Still, you have to admit that the Lord Protector was not as bad as man and ruler as portrayed by William Shakespeare, although such a crime would be sure damnation for any prince...
Drakken
Drakken
-
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.
Yep, and if he wanted to keep his head on his shoulders, he had to have no interest in trying to rehabilitate the last York to the eyes of the Tudors. 
Still, Richard III remains my favourite theatre piece ever...
Drakken
Still, Richard III remains my favourite theatre piece ever...
Drakken
Originally posted by Drakken
Yep, and if he wanted to keep his head on his shoulders, he had to have no interest in trying to rehabilitate the last York to the eyes of the Tudors.
Which brings up a related point - that of Thomas More. The revisionists say that he was a Tudor propogandist, portraying Richard III as he did in his biography of the king since he was a Tudor toady. Of course, the revisionists tend to overlook the inconvenient fact that More was exectuted precicely because he refused to be a Tudor toady. Not to mention that More was regarded across Europe by most of his time as one of the most morally upstanding figures of period. But of course, to rescue Richard III from damnation, the revisionists seem to have no problem defaming the moral character of a man who is now a formally canonized saint...
I think certain conditions for murder must be met, like the person in question must be a prisoner or in your care so to speak. But I don't won't MTW style assassinations, crazy ninjas killing rival Kings.
Actually I thought the ninja part was pretty cool in Shogun, but of course the geisha proved that the concept was unworkable. Hence my opinion that if the option to straight out assassinate your opponents it should carry a prohibitive cost with it.