Kidnapping should not "necessarily" reveal the identity of the captor

[philanthropic19]

Hi everyone,

An interesting feature could be if a kidnapped person should appear as "Imprisoned by Unknown" or "Gone Missing". Interested entities can then invest in spies to find out where that person has gone missing and whether he has been kidnapped. Nevertheless, there should be a % chance that at the time of kidnapping the captor is revealed. The captor can also reveal it by e.g. demanding ransom, releasing the captive, executing him etc. Also there should be a chance over time that someone (e.g. a guard) spills the secret. This also ties in nicely with the secrets and hooks features.

For example, this will allow the King of Ireland to kidnap the King of Scotland without anyone finding out where the King of Scotland has gone. But some people who care about the King of Scotland can send their Spymasters on a mission to try to find out. And when they find out they will get a Secret against the King of Ireland which they can either expose or blackmail the King of Ireland for and get hooks on him. If the secret is revealed, it should have negative consequences e.g. giving the Scottish king's heir or regent a CB against Ireland etc.

Kidnapping higher rank characters should be more difficult than lower rank, and should also carry a higher chance that the captor is revealed at the time of the abduction.

 

[Reidy]

i didnt think about this even being a thing... but now that you've brought it up i fully agree!. kinda like if an assassination goes awry your identity might be revealed the same should be true of kidnapping.

 

[Cagallo]

At this "level" of kidnapping... I would actually assume that kidnapping a king should become a casus belli? In the stream, with Leon kidnapping the King of France (and I guess being of public domain to the world), should the French regent trigger a war against Leon?

 

[VenetianPriest]

The identity of a captor could remain unknown for executed kidnap victims. It’d be an interesting secret to uncover. Otherwise, I like this idea.

 

[Olden Weiss]

At this "level" of kidnapping... I would actually assume that kidnapping a king should become a casus belli? In the stream, with Leon kidnapping the King of France (and I guess being of public domain to the world), should the French regent trigger a war against Leon?

I certainly think so. Or rather, it should be an option. It shouldn't be a way to force the AI into wars they can't win, but I think it should be on the table.

 

[KKrive500]

When sending my spymaster Urraca to get a secret on the King of France, it turns out he has the King of Bavaria in his jail! We can either blackmail him or expose it.

I like the idea

 

[Reidy]

When sending my spymaster Urraca to get a secret on the King of France, it turns out he has the King of Bavaria in his jail! We can either blackmail him or expose it.

I like the idea

Hell off that you could then gain a CB to free the King of Bavaria which would gain an alliance or even a strong hook to show the huge debt the rescued king would owe you along with a huge bump in prestige consideirng you free'd a wrongly imprisoned monarch... honestly the possibilities are kinda endless with where you could take this.

 

[Riamus]

Yeah, it shouldn't be known unless you fail the check for being caught, though the person kidnapped should know and if ransomed, it would be made known.

 

[Chetson]

With a character going missing under suspicious (and perhaps quite violent, as with Philippe in the stream) circumstances, if the captor is anonymous it seems natural that people not in on the plot can't even be reasonably sure that the abductee is still alive, as correspondence with concerned parties is likely something the captor wants to avoid, given the associated risk of being discovered, and any correspondence that does come through may be unreliable. Case in point, an abductor looking to secure a ransom without giving themselves away wouldn't let slip the fact that their prisoner died tragically after a harmless interrogation session. When the identity of the captor is known, you can argue that the prisoner's court is able to regularly confirm their status through some means that can be abstracted away. Does the same argument hold when the captor is unknown?

If someone has a title and is abducted by an unknown actor, and if we assume that the status of the missing person cannot be verified by the notables under and around the title, that brings into question how the succession of missing people should be handled. When should the person be formally replaced as ruler? If they're replaced only after they've actually died, the succession probably often wouldn't seem very sensible given the information available to the people involved. If they're replaced immediately, that raises the issue of what happens if the captive is released. A feasible option is that succession happens immediately; this roughly simulates simulates something that could happen to a missing or hostage ruler, whether their captor, if any, was known or not. But this option evokes concerns over balance and immersion of its own.

 

[Riamus]

Yeah, I commented on that as well. But my view is that for gameplay reasons, it's preferable to correctly mark a ruler as dead when they die even if the death would not really be known. I just think any alternatives that leave a title in the hands of a dead person for any amount of time, even for a short duration, just isn't a good idea. Of course, someone could come up with a great option that I would like, but I can't currently see anything that would suggest to me that having a title in the hands of a dead person would be okay. It's true that you can have more realistic stuff going on by doing so, such as trying to find out if the person is dead or having the succession delayed until it's either proven or enough time has passed to where there's no hope, but I don't see any real value in that.

It could also mess up succession. Let's say that the king dying would give the title to his first son with a specific line of succession following. If you delay the succession and that son dies, then depending on the succession laws, when the king is officially marked as being dead, the new line of succession may be different than it would have been had the succession occurred prior to the death of the first son. IRL, if this situation came up, I wonder how it would be handled... if they showed that the king died before the death of the son, would they use that line of succession or would they still use the line of succession that is in place if the king were to die after the son? Would there be claims and wars due to the difference? If we were to make that part of the game, the ruler could end up being changed once it's found out when the king had died, which would really mess things up.

 

[Evangeline]

Fantastic idea! Is there already a suggestions subforum for CK3 where we can post stuff like this?

 

[philanthropic19]

Fantastic idea! Is there already a suggestions subforum for CK3 where we can post stuff like this?

I don't think there is one yet - I couldn't find any. Maybe one will be created after game release. I hope so.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

At this "level" of kidnapping... I would actually assume that kidnapping a king should become a casus belli? In the stream, with Leon kidnapping the King of France (and I guess being of public domain to the world), should the French regent trigger a war against Leon?

It's quite tricky tbh – in this case you could just execute the captive. Although I imagine that such an act should mean an instant excommunication from Pope for murdering a high-ranked noble without just cause, hence allowing the king's successor to avenge him by deposing the excommunicated tyrant.

 

[philanthropic19]

At this "level" of kidnapping... I would actually assume that kidnapping a king should become a casus belli? In the stream, with Leon kidnapping the King of France (and I guess being of public domain to the world), should the French regent trigger a war against Leon?

It's quite tricky tbh – in this case you could just execute the captive. Although I imagine that such an act should mean an instant excommunication from Pope for murdering a high-ranked noble without just cause, hence allowing the king's successor to avenge him by deposing the excommunicated tyrant.

The war shouldn't be automatic, it should be a CB. And if it is declared, even if the captor executes the captive, the war will ransack his lands and probably depose him or take over some counties or shatter the realm. Not to mention the possibility that the captor (or his family) will be taken hostage in the war and probably tortured thereafter in a dungeon. The war is a significant threat if the attacking realm is significantly stronger than the captor's regardless of whether the captor threatens to execute the captive or not.

 

[Xain]

I generally agree with all the propositions that have been advanced. Except maybe for the regent of France being able to declare war on Leon - since the poor Philippe is, to all extents, a hostage to the King of Leon, and the regent wouldn't want to risk his life (or would he?).

I honestly think that the new intrigue system is one of the best additions to CK3 - but also that it leaves plenty of space for overhauls in the future. In another thread, for example, it was suggested a system for which agents would also gain a mutual secret (something that had been suggested even in the relative DD). And, I'd add, double-agents could be added, too.

I wouldn't mind buying a DLC adding even more richness to the intrigue system.

 

[generalis Julius Caesar]

I wouldn't mind buying a DLC adding even more richness to the intrigue system.

Same

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

I generally agree with all the propositions that have been advanced. Except maybe for the regent of France being able to declare war on Leon - since the poor Philippe is, to all extents, a hostage to the King of Leon, and the regent wouldn't want to risk his life (or would he?).

I think the Pope should actually excommunicate the captor if the captive was murdered unarmed. This way it would be more challenging for the player as executing the prisoner would have consequences.

 

[Cagallo]

I think the Pope should actually excommunicate the captor if the captive was murdered unarmed. This way it would be more challenging for the player as executing the prisoner would have consequences.

Something, at least, like this. Right now there is no penalty or risk or consequences for being the kidnapper of all royal houses of Europe.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Something, at least, like this. Right now there is no penalty or risk or consequences for being the kidnapper of all royal houses of Europe.

True, although at least kidnapping is locked behind a tree perk.

 

[Xain]

I think the Pope should actually excommunicate the captor if the captive was murdered unarmed. This way it would be more challenging for the player as executing the prisoner would have consequences.

Maybe not excommunicate. Really, excommunications are not to be taken lightly, and also I fail to remember any excommunication caused by the cruelty of a ruler.

It seems that piety and prestige will be especially important in the new gameplay, so a high prestige and piety hit (linked to the victim's ranking or renown) might probably be enough to dissuade players to kidnap, torture and kill innocent people in most cases. In the live stream, they kidnapped and tortured Philippe more for the lulz (and to showcase the new game mechanic) and it was not in the least a strategic choice.