I know I'm no mod, but I think discussing the mental capacity of brevik is beyond the scope of this post and this forum. but in regards to the post, I think it should be easier with children because it could be easily framed as an accident.
Land of childslaughter
- Thread starter unmerged(281782)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I just listened to a podcast today that talked about Anders Breivik's childhood. Short version: it was full of abuse, early sexualization and general crazy.
Much like your average childhood in the middle ages. So that makes sense.
The title of this thread really should have a space between 'child' and 'slaughter'. I misread it as 'child's laughter' and wondered when they put that into CK.
I think maybe there could be a bit more reluctance to kill children if the character involved didn't have anything to gain from it - right now, you're right, it feels like every man and his dog wants to kill any and every child because they can.
I think maybe there could be a bit more reluctance to kill children if the character involved didn't have anything to gain from it - right now, you're right, it feels like every man and his dog wants to kill any and every child because they can.
Don't mean to offend anyone, but having just watched a few Youtubes about his massacre recently it just struck me as a very uncomfortable and unfortunate comparison.
A cold-blooded, calculating, strategically-minded murderer out to cause maximum trauma on the rival group for ideological reasons? Willing to decimate for the sake of the cause? It is quite unfortunate, but it seems to me that a killer like Brievik is in fact a veritable examplar of a crusader, even if his cause is not obviously shared by a whole society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb0a3aG1XbI
A cold-blooded, calculating, strategically-minded murderer out to cause maximum trauma on the rival group for ideological reasons? Willing to decimate for the sake of the cause? It is quite unfortunate, but it seems to me that a killer like Brievik is in fact a veritable examplar of a crusader, even if his cause is not obviously shared by a whole society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb0a3aG1XbI
Best solution:
if the target is under 6, the potential plotter should look at his opinion of the child's PARENT, not the child.
after all, infants aren't really identified as people yet. if someone asked you to kill the king's infant son, you're not going to go "well, he is a very strong baby, and i'm attracted to strong, so i think i'll say no." nor are you going to say "yes, that is a very ugly baby so i have -30 to it and will kill it."
No, you're going to think "yes! i hate the king! i would love to kill his baby!" or "no, i love the king! i would never harm his children!"
After 6 or 12 or so, children start to take on personalities and identities of their own. Until then, this is a very silly part of the game.
The way the game works, people are invariably eager to kill young children, because the way development works gives them low personal dip. They are also unlikely to have useful traits or prestige. This over-the-top eagerness is unrealistic (we can check the historical record).
An an example, albeit slightly outside of the period, but Richard III's reputation never recovered from the (suspected) murder of Edward V & his brother & helped trigger the revolt that put Henry Tudor on the the throne. In fairness, his propensity to kill inconvenient nobles without trial also didn't help.
Medieval people were less shocked by death because it was common, and frequently 'mysterious' (ie healthy person gets sick and dies, the reason for the illness is unknown so becomes 'gods will'). That shouldn't be interpreted as willing to kill each other's children at a drop of a hat. Murder was still a sin.
Infant exposure did happen, but its reason was usually that the family (or just the mother) couldn't care for the child (and one suspects it wasn't as socially acceptable as that poster implies). Nobles had no such excuse.
As others have said, children should probably at least share their parents personal dip as long as long as the parents are still alive. Paradox also needs to sort out some of its morality around assassination & murder. Courtiers (or even other nobles) caught killing the monarchs children would have been executed in fun & interesting ways, and that would have been expected (not least under 'eye for an eye'). Having someone kill a member of your family for no rep penalties & then scoring tyranny or kinslayer for executing them is nonsense.
An an example, albeit slightly outside of the period, but Richard III's reputation never recovered from the (suspected) murder of Edward V & his brother & helped trigger the revolt that put Henry Tudor on the the throne. In fairness, his propensity to kill inconvenient nobles without trial also didn't help.
Medieval people were less shocked by death because it was common, and frequently 'mysterious' (ie healthy person gets sick and dies, the reason for the illness is unknown so becomes 'gods will'). That shouldn't be interpreted as willing to kill each other's children at a drop of a hat. Murder was still a sin.
Infant exposure did happen, but its reason was usually that the family (or just the mother) couldn't care for the child (and one suspects it wasn't as socially acceptable as that poster implies). Nobles had no such excuse.
As others have said, children should probably at least share their parents personal dip as long as long as the parents are still alive. Paradox also needs to sort out some of its morality around assassination & murder. Courtiers (or even other nobles) caught killing the monarchs children would have been executed in fun & interesting ways, and that would have been expected (not least under 'eye for an eye'). Having someone kill a member of your family for no rep penalties & then scoring tyranny or kinslayer for executing them is nonsense.
how many times do i have to repeat it? breivik =/= medieval mindset. in so single way. yes, there were people who thought like him. but those were mad themselves as well. also, people were teached that some things were completly morally correct to do. but that does not make the medieval mindset like breivik. if anything, it looks more like a powerhungry mindset than a murder everyone mindset/
Right. Because the Crusades were totally about murdering random children who weren't responsible for the problem and weren't defensive wars to keep a highly aggressive group of invading heathens out of Christendom. Oh, wait...
Exactly, I'd love something along these lines, though 6 is still a bit too early, 12 is better.
Because child's laughter and nursery rhymes can be very scary in the right context :<
I've thought about modding a "guilt" variable into the game. Every time you murder someone, you'd gain a certain amount of "guilt", randomised between limits depending on the person's age, rank, relation, culture and religion compared to yours.
Gaining too much guilt would give a warning or two through events at certain guilt values ("I can't sleep - I can still see their faces"; "There is a great weight upon my shoulders, dragging down on my very soul"), which would affect how likely you were to start further plots (unless you were particularly amoral), and there would be an increasing chance of going mad (or cruel?) from guilt as you continued to dash children's skulls left and right. This would achieve the "Macbeth" effect, and put a brake on players gamily slaughtering an entire kingdom.
Thoughts?
Gaining too much guilt would give a warning or two through events at certain guilt values ("I can't sleep - I can still see their faces"; "There is a great weight upon my shoulders, dragging down on my very soul"), which would affect how likely you were to start further plots (unless you were particularly amoral), and there would be an increasing chance of going mad (or cruel?) from guilt as you continued to dash children's skulls left and right. This would achieve the "Macbeth" effect, and put a brake on players gamily slaughtering an entire kingdom.
Thoughts?
I don't know. But I have a pretty good guess what Charles Martel was thinking. It was something like this:
"There's an army of Moslems about to invade Europe and put us under subjection to the Ummah. I would prefer that not happen."
There's already a "moral qualms" penalty against joining a plot characters with certain traits get, right? It makes sense to me that the moral qualms penalty would be more powerful when it comes to children, but as others have mentioned, I don't think we need to take it much further than that.
That's not really applicable to Breivik's thought processes though.