The system is fine for multiplayer games where balance is key.  But by your own admission you expect most people to play single player.  In single player games it will be more fun if opponent AI "styles" are hidden from the player at initiation. 

Second, I would much rather my soverign gain traits, achievements, and weaknesses based on in game decisions or occurences.  I would much rather take on quests that force me to choose between military vs economy; or exploration vs research.  I would like to win a battle with inferior troops and be labeled a tactician.  For example: your soverign or decendant is severly damaged in battle but survives and gains the "tough nut" trait that increases their armor rating by 100% when health is below 25%.  This is the type of situational bonuses that add real flavor and YOU the player can remember when you earned this reputation. 

As others have mentioned I love how this is starting to shape up.

As an additional suggestion I'd like to see the History be chosen for you, where you have no choice in this as it is your history or how you were raised.  However, faction should play some of a role here.  For example, you take a faction known for Diplomacy, chances are that the histories tied to that have a better chance of appearing while the others less so.  So Bard, Assassin, and Swindler might come up more, while Warlord would happen much less often.  In addition that choice changes your attributes.  In your example you give us 10 points to use, instead only allow 5, with 5 having been used based upon the history that was chosen for you.  Thus, you don't have any control of your history previous to the start of the game, but going forward you can choose how to go from there with your talents and weaknesses, etc.

If theres going to be points i'd like to have the choice as well, though i'm a little confused as to how an almighty channeler would have a history so... normal? i guess is what i'm trying to say?

does the story go something like this?: A hunter walks into the woods, and near the crystal shard that the villagers worship is a baby born of nothing but pure magic... of course the hunter wouldn't know this yet and so he takes the baby home to his wife whos been trying to have a baby but couldn't (thats how these stories go ) And so the hunter raises the boy/girl who will one day be an almighty channeler in the ways of hunting? Ok thats gotta be it  

Oh, and I love the idea for weaknesses, definitely a necessity, thanks for the update Frogboy!

I'd personally like to see more modifiers for each category, like a mixed bag of benefits and penalties: soldiers better at fighting but worse at diplomacy, assassins worse at prolonged combat but better at surprise, etc.

But here are some random ideas for additional ones:

Soldier: Better at personal combat. (No bonus to troops.) I'd really love something that would let me make my sovereign a one man army who would rather wade onto the field himself to ruin the opposing force. (Many precidents in Fantasy.) Worse/blunt diplomacy.

Guard: Extra defense to army/cities. Maybe better armor.

Knight: Some honor/political bonuses and combat bonuses, penalties with ranged attacks/limits in combat options.

Archer: Better at ranged combat, worse at melee, etc.

I certainly think we could add more variety both to the selections each, and add more selections though.

A LOT of the traits just don't make sense.

1.Ugly- less children.

Since when has being ugly prevented a rich and powerful leader from producing children?

2. Inefficient- construction penalty for city your sovereign is in.

So when he leaves the city, it works better? How does that work? Wouldn't he stop adding(or taking away in this case) to the construction process after seeing how much of a problem his contribution is? Maybe you could combine traits, such as arrogance AND innefficiency to create this effect, but just being inefficient doesnt make sense in regards to producing the consequence described above. Sovereign SPECIFIC actions should be less efficient, not tasks that say, a general or lord of a city could handle.

A beautiful Sovereign surely has better chances of bastards than an ugly one (let's ignore for now the monetary power part, or the charisma one).

Base Attributes:
All default to 10. You get 10 points to add from this. Each point over 10 represents a 10% bonus to whatever it is applied to. So a strength of 11 would be Attack = Base Attack X (11/10).  The wording is a bit unclear, will the stats also contribute to the empire? Or just the Channeler?

History:

· Hunter. (“game” food resource becomes available) Historicly this seems off. Hunting is the most primitive form of food gathering aside from grazing, whether its humans or animals.  Perhaps you get more food for "game" food resources?

Talents:

· Naturalist. Starting position slightly nicer. This and the Outcast weakness seem to be lacking the longevity of their counterparts. Perhaps in addition to the nicer starting position you also gain some kind of bonus.  Outcast could take a diplomacy penalty. This would give them a more lasting impact.

Weaknesses: Insane and Inefficient all should be kingdom wide, Cruel will depend on combat, and how armies are made but it too should most likely be kingdom wide. Ugly should simply be renamed to Impotent as someone suggested.

· Insane. Prestige of any city he is in is lower.

· Cruel. Morale of armies he is with is lower.

· Ugly. Fewer children

· Inefficient. Provides construction penalty in cities he’s in.

It's hard to tell from the list without much game experience, I get the feeling that these particular characteristics may be missing bonusers for particular playstyles.  (Though more could easily be added in.)  The general flavor seems good, though.

I'm aklso surprised people are arguing the "ugly" part, since although it isn't a perfect fit it does fit quite well with having less kids.

I think it fits quite well myself.

Maybe an alternate mechanic for the complainers would be that it causes you to get married later in life? This would reduce the overall amount of time  you'd have to produce children and not let you get the jump start on placing the firstborn, etc.

Looking good, though I still really like the idea of simultaneously positive/negative traits for more definition (to accompany the other strengths/weaknesses).  History in particular adds a little flavor, which is the one place I feel Stardock's otherwise brilliant games have sometimes struggled.  MoM indicated ranks with books, and it was a nice touch.  Can you get away with that as a nice homage without any fear of "those who sat their lazy tushies on the MoM license and also butchered distribution and marketing for the D&D franchise?" (El furtively looks around for Atari's legal department) Failing that, maybe something like staves, or orbs, etc. 

1. You could marry for power, but I doubt you would as eager for the "act" if you don't find your partner attractive. Sure if your husband can level citys with the power of his mind, you probably would agree to try for childeren, but only when he propose it.

2. As for this, maybe all sovereigns give a bonus for construction in any city he's in, but an Inefficient one give a smaller bonus?

I think "ugliness" should make it harder for one to be married off, but the name would be more important (if we do get lords and lady of a court, this could be the prestige of the city they are in!   ). You know, I could swear that in some journal entry a long time ago Frogboy said something about having uglier daughters would make them harder to marry off... Im almost positive... hold on, I'll post and be back