Deciding a characters fate

[unmerged(99452)]

Hello, I hope CK2 will have more decisions when deciding the fate of characters. For example, considered that your spymaster has revealed that 3 characters have plotted against you. The 3 characters are presented, and you have a variety of options to choose when deciding their punishments(some options will be grayed out depending on traits, a vengeful and wicked character should not be able to choose the option "Forgive and Forget" etc.)
For example:
1. Forgive and forget
2.Exile them
3.Blind them and exile them
4.Execute them in secret
5.Execute them in public
6.Hang, draw and quarter them and exile their offspring from your court.
All decesions will have different outcomes, in prestige, piety, friendship, rivalry etc.
You should also be able to capture the court of a conquered province. The characters of the court should not be able to disperse across Europe just because you captured their province. You should also be able to decide the fate of these character. Considered for example that you have captured a heathen province. Do you want to:
1.Try to persuade them into service in your realm.
2.Offer service in your court as long as they agree to be baptized.
3.Expel them.
4.Execute the ruler of that province.
5.Execute the ruler of that province and expel all his relatives.
6.Slay every heathen in the court.
So, what do you guys think of this?

 

[RedRooster81]

There are differences in political culture in different times and places (subject to your realm's own history I would say), but I would say that executions were rather rare, of nobles that is. So even if your son led a civil war, there should be reconciliation events. I think that confinement to an abbey would be more common than beheading your son or brother or other relative, until the Renaissance. Disinheritance should also be an option, just like it is today among the rich and powerful.

On that topic, though, I hope that the AI is more forgiving for lack of a better word this time around. The only peace deal that the AI went for generally was annexing all lands to which they had claim, unless the war ended in a rare stalemate.

 

[unmerged(155641)]

Yes, very good suggestions. The ability to execute the ruler and and expel or execute his relatives is clearly lacking in CK1.

 

[unmerged(99452)]

There are differences in political culture in different times and places (subject to your realm's own history I would say), but I would say that executions were rather rare, of nobles that is. So even if your son led a civil war, there should be reconciliation events. I think that confinement to an abbey would be more common than beheading your son or brother or other relative, until the Renaissance. Disinheritance should also be an option, just like it is today among the rich and powerful.

On that topic, though, I hope that the AI is more forgiving for lack of a better word this time around. The only peace deal that the AI went for generally was annexing all lands to which they had claim, unless the war ended in a rare stalemate.

Well maybe it was not common to execute nobles but it did occour, not only in the Byzantine Empire, see these links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyköping_Banquet , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered
I think you should be able to execute other nobles if you have the cruel trait atleast.

 

[RedRooster81]

Well maybe it was not common to execute nobles but it did occour, not only in the Byzantine Empire, see these links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyköping_Banquet , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered
I think you should be able to execute other nobles if you have the cruel trait atleast.

I wasn't necessarily saying that it didn't happen, but it should give you bad, bad relations, especially with other nobles of the same dynasty, similar to what is announced for assassination attempts. Any bold, public action should have strong consequences. Imprisonment should be another (sometimes wiser) option, with possibilities for clandestine rescues and for prisoners to be released by the owner of the abbey or castle where they are held or if a siege is successful. Imprisoned characters could be passed up for inheritance, be deposed of their titles, or just held long enough for some other action to take place.

Similar "banquets of blood" to the Scandinavian case you linked to were done from time to time, from ancient times down to the XX century, and should terrorize your surviving enemies while gaining loyalty from your own supporters, at least those who are pragmatic or have similar traits. Horrendous executions for treason (like the English drawing and quartering) should be done with care, especially if the target is a high-ranking noble or someone close to someone of importance. High ranking plotters often got off, or escaped, into exile to plot again, while their less well connected co-conspirators faced harsher punishment. As in England's case, there could be a development of law towards narrowly defining treason. Regicide should be punished with death, surely, but what about other forms of rebellion, especially if the rebels have some broad support.

The right traits and maybe some other conditions, like a rivalry or feud, should be conditions for assassinations or executions, such as after a battle. Brothers claiming the same throne could turn fratricidal, but there should be some long-lasting effects of taking your brother's life. Then again, provided he has no legal heirs, it is the fastest route to inheriting his titles and other property. In my current CK1 game, I pulled off the assassination of the Duke of Savoy, my character's brother-in-law: my character was devious, selfish, all the other naughty traits, as was his wife, the Duke's brother and my spymaster. And voila, she inherited her brother's throne. Pretty evil, actually, but that's roleplaying. Not every character is a knight pure and true, and even those have some unsavory characters working for them, eh?

See for example Christian Iberia in 1066: a three-way rivalry for dominance. Garcia of Galicia was imprisoned for life in a monastery; Alfonso of Leon fled for a time to his client ruler in Toledo and on his return with some certainty murdered his elder brother Sancho II of Castile to inherit all three thrones. Sancho's famous marshal Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar "El Cid" and the other Castilian nobles made his swear an oath upon relics that he had no part in Sancho's death. But relations were never quite the same again.

So, to put it short, I like your ideas, but there should be harsh penalties to match the action.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

It's important to remember that the devs have basically said that a characters options are more or less limited to their traits. This means if your character is weak-willed, amiable and forgiving, he's probably not going to do any of the more violent actions, nor should he. However; if your character is cruel and vengeful, these options aren't so bad.

Personally, I think in this one little case, the total war series had a good thing going with its characters, at least in the Medieval series. Each character has dread or chivalry (or neither if hes unremarkable), depending on his traits and actions. Such a system could maybe be added in an expansion pack where, upon receiving enough dread for these cruel actions, your vassals are less likely to openly revolt due to fear, but aren't actually loyal.


The Great

 

[RedRooster81]

Good point, John. I would also like it if other characters close to your own weak-willed, generous, beloved ruler would be able to do things behind the scenes on your behalf, without your knowledge. So if the queen mother is a devious elusive shadow, she might pay to have her gentle son's enemies eliminated or even have a conspiracy going with the spymaster, queen consort, and marshal to keep the royal imbecile safe. Medieval government was after all a family affair, in which every family member could play a role.

Then again, if the just, valorous, forgiving, romantic king finds out that the truth, then there should be an interesting event series for coming to terms with it.

 

[the_legion]

For the options the OP mentioned:

It was very common to force someone to go into a monastery as
monk or nun, especially because you cannot just execute people of
your family.

(Would also be a nice event "Your Brother XY has fled from the monastery and now claims your throne")

 

[Duzaroo]

While executing people from Europe didn't happen to often among Europeans, executing people from Africa or the Middle East happened a lot by the Europeans, especially on crusades. Generally you didn't kill the Ruler of Rulers (Caliph, King, etc.) just because you needed to pretend he was still in charge so that the plebs would stay in line, but locking them away in the tower to wait for nature to take its course would happen a lot. As for Counts and Dukes it really varied upon how famous they where and who the where related to (the King's brother would probably be kept hostage just in case the King was uncooperative and they needed to install a puppet king or just as a hostage in general). The courtiers and cousins could expect an almost immediate death though. I think the option should be available though like stated above there's always the chance of escape from exile or bad boy status sky rocketing and so on.

 

[mtrivundza]

If anyone has played the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series(which is the only other strategy game out there I think that you play as just a character) they had a system where if captured an enemy general you could execute, offer to hire, or release them. If you executed them then anyone else in their family would basically declare a blood feud and if they ever captured you or one of your family members they would execute you no questions asked. Most of the time it was better to try to hire them since their was a limited number of characters in the game(only characters are those mentioned in the book) but it was always fun trying to wipe out a large rival family.

While like others had said it didn't happen much to the nobility in Europe it was always an option especially for lesser known nobles or courtiers. Perhaps you can't execute them if they have a certain amount of prestige?

 

[RedRooster81]

If anyone has played the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series(which is the only other strategy game out there I think that you play as just a character) they had a system where if captured an enemy general you could execute, offer to hire, or release them. If you executed them then anyone else in their family would basically declare a blood feud and if they ever captured you or one of your family members they would execute you no questions asked. Most of the time it was better to try to hire them since their was a limited number of characters in the game(only characters are those mentioned in the book) but it was always fun trying to wipe out a large rival family.

While like others had said it didn't happen much to the nobility in Europe it was always an option especially for lesser known nobles or courtiers. Perhaps you can't execute them if they have a certain amount of prestige?

The first law of war is the law of reprisals, also the Inverted Golden Rule: Do onto others as they have done unto you.

I think blood feuds should be a feature, at least once an assassination attempt has been made. Then the normal laws of warfare should go out the window. Or in those cases of gavelkind that breaks down into fratricide almost as a matter of course. Overall, dynasties should have their rivals, like countries in EU3 have their rivals and "feels threatened by"--that is their enemies.

Then there is the old political tool of outlawry, whereby you could declare someone outside the law, and so valid prey for anyone. The prerequisite was not appearing before a court as ordered, but this could be twisted to get rid of undesirables. So notorious persons could be liable to summary execution by anyone who saw fit. It was the secular equivalent of excommunication. I think that it would depend on the situation and the legal system of the realm in question. It was available under Roman law and Roman-influenced systems, and also under English and Norse legal systems.

As to executions, you should keep in mind in politics who you are messing with, even if you are the sovereign, subject in legal theory only to God. So a character's prestige should be a consideration, but so should his relations and friends, and enemies too. So say you, the King of England, execute the Baron Hastings for not so courtly advances on your queen. Now his father the Earl of Essex is on your case, as well as his other family members (-50/-100 relations), as well as the queen being very upset (-100) for having her lover drawn, quartered, and hung out on London Bridge. Your father-in-law the King of France congratulates you, as well as Hastings' enemies and your own dynasts. So I think executions even of noblemen should carry consequences. So don't sleep in the same place every night for a while.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

A sacer/wargus trait? Interesting...

 

[unmerged(149703)]

(some options will be grayed out depending on traits, a vengeful and wicked character should not be able to choose the option "Forgive and Forget" etc.)

Nothing should be barred, otherwise actions become predictable. Sometimes the coward does go ahead and murder someone, a forgiving person take a cruel action, or a devoted wife succumbs. Such deviations from percepted character are quite common in times of high emotion. Actions that go against character should at most be unlikely, not impossible. Traits could affect the probability of an option appearing, but should not remove it.

 

[Nick B II]

A sacer/wargus trait? Interesting...

What does a Warcraft II mod have to do with CK?

Nick

 

[Wilsonrtf]

What does a Warcraft II mod have to do with CK?

Nick

I have no idea what this Wargus mod is. I was referring to the outlaw idea proposed by RedRooster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sacer

http://www.cscsarchive.org/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2010-08-20.2581678835/file