Land of childslaughter

[unmerged(281782)]

So, arranging yet another shortening of succession line, it suddenly struck me: people in reality are usually not that eager to crush baby skull as they are to murder some adult. But in CK it's entirely the opposite, you struggle to kill established rulers because none wishes to mess with him, but when you ask on a party: "Who wishes to slaughter King's newborn child?" everyone cries: "Me!". There should be some negative modifier, perhaps not for amoral people, something like: "Not a babykiller: -" At the same time, people shouldn't be so eager to kill children of someone they love, perhaps cleaning succession line of inbreds is fine, but assaulting the last heir and throwing a state into a turmoil?

 

[ziamatt]

So, arranging yet another shortening of succession line, it suddenly struck me: people in reality are usually not that eager to crush baby skull as they are to murder some adult. But in CK it's entirely the opposite, you struggle to kill established rulers because none wishes to mess with him, but when you ask on a party: "Who wishes to slaughter King's newborn child?" everyone cries: "Me!". There should be some negative modifier, perhaps not for amoral people, something like: "Not a babykiller: -" At the same time, people shouldn't be so eager to kill children of someone they love, perhaps cleaning succession line of inbreds is fine, but assaulting the last heir and throwing a state into a turmoil?

Personally I'd like to see a kidnapping plot, since keeping nobles as "guests" was a more useful strategy in many situations.
That said medieval Europe had no shortage of men too willing to kill children. I remember reading about how William of Normandy, when he became duke as a child, had to be constantly moved from place to place and lived among the peasants to evade assassins. He came so close being killed that his bodyguard was killed while in the room where William was sleeping before the assassin was interrupted.

 

[SlyEcho]

Actually, at the time, killing babies wasn't seen as something as bad as it is today.

Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents. According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages "was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference". At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight.

Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn. In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Middle_Ages

 

[Spartanlemur]

I'd like to see Macbeth style madness stem from a non-cruel, non-arbitrary character being responsible for the murder of a king or someone on the top-three list of heirs. Regicide was indeed a heinous crime.

 

[unmerged(281782)]

So, you don't see any difference between poor mother abandoning child she cannot feed and all of the court gladly dismembering the only heir of their beloved Emperor?

Madness would be nice, I guess, but they shouldn't be mad enough to agree to slaughter three royal families in the first place.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Regicide was indeed a heinous crime.

Although, more because the "king" part, and less because of the "murder" part.

 

[ziamatt]

So, you don't see any difference between poor mother abandoning child she cannot feed and all of the court gladly dismembering the only heir of their beloved Emperor?

Madness would be nice, I guess, but they shouldn't be mad enough to agree to slaughter three royal families in the first place.

The point is that the killing of children during this period did not have the same stigma it does today. Killing a child emperor for self-interested purposes would be considered no more heinous than killing an adult emperor for self-interested purposes.

 

[Anthropoid]

Just think Anders Breivik and how coldblooded he was because "it was necessary." That is probably more akin to how a medieval morality worked.

 

[SamStarrett]

Just think Anders Breivik and how coldblooded he was because "it was necessary." That is probably more akin to how a medieval morality worked.

I would love to hear your explication of why you think medieval morality was the same as that of Anders Breivik.

 

[grumphie]

Just think Anders Breivik and how coldblooded he was because "it was necessary." That is probably more akin to how a medieval morality worked.

breivik is just plain sick in his mind. you just have to realise it was a much more harsh time, where its either kill or be killed. that child emperor could just as easy chop of your own head if so he wishes.

breivik is in no way the mindset of medieval europe.

EDIT: and a ridiculous amount of typo's fixed

 

[ziamatt]

I would love to hear your explication of why you think medieval morality was the same as that of Anders Breivik.

"Muslims are pouring into Europe, let's start killing!" maybe?

 

[grumphie]

"Muslims are pouring into Europe, let's start killing!" maybe?

which is in what way exactly the same as the medieval mindset?

besides, diffrent reasoning can get the same answer, but that doesnt make them both the same. i.e. i say immigration is bad because of the fact that we are already quite full here(not my actual standing) and someone says becasue theyre infidels need to be evicted that might result int he same answer(evict them!) but is in no way the same.

 

[SamStarrett]

"Muslims are pouring into Europe, let's start killing!" maybe?

If you actually think that that line precisely, accurately, and in the same sense, describes the thought process of both Breivik and, say, Charles Martel, I don't even know where to start correcting you on that. I seriously hope that was a joke or some kind of rhetorical device, because if you actually believe it, you're beyond my help.

 

[Ahaz Flagg]

It makes me feel bad!1 Even if they are digital fake kids!! I spenty about 50 years killing so many family members, I almost quit!! But finally I got the line back to 3 Bloods. I did learn a lesson, keep your top 3 in house at all times, easier to kill them as well as keep them safe!

 

[SamStarrett]

It makes me feel bad!1 Even if they are digital fake kids!! I spenty about 50 years killing so many family members, I almost quit!! But finally I got the line back to 3 Bloods. I did learn a lesson, keep your top 3 in house at all times, easier to kill them as well as keep them safe!

I killed about six little boys in a string of assassination plots a while back. No remorse. But they were Shi'ites, if that makes it less bad...

(I'm not sure this game brings out the best in people.)

 

[unmerged(425486)]

not the sort of place i want to go on my holiday thank you

 

[sotero]

I just wish i could avenge a dead heir without suffering penalties. Specially when the murderer was a family member. It's very annoying losing the heir and suddenly becoming a kinslayer at the same time.

 

[Comrade Chaos]

Just think Anders Breivik and how coldblooded he was because "it was necessary." That is probably more akin to how a medieval morality worked.

In his latest letter from prison, asking for more butter hurt his conscience.

 

[Nosferatu]

It was a politics and nothing else. What is the problem? Medieval rulers did not killed because they were sick in mind, they just thought about the future of the dynasty and the state. Have you ever heard about medieval turkish law about killing the other heirs when one of them is becoming a sultan? That was a law of a sultan Mehmed and it was enacted for the safety of the state. I think we should clearly understand that politics have nothing to do with the laws of consciense and morality.

I think the rulers thought that it is better to kill an heir or a relative then to lead a kingdom into a turmoil and chaos. That will definitely lead to the demise of thousands of people. Just think about the king Henri the third of the Valois. He was a kind and noble ruler but finally his principles leaded to the anarchy in France.

 

[Bigheeed]

I think people are getting carried away with the butchering and dismemberment...
Reality is none of the people involved probably had any interaction with the victim apart from paying the bill or turning a blind eye to something thus distancing themselves from the crime.
In the days when you were either a peasant or got rich by taxing the peasants there would have been a lot more people around who would do anything for some money to feed themselves especially among the landless.