Ruler epithets

[unmerged(153306)]

Hello. Something I think would add flavor to the game is epithets for leaders that have distinguished themselves in some way.

For example our King Edward I is a schizophrenic kinslayer whose reign has been an utter disaster for the realm. Would it not be fitting that he were to be remembered as Edward I 'The mad'

Or if you truly had an epic conquerer as king he would then be known as Edward I 'The Conquerer'.

Of course these epithets should be rare indeed, only reserved for the most depraved or glorious leader or else they would become generic. But the reign of a leader who has one wont be soon forgotten.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

José the Commisioner of Paintings?

j/k

 

[RedRooster81]

It's not a bad idea. And his successors should have some reputation gain or loss depending on it. EU3 handed out epithets in a humorous way, but I don't know if CK2 is equipped to handle it. Anyway, here's my example: John the Studious, son of Edward the Malevolent, son of William the Idle, son of John the Boastful, son of Edward the Meek.... Well, it could depend on traits, or some combination of traits, or accomplishments--and I would rather not just focus on conquests. One or two Dukes of Aquitaine were known for their poetical abilities like William the Troubadour. You could be a great benefactor of the church or build schools in every one of your urban baronies and get a nice title like the Pious or the Learned. Or be remembered for being generous + wise = the Benevolent. Okay now I'm just rambling.

 

[unmerged(155641)]

It would be awesome with such titles, they would have to balance it though so not every ruler gets a title.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

While the idea isn't bad, if the original CK is everything to go by, every other monarch would end up with a good or even great epithets due to how much prestige goes around. If they can make it so bad monarchs with bad traits truly tend to perform badly, then I think it can be done. Otherwise, you'll see about three Kings in as many generations known as "The Great" simply due to prestige .


The Great

 

[RedRooster81]

While the idea isn't bad, if the original CK is everything to go by, every other monarch would end up with a good or even great epithets due to how much prestige goes around. If they can make it so bad monarchs with bad traits truly tend to perform badly, then I think it can be done. Otherwise, you'll see about three Kings in as many generations known as "The Great" simply due to prestige .


The Great

Maybe it should depend on culture or kingdom, too. Certain cultures used them more frequently than others, comparing for example northern Italy to Sweden. I would suggest that it could be a personal decision, if certain criteria are met.

As others have said in the past on another similar thread, some epithets were imposed by enemies (the Bastard, for example), while others were granted by the person in question himself or by his supporters (the Good, the Pious)--now what truly pious person would call themselves the Pious? or the Good? Maybe his archbishop or chancellor could make such a pronouncement. Just speculation at this point of course.

 

[unmerged(109046)]

While the idea isn't bad, if the original CK is everything to go by, every other monarch would end up with a good or even great epithets due to how much prestige goes around. If they can make it so bad monarchs with bad traits truly tend to perform badly, then I think it can be done. Otherwise, you'll see about three Kings in as many generations known as "The Great" simply due to prestige .


The Great

Maybe make the epithets be given only posthumously? This way, the ruler would become "the Great" only if he didn't screw up in the end, and his reign was truly succesfull, as compared to other rulers of his time. Even if he had 10k prestige, but three other major kings had over 12k, he wouldn't become the great - he'd become something else, either "the Famous" or based on his traits - "the Saint", "the Cruel" etc.

 

[Laur]

History is generally written by the victors, and the epithets given to previous rulers make no exception. There are many capable rulers whose reputation has been tarnished posthumously for they were supporters of a rival ideology, such as it is the case of Constantine V of the Roman Empire, a very capable emperor who, due to his iconoclast stance, was called Copronymus (name of dung) by his rivals, the icon worshippers. The epithete, unfortunately for him, stuck. It is this kind of subjectivity that would be hard to simulate within the game. Left to its own devices, CK will only ensure that, before you know it, everyone in your dinasty will be called "the Great," "the Sage," "the Conqueror," "the Beloved" making your game experience seem more like witnessing a North Korean Juche propaganda movie than a true middle-ages experience. I feel that, rather than having the game generate a random epithet, the player could edit the name himself, in the personal screen, adding whichever moniker they might feel fit.

 

[RedRooster81]

History is generally written by the victors, and the epithets given to previous rulers make no exception. There are many capable rulers whose reputation has been tarnished posthumously for they were supporters of a rival ideology, such as it is the case of Constantine V of the Roman Empire, a very capable emperor who, due to his iconoclast stance, was called Copronymus (name of dung) by his rivals, the icon worshippers. The epithete, unfortunately for him, stuck. It is this kind of subjectivity that would be hard to simulate within the game. Left to its own devices, CK will only ensure that, before you know it, everyone in your dinasty will be called "the Great," "the Sage," "the Conqueror," "the Beloved" making your game experience seem more like witnessing a North Korean Juche propaganda movie than a true middle-ages experience. I feel that, rather than having the game generate a random epithet, the player could edit the name himself, in the personal screen, adding whichever moniker they might feel fit.

That seems like a reasonable suggestion. In CK1, I edit my own dynasty's save game file to add epithets and regnal numbers, just to keep all the men named Sancho, Alfonso, and Juan (in my case) straight in my own mind. And I don't usually go for "the great" but rather

the Conqueror (for the one who takes the last Muslim stronghold in the Iberian Peninsula),

the Builder (who built palaces in every royal province and extended the road system),

the old (for having lived to 82 years),

the Dispossessed (he inherited Aquitaine at age 3 months, so his father ruled in his right, sort of ...),

the German (he grew up in Bavaria)

and other nicknames that an algorithm could not really keep up with.

 

[Secret Master]

I would support non-player generated epithets, but only under the following conditions.

1) It only applies at time of death. (No epithets until you are dead.)

2) It only examines traits (to avoid prestige/piety spam)

3) The epithet may be changed by following generations in order to represent "victors writing history" if the successors spend enough gold/piety/prestige and the conditions are right. (i.e. King John the Lackland might be rechristened King John the Martyr by his grandchildren when they rewrite history and focus on John's conflict with the secularized Papacy rather than his inability to win wars in France.)

4) Characters who begin the process of becoming a saint have their epithets AND titles automatically set to the current appropriate one (i.e. John the Blessed, Saint John)