-sex unions cannot also form marriages - having one precludes the other. The 'Exclusive' option is treated as a full marriage if same-sex relations are accepted and the two partners are compatible. A union which is treated as a marriage generates the adulterer/lover secret for a partner who has sex outside it.

B) Enable adoption through the use of a new 'legal parent' relationship (which would also be set appropriately when legitimising bastards). One possibility would be to allow the dynasty head (or perhaps the house head) to enable and disable this option for all dynasty/house members by issuing a house law.

nd
 
  • 5
  • 4Love
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
the doctrine of same-sex relations need to be divided in 4. as there is a lot of difference between a religion tolerating homosexuality and accepting it. religions that fully accepted did exist but were rare (hellenism , for example, did have same sex marriage ) , religions that completely accept should have marriages and specific events .
Unless there is something that I haven't read you could provide, Hellenism didn't have same sex marriage/union. They did have pederasty and did have male homosexual activity (lesbianism was almost non-existent), but even in this relationship, they viewed 'passive role' (i.e. the 'penetrated') as 'disgusting' and 'lower class' (read: slave) so not entirely 'accepted' as in modern usage.
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The developers have said that their goal is to maximize player freedom to allow players to tell their own stories. In that spirit, I think that same-sex relationships and all their various implications should be in the base game, but it should be very difficult, unless you change the settings (similar to how you can change the setting so everyone accepts homosexuality). In fact, I think that the default in the base game should be that it is very difficult--but possible!--to be openly gay, though I also think that there should be a setting in game setup where you can have it accepted. For example, gay characters should gain stress from marrying/sleeping with different-sex characters, from being without a same-sex lover for an extended period of time, and from having to hide having a lover if their religion does not accept homosexuality.

Likewise, it should be hard (in the default setting, but changeable during game setup) to introduce same-sex marriage into places where historically it was not accepted. For example, I can imagine a game where after a couple hundred years my dynasty is relatively well-established and my character is (for example) the Emperor of Hispania. Let's say that character is also gay, and Catholic fervor is very low. I could then create my own branch of Christianity that accepts homosexuality, recognizes same-sex marriages, and allows adoption. Now that I've created my custom religion, I can get myself gay-married. But my life is also now quite hard: all my Catholic neighbors now have a holy war cassus belli against me (probably), I'm vulnerable as the target of a crusade, and I have to deal with a multi-century process of converting the entire Iberian peninsula to a different religion, probably all while fighting populist uprisings in the process. On top of that, I would have to deal with the 'sodomite' opinion hit for everyone who didn't convert to my religion. There would be benefits, though: as a gay ruler, I would lose the stress hits from having to marry a woman and being perpetually without a same-sex lover or having to hide a relationship.

As someone who studied history, this sounds eminently plausible to me, at least as far as the crazy stuff that happens in CK3 goes. One of the things that I think people don't understand is that in the Medieval era, you could do whatever you wanted if you were powerful enough. As I've said a few times in this thread, the king of England started his own religion just because he wanted a divorce. That wasn't easy--it led to a lot of external and internal strife within England. But he did get his divorce. That experience more or less parallels creating new religions in CK3, where you can do it, but it makes your life a lot harder.

For the adoption option, if it ever gets into the base game, i think it should be still very hard to do.
E.g. having the head of dynasty accept it (or even somewhat of a elders ruling on it), followed by it needing to be accepted by the lords of the realm and any nessecary head of religion. And if they don't accept you still might be able to do it. But you'll end up with a faction to dethrone you.

Then again, seeing how the current AI acts - i'd still be more in favor of this option staying completly optional. E.g. gamerule that's turned off by default.

I think that adoption (regardless of whether you're single, in a mixed-sex relationship, or in a same-sex relationship) should be possible, but I absolutely agree it should be very difficult. Here are some thoughts on what I think prerequisites for adoption should be. The adoptee (i.e., person to be adopted) must:
  1. Be a preexisting character in the game (i.e., you can't just conjure one up via a decision that says 'adopt a child')
  2. Be under 16 years old (i.e., a minor for the purposes of the game)
  3. Not have living parents or grandparents
If that turns out to be too 'easy'/gamebreaking in beta testing, there are additional ways to make it harder, such as requiring that the adoptee be a member of your dynasty. And, as with all intercharacter interactions in the game, the adoptee might still say no, for various reasons. For example, if you do a murder plot to kill their parents/grandparents and that secret is revealed, the adoptee could refuse the adoption.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Unless there is something that I haven't read you could provide, Hellenism didn't have same sex marriage/union. They did have pederasty and did have male homosexual activity (lesbianism was almost non-existent), but even in this relationship, they viewed 'passive role' (i.e. the 'penetrated') as 'disgusting' and 'lower class' (read: slave) so not entirely 'accepted' as in modern usage.

Some Roman writers, during the Imperial period, mention same-sex unions being celebrated by Roman Citizens. But as far as I am aware there wasn't a legal basis in the way there was for opposite-sex marriage under Roman Law.

I suppose one could argue that some Greek city-states had a legal basis for some same-sex relationships outside of pederasty, such as Thebes and the Sacred Band of 300, but I don't know if I'd call that universal to them.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Some Roman writers, during the Imperial period, mention same-sex unions being celebrated by Roman Citizens. But as far as I am aware there wasn't a legal basis in the way there was for opposite-sex marriage under Roman Law.

I suppose one could argue that some Greek city-states had a legal basis for some same-sex relationships outside of pederasty, such as Thebes and the Sacred Band of 300, but I don't know if I'd call that universal to them.
This matches my understanding - there are references to wedding ceremonies between Roman men (for example in Suetonius' account of Nero, which should naturally be taken with a pinch of salt) but no corresponding legal details about what to do in a continuing marriage between men. My naive interpretation of this is that (at least in the imperial era) it would be possible - though considered scandalous in several ways - for two men to celebrate a wedding, but as the law then stood, no lasting contract would be held to have arisen from it. Of course, this did not stop Roman men from having relationships with other men, and not just slaves. Freedmen were considered to be acceptable partners for high-ranked men; I believe Sulla's partner Metrobius (a professional actor) was a freedman.

nd
 
Some Roman writers, during the Imperial period, mention same-sex unions being celebrated by Roman Citizens. But as far as I am aware there wasn't a legal basis in the way there was for opposite-sex marriage under Roman Law.

I suppose one could argue that some Greek city-states had a legal basis for some same-sex relationships outside of pederasty, such as Thebes and the Sacred Band of 300, but I don't know if I'd call that universal to them.
Maybe it's just the difference in usage of the term 'marriage/union' then. AFAIK, many of these homosexual relationships were indeed celebrated by people, even in the case of Roman emperors. Thing is, they usually didn't have the same legal status as heterosexual marriages, thus just like you said. It's more like 'concubinage' than 'marriage' imo.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe it's just the difference in usage of the term 'marriage/union' then. AFAIK, many of these homosexual relationships were indeed celebrated by people, even in the case of Roman emperors. Thing is, they usually didn't have the same legal status as heterosexual marriages, thus just like you said. It's more like 'concubinage' than 'marriage' imo.

I think the fretting over "historical accuracy" when it comes to same-sex marriage is bizarre. The base game already allows people to make everyone gay, bi, or asexual; it allows us to impose modern gender equality; it allows us to randomize the distribution of religions. Even without changing the default settings, it's possible to create a Christian religion that allows free divorce, accepts homosexuality, and embraces gender equality. You can convert to Hinduism as Emperor of the HRE. Hell, you could even create a Christian religion that has human sacrifice as one of its core tenets. None of these things have any historical basis.

But that's the entire point of the game, isn't it? Go have a look at Dev Diary #0 - The Vision:

Player Freedom and Progression: We want to cater to all player fantasies we can reasonably accommodate, allowing players to shape their ruler, heirs, dynasty and even religion to their liking - though there should of course be appropriate challenges to overcome.​

Note the use of the word fantasies. It's not about slavish adherence to the details of history.

So if queer people want to create a custom religion that allows them to marry off their queer characters to a person of the same sex, why does it matter to you? As far as I'm aware, the AI doesn't create custom religions on its own initiative. Most (all?) of the in-game religions wouldn't recognize same-sex marriage anyway, so the only way that anyone would encounter same-sex marriage in the game is if someone creates a custom religion that allows it. And if your concern is that this is "ahistorical" the "ahistorical" bit starts the second you create a custom religion, not at the point your religion recognizes same-sex marriage.
 
  • 10Like
  • 2
Reactions:
iii) Have a 'Same Sex Unions' doctrine in the marriage category allowing blood-brotherhood, which becomes interpreted as a marriage under certain conditions. The levels would be none, chaste, open, exclusive.
This is actually a brilliant idea. Grading same-sex unions in the way you propose, with the "chaste" variant, would be great to represent adelphopoiesis without implying it to be a relationship of sexual nature or a literal homosexual marriage. "Open", I assume, would correspond to bigender harems of some Muslim Iberian rulers?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I think the fretting over "historical accuracy" when it comes to same-sex marriage is bizarre. The base game already allows people to make everyone gay, bi, or asexual; it allows us to impose modern gender equality; it allows us to randomize the distribution of religions. Even without changing the default settings, it's possible to create a Christian religion that allows free divorce, accepts homosexuality, and embraces gender equality. You can convert to Hinduism as Emperor of the HRE. Hell, you could even create a Christian religion that has human sacrifice as one of its core tenets. None of these things have any historical basis.

But that's the entire point of the game, isn't it? Go have a look at Dev Diary #0 - The Vision:

Player Freedom and Progression: We want to cater to all player fantasies we can reasonably accommodate, allowing players to shape their ruler, heirs, dynasty and even religion to their liking - though there should of course be appropriate challenges to overcome.​

Note the use of the word fantasies. It's not about slavish adherence to the details of history.

So if queer people want to create a custom religion that allows them to marry off their queer characters to a person of the same sex, why does it matter to you? As far as I'm aware, the AI doesn't create custom religions on its own initiative. Most (all?) of the in-game religions wouldn't recognize same-sex marriage anyway, so the only way that anyone would encounter same-sex marriage in the game is if someone creates a custom religion that allows it. And if your concern is that this is "ahistorical" the "ahistorical" bit starts the second you create a custom religion, not at the point your religion recognizes same-sex marriage.
I don't know why you're bringing the game here, I wasn't talking about the game at all. I was talking about the hellenistic acceptance of homosexuals. Maybe you're confusing me with those 'concern trolling' people, I have been commented here before, and in this one I'm asking about Hellenism, no game at all.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Historical accuracy? In CK3? Is this are joke? Anyway. if there is already option to make 90% of world asexual or make islamic faith with female dominance, allowed gay relationship and sacred canibalism, for example, then i see no reason to not allow modders to add same-sex marriage in game.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
And tbh even without heir-adoption or surrogates such a marriage won't be a problem after one or two generations pass ingame – you usually have dynastic brothers, sisters, uncles in line of succession that were born from unions of your previous characters.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
This is actually a brilliant idea. Grading same-sex unions in the way you propose, with the "chaste" variant, would be great to represent adelphopoiesis without implying it to be a relationship of sexual nature or a literal homosexual marriage. "Open", I assume, would correspond to bigender harems of some Muslim Iberian rulers?
Essentially, yes. The question about adelphopoiesis is a vexed one, and I wanted to make sure there would be options that would reflect the breadth of historical opinion and the gamut of player tastes. The 'Open' option would, as written, only allow one same-sex favourite alongside whatever number of other-sex spouses the religion allows. A full mixed harem would need my options (i) or (ii).

nd
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
OK, this is a topic I was quite vocal on during development, and I hope no-one minds if I weigh in again.

i) Expand the 'Same Sex Relations' doctrine to have a 'Supported' level in which same-sex partners are eligible for marriage on the same footing as mixed-sex ones.


it would be better if accepted was renamed to "tolerated", with the doctrine description being changed , in tolerated doctrine there would be no marriage and the penalty for negative traits would be smaller , as it was considered a lessre misconduct (this was the majority view on asia, for example, although smartist hindus shunned and some taoists approved it ) . and accepted would have these marriages.

concerning lesbians, some african tribes had lesbian marriages. and this was even mentioned in the ck2 mod, "lesbocracy". the article of wikipedia about lesbians mentions this.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
Reactions:
i) Expand the 'Same Sex Relations' doctrine to have a 'Supported' level in which same-sex partners are eligible for marriage on the same footing as mixed-sex ones.

Thank you. It is still weird to me that I can log into the game, and in ironman modify religion so that I my character can, say, marry his wife-mother, have his three sister-daughters as concubines, and eat his grandfather-father-brother... But I can't have him marry the knight that romanced him, his soulmate, not even with mods.

The same-sex relations doctrine should align with marriage type.

This way if the doctrine is accepted in a specific faith, then you can marry characters of your same sex of that same faith. And if it's criminal, or shunned, then opinions of characters of that faith will have that negative opinion modifier on you, or even a reason to imprison you—which is something that can already be done—as if you had exposed yourself your own secret "sodomite" trait (i.e. come out of the closet).

I just want a knightly king and a harem of heir dotting concubines. lol. Or a queen, and three male concubines. Or two husbands and two wives. I want to be gay without being single, or unfaithful!
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd like to remind people that nobody has to personally be homophobic for there to be part of a system that inherently produces homophobic results. That's how systemic homophobia often perpetuates.

It sucks but at some point it seems like a dev made the choice not to finish work on this part of the code to let it happen. It's hard to tell exactly why it's that way but clearly it was deemed a reasonable sacrifice. I get that, this is a game developed under a capitalist system and there are inherent time constraints and monetary pressures.

I just hope that the devs see this and realize how easy it was to accidentally shaft the roleplaying potential for their LGBT fans with no ill intention at all.

If that doesn't speak to you replace lgbt with modders and it's the same issue. It just happens that this time it really sucks because unlike modders gay people get shafted regularly throughout their lives, where as modders only get shafted on internet forums and in video games.

I applaud any work done to reduce accidental systemic homophobia and modderphobia in video games. It really only helps more people enjoy these games.

@legalboxerbriefs Crusader Kings was supposed to be the escape from corona and IRL ;-;
 
  • 15
  • 6
Reactions:
In the off-chance that this just hasn't found its way to anyone able to do something about it yet, I also reported it as a bug (which it is, because either the softcode or hardcode implementation of marriage triggers is redundant).
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Another reminder to stay on topic and stay kind. We've had to delete a lot of toxic posts, and if this continues I will lock the thread. Please remember our rules.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3Haha
  • 1
Reactions: