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

[Burage]

I obviously agree that small counties and duchies should stop revolting by themselves simply because they have no hope of winning, but otherwise I'm not sure if ruling by fear should have any benefits in CK2. With almost all of a king's or emperor's power being dependant on his vassals, I suspect a ruler who acts like a tyrant and bully towards all of them would very likely find himself deposed or worse, which is really what the tyranny penalty is about.

On the other hand, traits like cruel and impaler making the peasants in your personal demense less likely to revolt would be nice.

[Kynaz]

I thought rmsdc was being constructive.....and aren't you being a little condenscending by telling him that?
Anyway no apology needed.

Absolutely because he has the intent to cause drama , and 0 intent to add to the thread. But that isn't why you and i are posting in here so lets forget about de-railers ok?

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.

As for this , i have to strongly question your view of fear being implemented already in the game. Being arbitrary isn't about being specifically cruel or instilling fear. Being arbitrary is about being inconsistent. For example , the King execute's one guy for stealing a loaf of bread , than lets another guy who did the exact same crime go free. Being just conversely would be giving both of them the same punishment , all the time. The law would be upheld in a consistent manner by a Just person. Because what is Just and UnJust is always going to be subjective to the person being judged.

But i fail to see how -10 relations with all vassals , and a further relations hit with people who have the just trait amounts to a fear mechanic. In fact , that would be the exact opposite of a fear mechanic. That would be the Entire problem we are bringing up here. Cruel adds a very small bonus to fighting if said person is leading troops. Its a start , sure , but why shouldn't they build on it?



As for "modern Britain" , and having a tyrannical King or Queen , i agree that if SHE started trying to enact tyranny on the British people , they would not stand for it. But you have to ask , who is it that won't stand for it? only the "warrior class" , which in this case would be the Military, and the Police , has that power. They represent the LAW of the state , and if someone can pry into their hearts and minds , said someone can indeed assume control and act tyrannical. You might not realize it , but some of the lower and middle classes rioted a few years ago in the UK. Compared to medieval Europe , the things the Government implemented were not tyrannical. But compared to the standards of other 1st world countries , and compared to previous living standards , alot of the austerity measures the UK government took caused Outrage. But the riots did nothing , changed nothing. Same thing happened in Greece. The riots were completely ineffective because the military and police didn't agree with the rioters.

The kind of situation i was talking about earlier usually requires a drop in living standards. This is a heavily European forum , so ill avoid discussing what happened last Global depression and its effect on Germany, but i think a smart man can understand what im saying. When conditions drop , people get hungry and discontent , its the men with the weapons who are the key to power. And the person who can control those men will reign , and be able to enact many tyrannies on people. The non-military classes are quite powerless when push comes to shove.


But anyway im pretty sure no one in this thread is saying we WANT a tyrant to rule us in real life. No one is saying we want anything like that in real life. I don't want to march my personal army over to my neighbouring city to kill 1/2 their men and "claim" my rightful city. I don't want to assassinate my homosexual , cruel , arbitary son in real life. And if the "King" of England staged a tournament , you can bet id take the prestige loss over jousting , in real life. But we are not talking about real life in the same way you are. Im using real life historical examples to try and show how many rulers of the games time period were able to successfully , and in fact bolster their rule by instilling some fear into people (via tyranny often). IM not actually trying to debate how righteous or morally , fundamentally or otherwise "good" / "bad" it is for tyranny to exist. IM trying to argue that Ck2 is missing one of the most crucial aspects of the time period , and is missing a ton of potential depth because it lacks any sort of fear system at all.

I obviously agree that small counties and duchies should stop revolting by themselves simply because they have no hope of winning, but otherwise I'm not sure if ruling by fear should have any benefits in CK2. With almost all of a king's or emperor's power being dependant on his vassals, I suspect a ruler who acts like a tyrant and bully towards all of them would very likely find himself deposed or worse, which is really what the tyranny penalty is about.

On the other hand, traits like cruel and impaler making the peasants in your personal demense less likely to revolt would be nice.

Again , tyranny and fear are not the exact same thing. Tyranny causes fear , but you can cause fear justly.




Example A : Plotter A tries to murder my son and heir. I Execute him and his wife for the crime. I have not acted in a way that threatens vassals who act loyally and honour their oaths. But i have acted heavily against one who would break his oath.

Example B : Now if i was to run around randomly imprisoning people for no reason whatsoever , if i was to punish loyal and good vassals for no reason , and in a harsh manner. You are probably right , they would eventually take no more and , at the very least , look the other way when danger approached.

But so far , Example A is completely missing from the game. And example B is a very static implementation.

[ChienAboyeur]

As for this , i have to strongly question your view of fear being implemented already in the game.

Fear is already implemented in the game. When a plotter surrenders a plot, it is done out of fear (dare not refuse or something)
If known plotters go away with their plot en masse, asking to end a plot is unlikely to work as they no longer fear you (the fact you did not imprison people is ascribed to a lack of power) Imprison a few of plotters and suddenly, the remaining are back to fear you.

[Clendor]

+1. Totally agree. As a ruler, I should be able to strike fear into the hearts of my vassals instead of appeasing them all the time.

[aprogressivist]

I think this would be a very cool addition.

A Dread modifier that makes people hate you but lowers their chance of rebelling.

And then also the creation of a Rebellion plot to start a rebellion, where your Dread modifier makes it more likely your vassals might join the Plot...

[Jaden Mental]

I think there is a fair consensus that merely appeasing ones vassal without being able to threaten, suicidal vassal wars 'where plots would be much more feasible' and probably some needed distinction between 'tyrannical' and 'punitive'. It stands very unlikely that one who has initiated a civil war should be able to hold a claim on his land when he has effectively branded himself, if not his entire family a traitor. Making the vassals a bit more conservative in terms of starting wars as well as a bit more sly as far as their plots go would be of good overall benefit.

Perhaps some plotting in terms of foreign intervention would also be a desirable addition?

[Afinati]

Do craven enemies respond to you with more hesitancy? If not, they should. And you should have the ability to terrify your vassals under a certain crown authority or with a certain level of Diplomatic skills. Fear would be a fascinating and deeply potent addition to the game, since a whole new world of simulation and strategy would be available. Terrify/terrorize an independent border county into vassalage (or duke if you're a king). Don't just kill your second son or deprive him of major titles, beat him for years and give him a stigma. Perhaps he develops the arbitrary trait or becomes a serial killer or gets the right nudge from another vassal and becomes the ultimate tragic hero and usurps you. That would be so awesome.

I do think that the Prestige positive effect to opinions should include a secondary bonus for yoru dynasty's prestige ... even if it's more minor. My family created over a dozen kingdoms that previously didn't exist, united Europe, and spread Christianity across Africa ... but the fact that I'm humble is as important to you as what I've done for your family? Or, on that note, give me retrograde opinion bonuses that have a half-life. If I gave your grandpa a kingdom, and he was a courtier ... like me a bit more. Yeah, I get it if we're fifth cousins four times removed, and my great x5 grandfather gave your ancestor Bavaria ... why it shouldn't matter. But some effects should last across families and not just individuals.