Legalize Gay Modding!

[neutrondecay]

If this proposal does not affect the base game and has to be turned on as an option I see no problem why it cannot be implemented in some way. Many people who play CK2/3 are into factual historical gaming so I hope this will not be affected but for those who want a fantasy type game I see no problem.

The existence of LGBT people is an historical fact, not a fantasy. This idea that a possible religious reform doctrine that enables same-sex marriage must additionally be locked behind a game rules option that is not active by default is a curious shibboleth.

Yes, same-sex marriage was not practised in the area currently covered by the game during the historical period in question. Nor were a lot of other things that are available as reform doctrines without having to enable them separately by game rules. This idea that same-sex marriage, out of all possible reform doctrines, is so exceptional that it must be additionally gated, is homophobic nonsense.

nd

 

[Taprantil]

As a gaymer, Paradox can not be homophobic, PI does not exist, its a company. And all companies exist to earn money. Which means Paradox despite its claims of diversity, will never disavow its core audience. Yes, that core audience. Those people who cried wolf during "deus vult" debacle.

Paradox acted in bad faith, period. Now their attempts at saving face is both hilarious and sad. Saying "we have lgbt coders" is like responding accusations of racism with "I have black friends too".

Your mod may not contain any material which (i) infringes any applicable law; (ii) resemblance any recognisable third party brand, character or personality, including but not limited to any trademarks or logos except for those assets provided by Paradox; (iii) any third party assets, from other games published by Paradox and its affiliates or any other third party; (iv) any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, corrupted files, or any other similar software or program; (v) is obscene, indecent, pornographic, offensive, defamatory, fraudulent, threatening, hate speech, liable to incite racial hatred, acts of terrorism or violence, menacing, blasphemous or contains nudity or gratuitous or graphic violence; (vii) has been posted or published in breach of a

First I'd like to adress WaffleIron issue. The fact that they allowed an EU4 exe before sets a hypocritical precedent. Moreso, despite claiming it breaks TOS, Paradox profits over breaks of TOS, which forbids any mention of hatred on mods. Which is fine, but considering many mods have such content but not got C&D makes you wonder.

Its because they make money. They bring users. They bring attention. Who cares if you can genocide everyone with Himmler? Who cares if "some political group" uses Oaradox games for propaganda? You don't care. Purge the gay modder who showed your disregard at best and ineptitude at worst.

Secondly, this has been an issue you kept your silence for 7 months, again bad faith. But removing concubines was something you did intentionally. Either it was intentional, and if it wasn't, it means you do not know what you code. I'm going to assume the first option. Which means despite knowing the complaints, you took further steps to hardcode heterosexuality. Again, bad faith.

Now you claim to fix the issue in the next update, which will de-hardcode SSR, which means all the code you did is going to change. Again, what was the point of that code if you were going to de-hardcode it then? Let me tell you. You did not expect the backlash and now trying to save face. Thats it.

And on this thread, I really hate how thinly veiled homophobia is disguised under "immersion" on a game about incestous cannibal devil spawn witch dukes. It just shows that these people take an issue with gay people existing, rather than immersion.

I don't care if my existence, representation breaks your immersion. Sorry not sorry. Again, Paradox, in its all bad faith, does not actually care about diversity and inclusion to go through it. They only care about money. And like I can't say its good or bad, but stop pandering to gay people if you're not willing to commit to it.

 

[Dhekelian]

The existence of LGBT people is an historical fact, not a fantasy. This idea that a possible religious reform doctrine that enables same-sex marriage must additionally be locked behind a game rules option that is not active by default is a curious shibboleth.

Yes, same-sex marriage was not practised in the area currently covered by the game during the historical period in question. Nor were a lot of other things that are available as reform doctrines without having to enable them separately by game rules. This idea that same-sex marriage, out of all possible reform doctrines, is so exceptional that it must be additionally gated, is homophobic nonsense.

nd

Why do some people wish to insert their agenda and spoil what is a good historical game or fantasy game. No-one has denied gay relationships went on, of course it did . But you cannot deny and you even admitted to it same sex marriage was not practiced directly on the throne or whatever.

Before you go rush to your placards I and others have said if this is an option that is not on by default, like others if you look, and doesn't effect a historical game then 'fill your boots'. Some people like to play as close to the actual historical period as possible. Nothing to do with your agenda at all, that was how it was. And it is still possible for same sex relationships in game. Stop making a problem where there isn't one.

 

[neutrondecay]

Why do some people wish to insert their agenda and spoil what is a good historical game or fantasy game.

This history that this game is about, is the history of politics. Life is not neatly partitioned into 'uncontentious normal things' and 'unnecessary political agendas'. Life is a glorious interconnected tapestry, and all sorts of things can become unexpectedly prominent political issues. (Examples off the top of my head include Tulipomania, the Kensitite riots, and the use of charioteering teams as proxies for political parties in the Byzantine Empire.)

No-one has denied gay relationships went on, of course it did . But you cannot deny and you even admitted to it same sex marriage was not practiced directly on the throne or whatever.

Not in the era and geographical area currently covered, no. But it had been in earlier times, albeit inconsistently. A lot of the religious reform doctrines - which is the specific place almost everyone seems to be envisaging this functionality being added, if at all - turn on the idea of reviving or adapting older customs.

Before you go rush to your placards I and others have said if this is an option that is not on by default, like others if you look, and doesn't effect a historical game then 'fill your boots'. Some people like to play as close to the actual historical period as possible. Nothing to do with your agenda at all, that was how it was. And it is still possible for same sex relationships in game. Stop making a problem where there isn't one.

What's the point of the hyperbolic stereotype about the placards and agendas? The OP of this thread admitted that the choice of title was tongue-in-cheek.

Now you'll notice that I haven't been one of the posters to accuse PDX of homophobia or anything of the sort. I don't want to 'make a problem', so much as to resolve the issues that have been discussed here.

But again: if same-sex marriage in vanilla could only be enabled through the use of a specific religious reform, what would be the point in also having a game rule to make that reform available?

Personally, I'd be prepared to spell out a set of conditions under which an AI reformer (already a very rare case) might adopt such a doctrine. But it wouldn't especially grieve me if no such condition were provided, and only player reformers ever used the doctrine.

nd

 

[jumbi]

But you cannot deny and you even admitted to it same sex marriage was not practiced directly on the throne or whatever

Incest cannibal cults were certainly not a fixture of the throne in this time, yet we have those. Why is that allowed but gay marriage not, can't you see the double standard in your statement? Surely what's being asked for is less fantastical than the standard already set by the game

 

[Zeirii]

I think we need both game rule and doctrine, in the same fashion that we have a game rule to alter faith acceptance of homosexuality right from the get-go and we have the same option as a doctrine so you don't need to alter history from the get-go but play within historic context and alter history as you see fit.

I find confounding that this was not added right from launch and left to modding.

 

[Dhekelian]

Incest cannibal cults were certainly not a fixture of the throne in this time, yet we have those. Why is that allowed but gay marriage not, can't you see the double standard in your statement? Surely what's being asked for is less fantastical than the standard already set by the game

There are plenty of options you have to switch on to get the game you want. Again, you can have same sex relationships in game now and it is represented in leaders in traits ETC. In this time period you didn't have same sexes on the throne, otherwise the line would die. But yes, of course it went on and it is represented in the game.
As far as incest goes I would say that wasn't rare at all. Cannibals I have no idea, is that in the game as standard?

If so then that is silly imo although I have no idea if it went on, doubt it just like same sex thrones which didn't happen at all. I don't have double standards at all, for me I'd like the game to be as close to History at the start as possible and seeing how the game is about extending your line then same sex marriages would pose a problem. To get the mechanic to work you have to introduce yet another mechanic that did not exist at that time, or not in the main anyway, adoptions.

But saying that I have no objections to same sex being in the game as an option, if you want to turn it on is it that much of a bind to select it?

@neutrondecay, I keep saying I have no objection to it being in the game as an option but it seems you understand that as meaning 'he doesn't want it'. You even said yourself same sex marriages did not happen in this time period and you are right. And if the developers put it in the game it should be option for those who to play the game as history.

Personally I think this is where mods come in, as they can tailor your game just the way you want it rather than force options onto people, I like choice. And mods can go further than any vanilla game can and imo do it better.

 

[Belph]

To get the mechanic to work you have to introduce yet another mechanic that did not exist at that time, or not in the main anyway, adoptions.

Adoption - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Please bother to take two seconds to google the historicity of something before you comment on it.

 

[Zeirii]

On the adoption front, I don't understand why this should be conditional? Yes it would be beneficial to keep the game going, but if you want to play realistically you might not want to play all your characters as gay characters and thus still build a dynasty big enough that when you do play a gay character the titles can go to another family member. It doesn't have to be a direct child. Or even in the designer you can add children manually and if unmarried those will only have one parent, so you can roleplay whatever you want with that. All the proper mechanics are already in the game, they just need to be expanded.

 

[klopkr]

I know this is an extremely controversial... yet so brave idea:

Dynastic game overs are way overrated.

The fun derived from not getting to play anymore is not worth the limitations it keeps putting on the game. The risks of making the game too easy with adoptions is waaay overrated. So is having to play as your dynastic heir rather than just switching dynasties on death.

The possibilities without it are huge! Playable theocracies, non-matrilenial playable women, eunuchs and dead ends, holy orders, and lastly us gays.

 

[pengoyo]

But saying that I have no objections to same sex being in the game as an option, if you want to turn it on is it that much of a bind to select it?

So the point of confusion that I think exist is that you, and some others, don't seem to realise a game rule is not required for a new tenet/doctrine (regardless of what it enables) to be able to never appear in their games if they don't want it to (for whatever reason).

This is because if a tenet/doctrine is given to no in game faith (which I think most agree would apply to an added same-sex marriage tenet/doctrine) then the only way for it to appear in game is for the player to pick it when reforming a religion. This is because as the game stands now, the AI will never introduce new tenets/doctrines to faiths, even on reformation. Thus there is no need for a game rule.

Cannibals I have no idea, is that in the game as standard?

Yes there is a tenet that makes cannibalism a holy thing. This exist in the base game. Additionally there is a tenet that makes telling lies holy (and being honest a sin). Now you might not have run into these because no in game faith has them. Thus the only way for them to appear in your game would be if you chose them when creating a new religion.

This is why asking for same-sex marriage to be locked behind such a game rule comes across so negatively. There are already non-historical tenets in the game that are not lock behind a game rule (and I'd argue that especially the sacred lies tenet is less likely historically than a same-sex marriage tenet). And remember, the lack of a game rule is fine, as the player is in full control of whether these appear in game (and the same would presumably be true of a new same-sex marriage tenet/doctrine).



So what I think you really mean to say is you don't think that any existing faiths should have it (on historical grounds), but are fine with it being added to the game as an option for the player to choose when creating a new faith (with no game rule for locking it away required).

 

[Taprantil]

Why does everyone pretend that gays are unable to reproduce? You know gay people can have children without being committed to a heterosexual relationship right? Maybe a special concubineage system can be implemented. Many gay rulers had heirs of their own, regardless of orientation. Because it was their duty.

"Close your eyes and think of England"

 

[klopkr]

I'm not sure I understand you. Isn't "switch character" already solving this? I mean the dynastic game over, not the adoption.

It's a half measure. All the limitations of the system are still there. But you can't use it for useful things unless 1 you're in ironman and 2 you mod the game to let you play theocracies or holy orders. Imo it's just proof of concept that the dynasties aren't really that fundamental.

I think if the risk of changing dynasties was a punishment on your dynastic legacies (can't use the new ones till you're really part of the new dynasty) then we could get rid of the game over and things like matrilineal marriage. You got a daughter inheriting? Welp like every woman in history you're just gonna treat your kids like a continuation of your legacy and switch dynasties.

I think the dynastic game over should be the 'special rule' rather than the norm. We can always game over the good old fashion way by losing all your land and titles! Like all the other pdox games!

But I understand that my views might be too bold for the current average CK3 enjoyer.

 

[Zeirii]

The possibilities without it are huge! Playable theocracies, non-matrilenial playable women, eunuchs and dead ends, holy orders, and lastly us gays.

Eunuchs are a great example, they are barred from inheritance and cannot be given titles for that reason. While I understand the decision and mechanics behind this (for example to avoid any type of exploitation by giving away titles as a liege knowing those titles will comeback like a boomerang) I still think that this should be left to the player to decide. I can understand it can be problematic with the AI, but if a player wants to castrate all their vassals it should be up to the player. Plus this could be fun with the dread system.

Why does everyone pretend that gays are unable to reproduce? You know gay people can have children without being committed to a heterosexual relationship right? Maybe a special concubineage system can be implemented. Many gay rulers had heirs of their own, regardless of orientation. Because it was their duty.

"Close your eyes and think of England"

While I agree with you, at the same time I don't think a special system need to be implemented. I would love to, but at the same time one can use the current concubine system for the same purpose. So the consort could be of the same-sex and the concubine of opposite sex for child bearing...which technically is what concubinage was for anyway back in those days. A special concubinage system would be more like what we have today with surrogacy and sadly I already see all the arguments people will make against this because it doesn't respect history.

 

[halkszavu]

While I agree with you, at the same time I don't think a special system need to be implemented. I would love to, but at the same time one can use the current concubine system for the same purpose. So the consort could be of the same-sex and the concubine of opposite sex for child bearing...which technically is what concubinage was for anyway back in those days. A special concubinage system would be more like what we have today with surrogacy and sadly I already see all the arguments people will make against this because it doesn't respect history.

My first argument would be that it would force a LMBT player into playing half-straight. If you want to have children, you have to behave like hetero people do, even if your religion supports same-sex realtionships.

 

[klopkr]

If you change dynasties every time the inheritance goes out of your dynasty, then why play CK at all? That's like EU4 with added RPG elements. It's not too bold for the current avg CK3 player, it's too bold for the current CK3 game. IMO dynasties are soo deeply ingrained into the game, if you can change every time you need to, then it becomes kinda pointless to even have them.

I play the game for conquest and roleplaying like most people.

When do dynastic game overs even come into play unless you fucked up or RNG?

But the real question I have is when have you ever lost the game because of a dynastic gameover and said 'yep i'm satisfied' rather than rage quit or load up the game again to try and avoid it? Is that really worth preserving?

If you want to play the dynastic game my suggestion changes nothing. Just don't switch dynasties and turn off your game when you do by accident.

But the benefits of my suggestions allow for so many more valid gameplay styles, styles you can already play in a round about way with the switch character button and mods to allow you to select republics/theocracies/etc.

I even suggest a punishment on dynastic legacies for switching too often so it's not inherently more powerful than just sticking to one dynasty and growing it.

Plus it's WAY more historic for all women in game thus ending the matrilineal debate. As a woman I just don't understand why the family name and crest has to be the be all end. No woman gamed over irl because they changed their last name. No woman automatically values their children less for having their fathers dynasty.

But I understand it's a pretty big departure so I'm not holding my breath on it and you need not worry about it.

 

[halkszavu]

I play the game for conquest and roleplaying like most people.

I play for the story, so there is a difference. I'm not sure how many play like me, but I would be surpirsed if I am the only one.

But the real question I have is when have you ever lost the game because of a dynastic gameover and said 'yep i'm satisfied' rather than rage quit or load up the game again to try and avoid it?

Every time. Because it's a finished story. Every member of my family is dead, which means more closure, than the normal end of game "run out of time".

But the benefits of my suggestions allow for so many more valid gameplay styles, styles you can already play in a round about way with the switch character button and mods to allow you to select republics/theocracies/etc.

If I feel like I want to play a theocracy/republica, I would fire up EU4 instead of CK. For me it's a very different story, with different narrative.

 

[jumbi]

If you change dynasties every time the inheritance goes out of your dynasty, then why play CK at all? That's like EU4 with added RPG elements. It's not too bold for the current avg CK3 player, it's too bold for the current CK3 game. IMO dynasties are soo deeply ingrained into the game, if you can change every time you need to, then it becomes kinda pointless to even have them.

CK3 isn't really about following a dynasty from a game over perspective though. With a few exceptions such as seniority, you follow play a bloodline within a dynasty but by and large the rest of the dynasty is irrelevant to your survival. If you lose your last title in a war, have it revoked (unlike in CK2), or have a non-dynastic heir, you game over even if you have other landed dynasty members to go on as. You need to use the switch character functionality to have a truly dynastic game in such cases, rather than a dynastic focus being built-in

 

[klopkr]

I play for the story, so there is a difference. I'm not sure how many play like me, but I would be surpirsed if I am the only one.

Every time. Because it's a finished story. Every member of my family is dead, which means more closure, than the normal end of game "run out of time".

If I feel like I want to play a theocracy/republica, I would fire up EU4 instead of CK. For me it's a very different story, with different narrative.

I'm sorry but I simply don't understand your play style. I guess we'll just have to disagree on which is more valuable.

To me it doesn't even make sense to say the story is done so long as I have an heir, dynastic or not. Plus I'm interested in the story of the realm I've been building more than just one dynasty I suppose.

 

[Zeirii]

My first argument would be that it would force a LMBT player into playing half-straight. If you want to have children, you have to behave like hetero people do, even if your religion supports same-sex realtionships.

All I was saying is that with the current game mechanics, the game is ready for same-sex marriage to be added both as a doctrine and as a game rule. But to your argument even as the base game stand currently, whether the player wants to force their gay character to have or bear children or not is up to the player with the caveat that a dynastic heir is needed to keep the game going. If no one else can inherit, then yes the player is stuck and has to force their gay character to do something that feels unnatural for the character. But with all that said, the addition of same-sex marriage in the base game won't change any of this.