• 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.
Greetings!

Today I’d like to present a feature that is specifically tailored towards the ones among you who truly enjoy breeding potent dynasties - Legendary Bloodlines!

Legendary Bloodlines are modifiers that are passed down the generations from one specific character, the Founder - they work much like a dynasty, but with several more rules and caveats. They symbolize the widespread renown a certain character might have, and the staying power stories surrounding their feats are. Having a Legendary Bloodline in your character will convey a bonus based on who founded it, and there are many different Bloodlines to be found (and Founded). Bloodlines are accessed from the Character View:
DDBloodlines_BloodlineView.png

Unlike traits such as Genius or Strong, Bloodlines are not genetical - Bloodlines gain their power from perception and belief; if you were a superstitious medieval warrior, would you rather fight the big burly fighter who you knew were related to Charles the Hammer, or the one you knew were not?

That very same superstition, combined with the prejudices that were common in those times, causes Bloodlines to be either Agnatic or Enatic - to breed Bloodlines into your dynasty will require you to get clever, and plan ahead if you want more than one line to run within your direct line of heirs. If a Bloodline is agnatic, for example, a man will still pass it to his daughters - but they will not pass it on to their children, that will be exclusively reserved for his sons.
DDBloodlines_Patrilineal.png


Certain bloodlines, or certain effects of certain bloodlines, will only be active for characters who fulfill certain triggers - for example, Christian knights will only seek to serve a descendant of Charles the Hammer if he happens to be Christian.

It's also worth noting that Bloodlines do not give direct stat boosts like how artifacts do.

To facilitate the merging of several different Bloodlines into one direct line of characters, we’ve made it so that Matrilineal marriages transfer bloodlines that the parents wouldn’t normally be able to transfer - symbolizing that it’s less explicitly about gender, and more about who’s the dominant part in a marriage.
DDBloodlines_MatriTransfer.png


To see who’s a part of any given bloodline, you can view a list of the current holders by clicking a button next to the Founder in the Bloodlines View:
DDBloodlines_List.png


Though the easiest way by far is to enter the Bloodlines Ledger Page to see which bloodlines exist, how many members there are and, by clicking the entries, view who holds them.
DDBloodlines_Ledger.png


Bloodlines stem from many different sources, but the ones I’ll touch upon today are the Historical Bloodlines. As you might have already figured out, certain famous historical characters start with bloodlines, or found them at a certain point in their life. For example, if William succeeds in his invasion of England he’ll found a bloodline. As bloodlines come and go, you’ll have a different setup depending on what bookmark you choose to start in. Here’s a few examples of bloodlines you can expect to want to breed into your own line:
DDBloodlines_Examples.png


Note that there will be ways to get bloodlines apart from breeding them into your dynasty, but that will be the subject of a future DevDiary.
 
The two situations are incomparable. No large scale event that happens today can be compared adequately with anything that happened before the 1850's, before the beginning of the age of rail. Life and society are so radically different that there are no parallels, no sane analogy. @Atalvyr puts it eloquently too.
I get that and I am not arguing for the direct applicability here. I am just saying that current events are IN GENERAL fair game for comparison despite technological or societal advances or changes. These two things have changed continually in the past as well and I reject the notion that today is any different from the past.
 
And military skill gives more levies because you are better at the logistics of recruiting them. Which is again something waving a "magic sword" doesn't help you with, your levies aren't volunteers doesn't matter how inspiring you are.
Just being a bit pedantic as I'm catching up on the thread; but, you are not entirely correct.
A large part of medieval armies were made up of volunteers who wanted a piece of the potential plunder from campaigns. Which they often spent a piece of to get better gear for the next campaign. Is how many Men-at-Arms came to be.
Forcibly conscripting people were often a last resort, as people torn from their homes against their will to fight with little training makes for quite poor soldiers.

Now, that's not to say that forcibly conscripting soldiers didn't happen. It did, and quite often. But it would be wrong to say that all levies were there against their will.
 
Last edited:
Classy, bringing irrelevant current politics into a discussion about history. It's pathetic and insulting that you use the misfortune of refugees fleeing war and genocide, and the misplaced discrimination against them, to try to make a point on a historical video game forum.

The truth is that when the medieval warm period started, Scandinavia's population increased at a rate outstripping the land's growth of carrying capacity. To survive and propagate their own children, less fortunate men would go raiding and settling overseas. The best choices for raiding were Frankish and British (geographically British) monasteries and seaside settlements: easy access and poorly defended. In places where the rulers were small, weak, and disorganized (Ireland, northern Scotland, England) the vikings were even able to become rulers themselves.
I'm not bringing current politics into it I am commenting on human nature, which quite frankly is very much unchanged even with the invention of the train.
 
The two situations are incomparable. No large scale event that happens today can be compared adequately with anything that happened before the 1850's, before the beginning of the age of rail. Life and society are so radically different that there are no parallels, no sane analogy. @Atalvyr puts it eloquently too.
I get that and I am not arguing for the direct applicability here. I am just saying that current events are IN GENERAL fair game for comparison despite technological or societal advances or changes. These two things have changed continually in the past as well and I reject the notion that today is any different from the past.

To be brutally honest, I think arguing about why something like this happened in the past is pretty likely to be a waste of time (in the sense of trying to find the one/main reason it happened). People today often can't agree why contemporary events happened; I'd be really surprised if even modern historians were able to agree on a single reason or even a dominant reason why any significant event like this in the past happened, not least because in general these sorts of things have a multitude of reasons for happening and even if we know all the reasons, the ones which different people think are more important are always going to be based as much on that person's ideological (etc.) perspective [EDIT: and also their area of expertise] as on the evidence itself, and that's before getting into the question of motives of the writers of the sources the historians are using as evidence.
On top of that is the combination of how past cultures were significantly different from our own, but past people were significantly similar that working out what is and isn't a sensible idea of what people thought and did is already pretty difficult anyway.

Ultimately I'm pretty sure it's not worth getting into an argument about, and especially here given that it seems kind of off topic to me at this point, so perhaps it's worth agreeing to disagree or something? Or maybe going and starting your own thread to discuss it?
 
Last edited:
I am looking toward this expansion a lot! Btw what are conditions for creating custom dynasties and can characters who already have a dynasty create new custom one? I think it could make sense that a prestigious heir down the line could enhance hers or his dynasty which could be represented by another dynasty slot I suppose...
 
Oh how I hope they will put a few more fantastical bloodlines in there for character creation and RP.

Blood of the Julio-Claudians would give me a stroke.
I wouldn't have this enabled at the start - I'd grant it to the first dynast to do something like forging the Privilegium Maius.

nd
 
Ah yes! Ty now if we can integrate some Aztec bloodlines and interact with them via the same way we do in China I would be a happy happy chap
Yeah a sunset invasion rework would be nice, the idea isn't bad but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Just a question ( and sorry if maybe I've lost something):
if let's say another Karling do great things ( becoming Emperor, winning a Crusade etc) it's possible to him/her to create another bloodlines different from the one of Big Charles?
 
Oh how I hope they will put a few more fantastical bloodlines in there for character creation and RP.

Blood of the Julio-Claudians would give me a stroke.
But the Julio-Claudians would have a mix of female, male, female lineage. Augustus's line survive through his granddaughter Julia the Younger, while Livia Drusillia's line continued through Tiberius' great-granddaughter. While game clearly wants a linear bloodline.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how easily fantasy elements could be added here, blood of Lucifer perhaps?
Also did Ragnar Lodbrok actually claim to carry the blood of Odin?
Not as far as I know, Harald Bluetooth did though, and the Yngling dynasty claimed descent from Frey.
 
Everyone's talking about fantasy bloodlines and I'm just wondering if that one handful of Skraelings brought back to Iceland (ancestral to ~80 modern Icelanders) will be tracked. Imagine a "Skraeling blood" modifier!
 
still cool tho, I mean if Mo has descendants through his daughter, shouldnt the Christians have an equivalent even if it is not true. (It is based on superstition after all)
No-one in medieval Europe would have accepted such a thing - belief in Jesus' own virginity was essentially unquestioned.

However, you could have bloodlines of the Desponsyni (descendants of Jesus' siblings/first cousins) and/or the Holy Kin (the descendants of the Apostles according to a claim that they were the descendants of Jesus' grandmother St Anne by other marriages than that to St Joachim). Belief in the first was widespread; the other rests on a particular pseudohistory, so perhaps you might need to forge such a thing before establishing the claim.

nd