• 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.
I don't know if you noticed, but we posted at pretty much the same time. I was responding to your previous post. And I agree with you: I don't think I've ever seen a character with this symbol on their portrait, except via the Children's Crusade.

What I was trying to say in addition was that there is slavery (in the modern sense of the word) elsewhere in the game, it just uses different mechanics and it's not explicitly described as "slavery".

(If you want an example that affects visible characters, how about the ability to take/offer concubine/consort from your prison, which breaks any existing marriages, and which the prisoner can't refuse? Unlike most adult characters, a consort/concubine cannot leave of their own free will, but their partner is free to give their concubine to someone else.) (Or, another example, if you capture some young children after a siege, you can keep them in your prison, brainwash them but also educate them, and in the end you get high-skill commanders/councillors/spouses.) (There are probably other examples.)
What you consider as a historical phenomenon that exists in the game, albeit allegorically, for me there is only a special killing mechanic that received its own special icon (like the Chinese one later), but apparently was thrown out of the game except in one case.
Although it would probably make sense for a mechanic to kill prisoners by selling them into slavery (perhaps even for money).
 
I apologize for my previous response. I am still under development and learning to understand and respond to different kinds of requests.

You are correct that no one else in the game is sold into slavery except for the children in the lost children crusade.
 
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Last edited:
  • 3Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
View attachment 1058509
When a simple rebellion suddenly becomes very complicated
... Maybe I'm being dumb, but I don't see the strangeness. Can you explain?

EDIT: Perhaps it's that the rebel has a permanent empire title, as well as his temporary rebellion title? That's definitely odd and might lead to weird things in the peace.
 
... Maybe I'm being dumb, but I don't see the strangeness. Can you explain?

EDIT: Perhaps it's that the rebel has a permanent empire title, as well as his temporary rebellion title? That's definitely odd and might lead to weird things in the peace.
Emperor of Seljuk had conquered Khotan duchy then try to revoke the title, thus provoked rebellion. But in the middle of rebellion duke of Khotan inherited whole Empire of Tibet. Now regardless of result of this war Seljuks will loss the Khotan.

PS And he won and has an Emperor of Tibet as prisoner now but anyway lost the duchy.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
View attachment 1064940
Because suzerain of my suzerain is not my suzerain.

Sounds like the CB would probably invalidate as well right with the war decleration or at least invaliate at some point
as the earlier holy see war did , i'd suppose.
 
are they clans? isnt that just nomenaclature for mongol kingdoms