Same Sex consorts hardcoded out?

[GodSmack]

With the recent patch and flavor pack it seems same sex consorts no longer work for me, not only that but I've read that they have been hardcoded out of the game. Is that true? does that mean it will be quite awhile till its possible to do again if at all?

[SamIAmHam]

It's been confirmed by a developer on the official forums.  They did it under the auspices of bug fixing. A lot of people are pissed about it.

[Mange2020]

Yeah same sex marriage is/was hard coded out via the matchmaker system in the Gui but you used to be able to mod the marriage triggers to enable same sex concubinage. I was playing around with it myself and turning off the marriage triggers just pulled a bunch of errors as the game actively prevented same sex concubines. So the game now checks the genders of concubine and pulls an error. Which they claim is for debuging but the error not also actively prevents it.

  Error: make_concubine effect [ Illegal concubinage: 'Adyan Lowborn of  (Internal ID 32716)' is the same gender as their concubinist, so they can't become a concubine ]
  Script location: file:  file: common/character_interactions/00_marriage_interactions.txt line: 1860; concubine_on_accept_effect line: 96
[12:16:39][jomini_script_system.cpp:169]: Script system error!

The positive is that its pissed off enough people that maybe there will be a push to find a way around the blocks to actual marriage. I'm definitely trying but we'll have to get creative. I no longer think Paradox is gonna just eventually remove the blocks on their own.

[SamIAmHam]

@Mange2020Knowing Pdox like I do, they'll end up putting out a paid flavor pack to allow same sex relationships. 

[GodSmack]

that's really unfortunate, that does not seem like something you touch for the purpose of bugfixing

[Abraxis00]

Yeah, I've dropped the game until they roll this back, and preferably fix the fact that same-sex marriage has been hardcoded out since launch, too.  It's the sort of thing that frankly there's no excuse for in this day and age.

[M4rocks]

Well... there goes one of my ideas for my additions (planning to add an addition that lets u have a baby even if its female on female because you visit the 'horse')

[iamjmph01]

1 hour ago, Abraxis00 said:

Yeah, I've dropped the game until they roll this back, and preferably fix the fact that same-sex marriage has been hardcoded out since launch, too.  It's the sort of thing that frankly there's no excuse for in this day and age.

While I don't agree with removing options, the game isn't set in this day and age. Applying modern mores to a "historical" game is kind of silly.  Same sex marriage was "hardcoded out" at that point in history. 

 

I'm not trying to argue whether its moral or "right" just saying it has a valid reason.  Though they should have left it moddable, so as not to remove choice. 

 

[Abraxis00]

I'm not talking about the setting, I'm talking about treatment of gay rights in games produced in the modern day.  None of us here is an 11th-century nobleman, nor is the game designed for them -- at most it delivers a simplified, caricatured image of them to modern-day people.

 

It's not like we're sticking strictly to history in any of the mods produced here, anyway.  Tentacle pregnancy cults and magical succubi have a lot less historical basis than same-sex marriage, and they're some of the better mods on here.  And there's plenty of non-porn mods out there that take CK2 and CK3 to other settings, like fantasy worlds or post-apocalyptic America, and some of those would really benefit from same-sex marriage.

 

Plus, even in the base game, we can create religions with totally ahistorical views.  Ritual cannibalism, sacred incest, female domination, positive attitudes towards deviant sex or witchcraft -- those are all fine and supported, despite some of them having less real-world support than recognition of same-sex relationships.

 

Ultimately, it's mostly that I've been irate about the impossibility of modding in same-sex marriage since the game launched (one of my favorite mods for CK2 was Lesbocracy, after all), and I was holding out hope that they were working to fix that.  This is a step in exactly the wrong direction, and I'm tired of putting up with this sort of thing.

[hallo1126]

43 minutes ago, Abraxis00 said:

I'm not talking about the setting, I'm talking about treatment of gay rights in games produced in the modern day.  None of us here is an 11th-century nobleman, nor is the game designed for them -- at most it delivers a simplified, caricatured image of them to modern-day people.

 

It's not like we're sticking strictly to history in any of the mods produced here, anyway.  Tentacle pregnancy cults and magical succubi have a lot less historical basis than same-sex marriage, and they're some of the better mods on here.  And there's plenty of non-porn mods out there that take CK2 and CK3 to other settings, like fantasy worlds or post-apocalyptic America, and some of those would really benefit from same-sex marriage.

 

Plus, even in the base game, we can create religions with totally ahistorical views.  Ritual cannibalism, sacred incest, female domination, positive attitudes towards deviant sex or witchcraft -- those are all fine and supported, despite some of them having less real-world support than recognition of same-sex relationships.

 

Ultimately, it's mostly that I've been irate about the impossibility of modding in same-sex marriage since the game launched (one of my favorite mods for CK2 was Lesbocracy, after all), and I was holding out hope that they were working to fix that.  This is a step in exactly the wrong direction, and I'm tired of putting up with this sort of thing.

 

Tbh I on the other hand would have NOT bought the game had they made homosexuality a normal occurence by default. I am already pissed about the viking starts having some chars start as gay randomly. That is not historically accurate. So mods yeah but your argument is extremely wonky. It reminds me of the whole controversy of no blacks in Kingdom Come. I do not think blacks in kingdom come would have been a good thing. I want to be immersed in a historical time period when I play a game targeted at it. This stuff can all go to fantasy games no issue, but showing an intentionally wrong view of history for political reasons and modern views? Really dangerous and the same mistake that the victorians made and that we curse them for now because it makes history so much harder. While on the other hand going down routes is possible as alternative history. I do support an inclusion of a creatable society type that includes all the homosexuality possible, but it should not be in it right now, only as dlcs come.

[Sakhmeth]

34 minutes ago, hallo1126 said:

I am already pissed about the viking starts having some chars start as gay randomly. That is not historically accurate.

 

Buddy, the vikings had just as many gay-inclined people as there are in the modern era. The difference is how open they were about it. Just like the USA in the 1950s, they married women, and even fathered children to maintain the illusion. And even then for the vikings, it was ok for a guy to "top", but being a "bottom" was considered unmanly.

[Mange2020]

1 hour ago, iamjmph01 said:

While I don't agree with removing options, the game isn't set in this day and age. Applying modern mores to a "historical" game is kind of silly.  Same sex marriage was "hardcoded out" at that point in history. 

 

I'm not trying to argue whether its moral or "right" just saying it has a valid reason.  Though they should have left it moddable, so as not to remove choice. 

 

This is less clear than you would think. Histriography is a very interesting study, not just what we think we know but why we think we know it. Specifically most history that we have was written by Christian monks. And it is inarguable that there has historically been a VERY anti homosexual tilt within Christianity, likely due to the fact that all non procreative sex was viewed as sinful.

Vikings for example didn't have written language except for runes, a lot of what we think we know comes from sagas, some are accurate, some aren't. Ragnarr Lothbrok and his sons are generally not considered historical. In the Sagas he actually six different sons instead of the five we see in game (two of the sons are never in the same story and assumed to be the same halfdan/Hvitserk). Harald Fairhair (the first king of Norway) was assumed to be historical, now he's generally considered fictional.

This means that western historians tend to place their own values on what they find. For example there was a famous burial site filled with weapons found in the 19th century. It was assumed to be a man for over a century. Four years ago it was determined to be a woman.

Even the words we use to describe relationships are influenced by our cultural perceptions. The most prominent example of culturally endorsed homosexuality that I can think of is the Theban band. 300 men all of whom were in a loving committed sexual relationship with another man in the unit. Essentially it was a military unit of 150 gay married couples, but even today they are rarely described as "married". This is because word meanings often don't translate exactly, and how we choose to translate them influences our perception. 

So like do we have examples of culturally accepted homosexuality from this era? No we do not. We can be relatively certain it didn't exist in christian Europe at least, the rest of Europe . . . not so sure. But do we have examples of culturally accepted homosexuality involving long term committed relationships that today would be called "marriage" yes we do. And given that you can revive that religion (Hellenism) allowing gay marriage wouldn't really impact "realism" at all.

[Mange2020]

11 minutes ago, Sakhmeth said:

 

Buddy, the vikings had just as many gay-inclined people as there are in the modern era. The difference is how open they were about it. Just like the USA in the 1950s, they married women, and even fathered children to maintain the illusion. And even then for the vikings, it was ok for a guy to "top", but being a "bottom" was considered unmanly.

Yeah this was a common pre-christian cultural perception. It was the same in Rome too iirc. Plus the homosexual trait is just gender orientation, not whether they act on it. Gay characters still have wives and kids. They are essentially "passing".

[hallo1126]

4 hours ago, Sakhmeth said:

 

And even then for the vikings, it was ok for a guy to "top", but being a "bottom" was considered unmanly.

Read Tacitus and you will understand why this was a greek/roman only thing. Also to call an important historical figure a homosexual would have been considered slander at the time. Have it in generation at modern statistic rates alright, I think it is a bit more complicated in a historical context but I dont want to get into a political debate here, but historical characters? Come on.

[Frel]

12 hours ago, iamjmph01 said:

While I don't agree with removing options, the game isn't set in this day and age. Applying modern mores to a "historical" game is kind of silly.  Same sex marriage was "hardcoded out" at that point in history. 

 

I'm not trying to argue whether its moral or "right" just saying it has a valid reason.  Though they should have left it moddable, so as not to remove choice. 

 

simple solution to this eternal debate: make it ask option. People who want "historically accurate" (whatever that means to them) can then keep option as is. They already have an option to invert the preferred gender for rule of inheritance, when you have this option "historical accuracy" is kinda out of the door.

[Sakhmeth]

7 hours ago, hallo1126 said:

Read Tacitus and you will understand why this was a greek/roman only thing.

 

Not sure how a 2nd century southern European would be an expert on 9th century northern European (or anywhere else for that matter) sexual practices, but you keep on being you, buddy.

[Mange2020]

Yeah, honestly I wouldn't care if it was just something they didn't include it in the game. Although history is MUCH more complicated than most people realize Vikings all being manly manly men and everyone hating gay people is the understanding most people have. Although it is inaccurate I don't fault people for holding this view, hell I held it for a while. I would say that I think its a mistake to attribute relatively accepting practices to "only" Greeks and Romans. In terms of the historical record its important to remember that the Greeks and Romans make up the vast majority of non-Christian western history. Non Western cultures have also been much more historically accepting of Homosexuality. Early Chinese emperors were thought to have homosexual relationships (anti homosexual sentiment started to rise in China around the time of the Tang Dynasty). The Kamasutra includes a bunch of stuff detailing homosexual sex.

So I wouldn't fault them for presenting this more traditional uncritical view of history. But from the perspective of someone who has spent a lot of time modding the game it feels like they are actively blocking you from changing it. Almost everything in the game is easily modifiable. Its all triggers, effects etc. There's even a scripted trigger that supposedly should let you modify who can get married. But the trigger by itself does nothing because marriage is hidden behind a "special interaction" that adds its own requirements. Like nothing else works this way. And honestly there is some shit that SHOULD be impossible to do that is much easier than this. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that there was some reason for this weird way they coded marriage, but adding the concubine block combined with their evasive nonsensical answers is making that more difficult.

[Sakhmeth]

I'll try and be a bit more charitable.

Is your contention there were no homosexual vikings, or is that there were no openly homosexual vikings?

Because those are two different things, and as Mango2020 and I are trying to point out, internal orientation did not equal external behavior in most societies, nor does it in CK3.

[SamIAmHam]

I don't understand the entire historical argument because that goes out the window the moment you unpause the game. Never mind the fact you can reform religions with modern religious tenets/doctrines. 

 

The game is a toolbox that allows you to mod it the way you want. There is the matter of total conversions that put in fantasy worlds. Said worlds have same sex relationships, so now that is removed. 

 

If I choose to play with same sex relationships that is my choice. You should have zero say on how I enjoy the game as I see fit. 

 

Pdox's decisions have hampered everyone. I will still prefer CK2 over the failure of CK3. I can play it with all these wonderful mods that allow for same sex marriage and concubines. 

[loker123]

Guys i expected better from you, in medieval literature there are tons of fabliaux that talk about of homosexual relationship, and a famous one in particular is the Novel of Pietro da Vinciolo in the Decameron (the wife want sex, but Pietro is homosexual, it end in a three way with a a young boy) in 14th century, one of the basis of the italian language.
Then i don't want to hear any it's not historical, I literally can reform catholicism in a cannibalistic sexual cult that accept homosexual relationship in vanilla game already, allowing marriage isn't that big of a jump.

TLDR homosexuality existed, we know not much about it and at least in some european societies it looks like there were some sort of same sex union, particularly in poland.

[SamIAmHam]

3 minutes ago, loker123 said:

Guys i expected better from you, in medieval literature there are tons of fabliaux that talk about of homosexual relationship, and a famous one in particular is the Novel of Pietro da Vinciolo in the Decameron (the wife want sex, but Pietro is homosexual, it end in a three way with a a young boy) in 14th century, one of the basis of the italian language.
Then i don't want to hear any it's not historical, I literally can reform catholicism in a cannibalistic sexual cult that accept homosexual relationship in vanilla game already, allowing marriage isn't that big of a jump.

TLDR homosexuality existed, we know not much about it and at least in some european societies it looks like there were some sort of same sex union, particularly in poland.

 

The response to the historical argument is, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of  absence. "

 

Just because we don't have evidence  doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

[loker123]

And that's not saying that homosexuality was not repressed, we have lots of tribunal deposition and legal documents about that for low middle ages. But for high middle ages if we want to follow some edicts in western europe there were almost no penalities for it and apparently it was common in monastic orders. 

And don't get me started with the lies about the ius prime noctis, that thing never existed.
 

Overall here we have tons of depraved mods with everything in it, i fail to see how homosexual marriage might be a sensible topic. I want to remember that vanilla game allow to play with inverted religions too, historical my ass.

[SamIAmHam]

It was recorded as being common in the ancient world. Do you honestly expect me to believe that it stopped happening between ancient world and until the 1960s? That's ridicules since we all know that human nature has not changed from the earliest historical records.

[loker123]

In the antiquity it was particular, the perception of sex is distinctively different from ours. The main problem is the lack of religiously sanctioned unions, not homosexual acts, those always existed.
In the eastern roman empire there were laws against homosexuality (or better against men in passive role). Those laws that fell in the west due to the collapse but many sources make us think that at least before the turn of the century the church or the state didn't think at all of homosexual, mostly ignoring them.
As such there are some clues that point to same sex relations happening, with at least some cases of co-habitation. The church took a long time to evolve in a centralized system, and even to force celibacy within the clergy (they never managed to completely enforce it) and ending concubinage (charlemagne had concubines even if the church pressured him gently to stop).
 

I also recommend reading the Decameron, it's tons of fun and there is even a novel where a guy make a nuns monastery his harem.

[SamIAmHam]

When I am talking about antiquity I am referring the first recorded history to about 500 BC. There are sources showing that same sex relationships were common and sanctioned by the local governments. 

 

A particular story is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is roughly 1845 BC. That's just from the Tanakh.

 

The Tanakh criminalized homosexuality and it was the exception. That means their neighbors allowed it. The prohibition was to separate Israel from their neighbors.

 

There are other sources from that period also showing acceptance and recognition. Please don't try to say that the entire disappeared at certain year until the 1960s. That just strains credibility.