Houses go extinct too fast

[Lumpy]

Started as Dondarrions in the Crowned Stag scenario. 100 years in now, crowned myself Storm King and took Kings Landing. Great experience so far! What really bugs me though is that nearly all major houses are gone extinct by now. Only the Martells are in charge of Dorne, and a few of the minor houses are still around. The Westerlands are ruled by some obscure "of Lannisport" family.

Is this happening because of the increased child mortality in this mod? It seems most houses die off on their own without being taken on or anything.
I also noticed those cool dynasties newly recruited hedge knights get (via employ character). Would it be possible to make all newly landed characters get those cool houses instead of these random "of xxx" dynasties? Many cool CoAs and names in the pool, would be a shame to let all those unused!

 

[Azarias59]

The root of this is the whole normal vs matri marriage thing. If the modded applied my suggestion to incorporate the children's dynasty decision into an event, then this would be less of a problem and more in line with lore.

 

[surihtanil]

I agree. I see some many upstart houses. I was playing Dayne and a random upstart house of reachmen took control of Dorne. Martell attempted a "crusader/rebel army" to take it back but was crushed by the upstart house.... within 10 years my house was the only true house left in Dorne. Dorne completely belonged to house Appleton of the Reach and the random upstart house.

 

[TMSaxon]

Before the latest update, I tended to see House Stark, House Targaryen, and House Martell last the longest- now, House Martell tends to die incredibly fast, while the Starks are hit and miss. The Targaryen's still last forever (I suspect because most of their daughters marry their sons).

 

[Lhutien]

House Dayne nearly died out because they married wrongly... It costed me 3 levels of dishonourable but I saved their asses.

 

[Urzhail64]

Mortality rates are very HIGH in AGOT compared to vanilla CK 2. It doesn't help that nearly every noble house starts out with very few members. The Starks have quite a number. BUT...Jon starts out as a Black Brother and Robb Stark is almost guaranteed execution if he loses to Joffrey in the starting war. With Eddard already dead, that's not many Starks old enough to breed to keep the North within the dynasty. And they're one of the more populous houses to boot.

 

[Arcvalons]

IIRC it's explained in canon there hasn't really been unbroken lines for thousands of years, but people tend to take the name of the previous rulers if they're from a prestigious house. Perhaps, for example, if a character somehow ends up in Winterfell and is Northern/Old Gods or has a Stark family member somewhere, they get a decision to take the Stark name themselves.

 

[Rubidium]

Mortality rates are very HIGH in AGOT compared to vanilla CK 2. It doesn't help that nearly every noble house starts out with very few members. The Starks have quite a number. BUT...Jon starts out as a Black Brother and Robb Stark is almost guaranteed execution if he loses to Joffrey in the starting war. With Eddard already dead, that's not many Starks old enough to breed to keep the North within the dynasty. And they're one of the more populous houses to boot.

And if you play Robert's Rebellion, not only do the Starks have fewer members, but Eddard has a bad tendency to die either in battle or at the Tower of Joy. Furthermore, Lyanna survives surprisingly often, and since she's usually attractive and high diplomacy, she has a strong tendency to have a faction formed for her claim, which then overthrows poor Benjen. Martells still have the issue of their heir being a woman (Arianne, who also in my experience usually goes to Robert's court as a hostage if he wins).

 

[Jess135]

IIRC it's explained in canon there hasn't really been unbroken lines for thousands of years, but people tend to take the name of the previous rulers if they're from a prestigious house. Perhaps, for example, if a character somehow ends up in Winterfell and is Northern/Old Gods or has a Stark family member somewhere, they get a decision to take the Stark name themselves.

Citation? This would be very interesting if true, however I've never seen it mentioned anywhere before.

 

[TMSaxon]

IIRC it's explained in canon there hasn't really been unbroken lines for thousands of years, but people tend to take the name of the previous rulers if they're from a prestigious house. Perhaps, for example, if a character somehow ends up in Winterfell and is Northern/Old Gods or has a Stark family member somewhere, they get a decision to take the Stark name themselves.

In the case of the Starks, the only example that I can think of is the story that the Wildlings tell of Bael the Bard and Brandon the Daughterless. However, I was under the impression that everyone who might know the truth of that tale- Jon Snow, Mance Raydar, Tormund (sp?) Father of Bears, even Ygritte (sp?) who tells the tale- all disbelieve it, or at least strongly suggest that it is untrue. Then of course, there is the issue of consistency- the Starks are referred to as "lords" in the tale, meaning it must be sometime after Aegon's Conquest, yet I really cannot see the Targaryens looking kindly on anyone that flayed on of their great vassals. Further, it is stated that the Starks made sure the Boltons stopped flaying people after they bent the knee all of those millennia ago- I can't see the Starks letting it go either.

 

[Galle]

In the case of the Starks, the only example that I can think of is the story that the Wildlings tell of Bael the Bard and Brandon the Daughterless. However, I was under the impression that everyone who might know the truth of that tale- Jon Snow, Mance Raydar, Tormund (sp?) Father of Bears, even Ygritte (sp?) who tells the tale- all disbelieve it, or at least strongly suggest that it is untrue. Then of course, there is the issue of consistency- the Starks are referred to as "lords" in the tale, meaning it must be sometime after Aegon's Conquest, yet I really cannot see the Targaryens looking kindly on anyone that flayed on of their great vassals. Further, it is stated that the Starks made sure the Boltons stopped flaying people after they bent the knee all of those millennia ago- I can't see the Starks letting it go either.

I don't think it's ever officially stated anywhere, no. The problem is that the Starks, like everyone else, are given an implausible history that is inconsistent with the events of the books.

In the real world, the longest continually-serving royal family is probably the Japanese Imperial Family, which has reigned continuously for at least 1500 years (with an additional, disputed 1000 years before that), who have achieved that success almost entirely by fobbing off all actual power and authority onto a different hereditary title and letting the nobility fight over that instead. The Starks, by contrast, are claimed to have ruled the North continuously for 8000 years. The same Starks who have been all-but-annihilated in the past twenty tears of the books' time frame.

To be totally honest, I find it highly unlikely that Eddard Stark is actually a direct patrilineal descendant of Bran the Builder. Even if you account for the idea that those 8000 years are an inflated figure, that's simply too long for a royal family that is actually out ruling to last.

Getting to the point made by the OP: Prior to the War of the Usurper, Westeros's history is oddly static, especially when compared to the events of the books, an example of what I like to call "New Republic Syndrome", a common condition in works of fiction where the pace of the setting's history seems to undergo a massive, permanent change right around the time when the plot starts, going from a relatively stable place with the occasional threat to the status quo to perpetual chaos where you're lucky if your new world order gets five years before the next sequel.

Or, in short, we're faced with a choice: do we make gameplay that reflects the intrigue and tension of the books, where the past twenty years alone have seen a change in royal dynasty and the deposition of two regional ruling houses? Or with gameplay that reflects the relative stability of historical Westeros, where the previous royal dynasty lasted for three hundred years, and one of those regional ruling houses lasted for 8000? The two are incompatible, and we go with the one that makes for fun gameplay.

 

[JonStryker]

Harry the Heir would probably switch from House Hardyng to House Arryn if he inherited the Vale;
That being said: I'd prefer to have the ruling dynasties stick around longer. Ruling for decades without surviving kids or losing titles to matrilineal marriages is just a sad end for such supposedly long lasting dynasties.
After 8000 years of Stark rule supposedly every living person in the North would be descended from the Starks, including Eddard

 

[Arcvalons]

In the case of the Starks, the only example that I can think of is the story that the Wildlings tell of Bael the Bard and Brandon the Daughterless. However, I was under the impression that everyone who might know the truth of that tale- Jon Snow, Mance Raydar, Tormund (sp?) Father of Bears, even Ygritte (sp?) who tells the tale- all disbelieve it, or at least strongly suggest that it is untrue. Then of course, there is the issue of consistency- the Starks are referred to as "lords" in the tale, meaning it must be sometime after Aegon's Conquest, yet I really cannot see the Targaryens looking kindly on anyone that flayed on of their great vassals. Further, it is stated that the Starks made sure the Boltons stopped flaying people after they bent the knee all of those millennia ago- I can't see the Starks letting it go either.

This is what I was referring to. I was assuming that if it happened once, in 8000 years, that kind of thing probably repeated itself hundreds of times. Of course I also don't believe it's been 8000 years, not even half of that, but maybe and just a quarter (2000 years) and that's from the construction of the wall.

 

[Azarias59]

Take a look at the ASOIAF MUSH, ran by two associates of GRRM with his approval and advice.

The system they use, is that any woman who is a lady in her own right, or an heiress, retains her name at birth and passes the name down to her children. With that in mind, I suggest you do away with matrilineal marriages, and make an event system where if the woman is the one 'in power' (ex. an heiress, suo jure lady), then her children were take the name from her. This is why the houses lasted so long in the books.

 

[Lazydrunk]

Dunno if anyone still cares, but was doing a reread of ACoK and one of the first things Bran has to deal with as the Stark in Winterfel is an upcoming succession crisis with Lady Hornwood, who has no heirs of her own. Leoblad Talhart (4th in succession) from Torrhen's Square visits Winterfel and offers to have his son Beren (6th in succesion and the nephew of Lady Hornwood) be fostered at Hornwood until his aunt dies. He will then take her name and inherit her lands.

Quote about a quarter of the way through ACoK:

'(Leobald)then raised the matter of Lady Hornwood. Poor thing, with no husband to defend her lands nor son to inherit. His own lady wife was a Hornwood, sister to the late Lord Halys, doubtless they recalled. “An empty hall is a sad one. I had a thought to send my younger son to Lady Donella to foster as her own. Beren is near ten, a likely lad, and her own nephew. He would cheer her, I am certain, and perhaps he would even take the name Hornwood . . .”
“If he were named heir?” suggested Maester Luwin.'
“. . . so the House might continue,” finished Leobald.

Judging by the nonchalant way this is discussed in the rest of the chapter, it seems like a common enough occurrence for a distant relative to assume the name in order to continue the line.

 

[jmberry]

Also, in the case of Dorne Doran was initially willing to disinherit Arianne and name Quentyn his heir, since he was plotting to marry her to Viserys and make the Beggar Prince king - this plan obviously went up in near literal smoke, but then Griff showed up ... what I'm getting at is, if a Dornishwoman doesn't marry matrilineally, an event could fire that makes her count as disinherited similar to Tyrion's case.

 

[Azarias59]

Dunno if anyone still cares, but was doing a reread of ACoK and one of the first things Bran has to deal with as the Stark in Winterfel is an upcoming succession crisis with Lady Hornwood, who has no heirs of her own. Leoblad Talhart (4th in succession) from Torrhen's Square visits Winterfel and offers to have his son Beren (6th in succesion and the nephew of Lady Hornwood) be fostered at Hornwood until his aunt dies. He will then take her name and inherit her lands.

Quote about a quarter of the way through ACoK:

'(Leobald)then raised the matter of Lady Hornwood. Poor thing, with no husband to defend her lands nor son to inherit. His own lady wife was a Hornwood, sister to the late Lord Halys, doubtless they recalled. “An empty hall is a sad one. I had a thought to send my younger son to Lady Donella to foster as her own. Beren is near ten, a likely lad, and her own nephew. He would cheer her, I am certain, and perhaps he would even take the name Hornwood . . .”
“If he were named heir?” suggested Maester Luwin.'
“. . . so the House might continue,” finished Leobald.

Judging by the nonchalant way this is discussed in the rest of the chapter, it seems like a common enough occurrence for a distant relative to assume the name in order to continue the line.

One thing to consider about Lady Hornwood, was that her title actually came from her husband. So she wasn't actually a Hornwood by birth either. It seems to me in cases where the main house dies out, that a widow should be able to inherit her husband's lands.

The exact same happened with Lady Whent, though she possibly might have ALSO been a Whent at birth.

 

[TMSaxon]

I don't think it's ever officially stated anywhere, no. The problem is that the Starks, like everyone else, are given an implausible history that is inconsistent with the events of the books.

In the real world, the longest continually-serving royal family is probably the Japanese Imperial Family, which has reigned continuously for at least 1500 years (with an additional, disputed 1000 years before that), who have achieved that success almost entirely by fobbing off all actual power and authority onto a different hereditary title and letting the nobility fight over that instead. The Starks, by contrast, are claimed to have ruled the North continuously for 8000 years. The same Starks who have been all-but-annihilated in the past twenty tears of the books' time frame.

To be totally honest, I find it highly unlikely that Eddard Stark is actually a direct patrilineal descendant of Bran the Builder. Even if you account for the idea that those 8000 years are an inflated figure, that's simply too long for a royal family that is actually out ruling to last.

Getting to the point made by the OP: Prior to the War of the Usurper, Westeros's history is oddly static, especially when compared to the events of the books, an example of what I like to call "New Republic Syndrome", a common condition in works of fiction where the pace of the setting's history seems to undergo a massive, permanent change right around the time when the plot starts, going from a relatively stable place with the occasional threat to the status quo to perpetual chaos where you're lucky if your new world order gets five years before the next sequel.

Or, in short, we're faced with a choice: do we make gameplay that reflects the intrigue and tension of the books, where the past twenty years alone have seen a change in royal dynasty and the deposition of two regional ruling houses? Or with gameplay that reflects the relative stability of historical Westeros, where the previous royal dynasty lasted for three hundred years, and one of those regional ruling houses lasted for 8000? The two are incompatible, and we go with the one that makes for fun gameplay.

Oh, I agree that the Starks history is implausible, and much of what we "know" of the pre Conquest history doesn't strictly make sense- e.g. the Boltons, the Reeds, etc.
On the other hand, I would say that I do think that Eddard is an agnatic descendent of Brandon the Builder- for both a prosaic and an aSoIaF reason.
The "real world" reason is that we are all agnatic descendants of someone- we all have fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, etc. Meaning that just because in real life, royal families rarely last longer then about three hundred years (with one notable succession) doesn't mean that it couldn't, in theory, happen.
The aSoIaF reason that I believe it is the truth is the same reason that I believe the Boltons are almost as old as the Starks- there is something not quite normal about them- they both seem to have/had supernatural abilities (e.g. Stark skin changing, the odd fetish that the Boltons have for skinning and blood, as well as their eyes). Add this to the fact that both seem to normally have quite a small number of members (for the last three of four generations, the Starks do not seem to have exceeded six members, and at time have had only a single member). Basically, they are not normal. Also to be remembered is that the Northmen seem to hold an almost spiritual believe that there must always be a Stark at Winterfell, and that it will be better once there is one, which I believe seems to indicate just how long they have been around.

I agree that it would not be fun to play "historic Westeros", but how quickly the Great Houses disappear does seem rather too fast. jmberry's ideas however sound interesting, perhaps with some restrictions- must be cognatically descended, not heir to a landed title, etc.

 

[Ivashanko]

Dunno if anyone still cares, but was doing a reread of ACoK and one of the first things Bran has to deal with as the Stark in Winterfel is an upcoming succession crisis with Lady Hornwood, who has no heirs of her own. Leoblad Talhart (4th in succession) from Torrhen's Square visits Winterfel and offers to have his son Beren (6th in succesion and the nephew of Lady Hornwood) be fostered at Hornwood until his aunt dies. He will then take her name and inherit her lands.

Quote about a quarter of the way through ACoK:

'(Leobald)then raised the matter of Lady Hornwood. Poor thing, with no husband to defend her lands nor son to inherit. His own lady wife was a Hornwood, sister to the late Lord Halys, doubtless they recalled. “An empty hall is a sad one. I had a thought to send my younger son to Lady Donella to foster as her own. Beren is near ten, a likely lad, and her own nephew. He would cheer her, I am certain, and perhaps he would even take the name Hornwood . . .”
“If he were named heir?” suggested Maester Luwin.'
“. . . so the House might continue,” finished Leobald.

Judging by the nonchalant way this is discussed in the rest of the chapter, it seems like a common enough occurrence for a distant relative to assume the name in order to continue the line.

Smoking gun right here. I'm sure distant relatives of the Starks were adopted into the main line throughout its history.

 

[unmerged(633385)]

If anyone doesn't like it, you can give the houses a better chance of surviving longer by getting rid of stillborns. In birth_events.txt, find the event that begins with: # A child is stillborn! (AGOT)

Change what is there to:

# A child is stillborn! (AGOT)
character_event = {
	id = 380
	picture = "GFX_evt_death"
	is_triggered_only = yes
	
	trigger = { mother = { has_character_flag = flag_stillbirth } }
	
	immediate = {
		mother = { clr_character_flag = flag_stillbirth }
		}
	
	option = {
		name = OK
	}
}