There should be neutral genetic traits

  • 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.
While you could make a case for Giant being more positive than negative, Dwarf/Albino/Scaly can hardly be said to be neutral. You actively cause fear and revulsion in the general populace by your mere appearance, so apart from game statistics I would say they are pretty negative.

You could perhaps make the exception that if you choose one of the negative/neutral traits as the trait to make more abundant in your dynasty, it would also be exempt from being affected by the level 3 legacy. That way you can make all your kinsmen dwarves if you want, but instances of dwarfism will still be reduced for the dynasties that would rather their members not have that trait.
There seems to have been a focus on distinguishing cultures through innovations. The sad thing (at least to me) is that almost all cultural innovations are just a new type of MAA, so in terms of gameplay there's very little difference. :(

Though, to be fair, 95% of cultures in CK2 had no gameplay effect whatsoever beyond determining what other cultures you had opinion penalties with.
This is pretty off topic, but I expect the Flavor Packs to introduce a lot of uniqueness to cultures
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This is pretty off topic, but I expect the Flavor Packs to introduce a lot of uniqueness to cultures
The innovations are not a bad way to handle uniqueness, but there's a distinct lack of regional innovations, like the byzantine castration should be a tribal inovation under the name 'political mutilation', that you can only research if your culture is present in Greece. (instead of an invisible option for greeks, if you are not greek, you can't see their ability to castrate)
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
The innovations are not a bad way to handle uniqueness, but there's a distinct lack of regional innovations, like the byzantine castration should be a tribal inovation under the name 'political mutilation', that you can only research if your culture is present in Greece. (instead of an invisible option for greeks, if you are not greek, you can't see their ability to castrate)
This is a great idea and I'd love to see things like this implemented in the game. :)

PS. Just as an FYI, castration is currently available to all Byzantine cultures (i.e. not only the Greek) as well as Ethiopians. :)
 
This is a great idea and I'd love to see things like this implemented in the game. :)

PS. Just as an FYI, castration is currently available to all Byzantine cultures (i.e. not only the Greek) as well as Ethiopians. :)
I knew for Byzantine (was informed in this thread) but didn't know for Ethiopians! If you're not playing byzantine/ethiopians is there any way to know that they can?
Edit : To know in game I mean
 
I knew for Byzantine (was informed in this thread) but didn't know for Ethiopians! If you're not playing byzantine/ethiopians is there any way to know that they can?
Edit : To know in game I mean

The CK3 wiki explains: https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Court#Castration

Code:
Castration
Adult characters with either the Ethiopian culture or part of the Byzantine culture group can castrate male prisoners, giving them the Trait eunuch.png Eunuch trait.

Blinding
Adult characters within the Byzantine culture group can blind their prisoners, giving them the Trait blind.png Blind trait.
 
Here's a couple of traits that I think can be considered neutral maybe
(not including any traits currently in-game)

1) Heterochromia - different coloured eyes. Perhaps a change in Attraction and/or dread
2) Hairy - Simple enough, add some attraction to the men depending on culture?
3) Alopecia - No hair whatsoever. Dunno about its effects
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Here's a couple of traits that I think can be considered neutral maybe
(not including any traits currently in-game)

1) Heterochromia - different coloured eyes. Perhaps a change in Attraction and/or dread
2) Hairy - Simple enough, add some attraction to the men depending on culture?
3) Alopecia - No hair whatsoever. Dunno about its effects
4) Mighty Chin
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I accept your Mighty Chin and raise you: 5) Hasburg Chin
v48FKCq.jpeg
 
This is pretty off topic, but I expect the Flavor Packs to introduce a lot of uniqueness to cultures
That'd be cool, though since the flavor packs are focused on particular areas I worry that we'll end up with a CK2 situation where some cultures are cool and awesome, but most have little or no content, making them undesirable to play. :(

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying that this will happen, I'm just saying that I fear it will happen.
 
That'd be cool, though since the flavor packs are focused on particular areas I worry that we'll end up with a CK2 situation where some cultures are cool and awesome, but most have little or no content, making them undesirable to play. :(

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying that this will happen, I'm just saying that I fear it will happen.
If a flavour pack adds unique regional innovations (like, if you have X number of counties of your culture in Y region, then you can research Z), then I'm up for it. So that even 'barebone' cultures can migrate and use other culture uniqueness

I wish I could play a Turk, conquer Byzantium, then immitate their political mutilations. Disappointing that it's not a regional innovation.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
While you could make a case for Giant being more positive than negative, Dwarf/Albino/Scaly can hardly be said to be neutral. You actively cause fear and revulsion in the general populace by your mere appearance, so apart from game statistics I would say they are pretty negative.

You could perhaps make the exception that if you choose one of the negative/neutral traits as the trait to make more abundant in your dynasty, it would also be exempt from being affected by the level 3 legacy. That way you can make all your kinsmen dwarves if you want, but instances of dwarfism will still be reduced for the dynasties that would rather their members not have that trait.

I mean Giant, Dwarf, Albino seem neutral to me.

Scaly not so much. I can see people wanting to make an all giant dynasty, or an all albino one, or maybe even an all dwarf one but not scaly unless it's just for the memes.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I mean Giant, Dwarf, Albino seem neutral to me.

Scaly not so much. I can see people wanting to make an all giant dynasty, or an all albino one, or maybe even an all dwarf one but not scaly unless it's just for the memes.
*cries in scaly*
But seriously, if it's an option as a Blood Legacy instead of quick / comely / hale, then it shouldn't be as bad as it is right now.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I mean Giant, Dwarf, Albino seem neutral to me.

Scaly not so much. I can see people wanting to make an all giant dynasty, or an all albino one, or maybe even an all dwarf one but not scaly unless it's just for the memes.
I want scaly to make me look more like actual lizards and add in fire breathing
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1Love
Reactions:
*cries in scaly*
But seriously, if it's an option as a Blood Legacy instead of quick / comely / hale, then it shouldn't be as bad as it is right now.
also as someone has mentioned the other blood legacies make you less likely to inherit negative traits, yet also have an entire section where you can inherit a negative trait like scaly.
 
also as someone has mentioned the other blood legacies make you less likely to inherit negative traits, yet also have an entire section where you can inherit a negative trait like scaly.
I mention this in the OP, but I would be curious to see the actual code. Do the reduction of chance from Blood Legacy lvl 3 really applies to a 'bad' trait you would choose with Blood Legacy lvl 4?
 
While you could make a case for Giant being more positive than negative, Dwarf/Albino/Scaly can hardly be said to be neutral. You actively cause fear and revulsion in the general populace by your mere appearance, so apart from game statistics I would say they are pretty negative.

You could perhaps make the exception that if you choose one of the negative/neutral traits as the trait to make more abundant in your dynasty, it would also be exempt from being affected by the level 3 legacy. That way you can make all your kinsmen dwarves if you want, but instances of dwarfism will still be reduced for the dynasties that would rather their members not have that trait.


I could see the Indian cultures in CK3 finding a lot of these traits as positives, since even to today, Indians revere children born with extra limbs or birth defects, as reincarnations of various gods.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
There seems to have been a focus on distinguishing cultures through innovations. The sad thing (at least to me) is that almost all cultural innovations are just a new type of MAA, so in terms of gameplay there's very little difference. :(

Though, to be fair, 95% of cultures in CK2 had no gameplay effect whatsoever beyond determining what other cultures you had opinion penalties with.
IIRC, the only cultural innovation that isn't the equivalent of CK2's cultural retinues is that Czechs and a few other nearby cultures get early access to seniority succession. Most other such things are handled by regional innovations, like Scandinavians and West Africans having boats that can travel rivers.
 
Witch hunts were more an early modern thing, weren't they? But even if albino discrimination was prevalent in medieval Europe as well, I can imagine that a player would want to create a faith that doesn't discriminate them. We can already reform religions to accept homosexuality, these traits could be religion-dependent too.

Albinos today are still currently being murdered in Africa and cannibalized for supposed magical properties in witchcraft, it was a pretty depressing and scary thing when i googled it after first noticing Albinos in Africa in CK3.