The limits of blackmail

[mteir]

So while I'm not opposed to a system like this. I think one of the main reasons the when with a less granular system is that it works equally well in multiplayer as it does in single player.

Now there probably is some work around to get your system to work with multiplayer. But maybe it wasn't considered worth the time to blanace that all out when there is something else they could work on.

Another option would be to add flavor to each hook based on the source, this could dictate the type of consequence for the victim for breaking the hook. For example a black hook (strong or weak) could be based on blackmail and secrets breaking them exposes the secret(s). White hook for pledges of honor, duty and obligations (loans?) breaking them would cost reputation and prestige, what if you would give a generous vassal contract but instead gain a weak or strong white hook. Maybe pink hooks for love or lust, breaking costs sanity, the seduction perk tree could have fun with this.
But then again the current system seems to be simple and good enough.

 

[philanthropic19]

So while I'm not opposed to a system like this. I think one of the main reasons the when with a less granular system is that it works equally well in multiplayer as it does in single player.

Now there probably is some work around to get your system to work with multiplayer. But maybe it wasn't considered worth the time to blanace that all out when there is something else they could work on.

I think my model can work equally well in multiplayer. Just make Hooks with power above a threshold behave like "Strong" hooks do right now and below the threshold as "Weak" hooks in multiplayer.

Even though the power is determined dynamically, I still considered it balanced insofar as traits are balanced. Different rulers in multiplayer have different traits and that is fine. Similarly dynamic hook power fits nicely in.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Whilst I do think the ideas put forth about variable strength and flavour for hooks are interesting, I want to draw attention back to what is IMO the main issue with the current system- that neither the player or the AI can refuse a hook if asked to do something exceptionally unreasonable. This hurts gameplay and immersion in both single and multiplayer.

It means for example that you could use a strong hook (which can be fabricated) on an AI to force them to murder their own lover- which needless to say doesn't make much sense. In scenarios like these where the AI is threatened into doing something horrible against themselves or their close relatives/friends, they should have the right to refuse.

Likewise, if an AI or another player tries to use a hook to force you into doing something very much against your own interests, you should logically have the right to refuse. But because in the current system you can't refuse a hook, and you can't know what you'll be hooked into when initially blackmailed, the risk of being forced into something that is worse than the blackmail itself means that it could rarely be a good idea to accept being blackmailed. Particularly if it's a fellow malignant player in multiplayer.

The system doesn't need a massive overhaul, it just needs more options. Their should be three ways of getting rid of the hook and exposing the secret:

- When you are first initially blackmailed for the hook (which is already possible).

- At any time between being blackmailed and the hook actually being used, you should be able to freely expose the secret yourself (but I don't think the AI should be able to do this because that would be annoying).

- And when the hook is actually being used on you.

As others have also suggested, the AI would weigh up the negative impact of the exposure of their secret, against how much what they're being hooked into goes against their own interests or personality traits. Of course, to avoid making hooks too weak, the AI should generally accept outside of extreme scenarios. I think these sort of changes would make hooks less binary and a lot more dynamic.

 

[jere8184]

Poorley thought out features such as this make me lose faith in paradox grand strategy games. But then agian im probably not their target audience.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Poorley thought out features such as this make me lose faith in paradox grand strategy games. But then agian im probably not their target audience.

Think that's a bit harsh tbh, overall the new intrigue systems look like a massive improvement over CK2. That doesn't mean they can't potentially be improved more though.

 

[Evangeline]

Do we already know if using a hook automatically forces a person to do something? Or is it just e.g. a +50 factor, similar to but stronger than a bribe?

 

[philanthropic19]

Do we already know if using a hook automatically forces a person to do something? Or is it just e.g. a +50 factor, similar to but stronger than a bribe?

It automatically forces a target person to do an action. However, for some actions weak hooks do not work, rather a strong hook is necessary.

 

[Coldfire4134]

I am curious if someone can be forced to kill their child. At the moment a parent can't plot against their child, so the most outrageous things might still be outright impossible unless the character's traits allow. Being able to counter hooks by reveling your own secrets seems like a great idea.

 

[Olden Weiss]

Remember: You can always make your own secret public to get rid of a strong hook another can get on you. This is why strong hooks need to be so powerful. Because the alternative is making a very dirty secret public, which could be a huge problem for you going forward. If strong hooks weren't appropriately powerful, the option would be clear every time: Take the hook, keep the secret.

And if your hook comes from something like being a legitimized bastard... Well, you literally owe your dynasty head everything you have, so it makes sense that you'd have to be his lap dog every now and again.

 

[McDanny]

I am curious if someone can be forced to kill their child. At the moment a parent can't plot against their child, so the most outrageous things might still be outright impossible unless the character's traits allow. Being able to counter hooks by reveling your own secrets seems like a great idea.

"On acceptance: Alexander joins the plot to murder George Washington.

On refusal: Alexander's adulterer secret is revealed."

 

[philanthropic19]

Remember: You can always make your own secret public to get rid of a strong hook another can get on you.

The issue is that once they have the hook, you cannot reveal your own secret afterward to get rid of the hook. The only chance you have is when they are blackmailing you for the secret (in order to get a hook on you), you can refuse the blackmail and let the secret be revealed. But once you give in to the blackmail, they get a hook which they can use at any time in the future.

The problem is that at the time of blackmail you don't know what the blackmailer is going to use the hook for. I may be fine to be hooked by someone to do xyz, but I'm not fine to murder my own child for the same hook. I need to be able to decide at the time someone is using a hook against me whether I want to accept it or let them reveal the secret.

There have been several interesting ideas posted in the thread which suggest improvements to the system to deal with this problem.

EDIT: The way blackmail works in real life is you tell someone to do "xyz" or you will reveal their dirty secret. You don't blackmail someone by saying "You want your secret revealed? No? Ok now I have a hook on you." Then after 2 years you call them and say "Remember I got a hook on you? Now you must kill your child". It just doesn't work like that. A person who is being blackmailed always weighs the value of the secret against the severity of what the blackmailer is asking them to do.

 

[Olden Weiss]

The issue is that once they have the hook, you cannot reveal your own secret afterward to get rid of the hook. The only chance you have is when they are blackmailing you for the secret (in order to get a hook on you), you can refuse the blackmail and let the secret be revealed. But once you give in to the blackmail, they get a hook which they can use at any time in the future.

The problem is that at the time of blackmail you don't know what the blackmailer is going to use the hook for. I may be fine to be hooked by someone to do xyz, but I'm not fine to murder my own child for the same hook. I need to be able to decide at the time someone is using a hook against me whether I want to accept it or let them reveal the secret.

I suppose that's true, but on the other hand, that unpredictability adds to the gravity of the decision as well. Even if you're willing to take huge opinion penalties with various characters, a loss of piety, whatever the case may be... You still have that concern about, "Okay, if I accept this, what will I be made to do?"

Although I'm not even positive the player can be outright forced with hooks. Can they? I thought it was a case of, "If you refuse to do what they're hooking you to do, the secret associated with the hook gets revealed."

 

[pengoyo]

The issue is that once they have the hook, you cannot reveal your own secret afterward to get rid of the hook. The only chance you have is when they are blackmailing you for the secret (in order to get a hook on you), you can refuse the blackmail and let the secret be revealed. But once you give in to the blackmail, they get a hook which they can use at any time in the future.

The problem is that at the time of blackmail you don't know what the blackmailer is going to use the hook for. I may be fine to be hooked by someone to do xyz, but I'm not fine to murder my own child for the same hook. I need to be able to decide at the time someone is using a hook against me whether I want to accept it or let them reveal the secret.

There have been several interesting ideas posted in the thread which suggest improvements to the system to deal with this problem.

EDIT: The way blackmail works in real life is you tell someone to do "xyz" or you will reveal their dirty secret. You don't blackmail someone by saying "You want your secret revealed? No? Ok now I have a hook on you." Then after 2 years you call them and say "Remember I got a hook on you? Now you must kill your child". It just doesn't work like that. A person who is being blackmailed always weighs the value of the secret against the severity of what the blackmailer is asking them to do.

Keep in mind you can't kill you own child so you can't be blackmailed into that.

Also people are assuming that if someone is blackmailing you into a murder plot they are explaining the whole plot to you. It is entirely possible that someone who is blackmailing you would also lie to you about what the affects of the favour they are having you do actually are. Also people aren't 100% rational, so a blackmailer can try to coerce you into doing something you normally wouldn't do by warping your view of reality (playing up the affects of your secret getting out and down playing the awfulness of what they want you to do). Also people who are blackmailed are often slowly ramped up over time (i.e. It starts with small requests and later larger ones). This can help normalize the blackmail, make the target feel like they are even more painted into a corner (cause now they done even more shameful things), and play into a sunk cost fallacy.

But all of that is extremely hard to code into a game (especially when intrigue is not the sole focus of the game), so things are simplified and abstracted.

 

[philanthropic19]

Although I'm not even positive the player can be outright forced with hooks. Can they? I thought it was a case of, "If you refuse to do what they're hooking you to do, the secret associated with the hook gets revealed."

In the current implementation there are two steps:

1. Blackmail: In this step the target has the option to say no. If they say no, you don't get a hook, rather the secret is revealed. If they say yes, you get a hook.
2. Use the Hook: The target has no choice except to do what you say.

I'm pretty sure if an AI character has a hook on the player, they can use Step 2 above to force the player to do something (just like Favors work in CK2 whereby the AI can force the player to give them a council position).

 

[philanthropic19]

Keep in mind you can't kill you own child so you can't be blackmailed into that.

From what I could gather, you cannot plot to murder your child unless you are Sadistic. Are you sure you cannot back a plot to murder your child either?

Also people are assuming that if someone is blackmailing you into a murder plot they are explaining the whole plot to you. It is entirely possible that someone who is blackmailing you would also lie to you about what the affects of the favour they are having you do actually are. Also people aren't 100% rational, so a blackmailer can try to coerce you into doing something you normally wouldn't do by warping your view of reality (playing up the affects of your secret getting out and down playing the awfulness of what they want you to do). Also people who are blackmailed are often slowly ramped up over time (i.e. It starts with small requests and later larger ones). This can help normalize the blackmail, make the target feel like they are even more painted into a corner (cause now they done even more shameful things), and play into a sunk cost fallacy.

I get your point. But I think the whole issue with the current implementation is that the person being blackmailed does not know what they will be blackmailed to do when they are being blackmailed. The agency of the target must not be taken away in this crucial aspect. The target must always be in a position to weigh their desire to keep their secret vs what the blackmailer is asking them to do. You can easily abstract the "ramping up" and "manipulation" by giving High Intrigue characters a bonus to target's acceptance score.

 

[sstabeler]

It's worth noting that it is actually a perk to be able to fabricate hooks in the first place, and I think it's quite far down the tree. Given that in the Seduction tree, comparable Perks include being able to completely prevent critical failure of seduction attempts (Which probably means that they simply turn you down, rather than call the guards) and remove the penalty to seducing close kin (as in, remove the penalty to succeeding, not to the consequences of discovered) then it might be OP, but is just as OP as similar perks on the same level.

 

[pengoyo]

From what I could gather, you cannot plot to murder your child unless you are Sadistic. Are you sure you cannot back a plot to murder your child either?

Pretty sure I heard that (also I noticed the mother wasn't a potential initee to the murder plot of the child king of Galicia in the stream). And I definitely haven't heard anything to the contrary. And if it isn't the case (which I doubt), it's a pretty simple fix.

I get your point. But I think the whole issue with the current implementation is that the person being blackmailed does not know what they will be blackmailed to do when they are being blackmailed. The agency of the target must not be taken away in this crucial aspect. The target must always be in a position to weigh their desire to keep their secret vs what the blackmailer is asking them to do. You can easily abstract the "ramping up" and "manipulation" by giving High Intrigue characters a bonus to target's acceptance score.

Well two of my examples involved the victim of blackmail not being sure of the end goal of their blackmailer (the blackmailer lying and a blackmailer slowly ramping up their requests) so it's not like being blackmailed always involves perfect information (if fact what secrets and just how much damming info a blackmailer has on someone isn't also always clear). So there are a lot of things that can muddy the water when weighing the pros and cons of giving into blackmail.

But more importantly the whole point of blackmail is to take agency away from someone and get them to do something they normally wouldn't. So I don't see why player agency must be respected in this instance when it isn't respected in other situations, for instance if you lose a war. In fact one of the ways for vassals to get a weak hook on their liege is for the vassals to enforce demands in a liberty revolt. This weak hook allows vassals to renegotiate their contracts or get a favourable marriage, representing their individual demands for having just beaten their liege in war.

I'm not opposed to hooks being denied on use. I just don't think it's more realistic than having to deny on notice of being blackmailed as the truth is in between the two. My guess is that a big reason why they went with the current system is that it allows for hooks to be used instantaneously which means it can be used in more situations (and probably makes the code more manageable) than if there was a requirement to wait for feedback from the person being blackmailed.

 

[Karlington]

When I look at the screenshot with the hook fabrication event I notice that a) it's an option given after the spymaster has completed an exhaustive search for secrets, and b) it costs a significant amount of money (60 gold, equal to 6 2/3 months income for that ruler).

I don't know how much time it takes to accomplish this, but let's say you want to murder someone and need six hooks to coerce enough people into it to make success plausible. That's every single gold you make for a bit over 3 years, just to get them to join in. And your plot may still fail or be exposed.

And let's say you succeed and accomplish what you want. Do you have need of plots against more members of that same court? Because if not, you just sunk over 3 years worth of gold and however much time the spymaster took for all this (time that could otherwise have been spent on other tasks) to remove one single guy, money and time you will never get back.

So while it is an incredibly powerful mechanic, perhaps too powerful even, it's a very costly and potentially time-consuming mechanic. It doesn't appear to be something you would want to make a habit out of doing all the time just because you have the appropriate Intrigue perk, or your realm will suffer economically.

 

[Captain Carrot]

I feel like a strong hook should give you the choice between one of the three options:

• Convert it into a reusable weak hook
• Prevent hostile actions
• Use for things that you cannot use a weak hook for.

1. Instead of having two categories like "Weak" and "Strong", hooks should have a strength rating from 0 to 100. This rating will be dynamic and will be calculated depending on:
   1. Source of hook (knows about murder secret, did them a favor etc.)
   2. Target's traits
   3. Target's rank
   4. Target's lifestyle perks
   5. Blackmailer's traits
   6. Blackmailer's rank
   7. Blackmailer's lifestyle perks
2. Whenever trying to use the hook, the target will weigh the strength of the hook against reasons that would incline him to not accept the hook e.g. if the blackmailer is asking the target to murder their own child.
3. If the hook's strength is bigger than the target's reluctance, they will accept. Otherwise they will refuse and the blackmailer will be free to reveal their secret.

Similarly I want the system to be expanded a little so that "threats" are a thing. Instead of using a hook, perhaps I can threaten someone weaker than me that I will kill their heir / abduct their daughter etc. if they don't comply with my demands. The target will then weigh the strength of my threat against many other factors and decide what to do.

I've been banging my head against the wall trying to think of a plausible solution to all the problems with hooks pretty much since I read the DD, but I think these two ideas combined will work wonders. Although note that I have no idea if it's actually possible in the game and how taxing it will be on performance. I also understand that it's kind of nuts from a roleplay perspective, but I think it strikes the right balance between being a somewhat uncommon method of ordering others around and not being too frustrating when used against you.

So you have a hook on someone with a strength rating of X. This person's acceptance to join your plot is -Y. So you use a hook and Y+1 is added to your acceptance, resulting in a total +1, which makes that person accept. The same Y+1 is subtracted from your hook strength and it's now X-Y-1! If it's enough for you to coerce that person into more plots, you can reuse it, but at some point it's going to get too low for there to be anything left to do. So if there's that one courtier just short of hopping onto your murder spree even after a bribe, you can use a hook on him repeatedly, chipping away tiny bits of its strength each time, but for a loyal, moral and capable spymaster, who will certainly doom your scheme unless he joins it, you might have to use everything you have to get him onboard. This creates a situation where it's beneficial to both bribe and blackmail/indebt/call in a favour with someone, as the closer their acceptance is to 0, the more you can reuse the hook.
I also really like the potential narrative of "Accept this gift as a sign of our friendship. Come now, I know you want us to be friends! After all, friends do keep each other's secrets... And now that I've solved your financial issues, I expect you to help your new friend with a small problem."

As for using a hook to prevent hostile actions, it could be a toggle, which makes the hook's strength decrease with time as long as the non-aggression pact is in force. The decrease could be based on relative power, (if that's too difficult to code, then just add/subtract points based on rank and number of titles held by each side, number of vassals, maybe if one side is a powerful vassal), but also on available CBs, so while you can make your brother reconsider pressing his claims for everything you have, it might not be for long. I think it should also be influenced or stopped entirely by conditions prohibiting certain or all hostile actions, such as disallowed internal wars, councillors not being able to join factions, active realm peace or both parties being on the same side in a war, (I don't actually remember which of that is in CK3 and not just in CK2, but you get the idea).

As a side note, I feel like if this method of using hooks is introduced, there'd be no reason to cap strength at 100, as it's tied to other factors.

This same system could probably be used for threats, but I just don't know how to make them make sense. If you can gain hooks on people by threatening them, you can wind up with situations like "If you don't want me to kill your son, help me kill all his children" or "If you don't help me kill the last in line to your empire before my son, I'll declare war on you and take a single county." And even if you're threatened and refuse, you now know that one of your relatives is in danger. What's more, it might make sense for you to be able to declare that so-and-so admitted to wanting to murder someone. After that, most potential agents will probably get -10 or whatever relations and some of them might not accept it anymore. "Oh, you wanted to kill that guy? Man, that's bad. I mean, if you'd asked me yesterday, I'd probably have agreed, but now? Sorry, I only condone undiscovered murder."

 

[BrokenSky]

I do feel like different types of hooks ought to have different effects as well; obligations due to honor (e.g. from saving someone's life, being their head of house, lending them money, etc), where the obligation is known to everyone shouldn't work the same for everything as blackmail from knowing their secrets; to give a few example:
* If a duke has found evidence that a king is in fact a bastard, so the king attacks him (open hostile action). The duke reveals his evidence, but the king claims that it's just lies and slander from a dishonourable foe grasping at whatever he can to attack his enemy. The king takes a blow to his reputation due to the rumors, but the situation surrounding the circumstances lessens the impact (the secret isn't revealed, but he takes a dip. hit though if the secret is revealed again later, everyone sees that he's not only a bastard, but a dishonorable liar too).
* If the duke has instead once personally saved the king's life by riding to his rescue when he was dismounted during a battle, and everyone knows about the debt of gratitude owed, but he still attacks the duke, the penalties are much more severe (equivalent to trucebreaking, say).
On the other hand, compare the relative effectiveness for backing a plot;
* The duke, who knows the king's secret bastardy, threatens to reveal it unless the king aids him in his "heist of the century" to kidnap the pope.
* The duke, who saved the king's life, asks the king to join his pope-heist plan, threatening him that if he doesn't he'll tell everyone that the king wouldn't back his plan to kidnap the pope even though he saved the kings life, so everyone will see how dishonourable he is. That'll show him. (Of course the king might still join because he feels obligated to the duke - the fact that he doesn't like the pope that much doesn't hurt either).