Not sure if this should be here or in the AAR section, as it isn't a proper AAR, just a situation that arose in my game that I'd like to share with you guys; It really impressed on me what a fantastic game this is, how well it's held up over time, and how amazingly replayable it is.
Here's the setup: I started as the Norman Duchy of Apulia (soon King of Sicily) and I'm gradually working my way up the Italian peninsula, abosrbing independent duchies and snatching up pieces of the HRE when they rebel against the hapless German King, with the intention of becoming King of a united Italy. I like to roleplay my games a bit and not be too gamey, which will be important in this story. I avoided crusading, and had a policy of only handing out titles to members of my dynasty, so Italy will remain ruled by the house of Hauteville.
By the mid 12th century I've worked my way pretty far up the peninsula, to Genoa in the west and the Duchy of Ferrara in the east. On my borders are the independent Duchies of Verona and Lombardy, Venice, and France to the West. I have almost enough counties to usurp the Italian crown and prompt a final showdown with the Emperor. My reputation isn't too great, so I'm cooling my heels until it improves and I can snatch up some more territory. Family-wise, I have one grown son and two daughters. The son, Asclettin, has been groomed to be an excellent heir: MA 18, DI 12, IN 13, ST 11; Just the king to finish what his great-grandfather Robert Guiscard began. Things are looking good.
The trouble starts when my wife dies; With only one heir I decide a little insurance might be prudent and marry a fresh young thing who gets me two more sons in short order. All well and good, I should have some new dukedoms for them by the time their brother is King! Then, when the eldest of these new sons, Henry, is about three years old, a bolt from the blue strikes: he inherits the five-county Duchy of Lombardy! Apparently that daughter I married was better positioned than I thought.
Now I have a quandary; My second son is an independent child ruler, and despite being three years old and my son, he refuses my offer of vassalization (I blame corrupt regents). Furthermore, he has now become my heir; My dynasty follows Salic Consanguinity, and his titles make him the "strongest" of my sons. So, as it stands, on my death he will inherit the Kingdom of Sicily and join Lombardy to the realm. Now, this would be no problem, but for two things: one, he's a child, and two, I already have a very capable heir apparent. What of him? I could give him a few titles to restore his place in the succession, but that would leave Lombardy independent, although still ruled by my dynasty. That I can't allow, and I don't wish to fight an internecine war later to bring it under my control.
Of course, there's another possibility, although I dread thinking about: as a minor, Henry's lands will revert to me if he dies without issue. A few coins in the right hands, and the Duchy could be mine without a single sword drawn... But can I really send assasins to murder my own three-year-old son?
I only have one way out: to wait and see. If Henry grows into a respectable ruler in his own right, I can let him inherit, and his formidable brother Asclettin will have to be content with being a formidable vassal. It's a gamble: if my King dies before he matures, I'll be stuck with Henry no matter what kind of man he becomes. But, on the other hand, my ruler is still hale, and perhaps an illness or accident will demonstrate God's will without my intervention in the meantime.
But here I am, enine years later, and my worst fears seem to have come true: Henry, now twelve, looks poised to be a weak and unpopular ruler: Away from my influence, (and doubtless surrounded by sycophants and opportunists), he has grown selfish and vengeful, and with only two more years until his majority he has MA 8, DI 9, IN 4, and ST 5. There's still a slim chance that his education will make him a Master Theologian and a semi-capable ruler, but if I wait to find out there is a strong chance that he will already have married and gotten some heirs, and my window of opportunity to inherit will be gone.
So now, I have to face the awful choice I've been putting off for ten years: Let Lombardy go, only to fight for it later? Or sacrifice my own son? Should I be a King, or a father?
When I saw my game play out this way it really made me think about how amazing it is when a game can give you this kind of drama totally unscripted. A professional writer might struggle to come up with such an intriguing situation; Look at how many RPGs have completely predictable plots, where even the "twists" come as no surprise. On top of that, I felt like I was facing a true moral dilemma, unlike, say those Bioware games where the "moral choices" consist of "be a complete, puppy-kicking asshole to everyone" or "be a saintly paragon who practically (and sometimes literally) glows with benevolence". It's moments like these that I realize why Paradox games are hands down the best games out there, and why Crusader Kings is quite possibly my favorite among those. I can't wait to see CK2!
Here's the setup: I started as the Norman Duchy of Apulia (soon King of Sicily) and I'm gradually working my way up the Italian peninsula, abosrbing independent duchies and snatching up pieces of the HRE when they rebel against the hapless German King, with the intention of becoming King of a united Italy. I like to roleplay my games a bit and not be too gamey, which will be important in this story. I avoided crusading, and had a policy of only handing out titles to members of my dynasty, so Italy will remain ruled by the house of Hauteville.
By the mid 12th century I've worked my way pretty far up the peninsula, to Genoa in the west and the Duchy of Ferrara in the east. On my borders are the independent Duchies of Verona and Lombardy, Venice, and France to the West. I have almost enough counties to usurp the Italian crown and prompt a final showdown with the Emperor. My reputation isn't too great, so I'm cooling my heels until it improves and I can snatch up some more territory. Family-wise, I have one grown son and two daughters. The son, Asclettin, has been groomed to be an excellent heir: MA 18, DI 12, IN 13, ST 11; Just the king to finish what his great-grandfather Robert Guiscard began. Things are looking good.
The trouble starts when my wife dies; With only one heir I decide a little insurance might be prudent and marry a fresh young thing who gets me two more sons in short order. All well and good, I should have some new dukedoms for them by the time their brother is King! Then, when the eldest of these new sons, Henry, is about three years old, a bolt from the blue strikes: he inherits the five-county Duchy of Lombardy! Apparently that daughter I married was better positioned than I thought.
Now I have a quandary; My second son is an independent child ruler, and despite being three years old and my son, he refuses my offer of vassalization (I blame corrupt regents). Furthermore, he has now become my heir; My dynasty follows Salic Consanguinity, and his titles make him the "strongest" of my sons. So, as it stands, on my death he will inherit the Kingdom of Sicily and join Lombardy to the realm. Now, this would be no problem, but for two things: one, he's a child, and two, I already have a very capable heir apparent. What of him? I could give him a few titles to restore his place in the succession, but that would leave Lombardy independent, although still ruled by my dynasty. That I can't allow, and I don't wish to fight an internecine war later to bring it under my control.
Of course, there's another possibility, although I dread thinking about: as a minor, Henry's lands will revert to me if he dies without issue. A few coins in the right hands, and the Duchy could be mine without a single sword drawn... But can I really send assasins to murder my own three-year-old son?
I only have one way out: to wait and see. If Henry grows into a respectable ruler in his own right, I can let him inherit, and his formidable brother Asclettin will have to be content with being a formidable vassal. It's a gamble: if my King dies before he matures, I'll be stuck with Henry no matter what kind of man he becomes. But, on the other hand, my ruler is still hale, and perhaps an illness or accident will demonstrate God's will without my intervention in the meantime.
But here I am, enine years later, and my worst fears seem to have come true: Henry, now twelve, looks poised to be a weak and unpopular ruler: Away from my influence, (and doubtless surrounded by sycophants and opportunists), he has grown selfish and vengeful, and with only two more years until his majority he has MA 8, DI 9, IN 4, and ST 5. There's still a slim chance that his education will make him a Master Theologian and a semi-capable ruler, but if I wait to find out there is a strong chance that he will already have married and gotten some heirs, and my window of opportunity to inherit will be gone.
So now, I have to face the awful choice I've been putting off for ten years: Let Lombardy go, only to fight for it later? Or sacrifice my own son? Should I be a King, or a father?
When I saw my game play out this way it really made me think about how amazing it is when a game can give you this kind of drama totally unscripted. A professional writer might struggle to come up with such an intriguing situation; Look at how many RPGs have completely predictable plots, where even the "twists" come as no surprise. On top of that, I felt like I was facing a true moral dilemma, unlike, say those Bioware games where the "moral choices" consist of "be a complete, puppy-kicking asshole to everyone" or "be a saintly paragon who practically (and sometimes literally) glows with benevolence". It's moments like these that I realize why Paradox games are hands down the best games out there, and why Crusader Kings is quite possibly my favorite among those. I can't wait to see CK2!
