Friends =/= Lovers

[LordofSaxony]

During medieval times intercourse was part of politics.

I support the notion of seperating friends from lovers. In CK1 any friendship between different sexes was likely to trigger romance and bastard events. Can't I even be friends with my own sister without the game assuming we're having sibling love between the sheets?

I also would like it separated. A while back I proposed a different section for mister/mistresses, and it's basically along the same lines.

On another note, I could see a bad trait of "Dirty Little Secret" about a brother and sister getting it on. That would cause some drama haha.

 

[Drakken]

On further reflection I guess sexual relations outside marriage weren't politically irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_1st_Earl_of_March

But this isn't something that requires a great deal of attention. Maybe it should be a function of power instead. The biggest thug in court gets to hump the queen.

Stakes are much higher for a Queen's lover. If Mortimer had been caught cheating with Isabella AND lost the battle, he would have been hanged, drawn, and quartered, his earldom of March forfeited, and Isabella would have been either sent to a convent or stuffed inside a coffin with her head missing. The Despensers would have made sure of it and Charles IV of France wouldn't have lifted a finger to save her.

Any male known being the Queen's friend would be closely guarded and watched, anyway, just for that. If caught it's a sure death sentence for the lover for lese-majesty, and a lifetime in convent for the Queen - if she is not outright murdered/executed as an accomplice.

Might be a double standard, but I hope in CKII a Queen committing an adultery with a male Friend will be a disaster-in-making. That's usually why very few males were allowed around the Queen in the King's absence, except members of the Household and siblings.

 

[RedRooster81]

Stakes are much higher for a Queen's lover. If Mortimer had been caught cheating with Isabella AND lost the battle, he would have been hanged, drawn, and quartered, his earldom of March forfeited, and Isabella would have been either sent to a convent or stuffed inside a coffin with her head missing. The Despensers would have made sure of it and Charles IV of France wouldn't have lifted a finger to save her.

Any male known being the Queen's friend would be closely guarded and watched, anyway, just for that. If caught it's a sure death sentence for the lover for lese-majesty, and a lifetime in convent for the Queen - if she is not outright murdered/executed as an accomplice.

Might be a double standard, but I hope in CKII a Queen committing an adultery with a male Friend will be a disaster-in-making. That's usually why very few males were allowed around the Queen in the King's absence, except members of the Household and siblings.

If we consider the idea of dynasty, and who is to inherit, under the idea of primogeniture, it was the eldest son of the wife of the king who would become the next king. If the king was sickly or (rarely) asexual another male could fill the role (no pun intended).

 

[Negru Voda]

None the less, I don't see why I can't be allowed to role-play a chill King that allows his wife to have many friends, but as soon as I hear of her having lovers, I draw the line.

In my CK games I often play a king that tries to limit bastards for the sake of his realm. And try to act lovingly with my children and wife.

So naturally I encouraged them to have friends, since that way we can maintain the status quo, bla bla bla.

But then out of nowhere I'm getting bastards and other events that go against the whole idea. (I love the random factor, but this just isn't really normal)

Friends is friends, and more than friends is something else. Each relationship should have it's own set of events.

mmm.. I dunno, I guess this isn't such a crucial point anyway