Reason for not being able to kill your children

[Shebaloso]

"You cannot prove that medieval kings DID NOT kill their children with alien anal probes , therefore they DID kill their children with alien anal probes"

There, OP. I've improved it a bit. I think now you may be steps away from having your own show in History Channel.

Seriously now, think about what you want. You are ultimately asking the game to remove all bad traits. If you are going to have the player be able to kill an "imbecile" heir without any sort of limitation and/or punishment, you might as well just remove the "imbecile" trait

 

[StijnVeb13]

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.

For the last time, I didn't make this topic to complain about the game and to ask if paradox would change one of the bigger mechanics, I made this topic because I was curious about the reason behind their decision.

 

[Thure]

"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."

So... she didn't kill him. She let blind him. And he died from the wounds.

 

[Cetric]

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!

No, it is not a bad example. We do not discuss *why* kins were killed by rulers, but *if* at all. I don't give a damn why Ivan Grosny did it or just out of insanity, fact is he did and that is all I care about in this context. I could make you a list of royal murders if I were really eager to get deeper into the topic, but I guess I will not find recognition here and I have better things to do. Although it would be interesting.
Okay, here is something for you to rethink about. A book of 'Royal murders' full of stories you probably never heard of. And those are just the ones which have not been hidden from the eyes of history recording:
https://books.google.de/books?id=9C...=onepage&q=list of royal heir murders&f=false

 

[Knotz]

So... she didn't kill him. She let blind him. And he died from the wounds.

"No your Honor, I did not kill that man I only purposefully hit him with my car. It was the hemorrhage that killed him."



I like the idea of being able to disinherit your heir if they're demonstrably unfit for the throne or maybe if they've committed some heinous act but I don't disagree that you can't kill your kids all willy nilly anymore.

 

[Thure]

"No your Honor, I did not kill that man I only purposefully hit him with my car. It was the hemorrhage that killed him."

Blinding is not done to kill him. You can blind your children ingame too (or... I think so). Just because you blind someone don't mean you want to kill him.

Blinding is not on the same level like 'purposefully hit him with my car'.

 

[tywinzo]

Why not kill your children? It's a good question. From a gaming perspective, it's sometimes has a benefit. You can get rid of some unwanted heirs or if you are using gavelkind, consolidate your titles. The problem is that real people aren't "gaming" (except for the occasional maniac). Most people love their children and would do *anything* to keep them safe. In CKII you are playing roleplaying a lawful ruler who follows the world's laws (e.g. you need a casus belli to declare war), and when you don't, it's an explicit action, like using the murder plot. That said, I am in favour of such decisions having consequences, rather than banning it altogether. If you are supposed to be able to do this, you need to be a special kind of evil that also occasionally shines through in all other aspects of life. Maybe there could be some sort of "maniac" trait (or pimp the lunatic trait?) with especially heavy general opinion maluses (-50?) that enables you to to kill them. In either case, if it was possible, from a gaming perspective you shouldn't get all the benefits for no price. And such an exceptional decision calls for an exceptional downside. The last thing I'd want is that the game suddenly got 500% easier just because you're able to completely skip roleplaying.

EDIT: A general opinion malus sounds a bit boring though. If someone can craft an accurate penalty for enabling such strategies, maybe the idea can pass.

 

[Knotz]

Blinding is not done to kill him. You can blind your children ingame too (or... I think so). Just because you blind someone don't mean you want to kill him.

Blinding is not on the same level like 'purposefully hit him with my car'.

Isn't it though? Yes you can blind people for more reasons than wanting them dead, you can hit people with your car for more reasons than wanting them dead too for that matter. Yet unless Irene was a drooling imbecile she must have realized that blinding her son was opening the door for him dying from infection or trauma. She did not stab him but she set in motion a chain of events that led directly to his death while knowing that his death might be the result of her actions.

 

[Thrake]

For the last time, I didn't make this topic to complain about the game and to ask if paradox would change one of the bigger mechanics, I made this topic because I was curious about the reason behind their decision.

That's exactly what I tried to suggest: as a medieval ruler (a real one), you have several options in hand that does not involve murdering your children and that are... more sane ways to handle the matter. CK2 gives you options but for the game to still make sense, it has to restrict or forbid some actions. Otherwise it wouldn't be an historical simulator anymore, but a breed your genius heir simulator.

 

[Thure]

Isn't it though? Yes you can blind people for more reasons than wanting them dead, you can hit people with your car for more reasons than wanting them dead too for that matter. Yet unless Irene was a drooling imbecile she must have realized that blinding her son was opening the door for him dying from infection or trauma. She did not stab him but she set in motion a chain of events that led directly to his death while knowing that his death might be the result of her actions.

Blinding in the Byzantine Empire had other motivations. There was always the risk to die, yes. But as I said... she didn't kill him. And you CAN blind your children as far as I know. Blinding and killing are two absolutelly different actions.

 

[Dracko81]

Blinding in the Byzantine Empire had other motivations. There was always the risk to die, yes. But as I said... she didn't kill him. And you CAN blind your children as far as I know. Blinding and killing are two absolutelly different actions.

Not to mention that to do that you first have to imprison them, which according to the excerpt, is exactly what happened. So the game is already accurate with this. So there is no issue at all.

Killing your children is not something that happened with any real evidence what so ever. Parents could of hid it, but they could also of hid infidelity or killing nephews and brothers. But there are numerous cases documented about them. So apparently only killing your children is the only crime that was ever truly covered up properly in history. It doesn't fly at all.

Allowing people to plot to kill their children, resulted in people killing their children to ensure succession to the best choice. Yes, this was previously available, and was heavily exploited by the player base. You need only look at the number of people who only play with elective monarchy to see how much control over succession they want. Elective succession needs to be extremely volatile with succession wars breaking out almost every succession. They were never used in history in the way that people use them in game.

If you want to kill your children, you can mod it back in. I'd say you have a 0.01% chance on changing the minds of the devs to change it back. It adds nothing to the game and removes so many different layers.

 

[theKing1988]

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.

While i actually completely agree, the problem is that it doesn't really matter if your heir is insane or clubfooted or insert whatever negative trait, because you can still play completely as if he had the exact opposite traits. You can do your best to counter-act the negative opinion modifier that the trait slaps upon you to the point that it is a little silly that your new ruler even has an insane trait, because from a roleplaying perspective the choices you make would mean that he is just and kind. If the game actually somewhat limited your interactions by being insane or paranoid and made it mean more that you have the traits, i would vehemently defend the ban on killing your own children, but it doesn't. The traits just becomes a random malus that you can quite competently work your way around if you know how to play

 

[Caspoi]

No, it is not a bad example. We do not discuss *why* kins were killed by rulers, but *if* at all. I don't give a damn why Ivan Grosny did it or just out of insanity, fact is he did and that is all I care about in this context. I could make you a list of royal murders if I were really eager to get deeper into the topic, but I guess I will not find recognition here and I have better things to do. Although it would be interesting.
Okay, here is something for you to rethink about. A book of 'Royal murders' full of stories you probably never heard of. And those are just the ones which have not been hidden from the eyes of history recording:
https://books.google.de/books?id=9C47AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=list of royal heir murders&source=bl&ots=8e-e7Z2qXc&sig=kVUQxNiV9x5X0wi8H_6BHKsnWJA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy57me2fzNAhXJORQKHe9WCroQ6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=list of royal heir murders&f=false

But you can kill your children in CK2. You can execute them, do it through events etc. What is asked for is being able to kill them via plots and as such you must provide an example of a real life ruler killing his or her children via plots to prove your point. It is very logical.

 

[killcreak]

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?

Boris I of Bulgaria blinded and put in prison his first-born son Vladimir/Rasate (effectively killing him) for trying to reinstall paganism. This isn't some insignificant ruler, at that time Bulgaria was one of the three major powers in Europe.

 

[theKing1988]

Boris I of Bulgaria blinded and put in prison his first-born son Vladimir/Rasate (effectively killing him) for trying to reinstall paganism. This isn't some insignificant ruler, at that time Bulgaria was one of the three major powers in Europe.

That was most certainly not something done covertly, as in you plot to blind and kill him.

That was a very overt and very public punishment

 

[Rubidium]

Note that blinding someone was generally done as a way to avoid killing them. The Byzantines and similar realms held that a disfigured individual was not allowed to be the ruler, so blinding was an alternative to execution (there were other alternative ways of lightly disfiguring someone, but after Justinian the Slit-nosed managed to reclaim the throne despite having had his nose cut off, people tended to want to be more thorough).

Yes, people died of it, but people died of all sorts of things; it was intended as a safer, more merciful alternative to execution. It just happens that there is a limit to how safe you can make burning people's eyes out without modern medicine.

 

[mrstevehazzard]

No, it is not a bad example. We do not discuss *why* kins were killed by rulers, but *if* at all. I don't give a damn why Ivan Grosny did it or just out of insanity, fact is he did and that is all I care about in this context. I could make you a list of royal murders if I were really eager to get deeper into the topic, but I guess I will not find recognition here and I have better things to do. Although it would be interesting.
Okay, here is something for you to rethink about. A book of 'Royal murders' full of stories you probably never heard of. And those are just the ones which have not been hidden from the eyes of history recording:
https://books.google.de/books?id=9C47AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=list of royal heir murders&source=bl&ots=8e-e7Z2qXc&sig=kVUQxNiV9x5X0wi8H_6BHKsnWJA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy57me2fzNAhXJORQKHe9WCroQ6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=list of royal heir murders&f=false

Sure we were discussing why kin were killed by rulers, that was the whole point of the initial post, that rulers should be able to remove their sons from succession for one reason or another. If we're just talking about a random event where your ruler flies into a rage (with the wroth trait, maybe?) and murders his heir for no reason, I'm with you, that would be a cool addition to the game that would shake things up some.

I'll take a look at the book, though.

 

[Thure]

Boris I of Bulgaria blinded and put in prison his first-born son Vladimir/Rasate (effectively killing him) for trying to reinstall paganism. This isn't some insignificant ruler, at that time Bulgaria was one of the three major powers in Europe.

You CAN blind your children and put them in prison. This is already possible in the game. But it's not actively killing him. This is not a plot to kill your child.

 

[secretam]

Because they're your children? I'm not a parent, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you do.

 

[StijnVeb13]

Is blinding not exclusively a Byzantium feature? Btw I saw some people saying that you can always order your heir to take the vows, but that is not possible if he's heir to any titles.