View on Gender doctrine could du with some expansion

[sandro chronicler]

Returning to original idea, there also should be random event for "Joan of Arc" like figure for cultures that hadn't tradition of female warriors. (and opposed variation for (militarily) female dominated religions)

 

[MagisterMundi]

Returning to original idea, there also should be random event for "Joan of Arc" like figure for cultures that hadn't tradition of female warriors. (and opposed variation for (militarily) female dominated religions)

Agreed, especially if there are societal repercussions for rallying around a female leader like that. There certainly were for d'Arc. Could be an interesting trade-off; get a great leader, maybe some Event troops, but also very unhappy vassals. I could see the inverse being a nice wrinkle to Hausa playthroughs, especially if you went the female preference route.

 

[sandro chronicler]

especially if there are societal repercussions for rallying around a female leader like that. There certainly were for d'Arc. Could be an interesting trade-off; get a great leader, maybe some Event troops, but also very unhappy vassals.

There should be noted that in examples we know sometimes there was controversy like that, and sometimes there wasn't - probably because of regional differences and change of traditions over time. Logicaly, in realm with male "only" sucsesion law (or "female only" for opposed variation) there would be more controversy over commander of unconventional gender than in realm with "preference" tipe law, or realms with "Visigothic Codes" innovation. Potential religions with intermediate political doctrine also should by taken into account.

*with d'Arc, if i remember correctly, she was almost universally loved by commoners, soldiers and field commanders that served with her, but wasn't by courtiers. This could be simple envy.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Could be an interesting trade-off; get a great leader, maybe some Event troops, but also very unhappy vassals.

Joan of Arc wasn't a great military leader by a normal in-game definition; though she was a military advisor with a good track record, she never really commanded troops herself, much less to the sort of against the odds victories one reads about from people like Alexander II or Napoleon.

Her influence was primarily significant in that she was a huge moral booster because she made Frenchmen believe that God was on their side. For this reason, the more historical (and realistic, given Joan's lack of military training) way to work her or parallel women into the game is using a more religious slant.

The character would have decent martial, but excellent learning. The OTL event chain path would have a young woman with virtuous traits appear, be questioned about religion, do well, and so long as she was part of an army (not commanding) it would have a big advantage boost. This would continue until she was killed or captured or the war ended.

But the game shouldn't stick to what did happen, and should include what could have happened. The Joan of Arc equivalent doesn't need to be young, or a woman. Perhaps an old hermit appears to have almost divine insight. The event chain could even apply to an existing character in your realm, with suitable modifications for their birth status.
Maybe the King refuses her requests, meaning she serves a vassal instead whose great success allows him to demand a council seat or usurp the throne later. (Shades of Ivaylo of Bulgaria here.) Maybe after winning your war, you start a war of aggression against her advice and she supports your enemies.

 

[sandro chronicler]

Well, Joan of Arc was just one of several such examples, most famous but still.. Event like that should be more flexible, and include additional variations, like noblewoman avenging killed husband for example.

though she was a military advisor with a good track record, she never really commanded troops herself

at least she was on the battlefield, close enough to be wounded twice and eventually captured. Besides, there was several examples where woman has lead the charge, and at least one that was directly stated to fighting in battle.

 

[Murray Rothbard]

Having gender equality but polygamous marriage is extremely broken right now. It results in men of the realm sharing their wives with each other, which is completely bonkers. Surely even the pagans were not so laid back that they thought it was ok for everyone to share everyone else's bed. The idea of Insular Christians passing their wives around beggars the imagination. There definitely needs to be more nuance in the gender rules.

 

[MagisterMundi]

The idea of Insular Christians passing their wives around beggars the imagination. There definitely needs to be more nuance in the gender rules.

Huh? Insular Christianity doesn't have gender equality (male dominated), doesn't permit adultery (shunned for men, criminal for women), and doesn't allow for a woman to be married to more than one man (only men can have more than one spouse). In fact, the only religions I can think of that aren't player-made that allow for what you're describing are heresies - it takes the "Polyamorous" tenet for that to work, and as far as I know, none of the base starting religions have it.

Now, people sleeping around to a slightly ridiculous degree regardless of gender laws or marriage laws is indeed an issue, and has been since launch.

 

[sandro chronicler]

It results in men of the realm sharing their wives with each other, which is completely bonkers

That's called polyandry - one wife with multiple husbands. It really existed in real life.

 

[Murray Rothbard]

Huh? Insular Christianity doesn't have gender equality, doesn't permit adultery (shunned for men, criminal for women), and doesn't allow for a woman to be married to more than one man. In fact, the only religions I can think of that aren't player-made that allow for what you're describing are heresies - it takes the "Polyamorous" tenet for that to work, and as far as I know, none of the base starting religions have it.

Now, people sleeping around to a slightly ridiculous degree regardless of gender laws or marriage laws is indeed an issue, and has been since launch.

Sorry, I should have clarified. If you reform Insular Christianity to allow gender equality, but leave the polygamy in place, the outcome is as I described. It's fairly nonsensical. Give women the right to own lands and such, yes, that makes sense. The entire realm being a harem is chaos. Or look at it this way: if one wife has 4 husbands, who is to say who the father of the child is?

 

[Murray Rothbard]

That's called polyandry - one wife with multiple husbands. It really existed in real life.

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't see any way in the game to make a religion that has gender equality (for the in-game purposes of avoiding the "is a woman" malus for rulers, for allowing women to be councillors, etc), AND male-dominated polygamous marriage (polygyny, no polyandry).

 

[sandro chronicler]

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't see any way in the game to make a religion that has gender equality (for the in-game purposes of avoiding the "is a woman" malus for rulers, for allowing women to be councillors, etc), AND male-dominated polygamous marriage (polygyny, no polyandry).

What gender law your realm has? https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Laws#Gender_law

 

[Murray Rothbard]

What gender law your realm has? https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Laws#Gender_law

Ok so I just found those options. I didn't realize there were male/female preference laws available. Starting as an Insular Christian, and making a new faith with equal gender doctrine, the gender law defaults to equal. Male preference would lead to the desired outcome, and maybe that should be the default! But with an Irish tribal start that's not possible until feudalism. It appears you need crown authority to change succession laws, unless I'm missing something else.

 

[Orphalesion]

That's also why there's no reason not to include gay marriage in the religious doctrine rules.

And then you have to make sure to have another rule that allows concubinage or adoption (of the same sort practiced by Roman emperors), because if you don't then you're going to have to resort to infidelity to get heirs and could cause massive instability in your realm.

That system is great and more options mean more potential to experiment with different types of society.

I'm a gay man myself, but I'm not sure whether gay merriage would be a very logical idea for the CK 3 time frame. Gay merriage is important in modern times, where merriage is about love and government benefits. In the CK3 time frame, however merriage was about continuing the bloodline first and foremost. A gay merriage cannot continue the bloodline, so it wouldn't make sense for the time. Even gay-friendly historical cultures, such as the Ancient Greeks still kept merriage for opposite sex couples, so that they can have children.
With the current system you can create a religion where it's completely Alrigth for a homosexual monarch to have their same-sex lover out in the open, which for the time frame is the best solution, imho.

Maybe instead of full-on gay merriage there could be a new feature where you can have an official lover, who has their own position at court, like the Maîtresse-en-titre of the French Kings, and if your faith accept same sex pairings, then your official lover can be the same sex as your character.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Well, Joan of Arc was just one of several such examples, most famous but still.. Event like that should be more flexible, and include additional variations, like noblewoman avenging killed husband for example.


at least she was on the battlefield, close enough to be wounded twice and eventually captured. Besides, there was several examples where woman has lead the charge, and at least one that was directly stated to fighting in battle.

I'm not denying there should be some circumstances where women participate in battle.

 

[MagisterMundi]

Maybe instead of full-on gay merriage there could be a new feature where you can have an official lover, who has their own position at court, like the Maîtresse-en-titre of the French Kings, and if your faith accept same sex pairings, then your official lover can be the same sex as your character.

Perhaps another option would be to allow same-sex consorts or concubines, but not spouses. After all, concubinage - while sometimes a matter of being a means of producing more potential heirs - was typically a matter of prestige and companionship more than anything. I could see some nuance in gender laws allowing for that.

 

[sandro chronicler]

Male preference would lead to the desired outcome, and maybe that should be the default! But with an Irish tribal start that's not possible until feudalism. It appears you need crown authority to change succession laws, unless I'm missing something else.

Try to post in suggestions subforum, i think it more likely to be noticed by developers.

 

[sandro chronicler]

Perhaps another option would be to allow same-sex consorts or concubines, but not spouses. After all, concubinage - while sometimes a matter of being a means of producing more potential heirs - was typically a matter of prestige and companionship more than anything. I could see some nuance in gender laws allowing for that

I think it can be done with additional option for Same-Sex Relations doctrine (Kinslaying has 5 options after all), that only available if concubinage is allowed.

 

[sandro chronicler]

*meaningless post just to pop up the thread*

It's funny that Iroquois (political matriarchy) had, basically more restricted gender roles than cultures that stereotypically associated with such restrictions (namely medieval Europe and Middle East)

 

[Ivashanko]

Given that tribal rulers everywhere usually seem to be military leaders, the account highlighted seems in tension with the prevalence of male kings in Iron Age Britain if I'm reading it correctly.

The yearning for the romantic, for the mythological, is as alive among moderns as it was among the Romans, and so we must be careful not to so readily accept versions of history which appear to be outside the norms everywhere else except with substantial evidence. I'm not able to access that PhD dissertation, but being buried with weapons is not strong evidence on its own.

I'm not denying the possibility, but anything so unusual for the period should be treated with due skepticism, especially when there is inconsistent evidence.

But just to reiterate that I don't think the historical debate is all that relevant to this thread, because these examples aren't relevant to the CK3 period anyway, and CK3 has already taken a path of prioritising player freedom over rigid conformity to history. Therefore if it is conceivable and would make a noticeable gameplay difference, there's a case to be made for adding it to the game.

This.

There are some historians who don't believe that a consistency women-dominated society ever existed before the modern era. How right are they? I don't know, but I do know that pop-historians love focusing on what seems unusual rather than what we know was widespread.

That being said, I also strongly agree with the OP. More gender laws and options would make for a better game.

 

[sandro chronicler]

There are some historians who don't believe that a consistency women-dominated society ever existed before the modern era

I'm not sure their opinion aren't biased. There can be misplaced romanticism, believe in constant progress of humanity, or feeling of superiority ("we surely better than this savages of the past"). There are plenty of people who are genuinely frightened by mere possibility that either of this isn't true. *
Besides, whole point there is to represent cultures that, while wasn't female-dominated, had some elements of equality, to lesser or larger degree. (or create something truly bizarre )

* thing is, a lot of places now has worst situation with women (and human in general) rights than they had in distant ages. In fact, early middle ages had arguably more democracy and liberties than "enlightenment" age.