• 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.
Didn't they already say you can execute people without consequences if you e.g. discover a plot but arbitrary executions have dire repercussions

I think so. It was described in the previews. If you look at the videos, you see the actions you can take. Imprisonment and assassination.

You can only "execute" people who get caught plotting against you and I guess, your dynasty, in a severe manner. Every other killing is an "assassination". One is (lawful?) execution of traitors, the other is murder. It might not be possible to murder people in the open arbitrarily, every murder is clandestine by default. Although you might not care whether you’re caught.

I think it is likely that to plot the demise of the ruler's wife earns an execution more readily than a plot for a promotion to chancellor. On the other hand, plots seem to be backed by force (give me the position or I march on your castle!), so you might get away with execution there too.

Another idea: Imprisoning somebody could result in a plot to free him.
 
Last edited:
I dont think the tyranny score should affect all of your courtiers the same way anyway. If i am a tyrannical king, and i am brutal towards one family or two. The rival families may actually like my actions.

As well some personalities would be likely to support me no matter what i do. Some would become more rebellious. While others might be scared into to becoming more loyal.

I just hope that its not as simple as, "I chopped the counts head off, so now everyone in the realm hs a lower opinion of me" And all at the same level like it is in rome.
 
As others have pointed out: no it's not.

It's only sadism if you derive pleasure from the act itself. You might argue: "but you tortured him to have fun!", no, I tortured him because I was roleplaying, and i find the roleplaying fun.

If, for some reason, you conteniuously torture people in game without roleplaying, it might become borderline sadism...

Whatever makes you feel better about it. I offered no moral judgements.
 
I dont think the tyranny score should affect all of your courtiers the same way anyway. If i am a tyrannical king, and i am brutal towards one family or two. The rival families may actually like my actions.

As well some personalities would be likely to support me no matter what i do. Some would become more rebellious. While others might be scared into to becoming more loyal.

I just hope that its not as simple as, "I chopped the counts head off, so now everyone in the realm hs a lower opinion of me" And all at the same level like it is in rome.
Pretty much this. Even more i think a LOT of people would see execution of rebelous vassal a nice investment into kingdom stability, while others would think twice before rebeling since they won`t get avay easy.
The gues who had some bad feelings(treatened, rivaled,..) about the executed should actually like you more. The gue who takes the place of executed should llike it, allso maybe be afraid.

I general i think the execution should shift relation based on what character feel towards executed an their wiev on how much the guilt justifies death penaty.

As for the family it`s not that simple, well the borther of executed could be pleased that he would inherit entire desmene instead of half, or could hate you.
The executed father can ve very unpleased with his son`s rebelion and think the king did right. Various options.
 
rebelling shouldnt be enough to justify your head on the block. most rebellions didnt cos the rebels their lives. I mean look at the Harrying, a rebellion against a king who was proven to unjust, cruel and merciless in dealing with traitors, but the dukes and other lords who lead the rebellion were imprisoned not killed.

You should need a just cause for execution, If someone is a murderer or worse [and that would all happen by event] then a modifier is given to the character which makes any ruler able to kill them with no consequences, maybe even gain prestige/piety from it. But killing someone without just cause should impose severe consequences, maybe even giving your lord an execution CB on you or atleast letting him strip you of your titles without consequence.
It'd be nice to have a declare outlaw option, exile someone, stop them being able to own property and remove them from the line of succession. Rather than just killing someone to get rid of them [as im assuming people in prison can still inherit].
 
how much the guilt justifies death penaty.

Although varying by geography and regime, at the time there was a long list of offenses that could fill in the blank in "The penalty for _________ is death"

Which did not mean that it was always imposed, for the reasons discussed above, particularly for personages of the stature to be represented in the game. Nor was it necessary to be guilty to be convicted and executed - that too should have a price.
 
As an absolute ruler I see no problem with giving the monarch lots of different powers including execution. Yes there has to be consquences, however, most people will buy this game to not only RP a medieval king but a king of their own choosing. If you want to be a Henry VIII you need to have the opportunity to execute and torture anyone you want.

If you want to RP a clever, political, expansionist king like Edward I then great lets have the game mechanics to allow it. Fact is fact, we still need to be able to chop dudes heads off or it just isn't sausages!!!!
 
The point is that there has to be a VERY strong reason for the execution to begin with.

What more weighted reason is there than the King's reason?

Axe-crazy kings should find their entire kingdom in arms against them very quickly.

Like the pen-happy tyrannical politicians that you cannot wait to replace [by voting] for a different pen-happy tyrannical politician?

Actually, only within a democratic society can the pen-happy tyrannical politician evade angry citizens and live to tell about their lucrative & prestigious careers. Now we know why "democracy" is the new global faith.
 
Last edited:
the sort of absolute monarchs that people seem to want to play in this game is far beyond the scope of the time period covered by CK 2. Henry VIII etc lived decades after the latest possible start date and the whole his country nearly crumbled due to his policies.

We need to keep in mind that the medieval monarchs we are playing are only considered as "first among equals" with the rest of the high nobility that they will be interacting with. Considering the amount of intermarriage, fiefdom overlap and other items of controversy it should come as no surprise that the nobles of the realm often were at odds with the monarch. The king's word, while powerful in its own right, was certainly not enough to stop a determined anti-royal faction from stepping forward in just about every kingdom.

King's may have very rich lands to draw powerful levies from but very few could hope to survive a good portion of their nobles rallying together for a common cause. There needs to be balance between power grabs by the nobles and the complicated puppeteering required for a king to stay one step ahead of those that would see his family unseated.

Any dramatic spree of executions, even if it were condemned rebel lords, would produce a violent backlash against the king's authority. The top question on even the most loyal of vassals would be "Am I the next one the king will set his sights on?" Cue the conspiracies, cue the rebellions, cue the king potentially being deposed. The monarch could bluster and threaten with all his might but the rebel nobles would only see themselves as protecting their own rights.
 
the sort of absolute monarchs that people seem to want to play in this game is far beyond the scope of the time period covered by CK 2. Henry VIII etc lived decades after the latest possible start date and the whole his country nearly crumbled due to his policies.

We need to keep in mind that the medieval monarchs we are playing are only considered as "first among equals" with the rest of the high nobility that they will be interacting with. Considering the amount of intermarriage, fiefdom overlap and other items of controversy it should come as no surprise that the nobles of the realm often were at odds with the monarch. The king's word, while powerful in its own right, was certainly not enough to stop a determined anti-royal faction from stepping forward in just about every kingdom.

King's may have very rich lands to draw powerful levies from but very few could hope to survive a good portion of their nobles rallying together for a common cause. There needs to be balance between power grabs by the nobles and the complicated puppeteering required for a king to stay one step ahead of those that would see his family unseated.

Any dramatic spree of executions, even if it were condemned rebel lords, would produce a violent backlash against the king's authority. The top question on even the most loyal of vassals would be "Am I the next one the king will set his sights on?" Cue the conspiracies, cue the rebellions, cue the king potentially being deposed. The monarch could bluster and threaten with all his might but the rebel nobles would only see themselves as protecting their own rights.

Henry VIII actually was a pretty good king all things considered, he is considered the king that really got the ball rolling towards England being a superpower, and it really depends on the nation you play as.
 
Henry VIII actually was a pretty good king all things considered, he is considered the king that really got the ball rolling towards England being a superpower, and it really depends on the nation you play as.

hes kind of an example of someone who was a terrible king but a very good soldier and did whatever his selfserving ministers told him to when it came to government and then went mad in his old age. BUT the point of the post youre quoting is that Absolutism didnt exist until long after the end of the game. Which is an important point, the king isnt the one ruler, hes head of the committee, final judge not unquestioned ruler of a centralised government, theres nothing centralised about it.