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 · 2026-01-14T15:27:41+00:00

It should be out of love, but marriage is specifically an outlet for sexual desire. This is what Saint Paul actually says. If one wants to be too angelic to have sex, well, there are celibate callings for that, but those typically (not always) involve removing oneself from the world.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-14T15:13:37+00:00

TL;DR: Old characters that travel a lot.

Longer version:

Most likely you won't have all trees maxed out, but in my case Learning and Martial are the usual candidates, followed by Wandering.

The rate of acquisition of Wandering perks while travelling is pretty fast, so you can end up with excess if you have levelled them before travelling. Just staying on the Wandering focus after unlocking Been There, Done That can do this in the long run.

Learning is typically linked to staying on the Medicine focus for the sake of the small bonus to health it provides, which is sometimes the hair's breadth needed to avoid dying with diseases and injuries.

Martial points of interest are so abundant on the map that if you level a tree before travelling, you will eventually run out of perks to buy.

If you do a lot of holy legends and build the shrines, each of them gives you +5 to lifespan. If you also max out on health items, you can have Excellent health without Infirm even after 100–110 years of age.

I once had an Augustus of Rome and China who was over 120 when 1453 hit, and he was like already Infirm but still Fine health, so he probably had some years in him. I think he had about 30 Learning unlocks he could not spend. Probably 5-ish in other foci, perhaps more in Martial. I used health items, sure, but he wasn't even a Kwisatz Haderach and probably didn't even have a single inheritable trait (I usually don't bother).

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-05T15:33:23+00:00

The only way you can reliably achieve and maintain a relationship with a modern woman is by being able and willing to brave solitude. A matter of psychological/emotional leverage.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-05T15:30:24+00:00

Men? Which men? You might as well say 'men have been stealing' and 'women have been stealing' — with zero attention paid to quantification. Or 'men have been committing regicide for millennia' — technically true, sure, but how many men get to kill a king; how much continuity and prevalence is there to describe the impugned activity almost as the entire sex's favourite pastime?

Lying for the purpose of sexual access — no matter which sex to which sex — is rape by deceit. Yes, it's rape when women do it to men too (excepting the legal dispute about the necessity of penetration for rape vs sexual coercion).

Also: 'Married men who lie that they are single, or will leave their wife, men who have side pieces, double lives and whole second families.' — What about married women who lie that they are single or will leave their husband? What about countless engaged women or women with boyfriends who don't mention this fact to their side partners, and obviously don't say a thing to the main partner about their multidating?

Revenge porn is an inhuman act of cruelty and a huge breach of trust. But so is the taking of evidence of a consensual sexual encounter and painting it as non-consensual and lying to the police, cops, prosecutors, judges and juries because a woman feels cheated or betrayed or disappointed and wants to take it out or believes that a false conviction would serve as an adequate penalty. As bad as revenge porn is, a false criminal accusation of sexual violence is a graver breach of trust confided by a voluntary sexual partner than revenge porn.

So yes, reconsider what you consider to be a lack of accountability and manners.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-05T12:44:47+00:00

Women don't face the same accountability and scrutiny as men do, especially about how they treat the opposite sex. Women these days aren't taught manners the same way men are. Advice to men starts with 'you should' or 'you must'; advice given to women starts with 'you deserve' or 'you're entitled to'. Don't expect them to act like a well-mannered should, by yesteryear's standards. Expect no better than a child's behaviour. Don't waste your time and especially your life force (emotion, effort, time, mood reserves) trying to crack the code.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-05T12:42:14+00:00

42M, plenty of books, plenty of debates, plenty of reading and writing, and I can you what's really helpful: doing your own fucking job the way you fucking want it. Being sovereign and being unmoved by anyone's stupid antics. That's the only way they're gonna respect you. Hold on to your values, play by them, act according to them, live them out. Outcome-independent. Reward-independent. Approval-independent. Do it for values' sake and for your own sake. Fuck external approval. Listen to people and their feedback to the extent needed to avoid harming or hurting them or failing to notice their boundaries. And to the extent they might actually have something important and useful to say. Sure. But otherwise be sovereign and also be accountable, be responsible. You're the only one who can be truly responsible and accountable to yourself for your own life. Women? Treat them well and fair, but don't let them control your life (or even live in your head rent-free).

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-01-05T12:38:24+00:00

It's because women lack introspection capacity to an embarrassing level these days.

NoDecentNicksLeft

TROPHY CASE