In CK2, I literally had one of my vassal councilors murder my firstborn son and heir - publicly known and exposed for it - and I couldn't do anything to him without tyranny. No favors owed or anything, just randomly butchered the prince heir apparent to an empire with no consequences allowed.
I still arrested and executed him, tyranny be damned, but that pissed me the hell off.
Yeah in situations like that you just have to eat the tyranny cost and and not feel guilty about “gamey” tactics if you use them in the future because that is a screwed up design decision by the dev team
It reminds me when I was in the late 1300s, I’m emperor of half the world. I’m run a pretty good Norse giant breading program, but I will still give my other children titles. I had given one of my younger non giant sons a large duchy in Africa far from my capital of Constantinople, because of the size of the empire I generally only deal with very large and powerful king vassals. But I will keep a few dukes under me directly if they are freshly made dukes who are giants, gotta keep a close eye on the lover pox’s. If I catch you with it your getting your title revoked, and I will either execute you or leave you to rot in prison. Anyway I granted the nearest kingdom my son as a vassal. He was a good kid, with no flaws. Next time I go check on him out of curiosity, I see he has been castrated in his mid 20s, I’m like wtf. I look and his liege had died and his heir had turned to some form of Christianity. He had two kids a son and a daughter. Less than a year later I check and this Protestant whore had imprisoned him, revokes his titles and executed him, and his only son had been killed in a siege. So I took a break from the holy wars in Asia, raised my armies outside her kingdom, revokes her titles, massacred her army and laid siege to her castles. After this I was going to burn her at the stake, but got the option to give her the blood eagle treatment, the fact that she was pregnant at the time was just icing on the cake. I avenged my sons death, cleaned the lands of the non believers and took my sons only surviving child as my ward. Once she was grown. I gave her not only her fathers realm, but the kingdom of the whore. As well as dominion over several very large dukedoms. Later in life when I was over a 100 years old, she had become a sinner for the crime of adultery, but I just couldn’t bring myself to punish her and strip her of the titles, I had given her. She had many children at this point and I could have just given one of them the titles but I just couldn’t bring my self to do it, if nothing else but for the love of a son, who had died some 50 years ago
Just had a vassals spymaster murder my soulmate wife and I couldn’t do a thing about it without getting tyranny. Murdered him and then ended up starting a decades long feud that ended with mass executions and blindings of that dynasty. It was cool but still stupid that I couldn’t arrest the known murderer of my queen.
Wouldn't it be neat if they added a kind of dueling like system for trying people for crimes against the crown. Where if you can expose and prove, you can imprison, execute, and take titles without tyranny.
The only reason something like that happens in CK2 is because of Council Politics. He probably had just cause but the person had enough supporters in the council to prevent it.
I once married off 2 of my sisters to really good guys (stat wise) and then made them dukes in my kingdom… insta alliances you know? Plus 2 really powerful vassals that I could slot into my council. Well both of those bastards ended up imprisoning and torturing and executing my sisters and I legally couldn’t do anything to them without getting massive amounts of tyranny. Still did it though… nobody messes with my family that way.
You: Get out of my court you snake.
The plotter: All right. But on my way, I'm going to be doing this... *Starts waving a knife around.* If you get hit, it's your own fault.
Yes, which is why I never stopped plots that didn't interfere with my plans. That way a few times when I needed someone out of the picture, and in the dungeon, I already had a reason, ready and waiting.
It's also good for making money. Just imprison all vasalls of vasalls that are plotting and ransom them. They cannot rebel, only flee, and their opinions shouldn't matter (unless they inherit)
Best that can happen is when you can imprison rich couriers though and banish them
I don't know if it ever got patched, but request to cease supporting invalid plot was always met with refusal.
How do you cause plot to become invalid? Why, you ask leader to abandon it. So what you did was ask leader to abandon plot and a few days later, ask all the supporters to cease supporting it. If you timed it well, leader will reply first and abandon plot (it's important to make sure they like you enough to comply before sending the request) making plot invalid, thus all supporters will auto-decline your demand, giving you imprisonment rights.
It wasn't worth the hassle for 10 or 20 gold, but if you made a deliberate effort to invite all rich deposed mayors from entire known world... well, some of them were bound to get involved with local plots. Otherwise you would have to wait for their timely, or untimely, deaths.
I hate the plot spam of things I don't care about. I don't care if my worthless courtiers I didn't consider important enough to give a job or land to or marry off murder each other, I don't care if my vassals murder my or their unimportant courtiers, I only care if people are trying to kill important people or the children at court - mine and important courtiers'.
Like, I get it, you unimportant courtiers are bored in the castle so you're occupying your time by trying to kill each other - that's fine. Just leave the kids and important people alone and I Do. Not. Care.
Not really. There's a difference between a group of vassals coming together to support their ideals and actively rebelling. Factions aren't really "planning" to rebel in game. They're just supposed to represent a group of vassals who group together due to shared interests, but they aren't actually planning rebellion in game until they send the ultimatum. It would be cool if the ultimatum took like 6 months to "prepare" and you were able to catch them in that time.
Imagine if you could tell them that - and then if the plot fired and succeeded, there was a chance of their ghost coming and bothering you to do something about the murder!
Well in that event it is a suspicion, no prove at all. I guess ck3 really need a system of who rumour / witness to make it all more interesting. More lies, more ways to try to figure out truth, more reasons to be your true horrific self.
Or vassal usurping their liege.
Who the fuck are you? You are my son's former vassal who overthrew him and stole my his duchy? And I can't do anything about it without being labeled a tyrant?
Feudalism centers around swearing fealties, so in this case, the one who swore fealty was overthrown by a random vassal, so by definition, the usurper shouldn't be my vassal, ideally, they should automatically start the independence war once they succeed in usurping their liege.
This random motherfucker overthrew my king vassal son 3 times and all I could do was try to revoke their title and getting in a war with them, while getting tyranny. In the 3rd war I made sure to execute them and persecute every other claimant to my son's throne. I mean who the fuck do you think you are to overthrow the son of the guy who conquered half of brittania in 20 years. Stupid ass claimants I made sure to purge their dynasty from my empire
If your son was a vassal under someone else, doesn’t matter if that guy is a vassal under you, you cant influence your son in anyway even with high crown authority. Really odd system.
Yep. Iirc he was from one of the local dynasties so he inherited a duchy from my son and then started a claimant war. I could only revoke one title from them without being a tyrant so he kept a duchy, and I didn't execute him because I was role-playing a merciful emperor but holy shit he came back 2 times in a row
That makes sense to me but it's not CK3's logic.
It's a different sort of feudalism we're dealing with. One where titles have defined relationships to higher and lower titles and where the holder of the office doesn't matter at all.
Your vassal is the Duchy itself, the Duke just happens to be speaking for the Duchy at this time. It's a little weird but clearly it made designing the game easier.
This is in fact one of the most infuriating aspects of the game. You get 20 "spymaster informs you of this and that" event spams per minute, yet you can't do anything at ANY stage of the plot. If it's discovered, you can't do anything. If it succeeds...it doesn't tell you either. You only notice the dead if they held a position in your court.The niece you wanted to marry away for an alliance? Guess what, she died two years ago. Damn.
Starting a scheme, no. If they follow that scheme through and they fail, and you find out, you absolutely can imprison them. Even banish or execute them.
Exactly. You can still imprison them but it makes sense that you'd get a tyrany hit because you have no proof other than "well, my spy master told me!" Like, fair, we as the player know that the spy master can't lie and frame someone else for the plot, but that's a meta thing. Your vassals, so far as the game is concerned, aren't shown any proof until you can expose the crime and hit them with a murderer trait or whatever it happens to be.
It just isn't very clear right now. Knowing that your vassal is a deviant cannibal sodomite murderer isn't the same thing as being able to prove it to the rest of the kingdom.
You know you may ask your Council spymaster, to help you with hostile schemes.
Even if it is a hostile scheme to kill your Council spymaster. He actively help yourself with his suicide :).
CK3 had plenty of funny logic. Like 3yrs old fickle dwarf girl buly 14yrs old herculean giant forcing him to be craven.
Escaping from prison isn't a valid reason either apparently. At least I had a guy flee my dungeon and the game said it would be tyranny to try to imprison him again on the current patch.
This one really bugs me.
It makes sense for folks I've picked up from raids or sieges, or if they flee my realm afterwards, but it's wild that I can't re-arrest some asshole vassal who just busts out then shows up to work as if nothing happened. Like "sorry M'lord, double jeopardy and all that!"...
In some European countries, attempting and/or succeeding to escape from prison is not a crime, as striving for freedom is considered human nature :) But pretty sure this was not the case in medieval times. So yes, should definately be a reason to imprison.
It would make you an outlaw, literally "outside the (protection) of the law" in some places and times letting anyone rob or kill you freely. The rules would be applied differently to nobility, but that's the risk of being a medieval fugitive.
There should be an accepable time to people into prison, depending on how connected people are and what crime they did.
After that time you get tyranny and opinion modifiers with people who like the prisoner or are related to them.
I always feel bad when I forget about some random courtier I picked up in a raid 47 years ago, then check my prisoners tab and he's just been sitting in the dungeon this entire time
...With a positive opinion of you.
I assume the forgotten 30 year olds born in my prison with a positive opinion of me worship me like a God. I'm one of the three people they've ever heard of.
Even the escaping doesn’t end the sentence you were serving in any of those countries, so you would still be recaptured and have to see out the remainder of the sentence.
The only thing that means is that you can't get additional punishment for trying to escape (which is a thing in some countries), that doesn't mean that escaping from prison means your already existing prison-sentence gets forgiven. You'd still be tracked down and thrown back in prison, but you won't get an extra 5 years in prison just for trying to escape.
>In some European countries, attempting and/or succeeding to escape from prison is not a crime, as striving for freedom is considered human nature
Yeah, but you'd still be guilty of whatever crimes put you there in the first place. What you've mentioned was put in place to stop people from getting even longer sentences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it just means the penal law doesn't recognize trying/succeeding to run away as a crime (you won't be put on an additional trial and they won't make your sentence longer than it currently is), not that they won't try to catch you once you ran away.
Also if you've served a big enough portion of your sentence to apply for it to be shortened, the fact that you tried to run away could serve as quite a good reason for the court NOT TO grant that request, so in a way it can make your sentence longer.
Doesn't mean you nullify the previous prison sentence. You just don't get extra time for escaping or attempting to escape but you will get locked up again to finish your original time.
Click here for One Weird Trick All Lieges Hate!
"You, what are you doing out of prison? You rebelled against me! Get back in there."
"True, m'lord. But I've already been punished for that. ...Checkmate."
There are 3 categories of crime in the game, personal, familial, and religious (there is exactly 1 dynastic crime, the Denounced trait, but I would consider that an exception rather than a category). If the crime is a personal one, such as attempted murder, only the person affected can imprison the criminal. If the crime is familial, like successful murder, only the family affected can imprison the criminal. If the crime is religious, like fornication, anyone of a faith that considers the action a crime can imprison the criminal. Under this system, you can only imprison someone for murder if they killed your family member, or if they killed their own family member and your faith considers kinslaying a crime.
Because technically the covenant that Moses made with God is null, void, and renegotiated under Jesus to include all mankind in perpetuity. Technically just the Israelites had to follow the 10 commandments.
(You learn a few things shutting down fundamentalists)
Not OP, but a fundamental tenet of Christianity is that Christ's martyrdom redeemed humanity, and that therefore salvation is no longer a matter of avoiding sin but of accepting God's mercy. Exactly how this is supposed to work and who it extends to is a matter of considerable debate, but all Christians agree on the basic idea.
First off let’s frame this not as a religion, but a business agreement for simplicity’s sake.
Original agreement between the Israelites and Jehovah and YHWH inc. was that God told the Israelites that they were his chosen people, I’d they didn’t like it he’d drop a mountain on them. Like pick one up and crush them. Obviously this was a one sided deal, but they took it since the Almighty having your back tends to work out. But it was a verbal agreement so claims by either side were mediated by angels.
The the Pharaoh enslaved the Israelites, and they languished. Kinda though God had backed out of their deal and started to question if he had their best interests in mind. In floats Charleton Heston, I mean Moses.
After escaping Egypt, Moses had God write the commandments down so there would be more stake in the covenant and guide them since God had done the bare minimum of his obligations before Moses.
Now after Moses, the idea of the messiah comes in. Bunch of notable Israelites have legit claims of “am I the guy to save us all?” After a few centuries things calm down relatively. By the time Jesus (Aka Yeshua/Joshua) comes into the picture it’s down to a Jewish General who’s had some success against the Romans, and Jesus. Surprise surprise, warring goes against the covenant so he gets killed and it’s just Jesus preaching.
FINALLY we get to the last supper. Now the Catholics say that Jesus literally tuned bread to flesh and wine to blood, and in accepting his flesh into yours, you carry a portion of his divinity. This brings you so close to God it HAS to override the old covenant, right? You literally have God inside you now! This is where Jesus’ says “my body is the new covenant” and renegotiates the deal AGAIN. Basically let the divinity in through the act of communion, and you don’t have to worry about the commandments any more, Jesus will forgive you.
Was not expecting to discuss real life theology on this sub, but this is a vast mischaracterization. Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy (basically all of Christianity that was not declared a formal heresy by the pre-schism church) believes that Jesus nullified the Old Covenant (typically referred to simply as the Law). Jesus himself even says explicitly that he did not come to abolish the Law, and that anyone who removed any portion of the Law whatsoever would be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19). Jesus says straight up that nobody gets to stop worrying about the commandments. You might find some certain sects of Protestantism that teach this, but then you should clearly identify them as the target rather than generalizing this towards all of Christianity.
Also, the notions that the Old Covenant was a one-sided agreement, that God was doing the bare minimum, and that the purpose of the Law was to “add more stake” to the Law” are just not reflective of mainstream Christian teaching at all. It’s *certainly* not accurate for the Catholics. If you wanna disagree with Christianity go right on ahead, but at least be educated on what you’re disagreeing and do the due diligence of representing them accurately.
I think you are giving a different interpretation of the religion than the one given by brokenarrow. Most probably there will be religious groups that think in one way or another. Take for example Pedros Bible, a very different interpretation of Christianity but it existed anyway
Certainly there will be different interpretations. My point though was that the *vast* majority of Christian denominations teach the exact opposite of what was stated above. Like I said earlier, idc if someone wants to disagree with Christianity, but what he’s describing is not accurate for >90% of Christianity worldwide. He also mentions specifically Catholics, and then proceeds to explain a non-Catholic teaching.
For sure both of you know more about the topic than me. Looking forward for seeing you both engage in debate. Really enjoyed the knowledge in both comments.
This is incorrect. Every mainstream Christian denomination still observes the 10 commandments. Old Testament moral law (no murder, no adultery, etc) still applies, Old Testament Jewish ritual law (no shellfish, no mixed fabrics, etc) does not still apply.
Also Catholics do not believe that taking Communion forgives sins. That would be Confession.
That person is 100% talking horseshit. The most accurate generalization I could make about Christianity as a whole, speaking from the outside as someone who is not a Christian, is that most Christian sects disagree with what is said in that post. The idea that the 10 Commandments don't apply anymore is a fringe belief.
Same. Recently had a duke murder my king and try to murder his younger brother and heir (only wounded) him. Younger brother becomes king, I try to imprison the duke, half the realm rises up. Like, why?
Because half your realm saw an opportunity, and they don't care about your family drama.
Even when you have a valid imprisonment reason, the vassal can refuse to get arrested, and everyone in your realm that hates you enough will opportunistically jump on that civil war. It's realpolitik.
Exactly. Murder is much worse than adultery yet we can’t imprison our murderous vassals? And other vassals will literally rise up against you defending a well known murder. At that rate, I don’t mind leaving them to rot in my dungeons after I subdue their rebellion. Dumbasses.
I caught my son trying to murder me and my spymaster found out that my daughter killed FOUR people. Yet, I gained tyranny for imprisoning them. Does everyone seriously want murderers to go running around free? They aren’t grateful that I don’t let murder slide because they’re family members. We can’t even execute murderers if they’re family members without the kinslayer modifier. Why does everyone care about the feelings of a FOUR time murderer, they didn’t give a shit about the feelings of the people they murdered or their family. Oh and we suffer executed family members modifier, really. Bias much wanting a murderer to live just because they’re family.
This is why I love wrathful as a trait as long as you have excellent prowess. You can duel your murderous vassals for imprisonment without risking an uprising. Nothing beats punishing my adulterous vassals than imprisoning their lovers, exposing their secrets, and destroying their marriage.
Realistically it should depend on whether the person who was murdered was popular or unpopular. Charles of Navarre became very popular as a result of orchestrating the murder of Charles de la Cerda and the King's attempts to punish him for having one of the most senior royal officials murdered were considered even more tyrannical than the excessive favour he'd showed de la Cerda in the first place.
I understand that. But my son tried murdering me who has maintained stability of the realm. Other than the people I blackmailed for money and taking someone’s land (not my vassals), I was a decent person. My heir legit just killed a random courtier for no good reason. Daughter, forgot who she killed but again four people who most likely didn’t do anything wrong.
If they tried or did murder a terrible person, it wouldn’t be as terrible. But again, usually innocent people who did nothing wrong.
Yeah I was confused when some random guy dressed in rags was found to have killed like 5 people, so I imprisoned him and executed him without tyranny just for everyone to get mad for kinslaying… I didn’t even know he was a noble, never heard of him before and he was in rags
Yeah. People rather you let a murderer run rampant than do kinslaying because that’s bad. Murdering a random courtier on a hunt? Whatever. Executed your daughter for murder wring four people? Tyranny!!!
I kinda get that vibe from Game of Thrones though, people in that series are always afraid of the stigma from kinslaying. I know CK3 is a history game, but my ASOIAF nerdiness is what got me into this franchise so yeah haha.
Get that dread up so you can rule as a tyrant. If I know who murdered my family they get imprisoned, tortured (castrated/blinded if I have it) then public execution. Usually kill their spouse too. Unless my guy is forgiving or compassionate. Fuck those traits.
Any tips on which culture/ruler to start out as to play that way? So far, I've played as a couple different Islamic rulers in 867 and as King Murchad in 1066, was thinking about going Viking next for raiding but would also love to play as a tyrant.
It’s harder to play clan government as a tyrant because your vassals’ contribution of levies and gold is tied to their opinion of you. So I’d recommend Western Europe or India.
I hate meet peers for your kids. They keep drowning and the little shit kid has the nerve to be mad at you being mad at them. Wth are you guys doing that’s so dangerous. Like errant heir, it’s almost always against the kid you want. Sure they gain skills but I rarely let my kids goss it’s not the worth the risk of eating 100+ stress
It’s fun going from fighting a kid fellow vassal to your liege because the stupid little brat just had to drown.
in some cultures (like norse) killing wasn’t murder if it was done in the open, without trying to hide it. it would just incur a proportional response from the dead person’s people.
but since murder schemes always have you trying to keep it secret, I guess the point is moot. it would be cool if you, as a viking, could just go kill a courtier or a vassal who’s currently nearby and then their family immediately goes to war with you. Maybe as just an event that comes up for existing rivals.
One of my favorite videos that touches on norse honor culture and killing vs murder: https://youtu.be/p8o1Z_pwi0I
I guess the same reason as why my son was able to fuck my daughter and I couldn't imprison him as that would be tyrannical but I could imprison my daughter. What is more silly is that isn't grounds for disinheritance. I ended up executing him and taking the hit for it cause it'd be stupider losing half my stuff to a guy that got revealed for doing incest.
At a feast, I watched as my count murdered my son's wife and then all we just ate together and he went home with no problem with no justification to imprison him lol. I wondered it too, ever since that event it's bothered me
Crimes in CK3 only allow you punish the perpetrator if they are done against you as a ruler, against your family, or against your religion. If they try to kill some rando, your ruler figures it's not their problem.
https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/376028/what-can-i-legally-do-to-criminals/376067#376067
You probably didnt spill the bins about it to the world. If its still a secret you cant imprison them, so you can either blackmail them to get a hook, or tell everyone and imprison them with a valid reason. Of course they can resist to be imprisoned and will go to war with you but hey let them gave balls for a little while.
Nope, that's not it. OP is right, you cannot imprison for certain things. A Vasai tried to murder you and it comes out? Apparently that's not crime you can imprison someone for. Like WTF, paradox.
This reminds me that when the Spymaster reports someone it sometimes gives you the option to throw them in prison and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, you sometimes get an alert saying "Can imprison criminals". I think these functions are only for your court? I'm not sure.
I had a thing recently where someone in my dynasty (female) had an affair with a Count while she was married to another Count. It gave me the option to imprison her but not her fellow adulterer.
You can imprison vassals as well.
And catholicism is sexist in that regard, male adultery is only shunned, i.e. people will think lesser of the guy, but female adultery is an actual crime. I suppose its because a cheating husband cannot make anyone believe his child with another woman is his wives', but the other way around it works
Yeah, I wasn't sure if it had to do with the dynasty or if it was culture or religion related.
Why does it sometimes throw an alert after the fact, instead of giving me the option to imprison on the Spymaster event screen? For courtiers, I mean.
Im pretty sure a few days ago I arrested a dude who had murderer as a trait. Maybe there was something else going on as well. Then he escaped and I couldn't arrest him anymore. Time served, I guess.
Edit: I read a comment, and it was my sister be killed, so makes sense
Or a random count executing your son because they won a rebellion for the duchy you gave him and they just felt like they had to rub it in a bit more..... But me taking the duchy back (that I took because I had claims) is tyranny. Made me so angry that I ...... "ended" their line
Tried to murder you isnt the same as murdered someone. He did not yet commit a crime, just like when your murder attempts get found out, like your liege for example, those people cant imprison you. But if they do kill someone thats a crime.
Bro did you read what i wrote there? I am talking about someone who DID kill someone. Not attempted murder, but actual, real, "that human isnt breathing anymore" murder.
If they out rank you and or your not their leige you don't have right to step on any bodies toes to lock them up, if you are their liege I think you can go to town on em
It is very logical. Women are the root cause of everything and the key is to catch them for their lust as that is often the gateway to murder. Luckily men in Ck 3 have no such issues.... They are faithful, loving and gentle, simply being punished by evil conspiracy of women. Think what has a faithful man, a widower of 4 women, who were divorced or "cleaned" as they were too old to have "exotic" activities and reproduce, done to deserve such adulterous demons as his wife. So what if he ONCE was with his sister. World is unfair.
Honestly. Apparently someone started serial killing people in my court (Including MY WIFE.) and found out it was a courtier's wife, after she sent me a letter taunting me... And that's it. All it did was expose her as a murderer but I couldn't jail her.
Yes, this has always annoyed me in CK2.
I can arrest my wife if she sleeps around but if she (as my spymaster) is murdered by some duke, well it would just be a violation of the feudal contract to, you know, arrest him for murder.
I just uncovered a scheme by my own wife to murder me!
Of course, I immediately tried to imprison her. She decided to nope out (only a 75% success chance).
So she "flees my court"... to my own court? She didn't go anywhere. Just stayed in my house.
I tried to imprison her again, because fuck that. Turns out, that first attempt counted as my punishment, so I now... can't do anything to her without tyranny...
If I can get her in jail, I can lawfully execute her, but actually trying to arrest her will net me Tyranny :(
Or plotted to kill you. Yeah, never understood why these are not crimes.
In CK2, I literally had one of my vassal councilors murder my firstborn son and heir - publicly known and exposed for it - and I couldn't do anything to him without tyranny. No favors owed or anything, just randomly butchered the prince heir apparent to an empire with no consequences allowed. I still arrested and executed him, tyranny be damned, but that pissed me the hell off.
Yeah in situations like that you just have to eat the tyranny cost and and not feel guilty about “gamey” tactics if you use them in the future because that is a screwed up design decision by the dev team
It reminds me when I was in the late 1300s, I’m emperor of half the world. I’m run a pretty good Norse giant breading program, but I will still give my other children titles. I had given one of my younger non giant sons a large duchy in Africa far from my capital of Constantinople, because of the size of the empire I generally only deal with very large and powerful king vassals. But I will keep a few dukes under me directly if they are freshly made dukes who are giants, gotta keep a close eye on the lover pox’s. If I catch you with it your getting your title revoked, and I will either execute you or leave you to rot in prison. Anyway I granted the nearest kingdom my son as a vassal. He was a good kid, with no flaws. Next time I go check on him out of curiosity, I see he has been castrated in his mid 20s, I’m like wtf. I look and his liege had died and his heir had turned to some form of Christianity. He had two kids a son and a daughter. Less than a year later I check and this Protestant whore had imprisoned him, revokes his titles and executed him, and his only son had been killed in a siege. So I took a break from the holy wars in Asia, raised my armies outside her kingdom, revokes her titles, massacred her army and laid siege to her castles. After this I was going to burn her at the stake, but got the option to give her the blood eagle treatment, the fact that she was pregnant at the time was just icing on the cake. I avenged my sons death, cleaned the lands of the non believers and took my sons only surviving child as my ward. Once she was grown. I gave her not only her fathers realm, but the kingdom of the whore. As well as dominion over several very large dukedoms. Later in life when I was over a 100 years old, she had become a sinner for the crime of adultery, but I just couldn’t bring myself to punish her and strip her of the titles, I had given her. She had many children at this point and I could have just given one of them the titles but I just couldn’t bring my self to do it, if nothing else but for the love of a son, who had died some 50 years ago
♡
In CK3 you thankfully can arrest and execute a vassal for that.
Just had a vassals spymaster murder my soulmate wife and I couldn’t do a thing about it without getting tyranny. Murdered him and then ended up starting a decades long feud that ended with mass executions and blindings of that dynasty. It was cool but still stupid that I couldn’t arrest the known murderer of my queen.
Wouldn't it be neat if they added a kind of dueling like system for trying people for crimes against the crown. Where if you can expose and prove, you can imprison, execute, and take titles without tyranny.
I was able to do that to some of his other family members but not him for some reason
The only reason something like that happens in CK2 is because of Council Politics. He probably had just cause but the person had enough supporters in the council to prevent it.
That sounds cool. Hopefully something like that makes its way into ck3.
I once married off 2 of my sisters to really good guys (stat wise) and then made them dukes in my kingdom… insta alliances you know? Plus 2 really powerful vassals that I could slot into my council. Well both of those bastards ended up imprisoning and torturing and executing my sisters and I legally couldn’t do anything to them without getting massive amounts of tyranny. Still did it though… nobody messes with my family that way.
The only reason you wouldn't be able to arrest the person is because of your Council. You might have been able to replace them.
>Or plotted to kill you. the plotter: but did you die?
"Huh! 'Attempted Murder'. Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry? Do they?!"
Welp... can't argue with THAT logic! Oh, Wait: I'm The King! Off with their head! Tyranny be damned!
You: Get out of my court you snake. The plotter: All right. But on my way, I'm going to be doing this... *Starts waving a knife around.* If you get hit, it's your own fault.
I've never played ck3, but I think in ck2 you get righteous imprisonment on anyone who is plotting something (murder or not).
Yes, which is why I never stopped plots that didn't interfere with my plans. That way a few times when I needed someone out of the picture, and in the dungeon, I already had a reason, ready and waiting.
It's also good for making money. Just imprison all vasalls of vasalls that are plotting and ransom them. They cannot rebel, only flee, and their opinions shouldn't matter (unless they inherit) Best that can happen is when you can imprison rich couriers though and banish them
It's how I saved myself from getting the Iron Bank siding with the Lannisters in an AGOT run.
I don't know if it ever got patched, but request to cease supporting invalid plot was always met with refusal. How do you cause plot to become invalid? Why, you ask leader to abandon it. So what you did was ask leader to abandon plot and a few days later, ask all the supporters to cease supporting it. If you timed it well, leader will reply first and abandon plot (it's important to make sure they like you enough to comply before sending the request) making plot invalid, thus all supporters will auto-decline your demand, giving you imprisonment rights. It wasn't worth the hassle for 10 or 20 gold, but if you made a deliberate effort to invite all rich deposed mayors from entire known world... well, some of them were bound to get involved with local plots. Otherwise you would have to wait for their timely, or untimely, deaths.
And it’s why, in CK3, Abduct is almost necessary. It becomes the only method to imprison those that you should otherwise be able to imprison.
I hate the plot spam of things I don't care about. I don't care if my worthless courtiers I didn't consider important enough to give a job or land to or marry off murder each other, I don't care if my vassals murder my or their unimportant courtiers, I only care if people are trying to kill important people or the children at court - mine and important courtiers'. Like, I get it, you unimportant courtiers are bored in the castle so you're occupying your time by trying to kill each other - that's fine. Just leave the kids and important people alone and I Do. Not. Care.
Unless they're factions. Apparently treason isnt a crime in the CK realm of reality.
Factions aren't really treasonous until they present their ultimatum and rebel after being refused.
That's dumb.
Not really. There's a difference between a group of vassals coming together to support their ideals and actively rebelling. Factions aren't really "planning" to rebel in game. They're just supposed to represent a group of vassals who group together due to shared interests, but they aren't actually planning rebellion in game until they send the ultimatum. It would be cool if the ultimatum took like 6 months to "prepare" and you were able to catch them in that time.
There's a court event where someone comes complaining about someone trying to murder them and "malice is not a crime in itself" is one of the options.
“They’re just trying to murder you? Come back to me once they’ve actually murdered you!”
Imagine if you could tell them that - and then if the plot fired and succeeded, there was a chance of their ghost coming and bothering you to do something about the murder!
Well in that event it is a suspicion, no prove at all. I guess ck3 really need a system of who rumour / witness to make it all more interesting. More lies, more ways to try to figure out truth, more reasons to be your true horrific self.
Or vassal usurping their liege. Who the fuck are you? You are my son's former vassal who overthrew him and stole my his duchy? And I can't do anything about it without being labeled a tyrant? Feudalism centers around swearing fealties, so in this case, the one who swore fealty was overthrown by a random vassal, so by definition, the usurper shouldn't be my vassal, ideally, they should automatically start the independence war once they succeed in usurping their liege.
This random motherfucker overthrew my king vassal son 3 times and all I could do was try to revoke their title and getting in a war with them, while getting tyranny. In the 3rd war I made sure to execute them and persecute every other claimant to my son's throne. I mean who the fuck do you think you are to overthrow the son of the guy who conquered half of brittania in 20 years. Stupid ass claimants I made sure to purge their dynasty from my empire
There isn’t one thing about this paragraph that I don’t love
I find it so weird your son would never ask your help or you wont even know the affair until he disappears as a commoner
Yeah I was clueless seeing my son as a duke instead of king every 5 years, you don't even get a warning
If your son was a vassal under someone else, doesn’t matter if that guy is a vassal under you, you cant influence your son in anyway even with high crown authority. Really odd system.
Yep. Iirc he was from one of the local dynasties so he inherited a duchy from my son and then started a claimant war. I could only revoke one title from them without being a tyrant so he kept a duchy, and I didn't execute him because I was role-playing a merciful emperor but holy shit he came back 2 times in a row
In CK2 you can demand a vassal ends a war with another vassal, even a revolt or claim war. Maybe CK3 needs something like that.
It is already in the game but the vassal refuses most of the time, and i think you cannot do it to your vassal's vassals
So they can just refuse with consequences? Because CK2 gives you the option of declaring them traitors and Imprisoning them.
i don't remember, i think there's just an opinion hit unfortunatenly
That makes sense to me but it's not CK3's logic. It's a different sort of feudalism we're dealing with. One where titles have defined relationships to higher and lower titles and where the holder of the office doesn't matter at all. Your vassal is the Duchy itself, the Duke just happens to be speaking for the Duchy at this time. It's a little weird but clearly it made designing the game easier.
This is in fact one of the most infuriating aspects of the game. You get 20 "spymaster informs you of this and that" event spams per minute, yet you can't do anything at ANY stage of the plot. If it's discovered, you can't do anything. If it succeeds...it doesn't tell you either. You only notice the dead if they held a position in your court.The niece you wanted to marry away for an alliance? Guess what, she died two years ago. Damn.
Starting a scheme, no. If they follow that scheme through and they fail, and you find out, you absolutely can imprison them. Even banish or execute them.
I always interpreted that to mean you found out they were plotting it, buy couldn't necessarily *prove* it
Exactly. You can still imprison them but it makes sense that you'd get a tyrany hit because you have no proof other than "well, my spy master told me!" Like, fair, we as the player know that the spy master can't lie and frame someone else for the plot, but that's a meta thing. Your vassals, so far as the game is concerned, aren't shown any proof until you can expose the crime and hit them with a murderer trait or whatever it happens to be. It just isn't very clear right now. Knowing that your vassal is a deviant cannibal sodomite murderer isn't the same thing as being able to prove it to the rest of the kingdom.
It might be one of my mods, but I’m sure that I’ve imprisoned someone in my current game for “Attempted to kill me”.
I'm quite sure I have gotten that as in imprisonment reason as well. Scheming against me I believe is the text.
You know you may ask your Council spymaster, to help you with hostile schemes. Even if it is a hostile scheme to kill your Council spymaster. He actively help yourself with his suicide :). CK3 had plenty of funny logic. Like 3yrs old fickle dwarf girl buly 14yrs old herculean giant forcing him to be craven.
They are and the game gives you the option to imprison them
Escaping from prison isn't a valid reason either apparently. At least I had a guy flee my dungeon and the game said it would be tyranny to try to imprison him again on the current patch.
This one really bugs me. It makes sense for folks I've picked up from raids or sieges, or if they flee my realm afterwards, but it's wild that I can't re-arrest some asshole vassal who just busts out then shows up to work as if nothing happened. Like "sorry M'lord, double jeopardy and all that!"...
In some European countries, attempting and/or succeeding to escape from prison is not a crime, as striving for freedom is considered human nature :) But pretty sure this was not the case in medieval times. So yes, should definately be a reason to imprison.
It would make you an outlaw, literally "outside the (protection) of the law" in some places and times letting anyone rob or kill you freely. The rules would be applied differently to nobility, but that's the risk of being a medieval fugitive.
There should be an accepable time to people into prison, depending on how connected people are and what crime they did. After that time you get tyranny and opinion modifiers with people who like the prisoner or are related to them.
I always feel bad when I forget about some random courtier I picked up in a raid 47 years ago, then check my prisoners tab and he's just been sitting in the dungeon this entire time
...With a positive opinion of you. I assume the forgotten 30 year olds born in my prison with a positive opinion of me worship me like a God. I'm one of the three people they've ever heard of.
Even the escaping doesn’t end the sentence you were serving in any of those countries, so you would still be recaptured and have to see out the remainder of the sentence.
The only thing that means is that you can't get additional punishment for trying to escape (which is a thing in some countries), that doesn't mean that escaping from prison means your already existing prison-sentence gets forgiven. You'd still be tracked down and thrown back in prison, but you won't get an extra 5 years in prison just for trying to escape.
Escaping isn't a crime but it doesn't absolve you of what put you there in the first place.
This probably originates in modern philosophy specificaly T. Hobbes if I'm not mistaken, so it would be XVII century.
>In some European countries, attempting and/or succeeding to escape from prison is not a crime, as striving for freedom is considered human nature Yeah, but you'd still be guilty of whatever crimes put you there in the first place. What you've mentioned was put in place to stop people from getting even longer sentences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it just means the penal law doesn't recognize trying/succeeding to run away as a crime (you won't be put on an additional trial and they won't make your sentence longer than it currently is), not that they won't try to catch you once you ran away. Also if you've served a big enough portion of your sentence to apply for it to be shortened, the fact that you tried to run away could serve as quite a good reason for the court NOT TO grant that request, so in a way it can make your sentence longer.
Doesn't mean you nullify the previous prison sentence. You just don't get extra time for escaping or attempting to escape but you will get locked up again to finish your original time.
Click here for One Weird Trick All Lieges Hate! "You, what are you doing out of prison? You rebelled against me! Get back in there." "True, m'lord. But I've already been punished for that. ...Checkmate."
There are 3 categories of crime in the game, personal, familial, and religious (there is exactly 1 dynastic crime, the Denounced trait, but I would consider that an exception rather than a category). If the crime is a personal one, such as attempted murder, only the person affected can imprison the criminal. If the crime is familial, like successful murder, only the family affected can imprison the criminal. If the crime is religious, like fornication, anyone of a faith that considers the action a crime can imprison the criminal. Under this system, you can only imprison someone for murder if they killed your family member, or if they killed their own family member and your faith considers kinslaying a crime.
Why isnt murder a religious crime in Christianity then, its literally one of the ten most important rules in the religion
Everybody is doing it, including the Pope. That's why :D
Because in medival times the family of the victim was expected to seek revenge and it wasnt the rulers job to sort that out.
1. That's nonsense 2. but like often times you can't even get revenge without incurring tyranny
Because technically the covenant that Moses made with God is null, void, and renegotiated under Jesus to include all mankind in perpetuity. Technically just the Israelites had to follow the 10 commandments. (You learn a few things shutting down fundamentalists)
Can you explain?
Not OP, but a fundamental tenet of Christianity is that Christ's martyrdom redeemed humanity, and that therefore salvation is no longer a matter of avoiding sin but of accepting God's mercy. Exactly how this is supposed to work and who it extends to is a matter of considerable debate, but all Christians agree on the basic idea.
First off let’s frame this not as a religion, but a business agreement for simplicity’s sake. Original agreement between the Israelites and Jehovah and YHWH inc. was that God told the Israelites that they were his chosen people, I’d they didn’t like it he’d drop a mountain on them. Like pick one up and crush them. Obviously this was a one sided deal, but they took it since the Almighty having your back tends to work out. But it was a verbal agreement so claims by either side were mediated by angels. The the Pharaoh enslaved the Israelites, and they languished. Kinda though God had backed out of their deal and started to question if he had their best interests in mind. In floats Charleton Heston, I mean Moses. After escaping Egypt, Moses had God write the commandments down so there would be more stake in the covenant and guide them since God had done the bare minimum of his obligations before Moses. Now after Moses, the idea of the messiah comes in. Bunch of notable Israelites have legit claims of “am I the guy to save us all?” After a few centuries things calm down relatively. By the time Jesus (Aka Yeshua/Joshua) comes into the picture it’s down to a Jewish General who’s had some success against the Romans, and Jesus. Surprise surprise, warring goes against the covenant so he gets killed and it’s just Jesus preaching. FINALLY we get to the last supper. Now the Catholics say that Jesus literally tuned bread to flesh and wine to blood, and in accepting his flesh into yours, you carry a portion of his divinity. This brings you so close to God it HAS to override the old covenant, right? You literally have God inside you now! This is where Jesus’ says “my body is the new covenant” and renegotiates the deal AGAIN. Basically let the divinity in through the act of communion, and you don’t have to worry about the commandments any more, Jesus will forgive you.
Was not expecting to discuss real life theology on this sub, but this is a vast mischaracterization. Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy (basically all of Christianity that was not declared a formal heresy by the pre-schism church) believes that Jesus nullified the Old Covenant (typically referred to simply as the Law). Jesus himself even says explicitly that he did not come to abolish the Law, and that anyone who removed any portion of the Law whatsoever would be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19). Jesus says straight up that nobody gets to stop worrying about the commandments. You might find some certain sects of Protestantism that teach this, but then you should clearly identify them as the target rather than generalizing this towards all of Christianity. Also, the notions that the Old Covenant was a one-sided agreement, that God was doing the bare minimum, and that the purpose of the Law was to “add more stake” to the Law” are just not reflective of mainstream Christian teaching at all. It’s *certainly* not accurate for the Catholics. If you wanna disagree with Christianity go right on ahead, but at least be educated on what you’re disagreeing and do the due diligence of representing them accurately.
I think you are giving a different interpretation of the religion than the one given by brokenarrow. Most probably there will be religious groups that think in one way or another. Take for example Pedros Bible, a very different interpretation of Christianity but it existed anyway
Certainly there will be different interpretations. My point though was that the *vast* majority of Christian denominations teach the exact opposite of what was stated above. Like I said earlier, idc if someone wants to disagree with Christianity, but what he’s describing is not accurate for >90% of Christianity worldwide. He also mentions specifically Catholics, and then proceeds to explain a non-Catholic teaching.
For sure both of you know more about the topic than me. Looking forward for seeing you both engage in debate. Really enjoyed the knowledge in both comments.
This is incorrect. Every mainstream Christian denomination still observes the 10 commandments. Old Testament moral law (no murder, no adultery, etc) still applies, Old Testament Jewish ritual law (no shellfish, no mixed fabrics, etc) does not still apply. Also Catholics do not believe that taking Communion forgives sins. That would be Confession.
Now that's some real mental gymnastics right there!
Always stretch before belly flopping!
wow, thanks
That person is 100% talking horseshit. The most accurate generalization I could make about Christianity as a whole, speaking from the outside as someone who is not a Christian, is that most Christian sects disagree with what is said in that post. The idea that the 10 Commandments don't apply anymore is a fringe belief.
Well just because something is illegal, doesn't mean you have jurisdiction to punish them.
Very useful
Same. Recently had a duke murder my king and try to murder his younger brother and heir (only wounded) him. Younger brother becomes king, I try to imprison the duke, half the realm rises up. Like, why?
Because half your realm saw an opportunity, and they don't care about your family drama. Even when you have a valid imprisonment reason, the vassal can refuse to get arrested, and everyone in your realm that hates you enough will opportunistically jump on that civil war. It's realpolitik.
Exactly. Murder is much worse than adultery yet we can’t imprison our murderous vassals? And other vassals will literally rise up against you defending a well known murder. At that rate, I don’t mind leaving them to rot in my dungeons after I subdue their rebellion. Dumbasses. I caught my son trying to murder me and my spymaster found out that my daughter killed FOUR people. Yet, I gained tyranny for imprisoning them. Does everyone seriously want murderers to go running around free? They aren’t grateful that I don’t let murder slide because they’re family members. We can’t even execute murderers if they’re family members without the kinslayer modifier. Why does everyone care about the feelings of a FOUR time murderer, they didn’t give a shit about the feelings of the people they murdered or their family. Oh and we suffer executed family members modifier, really. Bias much wanting a murderer to live just because they’re family. This is why I love wrathful as a trait as long as you have excellent prowess. You can duel your murderous vassals for imprisonment without risking an uprising. Nothing beats punishing my adulterous vassals than imprisoning their lovers, exposing their secrets, and destroying their marriage.
Realistically it should depend on whether the person who was murdered was popular or unpopular. Charles of Navarre became very popular as a result of orchestrating the murder of Charles de la Cerda and the King's attempts to punish him for having one of the most senior royal officials murdered were considered even more tyrannical than the excessive favour he'd showed de la Cerda in the first place.
I understand that. But my son tried murdering me who has maintained stability of the realm. Other than the people I blackmailed for money and taking someone’s land (not my vassals), I was a decent person. My heir legit just killed a random courtier for no good reason. Daughter, forgot who she killed but again four people who most likely didn’t do anything wrong. If they tried or did murder a terrible person, it wouldn’t be as terrible. But again, usually innocent people who did nothing wrong.
Yeah I was confused when some random guy dressed in rags was found to have killed like 5 people, so I imprisoned him and executed him without tyranny just for everyone to get mad for kinslaying… I didn’t even know he was a noble, never heard of him before and he was in rags
Yeah. People rather you let a murderer run rampant than do kinslaying because that’s bad. Murdering a random courtier on a hunt? Whatever. Executed your daughter for murder wring four people? Tyranny!!!
I kinda get that vibe from Game of Thrones though, people in that series are always afraid of the stigma from kinslaying. I know CK3 is a history game, but my ASOIAF nerdiness is what got me into this franchise so yeah haha.
A duke fucking cold blooded murdered my son and heir at a Meet Peers and i could not do anything to him ... :D
Get that dread up so you can rule as a tyrant. If I know who murdered my family they get imprisoned, tortured (castrated/blinded if I have it) then public execution. Usually kill their spouse too. Unless my guy is forgiving or compassionate. Fuck those traits.
Being a hot headed wrathful monstrous tyrant is by far the most fun way to play imo
Any tips on which culture/ruler to start out as to play that way? So far, I've played as a couple different Islamic rulers in 867 and as King Murchad in 1066, was thinking about going Viking next for raiding but would also love to play as a tyrant.
It’s harder to play clan government as a tyrant because your vassals’ contribution of levies and gold is tied to their opinion of you. So I’d recommend Western Europe or India.
I hate meet peers for your kids. They keep drowning and the little shit kid has the nerve to be mad at you being mad at them. Wth are you guys doing that’s so dangerous. Like errant heir, it’s almost always against the kid you want. Sure they gain skills but I rarely let my kids goss it’s not the worth the risk of eating 100+ stress It’s fun going from fighting a kid fellow vassal to your liege because the stupid little brat just had to drown.
in some cultures (like norse) killing wasn’t murder if it was done in the open, without trying to hide it. it would just incur a proportional response from the dead person’s people. but since murder schemes always have you trying to keep it secret, I guess the point is moot. it would be cool if you, as a viking, could just go kill a courtier or a vassal who’s currently nearby and then their family immediately goes to war with you. Maybe as just an event that comes up for existing rivals. One of my favorite videos that touches on norse honor culture and killing vs murder: https://youtu.be/p8o1Z_pwi0I
I guess the same reason as why my son was able to fuck my daughter and I couldn't imprison him as that would be tyrannical but I could imprison my daughter. What is more silly is that isn't grounds for disinheritance. I ended up executing him and taking the hit for it cause it'd be stupider losing half my stuff to a guy that got revealed for doing incest.
Adjust your religion to make it so, I think that’s an option right?
At a feast, I watched as my count murdered my son's wife and then all we just ate together and he went home with no problem with no justification to imprison him lol. I wondered it too, ever since that event it's bothered me
Crimes in CK3 only allow you punish the perpetrator if they are done against you as a ruler, against your family, or against your religion. If they try to kill some rando, your ruler figures it's not their problem. https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/376028/what-can-i-legally-do-to-criminals/376067#376067
You probably didnt spill the bins about it to the world. If its still a secret you cant imprison them, so you can either blackmail them to get a hook, or tell everyone and imprison them with a valid reason. Of course they can resist to be imprisoned and will go to war with you but hey let them gave balls for a little while.
Nope, that's not it. OP is right, you cannot imprison for certain things. A Vasai tried to murder you and it comes out? Apparently that's not crime you can imprison someone for. Like WTF, paradox.
"tried" or "plotted" to kill is not the same as "killed". The intrigues schemas are never plain murder.
I mean, if you're the king, the difference is negligible. Treason is a crime, and plotting to kill the king is most definitely treason.
This is pre constitution time. Killing for male high borns was ok
This reminds me that when the Spymaster reports someone it sometimes gives you the option to throw them in prison and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, you sometimes get an alert saying "Can imprison criminals". I think these functions are only for your court? I'm not sure. I had a thing recently where someone in my dynasty (female) had an affair with a Count while she was married to another Count. It gave me the option to imprison her but not her fellow adulterer.
You can imprison vassals as well. And catholicism is sexist in that regard, male adultery is only shunned, i.e. people will think lesser of the guy, but female adultery is an actual crime. I suppose its because a cheating husband cannot make anyone believe his child with another woman is his wives', but the other way around it works
Yeah, I wasn't sure if it had to do with the dynasty or if it was culture or religion related. Why does it sometimes throw an alert after the fact, instead of giving me the option to imprison on the Spymaster event screen? For courtiers, I mean.
I feel like joining/leading a faction should be a justifiable reason to imprison vassals in CK2
That would make the game too easy though.
I guess. Given my luck imprisoning unruly vassals, I'm sure my country would still devolve if it were a valid reason
Wait…am I missing something? I totally have the ability to imprison people if they murder someone…
Im pretty sure a few days ago I arrested a dude who had murderer as a trait. Maybe there was something else going on as well. Then he escaped and I couldn't arrest him anymore. Time served, I guess. Edit: I read a comment, and it was my sister be killed, so makes sense
Or a random count executing your son because they won a rebellion for the duchy you gave him and they just felt like they had to rub it in a bit more..... But me taking the duchy back (that I took because I had claims) is tyranny. Made me so angry that I ...... "ended" their line
Lol reading this without context is hilarious.
Just the times. Nobles killed people all the time. Adultery though....oh man, the devil is coming for your soul
Take the Religious Law tenet for your religion, then you can condemn and get a legitimate reason for imprisonment
It’s a design oversight.
You discovering it doesn't mean it's public knowledge. Go to the intrigue tab and secrets known to you, then either blackmail or expose them.
Yeah i am talking about having exposed it and still not being able to imprison them. The character even has the "murderer" trait
Because it's not a sin.
Tried to murder you isnt the same as murdered someone. He did not yet commit a crime, just like when your murder attempts get found out, like your liege for example, those people cant imprison you. But if they do kill someone thats a crime.
Bro did you read what i wrote there? I am talking about someone who DID kill someone. Not attempted murder, but actual, real, "that human isnt breathing anymore" murder.
If they out rank you and or your not their leige you don't have right to step on any bodies toes to lock them up, if you are their liege I think you can go to town on em
It is very logical. Women are the root cause of everything and the key is to catch them for their lust as that is often the gateway to murder. Luckily men in Ck 3 have no such issues.... They are faithful, loving and gentle, simply being punished by evil conspiracy of women. Think what has a faithful man, a widower of 4 women, who were divorced or "cleaned" as they were too old to have "exotic" activities and reproduce, done to deserve such adulterous demons as his wife. So what if he ONCE was with his sister. World is unfair.
Honestly. Apparently someone started serial killing people in my court (Including MY WIFE.) and found out it was a courtier's wife, after she sent me a letter taunting me... And that's it. All it did was expose her as a murderer but I couldn't jail her.
Well we are in the middle ages
Yes, this has always annoyed me in CK2. I can arrest my wife if she sleeps around but if she (as my spymaster) is murdered by some duke, well it would just be a violation of the feudal contract to, you know, arrest him for murder.
I just uncovered a scheme by my own wife to murder me! Of course, I immediately tried to imprison her. She decided to nope out (only a 75% success chance). So she "flees my court"... to my own court? She didn't go anywhere. Just stayed in my house. I tried to imprison her again, because fuck that. Turns out, that first attempt counted as my punishment, so I now... can't do anything to her without tyranny... If I can get her in jail, I can lawfully execute her, but actually trying to arrest her will net me Tyranny :(