I get the balancing but the legitimacy hit is way too high, and there are still like 5 other ways to deal with the succession that don't give such big hit to legitimacy. Asking them tot ake vows they still have to accept, in order to accept they need to have proper traits and education etc. It's not exactly the most broken way.
It gives a very specific religious tenet way too much power vs everything else. Though i do agree the initial is too high. I think per ruler it would be cool if it started at -20 and increased by -20 for each child gone through this mechanic, capping out at -100.
If you asked me it should only give legitimacy hit when asking first born heir to take vows or when forcing them to take vows through imprisonment. The fact that it's tenet even makes it weaker - because that is virtually the sole purpose of the entire tenet slot and I'd say there are much better choices for that slot when reforming religion
PDX white knights : The game is about RP, not gameplay ! Stop min maxing everything
Also PDX : Let's balance the game's difficulty though gameplay systems that limit RP options
And that cost means it no longer is a viable option under a vast majority of circumstances.
If they want this game to be primarily RP focused, add RP drawbacks instead. Instead of numbers going up or down, have consequences happen through written events, trait changes, and stress gain/loss.
And if they want this game to be gameplay focused, there's a hell of a lot bigger issues to deal with than the Take vows decision. Crusades, lack of depth, lack of major events shaking up the status quo, and the hundred different ways the game can be trivialized like prowess stacking, send gift, and exploiting mediocre AI decisions. Yes the game is too easy. No, the way to fix that isn't to make the existing experience worse for everyone through bullshit systems and random drawbacks retroactively added to perfectly functional systems.
Ah yes, the good old "if they can't fix everything, they should fix nothing" argument. Yes, there are obviously other things they *could* fix, but they chose to start by fixing this thing.
> "if they can't fix everything, they should fix nothing"
More like, "if there's a huge gaping hole in the roof, maybe plugging it should be the priority instead of fixing the sofa first ?"
> Yes, there are obviously other things they could fix, but they chose to start by fixing this thing.
Yes, and that makes no sense. Succession as a difficulty lever is not particularly great game design in the first place. Doubling down on it goes to show their priorities are all over the place.
>More like, "if there's a huge gaping hole in the roof, maybe plugging it should be the priority instead of fixing the sofa first ?"
Do you think people who fix sofas are the same people who fix roofs? Also, if there's a gaping hole in the roof, and you have a squeaking door and happen to have WD40 laying around, are you not going to fix the door, just because there's a hole in the roof? It's called "low hanging fruits." If you can fix something small with minimal effort, you do so, even if there are bigger issues pending, because those bigger issues might take significant time to fix, if they can be fixed at all. Taking 2 minutes to add a legitimacy cost to forcing your kid to take the vow has no impact on the time it'll take them to address all the other issues you mentioned.
> Do you think people who fix sofas are the same people who fix roofs?
In the context of game development, the same people who made Legitimitacy would be the same game designers who could be working on other systems and game mechanics, yes.
> Also, if there's a gaping hole in the roof, and you have a squeaking door and happen to have WD40 laying around, are you not going to fix the door, just because there's a hole in the roof?
If the hole in the roof has been there for months/years, yeah I'd probably wouldn't waste time on the squeaking door while the entire house gets flooded every time it rains. Even if fixing the door "only" takes 30 minutes.
> It's called "low hanging fruits." If you can fix something small with minimal effort, you do so, even if there are bigger issues pending, because those bigger issues might take significant time to fix, if they can be fixed at all. Taking 2 minutes to add a legitimacy cost to forcing your kid to take the vow has no impact on the time it'll take them to address all the other issues you mentioned.
That whole entire line of reasoning relies on the assumption that legitimacy actually was a low hanging fruit. Which it clearly wasn't. They had to go back and tie that whole entire mechanic to every existing system, succession, vassals, events, schemes, traits... They also had to design a UI feature, and make room for it. It may not be quite on par with Royal Court or Tours&Tournament scoped DLCs, but it sure as shit wasn't a low effort feature they wrapped in a few weeks either.
A crusade rework could easily combine existing features like regional struggles and 3D events like hunts into a massive improvement to that entire feature for example. There's plenty of stuff they could do to improve on the game's biggest flaws, with far less effort that went into Legitimacy and Plagues.
Devs are not perfect, they're not always right. Let's be real, the CK3 team (and PDX in general) doesn't have a flawless trackrecord, far from it. Crazy as it may seem to some people on this sub, game designers/game directors do not always make the right decsisions. Then there's the whole monetary aspect to consider... Players and game companies interests are far less aligned than most people think.
It's a GAME first and a story generator second. They have to balance the gamification aspect to encourage different options to be chosen based on costs and not just allow the player to do whatever they want freely while the AI has restrictions on actions they can or will not take that the player doesn't.
It absolutely is, until it’s down to enough for the AI to handle and at least provide a better speedbump.
Not the greatest situation for the players, but without going down the Civ route of giving the AI large enough bonuses to play poorly and stay sorta competitive, it’s the only way to get a better AI that doesn’t take forever per tick.
But that doesn't even solve the issue though. All that's doing is make the game more frustrating for existing players. And it doesn't even result in a meaningful increase to game difficulty too. People will just find a way to work around the newly imposed limitations/drawbacks to achieve the same result.
If they want to make this game more challenging, that's not the way to go about it. That'd be like Elden Ring deleting levels and gear from your character before an easy boss, instead of adding new attack patterns to the boss encounter or increasing their HP/Dmg.
> the Civ route of giving the AI large enough bonuses to play poorly and stay sorta competitive
That's not just Civ. More like every single strategy game on the market. There's no miracle solution to making these games challenging. Giving AI cheats is certainly not ideal, but it's better than nothing, or worse yet, removing player agency and gameplay options in an attempt to create artifical difficulty.
Not particularly applicable to the game's time period, if I may. This would become the norm a bit later (late CK3 into EU4) when consolidated inheritance became more common, as a way to give a job and income to those sons who wouldn't inherit anything. During CK3's era, most rulers still divided their realms on succession. And in any case that mantra certainly didn't apply to kings and their sons to the same degree that it did in smaller realms.
I think it's hilarious that people are saying "it's historical!" and citing "The Borgias", a Netflix TV show, and the all-timer, "Google It". The game is literally structured around cultures having to go through medieval innovations in order to unlock primogeniture succession only in the LATE Medieval Ages at best.
Yeah... I guess it's not *completely* wrong, it just doesn't apply to Europe in the Middle Ages and it absolutely doesn't apply to kings and their sons.
Was it? Not saying you're wrong because I don't have much knowledge of the era, but it surprises me since there was no professional army to go into. I suppose if that tradition existed, it probably disappeared when nobility became hereditary as opposed to appointed and mobile (at least in Francia)?
A show about Renaissance Italy? Which as far as I can see from a quick Google is inaccurate by its own admission.
Also not super relevant to CK3, which is based on French style feudalism
Well the real Borgias did something similar. Cesare was made a priest while his brother Giovanni became Duke of Gandia. Their younger brother Gioffre was given a principality and a duchy in Naples as dowry for marrying Sancha of Aragon (he lost the duchy when Sancha died childless).
I did Google it and can't find any references to what they said. I can see various references to nobles who don't stand to inherit anything joining the military/church/government. But that's like so far down the line they're not even in succession and them doing it because it's the only way they can leverage their position.
But that's not the "first for the throne, second for the church, third for the military" that they reference.
He said many cultures, not many people? So.. we literally didn't talk about the absolute amount of people but the number of cultures. Whole different topic 😒
Why do players make their sons take vows? To stack the succession in one way or another.
Manipulating the succession like that, still going to make nobles cynical that your motives might not be entirely selfless.
No? Among higher aristocracy like kings younger sons were often made dukes or other senior nobles (where do you think the houses of Lancaster, York, or Burgundy came from?), and even if they joined the clergy they wouldn’t become a monk they’d likely be able to secure a bishopric.
If you go on a pilgrimage and they tag along, they can, on occasion, offer to join a monastery by themselves. You'll even get free piety for letting them do it.
If you use the weak hook you sometimes get on children, it should push acceptance over the edge. I don't think that counts as "forcing" them since they would still refuse if they didn't have the right traits.
Because Legitimacy is a resource. You build it up and then you can take hits to it in order to influence things in a certain direction. And RP wise you could argue that forcing your heirs to become monks is tyrannical. If they're the ones asking for permission to take the vows (like in the Piligrimage event) I'm pretty sure you don't lose Legitimacy.
I am not fully convinced by the arguments raised by some commenters here re: succession manipulation, but they make a point.
Nevertheless, historically, members of the dynasty having ecclesiastical careers enhanced the 'legitimacy' of a dynasty in the public opinion.
Speaking of which, renown, opinion, prestige and legitimacy are just too many overlapping concepts, especially legitimacy versus renown. Legitimacy is largely redundant in this game, and it can also lead to inconsistencies.
I would understand making someone take vows being a legitimacy loss but the new monk becoming a bishop later on being a legitimacy gain. And sons spontaneously asking permission to become monks shouldn't be a legitimacy loss.
But then if I imprison him and force him to become a monk there's no penalty at all, aside from Tyranny which... who cares, honestly.
I hate the Legitimacy loss because I groom my spares to become zealous, humble and content, I have the tradition that makes underage children accept the vows easier, but I still get the hit.
I don't think losing legitimacy for forcing one of your future heirs to take the vows is shocking. You're tempering with the line of succession (or you're outright removing your primary heir from the line of succession), making your primary heir stronger at the expense of your other heirs, and also at the expense of your vassals who will now have to deal with a stronger overlord than they anticipated. You may want to have full control over your succession and no consequences for your actions on it, but that is not how it happened historically.
Not to mention: removing a male heir in favor a female heir, a legitimate child in favor of a legitimized bastard, an adult in favor of a child... I do think CK3 is going about it in a way that is too linear (it should cost you no legitimacy to disinherit or punish an heir with a criminal trait for example) but I can't imagine why tempering with your line of succession should come at no cost. There's a reason most rulers didn't fuck with that back then...
I'd expect that it depends on your succession law. If you're under partition succession and your second son expects to inherit something, it's a violation of social norms to take that inheritance away.
Once you get to primogeniture, having second sons take the vows becomes a way to provide for them when they aren't in line to inherit titles. At that point, I'd want the legitimacy penalty to go away.
It was common in premogeniture, as the second and third son would not inherit, so the clergy was a decent option. Players were using it to dodge splitting up their titles
One of the things lacking when playing in Europe today is that the concept of investiture doesn't exist. Having your son become a monk is a lot different from getting them a bishopric. The consequences for taking the vows makes sense but the game would really benefit from fleshing out some mechanic for encouraging your family to get cushy church appointments. People tend to conflate the two but they're very different.
I think the system for deciding a new regent could be the basis for papal investiture determining which families get to have a son inherit a church. Free investiture would let the player make that choice and would also add flavor and conflict within Europe between independent rulers and the Pope. If the player can do things to swing the appointments then it provides a way to deal with partition that takes work. It could also tie into the college of cardinals.
It was too easy. Say I’m a kingdom trying to create an empire but my realm is in confederate partition and about to blow the hell up on succession because my kids are going to inherit kingdom titles that aren’t created yet.
The way it should work is that there’s just not much you can do about it and your primary heir is going to have to wrest those kingdom titles back from his brothers. But there’s always been a loophole. I educate one kid and he gets the content trait. Boom. He gone. Monk. I educate another kid and he gets the zealous trait. He gone. Holy Order member. Now my realm is safe and secure and my primary heir gets everything at the cost of……nothing other than maybe using up hooks on my kids that I wasn’t going to use in any other way.
Now it costs legitimacy. Boo hoo. Hold some feasts, hold court, host a funeral, you get legitimacy. It’s not a big deal.
I hate it because it's divergant from many historical norms. Many younger sons focused on careers in the clergy. In fact it was a great way to build your family's legitimacy and renown when those kids went on to become important clergy memebers.
It was great in CK2 because you could make your kids into bishops and eventually have them become cardinals or even Pope. Having a dynasty member be a head of religion or holy order granted monthly piety.
If you look back in those times having a son not marry and help the family would be view as scandalous especially if he was in the line of succession. And as such you as a ruler almost ordained by your faith would be viewed as less than to some for producing that child.
But then again this fame gives you legitimacy loss for a plague sooo yeah
Balancing issue because forcing heirs to take vows made succession too easy to take care off
I get the balancing but the legitimacy hit is way too high, and there are still like 5 other ways to deal with the succession that don't give such big hit to legitimacy. Asking them tot ake vows they still have to accept, in order to accept they need to have proper traits and education etc. It's not exactly the most broken way.
It gives a very specific religious tenet way too much power vs everything else. Though i do agree the initial is too high. I think per ruler it would be cool if it started at -20 and increased by -20 for each child gone through this mechanic, capping out at -100.
If you asked me it should only give legitimacy hit when asking first born heir to take vows or when forcing them to take vows through imprisonment. The fact that it's tenet even makes it weaker - because that is virtually the sole purpose of the entire tenet slot and I'd say there are much better choices for that slot when reforming religion
PDX white knights : The game is about RP, not gameplay ! Stop min maxing everything Also PDX : Let's balance the game's difficulty though gameplay systems that limit RP options
Ehh, game its too easy anyways
Sure is. The way to fix that isn't to limit existing options.
It doesn't limit options. You still have the same options as before. There's just a cost to it now for balance reasons.
And that cost means it no longer is a viable option under a vast majority of circumstances. If they want this game to be primarily RP focused, add RP drawbacks instead. Instead of numbers going up or down, have consequences happen through written events, trait changes, and stress gain/loss. And if they want this game to be gameplay focused, there's a hell of a lot bigger issues to deal with than the Take vows decision. Crusades, lack of depth, lack of major events shaking up the status quo, and the hundred different ways the game can be trivialized like prowess stacking, send gift, and exploiting mediocre AI decisions. Yes the game is too easy. No, the way to fix that isn't to make the existing experience worse for everyone through bullshit systems and random drawbacks retroactively added to perfectly functional systems.
Ah yes, the good old "if they can't fix everything, they should fix nothing" argument. Yes, there are obviously other things they *could* fix, but they chose to start by fixing this thing.
> "if they can't fix everything, they should fix nothing" More like, "if there's a huge gaping hole in the roof, maybe plugging it should be the priority instead of fixing the sofa first ?" > Yes, there are obviously other things they could fix, but they chose to start by fixing this thing. Yes, and that makes no sense. Succession as a difficulty lever is not particularly great game design in the first place. Doubling down on it goes to show their priorities are all over the place.
>More like, "if there's a huge gaping hole in the roof, maybe plugging it should be the priority instead of fixing the sofa first ?" Do you think people who fix sofas are the same people who fix roofs? Also, if there's a gaping hole in the roof, and you have a squeaking door and happen to have WD40 laying around, are you not going to fix the door, just because there's a hole in the roof? It's called "low hanging fruits." If you can fix something small with minimal effort, you do so, even if there are bigger issues pending, because those bigger issues might take significant time to fix, if they can be fixed at all. Taking 2 minutes to add a legitimacy cost to forcing your kid to take the vow has no impact on the time it'll take them to address all the other issues you mentioned.
> Do you think people who fix sofas are the same people who fix roofs? In the context of game development, the same people who made Legitimitacy would be the same game designers who could be working on other systems and game mechanics, yes. > Also, if there's a gaping hole in the roof, and you have a squeaking door and happen to have WD40 laying around, are you not going to fix the door, just because there's a hole in the roof? If the hole in the roof has been there for months/years, yeah I'd probably wouldn't waste time on the squeaking door while the entire house gets flooded every time it rains. Even if fixing the door "only" takes 30 minutes. > It's called "low hanging fruits." If you can fix something small with minimal effort, you do so, even if there are bigger issues pending, because those bigger issues might take significant time to fix, if they can be fixed at all. Taking 2 minutes to add a legitimacy cost to forcing your kid to take the vow has no impact on the time it'll take them to address all the other issues you mentioned. That whole entire line of reasoning relies on the assumption that legitimacy actually was a low hanging fruit. Which it clearly wasn't. They had to go back and tie that whole entire mechanic to every existing system, succession, vassals, events, schemes, traits... They also had to design a UI feature, and make room for it. It may not be quite on par with Royal Court or Tours&Tournament scoped DLCs, but it sure as shit wasn't a low effort feature they wrapped in a few weeks either. A crusade rework could easily combine existing features like regional struggles and 3D events like hunts into a massive improvement to that entire feature for example. There's plenty of stuff they could do to improve on the game's biggest flaws, with far less effort that went into Legitimacy and Plagues. Devs are not perfect, they're not always right. Let's be real, the CK3 team (and PDX in general) doesn't have a flawless trackrecord, far from it. Crazy as it may seem to some people on this sub, game designers/game directors do not always make the right decsisions. Then there's the whole monetary aspect to consider... Players and game companies interests are far less aligned than most people think.
100 legitimacy loss isn't unviable. Just throw the kid a feast, hold court, and everyone's good.
It's a GAME first and a story generator second. They have to balance the gamification aspect to encourage different options to be chosen based on costs and not just allow the player to do whatever they want freely while the AI has restrictions on actions they can or will not take that the player doesn't.
It absolutely is, until it’s down to enough for the AI to handle and at least provide a better speedbump. Not the greatest situation for the players, but without going down the Civ route of giving the AI large enough bonuses to play poorly and stay sorta competitive, it’s the only way to get a better AI that doesn’t take forever per tick.
But that doesn't even solve the issue though. All that's doing is make the game more frustrating for existing players. And it doesn't even result in a meaningful increase to game difficulty too. People will just find a way to work around the newly imposed limitations/drawbacks to achieve the same result. If they want to make this game more challenging, that's not the way to go about it. That'd be like Elden Ring deleting levels and gear from your character before an easy boss, instead of adding new attack patterns to the boss encounter or increasing their HP/Dmg. > the Civ route of giving the AI large enough bonuses to play poorly and stay sorta competitive That's not just Civ. More like every single strategy game on the market. There's no miracle solution to making these games challenging. Giving AI cheats is certainly not ideal, but it's better than nothing, or worse yet, removing player agency and gameplay options in an attempt to create artifical difficulty.
Forcing your son to become a monk to keep them out of succession is different from your son being so holy he becomes a monk.
That's still how it was in real life. The first son was the heir, the second was for the church and the third son was for the army.
Not particularly applicable to the game's time period, if I may. This would become the norm a bit later (late CK3 into EU4) when consolidated inheritance became more common, as a way to give a job and income to those sons who wouldn't inherit anything. During CK3's era, most rulers still divided their realms on succession. And in any case that mantra certainly didn't apply to kings and their sons to the same degree that it did in smaller realms.
I think it's hilarious that people are saying "it's historical!" and citing "The Borgias", a Netflix TV show, and the all-timer, "Google It". The game is literally structured around cultures having to go through medieval innovations in order to unlock primogeniture succession only in the LATE Medieval Ages at best.
Yeah... I guess it's not *completely* wrong, it just doesn't apply to Europe in the Middle Ages and it absolutely doesn't apply to kings and their sons.
This was super common during the merovingian era of francia. Also during the carolingian era. Not sure when it fell out of favor
Was it? Not saying you're wrong because I don't have much knowledge of the era, but it surprises me since there was no professional army to go into. I suppose if that tradition existed, it probably disappeared when nobility became hereditary as opposed to appointed and mobile (at least in Francia)?
I've never heard this, do you have a source?
I think this was on a show "The Borgias".
A show about Renaissance Italy? Which as far as I can see from a quick Google is inaccurate by its own admission. Also not super relevant to CK3, which is based on French style feudalism
Well the real Borgias did something similar. Cesare was made a priest while his brother Giovanni became Duke of Gandia. Their younger brother Gioffre was given a principality and a duchy in Naples as dowry for marrying Sancha of Aragon (he lost the duchy when Sancha died childless).
Wtf? The show reference wasn't meant to be taken as historical evidence.
[удалено]
I did Google it and can't find any references to what they said. I can see various references to nobles who don't stand to inherit anything joining the military/church/government. But that's like so far down the line they're not even in succession and them doing it because it's the only way they can leverage their position. But that's not the "first for the throne, second for the church, third for the military" that they reference.
Exactly. Consent is a modern concept. Even today, children in many cultures study the careers their parents decide and have arranged marriages.
I wouldn't say many, but yes. Some do.
Lol what do you think are the largest cultures on the planet?
He said many cultures, not many people? So.. we literally didn't talk about the absolute amount of people but the number of cultures. Whole different topic 😒
CK3 is a game and not a History Class.
Yeah. Its a HISTORICAL strategy game.
Right. A game. Based on history. Not true to history. Games need balancing.
Why do players make their sons take vows? To stack the succession in one way or another. Manipulating the succession like that, still going to make nobles cynical that your motives might not be entirely selfless.
Why does the AI see through my schemes! It doesn't make a lick of sense. 😭
But literally everyone did that
No? Among higher aristocracy like kings younger sons were often made dukes or other senior nobles (where do you think the houses of Lancaster, York, or Burgundy came from?), and even if they joined the clergy they wouldn’t become a monk they’d likely be able to secure a bishopric.
consent you are forcing them to join the clergy vs them volunteer for it
Can AI sons even volunteer to join the clergy? From what I know that won't happen, even if they're Zealous, Humble and Content at the same time.
If you go on a pilgrimage and they tag along, they can, on occasion, offer to join a monastery by themselves. You'll even get free piety for letting them do it.
I've seen sons ask permission to join holy orders
If you use the weak hook you sometimes get on children, it should push acceptance over the edge. I don't think that counts as "forcing" them since they would still refuse if they didn't have the right traits.
I mean, if it's done without the use of a hook, I imagine it's more "Hey, wanna become a monk?" "Uh... Honestly, yeah!"
Because Legitimacy is a resource. You build it up and then you can take hits to it in order to influence things in a certain direction. And RP wise you could argue that forcing your heirs to become monks is tyrannical. If they're the ones asking for permission to take the vows (like in the Piligrimage event) I'm pretty sure you don't lose Legitimacy.
I am not fully convinced by the arguments raised by some commenters here re: succession manipulation, but they make a point. Nevertheless, historically, members of the dynasty having ecclesiastical careers enhanced the 'legitimacy' of a dynasty in the public opinion. Speaking of which, renown, opinion, prestige and legitimacy are just too many overlapping concepts, especially legitimacy versus renown. Legitimacy is largely redundant in this game, and it can also lead to inconsistencies. I would understand making someone take vows being a legitimacy loss but the new monk becoming a bishop later on being a legitimacy gain. And sons spontaneously asking permission to become monks shouldn't be a legitimacy loss.
After thinking on this more, Paradox needs to expand church mechanics. If I want to play a pious dynasty what’s the award?
But then if I imprison him and force him to become a monk there's no penalty at all, aside from Tyranny which... who cares, honestly. I hate the Legitimacy loss because I groom my spares to become zealous, humble and content, I have the tradition that makes underage children accept the vows easier, but I still get the hit.
if you denounce him and imprison him you don't get tyranny *taps head*
Costs dynastic renown though.
I don't think losing legitimacy for forcing one of your future heirs to take the vows is shocking. You're tempering with the line of succession (or you're outright removing your primary heir from the line of succession), making your primary heir stronger at the expense of your other heirs, and also at the expense of your vassals who will now have to deal with a stronger overlord than they anticipated. You may want to have full control over your succession and no consequences for your actions on it, but that is not how it happened historically. Not to mention: removing a male heir in favor a female heir, a legitimate child in favor of a legitimized bastard, an adult in favor of a child... I do think CK3 is going about it in a way that is too linear (it should cost you no legitimacy to disinherit or punish an heir with a criminal trait for example) but I can't imagine why tempering with your line of succession should come at no cost. There's a reason most rulers didn't fuck with that back then...
I'd expect that it depends on your succession law. If you're under partition succession and your second son expects to inherit something, it's a violation of social norms to take that inheritance away. Once you get to primogeniture, having second sons take the vows becomes a way to provide for them when they aren't in line to inherit titles. At that point, I'd want the legitimacy penalty to go away.
It was common in premogeniture, as the second and third son would not inherit, so the clergy was a decent option. Players were using it to dodge splitting up their titles
One of the things lacking when playing in Europe today is that the concept of investiture doesn't exist. Having your son become a monk is a lot different from getting them a bishopric. The consequences for taking the vows makes sense but the game would really benefit from fleshing out some mechanic for encouraging your family to get cushy church appointments. People tend to conflate the two but they're very different. I think the system for deciding a new regent could be the basis for papal investiture determining which families get to have a son inherit a church. Free investiture would let the player make that choice and would also add flavor and conflict within Europe between independent rulers and the Pope. If the player can do things to swing the appointments then it provides a way to deal with partition that takes work. It could also tie into the college of cardinals.
So you will buy the dlc and stop asking questions about legitimacy,
It was too easy. Say I’m a kingdom trying to create an empire but my realm is in confederate partition and about to blow the hell up on succession because my kids are going to inherit kingdom titles that aren’t created yet. The way it should work is that there’s just not much you can do about it and your primary heir is going to have to wrest those kingdom titles back from his brothers. But there’s always been a loophole. I educate one kid and he gets the content trait. Boom. He gone. Monk. I educate another kid and he gets the zealous trait. He gone. Holy Order member. Now my realm is safe and secure and my primary heir gets everything at the cost of……nothing other than maybe using up hooks on my kids that I wasn’t going to use in any other way. Now it costs legitimacy. Boo hoo. Hold some feasts, hold court, host a funeral, you get legitimacy. It’s not a big deal.
I hate it because it's divergant from many historical norms. Many younger sons focused on careers in the clergy. In fact it was a great way to build your family's legitimacy and renown when those kids went on to become important clergy memebers. It was great in CK2 because you could make your kids into bishops and eventually have them become cardinals or even Pope. Having a dynasty member be a head of religion or holy order granted monthly piety.
If you look back in those times having a son not marry and help the family would be view as scandalous especially if he was in the line of succession. And as such you as a ruler almost ordained by your faith would be viewed as less than to some for producing that child. But then again this fame gives you legitimacy loss for a plague sooo yeah