If there's one lesson you can take away from paradox games is that being a ruler isn't about being good or consistent. Sometimes I consider what my subjects are thinking about my erratic behaviour but yeah, countless years of alliance doesn't matter if you are in the way of my goals. Sucks that you want to be an advisor but I need to keep a severely pissed off vassal close. What is a minor change for me might be an utter betrayal of trust to at least *some* people.


Machiavelli had this figured out 500 years ago


He knew that was the only way to be a successful autocrat. For actual good government for and by the people, he was a republican.


Republics at the time weren't as democratic as they are now. They were basically the government of the elite. Edit: I should clarify that I am not advocating that modern republics are very good democracies. Just that they are at the very least "officially" democratic where there was never any pretense of being democratic for Medieval/Renaissance republics.


Ah how things have changed


No matter what we do, there will always be a elite. Human condition I guess.




Bottom text


As someone who considers himself too dumb to have any well informed comment about governance and politics. One thing I can boldly claim to be true in any case is that humans are gonna be deceitful and cheat the system. In the systems where personal property and the concept of money do not exist, people sell favours. The argument that humans are inherently evil and all is often used to discredit Marxist ideas or rather to cope with the evils of capitalism but as someone who has tried to learn about politics, this process comes up again and again(without al the human suffering included): A reformist comes along ->makes a great system ->the system has certain nodes or important features without which the whole system fails ->These remain unseen for a long time->someone exploits these-> Ganis control of these nodes ->Molds the system around him in the process -> loses touch with basic human nature->kills /subjugate/exclude/exploits a lot of o people->People slowly realise->refoemists comes along->people exploited rise up->repeat


So you just read what Ibn Khaluds Muqaddimah


based Ibn Khaldun


I mean, even though I am no Marxist, I do agree with Marx in his observation that, at least until relatively recently, the bourgeoisie were the primary supporters of societal progress in terms of overthrowing the feudal order. If we look at it that way, even flawed oligarchic republics were a step up from the feudal standard of the time.


Maybe if it was less flawed, but the main example of Republic's in his era and earlier were unstable mess plagued by coups and counter coups On top of that, to use the Florentine one as an example, it worked where 21 separate guilds bribed each other to elect a singular titular ruler who then appointed a council who actually ruled. The effect of this is that rather than create a bourgeoisie class, all it did was rebrand the upper-class. Rather than an aristocracy, you had 21 "meritocratic" "noble" groups. "meritocratic" meaning whoever could offer the largest bribe to go up in ranks. There's a reason that the guild system's had to be destroyed before a healthy middle class could be created. They were effectively cartels, right down to hiring people to break your legs and/or kill you if you failed to pay your fees on time.


There's a reason Guilds were an integral part of feudalism, it allowed aristocrats to control a large number of relatively well-off influential individuals without having to actually integrate them into the feudal system as vassals.


Can we appreciate for a the thought provoking condos this game is making us have without insulting each other


Ahhh the Pinkerton's. Notice how when they left the middle class rose in the USA. Sure it's not a simple answer with direct correlation yet it did happen.


Not to forget that the rich were the ones who influenced the French Revolution


You don’t have to be a Marxist to see he was right about a lot of problems. His solutions are more up for debate of course…


As a non-Marxist I consider him one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th century. Not only did he write extremely poignant critique of his contemporary society, but introduced a method of thought for looking at history and contemporary issues alike which is still relevant. Not capital T Truth, the one and only, but useful nonetheless.


Embrace the power of the dialectics, brother.


> His solutions are more up for debate of course… Marx never prescribed solutions. The closest you can get is the Communist Manifesto which itself was commission work designed for a specific group at a specific point in history. The bulk of Marx's work is philosophical or economic and analytical in nature, especially post-1848. Us Marxists look to the developments post-Marx, and continuing to today since Marxism as a science is ever evolving, as the basis of how we aim to reorganize society.


Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)


I thought a lot of his work was pointing out that capitalist private property led to exploitation and alienation. I assumed getting rid of it was also his idea. That’s mainly what I was referring to.


His works fall into 2 camps, philosophical (mostly polemical) works which discuss the nature of class society, and rigorous economics work which put the data to the first. He formulated the stages of society through this analysis of productive forces but he never prescribed anything only described that society would move towards communism by the same mechanism that it moved from feudalism to capitalism and from 'primitive' societies to feudalism.


You’re the expert here so I don’t doubt you’re telling the truth. But you can see how someone might be confused when the Manifesto, the most well known work with his name on it, seems to prescribe things the workers should do. Even if it was only commissioned, Engels himself wrote in 1883: "The basic thought running through the Manifesto [...] belongs solely and exclusively to Marx".


That's how it is now though


The thing is the lessons of the Prince can also apply to successfully maintaining a republic. It was written after Machiavelli tried and failed to help govern a republic after all


Thing is, he also trued and failed to help govern the Medici’s state as well, witch fell to another republic shortly after his death. In his history of Florence writings, he also seems very adamant about romanticizing republicanism, despite being a work commissioned by his new Medici overlords.


Yeah, but did the Medici actually listen to him? I'm not saying he wasn't a republican when writing the Prince. I'm saying he was a jaded and embittered republican instead of a more naive idealistic one


I mean if you see what happened to Machiavelli, all the bs he had to go through cause of autocrats it’s a way to read it that the Prince was less of a how to guide for dictators but a revelation of their playbook for the lei man to be able to spot one of them and disrupt their step by step guide




Pretty sure he supported democracy only if the scholars were the ones to vote


Still doesn't.


My recommendation would be to not base your worldview on Crusader Kings


> My recommendation would be to not base your worldview on Crusader Kings Lies and propaganda. Incest is wincest.


Bloodline’s not gonna strengthen itself


Of course it will strengthen itself, what, are you gonna allow other bloodlines to help out?


That will only dilute the purity of the bloodline!


The sad part is that there is a vocal minority of people who actually do


A far more accurate observation of Crusader Kings is "everyone who wants power is a bastard". Playable peasant kingdoms in CK3 pls.




Being a SELF SERVING ruler demands all this atrocities. If you stop and think about it, most of the “progress” you make in game only helps you and no one else. I don’t think the people are thrilled with you smashing their religion and culture or having huge money reserves you only invest in the army and castles.


> If you stop and think about it, most of the “progress” you make in game only helps you and no one else. If you're a strong ruler who who enforces no inter-vassal wars, keeps your strongest vassals happy enough to not revolt, and invest all your money and steward time on buildings and province development, respectively, even though you're helping yourself, you're also helping all the people who live in your direct demesne, and indirectly helping all those in your realm by cutting down on the frequency of wars and rebellions (though obviously external vassal wars are still a possibility). Most CK rulers are, ahistorically, miles and miles better for the peasantry than real-life rulers would ever be because we don't (currently -- I suspect Royal Courts expansion will change this somewhat) really care about how luxurious our castles are, we have literally hundreds of years to achieve our goals rather than measly individual lifetimes (barring a title split on death issue), we have near-perfectly accurate information from all corners of our realm, and we don't often randomly change the entire direction of laws just because one dude fell off his horse and his heretical moron brother gets to rule now.


>just because one dude fell off his horse Didn't a Francian King smack his head on a doorway while chasing a girl on a horse?


But i do give the peasants gold when they try and stage an uprising.


How? Is that even a feature in the game?


I think it's one of those prompts for your player character. You can either give them 25 gold to keep them from uprising or you can squash them out and get a peasant debuff.


I’ve never had that prompt, seems weird since you’d surely take it every time? Costs me more than that in MatA maintenance just to quell the bloody uprisings.


Not at all. I rarely take the option because an uprising means I can take titles and move the lands to my close family. If, it is a revolt a good peasant commander is always worth adding to your generals after you smash a revolt.


Nice tip man! I almost invariably execute them or leave them to die in my dungeon, how else will the little people learn their place?!…I may play this game with too much emotion


On the contrary. When I last played CK3 unmodded I didn't fight a single war in the last ~200 years. My *vassals* did it all for me. Since it was illegal to fight within my realm, they pushed ever outwards, bringing more and more land under my rule and thus peace to my ever growing empire.


I too enjoy watching the empire grow as my wealth does the same without having to do anything.


>when your vassal conquers land with an army he paid for and then pays you more taxes because he owns more land >stonks


Big brained empire-building.




Until you realize all the growth is being done by a single kingdom-tier vassal who is quickly amassing a large amount of levies.... so you inevitably have to fabricate a hook, force partition succession on him, and then murder him so that his sons inherit portions of his once vast kingdom. Then, naturally, you repeat the process with each of his sons so that you are left with 10-20 trifling dukedoms that you then bribe to love you and to leave you alone... Just another day in the life of the Emperor!


Eh, at most I had one "change of generation" war every time my ruler died, which I'd quicky stomp to return the peace. With a chain of knowledge-lifestyle rulers I had quite the developed, rich capital despite starting in Finland and keeping my capital there and so many big vassals that there was always more levies to raise to support my massive MaA to beat any rebel scum. Pretty sure most of the rulers below me were also at least distant relatives, so it was mostly the worst cases of "too ambitious for their own good" who'd dare to rise up. At some point I had 10k strong MaA sub-army just dedicated to burn down British Isles, walking a circle along the coast to pillage every holding before moving to the next. One time I had a a ~6 year old take over the throne. All the looting ended up with the boy being of "illustrious" fame by the time he was 16.


They will not. For they are blessed with the ignorance. Not knowing that the Vikings could be pillaging them were it not for the vast armies of their ruler. Not knowing that many foreign barbaric cultures could be imposing their evil beliefs, were it not for the strict iron grip of their "oppressor ".


yeah of course. the player is a min maxer and only does what benefits themselves


It's worse than that. Through Crusader Kings I've learned that people in power will do anything to stay in power, or gain more. I don't think I've ever played a game of ck2/ck3 where I was a good vassal, not planning to overthrow my liege. The game showed me that there's an inherent evil in all of us, and that is a valuable lesson. (Look up "Hannah Arendt and the Banality of Evil")


Actually would be interesting in CK3 for them to add negative modifiers (more than just stress because you can get rid of that pretty easily) on other characters opinion and such if you act against your personality.


I was playing last night to unify Ireland. I did not have enough gold to create the title of kingdom and suddenly my petty king was sick and dying. I had put everything into trying to earn gold. I had too many sons and my duchy titles were going to be split causing an issue for my heir. Naturally, I imprisoned all but one of my sons and executed them. Then my guy lived a long time and we saved enough gold to create the title. Funny how that works out.


That sounds Shakespearean


Still probably a good idea seeing how your younger sons would’ve take counties and have the army they need to dethrone your heir. Cause as far the game is concerned having a crown is better then having an army


That's why a lot of the time Confederate partition is actually better as a Duke vs a king. Land is split up more evenly so each kid has a duchy or 2 Since you'll hold the majority of your primary titles you'll be stronger then each of them You get claims on their lands At face value watching your land split up looks terrible but 90% of the time you'll have all it back in a few years and you'll likely have taken the duchy and counties from your siblings so they wont even be vassals you gotta deal with.


Its been a while since I played CK2 and I didn't dislike Gavelkind for this reason. I took the view that I wanted to play longer, so I tried to have as big a family as possible. The main heir gets the best land and gets the big savings I've piled up. And likely, they get a retinue depending on where I am in the game. So even if my brothers have decent sized holdings. And even if they try to attack me, I'll probably win, as long as I'm not getting attacked from an empire on the other side. Once they attack, I can use that as an excuse to take their land. But lets say they don't attack. After a generation or two, they're land will end up under the main character one way or another. The main real downside is how idiotic their children were raised when not in my court. And the risk of another outsider colonizing their Holdings without me being able to protect them. Lastly, if my gavelkind cousin or whoever from 2 generations ago are now separate Dukes. Well, I just roll the rest of the duchies once I'm strong enough. If I build up enough steam for the last push, I save conquering them for last, once I have the rest of the Holdings firmly under my umbrella with levies. Its sort of a win win. Because even I could possibly lose, those gavelkind holdings can be a point to come invade the larger kingdom later if the main line dies out.


Counties and perhaps even duchies. Would be a disaster for the reunification...


If ireland just choose primogeniture succession before creating the petty kingdom title. Makes life much easier, had like 10 sons plus bastards.


Well of course that would be awesome but I thought primogeniture was a late game partition


It is. He might be thinking ck2


I am since thats what the meme was about


Right now in CK3 I’m trying to unite Spain. So far I’ve plotted and killed all my brothers ( Two of which I was fucking) then became Queen of Northern Spain. From there I 360 no scoped William the Conqueror’s wife and married him. After having 2 sons ( both of which I named after my Lover Brothers) and then proceeded to wipe out the rest of William’s kids leaving only my 2 sons. I helped William take the English Crown and now when both William and I die, our eldest son shall inherit both Spain and England while his brother ( my youngest) will go and fight and probably die somewhere in France.


Damn, sounds like you sure do know how to play your cards. Unified two big kingdoms without fighting a single battle is something I yet crave to do


Few doors are closed to a lusty, beautiful Queen.


Being a hot queen is op, but being a gay man is better.


every powerful vassal acting gangsta until i got their cock in my throat ...what?


I once had a gay king of France. I murdered all of his relatives and he knew it, but I was also his sexy emperor and was fucking him. I've never had such a complicated relationship with any other character in game. A dozen opinion malices. A dozen bonuses. Disagreements, friendships, and on it goes. He was at a net 100 alltogether. Also, as it turns out, my son and grandson were also gay. I fucked that French king for three generations and he loved every decade of it... Not sure if that's bragging or a confession of my sins.


I once started a game as the Kingdom of Leon, unified Spain, and 100 years later my character inherited the Crown of England through a forgotten marriage between my dynasty and an English Duke who won a civil war but couldn't produce an heir in time. Even complete flukes create awesome stories in CK2!


Yeah, I was playing as the Normans and took over England. Had a ton of daughters at one point and randomly married them off since it was a first game. Hundred years later I inherit a major duchy in the HRE and Russia through two different bloodlines ending with my King of England as the sole heir. Ended up getting elected as Emperor of the HRE and the spent the next three generations whacking one rebellion after another: I guess neither the Germans nor the Russians were all that happy being ruled by an Englishman. Well, last laugh was mine when both Russia and the HRE got wiped by the Mongols while in rebellion to me. Ungrateful fucks, that's what you get.




Wasn’t this the reason for the war of the Spanish succession. The bourbon rulers of Spain didn’t produce any legitimate heirs and died out so a hapsburg from Germany got the throne because of some forgotten marriage and political settlement king ago. Suddenly all of Europe goes insane and the entire continent turns into a no holds barred cage match battle Royale between every crown on the mainland plus Britain as well.


Close; the war was triggered by the death of the last Habsburg King of Spain, the sickly Charles II. With no children Charles had appointed Philip, a grandson of the Bourbon King of France Louis XIV and Charles’ nephew, as his heir. A French Bourbon on the throne of Spain was unacceptable to the English, Germans, and Austrians who quickly declared war.


These are just some of the things we do for Power. But honestly playing as a woman can be super OP, you just kinda get bullied for being a girl.


That required you to get a matrilineal marriage with William, right?


my first playthrough, my rulers killed hundreds. but they are all foreigners, so am still great viking king... yet my son and genius heir was caught as satanist, I burned him alive, became depressed, killed self (he was my best son, great lad and threw it all away)


It is amazing how years of goals and sacrifices can be destroy so quickly


Tywin Lannister's life is easily CK moment


Including messing up the heirs so that the dynasty collapses once he's out of the picture.


To be fair, he only messed up Tyrion. The twins were completely AI controlled, :D


I never understood why he was such a dick to Tyrion after Jaime joined the kings guard. Him having an heir was essentially the only way for the lineage to continue, no?


Also had a kind lady Fylkja. Had a Great holy war for for Arabia. The caliph kidnapped my grandson an heir. I only realized this wondering what happened to the warscore. I was seriously considering going for a white peace to get him back. Then the caliph had his hand cut off... I executed or every single member of his family in my prisons. Mutilated their wives. Before the war was over, his family tree had half its members.


my first playthrough was me trying to keep everyone happy My last playthrough before ck3 all my characters had atleast 20+ kills (not counting forgotten ones in dungeon) ​ *What have I become*


You have become a wise and just ruler who embraces a... LARGER view of happiness.


"I did all of that to bring peace, order and stability to the Roman empire, what is thousands dead if millions more can thrive... the end justifies the means and in the end the new pax romana was established" \-Basileios Leo IX "the cruel" of the Roman Empire 1433 AD


It's for the greater good.


That phrase has warped to the point where I picture several Tau warriors with great big bushy beards saying “[for the greater good](https://youtu.be/5u8vd_YNbTw)” in a West Country (UK) accent.


Just think of all the great loot you’ll be able to steal once the expansion comes! You’ll have no family left ever.


yea, I am really looking forward for it, also please paradox let us have cup skulls from our rivals if they are killed in the same "location" as the player (like the player executing them, rival dying at the player's court, rival getting killed in the battle the player was present, etc


Cup skulls would be awesome. Did they say how many artifact slots that will generate in your court yet? It would be great if the slot for the skull cup would be on the throne arm. The same place a mug could show up if you're a drunkard.


If anything modders have your back


Good point. What did we ever do before modders? You know what I did?!? Purchases command and conquer bonus mission disks at KB Toys or Circuit City!!! That's what!




I want to banish Christians when playing as a Jew so I've been waiting since CK2...


in today's climate highly unlikely, the modders in the other hand


I highly doubt they’d pass over that for PC reasons. Seriously stop acting like political correctness is everywhere, especially in a game where you can castrate an infant and sleep with your mother/wife. It was a fucking gamey, easy to cheese mechanic. It should be brought back, but not as poorly implemented as it was in 2.


If these people would stop revolting just because my previous ruler died and his son inherited the throne, I wouldn't have to execute so many people. They're forcing me to put heads on spikes. I'm just trying to be a nice ruler here but I'm tired of fighting Independence factions over and over. It seems like the only thing they listen to is heads on spikes.


That you Vlad?


I didn't choose the heads on spikes life, the heads on spikes life chose me


Mine was me acquiring land almost exclusively through murder and marriage, because I didn’t know that my chancellor could be bribed.


After I discovered Pagans and the Conquest/Invasion CBs I never looked back


Which playthrough was more successful?


first one was my very first real playghtough had barely any knowledge of the game and stopped when I had ireland and scotland, felt overwhelmed. Last true playthrough decided to go for the first wc attempt, failed but had a very good, byzantium>rome playthrough owning basically all of the known world except for India, the Steppes and subsahara africa (I did get ethiopia tho)


Can’t make a few omelets without fucking your cousin or something


Can’t make a good heir without using those eggs.


Marrying your cousin isn't even all that bad. It's still legal in most places. Killing your wife and/or cousin, though...


Can’t make a few omelets without zip tying a few eggs


Meanwhile me, being in affairs with all of my relatives:


Irl or ck2? :troll:


Inbred flair so assumedly a family tradition.


His family reunions must be remarkably sticky.




Hol' up


I barely understand how to get land by marriage I just holy war the shit out of the infidels




*incoherent Christian screaming*


“Fight with us! It's a good life!” Pope Urban II probably


Marry someone with claims on land, fight a war on those claim the lands in their name or murder all the other claimants ahead of them so they get the land and rule it, produce an heir. Your heir(s) should inherit the lands once both you and your spouse die, if they're the first in line to inherit the lands, depending on the laws and stuff. Also the more relatives you have spread out in your neighbors' ruling lines, the easier it is to ask that they become your vassals in the future once they 'happen' into ruling those counties/duchies. Judicious/excessive marrying into other families, rampant adultery for extra legitimized bastards to marry off, and a stint of assassinations early on can do wonders to avoiding more costly wars later.


Hmmmm interesting


Now Holy War for infidel lands is a totally valid strategy, since generally you can't marry yourself/your relatives into their royal lines.


Marry your daughters and sons off to someone, mayhaps a couple kings down the line you accidentally inherit something in the middle of nowhere and only gain knowledge of it when someones declares war on you for that land.


Lmao that happened to me when I reformed Ireland into Brittany, got part of some Eastern European land from some marriage, never learned how, used that as an inroads to start conquering Eastern Europe. That was a good game, Britain was ruled by a very sexy lady, then the game updated and ruined the save


The hardest choices requires the strongest monarchs.


In order to found an empire you must lose that which you love


It's for the good of the realm


He says as he slides into his sister bed.


We must maintain the bloodline!


Et tu Brutus?


Since I was a kid my parents, teachers and society in general seed in my mind the idea of “follow your own path” or “be a leader, be the center of attention, be the one to guide others” but my experience with CK2 and other paradox games (Im still pretty new tho) make me rethink the way I look at being a “lower piece of the chain”: a simple and most of the time peaceful life


Sounds like you became just like every other noble in that era.


Hang on, why did you have to kill your wife for your son to inherit the Kingdom of Scotland? Couldn't you just wait for her to die naturally?


Yeah well, I though that if my wife died I would inherit scotland myself….


Win because you can now marry another ruler and get more claims and shenanigans.


"Sire, the Queen is dead! She was brutally murdered by an evil assassin!" "What? Oh no, my darling wife! Anyway, contact the folks at the Scottish court, tell them to start the planning for my coronation as King of Scotland, I'll be on my way as soon as possible…" "What? Why? Sire, now that the Queen is dead, the next in line for the Crown of Scotland is your son, not you…" "…" "…Sire? Are you alright?" "…Oops…"


Funnily enough I almost never use tactics like this and don't have any trouble growing my realm at a nice steady pace. I even managed the S.P.Q.R achievement with little to no plotting.


Yeah I mostly think people just play this way for shits and giggles. As long as you know what you’re doing it’s way way easier to play as a good, stable king than a tyrant


It is possible to learn this power???


Not from a Byzantine...


The dungeon full of all my vassals and their wives the oubliette full of the enemies of the realm from peasant leaders to foreign kings to anybody captured in battle, house arrest for anybody in the family, the family inbred and perfect, my wife under constant watch, kill count 300+ mostly dying in the dungeon or on the start of a new king’s reign the dungeon purge.


Nothing like executing every poor soul in the dungeon to kick off a new reign and make clear “yes I’m as much of a monster as my dad brother.”


Gotta make room for the vassals who will soon challenge your rule.


Surely killing everyone when your on your way out is best, because they go down as going mad at the end and your heir doesn't get opinion modifiers from it all


Dont get the dread for the executions either.


Tried to be a good king in ck3 got cucked betrayed and 3 revolts at the same time for my retarded or outright evil brothers some nobles deserve to be blinded and castrated


Playing CK2 made me relate a lot more with the cruel kings who didn't let their daughters run off with their true love. There's pagans at the door and you're thinking of love?


so this happens to me every game i play year 1: Start the Great Conquest of any nation year 10: won a lot of land and is now a Dutch, year 20: Vassals I had under my rule love me, the Ones that i conquered outnumber my loyal vassals year 30: 90% of the Vassals in my Realm hate me but do nothing to undermined me as i keep conquering for the Country. year 40 I stop Conquering and the vassals start coming to respect me and actually like me year 50 My King died, Vassals don't Respect the Heir that THEY VOTED FOR!!!!! year 52 Vassals revolt and a huge civil war year 65 I won a bloody civil war, I will now Purge everyone including the vassals that helped me win in the civil war(showing that they should have revolted when they had the chance) expect a few Vassals that i will give them tons of loyal Vassal land Year 67 after giving tons of Traitorous land to Family members and commanders that fought in the war. I stabilize the Region and conquer more land. (normally a time line of the first 70 years of CK2)


CK2, or How I Gained Sympathy for the Disney Villain.


Would it have been fair to let your countrymen suffer under the rule of your kin? To stand divided as the wolves circle you sweet island? You set out to be a good and fair king, only a good king would make the sacrifices you did for the betterment of your people.


Right? Like everyone should thank me for sacrificing two hundred Catholics to the Gods and wiping oit entire dynasties for fun. Only a good Fylkir would clense the realm like that of heretics.


You brought Odin's blessings to the realm, those families would have squandered the people's power and left Midgard unprepared for Fenrir.


well you didn't kill your kids, you maintained order, and you got your son's inheritance for him early. mission successful


Everyone starts with the best intentions in their minds...then, one fateful turn, *everyone* wonders "but maybe it will be a little bit easier this way" And, after a few IRL hours, you're an incestuous medieval mass murder that's also a closet witch-cannibal


Just wait for your wife to die of cancer, geez.


[Act with power, and the power acts upon you.](https://cdn.mushoku-tensei.online/file/mangashnwa/vinland-saga/chapter-44-the-curse-of-the-crown/14.jpg)


It's always entertaining for me when I start out as a diplomatic and honourable ruler, setup a whole bunch of alliances and parcel out my lands to all my children equally with my primary heir obviously getting the top title. Many generations of intrigue later and my last ruler is usually the culmination of centuries of incest, betrayals, murders and seductions ruling over a grotesquely bloated empire that's bursting at the seams waiting for the smallest spark to ignite a global rebellion against the most feared and reviled dynasty the world has ever had the displeasure to witness. All of this because the first ancestor wanted his house to be known.


What's wrong with being a competent ruler with a can-do attitude?


Whenever i try to be a kind king all of my vassals collectively decide they want to lower crown authority, switch to gavelkind and put someone else on the throne, and after several years of imprisonments, suspicious deaths and priest "unfortunately" being imprisoned while visiting pagan neighbours, they all eventually rebell and I spend the next 2 years decapitating everyone in my dungeon.


Me, plotting to kill my brother because if I kill him I inherit his land #WHAT'S ANOTHER 20 YEARS? I CAN ALWAYS START AGAIN, MAKE ANOTHER BROTHER


Yeah, we always criticise medieval kings and queens we see on shows. We say things like, why would you marry you children just for an alliance/more land? Why would you choose your advisors amongst powerful people instead of being more meritocratic? Why would you seal the castle door in a plague? ​ But after two games of CK2, you understand that the conditions mold who you are. You become the Vocation. You cannot be evil, you cannot be good. You can only be the KING.


a good king but a bad person


I suddenly realized I need Omni-Man DNA for CK3


And what did it cost you?




My sweetest friend Everyone I know goes away In the end And you could have it all My empire of dirt I will let you down I will make you hurt If I could start again A million miles away I would keep myself I would find a way


The end justifies the means.


A single round of crusader kings puts the horrible deeds of every historical figure into perspective


Progress Can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs.


Lad... we need to talk


This is basically how history worked though. So...


If you're not playing Crusader Kings and just murdering the ever-loving fuck out of a fuckload of people, well, are you even playing Crusader Kings?


>WHAT WILL YOU HAVE IN 500 YEARS?!?! Europe dad, I'll have Europe.


I wish CK2 would make a Japan or China or just whole Asia spin off. Would love this to be the next Romance of the Three Kingdoms game or Sengoku game.


All in a days work.


Average byzantine Emporer run be like…


I keep seeing this guy in memes, what's it from?


Invincible. It's on Amazon Prime video


Sounds like you are playing the game right!


Those are rookie numbers


You should read vinland saga, it deals with this specific case of trying to create paradise but doing it on a path of blood


A Good King has clean hands. The Best Kings have people to dirty their hands for him.


Honestly don't know why people think assassination is worse than war. Kind of weird.


My journey was having an affair with my sons wife because he was incapable of producing children.


Ballin but at what cost


it spirals, the evil deeds. game makes you relate too much to medieval tyrants


Every time I try to play a 'nice and chill game' of ck3 I first start with 30 years of smashing nations and neighbors into paste before my 'enlightened period' can begin.


That's sounds like some Makbet thing


You either die a good king, or live long enough to murder your inbred children in a ploy to capture the neighbouring kingdom so you can violently spread your religion and commit cultural genocide.


For my son to inherit Asturias and France I killed 2 of his uncles and then all his cousins. I married his sisters off to minor kingdoms. But I did find him the smartest wife in the world, so that's good.


Congratulations, now you understand why your characters are always depressed…


it always happened even if you try to fight it. it well happened


Byzantine Empire: "Look what they have to do to mimic a fraction of our power"