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:
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: