"No vassal count or above has a negative opinion of you"

[Major Malfunction]

Can we remove this from succession law requirements because it makes no sense.
Rulers enacted laws on their whim, with their ability to project power upon their vassals as the only limiting factor. Why vassals have to like me when I decide to change succession law?
This had no value gameplay-wise as it pushes player on a killing sprees with -100 vassals, assassinating left and right, asigning them as commanders on a suicide battles etc.

 

[MrNewVegas]

Yep, hard agree. Anyone who doesn't like the change should be free on the death of the ruler to declare that they are deeply unsatisfied with the succession and begin a war to change it.

 

[Major Malfunction]

Today they like you and accept succession change and tomorrow they start a faction for succession law change.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Can we remove this from succession law requirements because it makes no sense.
Rulers enacted laws on their whim, with their ability to project power upon their vassals as the only limiting factor. Why vassals have to like me when I decide to change succession law?
This had no value gameplay-wise as it pushes player on a killing sprees with -100 vassals, assassinating left and right, asigning them as commanders on a suicide battles etc.

Having a zero relation with you is hardly "liking" you. At best it's "not disliking you".

If you take this idea of rulers enacting laws on their whim to its limit, why bother having to have the council (or your vassals) vote on any laws at all?
Perhaps you should consider how well "Oh, I can enact any law at my whim" actually went for several rulers who tried it.
In the mid-period of the game, it nearly dethroned the King of England, and led to the Magna Carta being issued not once - but multiple times.


I have to say I've never *once* gone on a murder spree to get my succession laws changed, and I've usually been able to change it to what I want with minimal problems.

It isn't ideal though, and perhaps changing the succession to something they disagree with should trigger a revolt *now*? Or perhaps it should merely need the short council to agree to pass the law.

 

[LukeCreed13]

Instead of making it an absolute restriction, they could make it so it works like this: you want to change succession laws? Fine, but it's better if all or most of your vassals accept it. If they do, there probably won't be factions to revert it (but it may happen if there are some ambitious vassals, or many of them are close to disliking you). If there are several vassals (or even just one powerful vassal) that dislike it, they could start a faction (and possibly even convince people who accepted the new law to join it, thanks to the hooks system with favours and blackmails).

 

[Major Malfunction]

If you take this idea of rulers enacting laws on their whim to its limit, why bother having to have the council (or your vassals) vote on any laws at all?
Perhaps you should consider how well "Oh, I can enact any law at my whim" actually went for several rulers who tried it.

But the requirement is not for council, but for ALL vassals. And it would not make some vassals angry, like it will for council, it will outright FORBID the enactment of new law.

In the mid-period of the game, it nearly dethroned the King of England, and led to the Magna Carta being issued not once - but multiple times.

It happened to, by far, the most disastrous and unsuccessful and incapable king of England, after whom royal dynasty refused to name their children after him. his father, Henry II, issued laws his vassals hated left and right and managed to get away with it.

I am okay with soft limit of vassal opinion, like we have for council, I am against hard limit, when you cannot even enact it.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

But the requirement is not for council, but for ALL vassals. And it would not make some vassals angry, like it will for council, it will outright FORBID the enactment of new law.

It happened to, by far, the most disastrous and unsuccessful and incapable king of England, after whom royal dynasty refused to name their children after him. his father, Henry II, issued laws his vassals hated left and right and managed to get away with it.

I am okay with soft limit of vassal opinion, like we have for council, I am against hard limit, when you cannot even enact it.

Henry II did not "get away with it". He suffered the "Great Revolt", which led directly to the problems his sons had by building in the tension between monarch and lord.
Treating John as "the most disasterous and unsuccessful king of England" is somewhat of a misrepresentation. He didn't lose France in its entirity. He wasn't executed by his parliament. He didn't manage to trigger a massive civil war between branches of the family that would essentially wipe out the entire royal house.
He didn't do amazingly, but I wouldn't place him as the most disasterous.

 

[Major Malfunction]

Henry II did not "get away with it". He suffered the "Great Revolt", which led directly to the problems his sons had by building in the tension between monarch and lord.

Great revolt was due to Henry's refusal to grab Aquitane and land his sons. He dealt with minor uprisings constantly but none of them were caused by his laws.

 

[Karlmann]

I would like to see some sort of "dual system" between "traditions" and "laws". You are the sovereign and you decide what laws you enact. But there are traditions for every realm. And if you reign against traditions there will be massive problems (revoltes, fractions, plots, bad opinion). As a contrast traditions will switch very slow. If you manage to rule against traditions for a longer period of time (because you are powerful, a good liege, a rich briber, or a mercyless tyrant, etc.) they begin to change/evolve.

I think this would be more historically accurate at the one hand and much more fun to play on the other hand.

I think CK3 should get rid of most of the "forbidden things" and replace it with gameplays that speak of: "do what you want but you have to take the consequences."

Greetings

P.S. Absurdities still excluded. A Christian King would not go to hadj or muslim lords won't build a cathedral. That has to be still a "forbidden thing".

 

[gekj]

Il thought i was just when tout revoke an n-2 baron

 

[Rubidium]

While Henry II's favoritism for his younger son (and resultant fears by his older sons that he would bypass them, leading to a revolt), surely the most relevant English succession law change example would be his grandfather, Henry I. Who tried to implement Agnatic-Cognatic Succession...only to have his daughter immediately shoved aside in favor of a nephew, and a giant, generation-long civil war break out.

Or the HRE's various attempts to make the crown de facto hereditary, with extremely mixed results.

Feudal monarchy was not absolute. Kings depended on the consent of the nobility to get anything done, and succession to the crown (which involved the legitimacy of their title) was particularly sensitive.

 

[Metz77]

I would much rather have you be allowed to change the succession law when not everyone has a positive opinion of you, but if enough people dislike you it could trigger a civil war immediately.

 

[Voigt]

This will be probably changed either way, since Dread as a value got introduced. So you probably can change laws if Vassals fear you. This only is problematic for your heir later on.

 

[Stepina]

I only have issues with succession laws when I'm some monstrous blob and the solution to that is easy, lots of independence, independence for so many duchies and kingdoms

 

[Chlodio]

It happened to, by far, the most disastrous and unsuccessful and incapable king of England, after whom royal dynasty refused to name their children after him.

Your "tarnishment of name"-theory is plain wrong and should feel bad about nourishing it. Ever heard of John of Gaunt, the fourth son of Edward III and father of Henry IV? The reason why there never was John II, is because, amongst the English/French royalty it just wasn't that popular name, but was generally reserved for:

• bastards
• monks (when one entered a monastery they would generally adopt a new name, usually that of a saint)
• tertiary sons (John of Gaunt was 4th son, John Lackland was 6th son), sons who had so many older brothers that they were not expected to succeed their father
• posthumous children, (e.g John I of France,) as a kind of blessing

 

[Metz77]

Your "tarnishment of name"-theory is plain wrong and should feel bad about nourishing it. Ever heard of John of Gaunt, the fourth son of Edward III and father of Henry IV? The reason why there never was John II, is because, amongst the English/French royalty it just wasn't that popular name, but was generally reserved for:

• bastards
• monks (when one entered a monastery they would generally adopt a new name, usually that of a saint)
• tertiary sons (John of Gaunt was 4th son, John Lackland was 6th son), sons who had so many older brothers that they were not expected to succeed their father
• posthumous children, (e.g John I of France,) as a kind of blessing

And even this wasn't strictly true at all times — iirc there have been Johns in line to inherit, but they just haven't for whatever reason (usually death).

Although now I can't find wherever I initially read that, so take this with a grain of salt.

 

[Chlodio]

And even this wasn't strictly true at all times — iirc there have been Johns in line to inherit, but they just haven't for whatever reason (usually death).

Although now I can't find wherever I initially read that, so take this with a grain of salt.

I find it interesting that France has only two Johns, but both of them were special. John I—as stated previously—was posthumous, while when John II was born, his father was cousin of King Philip V, who still had a younger brother, thus John and his father were not envisioned inheriting the crown one day.

 

[Metz77]

I find it interesting that France has only two Johns, but both of them were special. John I—as stated previously—was posthumous, while when John II was born, his father was cousin of King Philip V, who still had a younger brother, thus John and his father were not envisioned inheriting the crown one day.

Even John of England was a special case, as he was not only not a first son, but wasn't even supposed to inherit from his brother.

 

[Chlodio]

Rulers enacted laws on their whim, with their ability to project power upon their vassals as the only limiting factor. Why vassals have to like me when I decide to change succession law?
This had no value gameplay-wise as it pushes player on a killing sprees with -100 vassals, assassinating left and right, asigning them as commanders on a suicide battles etc.

I find the changing of succession quite easy, especially compared to the historical struggles, but the game difficulty doesn't seem to be the thing you want to discuss, but rather the logic behind it.
It's based on the idea that the law is worthless if nobody accepts it, historically getting all your vassals publicly declare for it was merely the legwork, but even the effort for it squandered as people who had declared for it changed their minds immediately after the monarch died, prompting a civil war.

 

[Major Malfunction]

I find the changing of succession quite easy, especially compared to the historical struggles, but the game difficulty doesn't seem to be the thing you want to discuss, but rather the logic behind it.

That is not true. "Game difficulty" is not defined by one feature. I want to have soft cap instead of hard one. Soft cap =\= easier game.