pathology in CK

[Spruce]

suppose somebody dies in CK - perhaps the question is still under NDA -

1. from what possible causes can somebody die? Is there a variety of things (some examples if possible) and are there dynamic conditions (like when the King goes to war he can get killed more easely, etc,),

2. do you get feedback on the matter? Like kings tumbling of a horse could perhaps also have been strangled to death (assasination)? Or is it just saying - the king has died, nobody knows why,

perhaps a limited answer can be given to these questions...

 

[unmerged(16835)]

Or the king could be murdered in an accident when he tries to steal a horse from a stupid prince (Blackadder).

 

[unmerged(19034)]

Or the king could be murdered in an accident when he tries to steal a horse from a stupid prince (Blackadder).

Or the king slips on a banana peel and breaks his royal neck.

 

[unmerged(24840)]

suppose somebody dies in CK - perhaps the question is still under NDA -

1. from what possible causes can somebody die? Is there a variety of things (some examples if possible) and are there dynamic conditions (like when the King goes to war he can get killed more easely, etc,)

Hopefully.

2. do you get feedback on the matter? Like kings tumbling of a horse could perhaps also have been strangled to death (assasination)? Or is it just saying - the king has died, nobody knows why.

Ideally they'll give historical reasons each time someone dies. What I mean by that is (being no medical expert on the period I've no idea if this example has any truth for the time, but you get the idea) while they may not have a concept of cancer, they make the connection between lumps and death or, if they haven't, they'll perhaps come up with a reason which we know now to be crap, kinda thing.

Of course, this would all be useless fluff but I'd like it to become part of a families genetic stock, lines prone to this or that, or on the other hand, extremely healthy specimens. It could become the deciding factor between you choosing a reasonably poor but healthy girl or someone rich but with a long habit of illnesses and premature death that could totally mess up your future...

 

[unmerged(24840)]

I also thought this thread was about psychopathic Kings with no empathy and plenty of attachment disorders...

 

[Spruce]

I've read somewhere that your king can go mad,

 

[barretta]

Or you could have a CTD and no save.

 

[Spruce]

I'm reading a book and it seems that many nobles fell during tournaments, especially during the first decades of the CK game,

 

[unmerged(24980)]

I've read somewhere that your king can go mad,

Very historical. One of the French Kings (a Francis, I think) used to try to kill invisible people with his sword. He once had a diplomatic meeting with Emperor Wencheslas. As my Prof. put it "The King was never sane in the morning, and the Emporer was never sober in the afternoon. Consequently, nothing was ever agreed upon."

 

[unmerged(24980)]

Historical reasons

have included --
Knocking ones brains out by trying to ride a horse under a low bridge while chasing a comely wench.

Being hit by a ricochet arrow in the eye.

Drowning while crossing a river (or bathing in it).

Dressing up like an ape in a costume made of tar and feathers, dancing around with a dozen of your closest friends similarly attired, and having a lit candle flambe you. (This was actually a crown prince).

Digestive problems due to eating a vast quanity of unripe peaches.

 

[bgibbard]

have included --
Dressing up like an ape in a costume made of tar and feathers, dancing around with a dozen of your closest friends similarly attired, and having a lit candle flambe you. (This was actually a crown prince).

Actually the future Charles VI survived the "Bal des Ardents" incident unharmed. It was some of his similarly costumed friends that burned to death.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

suppose somebody dies in CK - perhaps the question is still under NDA -

1. from what possible causes can somebody die? Is there a variety of things (some examples if possible) and are there dynamic conditions (like when the King goes to war he can get killed more easely, etc,),

Yes...and yes. Details verbotten at present...

2. do you get feedback on the matter? Like kings tumbling of a horse could perhaps also have been strangled to death (assasination)? Or is it just saying - the king has died, nobody knows why,

perhaps a limited answer can be given to these questions...

Er...tough to answer this one. How about "yes and no...it varies".

 

[InnocentIII]

There was plenty of madness in EU2. Though it wasn't so bad, since it lasted for a set period of time (very convenient).

As for monarch death, I'll accept whatever level of flavor they chose to put in, but I am a little concerned about death in combat. I have lost a fair number of Leaders (including monarchs, sort of), to combat in EU2 (and 1). I wonder if battle will be as nasty in CK. Don't get me wrong, it would be justified historically, combat was nasty business and small wounds could kill, given the state of medieval medicine.

However, it might mean that any monarch who has no heir will spend his days sitting beside a fire, knitting. Even one with a young heir (too you to produce an heir of his own, and prone to common causes of deaths in childhood, would be well advised to stay out of combat completely.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

they'll perhaps come up with a reason which we know now to be crap, kinda thing.

"Well, I'll do everything humanly possible. Unfortunately, we barbers aren't gods. You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach." - Theodoric of York: Medieval Barber

 

[Sikker]

However, it might mean that any monarch who has no heir will spend his days sitting beside a fire, knitting. Even one with a young heir (too you to produce an heir of his own, and prone to common causes of deaths in childhood, would be well advised to stay out of combat completely.

Well, if you look at Medieval Total War (I know, not the best game to learn (or teach) history from, but it's the best I have to go on), it wasn't before you had 3 (I think ...) sons, that the game recommended that you'd use your monarch OR princes for combat - and they made it sound like it was common practice to think that way.

Though quoting MTW for historic features is not generelly a good idea, I'd still say that it sounds a lot like common sense. For a monarch with no sons to ride into battle he'd have to be either very irresponsible or very desperate (as in: if we loose this battle there'll be no kingdom to my heir anyway).

 

[unmerged(11620)]

Though quoting MTW for historic features is not generelly a good idea, I'd still say that it sounds a lot like common sense. For a monarch with no sons to ride into battle he'd have to be either very irresponsible or very desperate (as in: if we loose this battle there'll be no kingdom to my heir anyway).

Common sense yes. But a King must, for his nobles at least, always be a captain of war first, and a prince second. Otherwise you might get replaced by a more bellicose noble. Temerity was always dangerous, but timidity could be just as fatal.

 

[Petrarca]

Best death ever, though it's outside the period: Ferdinand of Aragon, age 75, dies in flagrante delicto with his comely 25 year old French wife.

 

[Spruce]

Best death ever, though it's outside the period: Ferdinand of Aragon, age 75, dies in flagrante delicto with his comely 25 year old French wife.

to me that's typically murder

 

[Sikker]

Common sense yes. But a King must, for his nobles at least, always be a captain of war first, and a prince second. Otherwise you might get replaced by a more bellicose noble. Temerity was always dangerous, but timidity could be just as fatal.

True, but there is a difference between being a coward and leading the battle from the front line.
What I mean is, your men might be impressed if you lead the initial cavalry charge. But I doubt anyone would hold it against you, if you stayed on the hill as a wise commander and led things from there. Though you are not guaranteed to survive on the hill, your chances are approximately A LOT better than if you are among the first to meet the spear wall.

So basically I agree with all you say, but a 'captain of war' is not necessarily in the front line, and that means your blood line will most likely continue. Then when you have 3 sons you can consider charging into the fray to boost the morale of your men.

 

[The Witch-King]

Or the king could be murdered in an accident when he tries to steal a horse from a stupid prince (Blackadder).

Or accidentally and brutally cuts off his own head while shaving

Or gets impaled when a knight wearing a turkish helmet (yes, one of those with a one-foot spike on top...) kneels before him to receive his blessings