Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Sengoku - Development Diary #10 - Honour

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
Beamed said:
I'd like to believe that Paradox thought through the seppuku feature and believe they will implement it well.

However, I am more concerned about the idea that Bushido and chivalry both were big things in their respective times, and not post-period romantic ideas of the era. :(
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Samurai cheated, lied, betrayed, plotted, and found the rifle to be a lovely weapon to use and mass produce.
 
Last edited:
Orinsul said:
I'll echo others in the statement that a suicide button with a positive effect isnt a good idea, strays alittle to close to evil and illegality too. The game shouldnt reward the player for his character failing utterly and certainly no game should reward or give positive motivation for a suicide. Not just because it has moral implications but also because it rings a little to close to endorsement or glorification of suicide which is a serious crime in itself in most western countries. and although this game probably isnt mainstream enough for it to become an issue if the wrong paper got wind of it on a slow news day it could still bring a reputation onto paradox that wouldnt be desired.
It should be an option with negative consequences only. Leave beneficial rewards for those actions which are worthy of them. Rather than putting in rewards and benefits to give motivation for the player to take bad actions.
Suicide should not be rewarded. at the very least it shouldnt be presented as the easy-way-out or as a quick way to get a few points as it is most certainly neither. As a way of getting rid of a failing character whose mere existance is dragging down the honour points then it might be acceptable, but there should not be instant point rewards or any beneficial gains from such an act. It should be a negative option with negative effects taken rarely and when there is no other option, not a positive option with benefits taken to get the honour points up in a hurry.

But the rest of it sounds good, does honour always reduce over time if nothing is happening like with prestige? So extended inaction would lead to losing the game?
Click to expand...

we're not asking for it to be rewarded really, i'm just saying, there are cases where you really need to off your ruler because he plainly sucks and is old, happened often in CK, we're just worried this'll happen again, besides, others already suggested to have that make certain vassals and friends follow suit, that means you'll be losing some loyal vassals which is never good.

and to be quite honest, i love having succession disputes every now and then, and at times -when bored- i actually TRY to cause one in my games...

besides, i believe we're all educated and sane enough to know that suicide is plain wrong, and i don't believe anyone who likes Paradox games isn't capable of figuring that out since the games themselves do require some sanity, brains and common-sense to actually win it...

EDIT:

an alternate way around this, maybe you can allow the ruler to step-down in favor for his heir? quite a few did that, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu.
 
Last edited:
soran said:
an alternate way around this, maybe you can allow the ruler to step-down in favor for his heir? quite a few did that, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. They ruled from behind the curtains.

Quite a few villainous daimyo, however, were either banished (Takeda Nobutora), murdered in the back, (Saito Dosan), or destroyed (Oda Nobunaga, Matsunaga Hisahide).
 
well, they did step-down, publicly, Hidetada controlled the Shogunate, attending meetings etc etc, yes they had power, but on the front, there was another ruler.

we can have the former daimyo still influence the generals? and limit your power maybe?
 
Darkrenown said:
No, but you can ask your vassal Daimyos to.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I'm guessing that "asking" your vassals requires certain pre-requisites to be fulfilled, as well as certain current conditions to be in effect.

Would I be correct in assuming that you can only ask vassals when their honor is low AND they have just failed at something really important? (I'm thinking about lost battles and sieges here.)
 
soran said:
we're not asking for it to be rewarded really, i'm just saying, there are cases where you really need to off your ruler because he plainly sucks and is old, happened often in CK, we're just worried this'll happen again, besides, others already suggested to have that make certain vassals and friends follow suit, that means you'll be losing some loyal vassals which is never good.

and to be quite honest, i love having succession disputes every now and then, and at times -when bored- i actually TRY to cause one in my games...

besides, i believe we're all educated and sane enough to know that suicide is plain wrong, and i don't believe anyone who likes Paradox games isn't capable of figuring that out since the games themselves do require some sanity, brains and common-sense to actually win it...

EDIT:

an alternate way around this, maybe you can allow the ruler to step-down in favor for his heir? quite a few did that, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu.
Click to expand...

Well, with all the nasty and just lurid sorts of things that you can do in EU Rome and Crusader Kings, I think that there should already be a rather stiff ESRB rating. In my current CK1 game, within a few years, I had a child out of wedlock, and my bride apparently arrived pregnant at our wedding, and so she had a bastard, too, then my spymaster (my mother no less) wanted me to off my bastard (that's infanticide). Then I found myself contemplating offing my one-year-old brother-in-law so that my wife could inherit her father's throne (that is a one-button action for murder, and of a wee babe to boot). Then after my peasants rebelled, I had to decide whether to open my stores and feed the poor wretches or let them starve (that has a lot of names for it. Since they were a foreign people whom I conquered, it bordered on genocide. Though I decided to let my rebellious subjects know that they were better with me than without.) So suicide, well, not good for gameplay to have it always available, though I would favor not using it. Giving a player choices is what makes things interesting, and it becomes roleplaying when we imagine what our characters might have done in that situation. Then again, as Todd Howard of Bethesda Softworks says, when you give the player a gun, more than likely he will shoot the first thing in sight, just to see what happens.
 
Beamed said:
However, I am more concerned about the idea that Bushido and chivalry both were big things in their respective times, and not post-period romantic ideas of the era. :(
Click to expand...
They were, just not in the form we think of now. Respect (fear, if you prefer) and loyalty have always been the foundation of feudal systems. Example: look at any modern gang or cartel. The problem is that we've redefined 'chivalry' from 'respecting your social and military obligations to your lieges and vassals' to 'rescuing damsels, defending the peasantry and questing for the Grail.' Most of Western culture nowadays is emphatically anti-honor, which is why a lot of us have trouble making sense of feudalism and also why so many people in this thread think seppuku was stupid.
 
icedt729 said:
Most of Western culture nowadays is emphatically anti-honor, which is why a lot of us have trouble making sense of feudalism and also why so many people in this thread think seppuku was stupid.
Click to expand...

Or not? But this thread has nothing to do with our views on the historical facts of Japanese culture. It has everything to do with a game mechanic that, if too freely available, will not just make modern people uncomfortable for reasons that are (apart from questions of legality) irrelevant - it will become too much of an exploit for people looking to get rid of an incompetent, yet rightful ruler.
 
Capt. Kiwi said:
It has everything to do with a game mechanic that, if too freely available, will not just make modern people uncomfortable for reasons that are (apart from questions of legality) irrelevant - it will become too much of an exploit for people looking to get rid of an incompetent, yet rightful ruler.
Click to expand...
Better not label it an exploit just because you don't like the idea. All we know is that it gives you back some honor so you don't face game over. We don't know how much honor it restores, what are the effects of your ruler dying, nor if there are other negative effects about letting your honor drop so low you must commit suicide.

Maybe your vassals and relatives start plotting against you when you're on low honor, so intentionally lowering your clans honor near zero just to get rid of an incompetent ruler might actually turn out to be a rather bad strategy.
 
DarthJF said:
Better not label it an exploit just because you don't like the idea. All we know is that it gives you back some honor so you don't face game over. We don't know how much honor it restores, what are the effects of your ruler dying, nor if there are other negative effects about letting your honor drop so low you must commit suicide.

Maybe your vassals and relatives start plotting against you when you're on low honor, so intentionally lowering your clans honor near zero just to get rid of an incompetent ruler might actually turn out to be a rather bad strategy.
Click to expand...

Emphasis on "too freely available". There has been very little detail given on what is required, probably because it's not set in stone yet. It's not good if it's a button pressable at any time or with minimal requirements, which at least one poster has openly called for as a way to get rid of unwanted rulers. If it's only available in direst need or has seere penalties, that's quite a different story.

And if it isn't heavily penalised, you'll have your pick of exploits to choose from. Killing unwanted rulers, attempting to manipulate inheritances, using it as a get out of jail card for too many dishonourable actions. I'm sure Paradox have mechanisms lined up to stop that, but we haven't seen them.
 
Kandletaadu said:
So basically you are making assumptions and panicking for no good reason. If you really want to talk about modern society, then i assure you that the game won't endorse nor glorify suicide.

It has clearly been communicated by the developers that it is just a possibility in really dire situation - and it won't even guarantee better outcome from the two (at least two, that is) really bad ones. It won't be "too freely available" and it won't be an "exploit".

Developers aren't imbeciles, they have solved even less controversial issues with political correctness. It's actually so subtle that if you read any of the published previews then none of them have freaked out about (or even noticed) it - and they have played the game. So even if you think that you have been sitting in the dark (while i personally disagree with this) then you could trust previewers.
Click to expand...

I haven't read any of the previews, and I've been very insistant on not talking about modern society and instead sticking to the game and the content of the dev diary. It has not been communicated by the developers under what circumstances it is or isn't available. And developers aren't imbeciles, but things slip through. This has so much potential for abuse that I feel it needs more clarification.

Edit: Some specific questions I would like answered, before someone tries to derail it again:

When is sepuku available - only when honour is below a certain point, only after failures, only when it is the character in question responsible/has lost honour and not someone else in the clan, something else?

Are there consequences beyond those of a character dieing of old age? For example, will heirs and vassals possibly do likewise, will there be increased instability in the land etc?

If there are consequences, are these limited to the lands and people under that character, or do they affect the whole clan?
 
Last edited:
Sounds interesting. Looking forward for a good game.
 
Drakken said:
No it wasn't. Samurai cheated, lied, betrayed, plotted, and found the rifle to be a lovely weapon to use and mass produce.
Click to expand...

You bolded the wrong part.

Beamed said:
I'd like to believe that Paradox thought through the seppuku feature and believe they will implement it well.

However, I am more concerned about the idea that Bushido and chivalry both were big things in their respective times, and not post-period romantic ideas of the era. :(
Click to expand...

i.e. Since historically at that time samurai cheated, lied, betrayed, plotted, and found the rifle to be a lovely weapon to use and mass produce... then it makes sense to see Beamed's concern. Namely that an anachronism should not be introduced and the views of the period would be preferable.

In CK2 terms, it would be like having an idealized courtly love instead of the historical practices of arranged betrothals and marriages for dynastic purposes.

Or back to Sengoku... while there was honour... i daresay even when it was observed in the practice rather than the breach it might be best to view it in the terms that were then prevalent as factions vied for supremacy. Rather than the later formulations propagated to keep an empire at peace.

tl;dr - read Beamed's post again.
 
kyljys said:
I really don't understand why you guys fear that people use seppuku in game as exploit,
it' s their choice. That shouldn't affect how you play the game.
Click to expand...

Better to have good game mechanics than need good house rules, if there's a choice in the matter. Especially when the ai has to try and muddle its way through it all. I don't think anyone is panicking, but this dev diary does leave a lot of questions open that would be nice to have cleared up.
 
I think you underestimate the your vassals. I have serious problems sometimes convincing my vassals to back my first born for Clan leader. So yes I could top myself, get some honour for my eldest son and he gets my lands. However, the clan leadership is gone for the time being.
 
Well, I've been assigned the preview copy sent to Avault, and while my official preview write up will be posted early next week, let me just assure everyone that seppuku is difficult to abuse. As King points out, in a larger clan, your vassals might not cooperate with your desires for the succession of the clan's leader. I will also say that the game refuses to let you even use the function until you meet certain criteria. And the issue gets more complicated when you factor in the age of heirs, the impact of your current spouses on the ruler, and what plots your character is currently cooking. After about 8 hours of gameplay, I have not had the desire to kill my ruler even once, even when his honor started getting low. And I've had some real crappy rulers already. :D

When my preview gets posted, I'll link to it here at the forum, and you can check it out.
 
Good to know, Master. Obviously I was presuming it to be the case that it wasn't just a "Click here and the char dies" button, but it certainly shouldn't be too much of an endorsed console-cheat of "die" outside of the console. :)

I also find the moral outrage to be quite ridiculous about "Portraying suicide in a positive light". I'm an atheist, so obviously I don't see to kindly on the practices of "Converting via the Sword". I find the idea far more morally repugnant than voluntary suicide. That doesn't stop me from actively pursuing policies of conversion in my provinces (whether RPing or just for gameplay).

I use phrasing when approaching Slavery-decisions when modding like this (at it's most anti-Slavery) "The Slaves, though clearly inferior, are still people and it might be prudent to pass laws to protect them. If nothing else than to protect against uprisings." or "It might be economically sound to enforce payment of debts by selling the debtor into slavery" and if anyone actually thinks for a SECOND that I actually think either of those cases are true (besides slaves being people :p ) then I would I would have to think they're crazy, to be honest. Trying to simulate actual circumstance and attitudes of the period of history in HISTORICAL games is what they're supposed to do. Whether it's with Slavery or Suicide, if the people are pro-Slavery or pro-Suicide then we shouldn't pretend that they weren't just to soothe our own sense of morality. Yes, they could definitely have been wrong about those things, but that doesn't matter at all.
 
Last edited:
Secret Master said:
Well, I've been assigned the preview copy sent to Avault, and while my official preview write up will be posted early next week, let me just assure everyone that seppuku is difficult to abuse. As King points out, in a larger clan, your vassals might not cooperate with your desires for the succession of the clan's leader. I will also say that the game refuses to let you even use the function until you meet certain criteria. And the issue gets more complicated when you factor in the age of heirs, the impact of your current spouses on the ruler, and what plots your character is currently cooking. After about 8 hours of gameplay, I have not had the desire to kill my ruler even once, even when his honor started getting low. And I've had some real crappy rulers already. :D

When my preview gets posted, I'll link to it here at the forum, and you can check it out.
Click to expand...

That answers all my questions, thank you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back