+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: The Grand Question - Is it better to be loved or feared?

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Kynaz View Post
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wow..... yeah ok man lets see how your "idealism" holds up when the King executes your wife , than tells you "mess with me and your daughter is next". Are you really gonna rise up out of anger? lol.
    There's no need to belittle another poster over what was actually a very well-reasoned post. It's not "idealism" (why did you even put that in quotes?) to say that going too far with fear should be problematic.
    It's not that there aren't enough hours in the day. Just that I'm not awake for enough of the ones already available. - Karen Ellis

    You may also know/hate me as Semaphore >.> <.<

  2. #22
    Fear is involved in the game.

    When you ask a vassal to surrender a plot, the main reason they accept is they dare not refuse.

    And if you let exposed plotters get away with it too often and too massively, plotters no longer fear you and ascribe your lax to a lack of power when asked to surrender a plot.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Capiatlist View Post
    Depends, are you role playing or playing to "win"? That is a big question because if you are role playing you must ask: what would my character do? Does my character prefer to be loved or feared. Otherwise just do that math and a figure out the "right" way to "win" and then do that. I cannot really answer the question, though.
    I dont not understand players who want to turn any game into a RPG. Roleplaying is not involved in this game. There is no role to be played in this game. And last, roleplaying a "winner" is roleplay.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by rmdsc View Post
    There's no need to belittle another poster over what was actually a very well-reasoned post. It's not "idealism" (why did you even put that in quotes?) to say that going too far with fear should be problematic.
    I don't see how i belittled him? (do you consider idealism to be a bad word?????), there's really no need to be so sensitive. He mentioned the effects of going too far with tyranny in general , and i focused the philosophy behind that into Game and period specific terms.

    But if he personally takes offence to it , i will apologize. I honestly think you are trying to cause drama. I made 2 paragraphs of posts and you pick on that alone.......... i won't continue to post about things i consider trivial in this thread ( because i can see the hypocrisy in this ). But i hope you will focus on more constructive things within this thread in future.

    Fear is involved in the game.

    When you ask a vassal to surrender a plot, the main reason they accept is they dare not refuse.

    And if you let exposed plotters get away with it too often and too massively, plotters no longer fear you and ascribe your lax to a lack of power when asked to surrender a plot.
    lol. They surrender the plot if they are barons or mayors because those Tiers of Rulership are designed to do that. Others of a higher tier will accept if they have positive relations. Otherwise they refuse.

    As for letting exposed plotters get away with it too often , im very curious about your theory on this. My game experience has been the opposite. When i play the plotters just plot at random , and disregard any action i take against others ive caught. But if what you are saying is true , id love to hear more about it.



    I dont not understand players who want to turn any game into a RPG. Roleplaying is not involved in this game. There is no role to be played in this game. And last, roleplaying a "winner" is roleplay.



    Well in some situations i would agree with this mentality. But CKII is not a game with a real objective. You can try and get the highest score possible , but we all know thats not really the focus. If it was , there would be no reason to ever play that count in the HRE , or that Duke in the middle of France. You're best bet for maximizing Score every game would be playing the ERE or HRE , as emperor , and abusing every single gamey tactic possible. In fact , you might as well just mod the files to give you 1000000000 score for every barony you own , because that will achieve the "goal" most suitably. Actually why even go that far? probably be easier to just mod out the "high score list" so you always "win" no matter what hahahaha.

    But i think you know why role playing is important in a game like CKII. :P
    Last edited by Kynaz; 13-07-2012 at 11:07.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
    I dont not understand players who want to turn any game into a RPG. Roleplaying is not involved in this game. There is no role to be played in this game. And last, roleplaying a "winner" is roleplay.
    Of course there is. It's a game about playing Medieval characters, roleplaying is intrinsic to the heart of the game. Now if that's not your cup of tea, that's fine, you can certainly play the game as any other strategy game. But then, Mr. Capiatlist wasn't trying to force anyone else to RP either. Just because you can play the game without RP doesn't mean RP can't be involved in the game. It's all up to the player's taste.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kynaz View Post
    I don't see how i belittled him? (do you consider idealism to be a bad word?????)
    It was very obvious from your tone. And it's not because you said idealism, I'm simply telling you that what Might Heart said wasn't idealistic.


    I made 2 paragraphs of posts and you pick on that alone..........
    No shit. That's the part where you disparaged Might Heart. Why would I pick on the rest of your post?
    It's not that there aren't enough hours in the day. Just that I'm not awake for enough of the ones already available. - Karen Ellis

    You may also know/hate me as Semaphore >.> <.<

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Mighty Heart View Post
    Talking about being feared it works as long as the people have something to fear about(their family, their job, their career, their lives etc). If you push people too far people will lose their fear since their anger exceeds their fear. You may think the poor fear for their lives but even poor people will rise up if their lives are not worth leading. Aspirations or ideals are good to inspire but anger is as good as courage. When you have both the leader will be toppled. People who are not afraid to die in anyway until the circumstances are too late to save themselves cannot be deterred. Afterall being dead is not so bad especially if you lose your life for something worth dying for(that's a life fully lived).

    Leader who relies on keeping to power by fear is not a leader but one imposing himself as a leader. A pretender. He doesn't lead but enslaves. His inability to lead his people would make such leader even more paranoid and afraid thus becoming even more cruel towards his subject. In effect people who rely on fear are usually incapable leader and will not make an effective leader since fear INCAPACITATES people thus the realm instead of empowering the land. Tyranny is a sign of decadence. It is the way for the inferior to impose themselves. It is how the fearful try to keep onto power. Surprise surprise the most fearful person in the land of tyranny is the tyrant himself. Afterall he has so many things to lose. He knows he doesn't deserve that power and makes a poor leader. He knows very well indeed. Maybe he doesn't want to admit it but he knows.

    To try to hold onto power by imposing fear is like trying to hold onto an ever burning coal with bare hand which you lit and burn yourself. Sooner or later you will drop it.
    Fear alone cannot rule, this much is true, but Cicero still with much power over the elders in the senate did not cover before Mark Anthony just because he had a record of war, nor did an entire populace subdue itself under Justinian after the massacre at the hippodrome just because he had charisma and wealth. The golden chalice in the center of the poor cities of Wallachia, were left untouched not because the people were prosperous, but due to the fact that in the past, he had raised a forest of pikes and impaled man, woman and child alike. Which caused a far larger army, that of the Ottoman empire, to turn not based in myth and legend, but the horrific sight the sultan himself saw. It is entirely correct that a record of fear alone cannot hold any position alone for long, as tyranny, is it's own cause for war, but history has proved that those who have justified their use if fear as a tool, can indeed curb vassals to their will. Even after the pretender king of England during the civil conflict under Henry VIII ended with the execution and appropriation of his lands, this did not spark the vassals, now given a reason to fear as Henry made clear, which would still combined have made Henry strongly disadvantaged had they united, never stood up to him. Not when the church was cast out which was immensely unpopular, yet profitable. Not when their own rights were curbed greatly in favor of his own, and he used fear as an effective tool in doing all this. He always held national trials, surrounded with more friends than enemies, to isolate those who would desire to stand against him, and make them feel hopelessly weak. Mark Anthony was both in Egypt and his short reign in Rome hated by the nobility. Utterly despised, but loved by the people no less. The latter, as well as his military reputation. *While not exactly Alexander the Great, he was known as a competent flanker, and had proven a great asset to Caesar in most of his major victories that challenged arithmetic itself* Held it together. When Ceasar was trapped by Pompey, and before Anthony leaving. There was effectively only one regiment keeping the peace in Rome, and it would have been a momentous occasion for either a rebellion or plot. Yet, neither was formed. For Mark Anthony had isolated the once proud senate to feel like mere puppets, useless old men that some argued they were.

    To argue as you have that fear holds no place in rule stands incorrect. It goes against the principles of vassalage, caste, serfdom and indeed slavery. All institutions which required a hierarchical pattern and disproportionate distribution of power. The slave feared his slave master more often than he rebelled against him. The serf held onto his limited property even with his desires to expand curved more often than rise in rebellion. When a vassal desires something held by a liege, which has a great record, but also has proven capable of cruelty towards those who have acted against him. If said vassal is also stand to feel isolated, and hopelessly outgunned. Then he will not turn to open rebellion just like that because he feels miserable in life, he may stand more likely to turn to plot, but if an example has been made in the past, then he will bide his time until the liege seems weak. Certainly not a single province declare war upon an empire which spans half of Europe just like that. Such would likely be weak enough that the nearby vassals would be asked to pursue, and maybe claim some of the spoil once the traitor is hung. As far as games of fear goes.the Ottoman empire succession history proves itself to be a great example. Because it often resulted in the mutilation, killing, or at best permanent house arrest and castration of all rivals. A vassal who fails in rebellion can easily be branded a traitor, a black stain which at the time would extend towards his entire family and justify the appropriation of titles and claims should his defeat be ultimate. Certainly not merely imprisonment, where the equally disgruntled heir would stand likely to rebel within the next month stands likely. While benevolence, charity and generosity is indeed things which can help on a regular basis, they can equally quickly turn into appeasement which the game true enough punishes. But fear is a discouragement to trouble, and a competent spy network combined with fear is a discouragement to plots. Certainly more than benevolence on it's own stands as it stands a poor buffer to ambition. Yet in the greatest example of feudal rule, that of Charlemagne, while never short on wars, it would have been an auspicious time for plots, treason and rebellion. Yet Charlemagne combined both enlightened rule, competence and indeed fear over his subjects as he had dealt harshly with many whom not just acted against him, but displeased him in general. They knew he had a spy network, and stood capable of justifying execution, banishment and appropriations of titles. Not at a rate which directly threatened his own vassals who mostly were loyal, but enough to usurp the titles of brothers, family and indeed entire kingdoms beyond Francia.

    While fear is just the largest factor in all of this, the most noticable issue stands when it comes the mindless rebellion. IE, single province vassals declaring war upon a popular emperor. I would argue this would never stand remotely likely or reasonable unless the vassal was extremely incompetent. There is no realistic effect of treason, IE, failed rebellion. If a king plunged the empire into a deep civil war, it would be seen as natural, should the king have lost, to pay with his life at the end of it. Not just the king, but his entire kin. There also stands very unrealistic move, IE, single disgruntled vassals in large empire that openly declare suicidal wars. There also is no system for the populace and their affection towards the liege. Nor is there any 'winds of change' for a ruler who has just accomplished something great. I once conquered a massive part of the Fathmid caliphate, and distributed this among mostly my family, but gave cities and such to deserving vassals, but lo behold - It would seem that mighty Holstein found it a good idea to rebel against someone, who would have been immensely popular based on accomplishments, and also, considerably feared due to his power. Certainly enough to quell one mere vassal out of fear.

    Fear holds an inseparable relationship with the fedual era at large on all levels of politics, but it is also linked to power. A king will not fear a measly single-province vassal who might like to routinely abuse his court and may very well use it as an excuse to invade a tyrant, but at the same time, it stands extremely unlikely that the liege of Ferra would declare a war of independence just after the emperor had won a great crusade. Held a grand tournament ect and had a history of dealing harshly with traitors. A threat could give much the same effect as a gift in this game. Perhaps spark animosity sure, but just because a liege is disliked immensely with one vassal, do not stand reason for the lone vassal to suicidally rebelled. History stands filled with unhappy, yet perfectly controlled vassals. While bravery would of course limit the effects of fear, a brave vassal would be equally reluctant to suicide as a craven vassal, but in the contest of fear itself, a craven vassal would not rebel if he feared a his liege, but a brave vassal could if it had any hint of victory.

  7. #27
    Well I never said fear had no place in a rule. But that fear must be founded on reasons justifiable for the good of society and order.

    The fear I was referring to is random act of intimidation and cruelty. That is a sure sign of decadency on the part of the ruler and that has no place in any rule. Going overboard with fear is always problematic too even if it is not right away.

    Fear in moderation is crucial in developing a civilized society and keeping it civilized and orderly. Fear of the law, fear of your parents, fear being punched for being an ass, etc.
    Fear in healthy dose actually helps one to survive(fear of being injured or fear of death) and to an extent to succeed(fear of failure). Examples include fear of falling down off a cliff, fear of being robbed walking certain district at night.

    Relying on fear alone or making it the top strategy however is utterly foolish and invites the end of the regime and its ruler and it is even more relevant now than at the age you're talking about or even ever.

    One thing many people don't realize is some rulers, I mean modern ones actually probably believe and act as if they were the master of universe where everyone else owed them their livelihood and even their lives. This 'master of the universe' psyche doesn't go well with ruling almost any modern country. If you're familiar with DC Comics supervillain character Darkseid that pretty much a pretty accurate portrayal of a typical dictator. Modern dictators may look benign and all smiles but that's just a facade to their dark or very dark real personality. That Darkseid is a typical dictator psyche and interestingly when I looked further Darkseid was actually created by its creator based on the personalities of dictators whom he had met.

    I guess in short what I'm trying to say a ruler who cannot govern himself is not suited to be one. or to rule any domain. Restrain and moderation are two virtues any ruler must have. It doesn't mean there is no place for extreme measures but only extreme situations call for extreme measures. But I admit most people are ugly inside. The only reason most people don't turn very ugly on their behaviors is because they are kept in checked by their environment(other people: superior, boss, peers, group or community ,etc). Now dictators or dynastic leaders live without most restraints that put a check on their personality. In turn they became very very ugly.


    Cheers(I'm going out for a dinner with family and relatives I don't have the chance to read all the wall of text so do excuse me).
    Last edited by Mighty Heart; 13-07-2012 at 13:49.
    "A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'exposingsingapore' blog

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by rmdsc View Post
    Of course there is. It's a game about playing Medieval characters, roleplaying is intrinsic to the heart of the game. Now if that's not your cup of tea, that's fine, you can certainly play the game as any other strategy game. But then, Mr. Capiatlist wasn't trying to force anyone else to RP either. Just because you can play the game without RP doesn't mean RP can't be involved in the game. It's all up to the player's taste.
    No, it is not up to the player's taste. You can indeed imagine you play a RPG when the game is not a RPG, it can be your taste. It wont make the game a RPG though.

    Players invent themselves rules that only exist in their mind and are not acknowledged by the game mechanics in order to bring RP to the game. But RP does not exist in the game, it only exists in their mind.

    Roleplaying is not intrinsic to the heart of the game. Games are often about playing characters, doesnt make them RPGs. Hitman is not a RPG because it is a game about playing an assassin.

    If you want to treat the game as a RPG, fine. If you want to make up mental rules to bring RP for you only to be checked, fine. It wont make the game a RPG.

  9. #29
    I think you're quite alone in this view, this game most certainly is character-driven, and rp-ing exponentially increases most people's enjoyment of the game, if roleplaying is not your cup of tea that's fine, but why are you crusading for your point of view? How we enjoy the game is entirely irrelevant to your enjoyment of the game...
    The Revival of Russia (Modern Day Russian AAR)
    Read about Bush and Putin's adventures!
    Current AAR about the Revival of Russia in Modern Day, check it out!

  10. #30
    General Fawr's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,416
    I don't see the problem.

    The game already rewards traits like wroth, lusty, proud (if you are interested in martial/children/prestige anyway, they aren't unmitigated bonuses, but they do have advantages). The game already gives you increases to your intrigue skill based on the number of dastardly plots you succeed with. The game also lets you continue to play with some tyranny. However if you go overboard then you end up like the king John (of England).

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Piko View Post
    I think you're quite alone in this view, this game most certainly is character-driven, and rp-ing exponentially increases most people's enjoyment of the game, if roleplaying is not your cup of tea that's fine, but why are you crusading for your point of view? How we enjoy the game is entirely irrelevant to your enjoyment of the game...
    Have you read the post? The crusaders are the other side.

    Enjoy playing this game as if it was a role playing game. Build as many as mental constructions as you want to stand for the RP game mechanics that do not exist. It does not make it a RPG and calling the game a RPG is actually crusading for your point of view.

  12. #32
    I endorse this thread. It is crazy-town that you can't rule by scaring the crap out of everybody. That's pretty much how every dictator has ever prospered, past or present. Some mixed in a little "benevolence" or "divine right," but mostly it was (and is) that you just knew you'd die horribly if you crossed them. Rule by Love and/or Fear is as old as politics itself, and Paradox made a game about politics that includes only one of them.

  13. #33
    Well I never said fear had no place in a rule. But that fear must be founded on reasons justifiable for the good of society and order.

    The fear I was referring to is random act of intimidation and cruelty. That is a sure sign of decadency on the part of the ruler and that has no place in any rule. Going overboard with fear is always problematic too even if it is not right away.

    Fear in moderation is crucial in developing a civilized society and keeping it civilized and orderly. Fear of the law, fear of your parents, fear being punched for being an ass, etc.
    Fear in healthy dose actually helps one to survive(fear of being injured or fear of death) and to an extent to succeed(fear of failure). Examples include fear of falling down off a cliff, fear of being robbed walking certain district at night.

    Relying on fear alone or making it the top strategy however is utterly foolish and invites the end of the regime and its ruler and it is even more relevant now than at the age you're talking about or even ever.

    One thing many people don't realize is some rulers, I mean modern ones actually probably believe and act as if they were the master of universe where everyone else owed them their livelihood and even their lives. This 'master of the universe' psyche doesn't go well with ruling almost any modern country. If you're familiar with DC Comics supervillain character Darkseid that pretty much a pretty accurate portrayal of a typical dictator. Modern dictators may look benign and all smiles but that's just a facade to their dark or very dark real personality. That Darkseid is a typical dictator psyche and interestingly when I looked further Darkseid was actually created by its creator based on the personalities of dictators whom he had met.

    I guess in short what I'm trying to say a ruler who cannot govern himself is not suited to be one. or to rule any domain. Restrain and moderation are two virtues any ruler must have. It doesn't mean there is no place for extreme measures but only extreme situations call for extreme measures. But I admit most people are ugly inside. The only reason most people don't turn very ugly on their behaviors is because they are kept in checked by their environment(other people: superior, boss, peers, group or community ,etc). Now dictators or dynastic leaders live without most restraints that put a check on their personality. In turn they became very very ugly.


    Cheers(I'm going out for a dinner with family and relatives I don't have the chance to read all the wall of text so do excuse me).
    I still get the feeling you are speaking of your own philosophical views , and not of the time period , nor the possibilities of the time period. Everything you are saying is nice and cool , but i would prefer to see you give some examples of how this mentality was carried out in the scope of this games time period.

    To put that in perspective.

    This is a historical person of the time period.

    Thus William Rufus was secure in what was then the most powerful kingdom in Europe, given the contemporary eclipse of the Salian emperors. As in Normandy, his bishops and abbots were bound to him by feudal obligations; and his right of investiture in the Norman tradition prevailed within his kingdom, during the age of the Investiture Controversy that brought excommunication upon the Salian Emperor Henry IV. Anglo-Norman royal institutions reached an efficiency previously unknown in medieval Europe, and the king's personal power, through an effective and loyal chancery, penetrated to the local level to an extent unmatched in France.[citation needed] Without the Capetians' ideological trappings of an anointed monarchy forever entangled with the hierarchy of the Church, the king's administration and law unified the realm, rendering him relatively impervious to papal condemnation.
    That is to say , he held a ton of power. Yet ;

    Although William was an effective soldier, he was a ruthless ruler and, it seems, was little liked by those he governed: according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he was "hateful to almost all his people and odious to God.


    He was a tyrant , yet a powerful tyrant. In the example im giving , im trying to show how being cruel and sadistic , instilling fear into vassal as a King , does not equate to a failed or weakened state. Strong rulers isolated threats , and instilled fear in them. That is why they rarely acted. There is a reason pathetic barons and weak counts never (or atleast , incredibly rarely) raised the banner in rebellion on their own. That was because if they did , and failed (which its obvious to anyone they would) , they would not get a slap on the wrist.


    What you are mentioning is fantastic as a person living in any form of vassalage (i mean in a way we are all vassals , we work for a living , power is not proportionate or evenly distributed , individuals really have little power). But to say that Fear inspired Authority will always lead to a failed regime seems wrong to me. If you literally back someone into a corner with nothing , yes they will fight or die. But that isn't what is being suggested here. Nobles would likely be content with their above average status , peasants are content with being fed (and if they aren't , no one cares , they don't have catapults to siege the King , nor are they organized). No one "important" is forced into that proverbial corner , they are merely forced into a small room . And that small room is better than being a starving peasant who holds 0 power. Would they rather live in a mansion bigger than the Kings royal palace? , you bet. However they aren't going to kamikaze / recklessly charge to their own deaths because the King prevented them from taking that desire.

    Now if you want modern philosophy , consider this reality. The US military takes authoritarian control over government (a cou de ta). They have guns , whos going to object lol. This has happened plenty of times in the last 50 years (globally). How does it happen? someone promises the Military something , power , elevated status , w/e. So the military can follow the cou de ta , get elevated status in society (more money , better benefits , maybe more rights than others) and all they have to do is carry guns in the name of their leader. What are you going to do about it? The general / leader starts committing atrocities , what will you do about it? there is nothing much you can do. What ive described is a large part of how most Governments (feudal or tribal , ancient or historical) originally formed. This is no different to the Nobility and Knights serving in medieval times , nor any different to Japanese samurai or Ottoman Janissaries. What lightens (or even out right deposes)tyrannical regimes is usually a rise in power / wealth / knowledge and sway of middle / lower classes (or those primarily effected). Industrial revolution , Renaissance , modernization in general. Or as has happened in a several cases in the last century , foreign influence. But given major changes (of liken scale)didn't really occur in Europe during the games time period , its not very likely (though i won't say immpossible) for Crown of England to collapse and be destroyed because the King instilled too much fear in his lessers. Just something to consider imho.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
    Have you read the post? The crusaders are the other side.

    Enjoy playing this game as if it was a role playing game. Build as many as mental constructions as you want to stand for the RP game mechanics that do not exist. It does not make it a RPG and calling the game a RPG is actually crusading for your point of view.
    Then tell me , what is CK II , and what is its actual goal?
    Last edited by Kynaz; 13-07-2012 at 17:23.

  14. #34
    First Lieutenant Amadeu of Savoy's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesHearts of Iron III CollectionEuropa Universalis III: In Nomine
    EU3 Napoleon's AmbitionEuropa Universalis: RomeSengokuSword of the StarsSword of the Stars II
    Victoria 2Rome: Vae Victis

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    212
    The be effective as a feared ruler, you have to maintain a large degree of power, because everyone will be looking for a small breach in your armor to destroy you.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Kynaz View Post


    Then tell me , what is CK II , and what is its actual goal?
    A Real Time Strategy (RTS) game, developping/securing/expanding your dynasty.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
    A Real Time Strategy (RTS) game, developping/securing/expanding your dynasty.
    This is kind of a silly argument, but I'd say CK2 is a pretty mediocre strictly RTS game. No real differentiation of military units, minimal economic strategy, and let's face it pretty boring graphics. You see a lot of threads in this forum of people who think CK2 is boring, because they're referring to the RTS elements. It might not be Dragon Age, but there are in fact quite a roles to play in CK2.

  17. #37
    Oh, yes? Lets take your assumption, CK2 is a very mediocre RTS, in what way does it change the fact it is a RTS?

    A good/bad RTS is still a RTS, not a RPG.

  18. #38
    Ah, yes. The strategy is about expanding, securing, promoting your dynasty. The strategical mechanics to support that strategical aim are numerous, varied, generally well thought. Indeed, refering to other non primordial mechanics like no real military units, minimal economy could have a meaning in a RTS game with a focus set on military or economical matters.

    But once again, the strategical focus is put on the dynasty. Leading me to assess this game on liminar aspects like depth of the economy system or military system, but the depth of the dynasty building system. Which is huge. Varied. And involving.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Kynaz View Post
    I don't see how i belittled him? (do you consider idealism to be a bad word?????), there's really no need to be so sensitive. He mentioned the effects of going too far with tyranny in general , and i focused the philosophy behind that into Game and period specific terms.

    But if he personally takes offence to it , i will apologize. I honestly think you are trying to cause drama. I made 2 paragraphs of posts and you pick on that alone.......... i won't continue to post about things i consider trivial in this thread ( because i can see the hypocrisy in this ). But i hope you will focus on more constructive things within this thread in future.
    I thought rmsdc was being constructive.....and aren't you being a little condenscending by telling him that?
    Anyway no apology needed.




    Quote Originally Posted by Kynaz View Post
    I still get the feeling you are speaking of your own philosophical views , and not of the time period , nor the possibilities of the time period. Everything you are saying is nice and cool , but i would prefer to see you give some examples of how this mentality was carried out in the scope of this games time period.

    To put that in perspective.

    This is a historical person of the time period.



    That is to say , he held a ton of power. Yet ;





    He was a tyrant , yet a powerful tyrant. In the example im giving , im trying to show how being cruel and sadistic , instilling fear into vassal as a King , does not equate to a failed or weakened state. Strong rulers isolated threats , and instilled fear in them. That is why they rarely acted. There is a reason pathetic barons and weak counts never (or atleast , incredibly rarely) raised the banner in rebellion on their own. That was because if they did , and failed (which its obvious to anyone they would) , they would not get a slap on the wrist.


    What you are mentioning is fantastic as a person living in any form of vassalage (i mean in a way we are all vassals , we work for a living , power is not proportionate or evenly distributed , individuals really have little power). But to say that Fear inspired Authority will always lead to a failed regime seems wrong to me. If you literally back someone into a corner with nothing , yes they will fight or die. But that isn't what is being suggested here. Nobles would likely be content with their above average status , peasants are content with being fed (and if they aren't , no one cares , they don't have catapults to siege the King , nor are they organized). No one "important" is forced into that proverbial corner , they are merely forced into a small room . And that small room is better than being a starving peasant who holds 0 power. Would they rather live in a mansion bigger than the Kings royal palace? , you bet. However they aren't going to kamikaze / recklessly charge to their own deaths because the King prevented them from taking that desire.

    Now if you want modern philosophy , consider this reality. The US military takes authoritarian control over government (a cou de ta). They have guns , whos going to object lol. This has happened plenty of times in the last 50 years (globally). How does it happen? someone promises the Military something , power , elevated status , w/e. So the military can follow the cou de ta , get elevated status in society (more money , better benefits , maybe more rights than others) and all they have to do is carry guns in the name of their leader. What are you going to do about it? The general / leader starts committing atrocities , what will you do about it? there is nothing much you can do. What ive described is a large part of how most Governments (feudal or tribal , ancient or historical) originally formed. This is no different to the Nobility and Knights serving in medieval times , nor any different to Japanese samurai or Ottoman Janissaries. What lightens (or even out right deposes)tyrannical regimes is usually a rise in power / wealth / knowledge and sway of middle / lower classes (or those primarily effected). Industrial revolution , Renaissance , modernization in general. Or as has happened in a several cases in the last century , foreign influence. But given major changes (of liken scale)didn't really occur in Europe during the games time period , its not very likely (though i won't say immpossible) for Crown of England to collapse and be destroyed because the King instilled too much fear in his lessers. Just something to consider imho.

    Then tell me , what is CK II , and what is its actual goal?
    I might go a bit OT with my philosophical views but it is related to CK2 and the thread which cited examples. I was merely trying to give a balanced view.
    Fear in CK2 is already implemented maybe not the way OP wanted it or in more simplified ways i.e arbitrary caused negative diplomacy if I'm not wrong, being cruel(having the traits of cruel) has its benefit and disadvantage too, provinces that just got conquered are not likely to rebel again anytime soon and others.

    You know a coup de tat may not always be bad. I'd consider Thai's recent coup de tat against Thaksin a good thing. I'd think that the man was decadent.
    Politicians can make a coup too it's called impeachment or vote of no confidence. Justa different name with a different mechanism one through military and the latter through political process.

    If modern Britain had a tyrannical king or queen there would be a real possibility that either that king or queen died early or Britain would have a revolution. It's not far stretched actually. Just hard to imagine to many people of a Britain without the monarchy. They last this long because they put a limit to their power reducing decadency and keeping it in check.
    Last edited by Mighty Heart; 13-07-2012 at 23:37.
    "A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'exposingsingapore' blog

  20. #40
    Recruit Brick265's Avatar
    Crusader Kings II

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2
    When you are small and weak, loved, but when you are powerful, rich, and strong military-wise, feared.
    "War is not about dying for your country, but making the other man die for his."
    -General George S. Patton, Commander of U.S. 3rd Army (WWII)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts