CK3 - Dev Diary #22 - A Medieval Tapestry

[J.B.]

Hmm you left it off with " The end " Which in the other DD you did not. Does this mean that we are close to knowing when the game will be releasing
As you also did not tease us about a new DD next week. So i wonder are we close to getting a date for release as this DD.. Alone made me most interested in Ck3 and i can not wait to get my hands on it.

We will see. It is possible! However, with the current state of the world, I had been expecting delay, rather than a release so soon.

 

[J.B.]

I know the default is that heterosexual is most common and equal splits for the rest on default settings? How much more common are we talking? I’m worried it’s going to only be say 40% hetero and 20% chance of each of the others which is quite unrealistic and kind of turns me off (no pun intended).

I’m hoping the balance will be more for 85% for hetero and 5% chance of the others. Or that it’s entirely adjustable as I for one never enjoyed playing as a homosexual character in game and would feel even weirder being forced into being asexual (which sorry not a thing IMO). This is a medieval game and I doubt that word even existed in those times so personally I’d like the option to disable that entirely.

I think Crusader Kings II, the previous game, was closer to the mark of accurately representing sexuality in the Middle Ages (Key phrase being: "in the Middle Ages," for our relevant discussion), though it would have done with adding a bisexual trait (Trait, instead of a permanent function assigned as of the age of 10). As for asexual, I am convinced that the celibate trait is adequate to represent them during the Middle Ages, and is much more consistent with how people understood their lifestyle, although through the way of the whole lifestyle coming to the character much more easily than others (non-asexual) who attempt to live celibate, chaste lives. In my opinion, Crusader Kings II also seemed closer to facilitating the way ancient Romans and Greeks may have most likely understood sexuality to function, with regards to CK2's traits capabiltiies versus the new system Paradox brings up in this development diary. That is, according to what conventional Greco-Roman understanding was supposed to represent, you are what your actions indicate. If you are known to do something, you are "it," whichever the action or perceived public reputation of somebody indicates. They didn't really seem to think of it (at least not much) in terms of it as representing something inherent about someone, in the sense of human nature, for example.

Ultimately, for the development of CK3, we should strive to look at these things as the Medievals would have seen them, in whichever ways the cultural and religious understandings of the relevant populations understood matters, and attempt to distance ourselves from overly-modern scientific understandings. For similar reasons, I am in favor of transcribing the realm title Byzantine Empire as Roman Empire, and of gavelkind and primogeniture in usage as hereditary legal terms, rather than taking the approach of simplifying them in very plain language, which also has the trappings of modernity implied within the system.

 

[Tschobo]

Well it seems that some really wanted this topic to explode like on Twitter. The issue is, that many of the points were already in Ck2. Children finding out their sexuality, yeah there were events. Homosexuals were also present (now it is just split in three sexualities and there are still the rulesets which can be adjusted and at default it will probably be similar to CK2).

Please do not make a drama out of something that isn‘t that grave.

 

[lilmik552]

Well it seems that some really wanted this topic to explode like on Twitter. The issue is, that many of the points were already in Ck2. Children finding out their sexuality, yeah there were events. Homosexuals were also present (now it is just split in three sexualities and there are still the rulesets which can be adjusted and at default it will probably be similar to CK2).

Please do not make a drama out of something that isn‘t that grave.

I agree. It's not something to ultimately freak out over. Just thought it'd be a good suggestion, strictly for more player control and additional options. It'll be a great game still either way!

 

[J.B.]

Well it seems that some really wanted this topic to explode like on Twitter. The issue is, that many of the points were already in Ck2. Children finding out their sexuality, yeah there were events. Homosexuals were also present (now it is just split in three sexualities and there are still the rulesets which can be adjusted and at default it will probably be similar to CK2).

Please do not make a drama out of something that isn‘t that grave.

It is possible that we can collectively hold off on that particular discussion, though unlikely as we are not a collective entity, and let Paradox come to their own conclusion based on all that has been written thus far, after perhaps drawing inspirations from the comments delivered here.

I don't see the atmosphere as too Twitter/social media looking, here, though. Paradox forums' interactions are normally very civil, with an abundance of intelligent users, indeed! However, many of us are understandably passionate in our propositions and oppositions to different things. Notably, we all seem to share historical interests, at least, however these are manifested within each of us.

I hope that historical accuracy is improved with this new game, and let us all hope as much, indeed. I will add, also, while maintaining decency with respect to the portrayal of children. Then, adults can do whatever they do.

It seems that each of us want, collectively, the best experience possible with Crusader Kings III, though we tend to differ on expressing just how that is meant to be. It is an ultimate puzzle, that developers must figure out their fans!

 

[elvain]

Well it seems that some really wanted this topic to explode like on Twitter. The issue is, that many of the points were already in Ck2. Children finding out their sexuality, yeah there were events. Homosexuals were also present (now it is just split in three sexualities and there are still the rulesets which can be adjusted and at default it will probably be similar to CK2).

Please do not make a drama out of something that isn‘t that grave.

I personally think that all those comments deserve is to be ignored. They are nothing else than a revelation of their author's political affiliation.
Really if they don't mind all the other perversions present in this game, like incest etc. but become furious about children at starting puberty to find their (non-heterosexual!!!) sexuality, it says more about those people than about the game

 

[viola]

In addition to some others that have likewise expressed such concern over one particular event, as well as perhaps the implication that other, possibly similar events will take place within the game, I urge Paradox Interactive to take the right action, an action becoming of the mindset of caring parents that love their families, and drop the sexually-implied "intimate games" subject amongst the ten year old characters.

Leave the children out of that matter. That is a realm we cannot in good conscience breach. Perhaps you may leave it in the game as an event that takes place upon the character's ascension to adulthood, if you must leave in that event at all.

I am thinking that this game may as well become rated M for Mature, based on some of the sexual implications ("experimentation") coming from this, which I believe have gone too far, on the basis that some here have already mentioned about the ten year old children. Adults Only (AO) is not a rating that seems to be given much at all, though it would be fitting based on the aforementioned event which merits the notorious rating . Crusader Kings III seems to be going far beyond the pale of acceptability with how younger characters are depicted, that they will not receive rated T for Teens for however the "Sexual Themes" of Crusader Kings II (Second game, whereas the first game was rated E for Everyone) were received by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).

Please carefully examine the implications of including that type of character event for children, and return to the system in place for Crusader Kings II. Though allowing Crusader Kings II, with some parental guidance to start off, I would not allow my children to play Crusader Kings III.

...

Is this satire?

 

[the glory of plain]

I personally think that all those comments deserve is to be ignored. They are nothing else than a revelation of their author's political affiliation.
Really if they don't mind all the other perversions present in this game, like incest etc. but become furious about children at starting puberty to find their (non-heterosexual!!!) sexuality, it says more about those people than about the game

it is surprising conservative panic arrive so late for the party this time
couldn't be that important even for them

 

[J.B.]

...

Is this satire?

No. I simply express my opinions on the direction I wish the game to head. It is quite a natural reaction, just as whatever you wish is a natural reaction, for similarly understandable reasons. Based on your message, I understand that you appear to operate from a different framework, although, let us see what Paradox finally settles on. With any developer's diary thread, there is bound to be some controversy over particular elements. If you remember the game Europa Universalis III, they had the revolts known as "Particularists," after all, and here we all are, you and I, figuratively speaking. We are, in our ways, particularists, and may urge different things from one of our favorite video game developers. Let's see what they decide, based on the contributions here.

 

[neutrondecay]

As a bisexual myself, I would expect the incidence rates for gay, bi and ace in the default setting to be no higher than 5% each. Perhaps there is room for a 'gayer world' setting where straight is still the majority but the other groups are 10% each instead, but that seems like too much for default. I don't think I'd mind if there was a setting with a lower rate, either. But I do not want (and do not think we'll see) a setting where literally everyone has the same orientation. That kind of erasure would be seriously unrealistic, and shut off the possibility of recreating some of the classic dynastic conflicts of the High Middle Ages.

nd

 

[J.B.]

As a bisexual myself, I would expect the incidence rates for gay, bi and ace in the default setting to be no higher than 5% each. Perhaps there is room for a 'gayer world' setting where straight is still the majority but the other groups are 10% each instead, but that seems like too much for default. I don't think I'd mind if there was a setting with a lower rate, either. But I do not want (and do not think we'll see) a setting where literally everyone has the same orientation. That kind of erasure would be seriously unrealistic, and shut off the possibility of recreating some of the classic dynastic conflicts of the High Middle Ages.

nd

On the part of Paradox's original post, there does seem to be the lack of a middle-ground for the pre-game options, concerning that, which your post appears to address with the 30% and 70% dynamic.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

TBH, I really hoped to see more game rules in this DD, since this DD is mostly about game rules.
Well ...

 

[J.B.]

TBH, I really hoped to see more game rules in this DD, since this DD is mostly about game rules.
Well ...

At the very least, what we ended up with is the implication that they are indeed in! Let's see what else is available, when the time comes.

 

[NilsFabian]

Concubines/Consorts will always be of the opposing gender. It's more a relationship of convinience rather than an actual loving relationship.
Your sexuality will not affect the way your culture and religion expects you to live your life, so in default Catholic realms a man will be expected to marry a woman no matter his sexuality!

So there is no way to go progressive 1000 years early and create marriage equality around the year 1000?

Nobody decides to be homosexual, you simply are or aren‘t.

Realitywise you are right.
Gameplay wise you always had the opportunity to influence it in CKII when you were playing as a minor.
So if it should happen that you are the minor the question is if this will still be an event with options to choose gameplay wise or if sexuality is going to be applied randomly

 

[lilmik552]

Realitywise you are right.
Gameplay wise you always had the opportunity to influence it in CKII when you were playing as a minor.
So if it should happen that you are the minor the question is if this will still be an event with options to choose gameplay wise or if sexuality is going to be applied randomly

It sounds like they are making it random. And as they said, it doesn't change. I think all traits should be subject to change.

 

[J.B.]

Realitywise you are right.
Gameplay wise you always had the opportunity to influence it in CKII when you were playing as a minor.
So if it should happen that you are the minor the question is if this will still be an event with options to choose gameplay wise or if sexuality is going to be applied randomly

With this dev diary thread, Paradox proposes to make it appear at random, however it is set.

I prefer the way CKII deals with it, wherein it is in the player's control what happens to their character, of which courses to pursue. One may, for example, in CKIII if it is more influenced by the previous game's system, have a very immersive play through of the sexual dynamics, and even encounter, due to the new stress functions, interesting dynamics at work, which could enable living a double-life of sorts, until one may reach a pivotal point of choosing one versus the other option, similar to how anybody in the game could choose celibacy over any form of sexual activeness. In my opinion, CKII's system also has the added benefit of being more consistent with the older Greco-Roman, and perhaps conventionally the ancient and medieval European, North African, and Middle Eastern world-views on matters of sexuality.

I wish to see more of the Medieval immersion in this game pertaining to otherwise familiar, and modern aspects of life, rather than clinical, retro-actively applied things such as Byzantine (I know we've had this discussion many times, of course!) and primogeniture versus simplification of such. We do not need to precisely translate every detail according to the modern orthodox point of view, or a modernized, simplified perspective, according to how each system works.

Let us delve into the earlier mindsets for greater role-playing potential, and feel alive at an earlier point of the world!

 

[classicist]

Well this seem really - and I mean REALLY - nice! Literally can't wait!

 

[Xain]

I know I will catch a lot of flak for this but I always thought that homosexuality in the game should be a decision. Or at least an option in the rules to enable it as a decision. Especially for role playing purposes. In CK2 it annoyed me greatly when I'd have a fantastic heir who had almost everything I wanted and then get slapped with the homosexual trait. While I realize this doesn't ruin the game play or make my heir necessarily worse skill wise, I still didn't like it and sometimes if possible would try to disinherit that person. I really recommend at least adding a rule that allows this to be a decision in the lifestyle or intrigue menu. Where the player could decide to be homosexual versus them becoming it. That way the player has more control over it. The default setting could be what is in place above.

I actually think that, for the same roleplay reasons you mention, the system is better left as it is (sexuality not being a decision). Your perfect heir is homosexual, and you do not like the risks that come with it? Simply do not act on that, accept the stress maluses if some event comes, strive to get the "chaste" trait, set your focus to learning or martial or something that doesn't involve too much courting around.

That would in fact be exactly the things an homosexual ruler not wanting to be impious would do: dive into books or carousing, do their duty to the dinasty by finding an appropriate wife, and hold their pants. So it is an occasion to roleplay rather than something immersion breaking.

Sure many people feel that way. While some may due to a chemical imbalance or a environmental factor/event "would simply be it", I do believe it to be a choice by some people. But I do like what @J.B. said and how maybe adding a feature where one can work their way out of a trait by practicing against it long enough (maybe with added stress because of it) is a great game play mechanic they are already making. If a character goes against their traits they become stressed. It would be more dynamic and like many other traits in the game it can changed. One may be greedy or wroth but through their actions can rectify it. Just like good traits can become bad ones through actions or events. I see the homosexual trait being the same. However I still think there should still be an option in the rules to allow someone to remove it or no longer be it. Just more control and options to the players.

I see your point, but I feel you're failing to understand the point of the stress system. You can still play the character you want to be, if you are willing to pay the stress for it (and balance it in other aspects of your life? For example, have your homosexual character behave, but indulge a bit with confort food...). You can be homosexual and yet not act upon it just out of willpower - and get the stress for it. You can be homosexual and chaste, and get significantly less stress because the bonuses and maluses would balance themselves.

For greedy characters it will be similar. True enough, greedy characters can eventually lose their trait - but never chose it in the first place! True enough, gaining traits was sometimes event-driven - but more often than not, the choices on educational events could result in both the character gaining or losing a trait! There was no "choice", only nudging and randomness. As it is in life.

Sure, sexuality is fixed throughout life and that is disappointing. I would very much love to see a Duke having a late revelation of his being homosexual, or - why not - seeing an homosexual character brainwashing himself for so long that in the end he imposes on himself or herself an avatar of heterosexuality. That could be in the game, without making it appear that sexuality is a choice (which, tl;dr, is not. Although I could go into length about the subject).

 

[magnusvejby]

We’ve also added many different Game Rules which allow you to tailor your CK3 experience.

I hope that there also is large "ironman diversity" in the game rules... I'll be really sad if you are forced to have shattered retreat and army movement lock in order to play ironman mode. But anyways more game rules sound good!

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Bit late, but I was just wondering something about the whole sexuality thing. In CK2 I recall an event where if you're playing as an adolescent character you get a choice between being homosexual, lustful, chaste, or none of the above. Will this make a return to CK3, with the addition of the choice of becoming bi or ace? Or will it always be a case of just rolling the dice?

I realise that 'choosing' your sexuality could be a bit controversial, but I always liked that event in CK2 since it gave you the option of choosing to play as a gay character which is otherwise quite uncommon, and I presume it'll be pretty rare in CK3 too. And even so I think it could be phrased respectfully in the sense that it's not your character choosing their sexuality, but rather the player guiding the character's sexuality.