As I understood it, the problem appear sin later game, too? Hence, it is a problem of the instant marrying?
The lowborns really need to be fixed
- Thread starter rashtrakut
- Start date
-
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.
As I understood it, the problem appear sin later game, too? Hence, it is a problem of the instant marrying?
I'm not sure I understand why king/duke marrying lowborn is really a problem (noob here). Sometimes I found that lesser titled women (or men) have better stats
You're playing a historical game. Kings didnt marry the local peasant girl.
But is there any other downside? If a generation of king/duke marry lowborn, does their children would create a next-generation ennobled by blood, available to marry to other existing titled noble? Something however I experienced, is when I want to make a particular alliance with a given dynasty, or place someone of mine in an important position, and I just can't because there is only courtier available.
Kings should be able to marry lowborn women, but it should cost them a great deal of prestige (at least -100, maybe even -250) and give a permanent relations hit with their vassals for as long as they're married.
Non-nobles were held in contempt by nobles. Only with the Renaissance did burghers have the clout to marry into aristocratic families, and even then, it was only with desperate impoverished noble families.
On that note, I have to question whether lowborn mayors should be guests at the king's banquet.
They'd have a bastard with her(peasant girl) and Legitimize them if necessary.Think William the Bastard/Conqueror.
Mayors might be tolerated at the feasts.....like bishops (even though most bishops were younger sons of nobility)
Royalty and Higher Nobility generally only married into family's of the same rank.Thats why there was so much incest(Hapsburgs)and term Blueblood comes from.
The only ways for commoners to advance themselves was thru Church or if very lucky through War.
Retinue units should NOT automatically spam a general.There is an event for "minor noble distinguished self in battle" joins court or add button to Intrigue screen.
King/Dukes can marry "Lowborn" but should take prestige hit and relations hit.
Also appointing a courtier to a retinue unit should give a relations bonus (+5) like an Honorary title.
My biggest problem is that all the extra courtiers and Military units slows game down (too much lag)
Mayors might be tolerated at the feasts.....like bishops (even though most bishops were younger sons of nobility)
Royalty and Higher Nobility generally only married into family's of the same rank.Thats why there was so much incest(Hapsburgs)and term Blueblood comes from.
The only ways for commoners to advance themselves was thru Church or if very lucky through War.
Retinue units should NOT automatically spam a general.There is an event for "minor noble distinguished self in battle" joins court or add button to Intrigue screen.
King/Dukes can marry "Lowborn" but should take prestige hit and relations hit.
Also appointing a courtier to a retinue unit should give a relations bonus (+5) like an Honorary title.
My biggest problem is that all the extra courtiers and Military units slows game down (too much lag)
Keep in mind that the Normans were particularly open about their mistresses and bastards relative to the rest of Christian Europe. The example of William the Bastard and Conqueror is sort of peculiar to Norman culture. Of course it happened, but it wasn't that common, and you picked a very particular and misleading example to make it sound like it was a regular occurrence for bastards to be legitimized.
I know that there were others.......John of Gaunt.(Not sure if his mother was a peasant girl)Edward III's third son was made Duke of Lancaster.
John of Gaunt was a legit son of Eddie III and Phillippa of Hainaut. What you are thinking of is probably John's mistress Katherine Swynford who he later married. Their children were legitimized by Richard II but were explicitly excluded from the succession. However when the main Lancastarian line died out the bastard tainted Beaufort line in the form of Henry Earl of Richmond was all they had left.
Royals had lowborn mistresses all the time. Marriages happened from time to time. But they should be exceedingly rare. One major problem is that instead of spawning noblewomen as ladies in waiting, the game is spawning all of them as lowborns.
Royals had lowborn mistresses all the time. Marriages happened from time to time. But they should be exceedingly rare. One major problem is that instead of spawning noblewomen as ladies in waiting, the game is spawning all of them as lowborns.
Crusader Kings II. The invasion of the Lowborn
Lowborns are freaking everywhere!! Kings, dukes, counts, all marrying lowborns all the time.
Lowborn Generals leading troops.
It's time for the Nobles to take a stand against this peasant trash! or at least a patch fix!
Lowborns are freaking everywhere!! Kings, dukes, counts, all marrying lowborns all the time.
Lowborn Generals leading troops.
It's time for the Nobles to take a stand against this peasant trash! or at least a patch fix!
Agreed. They're useful in a gamey way for an expanding Empire, but distort reality. We need less lowborns in the game and stricter penalties for marrying them. Dirty, filthy peasants don't belong walking the halls of the honourable nobility and have absolutely no place bringing their horrible commoner smell into the bedchamber of lords more than once (courtesans are of course acceptable, but only one night each.
No but seriously this does need to be sorted out.
No but seriously this does need to be sorted out.
Perhaps take a page from LoR's "born in the purple"? Children born to a lowborn mother or father could have a bastard-esque trait that gives them prestige and opinion maluses.
I've no problem with players marrying lowborns, because that's their choice.
However the AI marrying lowborn is a problem because they are not getting alliances which makes conquest for the player a lot easier.
However the AI marrying lowborn is a problem because they are not getting alliances which makes conquest for the player a lot easier.
I have to say I am guilty of marrying lowborns or daughters of Barons just to get the stewerdship stat up. For islamic states dont need to do it but for Christian I do. Also the new low born general is a little silly. I tend to give titles to only my own culture people. Which mean that after an invasion all my retinue people become nobles. Now while nice I do reckon it should probably be done only once. As in when it is created then you get a general not every single time you do some juggling around of units Also its silly that they are leading your forces.
I can't help but feel that you're missing the point, that this is a historical realism game.
I agree that lowborn generals are a bit silly, instead that might be positions for your courtiers or younger sons of your nobility. OTOH one could ask, what lowborn actually means, no noble blood or low ranking nobility (lower than baronial)?