How will be simulated Gay man in CK?

[I Killed Kenny]

this is a question I had since I read a post of martinus when he made a joke about the straits

I ask, how will it simulate? we know some kings, etc were gay and some princes... Will be something that make them gay ( not having child or wanting a wife? ) Will that be simulated?

I hope my question don't offend anyone....

 

[Gathenhielm]

I think this one of the "Nopes. This is a game, not a simulation" issues.

 

[Slargos]

I think this one of the "Nopes. This is a game, not a simulation" issues.

So you're saying no one in the medieval ages were merry?

 

[Gathenhielm]

So you're saying no one in the medieval ages were merry?

Yeah, I mean how can anyone living in the medieval age have fun. It must have been so medieval.

 

[Belissarius]

also it should be noted that being gay doesnt mean you wont take a wife and do your duty and produce an heir. The issue is really moot as many means to produce an heir have been used from gay or steile nobles, like saying your wifes child is really your when you know its not. ect. Having your wife go into seclusion for the pregnacy and return with an heir (ie an other couples baby)

I think that assuming that any gay monarch would do what he or she could to produce an heir can explain why they produce heirs like the rest of the monarchs.

 

[I Killed Kenny]

also it should be noted that being gay doesnt mean you wont take a wife and do your duty and produce an heir. The issue is really moot as many means to produce an heir have been used from gay or steile nobles, like saying your wifes child is really your when you know its not. ect. Having your wife go into seclusion for the pregnacy and return with an heir (ie an other couples baby)

I think that assuming that any gay monarch would do what he or she could to produce an heir can explain why they produce heirs like the rest of the monarchs.

I reemmbered this also because of the movie "braveheart"... Where the prince was gay etc...

 

[unmerged(16585)]

This is one case where Paradox would most likely get in more trouble then its worth accuratly portraying gays in the time period. I point to Edward II of England as a shinning example of this.

 

[unmerged(21401)]

Kenny, gay royalty will most likely marry another noble of the opposite sex, to uphold their image to the population, and to ensure the continuation of the family, so they have children too.

just take a look at the Danish royal familiy, it is widely known that our queens husbond (Prince Henri Marie Jean André) Is indeed gay. But that has not hindered their getting 2 sons (now in their 30'ties)

 

[Vharzul]

Ditto on what Kyujuni said, and also thiers not enough Evidance amongst other things to potrai things like that, also for the matter of fact youd maybe have to get permission of that famlie members or relatives to allow such History to be included in the game, if thier are any relatives for the most part, im sure they dont wish thier Famlies Reputation tarnished or what ever, this sort of issue is very delicate around Royal Famelies what ever nation they were or are from or Ruleing so I suggest to stop the debate right now, as thiers no real point in discussing it futher or I see the case as so any way.

Though exception to the Rule would be modern day Royaltie's that every one in the world probably knows by now like the Danish but that's probably only an exception to the Rule.

 

[artemis667]

I generally agree with the point Belisarius makes... historically, 'gay' nobility would have had just as much motivation as 'straight' nobility to produce heirs, and they would have done it through whatever means necessary.

As such, I don't really see there's much point in sexual preference being added to the simulation. That can be reserved to the realm of roleplaying

 

[artemis667]

Ditto on what Kyujuni said, and also thiers not enough Evidance amongst other things to potrai things like that, also for the matter of fact youd maybe have to get permission of that famlie members or relatives to allow such History to be included in the game, if thier are any relatives for the most part, im sure they dont wish thier Famlies Reputation tarnished or what ever, this sort of issue is very delicate around Royal Famelies what ever nation they were or are from or Ruleing so I suggest to stop the debate right now, as thiers no real point in discussing it futher or I see the case as so any way.

Though exception to the Rule would be modern day Royaltie's that every one in the world probably knows by now like the Danish but that's probably only an exception to the Rule.

I really do not want to debate this point, but I can't see how having gay ancestors tarnishes a family's reputation in any way shape or form. Incompetent ancestors, maybe.

But as has been pointed out, there's no advantage to gameplay in having this in there.

 

[unmerged(21401)]

what im trying to point out is, that if Prince Henri Marie Jean André had lived in any previous era, it would not have been noticed by the public. so i would say that paradox could argue that not having Openly gay members in a familiy, as being correct

 

[Nikolai]

I sense a nearby closing of this thread...

 

[unmerged(21401)]

I dont think the paradox guys are that conservative, and narrowminded. a clean "no it will not me moddeled" form johan, and a lock on the topic would be a good closing argument on the matter

 

[I Killed Kenny]

I was thinking, that having a gay king would mean more that just not having heirs... but also, he is a not so hable fighter ( I'm again thinking of the Braveheart's prince... ) and with a low prestige, because of that...

 

[DaPacemDomine]

*shakes his head* I continue to be amazed that this is actually a topic.

 

[Schaksen]

I was thinking, that having a gay king would mean more that just not having heirs... but also, he is a not so hable fighter ( I'm again thinking of the Braveheart's prince... ) and with a low prestige, because of that...

Gay doesn't always equal effeminate

 

[Varyar]

I was thinking, that having a gay king would mean more that just not having heirs... but also, he is a not so hable fighter ( I'm again thinking of the Braveheart's prince... ) and with a low prestige, because of that...

Wouldn't that be to endorse a very particular stereotype though?

Paradox has already shown an interest in steering clear of controversy as much as possible (for example, slave trade), so simply leaving out the occational homosexual prince/princess would seem a logical choice. IMHO the game hardly suffers from that. And as someone said, if there is interest it can be a part of the role-playing...

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I was thinking, that having a gay king would mean more that just not having heirs... but also, he is a not so hable fighter ( I'm again thinking of the Braveheart's prince... ) and with a low prestige, because of that...

You mean like Alexander the Great

 

[Martinus]

I was thinking, that having a gay king would mean more that just not having heirs... but also, he is a not so hable fighter ( I'm again thinking of the Braveheart's prince... ) and with a low prestige, because of that...

First of all, simple truth. Films with Mel Gibson = bad history.

Having said that, there is a number of misconceptions in your post. The notion of being "gay" is quite modern one and is more of a cultural stereotype than anything, even today. Moreover, gay does not mean effeminate, especially during the time of Crusader Kings. I dont see how a heir who has homosexual or bisexual tendencies would receive worse military education (in fact you can expect him to want to spend more time among the soldiers ). Both Richard Plantagenet and Wladyslaw III Jagellon were allegedly homosexual or bisexual, but that didn't prevent them from leading crusading armies against the heathen (although Wladyslaw's display at Varna was somewhat less-than-stellar).

In any case, I agree with others that a homosexual or bisexual ruler would attempt to sire a heir nonetheless (as well as get married - most marriages were not love affairs anyway).