Reason for not being able to kill your children

[StijnVeb13]

So I'm an experienced ck 2 player and the one thing that has always bothered me is that I can't kill my own children, even if they try to kill me or if my heir is an incapable, inbred and infertile character. In the Medieval Era it actually happened quite a lot and was an useful method for losing your annoying heir or/and other son. My guess is that a feature which would allow you to do this would make the game too simple? Or is there a more complicated reason? Not that I didn't enjoy sacrificing my imprisoned heir during my great blot, but I rather had that not everyone considered me a kinslayer...

 

[Nuklearius]

#

 

[Simmy93]

This always gets me a tad, I realise we're all now sociopaths however why would any ruler kill their own child unless they had relevant traits?

Insanity, being cruel etc I'm all for an option to smother your own bairns. However these people are still their children; there's a reason rulers wholy incapable of ruling actually ascended, because kingship, even dukedom is not just a position anyone can take. We break a lot of 'rules' in CKII for the sake of game mechanics but Kings didn't just murder their babies because they sensed they wouldn't be a genius when they are older.

Also as you point out you can kill your children but you're a kinslayer and unless the Pope likes you it's something you'll have to deal with. Kings who killed their kin were rarely loved for it, people rarely see the big picture.

 

[RagingJaws]

If you *really* must kill your own child, land him/her and wait for an arrest chance to pop up. Arrest, throw in oubliette, and pray you live longer. Simplest and cleanest way of doing it. Otherwise, you're at the whim of AI plots or RNG in leading battles.

Also, insanity isn't that bad of a trait. It leads to interesting times.

 

[Rubidium]

It actually didn't happen a lot, historically? Brothers and nephews, all the time (although even then it was often controversial; the "disappearance" of Richard III's nephews was one of the main reasons he was overthrown), but their own kids, very rarely.

Contrary to what CK2 tells you, the majority of medieval rulers didn't actually spend most of their free time plotting to kill close family members with exploding manure.

 

[KhaineFH]

There are plenty ways of killing your own children already, any experienced ck2 player will be able to get rid of an unwanted heir.
Emprisonning, sending to the oubliettes, executing, castrating, joining a holy order, giving a dangerous mission, changing succession law, to name a few...

 

[Thure]

In the Medieval Era it actually happened quite a lot and was an useful method for losing your annoying heir or/and other son.

Source? Exemples? I don't think it was common at all.

 

[Cetric]

It actually didn't happen a lot, historically? Brothers and nephews, all the time (although even then it was often controversial; the "disappearance" of Richard III's nephews was one of the main reasons he was overthrown), but their own kids, very rarely.

Contrary to what CK2 tells you, the majority of medieval rulers didn't actually spend most of their free time plotting to kill close family members with exploding manure.

We have no idea how often children where killed by the rulers.
They had the means and the power to cover up such actions, and probably only unlucky ones got exposed and history got a chance to tell us about things going on.
But most cases happened without anyone taking notice.
Besides, in those times kid mortality was incredibly high and nobody would suspect if you lose some children because of diseases or some accident.
The game follows that path. All plots are including covering up stories so it "would look like natural death" etc. And only if one of your co-plotters talks in public or alcohol makes the tongue loose the plan gets revealed.
--
Historically, I have to remind of Ivan the Terrible, Moscovite Great-Duchy. That is not exactly CR2 time frame, but in a culture that was far behind compared with Europe, it still can be regarded as medieval. And it is also a case which shows that if you are feared enough by your people, a killing or two of your kinsfolk does not mean added risks for you. As Ivan Grosny did far more things than killing his son, like beheading thousands, mass-raping women (even of nobility) and what else... They even did not mind his madness.

 

[Llyw olaf]

While I agree with the decision to make the wiping out your average children until your genius and strong 5th born inherits the realm harder, or making it harder to bypass the inconvenience that gavelkind inheritance should be, I do think there should be a way to disinherit obviously flawed heirs or traitors.

I think there could be an option to disinherit imbeciles, incapables, inbreds, lunatics and maybe traitors. Maybe with a vote? since some vassals would enjoy having a weak and easily manipulated ruler on the throne.

 

[mrstevehazzard]

In the Medieval Era it actually happened quite a lot and was an useful method for losing your annoying heir or/and other son.

I'd love to hear your examples.

 

[StijnVeb13]

While I agree with the decision to make the wiping out your average children until your genius and strong 5th born inherits the realm harder, or making it harder to bypass the inconvenience that gavelkind inheritance should be, I do think there should be a way to disinherit obviously flawed heirs or traitors.

I think there could be an option to disinherit imbeciles, incapables, inbreds, lunatics and maybe traitors. Maybe with a vote? since some vassals would enjoy having a weak and easily manipulated ruler on the throne.

So in AGOT MOD you can call a great council if you have an incapable or otherwise disabled heir or if you don't have one at all, I believe? Maybe that is something they could consider implementing, and that way vassals can also influence the matter?

I'd love to hear your examples.

Do you want cases in which people are 100% sure that a father murdered his son or where they (strongly) suspect it? Btw, I might have exaggerated a bit, for the benefit of my case, but it's semi impossible to find that sort of specific things about the Medieval Ages and it's even harder to find strong evidence about something that was probably by all means kept secret. And I'm not saying that I really feel the game is missing a kill your child option, but that I sometimes wish it had. Also this topic was more of a why question.

 

[DPS]

We have no idea how often children where killed by the rulers.
They had the means and the power to cover up such actions, and probably only unlucky ones got exposed and history got a chance to tell us about things going on.
But most cases happened without anyone taking notice.
Besides, in those times kid mortality was incredibly high and nobody would suspect if you lose some children because of diseases or some accident.
The game follows that path. All plots are including covering up stories so it "would look like natural death" etc. And only if one of your co-plotters talks in public or alcohol makes the tongue loose the plan gets revealed.

That's incredibly convenient for those who want to argue that it happened a lot. "Well, it happened a lot, but I can't give you any example except Ivan the Terrible, because they almost always got away with it and weren't discovered.

Historically, I have to remind of Ivan the Terrible, Moscovite Great-Duchy. That is not exactly CR2 time frame, but in a culture that was far behind compared with Europe, it still can be regarded as medieval. And it is also a case which shows that if you are feared enough by your people, a killing or two of your kinsfolk does not mean added risks for you. As Ivan Grosny did far more things than killing his son, like beheading thousands, mass-raping women (even of nobility) and what else... They even did not mind his madness.

Ivan is actually a bad example, though, and not because he's somewhat outside of the CK2 time period. Ivan didn't make a calculated decision to kill an heir with weak stats in order to have his realm pass to a much more capable heir--he killed the more capable possible heir in an apparent fit of insanity, leaving the realm to pass to a less capable heir.

And while it's again outside the CK2 timeframe, if ever there was a kid you'd want to kill because he'd be an incapable ruler, it would have been Carlos III of Spain. But no, they let him live and take the throne.

 

[Cetric]

That's incredibly convenient for those who want to argue that it happened a lot. "Well, it happened a lot, but I can't give you any example except Ivan the Terrible, because they almost always got away with it and weren't discovered.

Do you seriously expect a medieval statistic book where everyone honestly had his royal murders of kinsfolk enlisted? Of course such things happen clandestinely. The situation of sources is scarce enough on almost anything medieval-related, so it is nonsense to ask for proof in this very specific and unholy matter. As everyone was hiding evidence, as I said, even more so if you are the ruler with all means to do so.
Maybe ask your tales book. Remember all those stories about children being brought by hunters on the wink of the queen for perishing there? That's how popular culture had preserved the memories of such incidents over time.
By the way, as we like to leave the time period of CK2 here and there for a side glance:
Did you know that in Antiquity the Roman father had the right to accept or do away with his newborn? And totally legally. If rejected, the baby would be left out in wilderness for beasts. When we hear about modern age Chinese dumping newborn female babies on the curbside as unwanted members of the family, you get an idea how little mankind changes over time. So, in between these two extremes, there is lot of room for imagining all kind of horror stories in the era we refer here to primarily.

 

[mrstevehazzard]

Do you seriously expect a medieval statistic book where everyone honestly had his royal murders of kinsfolk enlisted? Of course such things happen clandestinely. The situation of sources is scarce enough on almost anything medieval-related, so it is nonsense to ask for proof in this very specific and unholy matter. As everyone was hiding evidence, as I said, even more so if you are the ruler with all means to do so.
Maybe ask your tales book. Remember all those stories about children being brought by hunters on the wink of the queen for perishing there? That's how popular culture had preserved the memories of such incidents over time.
By the way, as we like to leave the time period of CK2 here and there for a side glance:
Did you know that in Antiquity the Roman father had the right to accept or do away with his newborn? And totally legally. If rejected, the baby would be left out in wilderness for beasts. When we hear about modern age Chinese dumping newborn female babies on the curbside as unwanted members of the family, you get an idea how little mankind changes over time. So, in between these two extremes, there is lot of room for imagining all kind of horror stories in the era we refer here to primarily.

The problem is that this line of thinking doesn't lead to any meaningful debate. All we have is the proof at hand that says it didn't happen, you can't turn around and say "well of COURSE they wouldn't acknowledge it!" because that's conspiracy-level thinking there. I mean, i could claim that most kings in the medieval era secretly married their horses. There's no proof, but of course there isn't! The kings were powerful enough to keep their horse-marriage secret!

And really, Ivan the Terrible is an awful example. Ivan didn't kill his son to change the succession, he flew into a rage and killed his heir by mistake, was immediately regretful, and that act led to the ascension of Fyodor I who really did seem to have some mental issues and eventually led to the collapse of the Rurikid dynasty. Far from trimming an undesirable heir from the line of succession, Ivan actually allowed one to take the throne!

 

[StijnVeb13]

The problem is that this line of thinking doesn't lead to any meaningful debate. All we have is the proof at hand that says it didn't happen, you can't turn around and say "well of COURSE they wouldn't acknowledge it!" because that's conspiracy-level thinking there. I mean, i could claim that most kings in the medieval era secretly married their horses. There's no proof, but of course there isn't! The kings were powerful enough to keep their horse-marriage secret!

True, and of course we want a good debate here, but is almost impossible to find real evidence of child murder by their own father when he, as a king, didn't want people to know. It's also foolish to say that it (almost) didn't happen because we don't have evidence of this sort of thing happening. If I would kill my own son I would never write it down, so you could argue that the rulers of old hadn't done it, but of course history and the characters and other actions of some rulers suggest that it is a (plausible) option.

 

[Simmy93]

True, and of course we want a good debate here, but is almost impossible to find real evidence of child murder by their own father when he, as a king, didn't want people to know. It's also foolish to say that it (almost) didn't happen because we don't have evidence of this sort of thing happening. If I would kill my own son I would never write it down, so you could argue that the rulers of old hadn't done it, but of course history and the characters and other actions of some rulers suggest that it is a (plausible) option.

It isn't the responsibility of any historian to acknowledge speculation. People could have, and probably did many things they didn't write down. What they did write down was details of their children's lives; proclamations, baptisms, weddings and yes, funerals. When an heir or major prince died there's usually dozens of historical sources of the monarch and the country's reaction. My point is that for the converse, that there were little to no instances of this as shown throughout history. It is now on anyone wishing to push a different viewpoint to gather evidence.

I cannot disprove God, but I'm not inviting the local minister to a debate about it.

 

[Thrake]

If your heir is a real idiot... You disinherit him, ask him to take the vows,... but you don't murder him. Or you just let him inherit, because that's YOUR kid, and you would rather see your kid rule your kingdom than your able brother. Otherwise hostory books would be filled with stories of good rulers and roughless parents.

I hope you realize that you're asking to change game rules to fit baseless speculation.

 

[Thure]

So... which reason would a medieval king has to kill his kids?
Medieval rulers don't kill their children because of inheritance. They don't breed to get genius heirs like players. They would have no personal benefit from killing their own children. So... why should they do it?

 

[StarSword]

Once again, Muslims are the odd man out. You can execute your own children tyranny-free if they become decadent and you invoke takfir.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

"in 797 Irene, by cunning intrigues with the bishops and courtiers, organized a conspiracy on her own behalf. Constantine could only flee for aid to the provinces, but even there participants in the plot surrounded him. Seized by his attendants on the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus, Constantine was carried back to the palace at Constantinople. His eyes were gouged out, and he died from his wounds several days later."