Blood for blood - a request for an option to execute murderers

[Vasious]

Not claiming to be an expert but in my opinion the following feels right.
Plotting to kill the ruler(and family) is Banishment of the Noble you have evidence organised it ie fails and revealed.
If they succeeded then either banish or kill.
Killing of other nobles/courtiers I think banishment at most or imprisonment if failed. Maybe for courtiers imprisionment at most.
And I would keep the % chance of success as they may be powerful enough to resist by arms or feel if unlanded

Rebelling against the ruler I would be more inclinded the imprisionment is sufficent as in game already.
I feel it is a Gentlemans rule that two nobles have a dispute, the low born to the dying to make a point and then there is a result, not a true life and death struggle. Of course history is full of counter examples to that, but at the end of the day it is a legal battle than ends up a real battle. What legal rights does the King have (lower CA plot) who has the best legal claim etc etc

 

[Velorian]

Which is exactly the problem with the OP's suggestion. It belongs to the 16th century at the earliest, not to the 11th-15th.

I'm starting to think that discussing something with a bunch of people who have no idea what they are talking about is pointless. Can somebody provide a decent reference (ie not wikipedia) ?

Wikipedia is not such a horrible reference, you know, most articles have references to actual books. At any rate, I doubt you can find any books stating that a monarch executing his son's murderer would have been considered a tyrant. It is simply absurd.

The whole business with treason automatically carrying the death penalty is more a 16th century thing, but in the medieval ages you could not expect to get away with messing with the family of people in power. Family was everything.
Like you said, blood feuds would have been the result, but if the victim's father happened to be the liege of the murderer, the result of that blood feud would be a call for an arrest, probably followed by execution/banishment/abdication.
This is something the church would also be outraged by, they would at the very least support a forced abdication.

I can understand you would want proper references to prove controversial statements, but this seems like common sense to me and while I am no historian, I have read a lot on the subject. Perhaps you could provide a decent reference that shows this to be wrong?

 

[HabemusZlatan]

I'm pretty sure some kind of Weregeld was still used in the early timeframe, one could implement that in germanic areas for starters.
In more recent times, there is some Nicholaus von Renys or something like that that was beheaded and had all his male sons killed because suspected of treason after the battle of Grunwald.

Of course, there was a huge vassals rebellion after that, but I bet it wasn't because they killed some dude everyone was sure he was a traitor.

On the other hand, Byzantines were more careful about killing people who conspired/attempted to murder. Blinding and banishment was the most common punishment, as other landed nobility coul easily get uppity about killing.

In the end, the vassal modifier for executing conspirators and whatnot doesn't represent very well justice in the Middle Ages, who varied from person to person and from people to people. A legitimate (in the eyes of a king) execution could have carried other problems with unhappy vassals. Also, even Alexios Komnenos who, despite having had more muder attempts than Fidel Castro, pratically didn't kill many of them (if one) for other reasons, inlcuding some Romanos Diogenes nephew who was merely blinded (and apparently against the Emperor's will). Saxons and all Germanic people in the 12th century still paid the Weregeld for murder rather than retribution (excluding of course more extreme cases and the murder of slaves, which didn't have a weregeld to pay so could be killed, with the default of losing the money paid for the slave)

tl;dr:It should be roleplaying really, a very loved ruler will get a negligible malus in the end, although I'd level it based on crown authority/succession law just for the sake of it (Independent vassals really could get angry at a display of power, same Elective. Thus meaning the HRE should never really do that. Also trials). One could at least argue that High Treason should get a no penalty execution, but it's like letting a foreign country into your country or deliberately letting win a foreign force. Trying to kill the King's son because you support another candidate to the Throne ideally is treason against the King, not against the country, absolutism was very far away from Middle Ages.

I'd argue more that the current Muslim succession system doesn't depict most muslim countries of the time except the Ottomans (Nepotism was the reason the Umayyad were overthrown actually, and the current system forces you to be nepotist otherwise WHOOHOO DECADENCE). And I'm not sure the Ottomans used the Kafes system at the time, if we really want to be picky.

 

[FabiusBile]

I'm pretty sure some kind of Weregeld was still used in the early timeframe, one could implement that in germanic areas for starters.
In more recent times, there is some Nicholaus von Renys or something like that that was beheaded and had all his male sons killed because suspected of treason after the battle of Grunwald.

Of course, there was a huge vassals rebellion after that, but I bet it wasn't because they killed some dude everyone was sure he was a traitor.

On the other hand, Byzantines were more careful about killing people who conspired/attempted to murder. Blinding and banishment was the most common punishment, as other landed nobility coul easily get uppity about killing.

In the end, the vassal modifier for executing conspirators and whatnot doesn't represent very well justice in the Middle Ages, who varied from person to person and from people to people. A legitimate (in the eyes of a king) execution could have carried other problems with unhappy vassals. Also, even Alexios Komnenos who, despite having had more muder attempts than Fidel Castro, pratically didn't kill many of them (if one) for other reasons, inlcuding some Romanos Diogenes nephew who was merely blinded (and apparently against the Emperor's will). Saxons and all Germanic people in the 12th century still paid the Weregeld for murder rather than retribution (excluding of course more extreme cases and the murder of slaves, which didn't have a weregeld to pay so could be killed, with the default of losing the money paid for the slave)

tl;dr:It should be roleplaying really, a very loved ruler will get a negligible malus in the end, although I'd level it based on crown authority/succession law just for the sake of it (Independent vassals really could get angry at a display of power, same Elective. Thus meaning the HRE should never really do that. Also trials). One could at least argue that High Treason should get a no penalty execution, but it's like letting a foreign country into your country or deliberately letting win a foreign force. Trying to kill the King's son because you support another candidate to the Throne ideally is treason against the King, not against the country, absolutism was very far away from Middle Ages.

I'd argue more that the current Muslim succession system doesn't depict most muslim countries of the time except the Ottomans (Nepotism was the reason the Umayyad were overthrown actually, and the current system forces you to be nepotist otherwise WHOOHOO DECADENCE). And I'm not sure the Ottomans used the Kafes system at the time, if we really want to be picky.

Weregeld was used in the early germanic Kingdoms; usually the offender had to pay 3 times of what the killed person made in a year. But this soon stopped and capital punishments became the norm. Prisons were seldomly used (there was no desire to keep someone alive since that usually costs money) and were always for the nobility or rich people.

This Link has some text about the death penalty in england during the period of the game and specifically brings up William the Conqueror who was against taking life outside of war. This also means that the death penalty existed before and after his reign. This should not be surprising since murder has always been considered a capital offense in Britain and remained so until its abolition.

 

[D.PHa]

Which is exactly the problem with the OP's suggestion. It belongs to the 16th century at the earliest, not to the 11th-15th.

I'm starting to think that discussing something with a bunch of people who have no idea what they are talking about is pointless. Can somebody provide a decent reference (ie not wikipedia) ?

Sorry, but i think u just wanted to say something different and you did it.
Why do you think that reasonable emperor of ERE would have known who was the murderer of his heir and would not do anything to get him suffered?
Maybe your point was vassal liege relationship was different(less authoritive liege) at those times, but men where same all the time, we love our kins and most of the time we won't forgive(even though it might be very good decision in real life i think) those who hurt them, especially when we are much more powerful and especially when this kin is their own firstborn son.
I say all the time, when talking about ck2, it's not about what happened in history, this game is about making alternative history, so we should be able to do things that COULD have happened not what HAD actually happened.

I think there should be an option, appoint spymaster to kill him with +20% to ordinary chance of assassination or something like that at least.

BTW I don't understand why devs ignore this kind of suggestions, which are very simple to do and would improve the game drastically, i'm sure this does not need 1/1000th of a time which was required creation of retinue system...

 

[feastonthrones]

I think that if you have a son/daughter/wife/husband/sibling killed by another person in your realm you should be able to do something, especially as the ruler. Maybe not straight up going and murdering them but having other options; 3 perhaps so when you are told who is implicated during the event (though you have insufficient evidence, so that your vassals will see you as tyrannical if you do anything to him), you get an event which states that 'X has been killed and so and so has been implicated on the grapevine though there is not formal evidence to charge him' so you can either;
1. Go straight to where he is residing and try and kill him which has the 70% chance (or something) of killing him in cold blood and your vassals all take a -25% view of you unless you find evidence when he is dead in which case the negative vassal opinion effect doesn't happen and this should be at 35% probability. Or there is a 30% chance he fights back and kills you.
2. You go and confront him, which has the 40% chance of them confessing and going to jail, 30% chance that he denies everything and retaliates with violence, where either one of the parties could get killed, or a 30% chance that he feels hurt by the accusations, accuses you of slander and vassal opinions are lowered by 15% for false accusations.
Finally option 3. if your state intrigue/spymasters intrigue is high enough you employ your spymaster to work his dark arts and tools of manipulation to go and seek out the truth which has the potential effects of 50% chance of finding evidence which is given to public knowledge, leading the accused of being confined to your jails and all opinions in your kingdom towards him are changed by -40% and you can do with him as you please incurring no negative opinions. 40% chance that your spymaster finds the evidence but before he can do anything with it he feels he is threatened and in an act of self-preservation pays assassins to kill the accused, none of which leads back to you or costs you anything. Or finally 10% your spymaster finds nothing, you find him to be totally incompetent at such a crucial moment and your relation with him is soured by -50.

I think this would be a good compromise and fit with the style of decision making and events in CKII. What do you all think?

 

[Zireael]

If they're caught in the murder they should get a trait allowing them to be executed/banished/jailed without penalty.

I agree completely.

 

[Dogia]

It should be okay too execute someone when they have killed a member of your family. I think that execution should also be overhauled to have different effects on characters according to trait and opinion. If i execute someone, everyone who hated that person should like the decision. As well a craven character might not like it, but it should actually make them less likely too rebel since they are fearful of the consequences. That would make craven a desirable trait to have amongst your vassals. It might be worse for the realm, but better for the ruling dynasty. Otherwise the execution ability has not use.

 

[D.PHa]

It should be okay too execute someone when they have killed a member of your family. I think that execution should also be overhauled to have different effects on characters according to trait and opinion. If i execute someone, everyone who hated that person should like the decision. As well a craven character might not like it, but it should actually make them less likely too rebel since they are fearful of the consequences. That would make craven a desirable trait to have amongst your vassals. It might be worse for the realm, but better for the ruling dynasty. Otherwise the execution ability has not use.

I think that's very much reasonable, plus maybe if your character is Kind or something, in very rare occasions should you be able to execute someone, and on the contrary if your character is cruel, ck2 lacks these kind of things, with which it would be way more fun and it isn't that hard to implement i believe, main work here goes on planning these features and community would help with lots of ideas if they don't have time for it

 

[Ekstrakt]

Signed. If my own vassal is able to murder my close kin without punishment -- I usually gain a personal vendetta where I spend both cash and effort in order to murder said vassal.

 

[unmerged(464016)]

I think there might be some confusion in this thread though.


When you are told who murdered your close family member , is it the GAME telling the PLAYER , or is it also known in the games world that the person is guilty of the murder. Because in one situation , you are realistically just murdering someone who hasn't been proven as guilty. In another instance , you are simply dealing fair justice.

The way I have always interpreted this particular thing was that my character in game didn't actually know who was responsible (seriously this is the medieval ages , there's no forensic detectives to piece it together), but the game told me for Piece of mind (having your heir die randomly and never knowing who did it isn't very satisfying).


Having said all of this , I have always felt like your options in dealing with a plot to kill someone close to you is way too limited. IF someone was actually caught plotting to murder someone of importance , and especially a close member of a liege lords family , It seems very likely an execution or even banishment would be just. Currently in game if such a situation occurs , you can only imprison .

 

[Mods]

This would make plots practically useless if even success could be met with such harsh consequences, if a plot succeeds it's because you deserved it

 

[Pyoro]

There's two kinds of success though - your target dies without anyone knowing who did it, and your target dies with everybody knowing who did it. It doesn't make sense that you're let of that easily for the latter, and, either way, assassinations are a pretty powerful tool as they are now and making them more of a double-edged sword probably would make the game more challenging in a credible and interesting way...

 

[Me_]

I think there might be some confusion in this thread though.


When you are told who murdered your close family member , is it the GAME telling the PLAYER , or is it also known in the games world that the person is guilty of the murder. Because in one situation , you are realistically just murdering someone who hasn't been proven as guilty. In another instance , you are simply dealing fair justice.

No. If you take a look around, you'll notice that if the murderer is discovered he/she gets a relations penalty with other characters (not all, but for example with the victim's close kin, I don't know the details). So no, it's not the game telling the player things that are an out-of character knowledge. The other characters know it as well.

As for the original topic:

To everyone that thinks the current situation is fine.
Imagine, if you will, two scenarios:
One: King Olaf’s son has been murdered and mayor Adalbert has been apprehended as the men behind the murder. King Olaf has called for all of his vassals to arrive at court in Anhalt to listen to his judgment.
‘Lords of Denmark’ said King Olaf ‘I have summoned you all here to bear witness to my judgment. My son’s murderer, mayor Adalbert is to be released at once from my prison’
For a moment there was silence, and then the great hall exploded with cries of joy. Count Herbert has renounced his claims to independence, Duke Folkmar has agreed to pay higher taxes, Archbishop Eberhard has promised to stop paying taxes to the pope and to send it to the king instead, Baron Werner has decided to send more of his men to his liege’s service.
King Olaf rose from his throne
‘Shut up!’ he yelled A of you, have you not heard what I just said? A men who murdered my son is going to walk away free. If the life of a Prince of Denmark is worth so little, how much do you think your own lives are worth? I basically just told every single vassal or courtier in the realm that they are free to plot, scheme and above all murder as they please.’
For a moment there was silence, and then the great hall exploded with cries of joy. Count Herbert has renounced his claims to independence, Duke Folkmar has agreed to pay higher taxes, Archbishop Eberhard has promised to stop paying taxes to the pope and to send it to the king instead, Baron Werner has decided to send more of his men to his liege’s service.
Two: King Olaf is eating a meal with his brothers: Count Kuno and Baron Gerhard. The atmosphere is gloomy – their mother has recently been murder at the orders of Count Dietwin.
‘My King, brother’ said count Kuno ‘there’s something I want to talk about. It’s about our mother’s murderer’
King Olaf gave his brother a long deep look and then said:
‘He’s been imprisoned and awaits my judgment’
‘Yes’ said Kuno ‘so I’ve heard. You see, the thing is…’
‘You should let him go’ finished Gerhard’
‘What?’ King Olaf’s face was a mixture of disbelief and outrage.
‘You heard me well brother’ said Gerhard ‘Dietwin must be released from your prison’.
‘Yes’ added Kuno ‘Don’t get us wrong brother, me and Gerhard, we really loved our mother, but it’s just not right, I mean he didn’t like do anything, right I’m not sure we should even tolerate the fact that you imprisoned him’.
King Olaf clenched hid fists.
‘He will die’
‘I don’t think that’s a good idea, brother’ said Kuno ‘If you kill him, this may very well cost you your kingdom. Granted, nobody really likes Dietwin, he’s the most prestigious member of his dynasty, he has no friends and his conspirators were mostly random courtiers and bishops, but if you execute him… Well, let me put it this way: do you want Pomeralia to start a war of independence? Do you want your bishops to start paying taxes to the Pope? Do you want for half of your vassals to start a war to lower the authority the Danish crown holds? If so, then go ahead and kill Dietwin’

That’s how it works right now.

 

[GoodGuy Number1]

I support this thread.

 

[Mixxer5]

No. If you take a look around, you'll notice that if the murderer is discovered he gets a relations penalty with other characters (not all, but for example with the victim's close kin, I don't know the details). So no, it's not the game telling the player things that are an out-of character knowledge. The other characters know it as well.

As for the original topic:

To everyone that thinks the current situation is fine.
Imagine, if you will, two scenarios:
One: King Olaf’s son has been murdered and mayor Adalbert has been apprehended as the men behind the murder. King Olaf has called for all of his vassals to arrive at court in Anhalt to listen to his judgment.
‘Lords of Denmark’ said King Olaf ‘I have summoned you all here to bear witness to my judgment. My son’s murderer, mayor Adalbert is to be released at once from my prison’
For a moment there was silence, and then the great hall exploded with cries of joy. Count Herbert has renounced his claims to independence, Duke Folkmar has agreed to pay higher taxes, Archbishop Eberhard has promised to stop paying taxes to the pope and to send it to the king instead, Baron Werner has decided to send more of his men to his liege’s service.
King Olaf rose from his throne
‘Shut up!’ he yelled A of you, have you not heard what I just said? A men who murdered my son is going to walk away free. If the life of a Prince of Denmark is worth so little, how much do you think your own lives are worth? I basically just told every single vassal or courtier in the realm that they are free to plot, scheme and above all murder as they please.’
For a moment there was silence, and then the great hall exploded with cries of joy. Count Herbert has renounced his claims to independence, Duke Folkmar has agreed to pay higher taxes, Archbishop Eberhard has promised to stop paying taxes to the pope and to send it to the king instead, Baron Werner has decided to send more of his men to his liege’s service.
Two: King Olaf is eating a meal with his brothers: Count Kuno and Baron Gerhard. The atmosphere is gloomy – their mother has recently been murder at the orders of Count Dietwin.
‘My King, brother’ said count Kuno ‘there’s something I want to talk about. It’s about our mother’s murderer’
King Olaf gave his brother a long deep look and then said:
‘He’s been imprisoned and awaits my judgment’
‘Yes’ said Kuno ‘so I’ve heard. You see, the thing is…’
‘You should let him go’ finished Gerhard’
‘What?’ King Olaf’s face was a mixture of disbelief and outrage.
‘You heard me well brother’ said Gerhard ‘Dietwin must be released from your prison’.
‘Yes’ added Kuno ‘Don’t get us wrong brother, me and Gerhard, we really loved our mother, but it’s just not right, I mean he didn’t like do anything, right I’m not sure we should even tolerate the fact that you imprisoned him’.
King Olaf clenched hid fists.
‘He will die’
‘I don’t think that’s a good idea, brother’ said Kuno ‘If you kill him, this may very well cost you your kingdom. Granted nobody really likes Dietwin, he’s the most prestigious member of his dynasty, he has no friends and his conspirators were mostly random courtiers and bishops, but if you execute him… Well let me put it this way: Do you want Pomeralia to start a war of independence? Do you want your bishops to start paying taxes to the Pope? Do you want for half of your vassals to start a war to lover the authority the Danish crown holds? If so then go ahead and kill Dietwin’

That’s how it works right now.

Perfect. So true

 

[Lannock]

We should be able to execute any kind of traitor without penalty. In my most recent faction war I was against a faction pressing a claim for my Uncle to my Empire. I managed to capture him in a battle and to end this war quickly I decided I would be ok with the -10 to relationship so I executed him. The war did end but now I've been given the Kinslayer trait! I really don't think that's fair, he betrayed and tried to overthrow me I shouldn't be hated like that for 'removing' the problem. If I tried to murder him with shady tactics and got found out, sure but it was a execution everyone knew about.

 

[Kaiserjagen]

+1

Throw another hat on to the pile.

 

[Mixxer5]

We should be able to execute any kind of traitor without penalty. In my most recent faction war I was against a faction pressing a claim for my Uncle to my Empire. I managed to capture him in a battle and to end this war quickly I decided I would be ok with the -10 to relationship so I executed him. The war did end but now I've been given the Kinslayer trait! I really don't think that's fair, he betrayed and tried to overthrow me I shouldn't be hated like that for 'removing' the problem. If I tried to murder him with shady tactics and got found out, sure but it was a execution everyone knew about.

I think that banishing this guy should be considered merciful- while killing him shouldn't bother anyone. If someone breaks the law- he must be punished. Same thing with castration/blinding- I capture man responsible for starting civil war and thousands people deaths- and castrating him gives me cruel trait. Great.

 

[brxbrx]

You can already execute murderers. Being able to do it for free (no tyranny or piety penalty) is unrealistic. Nobody sees murder as free, especially not nobles, who tended to play nice with each other in case their ambitions failed.