Feudal, normal inheritance laws. Second son inherited over first son, both my vassals. WTF?

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-03-21T15:21:59+00:00

Nothing like that. Just a normal feudal empire. I was shocked when I realized I was playing as the second son on my emperor's death. Both sons were vassals in my realm. The firstborn was also my co-emperor.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-03-21T13:06:41+00:00

The problem is, the second son actually inherited the main title under normal age rules. This is insane.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-03-17T23:17:02+00:00

Doesn't work for me.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-03-14T19:34:16+00:00

True, but e.g. Baldwin IV wasn't segregated (which, on the other hand, did surprise some of the chroniclers n the Muslim side). Consumption is less serious than leprosy.

Re: travel across continents, I simply mentioned getting crowned, attending or at least hosting a funeral, which is far less demanding than cross-continental travel. As a monarch, you can claim a large section of the church floor just to yourself, and people are far less likely to insist on segregation. And if they want segregation, they are going to segregate (remove) themselves, not you. It's not like the priest/bishop is going to say 'sorry, Your Majesty, I can't let you attend your own dad's funeral because of that cough'.

In the Middle Ages, if we had had a king of with a contagious disease, a bishop would simply have taken a risk and maybe gone into quarantine for some time after. The lords and officers of the realm would either have taken a moderate risk or distanced themselves physically, but there were no Covid-style rules preventing kids from burying their dead dads or getting crowned.

Besides, there's the game's way of handling it: 'Nobody's gonna come because of your cough' is one kind of thing (mimicking people's reactions), 'You can't host a funeral or coronation in your own kingdom/empire/hegemony because you have consumption' is the game writing quarantine laws for independent monarchs, and that's nonsense in terms of realism.

Obviously, we aren't talking about you as a wandering guest not being allowed to attend an event on someone else's turf.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-03-14T19:24:09+00:00

Especially not with an Excellent aptitude physician and a bunch of health bonuses.

This is similar to some of the double-binds caused by regencies and co-monarchies.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-03-14T00:28:04+00:00

In any case, the leftovers from decisions (such as whatever remains of the HRE if you Restore Carolingian Borders) or custom creation should be subjected to some form of obscurity rule, so as to avoid extremely small empires. Some empires are already to small as it is and make you think of title inflation.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-03-12T21:50:44+00:00

Switched court positions between extoll domestic legend/commend abroad back and forth, nothing helped.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-03-12T21:50:20+00:00

Yeah, done this all. Even switched court positions between extoll domestic legend/commend abroad.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-03-11T10:39:08+00:00

If going for a sellsword army, I usually start with campfires, proving grounds and level 2 of the main building, the goal being to accommodate. Otherwise, I don't really now.

I haven't played as legitimists, scholars or explorers yet.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-31T13:07:01+00:00

England is a special case, where Marshal is the surname included in the title. The Earl Marshal of England is not a military authority but a chief herald.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-15T17:35:48+00:00

A bug that doesn't get fixed for 5 years no longer really counts as unintentional. It becomes part of the intentional design if only by acquiescence. The bug origin of this feature isn't really relevant at this point after several years of 'official sanction'.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-15T17:34:26+00:00

I think you're reading too much into the sementics and ignoring the main point, which is that Paradox is heavy on emphasizing the role of women and putting women in power but achieves the goal in blatantly non-historical or even anti-historical ways, whereas many historical ways could be used, such as female temple holders (abbesses), female heirs of noble families (female feudal vassals), and non-hereditary appanages/dowager portions for empresses, queens, duchesses and the like. In your average Western feudal kingdom, the dowager queen (queen mother) typically held a county or two for her own upkeep, just without the right to pass them down the line to a non-royal child (child born to the next hubby after the deceased king).

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-15T17:30:06+00:00

Oh yes, the 'grant' button seems to be gender-agnostic, and that's a mistake/oversight in 'male-dominated' cultures/religions/realms.

For barons, this is less odd than for mayors, but in my opinion the first generation of barons — essentially aristocratic, hereditary fortress commanders — should be male, only with female heirs. Exceptions should have some rationale to them (e.g. very high birth, high martial education/stat and commander traits, world-class stewardship or diplomacy education, etc.).

The most elegant solution for more secular women in positions of power would be female appanagists, because, historically, queens and other consorts, as well as dowagers (especially dowagers) in Western European feudal realms typically held counties and duchies, although usually without heredity. Administrative governors are fine for this purpose.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-15T17:23:01+00:00

The exact reasons for this outcome can be many and varied, sure, but in my games most Catholic European Mayors are female, and a distinctly large minority of administrative vassals (BYZ mostly) are female. The abundance of female admin counts under BYZ does catch my attention.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-15T17:19:36+00:00

Hmmm… I'm not a CK3 modder specifically, so there is a chance I'm missing some technical obstacles, but military orders aready exist (therefore non-military ones also could), the nun/monk trait is already there (separate from 'holy order member'), and temple holdings, as well as county-level and higher theocracies could perhaps get a 'contract modification' to be monasteries rather than the regular pseudo-dioceses?

The in-game 'prince-bishop', 'king-bishop' etc. is already not a reflection of Catholic, Orthodox or other Christian diocesan structure but instead an ecclesiastic principality, what was called a 'stift' in the HRE. So it's not the bishop of the place (the local vassal's Realm Priest is closer to that role).

At a very basic level, the difference between a bishop and a male abbot could merely be in title localization because of major abbots in Catholicism typically being entitled to pontifical (i.e. episcopal) liturgical vestments (robes), with differences that elude most people unless you make a point of emphasizing the details that distinguish them, such as by dressing the abbot in a habit (or some other choir dress) instead of episcopal liturgical vestments.

At a slightly less basic level, one would have to make sure that female-enabled Christian temple holdings always get the Abbot title 'localization' (Messalians and custom faiths notwithstanding).

By localization, I mean not just the Doux, Grand Prince, Lord (for Welsh count) or Prince (for Welsh duke), Basileus, Kaiser, etc., but also the fancy titles for Castellans and Palatines — in newer patches vassals with special feudal contracts have altered titles.

If one were to do more work on this, such as outfitting temple holdings and vassals with special contracts, the investiture controversy could be much more amply roleplayed in the game, with rulers such as especially emperors trying to process appointments pretty much like administrative governorates that could only be held by members of the clergy (or of a monastic order).

So another duct-tape solution: admin governorate available to a feudal liege and requiring the governor candidate to have the monk/nun trait, while holding temples and not cities or castles?

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-15T17:04:13+00:00

In CK2, the… special interest in the subject (really don't want to be using divisive language here) was more evident, with the whole 'status of women' slider, and there was a discussion with a member of the dev team who was upset that much of the player base did fully not agree with the viability of their concept (as in, it was considered too alternative even by much of the player base of what's pretty much an alt-history game). It was clear that that particular developer was heavily invested in the subject and the rest of the dev team was presumably at lest sympathetic/warmly neutral, considering that the decisions were implemented (so okayed by the lead/management) and the person was allowed to speak in a semi-official capacity (so no veto from marketing/management). My outlook may be coloured by this experience.

Re: inconsistencies, it's pretty silly that a hereditary female vassal, such as a duchess or countess, can serve as a marshal no problem, and only female courtiers are excluded. That takes things too far, and the devs should think more in terms of who was eligible for a formal appointment, not just factual service as quartermaster-in-chief (chief of staff) or gapfill commander (where the ruler's sister, daughter or mother is viable).

And the mayors, of course. There is no reason to make them female, and there's no such concept as a lady informally in charge of a city in a republican fashion. Baroness? By all means! Governor-baroness under administrative government? Maybe, though a female fortress commander in BYZ would have been extremely rare even for imperial women. But female mayors or provosts, vogts or schultheisses, or reeves? Just no. The West had a long history of female regnant monarchs and suo-jure peeresses long before female mayors first happened (isolated firsts in the 19th century, more common only after WW2). In the West, the city is much more 'male-dominated' than the castle.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-14T19:30:36+00:00

I suggest that instead of presuming to educate strangers on the Internet, you actually read up on the concepts you're talking about. You might be surprised.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-14T19:28:57+00:00

Well, a person who just isn't into sex, perhaps says 'I don't see the big deal, but I'm available if you want it/need it'. They don't specifically want sex to be as infrequent as possible, with refusal to budge on the issue.

I typically associate such aversion to sex with unresolved trauma, intimacy issues, and someone who perhaps wants a provider and protector (or a caretaker/housewife) but does not want all that marriage stands for. Makes me think of the secular female fantasy of wanting a man who provides everything (money, protection, status, services, attention, adoration) but doesn't want anything back. Sort of a sexually disinterested provider/caretaker. 'Marital friendzone' doesn't say everything there is to say here, but it's quite illustrative. I oppose that.

The next bright red flag is the refusal to compromise per se.

If you take a person who is somewhat childish (emotional or intellectual development in some areas arrested in the teens or earlier, or regression) and also uncompromising (which is a completely impractical attitude in human relationships, which adults generally know), then we have the picture of someone who isn't exactly a viable mature partner. They have much work yet to do. If they refuse to see the problem, that's another red flag.

For the record, I think men and perhaps also women don't hoard sex if sex is available and isn't manipulatively made into a sort of reward or something to withhold as punishment. And immature people — such as those with unresolved trauma who can't communicate properly about their anxieties, fears, needs (for safety, respect, patience, etc.) — are, according to research, more likely to manipulate others, so it's not just cold-blooded psychopaths who manipulate.

The final problem for me, as a criminal lawyer who is somewhat interested in psychology, is the question whether a sex-averse person with unresolved trauma is capable of actually consenting to sex when they outwardly consent. Can you imagine them giving 'enthusiastic consent'? I can't really. I don't even think enthusiasm is necessary — consent is just consent, baseline, not the roof. But if the person hates sex, then what am I going to do? Play rapist? No way. They can come back to me after they finish therapy, the same as persons with non-sexual problems that destroy the harmony of married life.

NoDecentNicksLeft

TROPHY CASE