Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

Agame

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
1,702
Location
I cum from a land down under
Insert Title Here
Although it's pretty lame CK3 doesn't have artifacts/inventory system, which will obviously be added with DLC eventually. Northern Lords seems pretty lazy, it's basically Old Gods redux. Easy money. We'll see what the big expansion actually adds (probably inventory etc though).

I mean isnt this the template for CK3? Re-release everything they already did for CK2. Easy work + Fan boys are happy = Win Win!!
 

Fedora Master

Arcane
Patron
Edgy
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
27,819
Well, the DLC sure IS Nordic. Seems nice to have some actual distinction between Norse and other tribals now.

Clipboard01.jpg
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
Although it's pretty lame CK3 doesn't have artifacts/inventory system, which will obviously be added with DLC eventually. Northern Lords seems pretty lazy, it's basically Old Gods redux. Easy money. We'll see what the big expansion actually adds (probably inventory etc though).

I mean isnt this the template for CK3? Re-release everything they already did for CK2. Easy work + Fan boys are happy = Win Win!!

Being :fabolouslyoptimistic: I think they will want to avoid that impression and make the first expansion something new, at least a good part of it. They tried to avoid giving the impression, that CK3 would be a barebones rehash of CK2, which again needs the DLC to get back all the features CK2 had.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
2,323
Location
Illinois
God bless him. I only made it through almost* all of CK2's DLC and the first 3-4 DLC for EU4 before I whipped out my parrot. I still feel conflicted about it because I am 99% a buyfag and like supporting shit I enjoy, but Paradox shit is outrageous. Especially given I enjoy them but don't put thousands of hours into any of the games.

*3 content packs. There's a void in my life that I will never fill with the Cuman portraits offered in the Horse Lords content pack DLC.
 

Agame

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
1,702
Location
I cum from a land down under
Insert Title Here
God bless him. I only made it through almost* all of CK2's DLC and the first 3-4 DLC for EU4 before I whipped out my parrot. I still feel conflicted about it because I am 99% a buyfag and like supporting shit I enjoy, but Paradox shit is outrageous. Especially given I enjoy them but don't put thousands of hours into any of the games.

*3 content packs. There's a void in my life that I will never fill with the Cuman portraits offered in the Horse Lords content pack DLC.

Bruh, have I got the thing for you! A new Paradox subscription model! You will never have to worry about another DLC, just consoom and enjoy!
 

Xamenos

Magister
Patron
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
1,256
Pathfinder: Wrath
So, is this worth getting back into after release? Did they fix anything other than adding viking events?
 

Hace El Oso

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
3,114
Location
Bogotá

Too modernist, far too little historicity to bring the era alive. The ‘wokeness’ is frankly secondary(though you could always argue that one follows the other) compared to total historical illiteracy.

A couple of paragraphs from an article on the subject that I enjoyed:

“The Borgias” vs. “Borgia: Faith and Fear” (accuracy in historical fiction)
Borgia: Faith and Fear, episode 1. One of the heads of the Orsini family bursts into his bedroom and catches Juan (Giovanni) Borgia in flagrante with his wife. Juan grabs his pants and flees out the window as quickly as he can. Now here is Orsini alone with his wife. [The audience knows what to expect. He will shout, she will try to explain, he will hit her, there will be tears and begging, and, depending on how bad a character the writers are setting up, he might beat her really badly and we’ll see her in the rest of this episode all puffy and bruised, or if they want him to be really bad he’ll slam her against something hard enough to break her neck, and he’ll stare at her corpse with that brutish ambiguity where we’re not sure if he regrets it.] Orsini grabs the iron fire poker and hits his wife over the head, full force, wham, wham, dead. He drops the fire poker on her corpse and walks briskly out of the room, leaving it for the servants to clean up. Yes. That is the right thing, because this is the Renaissance, and these people are terrible. When word gets out there is concern over a possible feud, but no one ever comments that Orsini killing his wife was anything but the appropriate course. That is historicity, and the modern audience is left in genuine shock.

The Borgias, episode 1. We are facing the papal election of 1492. Another Cardinal confronts Rodrigo Borgia in a hallway. It has just come out that Borgia has been committing simony, i.e. taking bribes. Our modern audience is shocked! Shocked, I say! That a candidate for the papacy would be corrupt and take bribes! Our daring Cardinal confronts Borgia, saying he too is shocked! Shocked! This is no longer a matter of politics but principle! He will oppose Borgia with all his power, because Borgia is a bad person and should not sit on the Throne of St. Peter! See, audience! Now is the time to be shocked! No. This is not the Renaissance, this is modern sensibilities about what we think should’ve been shocking in the Renaissance. After the election this same Cardinal will be equally shocked that the Holy Father has a mistress, and bastards. Ooooh. Because that would be shocking in 2001, but in 1492 this had been true of every pope for the past century. In fact, Cardinal Shocked-all-the-time, according to the writers you are supposed to be none other than Giuliano della Rovere. Giuliano “Battle-Pope” della Rovere! You have a mistress! And a daughter! And a brothel! And an elephant! And take your elephant to your brothel! And you’re stalking Michelangelo! And foreign powers lent you 300,000 ducats to spend bribing other people to vote for you in this election! And we’re supposed to believe you are shocked by simony? That is not historicity. It is applying some historical names to some made-up dudes and having them lecture us on why be should be shocked.

These are just two examples, but typify the two series. The Borgias toned it down: consistently throughout the series, everyone is simply less violent and corrupt than they actually historically, documentably were. Why would sex-&-violence Showtime tone things down? I think because they were afraid of alienating their audience with the sheer implausibility of what the Renaissance was actually like. Rome in 1492 was so corrupt, and so violent, that I think they don’t believe the audience will believe them if they go full-on. Almost all the Cardinals are taking bribes? Lots, possibly the majority of influential clerics in Rome overtly live with mistresses? Every single one of these people has committed homicide, or had goons do it? Wait, they all have goons? Even the monks have goons? It feels exaggerated. Showtime toned it down to a level that matches what the typical modern imagination might expect.

...The audience would be constantly distracted by details like un-filmably dark building interiors, ugly missing teeth, infants being given broken-winged songbirds as disposable toys to play with, crush, and throw away, and Marie Antoinette relieving herself on the floor at Versailles. Despite its hundreds of bathrooms, one of Versailles’ marks of luxury was that the staff removed human feces from the hallways regularly, sometimes as often as twice a day, and always more than once a week. ...The makers of the TV series Mad Men recognized how much an accurate depiction of the past freaks viewers out – the sexual politics, the lack of seat belts and eco-consciousness, the way grown-ups treat kids. ...Even an accurate depiction of attitudes from a few decades ago makes all the characters feel like scary aliens.

“The Borgias” vs. “Borgia: Faith and Fear” (accuracy in historical fiction) – Ex Urbe
 

M. AQVILA

Arcane
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
3,717
Location
Galicia–North Portugal Euroregion
You're either too sensitive or that's too big of a hyperbole.

Paradox games require a huge investment of money, even if you wait for promotions, so of course I'm "sensitive". A look at all the faggotry in the game, even if you can ignore most of it, points to the direction they're taking. Though I've already noticed it, since at least they started to allow women to command armies and join warrior lodges in CKII.

Now, if you're going to pirate it then it's a different story. The game is interesting enough to invest some hours in it. But I've already lowered the Jolly Roger, I don't do that anymore.
 

M. AQVILA

Arcane
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
3,717
Location
Galicia–North Portugal Euroregion
and Marie Antoinette relieving herself on the floor at Versailles. Despite its hundreds of bathrooms, one of Versailles’ marks of luxury was that the staff removed human feces from the hallways regularly, sometimes as often as twice a day, and always more than once a week.

I'm putting that article into question. There's a lot of assumptions on French hygiene floating around that are wrong. There are repeated rumors about the lack of toilet facilities and the "piles of shit" in the corners in the Versailles. But they're just that, rumors.

After the French Revolution and the monarchy was dissolved, anything pertaining to that era was seen as negative, backwards, disgusting even. Fashions changed in order to avoid associations with the ostentatious lifestyle at Versailles, and nasty rumors started about the monarchs and their lives. These rumors included the myth that these fancy, wealthy nobles were just shitting all over the floor of their fancy palaces.

While hygiene back then was quite poor, due to reasons like lack of sanitation, Versailles wasn't nearly as disgusting as you think. These sort of rumors go along with the likes of Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake".
 

Hace El Oso

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
3,114
Location
Bogotá
I'm putting that article into question. There's a lot of assumptions on French hygiene floating around that are wrong. There are repeated rumors about the lack of toilet facilities and the "piles of shit" in the corners in the Versailles. But they're just that, rumors.

After the French Revolution and the monarchy was dissolved, anything pertaining to that era was seen as negative, backwards, disgusting even. Fashions changed in order to avoid associations with the ostentatious lifestyle at Versailles, and nasty rumors started about the monarchs and their lives. These rumors included the myth that these fancy, wealthy nobles were just shitting all over the floor of their fancy palaces.

While hygiene back then was quite poor, due to reasons like lack of sanitation, Versailles wasn't nearly as disgusting as you think. These sort of rumors go along with the likes of Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake".

Fair enough, though I spent a few years of my boyhood in Wallonia and heard the same things. Speaking to the quality of the article, his area of expertise is Italian renaissance history so I'm willing to grant him some 'poetic license' when he's making a point.
 

M. AQVILA

Arcane
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
3,717
Location
Galicia–North Portugal Euroregion
Fair enough, though I spent a few years of my boyhood in Wallonia and heard the same things. Speaking to the quality of the article, his area of expertise is Italian renaissance history so I'm willing to grant him some 'poetic license' when he's making a point.

I always take these sort of things with a big pinch of salt when I hear them.

And on the Borgias: https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/were-borgias-really-so-bad

Renaissance Italy was dominated by rich and powerful families whose reputations have been shaped by the many dark and dastardly deeds they committed. In quattrocento Florence, the Medici bought, bribed, and blackmailed their way to the top; in Rimini, the Malatesta flitted continually between self-destructive megalomania and near psychopathic brutality; and in Milan, the Sforza were every bit as infamous for their sexual proclivities as they were for their political ruthlessness. But in this devilish roll-call of nefarious names, none sends such a chill up the spine as that of ‘Borgia’.

It is impossible to imagine a family more heavily tainted by the stains of sin and immorality, and – as even those who have not seen the eponymous television series will know – there is scarcely one of their number who does not seem to be cloaked in an aura of iniquity. The founder of the family’s fortunes, Alfons de Borja (1378-1458) – who reigned as Pope Callixtus III – was decried even by his closest allies as the “scandal of [his] age” for his monstrously corrupt ways. His nephew, Rodrigo (1431-1503) – who he himself elevated to the cardinalate, and who would be elected Pope Alexander VI in 1492 – was reputed to be even worse. Accused of buying the papacy, he would later be besmirched by rumours so severe that the Venetian diplomat Girolamo Priuli felt able to claim he had “given his soul and body to the great demon in Hell”. Indeed, as the papal master of ceremonies, Johann Burchard, was to contend in the middle of Alexander’s reign:

There is no longer any crime or shameful act that does not take place in public in Rome and in the home of the Pontiff. Who could fail to be horrified by the…terrible, monstrous acts of lechery that are committed openly in his home, with no respect for God or man? Rapes and acts of incest are countless…[and] great throngs of courtesans frequent St. Peter’s Palace, pimps, brothels, and whorehouses are to be found everywhere!

But worse still was the reputation of Alexander’s children, and Burchard’s blithe comment that they were “utterly depraved” barely begins to cover the crimes with which they were associated in the contemporary imagination. Lucrezia (1480-1519) – with whom the pope was reputed to have slept – was cast not only as a whore, but also as a poisoner, a murderer, and a witch. And Cesare (1475/6-1507) – the most handsome, dashing, and despicable Borgia of all – was widely believed to have killed his elder brother Juan in a fit of jealousy, bedded his sister, and embarked on a campaign of slaughter and conquest aimed at carving a kingdom out of the scattered states of Northern Italy.

Confronted with so comprehensively damning a portrait, it is difficult to believe that the Borgias could have been any more dreadful if they had tried. But precisely because the impression conveyed by contemporary accounts is so utterly dreadful, it is equally difficult not to question whether such a terrible reputation was entirely justified. Were the Borgias really all that bad?

As with most things that are supposed to have happened behind the scenes in the shadowy world of Renaissance Rome, certainty is often elusive, and it is a challenging task to separate the evidential wheat from the gossipy chaff when sifting through the documents which have survived. Yet despite this, there is enough to suggest that the Borgias weren’t quite the one-dimensional evil-doers they first appear to have been.

On the one hand, they certainly weren’t the demonic arch-villains they have been painted as. For all of the vividness with which observers such as Burchard, Priuli, Machiavelli, and Guicciardini described the Borgias, it is clear that at least some of the family’s unenviable reputation was entirely undeserved. The charge of incest, for example, seems to be without any solid basis in fact. So too, the suggestion that Lucrezia was a poisoner is grounded more on salacious gossip and the hysterical accusations of a divorced husband than on reliable evidence. Although thrice married – each time for political reasons – she was, by all accounts, a highly cultured and intelligent figure who was admired and respected by contemporaries such as the poet Pietro Bembo, and who was never seriously associated with any misdeeds. But equally untenable is the claim that Cesare killed his brother. Not only was there little for Cesare to gain from Juan’s death, but it is even arguable that – since Cesare was compelled to set aside his cardinal’s hat to assume Juan’s secular roles - the family’s long-term position was weakened so severely that he could not have been unaware of the risks. Much more plausible is the suggestion that Juan was killed either in an amorous adventure gone wrong, or at the instigation of Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, with whom he had argued, and who was an avowed enemy of the whole family. Even less credible, however, are the piquant accounts of the Borgias’ supposedly raucous parties. The so-called “Banquet of the Chestnuts” – an all-night orgy at Apostolic Palace attended by fifty “honest prostitutes” and involving eye-popping sexual athletics – is, for example, attested only in Burchard’s memoirs, and is not only intrinsically implausible, but was also dismissed as such by many contemporaries.

On the other hand, even those crimes of which the Borgias were guilty weren’t anything out of the ordinary. Indeed, when the evidence is interrogated more carefully, it is apparent that the Borgias were entirely typical of the families who were continually vying for the papal throne during the Renaissance.

They were, for example, undoubtedly guilty of both nepotism and simony. Although the sums involved were unquestionably exaggerated by contemporary chroniclers, both Callixtus III and Alexander VI bribed their way to the papacy, and used their power to advance their family as fully as possible. Alexander VI alone elevated not fewer than ten of his relatives to the College of Cardinals, and endowed others with a host of fiefdoms in the Papal States. But precisely because the papacy could so easily be misused for familial aggrandisement and enrichment, these ecclesiastical abuses were all too familiar. Though formally classed as a sin, simony was common. In 1410, for example, Baldassare Cossa borrowed 10,000fl. from Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici to bribe his way to becoming Anti-pope John XXIII, and at the conclave of 1458, Cardinal Guillaume d’Estouteville promised to distribute a vast array of lucrative benefices to anyone who would vote for him, albeit in vain. Nepotism, too, was widespread. In the early fifteenth century, Martin V had secured immense estates for his Colonna relatives in the kingdom of Naples, but within a century, nepotism had become so extreme that even Machiavelli felt obliged to attack Sixtus IV – who had elevated six of his relatives to the Sacred College – for this crime. Later, Julius II (a kinsman of Sixtus IV) acquired the duchy of Urbino for his nephew, Francesco Maria della Rovere; Clement VII made his illegitimate son, Alessandro, the first duke of Florence; and Paul III raised his bastard child, Pier Luigi Farnese, to the duchy of Parma.

Similarly, there is no doubting that Alexander VI was a lusty and sexually adventurous pope. He openly acknowledged fathering a bevy of children by his mistress, Vannozza dei Cattanei, and later enjoyed the legendary affections of Giulia Farnese, renowned as one of the most beautiful women of her day. But here again, Alexander was merely following the norms of the Renaissance papacy, and it is telling that Pius II had no shame about penning a wild, sexual comedy called Chrysis. Popes and cardinals were almost expected to have mistresses. Julius II, for example, was the father of numerous children, and never bothered to hide the fact, while Cardinal Jean de Jouffroy was notorious for being a devotee of brothels. Homosexual affairs were no less common, and in that he seems to have limited himself to only one gender, Alexander VI almost seems straight-laced. Sixtus IV was, for instance, reputed to have given the cardinals special permission to commit sodomy during the summer, perhaps to allow him to do so without fear of criticism, while Paul II was rumoured to have died while being sodomised by a page-boy.

Even Cesare’s deserved reputation for savage megalomania is rather less impressive when set in the context of the period. He was, of course, a ferociously ambitious figure who indulged in some pretty low tactics. Having divested himself of his cardinal’s hat, he ripped through the Romagna and Le Marche, building a vast, private fiefdom in the space of just three years. In all this, murder seemed not an occasional necessity, but an integral part of everyday existence. In 1499 alone, he ordered the assassination or execution of the Spanish Constable of the Guard, the soldier-captain Juan Cervillon, and Ferdinando d’Almaida, the cruel-minded bishop of Ceuta, and subsequently added a host of individuals such as Astorre III Manfredi to his list of victims. Later, he even slaughtered three of his own senior commanders at a dinner in Senigallia after (rightly) suspecting them of plotting against him. But from a certain perspective, all of this was only to be expected. It was quite normal for the relatives of Renaissance popes to set their sights on conquest and acquisition. Although some ‘papal’ families – such as the Colonna – owned huge tracts of land, the majority – such as the Piccolomini and the della Rovere – started out as cash-strapped minor nobles, or – in the Borgias’ case – as landless foreigners, and popes from this latter group naturally encouraged their kinsmen to seize enough territory to put them on a par with the greatest noble houses in Italy. This meant war. And in an age in which war was the preserve of mercenaries, war meant cruelty on a grand scale. The wild, bisexual Pier Luigi Farnese, for example, was infamous for his brutality, and not only pillaged at will, but also made a habit of hunting down those men who resisted his advances. So too, Francesco Maria della Rovere, was nothing more than a soldier for hire, who ordered his troops to slaughter Cardinal Francesco Alidosi after his own failure to capture Bologna. Indeed, if anything, Cesare was unusual only in his tactical brilliance and in his comparative self-restraint.

It seems clear that the Borgias’ rather unfortunate reputation was undeserved. While some of the accusations levelled at them were simply untrue, even those crimes which they did commit were typical of the period, and paled by comparison to those of other ‘papal’ families.

Yet this leaves us with a problem. If the Borgias weren’t as bad as they may seem, why was their name so heavily tarnished? Why did observers turn on them quite so comprehensively, and what was the reason for so dramatic a smear campaign?

Although in later years, the steady worsening of the Borgias’ reputation was intimately linked to the shifting currents of Reformation and Counter-Reformation thought, there are perhaps three reasons why contemporary observers were prepared to attack them quite so viciously.

The first is simply that they were Spaniards, and as such, were yoked to shifting perceptions of Spanish influence in the Italian peninsula. Attitudes were, of course, often positive, but as a result of the involvement of Spain and the Aragonese kingdom of Naples in the affairs of Northern Italy during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, there gradually emerged a ‘Black Legend’, a virulent form of anti-Spanish propaganda which identified all things Spanish with oppression, brutality, and cruelty. The fact that the Borgias hailed from Valencia, and that Alexander VI had helped to involve the Spanish more closely in Italian affairs meant that the family was almost inevitably tarred with the same brush.

The second reason is that they were outsiders. In spite of the universality of the Church’s message, the Renaissance papacy was perceived to be an Italian institution, simply by virtue of the fact that the control of the Papal States gave a pontiff and his family colossal power in the Italian peninsula itself, both in terms of direct political influence, and in terms of familial aggrandizement. Whichever way you looked at it, the papacy was dominated by Italians, directed in the interest of Italian states, and misused for the benefit of Italians. The Borgias were an anomaly. It was not merely that they were not Italian (there would be only one other non-Italian pope between the end of the Great Schism in 1417 and the Sack of Rome in 1527); rather, it was that Callixtus III and Alexander VI sought to use the papacy to enrich their family at the expense of Italians. They despoiled other (Italian) families of their land and titles; they invoked the help of foreign powers; and they generally disrupted the delicate balance of power in Italy. As a consequence, it was almost natural that Italian commentators and historians – many of whom had experienced the rapaciousness of successive pontiffs – were willing to depict the Borgias inaccurately as especially corrupt and vile individuals.

The third – and most important – reason is, however, that the Borgias simply weren’t all that successful. Although it was not unusual for families to base their success entirely on papal favour, most were canny enough to limit their ambitions, to consolidate their gains gradually and to graft themselves into other more established families. In other words, they started small, played the long game and tried not to ruffle too many feathers. And, by and large, this was a technique that worked. The Piccolomini, the della Rovere, and the Farnese families all climbed the ladder slowly and effectively, and – in time – became dominant players in the game of Italian politics. This fact alone prevented anyone from taking too strong a dislike to them. You just had to get along with them. But the Borgias were different. They were too hasty, too reliant on papal authority and foreign favour, and too unwilling to respect existing patters of landed power. They were building on sand. No sooner had Alexander VI died than Cesare’s proto-kingdom imploded and he himself was betrayed by Julius II. There was nothing left, and there was no-one to turn to for help. Forced to return to Spain, Cesare – and the Borgias – had failed. And in failure, even their former friends had no hesitation in decrying them as scoundrels. Without lasting power or influence, there was nothing either to hold back the criticism or to restrain the exaggerations.

If the Borgias weren’t as bad as they have often seemed, therefore, the background to their unfortunate and ill-deserved reputation leaves us with a rather more interesting and engaging history. On the one hand, it is a tale of an obscure Spanish family determined to seek its fortune in a foreign land, set on beating the Italians at their own game, and perhaps willing to engage a little too freely in some of the more sensuous pleasures of the age. But on the other hand, it is a story of inglorious failure, dramatic defeat, and the ignominious assaults of enemies who hated outsiders – especially Spaniards – more than anything else. It is not a tale we might expect of the Borgias, but it is nevertheless a tale that is all too reflective of the amazing double-standards of the Renaissance, and is perhaps all the richer for it.
 
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
17,897
Location
大同
You're either too sensitive or that's too big of a hyperbole.

Paradox games require a huge investment of money, even if you wait for promotions, so of course I'm "sensitive". A look at all the faggotry in the game, even if you can ignore most of it, points to the direction they're taking. Though I've already noticed it, since at least they started to allow women to command armies and join warrior lodges in CKII.
Eh, fair enough. I do think that CK3's treatment of gender is somewhat better than CK2 though. Sure, you can make a hippie tier faith with pure gender equality and with both promiscuity and sexual deviance not being frowned upon, but that's only a choice. You have game settings for heresies that spawn to match historical ones, so the modularity (which is a welcome addition imho) doesn't force you to play an alternative history which you dislike and/or find implausible regarding this.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
We should ask JESawyer to weight in and give us his informed opinion about the Italian Renaissance :D
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
You're either too sensitive or that's too big of a hyperbole.

Paradox games require a huge investment of money, even if you wait for promotions, so of course I'm "sensitive". A look at all the faggotry in the game, even if you can ignore most of it, points to the direction they're taking. Though I've already noticed it, since at least they started to allow women to command armies and join warrior lodges in CKII.
Eh, fair enough. I do think that CK3's treatment of gender is somewhat better than CK2 though. Sure, you can make a hippie tier faith with pure gender equality and with both promiscuity and sexual deviance not being frowned upon, but that's only a choice. You have game settings for heresies that spawn to match historical ones, so the modularity (which is a welcome addition imho) doesn't force you to play an alternative history which you dislike and/or find implausible regarding this.

More options and control for the players (and modders) is always welcome, even if I think the default settings have been a bit exaggerated to support the hooks system.
 

M. AQVILA

Arcane
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
3,717
Location
Galicia–North Portugal Euroregion
Like I said this game is too woke.

Jomsvikings and Shieldmaidens: Norse holy warriors and stalwart shieldmaidens take up arms on your behalf, while poet characters can compose stinging rebukes or romantic overtures.

Shieldmaidens? Seriously? What a joke.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom