• 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.

Alexndr

Second Lieutenant
14 Badges
Jul 9, 2011
120
21
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Divine Wind
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Pride of Nations
First of all, does anyone know if the three blind brothers (also playable counts) of the king of Galicië Asturias excisted? And if that is the case, does anyone know who did actually blind them?

Main question though, is there also an advantage to be a Tyrant? I would wish to see the possibility to blind (maybe castrating was an eastern thing to do, no idea) or to scar a traitor or prisoner after victory. Call me sadistic, but I think it would be satisfying... Also I would like it to have some function, for example, the formation of fractions would be discouraged. No one would be crazy enough to go against their king if the cost would be your tongue, eye, or left arm. Maybe it that case as trade-off let people be more interested in murdering or cooperating in plotting against crual ruler. It would be nice to see rulers with more power (larger demenses) or emperors, less depending on income (maybe second trade-off), to be able to get away with anything, be truly named 'the terrible'.

And as icing on the cake, let there be another sequal of events, depending on the type of ruler. When the ruler would die, let there be an event. Negative or possitive depending on chance, and differing in impact depending on time ruled by the ruler. For after a 30 years reign of a ruler called 'the wise' let the people of the kingdom mourn the wise kings, let there be a little economic impact because of iconic art based on the deceased. Or when there would be a truly terrible Tyrant, let there be a period of celebrating, finally the bastard is gone.
 
Last edited:
Tyrant perhaps?
 
I suppose that being a tyrant means that you can do what you want, because you already have -100 opinions on every vassal. Imprison people and kill them if you want, better still banish everyone in the country and then hand out all the titles to landless courtiers you just invited. This will mean you get a good 10000 gold and vassals with 80+ opinions of you.
 
I suppose that being a tyrant means that you can do what you want, because you already have -100 opinions on every vassal. Imprison people and kill them if you want, better still banish everyone in the country and then hand out all the titles to landless courtiers you just invited. This will mean you get a good 10000 gold and vassals with 80+ opinions of you.

The main point would be to have a tool to counter fractions and rule with a firm hand, the trade off would be that your vasals would be less likely to pay you money or send troops, or even try to get you killed
 
The main point would be to have a tool to counter fractions and rule with a firm hand, the trade off would be that your vasals would be less likely to pay you money or send troops, or even try to get you killed
Imprison all of your vassals. You're now a tyrant and have a stable realm where no one can rebel against you.
 
Yes that will work, but I was hoping that there was or will be a less dramastic way of tyrannically play.

There isn't. But being a tyrant is really beneficial if you have a small realm. Your vassals wont rebell since they are no match for your army and you can milk the holy city cow(s) all the time to further improve your holdings. But if you're going this route you'd better make sure to have a wife with high intrigue...
 
The problem IRL with a ruler banishing all his vassals and becoming tyrranic is that the peasantry, burghers, priests, soldiers, palace guards, and lesser nobility would all hate him and fear him coming after them next. If he suddenly invited 30 foreigners to rule his counties and baronies they'd also get hated and would be ousted alongside the tyrant by everyone else.

See: Caligula, Nero, Heliogabulus, 99% of the other tyrants throughout history

However CK2 has no way to simulate the opinions of anyone lower than baron-tier, which is ridiculous...
 
The problem IRL with a ruler banishing all his vassals and becoming tyrranic is that the peasantry, burghers, priests, soldiers, palace guards, and lesser nobility would all hate him and fear him coming after them next. If he suddenly invited 30 foreigners to rule his counties and baronies they'd also get hated and would be ousted alongside the tyrant by everyone else.

See: Caligula, Nero, Heliogabulus, 99% of the other tyrants throughout history

However CK2 has no way to simulate the opinions of anyone lower than baron-tier, which is ridiculous...
Or being a tyrant in one of your realms can end up with the nobles in your main realm deposing you; this happened to Christian II of Denmark who were deposed by the Danish nobility, because they feared he also would behead them.