Penalties for marrying lowborns`

[Talezteller]

So I recently came accross a few examples of widespread backlash against nobles/royalty for marrying commoners, and have since been wondering wether doing so in this game should entail a bigger penalty than just losing a puny 300 prestige.
I know of instances in which monarchs have been press ganged into abdicating, heirs to noble titles forced to give up their claims and major scandals arising, yet the only penalty for staining your royal blood in this game is losing a year's worth of prestige.
IMHO, marrying a commoner should do one or some of the following:
- Give a permanent negative opinion modifier with feudal vassals to rulers, similar to the "known murderer" trait, maybe -10 or -15, and worse for dynasty members, -25 or worse.
- Have a chance to trigger an event in which vassals, or heirs, demand the abdication of the ruler
- If a heir marries a commoner, they become disinherited
- If the event where a dynasty member marries without consent of the head fires, they should also become disinherited if in line to inherit.

[Yaldabaoth]

Doesn't add anything fun to gameplay, so, why?

[Talezteller]

Originally posted by Yaldabaoth:

Doesn't add anything fun to gameplay, so, why?

A penalty for exploiting marrying lowborns to boost your mas demense size.

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by Talezteller:

- Have a chance to trigger an event in which vassals, or heirs, demand the abdication of the ruler

I love when vassals make stupid Faction Demands, because usually when they do so I'm strong enough (enough soldiers on my own, or lots of gold saved up for mercenaries, or lots of allies) that I can tell them to ♥♥♥♥ off.

What's that, you insist on an Elective Monarchy? Well I hope you like spending the rest of your life in prison because I can raise far more soldiers than you can!

You want me to Abdicate from my throne? How about I make your head abdicate from your shoulders!

[barracuda-rostigraben]

Originally posted by Das Boot:

Originally posted by Talezteller:

- Have a chance to trigger an event in which vassals, or heirs, demand the abdication of the ruler

You want me to Abdicate from my throne? How about I make your head abdicate from your shoulders!

Quality thinking.

[Sergent H]

Originally posted by Talezteller:

- If a heir marries a commoner, they become disinherited

Since it's you who married your heir, it would mean you could choose your heir by marrying him "wrongly" and bypass succession law no?

[Talezteller]

Originally posted by Sergent H:

Originally posted by Talezteller:

- If a heir marries a commoner, they become disinherited

Since it's you who married your heir, it would mean you could choose your heir by marrying him "wrongly" and bypass succession law no?

There is an event by which your sons can marry without your consent, I think

[kesat]

Regarding historical context a morganatic marriage isn't much of a problem itself, these were legitimate in every way. But the children didn't had any succession rights and were just considered to be legitimate members of the dynasty. Which would actually pretty useful in case of CK2 (being able to marry anyone, but not having to deal with claimants).

At least this was the case in the 16th century and later on... didn't find any examples for the CK timeframe.

[RinkRat]

It's a good starting idea. But I think might need to be expanded on. Like the more powerful the council has the bigger the penalty to prestige and opinion. But if an absolute ruler no hit. Since it's your word that is law.



Also I wish there was more stuff to spend prestige on. Like maybe increase the strength of your claim

So weak claim ->strong claim (lose on death) ->:strong claim inherentable . Cause once you refom from tribal the prestige loses its importance

[Exothermically Eclectic]

That would make a lot of smaller, religiously isolated realms effectively unplayable.Not to mention really ♥♥♥♥ a lot of stuff up for just about everyone at game start, where there are few if any noble women to go around and won't be many more for over a decade. Sounds like a terrible idea.

[Panicsferd]

I would say no to this and anyways the only time I myself have ever married a low bourn is if I only have a daughter (I have agnatic-cognatic primogenure) and no sons and if she ends up being duchess/queen/emperoress then I normally would marry her to some lowbourn coutier to make sure I can do a matrinial marriage... otherwise it is hard to get matrinial marriages with kings/dukes sons or sons from dynasties for that matter.

Otherwise normally for my sons I always marry them to the daughters of kings to create non-agression pacts and maybe alliances.

[Varainger]

No

Lowborns in game can be thought of lowborn nobility, not commoners.
They are first of all a pool of women to marry. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Hopeless Knight]

Originally posted by Yriel:

That would make a lot of smaller, religiously isolated realms effectively unplayable.Not to mention really ♥♥♥♥ a lot of stuff up for just about everyone at game start, where there are few if any noble women to go around and won't be many more for over a decade. Sounds like a terrible idea.

This guy has a point ...It's just unnecessary features and dificulty

[Soteria]

Originally posted by Varainger:

No

Lowborns in game can be thought of lowborn nobility, not commoners.
They are first of all a pool of women to marry. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly--though some of them are clearly just rich commoners, but even then marrying for wealth rather than blood is not exactly a new idea.

And I'd add that there's already a penalty in that you miss out on a non-aggression pact. I'd certainly be fine with them scaling the prestige penalty based on your annual gain. Right now marrying a commoner can be somewhat dangerous in the early game if it puts you in the hole, but once your dynasty prestige gets high enough you'll always be able to cover the deficit.

[Talezteller]

Originally posted by Varainger:

No

They are first of all a pool of women to marry. Nothing more, nothing less.

How about prestige penalty scaling with your total prestige?
It's fine for some small count/chief/duke to marry a nobody, but when the Holy Roman Emperor does the same, many an eyebrow will be raised.

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by Talezteller:

Originally posted by Varainger:

No

They are first of all a pool of women to marry. Nothing more, nothing less.

How about prestige penalty scaling with your total prestige?
It's fine for some small count/chief/duke to marry a nobody, but when the Holy Roman Emperor does the same, many an eyebrow will be raised.

There already is something like that, but based on title instead. A lowborn woman marrying a baron or a mayor is no big deal, but one marrying an Emperor is very big.

The reason it doesn't lead to the Emperor losing his position is that if he's strong enough to have lasted on the throne for this long then he's strong enough to marry whoever he damn well pleases.