• 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.

Jaden Mental

Second Lieutenant
98 Badges
Jul 13, 2012
123
5
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Darkest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Semper Fi
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • War of the Roses
  • War of the Vikings
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • King Arthur II
Perhaps the date of Niccolò Machiavelli's legendary publication might be a bit of a deterrent, but I still think the question stands very valid in regards to CKII and it's future potential.

In CK2, largely, dread makes rulers turn dead quite fast. There is no meter for fear, so essentially, one only gets the negatives from being a dread and cruel ruler. Whereas it has far more positive diplomatic rewards for a man to be kind, gentle, just and honest. For me, it carries a dual truth. Being merely kind and gentle as a person carries with itself only negative as far as the theoretical side of ruling a feudal kingdom goes. Yes you will be well liked, but people may feel more at liberty to question and even rebel, regardless of their personal affection towards a character in some cases. Whereas on the grand scale, if a ruler has been known to be chivalrous and generous, it carries with itself certain advantages, most noticeably so in terms of legitimacy. What essentially more or less canonized the example of Caesar as the example of a 'benevolent despot' was the fact that he stood remarkably peaceable towards Romans upon taking Rome. On the grand scale, his treatment towards those he went into civil war with had been more or less the cornerstone for what was to become feudalism. Gaining support both among clerical and noble factors which called for a certain kind of ethics which I feel Crusader king 2 does well at displaying, but only in it's most generic form.

A decent example could be taken going back before the timeline of Crusader Kings 2. Whereas Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, a very noticeable figure in terms of this history. Upon winning the first of his many wars, took near full inheritance from his vanquished foes, and had one more or less banished to a monastery. While having clear support among more powerful figures, none dared question his claims at this point in part due to the nature of his victory which was very convincing. Charles also later on played a huge role in formalizing the idea of chivalry, as nobles all too often during times of peace unleashed their wrath upon the peasantry. Yet, the reason I bring this up is due to the fact that as mentioned above, there is no meter for fear in this game. Not even proportional fear. If the ruler of Savoy dislikes the entire Holy Roman Empire enough, it will go to war against the collected forces, even if the Emperor is very well liked with all other members. Such a thing stands suicidal, and while it is true that it would be realistic to give a balkanization process, IE, a lot of lieges declaring war against their ruler in trying to establish some independence, it stands still comical to see Dublin declare war on the Empire of Britannia when there really is nothing to logically support such an action. Of course, an excuse could be made for general insanity, fanatical aspects or other factors that impair general judgement, but it stands far too random. *And sometimes, the rebellion warning has such a short span on itself that it leads to automatic wars, where one has no response time to mend the situation' Now, while I certainly understand the plots having this effect, plots tend to be far more organized. Whereas on a regular scale, it seems more crazy than anything, if one was to assume the risks involved.

The reason I bring this up is to attempt to formalize some understanding of the very gentle political balance that was true during the time period of Crusader Kings 2. While legitimacy is the strongest shield of any claim, and chivalry often connected to more virtuous sets of rules. I kind of get the feeling that if there was one liege, who was known for great victories in the past, but also unspeakable cruelty towards those who had rebelled against him would serve as a detterent for anything not directly related to plots. While Henry VIII of course had his rule far after this game's end date, he averted one of the greatest civil conflicts in the history of England and through sheer force of person, installed fear in those who joined in on it before it could be stopped, and stripped away all the titles and had the to be offenders executed. While he had more than enough evidence to back up his actions, to execute and acquire all properties of a major factor, one seen as more powerful than the king himself at the time, would have in a game of CK2 at least made anyone consider said character a tyrant, and likely rebel en-masse the next day. Yet Henry VIII was no fool when it comes to internal affair, and knew both how to be loved and feared at the same time. Mostly the latter, but much of his dread character alone served as something which certainly discouraged plots. Let alone outright rebellion. Now of course, nations were far more centralized during the time of Henry VIII, but there stand clear examples of retribution, which stood justified. Whereas in CK2, for treason and rebellion, you may get a chance to imprison the offender, but touch his titles and you are likely to face heavy repercussions with the all important popularity modifier. Whereas it would in some cases, be entirely natural, to see the figure executed and his titles revoked. *A traitor loses much legitimacy after being imprisoned and losing a war, which should make taking these less overall damaging.*

But mostly the issue of fear is what prompts this thread. And I've given a few examples to justify it, but as far as the power of fear goes, few examples can be greater than Vlad the Impaler, which once again, comes after the end of the timeline CK2 takes place, but stands a vivid example of how much fear in it's most base form can accomplish. And while in a natural sense, there should be some natural deterrent to wage an unrealistic war against a liege who got a strong record on warfare, torture and other cruel acts, there currently stands no such deterrent. There is also no deterrent for added repercussions after losing a major conflict other than what mentioned, and what's worse, is that once a war has been waged, the defending side cannot press counter-claims which would also be a natural thing under the era. The biggest concern overall I have, in few words, is that what should inspire fear, inspires rebellion in this game. Whereas all that which inspire weakness, while generally lowering intrigue, promotes order. A correlation which does not entirely fit reality. Don't take this as too much of a criticism, because I do love this game, but the natural order is not entirely respected I feel. For every action there is also an equal reaction, and a prison sentence to one man who might have set up a massive rebellion, would be astoundingly merciful in terms of the era in question whereas in natural cases power would most likely be centralized. I love that the game has an active discouragement of such, as did the era, and the strength of character the ruler has will of course have quite some effect as to some degree it already does. The game would profit from making fear a more natural element to the game, and the events that could be made, as well as balancing fear with what could be seen as tyrannical behavior, would open up a new dimension of character for the game.

Also, first thread and post. So hi. :laugh:
 
Last edited:
I agree entirely. A very well thought out thread -- especially for a first post :D. I agree that it'd certainly be nice if a 'fear' system was added. As you stated, right now tyranny just correlates into pissed off vassals and a knife in the back, rather than vassals that are cowering in the shadows because of how scary you are.

Welcome to the forums!
 
A Dread modifier that drastically lowered their opinion of you and their rebellion chance would be nice. There should be nothing to stop me banishing the Superduke of Valencia!
 
I also agree completely. There should be a fear modifier which lowers the chance of vassals rebelling and your vassals opinion of you, but which increases the chance of other vassals rebelling once a few of your vassals already have revolted (their fear of you diminishes, as they believe that with enough other vassals rebelling, they can actually beat you).

Also, you wrote "Caesar" wrong, could you please correct that? :)
 
Indeed I can, wow, positive replies even for a first thread. :D

And pardon any potential spelling errors, I am Norwegian, so expect Norwinglish to strike when you least expect it.
 
Indeed I can, wow, positive replies even for a first thread. :D

And pardon any potential spelling errors, I am Norwegian, so expect Norwinglish to strike when you least expect it.

Thing about the Paradox forums -- people welcome newbies, but they turn into a swarm of angry hornets if someone says something wrong :rofl: (just kidding please don't kill me)
 
+1

i think my first post was a question on how to beat france in europa universalis, haha

but regarding the traits, i agree that the "bad ones" should have some advantages, even though we could understand those as punishment for not caring about our characters
 
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.
 
A Dread modifier that drastically lowered their opinion of you and their rebellion chance would be nice. There should be nothing to stop me banishing the Superduke of Valencia!

Firstly i agree 100% with the op about the lack of Tyranical game play. Ive been saying it for awhile now , but there really is no way to even role play a tyrant , let alone have it function historically or in a fun way within the current games mechanics.




However no one should be able to up and Banish another unless its an absolutely awful crime. Just remember , if you the player can do it , the AI should be able to as well. And frankly , getting game overed out of nowhere due to your liege banishing you seems bad.


That said , there are so many ways they could expand on the game to make tyranical reigns , and fear driven authority work. Just for an example , in my most recent game i caught the wife of one of my vassals plotting to kill my first born son and heir to the duchy. What can i do about it? try and imprison her , thats about it. If i try execute her , all vassals will hate me -10 and i lose some piety. As for the plot backers , same story. Several of my own courtiers were trying to support the plot. I can't even imprison them (unless i ask them to stop backing it and imprison the plot leader before they accept). Its really stupid imho. I know Kings and rulers of this time period didn't wield absolute power , but surely someone caught trying to murder the kings son and heir would be fair game? i mean the pope won't even excommunicate her (not that i should have to pay 50 piety for this) and as well as that , even if you do grab absolute ca , you still can't do anything more severe than imprison.



I really wish you could execute certain people , and that would be a warning to prevent future plots as well as another way to get taxes and levies. However it should come with the risk of a PROPER depose war. And as well as that , there probably should be a depose liege plot (for this exact case , but also for other situations). As it stands , depose liege wars are basically a 1on1 with the Ruler. They never succeed. Why not let them plot it and group up on the Ruler? So you would have a situation where pushing it too far as a tyrant causes a big rebellion , a real proper threat to your rule. However if you manage it correctly its another viable way to play , just like being just or merciful is.
 
Thing about the Paradox forums -- people welcome newbies, but they turn into a swarm of angry hornets if someone says something wrong :rofl: (just kidding please don't kill me)

Paradox forums are awesome for the most part. A very diverse group of people. Most are intelligent and mature. I credit that to the games paradox makes. You don't get many 15 year old CoD gamers here trolling every thread. The best thing is almost everyone is helpful.
 
I agree
right now tyrant only works if you've been around long enough (+ long reign) and done some great things (+ crusader etc) to make people love you enough to allow you to go crazy killing people and locking them in prison

There should be indeed a "fear" meter, possibly even have prestige influence on it. For example, why would I rebel against King so-and-so the Great with 10k prestige for wresting bears naked and single handedly winning crusades even if he is locking up everyone and torturing them? HE IS GREAT AND I AM MINUSCULE

that is what the vassals should feel
 
I agree
right now tyrant only works if you've been around long enough (+ long reign) and done some great things (+ crusader etc) to make people love you enough to allow you to go crazy killing people and locking them in prison

There should be indeed a "fear" meter, possibly even have prestige influence on it. For example, why would I rebel against King so-and-so the Great with 10k prestige for wresting bears naked and single handedly winning crusades even if he is locking up everyone and torturing them? HE IS GREAT AND I AM MINUSCULE

that is what the vassals should feel

Yeah but i also think it should apply greatly to plots.

If i catch someone plotting to overthrow me , and i execute them , it could realistically go 2 ways (and did historically).


1. The vassals get mad , perhaps those who were plotting move the plan into full steam and start the overthrow plot.

2. The vassals get scared and back down from the plot , and any further plots for some time.


This is what happened historically , its what would happen now (and does happen in less stable countries) , and it adds a real Choice to being a tyrant.



On the flip side , releasing prisoners should possibly have a double effect itself.


1. Vassals are happy and think you are awesome.

2. Vassals think you are weak and have no authority , and thats why you let the prisoner go (i.e you feared their wrath if you didn't!!!!!).

Not every vassal should think the same way , but it should be based on something (ambitious? brave? craven? kind? just? arbitary? ect).


And of course the 3rd option being to leave said people in prison alltogether , and in such a case there is no risk or reward. No chance of some vassals rejecting the choice you made , but likewise no chance for solidifying your hold or making them happy with the choice. To me this kind of thing creates REAL choices. Because as it stands , you don't really have a choice. You either do the right thing (leave them in prison / release them) or you role play , and do the wrong thing (execute them).
 
Firstly i agree 100% with the op about the lack of Tyranical game play. Ive been saying it for awhile now , but there really is no way to even role play a tyrant , let alone have it function historically or in a fun way within the current games mechanics.




However no one should be able to up and Banish another unless its an absolutely awful crime. Just remember , if you the player can do it , the AI should be able to as well. And frankly , getting game overed out of nowhere due to your liege banishing you seems bad.


That said , there are so many ways they could expand on the game to make tyranical reigns , and fear driven authority work. Just for an example , in my most recent game i caught the wife of one of my vassals plotting to kill my first born son and heir to the duchy. What can i do about it? try and imprison her , thats about it. If i try execute her , all vassals will hate me -10 and i lose some piety. As for the plot backers , same story. Several of my own courtiers were trying to support the plot. I can't even imprison them (unless i ask them to stop backing it and imprison the plot leader before they accept). Its really stupid imho. I know Kings and rulers of this time period didn't wield absolute power , but surely someone caught trying to murder the kings son and heir would be fair game? i mean the pope won't even excommunicate her (not that i should have to pay 50 piety for this) and as well as that , even if you do grab absolute ca , you still can't do anything more severe than imprison.



I really wish you could execute certain people , and that would be a warning to prevent future plots as well as another way to get taxes and levies. However it should come with the risk of a PROPER depose war. And as well as that , there probably should be a depose liege plot (for this exact case , but also for other situations). As it stands , depose liege wars are basically a 1on1 with the Ruler. They never succeed. Why not let them plot it and group up on the Ruler? So you would have a situation where pushing it too far as a tyrant causes a big rebellion , a real proper threat to your rule. However if you manage it correctly its another viable way to play , just like being just or merciful is.

Actually, I would love my AI liege revoking and redistributing my titles. As it is, it is far too easy to create a superduchy, and essentially eat up the Kingdom from within. The AI should NOT stand for such infighting within his realm, and would NOT tolerate a troublemaker that constantly warred with his neighbors. The AI should be as a player and try to marginalize my powers and abilities. It should deliver an ultimatum to me to institute Gavelkind before assassinating me and allowing my realm to divide itself among my sons. It should try to banish me!

That would be awesome.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I would love my AI liege revoking and redistributing my titles. As it is, it is far too easy to create a superduchy, and essentially eat up the Kingdom from within. The AI should NOT stand for such infighting within his realm, and would NOT tolerate a troublemaker that constantly warred with his neighbors. The AI should be as a player and try to marginalize my powers and abilities. It should deliver an ultimatum to me to institute Gavelkind before assassinating me and allowing my realm to divide itself among my sons. It should try to banish me!

That would be awesome.



Yeah revoke a few titles , sure. But banishing would make you go from super duke to game over in a single flash. Thats not at all fun. There is no way to avoid it as a vassal. But executions? random imprisonments? thats not game over , but it would make me question my fealty to the King.... and it would give me a reason to depose him.

I was playing a game earlier and i noticed that my ruler (me) had -85 relations with my liege. Why? Well She was Female , She was Excommunicated , She was "Cruel" and "Arbitary" as well as having a Female heir. I kept getting spammed with offers to plot against her. I kept saying no because from my perspective , she hadn't done anything remotely bad to me. I have had games where a Just , Kind , Honest and Trusting King tried to chain revoke my titles.... that made me hate him as a player. But just having some stupid traits , or being a woman doesn't really concern me. And its that side of the game that is really weak. If my liege started imprisoning anyone who plotted , than executed a few of them , i would immediately as a player think STRONGLY about cancelling any of my plots. That situation would be a Just , But harsh King , and it would cement his authority. Now if my King went around and Started Banishing Executing everyone at random with absolutely no reason to do so , i would immediately try and form some kind of plot with the remaining vassals to try and depose him.

Thats how the system should be. Fear and Tyranny are not necessarily the same thing. If the King is taking HEAVY measures to deal with Traitors and plotters , it can still be considered tyrannical , but its not the same as an Insane or Mad King , who most vassals could not tolerate for very long.



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.


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.

What you are saying does have some merit though. And its what we are actually asking for. IF a tyrant goes too far , people should rally up to depose him. But as it stands there is ZERO benefit , ZERO reason and ZERO potential for a player to ever act tyrannical at all , which is at odds with the time period. Above all else , wouldn't it be nice to see your "wroth , Cruel , arbitrary" ruler and be able to actually role play that type of person? as has been mentioned , atm in ck2 , you either play as a Just , Merciful ruler , or you play suboptimally and outright poorly in the name of Roleplay. There is no actual choice.


Which is another thing ive wondered about for along time in this game. Why is there no plot to depose liege? there is a plot to lower ca , and if you have a claim , you can sometimes plot to take the title (with vassals potentially helping you). But you cannot ever Plot to depose your liege. So anytime someone hates the King , they fight a 1vs1 Independence war or a 1vs1 depose war and it rarely every works (only tends to work if a series of unfortunate events collide and cause 1/2 the realm to rebel at once , but not together. Or they are simply so far away the war score ticks in their favour). Without a way to plot to depose your liege , i think the prospect of it happening is almost impossible (without player intervention).
 
Last edited: