Pagans reformation and homosexuality

[Mysterios]

Hey,

I don't know if something like the pagan reformation is still a thing (as far as I know, there isn't a dev diary about religion out yet), but I assume, something similar will still be in the game.

So, if that is the case, my idea is to - well - add some helenic element into the options for reformation, meaning that love between the same gender could be created acceptable, maybe even with an element like the concurbine system where, next to the wife, it is possible to have same sex lovers. It is basically based on the old greek system, where, when a boy is introduced into society, he gets a male mentor that is also kinda his lover (with a few restrictions in what can happen between the two). When the boy is off age, he will marry, but it is still possible and at least somewhat accepted if he still seeks the company of his kin. Of course, in a game setting, the pedophilia that was also included in here would be scrapped, but for adult's, that still could be possible.

It is less important for power-play, but might create interesting options for proper roleplaying if something like that would be possible. Also, it could lead to interesting oportunities for alliences and relationships.

 

[Varren]

You can potentially create a custom heretical branch of any religion, and they've confirmed that different stances on homosexuality are available as options.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

Hey,

I don't know if something like the pagan reformation is still a thing (as far as I know, there isn't a dev diary about religion out yet), but I assume, something similar will still be in the game.

So, if that is the case, my idea is to - well - add some helenic element into the options for reformation, meaning that love between the same gender could be created acceptable

Same sex relationships were not entirely okay in Hellenistic cultures. It was generally okay to be the "top" in an asymetric relationship (with a servant or teen). Adult same sex relationships were frowned upon, as one (or both) of the men was assumed to be the "passive" one, which was an affront to classical concepts of masculinity.

Also, Latin Romans were a lot more conservative in their sexual morals than the Greeks. If you spent too much time with your boy toy(s) you'd acquire a negative reputation, even if you were presumed to by the dominant one. It was considered decadent and "too Greek" of a behavior.

In short, Hellenism and Christianity have/had entirely different concepts of same sex coupling that don't really map to each other. Christians care about the sex of the individuals. Greeks cared about who exactly did what where.

 

[Pannonius]

It's a great idea. In fact, every character should have a sliding sexuality, with possibility for both hetero and homosexual encounters.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

I really don't think that's in line with the medieval period. At that point, anything other than procreation was generally considered deviant. The god fearing man did the deed solely as part of one's duty to be fruitful and multiply. It was an obligation, and taking too far beyond that (in any way) was viewed as a distraction from your true purpose of serving God.

Be very, very careful about applying modern social concepts to previous era.

 

[Col. W. T. Philmore]

This game must allow to run away from "modern social concepts" to medieval era, not to bring em there.

 

[mrinku]

I really don't think that's in line with the medieval period. At that point, anything other than procreation was generally considered deviant. The god fearing man did the deed solely as part of one's duty to be fruitful and multiply. It was an obligation, and taking too far beyond that (in any way) was viewed as a distraction from your true purpose of serving God.

Be very, very careful about applying modern social concepts to previous era.

The last point is correct, but also be careful about applying Puritan attitudes several centuries too early as well.

Yes, fornication (sex outside marriage) was frowned on, as in most cultures, most times. However, the medieval attitude to sex itself was pretty bawdy. Go read the Decameron.

 

[Apate1]

The more doctrines to much better for RP


There is a new trai system in play if your character is cruel you have to play so but if you start playing kindly your character will get depressed

Even the Pope himself will be able to permit and forbid doctrines ( Cannibalism or Homosexuality, Bisexuality etc..)

 

[Ezumiyr]

Same sex relationships were not entirely okay in Hellenistic cultures. It was generally okay to be the "top" in an asymetric relationship (with a servant or teen). Adult same sex relationships were frowned upon, as one (or both) of the men was assumed to be the "passive" one, which was an affront to classical concepts of masculinity.

Also, Latin Romans were a lot more conservative in their sexual morals than the Greeks. If you spent too much time with your boy toy(s) you'd acquire a negative reputation, even if you were presumed to by the dominant one. It was considered decadent and "too Greek" of a behavior.

In short, Hellenism and Christianity have/had entirely different concepts of same sex coupling that don't really map to each other. Christians care about the sex of the individuals. Greeks cared about who exactly did what where.

I had started writing a similar comment, but I realized that in order to represent how homosexual practices were seen in the antiquity, we would need a completely different system, and even then, we're talking about some kind of vague revival of ancient hellenism.
And anyway, here's a small part of my original comment:
"It doesn't mean that other homosexual relationships were punished by law, but it was considered foolish at best, and borderline antisocial at worst. It wasn't really "accepted", more like "tolerated"."
I also explained that overall they didn't care at all about homosexuality for women. By definition, they couldn't be "active", so it wasn't even real sex (from their point of view).

So in the end I think that the best way to portray the antiquity's attitude towards homosexuality is still to make them ignore the homosexual trait. But again, "hellenic" revivalism doesn't make sense in the first place - it's a fantasy religion as anachronical as aztec invaders. Realistic hellenic revivalism in the christian middle ages would probably not focus on how homosexuality is seen, but rather on theological and political positions, and it would probably be called gnosticism. So since it's fantasy, it could be anything.
Which doesn't mean that we have to dive in fantasy to find homosexuality-compatible religions in the middle ages - we just need to go outside of the christian and muslim worlds. All societies have different accepted practices when it comes to sexuality, so it will never work well with our modern views on the question, but some medieval societies (especially in India - homosexuality is actually one of the sticking points between buddhism and hindu) definitly accepted some homosexual practices.

 

[Leyrann]

It's a great idea. In fact, every character should have a sliding sexuality, with possibility for both hetero and homosexual encounters.

That would become far too complicated. It would be much simpler - and almost identical in actual use - to simply take the two endpoints and the midpoint: Homosexual - Bisexual - Heterosexual, as well as potentially Asexual. Of course, events that influence this could (perhaps even should) exist.

 

[Farabi]

Just to quote a recent article on the religion doctrine system:

Another area that’s been revealed is a deeper religion system, which provide many of the rules for what you can and cannot do in life, unless you fancy drawing the ire of the Pope. These work on two levels, with large scale Tenets that make up the overarching religion, and then smaller Doctrines that express opinions on everyday things like divorce or meat consumption. Human meat, that is. Yes, you can be a cannibal.

If opinions on cannibalism are making the cut, I don't think it's too farfetched for there to be a doctrine which removes any homosexuality malus and/or allows men to also be pagan concubines. That looks fairly simple to do. And I really don't see anything wrong with an easily added option for gaymers, whatever BS they say about 'SJWs'.

But I wouldn't go much further in trying to reconstruct Classical views for a modern era (although I'm sure the modders will have a good time of it) or trying to imagine overly elaborate social interactions. The series will need a lot of work before that! Even heterosexual relationships in CK2 are somewhat caricatured.

I would like to end by noting one of many poems Abu Nuwas wrote about teenage boys (as well as wine, hunting, and women):

Say to one with face newly mustached

And the one with soft buttocks​

And to my desires locked up and

To the key of my happiness​

Who is stingy with me with

The little from the much:​

O few of years and born

With a mature brain​

Infrequent in meeting me and

Often in the mind​

Why are you angry with your

Slave who comes to woo you?​

Rejoice with me in my life

O my life and my commander.​

He wrote that in the court of the 'Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad at the turn of the 9th century CE, and was widely considered a master of his art by the literati of the day (and still is). His life may not have had the approval of the pious, but he was definitely not a man living in the shadows.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

I also explained that overall they didn't care at all about homosexuality for women. By definition, they couldn't be "active", so it wasn't even real sex (from their point of view).

While I'd lean towards this interpretation as well, we don't actually know this. Lesbianism was pretty much ignored by the writers whose work survived to today. It didn't seem of interest to them, likely due to differing concepts of feminity.

The last point is correct, but also be careful about applying Puritan attitudes several centuries too early as well.

Yes, fornication (sex outside marriage) was frowned on, as in most cultures, most times. However, the medieval attitude to sex itself was pretty bawdy. Go read the Decameron.

It think we need to be very careful about what CK is and isn't. We're not really modelling personal lives in all their details, but those lives as they pertain to politics and power dynamics. So while people were much more freewheeling than doctrine dictates in their personal lives, for the purposes of modeling, most of that can be abstracted away.

What the traits represent, homosexuality included, is reputation. Quite honestly, "deviant" would probably be a better name for the social effects of the trait. However, homo allows devs to justify a knock against fertility, which has gameplay aspects as well. I'd argue that the social malus is too low and the fertility malus to high, but honestly, meh. I'm fine as is.

Overcomplicating this doesn't really add gameplay value, and as we've all generally agreed, it doesn't necessarily add accuracy since it's hard to represent the ethics of the time in a framework that's intuitive to modern users.

 

[kviiri]

Crusader Kings is a franchise of politics on a personal level, and who one loves is a matter of fundamental imporance. Manipulating rulers and VIPs by carefully applied romancing is one of the oldest ones in the book, with references dating back to the Bible and likely way earlier.

Gay romancing plays into another important theme of CK: intrigue. You are romancing someone, possibly manipulating them, but also putting both yourself and them at a risk of sullied reputation for sexual immorality. I think being able to remove this immorality factor with the custom religions thing would add a bit of depth for sure, since it has actual political relevance through interpersonal politics. You gain security from this particular blackmail, but also can't use it on others.

On the historicity of homosexuality, it came to be seen as a major sin over the course of the Middle Ages, as in to the extent where people would go out of their way to persecute one. It was often used as a political bludgeon later in the timeframe: the Knights Templar were accused of homosexuality, for instance. Various heresies like the Waldenses were too accused of homosexuality, among other crimes --- likely as propaganda, but I think it solidifies the point that an actual homosexuality-tolerating heresy was indeed a very conceivable idea back then.

The claims that it'd take significant dev time to implement are likely to be false. CK2 already has some virtues and vices be applicable to only certain religions, eg. Muslims cannot be chaste because they didn't find the idea of repressing normal sexuality being virtuous like the Christians did. This in a more generic form is very likely to be one of the new features of the dynamic religions: my religion could see some trait as a virtue that you don't, or vice versa (pun intended). With a generic system for trait acceptance, including homosexuality in the list of traits that can be altered in the virtue-vice continuum will take somewhere between zero to very little extra work.

It's of course possible that my assessment is wrong and the dynamic religions rely considerably more on hard-coded things that require lots of work, but in that case you shouldn't be angry about them taking the time to include homosexuality, but for making a static kludge where content scripting is slow instead of a configurable dynamic system where it is fast.

 

[Mighty-Fisch]

It's of course possible that my assessment is wrong and the dynamic religions rely considerably more on hard-coded things that require lots of work, but in that case you shouldn't be angry about them taking the time to include homosexuality, but for making a static kludge where content scripting is slow instead of a configurable dynamic system where it is fast.

They mentioned that you could theoretically get incest in any heresy, so I can't imagine that many things are off the table given you can go that extreme with it.

 

[AC1632]

The mentioned start dates for CK3 cover a period of time where homosexuality advanced from something considered merely sinful to something that punishable by death in parts of medieval Europe. Anti-homosexual hysteria would increase over time, and a historically accurate playthrough would probably have to include church attitudes on homosexual acts actually getting worse over time than at the game's start, or at least being one of many targets of the sort of purges that were iconic to the period.
Early Christianity, though, had pretty mellow attitudes about homosexual behaviour (and we are talking purely about behaviour here, because people back then had little concept of sexual orientation). They thought it was sinful, but it was more on the tier of 'having too many pies' or something. So it's definitely more plausible than you might think, for Christianity to mellow out about homosexuality over time, instead of getting harsher about it.