Swords are sharp and dangerous..

[Korashy]

"Something was wrong. They put on civilian clothes again and looked to their mothers and wives very much like the young men who had gone to business in the peaceful days before August 1914. But they had not come back the same men. Something had altered in them. They were subject to sudden moods, and queer tempers, fits of profound depression alternating with a restless desire for pleasure. Many were easily moved to passion where they lost control of themselves, many were bitter in their speech, violent in opinion, frightening."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_stress_reaction

I understand your point, but I would also argue that if you live in a time where death is a lot more prevalent and you are introduced to both violence and death from an early age, it would be less of a shock to you.

 

[Rags17]

I understand your point, but I would also argue that if you live in a time where death is a lot more prevalent and you are introduced to both violence and death from an early age, it would be less of a shock to you.

Not necessarily.

I tried to find the link but couldn't, but I read somewhere that the Germans in WWII worked out that no matter what they did they couldn't extend the combat life of the average soldier much beyond 300 days. It didn't matter f the 300 days was in one hit or spread out over many years, after 300 days or so the average soldier would simply break down and be incapable of combat. As a corollary, they became very adept at putting burnt out soldiers to work in non-combat roles such as engineering, admin or supply, but the fact remains that every person has a breaking point and after that they point they suddenly seem to become aware of their mortality and avoid risky or dangerous situations.

Of course I am not saying that the average Crusader suffered from PTSD, but I am saying that some did and for the very same reasons that modern soldiers do - too much killing, too much death and too many near misses. For some it could happen only after a year or more of hard combat, for others it could happen the first time your best friend takes an arrow to the eye.

 

[keynes2.0]

I would be very interested in seeing any sources that could elaborate on that 300 day thing.

 

[Eslin]

Its amazing how traits are sometimes randomly atributed to rulers.

I had a ruler some time ago who became "chaste" by event ehile being in the middle of a seduction spree. I also had rulers who randomly lost the "kind"-trait after releasing 22 prisoners without ransom.

But this one tops everything: my ruler, a brilliant strategist with 24 martial, leads his army (center flank) and is in the middle of a tough - but well going - battle when he suddenly realizes that swords are sharp and dangerous.

And he becomes craven in the middle of a large battle he is winning with an army he leads personally.

Pdx, please, i know you cant tweak everything, but absurd situations like these are really annoying, the actions of your rulers should have at least some influence which traits you can get and which are absurd.

What's PTSD? Chaste and kind wise I understand, but craven can be seen as a stand-in for any number of reasons for not wanting to fight (medieval view is that's cowardice, regardless of context) and suddenly gaining the trait during combat makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Rags17]

I would be very interested in seeing any sources that could elaborate on that 300 day thing.

After around 30 minutes of searching online I couldn't find the actual reference, but I will check my paper library and see what I can dig up.

I did a bit of research and first off, this - http://www.killology.com/print/print_psychological.htm

"Swank and Marchand's World War II study of US Army combatants on the beaches of Normandy found that after 60 days of continuous combat, 98% of the surviving soldiers had become psychiatric casualties. And the remaining 2% were identified as "aggressive psychopathic personalities." Thus it is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98% of all men insane, and the other 2% were crazy when they got there."

"Armies around the world have experienced similar mass psychiatric casualties, but many have simply driven these casualties into battle at bayonet point, shooting those who refused or were unable to continue. Japanese units in World War II employed a unique set of powerful cultural and group processes to delay psychiatric breakdown, but they only succeeded in temporarily delaying the cost of combat, a cost that eventually manifested itself in mass suicide."

Second - http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/world-war-ii-psychiatric-wounds-of-war/

"Overall, 25% of casualties were caused by war trauma, and this rate was even higher– 50%– for soldiers engaged in long, intense fighting (PBS, 2003). In fact, so many soldiers were affected that psychiatrists were confronted with the reality that psychological weakness had little to do with subsequent distress in combat. Thus, terminology changed from “combat neurosis” to “combat exhaustion,” or “battle fatigue” (Bentley, 2005). Reflecting the consensus that all soldiers were vulnerable to battle fatigue due to their environments, the U.S. Army adopted the official slogan, “Every man has his breaking point”"

 

[Blindsorcerer]

But why would a chaste monk choose to become a sex god 50 years into his life? I think you're missing the main issue here though and it's that when you give players the ability to pick traits you end up creating the 'right' choice. Many players like I have stopped educating our own kids for this reason because otherwise the game becomes too easy. Plus you'll have fewer gameplay modes to explore. Either be the saint on earth or the massive bastard that keeps your inner borders looking alright. By forcing the player to roleplay their traits a bit more it makes you experience more radically different gameplay between rulers.

Because human beings aren't hard coded....people can under go very sudden change in personality/interest depending on the events in their life and the decisions they make(and the outcomes of those decisions). For all you know he just met the most beautiful woman he's ever seen, but due to his beliefs cannot have her. He never sees her again but her image eats at his desire enough that he breaks free from his current lifestyle but drowns himself in hedonism because he missed the opportunity with the most beautiful girl in the world in his eyes.

I think you're removing role playing with your suggestion and instead creating the equivalent of a rail shooter but with decisions. Forcing the player to choose things isn't good in any sandbox game. That's what you'd have them do. Not to mention its entirely unrealistic with regards to human nature. As I said, people change and they change frequently/on a whim. Kind of one of our defining characteristics as a species. Your suggestion would have us all coded to behave a certain way until death which sounds incredibly boring and like it will remove all choice from the player's hands.

You mention there being a right vs wrong choice issue with what I'm suggesting. What you're suggesting leaves no choice at all.

 

[klopkr]

Because human beings aren't hard coded....people can under go very sudden change in personality/interest depending on the events in their life and the decisions they make(and the outcomes of those decisions). For all you know he just met the most beautiful woman he's ever seen, but due to his beliefs cannot have her. He never sees her again but her image eats at his desire enough that he breaks free from his current lifestyle but drowns himself in hedonism because he missed the opportunity with the most beautiful girl in the world in his eyes.

I think you're removing role playing with your suggestion and instead creating the equivalent of a rail shooter but with decisions. Forcing the player to choose things isn't good in any sandbox game. That's what you'd have them do. Not to mention its entirely unrealistic with regards to human nature. As I said, people change and they change frequently/on a whim. Kind of one of our defining characteristics as a species. Your suggestion would have us all coded to behave a certain way until death which sounds incredibly boring and like it will remove all choice from the player's hands.

You mention there being a right vs wrong choice issue with what I'm suggesting. What you're suggesting leaves no choice at all.

Yes you shouldn't have the choice sometimes. The game already does a fine job of occasionally changing the characters traits. I've had plenty of characters do the cynical to zealous, brave to craven, and chaste to lustful switch because of in game events. I'm not saying we should go as far as not allowing content characters to declare war, just that some traits are antithetical to certain actions and focuses and that when it should be limited. If you have the chaste trait you should get to pick seduction until you lose it but there's plenty of other things you can still do. And maybe your next character wont be chaste and you'll get to seduce away.

What I'm really against though is anything that lets you pick your own traits. If assassination lets me get cruel every time, fighting in wars brave, seducing lustful, etc... It gives you an optimal path and kills game play variability. There's no reason to play another way if you know this certain way is the best way.

 

[Nameless_Ensign]

Traits really should be completely dependent upon your actions...and there are still tons of cases where someone has two traits that don't make sense...like having ambitious and slothful at the same time

They have high ambitions but they are too lazy to put in the necessary work to do anything about it?

'Contradicting' traits are really just interesting personality quirks.

 

[keynes2.0]

They have high ambitions but they are too lazy to put in the necessary work to do anything about it?

Except the trait is describe in game as:
"Ambitious characters work harder, making them better at everything. However, their drive to reach the top means that they tend to make poor vassals."

 

[yerm]

Ambitious and slothful are very commonly combined. Usually in the real world we refer to this as "middle management" instead.

There was a decent discussion about PTSD in another thread I wanna say maybe 2 weeks ago? I suspect the consensus will come out the same here - going brave to craven happened, it's been well documented for thousands of years, and every person DOES have a breaking point. I think depressed might be a better "common" one than craven, but something should eventually fire for characters put through campaign after campaign after campaign. We have examples ranging from Hannibal's glorified suicide to proven-fearless Bazaine's cowardice.

 

[keynes2.0]

Bazaine wasn't afraid of physical harm. And if war fatigue should be in, there should be a war fatigue trait. Some people start out brave. Some people start out cowardly. Neither has anything to do with PTSD.

 

[yerm]

A war fatigue factor, preferably semi-hidden like health and fertility, wouldn't really be all that bad.

The problem is it's not just PTSD. It's just general non-traumatic prolonged stress, it's a change in perspective, it's brain damage, and all kinds of stuff in between. The game simplifies things - what does possessed or lunatic really even mean? Also, I shouldn't hate on Bazaine, I rather like the guy and think he was wildly mistreated as a scapegoat that didn't deserve it, but he was a common example if memory serves of someone who'd have been slapped as "craven" (at least from outsider perspective) despite being otherwise proven fearless.

I think the problem here isn't that a character goes brave to coward out of the blue. The problem is that the reason given for it is that swords are sharp.

 

[DorlasAnther]

I would also add that person who becomes craven on battlefield, suddenly becomes craven in every aspect of his life. I previously wrote that I wasn´t allowed to kill boar when I was hunting, when I was informed about stag being in the woods, I was so afraid that I ran away and when I was making feast for my vassals, I didn´t join performers, because I was craven. But, surprisingly, I could still go to battle and lead my troops there (and since I was awesome commander in every aspect, being craven influenced nothing).
Problem with traits is that they are not complex enough. In real life, I wouldn´t face boar with my spear and I would be terrified in battle, but I would definitely do crazy stuff during a feast. And if I was on hunt, I wouldn´t run away when other people say that there is stag in the woods. Game doesn´t distinguish that. It just considers you craven and that means that you are craven in every aspect of your life, even though you were just afraid in battle. And it still lets you lead troops in battle! I can´t even emphasize, how much stupid this is.

Also, one thing. You all are saying that being in middle of battles will influence you, but what about being commander in battle? You can lead troops without actually being in middle of fighting. You can always be on some hill in back of your army and watch the battlefield, commanding troops from secure position. Not all leaders are Theoden, Robert Baratheon, Aragorn or Jaime Lannister, there are also Tywin Lannister, Menno Coehoorn, Denethor or Stannis Baratheon. Some commanders will just watch the battle and fight only when it is necessary.

 

[vandevere]

Another thing that drives me crazy, and it's possibly related, is that every one of my Chancellors ends up being Paranoid.

Every...single...one...

Through several different play throughs.

Every single Chancellor becomes paranoid.

Have no idea what's up with that...

 

[Zqrfmb]

Another thing that drives me crazy, and it's possibly related, is that every one of my Chancellors ends up being Paranoid.

Every...single...one...

Through several different play throughs.

Every single Chancellor becomes paranoid.

Have no idea what's up with that...

They all think they're being moved around like chess pieces across the world, and will be fired if anyone even a ltitle bit with words than them sets foot in your court.

 

[vandevere]

They all think they're being moved around like chess pieces across the world, and will be fired if anyone even a ltitle bit with words than them sets foot in your court.

Maybe. But it happens way more often than Commanders/Marshals getting Craven. While a goodly percentage of them *DO* get Craven, in my experience it's *NOT* a 100% certainty; whereas Paranoid Chancellors is 100%...

*THAT's* what I have issues with. *NO* trait should fire with 100% certainty. The good ones don't; neither should the bad ones...

 

[KPJ]

Makes perfect sense to me. Nobility, even when trained from childhood for combat, might not ever have seen a battlefield or a massacre 'up close and personal', but then did that day. Or maybe previously they believed wounds only happen to other people, then saw their best friend (a non-named squire?) get impaled on a lance. I think if craven is going to pop up in someone's life, it's during a battle that it is most likely.

 

[OnceAKing]

There was a fairly recent very cotentious debate about PTSD in the middle ages in a post just like this one.

I have no interest in rehashing it but I agree with most the people's assertion that every human must be capable of incurring PTSD. We all have the same brain and it hasn't had time to evolve this quickly. So it must have existed then as well. But current miltary leaders still are ignorant and refuse to acknowledge it as a real psychological phenomenon. So it's not a stretch that ancient times they'd be deamed craven.


Also the reason I love CK2 is the characters are well rounded. I mean one side de characters like superman or Goku are fun but if your looking for realism you need characters with altering sides and actual growth or change in there lifetime.

I mean maybe a chaste monk appears to be chaste and upright but deep down has some demons he has kept down until now. I mean there are real world allegories in current day headlines. I don't want to get into the politics of it. But no one is the person you first saw before the power.


I would hate to have to play a character that is just a Disney version of Hercules or Loki. Give me character changes like Jaime Lannister or Theon Greyjoy.

 

[Hecaton]

Is PTSD necessarily what we would see as 'Craven', though? In my own (somewhat limited) experience with people with the disorder, it can also result in irrational aggression (Wroth, basically). When we're talking about triggered fight or flight responses... some people go into 'fight' when they, say, hear a car backfiring.

 

[King Dave]

Yeah the swords are sharp and dangerous event is a joke. I had a 50 year old berserker, Varangian, Viking, veteran of countless battles and raids decide that he was frightened of swords. Plain stupid if you ask me, such a bloke would have been more terrified of NOT dying in battle.
To be honest we don't need the touchy feely modern view of PTSD to be imposed on our brutal medieval world. Yes there might have been some mental stuff going on back then that wasn't documented but do we really need to spoil the mystic of the past, by trying to include it here.