Marriage is broken(yes, more than usual)

[LzDK14]

In patch1.1.2 noble women constantly marry lowborns patrilinealy.
When (and why?!) rule "noble women should marry lowborns martrilenialy" was dropped?

I can just see it! Young, beautiful, amazonian, genius female landed ruler from legendary dynasty, with equal rights to men, sees a noname, who is *not* smart, or goodlooking, or athletic, and poor as church mouse with no land or claims and thinks "Yeah, that's the one! I'll marry him! And all our children will be simple peasants, just like him!" (real marrige from game, btw)

My current guess, they do it to spite their not-dreadful-at-all-please-have-a-cake matriarch...

PS: Development: two steps forward, one step back.
Degradation: two steps back, one step forward.
Paradox interactive with their patches: one step left, one step right.

[The Former]

Lowborn characters aren't necessarily peasants. Generally they're implied to be from lesser noble houses. Peasants don't have a presence in noble courts. That aside, this is historically accurate. The vast majority of noble women who did in fact marry into low families patrilineally because matrilineal marriage was more or less unheard of. This is often how those lower families first became prominent.

The patch notes clearly state that ladies will marry matrilineally if their faith is Female Dominated. Otherwise, they'll follow the universal standard of marrying into their husband's house, no matter how irrelevant it happens to be.

PS: I don't recall ever seeing the AI marry a lowborn man. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I look around an awful lot in my games and I've never seen it happen.

[LzDK14]

Ok, first let's stop this thing about "in history" and "for great justice". At no point in history kingdom of Croatia was ruled by 20(10 male, 10 female) PhDs with model looks and gold olympic medalists(all) from same dynasty, not older than 17 and having blood ties to pagan savoir(divine blood).
At no point in history Slovianskiy paganism was formaly organised, or for that matter, any european pagan religion.
At no point in history females were commonly considered equal to males in terms of having property and rulership, so "common" patrilineal marriges had no reasons to become "common" in the first place.

Now to the "lowborns are not peasants" thing. We are talking about times, when nobility really meant "able to kick your face in", not "having an excellent pedegry and manners"(that will come later), so everyone who was someone made it known. In game term, via dynasty and coat of arms. There were no "nobility so low, that they had no dynasty or heraldic shield".

In real history, mesalliances were not a common thing and morgengabistic (which is the case in game, since lowborns spouse is not elevated to higher nobility strata) ones were virtually unheard of, btw.

[The Former]

Originally posted by LzDK14:

Ok, first let's stop this thing about "in history" and "for great justice". At no point in history kingdom of Croatia was ruled by 20(10 male, 10 female) PhDs with model looks and gold olympic medalists from same dynasty, not older than 17 and having blood ties to pagan savoir(divine blood).

Going to stop you right there. Following history and respecting historical convention are very different matters. I never stated that everything should follow history. I merely stated that the game is designed to emulate the sociopolitical conditions of feudalism with a respect for historical convention.

As to the rest of your comment, which I just now noticed...

Definition of lowborn

: born in a low condition or rank

Originating in the 13th century.

Definition of commoner

(Entry 1 of 2)
1a : one of the common people
b : one who is not of noble rank

Originating in the 14th century.

Notice the difference. A commoner refers to one who has no rank. Lowborn refers to one who was born to low rank. Yes, there was such a thing as a noble house so low it had no arms. Arms were, at this time, a matter of... well, coating arms. If one was not of a knightly or martial household, one did not necessarily have a coat of arms. Plenty of barons, merchants, and similar people of wealth and means lacked arms during the early to high Middle Ages.

If you want to talk peasants specifically, by the way... Well, that word wasn't a thing until the 15th century. Technically there are no peasants in this game.

[BLKCandy]

The thing is understandable under male dominated religion. But damn patrilineality in equal religion. Instead of following convention of patrilineal marriage in 'equal' religion, it should have been marry into a bigger house, or marry into ruler/heir/claimant. Right now rulers in equal sex religion self-destruct by marrying female heir out of their dynasty.

[The Former]

Originally posted by BLKCandy:

The thing is understandable under male dominated religion. But damn patrilineality in equal religion. Instead of following convention of patrilineal marriage in 'equal' religion, it should have been marry into a bigger house, or marry into ruler/heir/claimant. Right now rulers in equal sex religion self-destruct by marrying female heir out of their dynasty.

I believe in equal religions, it shouldn't necessarily be this way. Many modern nations have equal rights today, yet in how many of them do children in a marriage which stays together take the mother's name and not the father's? Tracing family through the male line is an incredibly common convention the word over and has been for ages. I believe that unless a specific situation calls for tracing through the female line - such as in female-dominated faiths - the AI should continue to favor patrilineal marriages.

[LzDK14]

As for the patchnotes, before it AI landed heir marred firstborn daughter patrilinearly, effectivly passing your realm to other dynasty in one generation or killing your dynasty entirely.
Rules for marriges before patch
must be patrilinial for heir
prefered patrilinial for second and third
prefered matrilinial for daughters
Game wasn't taking into consideration female prerogative and wasn't switching patrilinial with matrilinial for heirs.

[BLKCandy]

It is still common, largely due to cultural convention. But that's for regular peasant marriage, lolz. (Equal marriage)

What about when it is a powerful house though? Why would an equal religion marry down? IRL many influential family doesn't allow marrying out of the family. I agree that patrilineality is more 'conventional'. But power/titles should overrule that in equal religion. Dynasty should try to consolidate their power in equal religion. Patrilineality should be conventional when their house are equal or the husband has more powerful house/title.

[LzDK14]

BLKCandy, yes, you're right.
Current situation is a bug, not sure why errant tries to justify it.

[Aldrnari]

Maybe AI Personality has a play in this?

[LzDK14]

Unless it's one that makes beatuful young women from upper crust of society love literally nobodies and marry them, than no.

[LzDK14]

And to clarify, I preffer when females of my dynasty marry lowborns, since it prevents inbreding, but I see no reason, objective or otherwise, why are they doing it patrilinearly, while they should have go with matrilinial marrige in such sutuation

[The Former]

Originally posted by LzDK14:

And to clarify, I preffer when females of my dynasty marry lowborns, since it prevents inbreding, but I see no reason, objective or otherwise, why are they doing it patrilinearly, while they should have go with matrilinial marrige in such sutuation

To be clear, you're not talking about the females of your dynasty whose marriages you're arranging yourself, right?

[LzDK14]

Originally posted by Knight-Errant:

Originally posted by LzDK14:

And to clarify, I preffer when females of my dynasty marry lowborns, since it prevents inbreding, but I see no reason, objective or otherwise, why are they doing it patrilinearly, while they should have go with matrilinial marrige in such sutuation

To be clear, you're not talking about the females of your dynasty whose marriages you're arranging yourself, right?

Yeap. Gameplay wise I preffer to use daughters for dynasty expansion, rathet than title claims or aliances. It leads to mesalliances more often than not in marriges I arrange.

[The Former]

Originally posted by LzDK14:

Originally posted by Knight-Errant:

To be clear, you're not talking about the females of your dynasty whose marriages you're arranging yourself, right?

Yeap. Gameplay wise I preffer to use daughters for dynasty expansion, rathet than title claims or aliances. It leads to mesalliances more often than not in marriges I arrange.

Strange... I went through and counted all my dynasty's women in my three playthroughs thus far. 153 women, and only two of them married lowborn men. One of them I distinctly remember was my own choice, because the man she married was one of my greatest knights. I'm not sure why so many of yours seem to want to marry down.

[LzDK14]

Lucky you!