The Trials of Orabilia MacDuib - A Beta AAR

[Juggernaut88]

@Sillypiggyoink The Duke of Moray would be the descendants of Macbeth (or Lady Macbeth to be more precise) in 1066. I'm hoping that like CK1, the Duke of Moray starts with a claim on the Scottish throne; should make for an interesting game. A rivalry with the descendants of Clan Duff in Fife would indeed be cool.

On a separate note, I just don't get the point of a homosexual attribute for women. It would have absolutely no consequences on the woman's ability to conceive. For a woman in the middle ages, to not marry was pretty much unthinkable (not to mention unchristian), and if she does indeed marry, she would not have had a choice in producing an heir. Perhaps a woman of great power (Duchess or higher) would have a choice, but for a meare countess, no chance. This is the middle ages ffs, it was common practice for a husband to force his wife into sex regardless of her wishes, just like the way a man might rape a woman he desired beforehand, to ensure that she would feel forced to marry him in Christian practice. It seems to me that paradox are placing modern values on a historic game. Just my opinion.

edit: If the homosexual trait for women was just for flavour/friendship events and have no real bering on producing heirs, then no big deal, but I object to the fertility penalty. Doesn't make sense imho.

 

[unmerged(193360)]

Even back then women had plenty of ways of making their husbands feel unwelcome in bed, which would cut down the frequency of copulation and thus reducing the chance of having children, especially if either of them had some biological fertility problem. It's not like "Homosexual" completely eliminates fertility, it's just a minor penalty.

 

[eliphas8]

@Sillypiggyoink The Duke of Moray would be the descendants of Macbeth (or Lady Macbeth to be more precise) in 1066. I'm hoping that like CK1, the Duke of Moray starts with a claim on the Scottish throne; should make for an interesting game. A rivalry with the descendants of Clan Duff in Fife would indeed be cool.

On a separate note, I just don't get the point of a homosexual attribute for women. It would have absolutely no consequences on the woman's ability to conceive. For a woman in the middle ages, to not marry was pretty much unthinkable (not to mention unchristian), and if she does indeed marry, she would not have had a choice in producing an heir. Perhaps a woman of great power (Duchess or higher) would have a choice, but for a meare countess, no chance. This is the middle ages ffs, it was common practice for a husband to force his wife into sex regardless of her wishes, just like the way a man might rape a woman he desired beforehand, to ensure that she would feel forced to marry him in Christian practice. It seems to me that paradox are placing modern values on a historic game. Just my opinion.

edit: If the homosexual trait for women was just for flavour/friendship events and have no real bering on producing heirs, then no big deal, but I object to the fertility penalty. Doesn't make sense imho.

She may just spend a lot of time away from wherever her husband is and instead is over at the place where her lover lives and that is what causes the fertility penaly.

 

[Ruwaard]

She may just spend a lot of time away from wherever her husband is and instead is over at the place where her lover lives and that is what causes the fertility penaly.

Wouldn't this also increase the likelihood that the husband takes a mistress, which can lead to bastards?

 

[Gatkramp]

Wouldn't this also increase the likelihood that the husband takes a mistress, which can lead to bastards?

Lets hope so. Remember that bastards were commonplace back then.

 

[Orinsul]

@Sillypiggyoink The Duke of Moray would be the descendants of Macbeth (or Lady Macbeth to be more precise) in 1066. I'm hoping that like CK1, the Duke of Moray starts with a claim on the Scottish throne; should make for an interesting game. A rivalry with the descendants of Clan Duff in Fife would indeed be cool.

On a separate note, I just don't get the point of a homosexual attribute for women. It would have absolutely no consequences on the woman's ability to conceive. For a woman in the middle ages, to not marry was pretty much unthinkable (not to mention unchristian), and if she does indeed marry, she would not have had a choice in producing an heir. Perhaps a woman of great power (Duchess or higher) would have a choice, but for a meare countess, no chance. This is the middle ages ffs, it was common practice for a husband to force his wife into sex regardless of her wishes, just like the way a man might rape a woman he desired beforehand, to ensure that she would feel forced to marry him in Christian practice. It seems to me that paradox are placing modern values on a historic game. Just my opinion.

edit: If the homosexual trait for women was just for flavour/friendship events and have no real bering on producing heirs, then no big deal, but I object to the fertility penalty. Doesn't make sense imho.

She will still produce a heir, its not a big minus, she might just not produce six of them. its not that she wont do her duty, but once its dont she wont be as eager to keep doing it later on. Just as the um, temperate? trait but maybe it was one with a different name, reduces fertility not nullify it. Doesn't look forward to it so will do her/his duty but only until theirs a son. it is out of place, but it makes people happy and its not really a big deal so no worries.

 

[unmerged(71030)]

@Sillypiggyoink The Duke of Moray would be the descendants of Macbeth (or Lady Macbeth to be more precise) in 1066. I'm hoping that like CK1, the Duke of Moray starts with a claim on the Scottish throne; should make for an interesting game. A rivalry with the descendants of Clan Duff in Fife would indeed be cool.

On a separate note, I just don't get the point of a homosexual attribute for women. It would have absolutely no consequences on the woman's ability to conceive. For a woman in the middle ages, to not marry was pretty much unthinkable (not to mention unchristian), and if she does indeed marry, she would not have had a choice in producing an heir. Perhaps a woman of great power (Duchess or higher) would have a choice, but for a meare countess, no chance. This is the middle ages ffs, it was common practice for a husband to force his wife into sex regardless of her wishes, just like the way a man might rape a woman he desired beforehand, to ensure that she would feel forced to marry him in Christian practice. It seems to me that paradox are placing modern values on a historic game. Just my opinion.

edit: If the homosexual trait for women was just for flavour/friendship events and have no real bering on producing heirs, then no big deal, but I object to the fertility penalty. Doesn't make sense imho.

You have it backwards. A women of higher status would have had much more pressure on her than the eleventh child of a farmer in the Scottish Highlands to marry well. Women often didn't marry, the word 'spinster' certainly isn't a modern coinage (and formerly had no negative connotations, being equal to 'bachelor'). You're thinking of the Victorian Age. The Dark and Middle Ages were a much more pragmatic time.

Just as HoI doesn't have concentration camps, CK2 shies away from offering rape as a gameplay choice. I applaud Paradox's choice on this. I doubt I'm in a minority on this. I also don't think that just because one can get away with rape, it suddenly becomes ubiquitous. Would you rape someone if it suddenly became legal? God I hope not.

A fertility penalty is a great way to represent homosexuality. Bear in mind that -15 percentage points still leaves 85 percent, and all of that 85% already runs completely contrary to what you so quaintly term 'modern values'. Do the maths, this means that for every ten kids a straight women has, a lesbian woman will have 8.5. If anything, somewhat too generous.

Lastly, your suggestion that homosexuality is so inconsequential it ought not be included leaves a fairly bitter taste in my mouth. If you're after a realistic and multifaceted game that accurately models the family dynamics of any era, homosexuality has every place in it, as do the statistical consequences thereof. If you're after a make-believe world of Stepford wives and effective corrective rape, I very much doubt you can claim a historical basis for it. I also shudder to think how dull (and revolting) such a game would be.

 

[unmerged(51164)]

So it was a one-off

CK2 may well become the best game ever for AAR-writing.

Yeah, this story makes me really look forward to the game. It looks like it might be even better than the original CK for writing narrative AARs.

 

[Juggernaut88]

@Hexagon1 Perhaps you should step down from your moral high ground and observe the facts before giving us all a lecture on what is right or wrong. At no point did I stipulate that rape should be included in ck2 (despite the fact that it did happen); I was simply pointing out why lesbianism was not enough an issue in regards to fertility imo. In fact, in the middle ages, the idea of lesbianism did not even exist. Neither the church nor courts of law considered it prevalent enough to make rulings on, in sharp contrast to male homosexuality (esp. sodomy) which could be punishable by death. Actually, to this very day, in the UK there exists no law concerning lesbianism, while 'greek love' has been prosecuted against for centuries. I'm not so foolish to think that this means lesbianism never occured, just that it was no where near as common as male homosexuality for the governing bodies to feel forced to prosecute.

Even if women preferred the company of other women, the church would have drilled in the idea that it was a christian woman's obligation to produce children for her husband. In medieval times, if no child was born it was usually considered the man's fault because it was unthinkable that a woman should not give birth (in addition to their medical ignorance ). And in regard to a husband forcing his wife into sexual intercourse, this is not rape in medieval times. Only in the 20th century did it become illegal for a husband to do so, before it was considered well within his rights. Thus, there is no point of placing our modern standards of law and moral attitude on the past, because these ideals simply did not exist back then. And btw, I'm pretty sure any lesbian reading this would be pretty offending by attempting to personify their sexual outlook as 'statistic consequences'.

 

[unmerged(71030)]

@Hexagon1 Perhaps you should step down from your moral high ground and observe the facts before giving us all a lecture on what is right or wrong. At no point did I stipulate that rape should be included in ck2 (despite the fact that it did happen); I was simply pointing out why lesbianism was not enough an issue in regards to fertility imo. In fact, in the middle ages, the idea of lesbianism did not even exist. Neither the church nor courts of law considered it prevalent enough to make rulings on, in sharp contrast to male homosexuality (esp. sodomy) which could be punishable by death. Actually, to this very day, in the UK there exists no law concerning lesbianism, while 'greek love' has been prosecuted against for centuries. I'm not so foolish to think that this means lesbianism never occured, just that it was no where near as common as male homosexuality for the governing bodies to feel forced to prosecute.

Even if women preferred the company of other women, the church would have drilled in the idea that it was a christian woman's obligation to produce children for her husband. In medieval times, if no child was born it was usually considered the man's fault because it was unthinkable that a woman should not give birth (in addition to their medical ignorance ). And in regard to a husband forcing his wife into sexual intercourse, this is not rape in medieval times. Only in the 20th century did it become illegal for a husband to do so, before it was considered well within his rights. Thus, there is no point of placing our modern standards of law and moral attitude on the past, because these ideals simply did not exist back then. And btw, I'm pretty sure any lesbian reading this would be pretty offending by attempting to personify their sexual outlook as 'statistic consequences'.

I doubt any lesbian would be offended by that at all, and I doubt you've had much contact with the LGBT community if you think a lesbian would agree with you that lesbianism is a modern value with no statistical or real consequences worthy enough of inclusion in a historical simulation sandbox game.

What you're picking at is semantics. Rape is rape, even when we call it SuperFunHappyPopeSanctionedFamilyFunHour. The words may drift, but the concept, and the sociological dimensions thereof, do not. A similar thing exists with lesbianism and homosexuality. You say lesbianism was not common enough to be even worthy of being ruled upon - I would very much like to see your sources for this assertion, because it runs contrary to everything we know about human sexual behaviour. Male homosexuality is exactly as frequent as female homosexuality. There are a number of factors that influence why lesbianism was not treated the same as male homosexuality - foremost among them the fact that most of the people writing the rules were heterosexual men - a demographic that tends to view "girl-on-girl action" very differently from the grievous sin of "sodomy". Also worthy of consideration is the fact that the vast majority of people writing history then were male Catholic monks. Imagine if all of modern history was written by evangelical Southern preachers, and you may begin to feel a sense of why modern historiography doesn't exactly trust St. Bede's insight into the 'average' family of his era.

You also completely overlook the fact that boys were placed into arranged marriages every bit as often as girls, and that the parents usually did so for the child's own benefit (or so they believed). It is entirely unreasonable (and hugely sexist) to assume that in these arranged marriages, the man was automatically a rapist brute, and the women a damsel in distress. Again, this is a Victorian mindset. Women could be extraordinarily powerful in the Middle Ages.

I'm not seeking to retrospectively impose "modern values" on a historical game. I am merely pointing out that what you believe are modern values are usually just human universals. For us, today, social science is as hard a science as any other, with a rigid adherence to the Scientific Method. This was not always the case. You're falsely attributing Victorian morals to the Middle Ages, in the mistaken belief that all the past is essentially the same, except they dressed differently. There is a world of difference between what Victorians believed sexual behaviour was like, a speculative canon derived from literature and the puritan sensationalism of an infinitely minute segment of society, and what cold hard social science tells us sexual behaviour has always been like. Merely because the former sounds quaint and old-fashioned doesn't make it accurate for the time in which such vitriolic bigotry was spewed, nor does it make it retroactively apply to the Middle Ages.

 

[Mad King James]

One thing to keep in mind is that producing children was the duty of the aristocracy and they did so whether they wanted to or not. Lesbian aristocratic women made babies not because they were raped or weren't "really lesbians" but because that is what was expected of them. It was basically their job. Being a lesbian and "making the babies" with some guy is no less pleasant than being a young romantic girl and "making the babies" with some abusive 60 year old with missing limbs, which was just as common, yet these women did so because the dynasty must go on. It was their duty.

It's the same reason peasants stabbed other peasants on the battlefield for reasons they don't understand and often without much compensation, it was their duty and so they did it.

 

[eliphas8]

One thing to keep in mind is that producing children was the duty of the aristocracy and they did so whether they wanted to or not. Lesbian aristocratic women made babies not because they were raped or weren't "really lesbians" but because that is what was expected of them. It was basically their job. Being a lesbian and "making the babies" with some guy is no less pleasant than being a young romantic girl and "making the babies" with some abusive 60 year old with missing limbs, which was just as common, yet these women did so because the dynasty must go on. It was their duty.

It's the same reason peasants stabbed other peasants on the battlefield for reasons they don't understand and often without much compensation, it was their duty and so they did it.

Well the minus isnt that much just enough that she may just produce whats "required" and not much more.

 

[unmerged(71030)]

One thing to keep in mind is that producing children was the duty of the aristocracy and they did so whether they wanted to or not. Lesbian aristocratic women made babies not because they were raped or weren't "really lesbians" but because that is what was expected of them. It was basically their job. Being a lesbian and "making the babies" with some guy is no less pleasant than being a young romantic girl and "making the babies" with some abusive 60 year old with missing limbs, which was just as common, yet these women did so because the dynasty must go on. It was their duty.

I don't deny it, I just don't believe that 15% penalty is that much to fuss over. There are many, many examples where a person has a duty to fulfil which they loathe, and which they desperately seek to avoid, often successfully. Procrastinating when you're supposed to be writing university assignments is a perfect example of a case where adults don't fulfil what is expected of them, thereby doing harm to no one else but themselves. Even disregarding such a natural behavioural impulse, consider a lesbian in the Middle Ages that is actually actively attempting to fulfil her duty and bear a child. The natural revulsion to sex with the wrong gender would have a statistical impact on how often the pair mates, perhaps slight (perhaps not), which by extension affects the fertility rate. The 15% penalty is quite warranted, and I personally will probably be bumping it up to 50-60%, because I don't believe that 85% fertility, duty or not, accurately reflects the reality of the era. But I understand that not everyone else may wish to do this; I merely feel it necessary to counter the claims that homosexuality was inconsequential and ought to be omitted - it most certainly wasn't and shouldn't. And that's even without getting into ethics, this is just statistics and realism talking. Ethically speaking, I find the idea of completely excluding a minority because of perceived powerlessness rather repellent. I don't think anyone is asking for special treatment, merely not to be completely denied representation in the game.

Well the minus isnt that much just enough that she may just produce whats "required" and not much more.

Exactly. A straight woman may produce ten or more children because - let's face it - sex is fun. The same cannot be said for a lesbian woman, who may ultimately produce a kid or two, under severe pressure, and find that number sufficient. Conflating the two categories of person would result in completely muddled fertility statistics.

 

[Ruwaard]

A lot of interesting discussion about fertility rates, which brings me a related issue infancy mortality rates (also among the nobility). Mortality rates especially among young children were quite high, so there chances were that quite some children didn't reach adulthood. This aspect should also be reflected in the 'family planning' and the discussed issues when one (or both) of the partners is gay; and the suggested smaller families.

 

[Juggernaut88]

Hexagon, I take your point that there may be bias in the determining of what homosexuality is acceptable or not, however this bias has no real implication on the frequency of cases actually observed, just the severity of which they are treated. I read your above posts and see several gaping flaws in your argument which I will try to outline here. Firstly, a number of studies have found that the ratio of male to female homosexuality is approximitly 2:1 in modern times. It has been speculated that as we go further into the past, this ratio becomes much more heavily weighted toward male homosexuality. Simply put, there are little to no accurate historical references that could prove or disprove this theory in medieval times, so it will remain nothing more that speculation, however the theory remains.

Secondly, I strongly reject your point that there have always been 'human universals'. In fact the notion of this is laughable. Human beings have shown vast differences in behaviour throughtout history, in different cultures and regions too. For a medieval example, in many of the eastern turkic tribes such as the mongols or tatars, rape was a way of life; it empowered those who did it and gave them honour and status among their tribesmen. This is of course in contrast to Christian teaching that rape was a wicked and sinful act. What I am trying to get across is that morals are entirely relative. There may be similarities among religious groups, but humans are not born with some ready made ideals of what is right or wrong. Of course there are some genetic example that humans have been shown to adhere to, such as a child will know it is wrong to killl their mother etc, but these are primorodial characteristics, and as such do not extend to learnt behavioural attributes. This brings me to my third point.

Modern scientific research has shown that there is no such thing as a 'gay gene'. This is to say that no one is born homosexual, contrary to common belief. So in true Darwinian fashion, we must look at the surrounding physical and environmental factors that may play a role instead. One of the largest factors in the rise of lesbianism in modern times has been the notion of feminism and liberalism; notions that barely existed in medieval times. Therefore, there is not the same impetus for a woman to turn to lesbianism. Indeed, lesbianism is as much about a mindset as it is about actual physical desires. Ideally paradox could model a man or womans' frequency of procreation on their traits rather than having a set limit on fertillity; this might mean that a weak man is more likely to bow to his wife's wishes than take matters into his own hands.

And lastly you are complaining about leaving out a minority because they are considered unimportant to the game.....tell that to the jews

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

This is getting way of topic guys, please take this discussion to somewhere else.


EDIT
Please end a discussion when I say it has ended !

2 posts have been deleted.

 

[InnocentIII]

Glad to see that thinking of England works even in Scotland.

 

[mrvector]

I want more mini AAR's MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Brent15]

Will we have control or serious influence over our CK characters traits? Or will it be random chance like CK I?

 

[InnocentIII]

Will we have control or serious influence over our CK characters traits? Or will it be random chance like CK I?

From the Let's Plays I have seen, you frequently get events which create traits. Some let you simply choose one trait or the other, many have multiple choices with % chances to give certain traits. One I have seen often is your child wants more toys, each of four choices gives three possible traits. You pays your money and takes your choice. Others are simply announced via event and you just click okay (though even these are influenced by your choices sometimes, e.g. wounded by sending your Character into battle).

I'm gonna miss "I hate you too, honey" if it's not in here