Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[Fedora Master]

Polyarmory is as much a fabrication as Asatru. There is nothing historic about either and it shows how much PDX ultimately care about their own games.

 

[Aemar]

Buying this propagandistic piece of trash means condoning this insane agenda that's being forced fed everywhere.

 

[NJClaw]

But hey ya know, the devs are city folks, gotta make that equality quota, im surprised they didnt add in "Gay Pride" parade events for your capitol

Don't give them ideas, for fuck's sake

 

[Luzur]

Polyarmory is as much a fabrication as Asatru. There is nothing historic about either and it shows how much PDX ultimately care about their own games.

Well vikings where totally ok with having a wife and fucking their slaves, but infidelity was still punished.

also:

it is normal for gods to do things unacceptable for humans - this is the case for all religions. think about zeus raping women as a swan, or ganesh attacking his dad for having sex with his mum! just because loki fucked a horse doesn't mean people thought that was normal in norse society!

many sex acts that are no longer stigimatised in modern secular society, were considered shameful back then. some people want to imagine scandinaviia in viking age was like some kind of san francisco pride march with orgies and transexuals. that says a lot more about our time, than it does about the viking age.

I've read a few articles that make it seem like having one wife was important for "legal" reasons (such as succession, inheritance) but that it was not abnormal to have sexual relationships with multiple other (probably slave) girls.

 

[Fedora Master]

Polyarmory isn't polygyny.

 

[Theodora]

Setting all that aside, do you think when these Swedish meatballs say things like 'polyamory' and 'non-monogamy' they understand even for a moment the naked truth of Islamic marriage and sexual customs they so eagerly bring under their umbrella? Ever set foot in an Islamic country? That's crazy.

"Medieval Islam at a court level was exactly the same as modern Islam, nevermind the deprivations of European colonialism or the literal millenium that has passed since."

 

[mondblut]

How many DLCs until I can create my own gender the same way I can create my own religion?

In CK3, gender is the new religion.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

In addition to heterosexuality and homosexuality from CK2, characters can also be bisexual and asexual. Sexuality is no longer defined by a trait, but has its own system, which makes it easier to handle for us and more visible in the interface for you. It also means that we do not frame heterosexuality as the default in CK3, which was also important for us.

Normally it is said that the winners get to write the history books. In Sweden's case we might make an exception.

 

[Luzur]

How many DLCs until I can create my own gender the same way I can create my own religion?

In CK3, gender is the new religion.

gender crusades against Patriarchy

 

[Theodora]

I mean it's not really a default, beyond social pressures.

And I don't know how you can say there's no gameplay value to it when interpersonal relations are a HUGE part of Crusader Kings.

 

[janjetina]

there are popes that were evidently bisexual

No, there are not. Not until Vatican II. Now it is a fag infestation. Sodomy used to be punishable by death, as it is supposed to be.
Why do you damnable sodomites endeavor to destroy everything true, good and beautiful?

 

[Theodora]

It isn't just social pressure. The reason the percentage of the homosexual population is between 1.5%-4% is not because of society, and if it wasn't for those pesky social pressures it would be be 50-50. It has a little something to do with sexual reproduction being the reason that living organisms that don't reproduce asexually even have different genders in the first place.

Gameplay wise, how is it important to know whether a character is 80% attracted to women 20% attracted to men, with a general rating of 60% on the lusty/asexual meter? What useful and interesting gameplay does tracking such information enable that isn't already achieved with the simpler and already existing traits for sexuality and lustful/chaste?

Let's just look at what Paradox actually said, shall we?

Sexuality provides added spice to character behavior and motivations, both in real life and in CK3, and it will also affect what is considered sinful or even criminal in a Faith in the game. It’s great for drama and intrigue, and in CK3 we’ve given sexualities more granularity. In addition to heterosexuality and homosexuality from CK2, characters can also be bisexual and asexual. Sexuality is no longer defined by a trait, but has its own system, which makes it easier to handle for us and more visible in the interface for you. It also means that we do not frame heterosexuality as the default in CK3, which was also important for us.

Children develop their sexualities around the age of 10 and once set, it will not change. It’s worth noting that we don’t model sexual and romantic attraction separately in the game, so a character’s sexuality sets both their sexual and romantic preferences.

We do however differentiate between sexual preference and sexual behavior in-game. A character’s sexuality in and of itself can never be criminal, but certain sexual acts can be. For example, if a Faith’s “View on Same-Sex Relations” is not set to “Accepted”, two men who have sex will get the “Sodomite” Secret (no matter their sexuality). While the AI doesn’t pursue romance or sex with someone they’re not attracted to, the player can sometimes choose to act against their sexual preference (albeit with a penalty, and it can never lead to a lover relationship). This means a player’s heterosexual male character could get the “Sodomite” Secret if they seduce a homosexual or bisexual man.

We have two Game Rules related to sexuality: “View on Same-Sex Relations” and “Sexuality Distribution”. The former is very similar to the “View on Gender” rule I mentioned above; it can change all Faith’s “View on Same-Sex Relations” from their historical defaults to “Accepted”. The latter can change how common each sexuality is. The settings are “Default” which means Heterosexuality is the most common sexuality, “Equal” which makes all four sexualities equally common, and one setting each for Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Asexuality which makes them the most common sexuality instead of Heterosexuality.

1. it seems quite evident it's categoric, not an insane breakdown like you're saying.

2. given the whole "sodomite" as secret that can be used to blackmail you etc., i don't think you can conviincingly tell me they're pretending that homosexuality was a norm in medieval europe.

this all just reeks of moral panic (culture warz baby edition) and extrapolating bullshit to try to justify how insecure you feel around homosexual men or w/e.

No, there are not. Not until Vatican II. Now it is a fag infestation. Sodomy used to be punishable by death, as it is supposed to be.
Why do you damnable sodomites endeavor to destroy everything true, good and beautiful?

imagine trying to make a point and then outing yourself with that vatican 2 dogwhistle.

 

[NJClaw]

there are popes that were evidently bisexual

No, there are not. Not until Vatican II. Now it is a fag infestation. Sodomy used to be punishable by death, as it is supposed to be.
Why do you damnable sodomites endeavor to destroy everything true, good and beautiful?

Good, true and beautiful like... THE PAPACY?!

 

[janjetina]

"Dog whistle". Who talks like that? Some mickey mouse degree major with more student loan debt than a third world country, I guess. Or a tranny. Or both.

there are popes that were evidently bisexual

No, there are not. Not until Vatican II. Now it is a fag infestation. Sodomy used to be punishable by death, as it is supposed to be.
Why do you damnable sodomites endeavor to destroy everything true, good and beautiful?

Good, true and beautiful like... THE PAPACY?!

Sorry to be the one to shatter your dreams, but you won't get any for whiteknighting a tranny.

 

[Fedora Master]

i don't think you can conviincingly tell me they're pretending that homosexuality was a norm in medieval europe.

They literally said they want to denormalize heterosexuality.

 

[Theodora]

They literally said they want to denormalize heterosexuality.

By modern standards. Not by medieval ones.

 

[Theodora]

People who don't agree with modern social justice/critical gender theory positions on gender and sexuality are just insecure. Sure lets go with that. No need to engage with the I don't have good counters for (such as the fact that heterosexuality is the norm because the reason gender and sex exists is to reproduce).

Except this is usually the same people who'll turn around and complain about "overpopulation". It's all tired, and the reason I don't see much interest in engaging with it is that there's a wealth of pop stuff and actual detailed philosophy to explain why things are not as straight forward as what seems 'obvious', but no one is interested in educating themselves, and I'm sure not educating people who respond in bad faith on average without being paid lol.

If it is literally just still traits, but they are in their own prominent part of the character screen so they don't 'frame it so heterosexuality is the norm', I wouldn't categorize or call that it's own system like they are. It is still just part of the trait system, but you aren't calling it a trait.

I do think there is value in tracking known behavior separately though, so that is a good addition, but that isn't really directly related to how the sexuality of a character is presented on the character screen. It can easily be added quite separately from that.

Because it's not just a trait. Neither in fact or in practice is being gay comparable to being brave or selfish or anything "personality" wise. I would argue that sexuality is more changeable (or at the very least it can take people far longer than being 10 to realise themselves (inasmuchas anyone has a 'true self')), but for their purposes it's not a problem, and y'all are blowing all of this waaaay outta proportion.

At best it feels like you can't fathom that games aren't just designed for you anymore.

 

[Reinhardt]

How many DLCs until I can create my own gender the same way I can create my own religion?

In CK3, gender is the new religion.

gender crusades against Patriarchy

Well, that's the only allowed crusades in CK3. Because Deus Vult is problematic.

 

[janjetina]

No, there are not. Not until Vatican II. Now it is a fag infestation. Sodomy used to be punishable by death, as it is supposed to be.
Why do you damnable sodomites endeavor to destroy everything true, good and beautiful?

imagine trying to make a point and then outing yourself with that vatican 2 dogwhistle.

Let me give a serious answer to this nonsense. Before Vatican II there was a strict rule banning sodomites from entering seminaries (let alone priesthood). Not only practicing sodomites, but anyone who held same sex attraction. This is because a priest is supposed to be a spiritual father, a feat a sodomite or someone attracted to unnatural acts is incapable of.
This was not limited to sodomites, but included everyone who had problem with chastity. There was strict filtering of the applicants. If one managed to pass, and was caught in an unchaste act later, he was immediately expelled and prohibited from taking vows. Sodomite priests were laicized and given over to secular authorities for punishment (including the fair one: execution). The rules used to be strictly observed for a long time, and it was very difficult for a sodomite to become a priest (though there were cases here and there, they were rare), let alone a bishop, or a Pope.

The observance of seminary entry rules was relaxed after the modernists returned and managed to infiltrate many key positions in seminaries. That was around 1940s.

After Vatican II the official rules for entering seminaries were relaxed, ban on sodomites was removed, and the sodomites started entering en masse. This resulted in the abuse crisis, which has reached its height in 1970s (most of the sodomite abuse of altar boys and seminarians committed by the priests took place in mid to late 70s, after those who entered the seminaries in late 60s received their collars). This is when people like McCarrick spawned, Positive feedback loop of modernists and sodomites has been very efficient, and now there are many countries where chaste bishops are minority, and majority of the US bishops are suspected of being sodomites.

So, yes, Vatican II represented a crucial break that enabled large scale sodomite infiltration of the Church.

 

[Theodora]

Also you are arguing in bad faith and acting with great arrogance by proclaiming that others are instead arguing in bad faith.

To take the position that you are clearly correct, and others must 'educate themselves' by agreeing with you and accepting your arguments. And then further that you can't possible 'put in the work' to 'educate them' (aka can't be arsed to make arguments to convince others of your point of view). And then you dare state that others are responding in bad faith when your entire point of view is that you are right and others must educate themselves by agreeing with you (presumably they should do research to make your argument for you?). That is the definition of arguing in bad faith.

To argue in good faith is to present your arguments, consider other peoples, and then be willing to re-evaluate your own position in light of what is presented. While I certainly agree most of the time people are not doing this and are arguing to try to win the argument, it is a super bitch move to try and act like you are not doing this but others are.

1. I'm not arguing in bad faith, I'm merely not willing to put the work in that others never will.

2. I'm not saying I'm objectively right about anything. But the fact you and others are responding at a trope-ish level doesn't fill me with confidence that you're even trying to understand other sides of this whole thing beyond "what pop media says for clicks and what reactionary places like codex memes in response".

Who has time to give codex a whole fucking book they'll never read, or appreciate?

 

[Alex]

(...snip)
After Vatican II the official rules for entering seminaries were relaxed, ban on sodomites was removed, and the sodomites started entering en masse. (snip...)

In fact, not only they were allowed, but many seminaries actually sought out to discourage or even expel traditionally minded seminarians while not only trying to draw in sodomites, but also encouraging them to act in that way. How widely disseminated such practice was is very hard to measure, but the presence of several such cases is widely documented in books such as "Goodbye, Good Men".

 

[mondblut]

It's okay as long as we can fill our dungeon with asexual lesbians and force them to pop us some bastard heirs every year.

 

[janjetina]

It's okay as long as we can fill our dungeon with asexual lesbians and force them to pop us some bastard heirs every year.

I'd reconsider that strategy if I were you.

Spoiler

Just try to imagine what its offspring would look like.

 

[mondblut]

Just try to imagine what its offspring would look like.

No geniuses, sure. But some might end up strong.

I hope free title revocations for believers of wrong gender will be the thing.

 

[CuckMasher]

Buying this propagandistic piece of trash means condoning this insane agenda that's being forced fed everywhere.

I agree and am sad. Also did the codex always have so many sjws? Will my block list eventually include everyone?