[VIET] Mini-Dev Diary: Incest and Hummus

[IconOfEvi]

I was however thinking of an actual Western European Count who asked the pope for permission for sibling fun times.

What you might be looking for is this?:

A historical marriage between full siblings was that between John V, Count of Armagnac and Isabelle d'Armagnac, dame des Quatre-Vallées, c. 1450. The provided papal dispensation for this union was declared forged in 1457.

 

[Sirrobert1]

Of course, there's more to incest than just some good old tumbling. Otherwise, the events would eventually turn into softcore porn. So I did my research, read up on some history and religious scripture, and so on, to ensure some variety when it comes to the incestuous events. These include events that deal with things like...

You must have some very interesting google search history...

 

[danest]

Will Messalians and Zoroastrians have the same problems/events? The examples looked like they were written for Zoroastrian references.
I've been poking around on the internet and some sources seem to say that the Messalians didn't even like marriage at all, leaving me wondering if they shouldn't be able to marry, perhaps only taking consorts instead, with no penalty for legitimizing bastards, due to the lack of regular interest in organized religion and marriage. It would certainly differentiate them even more.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Will Messalians and Zoroastrians have the same problems/events? The examples looked like they were written for Zoroastrian references.
I've been poking around on the internet and some sources seem to say that the Messalians didn't even like marriage at all, leaving me wondering if they shouldn't be able to marry, perhaps only taking consorts instead, with no penalty for legitimizing bastards, due to the lack of regular interest in organized religion and marriage. It would certainly differentiate them even more.

Messalians have the same events as theZoroastrins, and yes many of the events are from a Zoroastrian perspective.

As for Messalians, it is virtually impossible to disallow marriage.

 

[danest]

Hmm, so the Messalians events will be mentioning the uniquely Zoroastrian gods like in the screenshots? That seems a little problematic, but I understand that it might be a lot to customize them. Maybe generic references to "god" rather than religion-specific deity/devil names, then?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Hmm, so the Messalians events will be mentioning the uniquely Zoroastrian gods like in the screenshots? That seems a little problematic, but I understand that it might be a lot to customize them. Maybe generic references to "god" rather than religion-specific deity/devil names, then?

Events available to both religions will have proper God names, the code can and does account for that. For instance the first three screenshots in the preview will have God names changed depending on religion; the next two won't because they're uniquely zoroastrian,

 

[zijistark]

INCEST KILLS FUCKING DEMONS!

/obligated to bump this thread for reasons that need no explanation

 

[danest]

I saw this on the CK2 wiki:
To limit the effects of inbreeding, children born from a Zoroastrian incestuous marriages have:

5 times less chances than normal to get the inbred Inbred.png trait.
but 5 times more chances than normal to get the lunatic Lunatic.png trait

(Sorry if this has already been addressed, relatively new to CK2 forums)
I can understand from a gameplay perspective why it's useful to limit the inbred trait -- it's brutal to the stats and usefulness of the character. But... is that enough to justify it? Wouldn't this imply that zoroastrians have some kind of magic, or special genes, to have a different chance of getting the inbred trait?
Edit: I can't help but think that the inbred trait might not even be that necessary anyway, if all the various negative mental and physical "handicap and illness" traits are simply highly likely to occur (and or be passed on) to inbred children. *shrug*

 

[zijistark]

I saw this on the CK2 wiki:
To limit the effects of inbreeding, children born from a Zoroastrian incestuous marriages have:

5 times less chances than normal to get the inbred Inbred.png trait.
but 5 times more chances than normal to get the lunatic Lunatic.png trait

(Sorry if this has already been addressed, relatively new to CK2 forums)
I can understand from a gameplay perspective why it's useful to limit the inbred trait -- it's brutal to the stats and usefulness of the character. But... is that enough to justify it? Wouldn't this imply that zoroastrians have some kind of magic, or special genes, to have a different chance of getting the inbred trait?
Edit: I can't help but think that the inbred trait might not even be that necessary anyway, if all the various negative mental and physical "handicap and illness" traits are simply highly likely to occur (and or be passed on) to inbred children. *shrug*

In PB/EMF (so HIP), the inbred and lunatic trait chances for children borne of incest are the same for all types of characters. No magic genes here.

 

[Ivir Baggins]

In PB/EMF (so HIP), the inbred and lunatic trait chances for children borne of incest are the same for all types of characters. No magic genes here.

The details on that are in the defines, so if you want magic Zoroastrian incest-proof genes you can edit the values there.

 

[zijistark]

A great man once said:

"Orgies are foul but for those that happen at the family reunion."

 

[Keinwyn]

Is there any evidence of exactly how widespread this was in the Zoroastrian world? I haven't noticed any mention of Sassanid, or Achaemenid and Arsacid for that matter, Shahanshahs engaging in the holy act.

INCEST KILLS FUCKING DEMONS!

It makes a great euphemism, doesn't it.

For example:

Hey bro/sis, wanna smite the demon?

or

"Kids, dinner's ready."
"We're just smiting the demon, we'll be down in a bit mom."

Also imagine all the weird hentai.

If you search hard enough, you will probably find it, it really is perfect anime logic.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to look at the Karen dynasty name and think of a certain someone.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Is there any evidence of exactly how widespread this was in the Zoroastrian world? I haven't noticed any mention of Sassanid, or Achaemenid and Arsacid for that matter, Shahanshahs engaging in the holy act.

It wouldn't be mentioned in the Shahanshah as that was written by a Muslim for a mainly Muslim audience, so obviously throwing in xwedodah willy-nilly wouldn't have been a good idea. As for elsewhere, xwedodah isn't a topic brought up in general history - for instance Wikipedia hardly mentions it. This is not so much because of the taboo around it (for instance mentions of incest in Graeco-Roman Egypt are thrown around frequently enough) but more so because it's a topic only specialists tend to know. Anyways there is evidence of it from the Zoroastrian world, particularly in the Sassanid era; the problem is that unlike in Roman-era Egypt, which kept reliable census records that suggest up to 25% of marriages were brother-sister, in Zorosatrian we have no such sources, so all we have are mentions here and there on inscriptions, discussion of marriage and inheritance law, and biased accounts from non-Zoroastrians. So ultimately we do know xwedodah did happen, but we don't know the extent.

For more information on the topic, I recommend the Encyclopedia Iranica article, which is probably the most comprehensive but readable source you'll find online about xwedodah: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/marriage-next-of-kin

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to look at the Karen dynasty name and think of a certain someone.

And I'm glad other people have noticed this wonderful coincidence.

 

[Calad]

Maybe this has been asked before but was this only zoro/messalian update? Are there new family love events in other religions?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Maybe this has been asked before but was this only zoro/messalian update? Are there new family love events in other religions?

This is not a proper Zoroastrian/Messalian-themed update (any such updates would mainly have stuff for Immersion, which, as you may know, is not available currently), it just throws in a bunch of events for religions that allow incest. So yes in that sense it's limited to mainly the Zoroastrians and Messalians, but it's just flavor events per se, no new mechanics or anything.

 

[pfried]

Yes. I have very good taste.



Hmm. Sounds to me like that bloke did the RL equivalent of the "marry_anyone" console command that I am very fond of.

Might make an interesting rare event chain.

Interestingly enough, close-kin lovers are treated as not being close relatives by the engine and appear as eligible marriage partners even when the religion doesn't explicitly allow for it...