Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Should I really gain the tyrant trait for this??

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.
Crusader Kings II 69866 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10587 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Ruwaard said:
The Von Rheinfelden dukes of Swabia lost this duchy during the time they were anti-kings, their supporter the Von Zähringen duke of Carinthia (later also claiming Swabia) lost their duchy too in this conflict. The Von Rheinfelden dynasty went extinct before the eventual settlement, but the Von Zähringen basically kept their ancestral lands in Upper Burgundy (Arelat) and Swabia and kept a personal (not really territorial and certainly not a stem duchy, so basically just the rank of a duke) ducal title (duke of Zähringen).

Another famous example is the conflict between the house of Hohenstaufen, dukes of Swabia and often Holy Roman Emperor or Roman-German king; and the house of Welf eventually duke of (the stem duchies) Saxony and Bavaria and the rival to the imperial throne (sometimes successful). The house of Welf actually lost both duchies, regained the duchies and eventually lost both again; the kept most of their dynastic lands though, although after they were stripped form their duchies for the second time that was reduced to their allodial lands in northern Germany. These allodial lands were later transformed in a fief and granted to the house of Welf as the duchy of Braunswick-Luneburg (Braunschweig-Lüneburg). However when the house of Welf were regranted these duchies, parts were split of from these duchies, for instance the margraviate of Austria was promoted to a duchy (while keeping margravial privileges) since the Babenberg margrave of Austria was previously made the duke of Bavaria by the emperor, but he had done nothing, which would justify being stripped from a duchy without compensation, the imperial princes felt that he deserved to keep the (higher) ducal rank. In Saxony the house of Ascania managed to keep a few counties, but the stem duchies of Saxony and Bavaria were only really dismantled after the house of Welf lost them for the second time.

Roman-German king Rudolf of Habsburg (after being victorious) could strip the king of Bohemia from the duchies of Austria, Styria and Carinthia and the margraviate of Carniola and the Windic March, because he gained those during the great interregnum not entirely legally; however that was a general policy concerning all dubiously seized lands during the great interregnum.
Click to expand...

All the situations you describe there involve revocation of certain titles and honors, typically after a rebellion, not total disinheritance of a line through banishment following summary judgement. The closest you get is with Henry the Lion, who still kept his allodial lands in Brunswick-Luneburg. I feel as though my point still stands.
 
OT!
All this mess, made me remember a Mafalda comic strip.
You see, Mafalda and her friend Felipe were playing Cowboys and Indians (Mafalda was drawn in the 60's, where
the Western genre was pretty popular here), and (I don't remember well) Mafalda said:
"BANG BANG BANG BANG!"
And Felipe stopped her saying something like: "Hey!, guns can't be fired so fast, it's not realistic!"
Mafalda said: Well, in the same way it's not realistic we're playing cowboys when we should be doing our homework
for school (and leaves).

And Felipe alone said:
"... I meant "realism", not "reality".
Click to expand...

In topic:

The "Tyranny" hit is MOD-ABLE right?
so the 3 groups here can:

a) The ones that feel it's unfair, go to the txt file and edit the tyranny for banish people = 0, end of the problem.
b) The ones that feel it's even now, too easy, go to the txt file and edit the tyranny for banish people = -200, end of the problem.
c) The ones that feel it's good as it is now, play the game, end of the problem.

>^.^<
 
"Still, a prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred; for fear and the absence of hatred may well go together, and will be always attained by one who abstains from interfering with the property of his citizens and subjects or with their women. And when he is obliged to take the life of any one, to do so when there is a proper justification and manifest reason for it; but above all he must abstain from taking the property of others, for men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Then also pretexts for seizing property are never wanting, and one who begins to live by rapine will always find some reason for taking the goods of others, whereas causes for taking life are rarer and more quickly destroyed." (Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince)
 
Red_warning said:
I executed somebody for murdering my heir once (no point in letting the scum live, he would just continue his murderous rampage on my family) and I find it strange that doing such a thing would result in a opinion penalty.
Click to expand...
Only a Swede would say this. You guys haven't executed anyone since 1910.

When the Governor of Texas executes anyone he gets loads of crap in the news for it. Activists denounce the trial, claim other people who did the same thing weren't executed, etc.

And this is despite the fact that the Governor of Texas never chooses to execute anyone. Local prosecutors choose to seek the death penalty, a local jury decides whether to use it, and the Courts (including, in almost all cases) the Supreme Court vigorously review the entire process to make sure every legal t was crossed and i was dotted. All Rick Perry can do is choose not to pardon the guy.

Which sounds an awful lot like a tyranny loyalty modifier for doing something that is perfectly justified legally.

In CK2 it's worse. Because in most cases the man you kill will have cousins all over the map, and he'll be executed for being an enthusiastic political player (ie: starting a plot), rather then being executed for doing something nobody would think of doing. You're the only person with influence over whether the guy gets executed, therefore it's entirely your fault that Count Bill's third cousin got executed for a scheme that isn't that much worse then the one Count Bill is currently considering to lower Crown Authority.

Why the hell wouldn't Count Bill be a little worried about that?

Nick
 
PatrickJS said:
I agree the tyrant thing is OTT. I imprisoned my uncle for rebelling against me and I got 5 tyranny points when someone asked me to free him and I said no! I'm not gonna free him!!
Click to expand...

And the necro of the year goes to...
 
There is no defense of the games current mechanics as far as "justice" is concerned. It is nonsensical, and one of the more detrimental parts of the game. I'm hoping it is fixed, but honestly after the RoI announcement, my faith in Paradox has faltered. Meh.

Also, wtf necro.
 
Carewolf2 said:
I fully support this. If a ruler is found to be a traitor, you should be able to declare him unfit to rule. It would keep the claim, but move the throne to his heir.
Click to expand...

Second! This would address the balance issues but give satisfaction for the ambitious jerk who has murdered my kin, started an independence faction and kicked my dog.
 
The only exception I think that we shouldn't get tyranny malus for,should be if someone be that a vassal or a courtier in your realm attempts to plot to assasinate the King or Emperor(be that pc or npcs).Banishment and execution should not invoke tyranny since it is an extremely major crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back