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

[Manic Eskimo]

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) ?

Yep here's one A concise economic history of Britain by Sir John Clapham in the chapters Anglo-Saxon England towns and Trade and England under the Norman Conquerors the author lists and explains the laws for theft and murder and stuff like that under each of the time periods.

I'm sure you have that book and can look it up straight away. Yup wikipedia is useless

 

[Velorian]

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.

Nobles wouldn't make much of a fuss unless it was landed nobility getting executed, even then not if the evidence was irrefutable. Thing is the reaction to an execution is currently the same regardless of why he was executed.

I mean would you dispute that the most common historically plausible outcome to a courtier killing a member of the kings family (leaving sufficient proof of the deed) would be the death of said courtier? I believe that not only would that be the most likely outcome, it would be what the realm expected to happen and even if some might disapprove no tyranny should be given. The only exception I could think of would be if you have low CA and executed a duke, the fellow dukes might get a relation malus because they felt their own authority stepped on, but it still wouldn't be tyranny.

 

[Lord Samuel]

Key arguments on the OP matter are totally valid, and would definitely serve the cause of a better CK2. I'm signing this.

 

[vwclaymore]

Perhaps there should be a random designation over whether you have evidence of the murder. If so, you can execute with no repercussions (and/or have a claim on the noble who treid to assassinate you if they are not in your court), but otherwise the penalties remain.

 

[Theddude]

Nobles wouldn't make much of a fuss unless it was landed nobility getting executed, even then not if the evidence was irrefutable. Thing is the reaction to an execution is currently the same regardless of why he was executed.

I mean would you dispute that the most common historically plausible outcome to a courtier killing a member of the kings family (leaving sufficient proof of the deed) would be the death of said courtier? I believe that not only would that be the most likely outcome, it would be what the realm expected to happen and even if some might disapprove no tyranny should be given. The only exception I could think of would be if you have low CA and executed a duke, the fellow dukes might get a relation malus because they felt their own authority stepped on, but it still wouldn't be tyranny.

Yes, this. Only courtiers for sure should be able to be executed or banished without penalty if they have murdered somebody. If they are family members who are kinslayers, you should be able to execute them without becoming a kinslayer yourself but you should lose a lot of prestige (disgrace on the family and all).

The thing is, landed nobility should be able to get away with more, pretty much what they already do now. They should only care about when somebody of their level is executed or banished, this wasn't the 16th century they were rulers in their own right. Courtiers who murder people on the other hand should be able to be dealt with any way the lord pleases.

In fact, it would probably be good if tyranny for execution was scaled so more for Dukes and tons for Kings. The thing about the landed nobility getting mad about it is that it isn't the justice, it's the fact that the king is over stepping his bounds: i.e. in that time he had no right to execute a landed vassal, ever. "Treason" as is being defined here is simply reneging on a contract at most, and I'm guessing the noble would probably claim that the lord broke the feudal contract rather than him. There was not a state to betray, it was all legalism and feudalism.

In short, for landed nobles it should stay the same, but for courtiers (and kinslayer family courtiers with a hit to prestige) it should be permissable to execute murderers.

 

[unmerged(464016)]

Yes, this. Only courtiers for sure should be able to be executed or banished without penalty if they have murdered somebody. If they are family members who are kinslayers, you should be able to execute them without becoming a kinslayer yourself but you should lose a lot of prestige (disgrace on the family and all).

The thing is, landed nobility should be able to get away with more, pretty much what they already do now. They should only care about when somebody of their level is executed or banished, this wasn't the 16th century they were rulers in their own right. Courtiers who murder people on the other hand should be able to be dealt with any way the lord pleases.

In fact, it would probably be good if tyranny for execution was scaled so more for Dukes and tons for Kings. The thing about the landed nobility getting mad about it is that it isn't the justice, it's the fact that the king is over stepping his bounds: i.e. in that time he had no right to execute a landed vassal, ever. "Treason" as is being defined here is simply reneging on a contract at most, and I'm guessing the noble would probably claim that the lord broke the feudal contract rather than him. There was not a state to betray, it was all legalism and feudalism.

In short, for landed nobles it should stay the same, but for courtiers (and kinslayer family courtiers with a hit to prestige) it should be permissable to execute murderers.

But In all fairness , even titled / landed nobility could be executed for treason (what constituted treason could vary a lot). In this case murdering a close member of the royal family would be treason.

This guy was executed for treason , in that he signed a peace treaty with the Scots on his own accord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Harclay,_1st_Earl_of_Carlisle#Death_and_aftermath (Inb4 wiki isn't valid... it lists its sources most of which are books , and beyond that I can't directly link a physical book to people who don't own a history collection).

This guy was executed officially for treason , along with many other nobility including a baron. Part of the issue sprung about because this man was part of a group whom executed one of the Kings favored (rumored gay lover). In this case because he was high nobility , and even had Royal blood , the execution was a quick beheading instead of a hang / cut , but it didn't make him immune to execution. This man was also had the conviction lifted quite some time after his death , which makes the situation even more interesting as the nobility didn't care when it happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_of_Lancaster#Conflict_with_Edward_II_and_death

Honestly I agree that executions against landed nobility only really tended to happen after a long series of ongoing conflicts and issues. Also it seems like the popularity of the noble in question played a huge part in its acceptance. If a noble had any sort of power base among other nobles , and those nobles were not subjugated , its unlikely to see one executed. As well as that , different Kings enjoyed different levels of authority at different times. In that sense its hard to really replicate something like this in game with a simple mechanic.

However It would be hard to despite the legitimacy of an execution in a situation where a very close Royal member was murdered in cold blood (especially the heir). The only reason a King would NOT pursuit action is if the perpetrators had a stronger power base than him. In that sense an in game implementation would need to see negative reactions turn dynamic. Meaning an attempt to arrest the person responsible in this case , as a landed member of nobility , would cause a sure fire war. With both sides being built up of each sides allegiances and coalitions. However post war its unlikely the Kings supporters and others in the realm would see the act as tyrannical.


But as I mentioned earlier in this thread , It's unlikely anyone would be able to establish the guilt of a murderer in this time period at the frequency which we see in game. There are no forensic investigators , no DNA evidence , no Camera's and stuff. Proving guilt over something like this would be quite hard. Even if an assassin was caught and mentioned a name under torture , its not as credible as it sounds unless the confessor is a noble himself.

 

[Lordmars]

I agree with the OP, just put down a massive rebellion and the worst I can do to the traitors (who wanted to depose me) is take away one of their titles unless I want to rack up some major tyranny points. I understand the need for limits/balance in a game but I think I should at least be able to execute the leader of a rebellion without gaining tyranny points. Pissing off his family fine, but at the moment the punishment for treason is essentially losing a single title.

 

[Me_]

Sadly the new pach did nothing to change the situation.
I'd like to make one more suggestion: add a chackbox in banishment diplomatic action entitled "take all titles" as it is now if you banish someone you end up taking all of their titles. I wish there was an option to banish people and have their title passed on to their successors as if they died. This option could then be made to give less of a diplomatic penalty with other vassals, so that banishment could become usable by people higher in rank than a mere count (count's don't have to worry much about barons being unhappy with someone's banishment, but everyone higher in the rank - dukes, kings, emperors - has to, even if the target of the banishment is a mere baron).

 

[unmerged(47151)]

I don't really support the notion of free executions. The reason is simply that the people we are executing here are not the people getting murdered and they are powerful people. The people under you are suspicious of you the ruler imprisoning and executing people and don't necceserily accept the rulers evidence that they are responsible.

If you have bad relations with vassals then they will likely see you justified execution of a murderer as a framing of an innocent man. The real problem is that relations penalty is dependant upon the rank of the person being executed. Ideally it should go like this.

Courtier: 5 tyranny
Baron: 10 tyranny
Count: 20 tyranny
Duke: 30 tyranny
King: 40 tyranny.
Emporer: 50 tyranny.

All these values should be doubled if you are executed a person without evidence of guilt.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Sadly the new pach did nothing to change the situation.
I'd like to make one more suggestion: add a chackbox in banishment diplomatic action entitled "take all titles" as it is now if you banish someone you end up taking all of their titles. I wish there was an option to banish people and have their title passed on to their successors as if they died. This option could then be made to give less of a diplomatic penalty with other vassals, so that banishment could become usable by people higher in rank than a mere count (count's don't have to worry much about barons being unhappy with someone's banishment, but everyone higher in the rank - dukes, kings, emperors - has to, even if the target of the banishment is a mere baron).

I've always wanted a "force abdication" or even a "force gavelkind" button when you captured a traitor, so that I can actually weaken a powerful vassal without tedious incite rebellion cycles or gaining tyranny

 

[liamgamer55]

I agree, it's not that necessary for gameplay reasons but it's quite possibly one of the most important things to keep immersion.

I've always wanted a "force abdication" or even a "force gavelkind" button when you captured a traitor, so that I can actually weaken a powerful vassal without tedious incite rebellion cycles or gaining tyranny

I don't think force galvinkind would be realistic from what I've heard but forcing a traitor son to become a priest (thus disqualifying him from succession) as a punishment for him being a murderer would be awesome.

 

[monsterfurby]

Here's a thought: if there is ever going to be a republic DLC, a reform of the entire crime & punishment system would fit right in - think about it: in feudal states, rulers should be somewhat subject to the de facto balance of power (though I agree that no vassal would mind some unlanded maniac courtier being executed for murdering the heir to the crown - quite the opposite, they would probably clamor for it for prestige's sake) - but in republics, laws should be set in advance and then executed to the letter. That would be a pretty interesting dynamic imho.

 

[Zorlond]

The people under you are suspicious of you the ruler imprisoning and executing people and don't necceserily accept the rulers evidence that they are responsible.

As things currently stand, you can imprison someone with no penalty for simply plotting to kill someone. And yet, you cannot do anything to them for succeeding in killing someone. Are you really saying that that makes more sense? Is evidence of a plot somehow more convincing than evidence of a murder?

 

[Drakken]

Signed.

 

[icon41gimp]

As things currently stand, you can imprison someone with no penalty for simply plotting to kill someone. And yet, you cannot do anything to them for succeeding in killing someone. Are you really saying that that makes more sense? Is evidence of a plot somehow more convincing than evidence of a murder?

When the murder takes place you aren't catching the person who ordered the assassination. All you're getting is their name from the knife-man.

Go ahead and kill them if you'd like but vassals should be free to not like what you have done.

 

[brxbrx]

You people don't seem to get this concept: nobles were unusually nice to each other when it came to punishments. This was to maintain a standard of "you don't execute me, I don't execute you."
Now, you can still execute people in the game, but it upsets your vassals, because you're wrinkling that precious centuries-cultivated status quo. And honestly, it's not like a -10 tyranny penalty is "you can't execute criminals!"

 

[Me_]

You people don't seem to get this concept: nobles were unusually nice to each other when it came to punishments. This was to maintain a standard of "you don't execute me, I don't execute you."
Now, you can still execute people in the game, but it upsets your vassals, because you're wrinkling that precious centuries-cultivated status quo. And honestly, it's not like a -10 tyranny penalty is "you can't execute criminals!"

To that I can only respond by this:

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.

As it stands right now, letting kingslayers go free makes vassals overjoyed (after all that means their children/siblings/friends murderers will go free as well) and killing murderers causes penalties even with the murderer's victim's lover (sure I loved her with all my heart, but killing someone for ripping her heart out? that's just mean).

At least make it sensible instead of a flat penalty, e.g. give:
-5 vassal relations
-5 relations with murderer's friends and kin
-5 with arbitrary characters
+5 with just characters
+10 with victim's friends and kin (sums up to +5 with the vassal penalty).

 

[Zorlond]

When the murder takes place you aren't catching the person who ordered the assassination. All you're getting is their name from the knife-man.

So, by your logic, when I hear about the plot to murder someone before it happens, I should be locking up the gossiping maid that I heard the rumor from, since they're the source of the actual rumor. And, by your logic, I should be getting tyrant penalties for locking up the person who is doing the actual plotting. After all, I didn't 'catch' them admitting to it.

Nope, still doesn't make any sense.

 

[victimizer]

I think there should be a court of noble peers that would judge such cases: i.e. you imprison someone on the suspicion that he has commited this or that, you then have the option of delivering a punishment yourself (which the nobility would view as tyrannical) or by letting a court of justice (run by nobles) decide the suspect's fate.

 

[nyah]

Yep here's one A concise economic history of Britain by Sir John Clapham in the chapters Anglo-Saxon England towns and Trade and England under the Norman Conquerors the author lists and explains the laws for theft and murder and stuff like that under each of the time periods.

I'm sure you have that book and can look it up straight away. Yup wikipedia is useless

I don't have it, but I could buy it on Amazon for 99p if I chose. It's easy to find references for punishments for murder and other crimes, but my point is that those punishments didn't apply to the nobility. Contrary to what other posters have said all characters in game are landed nobility, it's just that their land isn't represented in-game. Besides, the person who orders the murder isn't the murderer.

That said, it'd be nice for an extended event chain if you are caught ordering a murder, or if a family member is murdered. I just disagree that there should be automatic free punishment in all cases.