The "Fear Feature"

[wakko2k]

So I posted this on reddit yesterday, and it seemed to create a nice descussion so I thought I'd post it on the forums too

Reddit link

So, something that always has been puzzling me, the cruel trait gives you negative vassal opinion, sure I get that. But, shouldnt they be more afraid of you? Like.. not as likely to plot against you and stuff like that, because they're afraid to get thrown into the dungeon or executed? I'd love to be able to roleplay a character like that too.
So far in my games I've always felt like the kind trait is the better one. Everyone likes you more, yay! But shouldnt there be a fear factor which would benefit the character aswell if he is feared with a "Fear Feature"? Like "Oh no, dont plot against that guy. He is cruel, you never know what he'll do to you".
What do you guys think?

I'd personally love to see a feature like this

 

[omega20056]

The Byzantine emperors purposely created this kind of atmosphere. If you plotted against the emperor, it was nearly guaranteed that you'd be blinded or castrated. The suspension of the dealth penalty as the punishment for most crimes by Leo III in favour of mutilation was a warning to those who'd plot against him.

 

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I certainly think that being a good guy is too profitable in the game at the moment - nice means higher diplomacy, and diplomacy > intrigue every time. Kind, with it's massive vassal opinion boost, is probably one of the best traits in the game.

 

[sithspaceraptor]

If done well, this could be an amazing boost to the game, I agree. Sometimes it does feel weird if I'm "playing the tyrant" and I execute silly little dukes for rebelling (after I first have them excommunicated if I'm at that stage of the game), after which the three counts of nowheresville start a crown authority faction or plot to kill my son.
Seriously?

Of course it'd be pretty difficult possibly to code in at this point in the game? Would be fantastic if it was simple (straightforward) but not per se easy to earn. Putting down large rebellions should earn quite a bit of that, as should mutilation/execution of high-ranking vassals. It'd have to be somewhat difficult to balance for the player in terms of tyranny malus vs. fear bonus. This is partially represented I guess via the prestige system, but only slightly so.

 

[Thure]

If done well, this could be an amazing boost to the game, I agree. Sometimes it does feel weird if I'm "playing the tyrant" and I execute silly little dukes for rebelling (after I first have them excommunicated if I'm at that stage of the game), after which the three counts of nowheresville start a crown authority faction or plot to kill my son.
Seriously?

Of course it'd be pretty difficult possibly to code in at this point in the game? Would be fantastic if it was simple (straightforward) but not per se easy to earn. Putting down large rebellions should earn quite a bit of that, as should mutilation/execution of high-ranking vassals. It'd have to be somewhat difficult to balance for the player in terms of tyranny malus vs. fear bonus. This is partially represented I guess via the prestige system, but only slightly so.

If you are tyrannic and the people fear you... they should more likely willing to join a plot against you. To be feared is nothing good. If you go after Macchiavelli it's only good if you are feared and loved at the same time.

 

[Kaiser Ludwig]

"It's safer to be feared than loved. Love is a bond of gratitude that men, perverse by nature, will break when they can benefit from it; but fear is a fear of punishment which is never lost."; that sounds more inclined to "better feared than loved, because people suck"

In any case, there needs to be some ability to retaliate in the name of your sons, have the uppity count/duke be branded dishonorable for going against a direct member of the Family. But you don't get to do squat if your two children are fighting each other because boys will be boys.

 

[wakko2k]

If you are tyrannic and the people fear you... they should more likely willing to join a plot against you. To be feared is nothing good. If you go after Macchiavelli it's only good if you are feared and loved at the same time.

Is that really true though? If you would fear your liege, wouldnt you think twice before joining a plot against him? Knowing what he'd do to you if you get caught? Joining a plot against someone who is kind would make you feel safer because the ods he'll forgive you are much bigger right?

 

[Thure]

"It's safer to be feared than loved. Love is a bond of gratitude that men, perverse by nature, will break when they can benefit from it; but fear is a fear of punishment which is never lost."; that sounds more inclined to "better feared than loved, because people suck"

You should read the whole chapter and not just this quote. It's very misleading.

'Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.'

'Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated'

'Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.'

You maybe should be feared... but you should not be hated. It's bad to be hated and feared at the same time.

Is that really true though? If you would fear your liege, wouldnt you think twice before joining a plot against him? Knowing what he'd do to you if you get caught? Joining a plot against someone who is kind would make you feel safer because the ods he'll forgive you are much bigger right?

Fear should lead to hidden plots. If you are not feared it should lead to open revolts.

 

[omega20056]

Is that really true though? If you would fear your liege, wouldnt you think twice before joining a plot against him? Knowing what he'd do to you if you get caught? Joining a plot against someone who is kind would make you feel safer because the ods he'll forgive you are much bigger right?

Justinian II was a complete tyrant and he was deposed twice and ultimately executed.

 

[Thure]

Justinian II was a complete tyrant and he was deposed twice and ultimately executed.

Exactly. If you are feared and hated... The people want to replace to. They wouldn't do it openly, because of fear... But they would still do it in hidden. Just because you are feared don't mean noone will do anything against you. That would be wrong in gameplay.

 

[Zolotaya]

Thank you for bringing up the emphasis about fear and hatred Thure.

'Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated'

Every prince should strive to win love. If he fails to win love be sure to avoid hatred while inspiring fear. A better, more able prince inspires love. CK2 mechanics should reflect this and reward the more moral path more than the unholy. Just saying.

 

[Guidrion]

Edit: sorry for repeating stuff from above, I took some time to write my response.

If we follow Macchiavelli's teachings, the objective should be:
*The best: loved and feared. Which is respect in his idea.
*The good: feared.
*Better than nothing: loved.
*soon to be killed: unloved and unfeared and/or hated.

Loved meant that you were a nice ruler. The people likes you but, in Macchiavelli's mind, it only meant it was good in times of peace or prosperity. It is similar to the idea that when you are rich and famous, you get a lot of friends. You are dependant on those good circumstances. These friends and this love won't stand the test of hardship.
To be feared doesn't mean that the people cries of anguish at the mere mention of your name. It means that you are a strong ruler, both severe and willing to punish those who cross you. That if you try something against your ruler, you won't get away with it. If people feel that plotting won't get them in trouble, then why shouldn't they plot if they want something? If the ruler is loved and that the circumstances are good, you are less likely to be plotted against but if the circumstances get worst, then plotting will explode because noblemen will think they can have it better if they cross you.

People often forget that to be hated was the big NO for Macchiavelli. It means that people not only don't love you because you are an a****** but it also means that you are unjust in your punishment.


In gameplay terms, if we follow that logic, there should be a new data for each ruler: fear.
*If low : people will act against you in many ways if the realm's status is bad and if they have a bad opinion of you/have a huge opportunity (your brother having a claim on your imperial throne-huge).
*If medium: people won't act against you unless they don't like you at all.
*If high: people will be very unlikely to join "soft" plots or factions but will still join hard ones if they hate you.
*If Maxed out: people won't join any "soft" plots or factions but will be very likely to have hard ones like depose ruler or assasination.

Fear goes up with "oppressive" traits like zealous or cruel, banishment or execution of rebels and traitors, annulment of title, destruction of rebellions, victory in civil wars.
Fear goes down when you liberate people, give gifts to plotters and faction members, give in to faction demands.

This should also mean more faction-related events, other than simply "All your bases are belong to us, surrender or you corpse!!!" when 100%+ faction power.

 

[Rags17]

If done well, this could be an amazing boost to the game, I agree. Sometimes it does feel weird if I'm "playing the tyrant" and I execute silly little dukes for rebelling (after I first have them excommunicated if I'm at that stage of the game), after which the three counts of nowheresville start a crown authority faction or plot to kill my son.
Seriously?

Of course it'd be pretty difficult possibly to code in at this point in the game? Would be fantastic if it was simple (straightforward) but not per se easy to earn. Putting down large rebellions should earn quite a bit of that, as should mutilation/execution of high-ranking vassals. It'd have to be somewhat difficult to balance for the player in terms of tyranny malus vs. fear bonus. This is partially represented I guess via the prestige system, but only slightly so.

There are a number of "Evil" traits that could be structured to act as sort of "ladder" of fear eg Wroth, Cruel, Impaler. There are also temporary traits that arise for a set period via Events, it should be a simple matter to drastically up the Opinion malus for the "Evil" traits to say -10 for Wroth, -20 for Cruel and -30 for Impaler, but give them a corresponding overmatching via the fixed term bonus of "Cowed Vassals", say +40. Once the Cowed vassals bonus was lost however the character would be in deep trouble, but until then they would actually be better off. And if you had another temp malus of say "Hatred" -40 you could be in very, very deep trouble.

All of the above would be very easily modded, the hard part (to me at least) would be creating the events that assign the temporary malusses so that "Evil" behavior is caught. A start would be adding in a chance to gain the bonus/malus every time a character was murdered, executed or blinded/castrated, a further enhancement would be to add an option for say for "Messy Public Execution" which would have a much higher chance of getting the desired effect.

Anyone want to do this ?

 

[hooni]

Wait you mean, you guys don't imprison every vassal possible and have maximum crown laws when you play this game? Am I playing the game wrong?

 

[Sopbucket]

You know, I think this would be quite possible to implement. You could have a fear rating that works just like opinion does now, only it would be modified by different traits, actions, stats (intrigue), etc. Everything that opinion affects now could then be affected by a combination of your opinion and fear score, and different things would be more or less weighted by one or the other. So, for example, if a vassal is considering joining a faction against you, both fear and opinion would be important, but fear would be more important in determining whether they do or not. In the case of marriage proposals though, opinion would be more important. Taxes and levies might be more balanced, I don't know. I'm sure it would take a lot of work to go through and change everything that would be affected by this, but it's certainly doable.

 

[General Karthos]

I have to disagree with the statement up above that "zealous" is an "oppressive" trait. As I understand it in the game, it just means a great deal of religious fervor. You may try to convince your vassals to stop being so cynical, and you may go to church everyday, but from the way I've read it, it just means you are a very devout person. (And maybe you want to crush heretics and infidels, but your fine with fellow christians, even those not as "enthusiastic" as you.

That's just my reading.

I really do like the idea of a fear mechanic, and it's been bandied about on the forums for years. Maybe it'll be in CK3.

 

[Comradebot]

I have to disagree with the statement up above that "zealous" is an "oppressive" trait. As I understand it in the game, it just means a great deal of religious fervor. You may try to convince your vassals to stop being so cynical, and you may go to church everyday, but from the way I've read it, it just means you are a very devout person. (And maybe you want to crush heretics and infidels, but your fine with fellow christians, even those not as "enthusiastic" as you.

That's just my reading.

I really do like the idea of a fear mechanic, and it's been bandied about on the forums for years. Maybe it'll be in CK3.

Agreed. I don't see how Zealous is "oppressive". Like, if you were a zealous Catholic ruling nothing but Muslims and you had a knack for cruelty...

 

[ThePatriot1776]

You can already do something close to Fear factor by using the existing commands for traits. I can see using the following commands to represent it: ai_rationality, ai_zeal, ai_honor, and ai_ambition. A fearful character will be irrational with zeal, honor, and ambition modifying it. Another option would be to add in a command for traits that is ai_fear that would influence the above for traits.

 

[MishaTX]

This is a great discussion, and one that I've been having in my head while playing the game. In general, it's handled pretty well, but there are some flaws in it. Like, for instance, when you have heresy rebellions like I do because of the way the rampant anti-popery right now lowers church authority. That's a discussion for another thread, though, even though it needs to be fixed ASAP. But what I don't get is how, after I've decisively crushed one of those rebellions and executed every last one of its leaders, it only takes one more war that I'm distracted by before they manage to round up another 6,000 troops to try again. It's as if their previous crushing defeat with no hopes of winning didn't matter at all!

"Sure, we didn't get to take as much as a single holding before our liege destroyed our armies utterly and hanged, drawn and quartered every single one of our leaders, but surely THIS time will be better!"

How to implement something like that so it works and doesn't just encourage players to murder, maim, mutilate and burn down vassals who as much as look at them funny I don't know, however, but it does seem a bit silly that there is none of what I like to call the "Fear of G-d" factor implemented as in "holy shit, let's not piss this guy off! Remember what happened the LAST time!"

 

[darthfanta]

Edward I played up the fear factor.Using his height as his advantage,he would intimidate vassals into doing things.

I think there should be a difference between cruelty when delivering punishments and random,bizarre violence.You can most likely get away with being cruel if your punishments were just,but would push your vassals into trying to get rid of you if you did so randomly,not knowing when they would be your next victim.