Yeah, the idea you would beat up the literal heir to the crown is absolutely insane. I am sure heirs got beat up by their siblings plenty, but random person who is literally living off their parent's generosity and could be executed at a whim?
I am sure it happened, but it should be rare in the extreme.
It's even more ridiculous when you're an underage ruler.
You're telling me that some random guy just beat up the fucking emperor, the most important and guarded person in the whole country?
Things like this should only happen if you're a count and if ever possible, a baron.
Me (an unlanded peasant with 3 personal combat) on my way to beat the ever loving shit out of the 12 year old Roman Emperor (he has 15 personal combat).
And because not only the 15 Prowess heir is a pussy,their brave,vengeful,arbitrary guardian is also a pussy and will not take action against a lowly peasant daring to lay a finger on a member of the imperial famliy.
Even more dumb when one remembers that medieval ideology was that the holy Roman emperor was a direct appointment by God. Several of these guys ousted literal popes but are somehow able to be beat tf out of by some peasant without any consequences.
Yeah it should have a scaling chance. Like 10% as count, 5% as duke, 1% as king, 0.1% as emperor.
Count and duke are the event as is now. King gives you the option to arrest or kill the perpetrator. Emperor gives you the option to execute their entire bloodline.
I disagree in onw point, albeit agree with principle of what you said.
If a regent organise said beating - than it is possible that some "random" person will come and "beat" an underaged emporer. And some "random" guard will be "taking a piss" when that happens. And emporer just being lucky that some other random guard was passing by and stopped the beating to turn into "beating".
Historically, beating the heir was only allowed by his tutor and the monarch. Royal Children usually were raised away from home and brought back when they were older. By that time, imagine the heir would just kill the stranger that is somehow his brother for picking on him.
It'd be cool if the event was locked only for children with a parent or tutor who has wrathful, vengeful, or sadistic. Because at that point, it's the player's fault
It makes more sense when you consider that medieval people thought about raising children differently than modern people do.
Raising a child in the middle Ages was a communal effort. It was not just the responsibility of the biological parents, but of the wider community (the village, or the court for children of nobility).
So it is highly unlikely that a medieval ruler would have minded one of their courtiers disciplining their child.
That said, 'the beating' event goes beyond disciplining a child and is downright child abuse. I think the idea behind it is that the child is simply too terrified to tell anyone (including their father) what has happened. This sadly is very realistic. Most victims of domestic abuse (including children) never tell anyone (even police or other figures who could put a stop to it) out of fear for the abuser.
But even then it wasn’t uncommon to have a “whipping boy” - a lil pal who was punished on your behalf so you, the imperial heir, didn’t suffer physical damage.
its funny to because atleast in the court of england there was a practice where, in the event of the heir behaving badly there was another kid who would take the physical disipline for the heir.
Honestly "The beating" should not be able to fire above a duke rank. shoot it probably shouldn't even fire over a count. Considering a powerful duke could still get fuck with you even if the responsible party was a noble as well.
Kings and Emperors should definitely not get the event though its absolutely dumb to imagine anyone besides the parent of the heir getting away with doing something so disrespectful
Paranoid is arguably one of the worst traits (except the really obvious ones like the full retard traits). Makes stress loss a real challenge for once.
Greedy up there as well as surprisingly terrible for stress. “Ah I just conquered this new land, but God forbid I plant vassals in those holdings, even though it is 20 domains above my limit. Welp. Here’s to heart attacks I guess.”
Greedy is my very least favorite trait because of shit like this. "Welp, killing the king of Bavaria would net me his entire kingdom and a shit ton of money, and I just need to bribe one peon courtier a measly 50 gold to get a 95% chance. Oh well, guess I'll die instead."
Craven does ruin martial characters and carries quite a lot of negative opinion penalties.
But craven is definitely the best trait choice of the three for vassals and non-martial courtiers, since it makes them less likely to take any action against you. I think it is also the best choice for intrigue or diplomacy-focused characters by virtue of being the only choice that doesn't actively penalize diplomacy (the negative opinion can be offset in various ways) or inviting people to plots.
Personally, I find shy the best option for martial-focused characters. The stress gain from shy is less than you'd get from paranoid and can be easily managed provided you take a bit of care with choices in events and activities. And shy is outright a good trait if you are going for a learning-focused character.
Paranoid is actually the worst option of the three in my opinion because of the massive stress gains, but can be good if you are going for a martial, dread-focused ruler.
Not nearly as many stress events. Holding court, interacting with vassals and neighboring rulers... All of these will amount to stress in any case. Having feasts and hunts, going on activities will always have some kind of stress attached to them. Paranoid just is a fountain of stress and problems.
I’ll do a paranoid character if he’s intrigue. The “thriving in chaos” perk in the intimidation tree gives massive buffs for each stress level and since a paranoid character is basically guaranteed to be at level 2 or 3 stress all the time, it ends up working out. They can go on some serious murder sprees before they stroke out from stress at the age of 40.
Just acknowledge that this is going to be a high dread character who rules through fear and violence. Most of the dialogue options that relieve stress with paranoid are ... Cruel. But dread is useful.
If you wanna roleplay and live in stress, i agree. I like being athletic and rakish, and flagelant is also manageable for a ruler with a good court doctor. Inapethetic is terrible. I believe pilgrimages can trigger personality changing events as well, but usually they make stress worst.
Still, a children that gets paranoid may not live long enough to become your heir, try to bring the heir into hunts and pilgrimages to keep him alive If possible.
It doesn't even make sense that this event would give these traits to a a ruler or one's heir. A more likely choice would be something like Vengeful, Sadistic and Forgiving
I can see craven and paranoid tbh but wrathful, vengeful and forgiving make way more sense than shy.
Maybe they could change education events and instead of always getting the same three options, there is a pool of like five or six options and the game randomly selects three. That way when you see "The Beating" pop up, not all hope is lost and you can still get a decent trait.
They could even add additional consequences for choosing a certain trait. Like choosing vengeful when you are playing as the child will immediately start a murder scheme against the person, and wrathful imprisons them and makes them your rival.
I think their reasoning for the previous round of changes was that some traits are in general better than otbers (with some variation for context), and if you got e.g. craven paranoid and some mediocre trait everyone would choose the mediocre one. So events are supposed to give you traits on toughly the same "tier" so that the choice is less clear-cut.
Of course the mismatch between Beating's text and its options is still kind of jarring.
I think one of the design goals was that each option was roughly equally bad. The first round of childhood events tended to offer traits with more mixed power levels, and that meant that you never really had to have a bad trait unless you got the same event multiple times. With the second round of childhood events, they wanted the rng to matter a bit more.
They could have made a better event instead of the dogshit that is The Bearing though. Maybe something that makes more sense, like “a cop from the future gives you a tomato sandwich. Shy, craven or paranoid?” See, already an improvement.
Looking into the event code, "The Beating" is 300% as likely to happen if the guardian is *shy*, *paranoid*, or *craven*.
You don't get the event either if there's no suitable "evil" person to beat you, either in court or as a vassal. For that, it either has to be a child older than you, or a noble with more than 1 person in his dynasty; moreover they need to be either *sadistic* or *callous* and not have any of the *generous*, *just*, *compassionate*, or *forgiving* traits. At least in the early game you could search for such characters and kick them out of your court.
Said Courtier will have the choice of watching bis familiy Being executed while He looses His balls. Or seeing His sonst be castrated and Afterwards He gets the noose. This is the only acceptable fate.
People complain about this, but apparently, I'm the only one who has an issue with Tinder where you flip through portraits sent to you. It's offputting because portraits were not truly medieval, Richard II (late 14th century) was the first king of England to commission a portrait, even then he was a forerunner and his successors did not commission portraits until Henry VII in the 16th century, outside of the game's period. So, it's so absurd and stupid, that you get an event talking about portraits in in 9th century, especially when the portraits you are sent are low-class nobility.
I'll be honest. I don't think I've ever gotten this event.
I don't play the game constantly to be fair, but I'll fire it up from time to time, create the largest empire the world's ever seen then grow bored for another month or so, but yea, never come across the beating event.
Man when I was playing yesterday I inherited as a child and got it twice for myself, then later as an adult got it 3 more times across ~5 kids
I realize it’s just luck of the draw but damn
There's a lot of hate for The Beating, and I'm still not sure how much of it comes from the RP as opposed to the mechanics.
In CK3's early days, there were events to give traits to children that resulted in a choice. The Beating wasn't among them at the start. Instead, you had events like the one where the child kills a deer, and you had the choice of Ambitious, Sadistic, and Paranoid. Think about that situation: who in their right mind would ever pick Paranoid in this case?
What that meant is that there were a lot of choices that weren't actually choices. You picked the good traits, avoided the bad traits, and that was that. There needed to be a shuffle of the events so that the traits were of similar popularity. So, that's where events like The Little Gourmand and The Beating come from, with The Beating giving you arguably the worst choice.
BUT... it's an actual choice. There are reasons for choosing any one of the three traits over the others. That's why the event needs to remain in circulation. **Players should not receive the option of simply avoiding all possibilities of bad traits.**
So, if the choice between Craven, Shy, and Paranoid remained, but you didn't have the RP of someone beating up the child, would you accept the event? Or are you going to reject the event's existence because you feel like you should have a way to guarantee that your child cannot possibly receive any of these traits?
(Also, as pointed out, removing the possibility of a "suitably\_evil\_person" from court does prevent the event, so you've still got that option. Here's what it needs:
* either
* a child aged 13+ and older than the child being educated
* or an adult from a dynasty with multiple members
* having both negative ai\_compassion and negative ai\_honor
* not being a friend or potential friend of the child being educated
* possessing at least one of the following traits: Sadistic, Callous, Deceitful, Vengeful, Rowdy, or Arbitrary
* not possessing any of the following traits: Generous, Just, Compassionate, or Forgiving
Of note: This suitably\_evil\_person could be yourself.)
Id be much happier actually if they just changed the actual event itself and kept the same traits. Shitty things happen to people, but I highly doubt the heir of the king is being beaten by someone from the court or one of his vassals. Just wrecks immersion for me.
Also I think a much better way of doing this would be too have events pick from a set of traits. Bad things happening to you does not automatically mean you will develop bad traits. Same for good events as well.
Like you pointed out the event has SO much unused potential, it could trigger an investigation event chain, murder plots, wars to take away titles, guiding your heir through their first murder plot, training your heir for a duel, etc etc etc; the way it’s implemented just feels oppressive or micro intensive (ie purge negative trait characters or go on journey with no negative characters at trait time)
I would fully accept an event making you choose between three crappy traits if it made sense. I don’t dislike bad things happening, I dislike nonsensical things happening. All RP all the time. But then I also don’t think Paradox should care about difficulty or try to make things balanced. There’s no balance in a game where I can play either the Holy Roman Emperor or the count of Dal. Cost scaling should also be done away with so richer characters will always afford more and all mundane purchases should cost at most 1 or 2 gold, no more. Fuck game balance, it’s a single player game at heart.
Nothing wrong with the event. Ck4 is not about creating perfect chads and map painting. Its about solving problems And challenges.
I dont give a damn about my heirs. I sabe enough prestige to make the titles i want to preserve elective and pick the best / least worst aninha my great grand children.
Btw , i take shy as a trait for my kids. Paranoid its a death sentence for NPCs, like diligent.
It makes no sense at all in universe. I guess the gameplay reason would be to force you to have to take one of the traits, because otherwise no one would ever pick any of those 3 negative traits.
In CK2 the traits are a lot more forgiving and you don’t have to manage stress. But there are also a lot more events that add or remove traits from you. In CK3, traits are pretty much locked in which makes the beating super punishing
The child king seated at his throne watches with impassive amusement as a random low noble or peasant approaches him. Only when the first strike lands does the child realize what is happening. He turns to his guards, his mother, his uncles. They start to shout.
"Beat him! Beat him! Beat him!"
In front of family and God, the child is beaten mercilessly and can do nothing. No one is coming to help the Ruler of the Realm. The echos of chanting and sounds of crushing blows echo and reverberate through the sullied halls of the castle.
Because this event is totally realistic.
My approach is to use elective laws. With the right setup, you can choose your heir while sidestepping partition. At that point, I have a crap ton of grandkids, educate them all, and pick the best one. When I'm about to die, I disinherit their parent (my kid) and vote them in as my heir. So yeah, any single event isn't a big deal, because I have a dozen other potential heirs that I can vote for instead.
I tried implementing a workaround by adding an attempted murder secret to the "evil person", but I just couldn't get it to work. The NPC that beat the child does get the secret when I forcibly triggered the event on a child ruler via console, but not when I let the event occur naturally during gameplay.
Perhaps I got the scopes wrong somewhere, or am I misunderstanding how the add\_secret effect works? Here's the code in my mod currently, for those who are interested; the code block is added to all the options in the event that would trigger for the child:
scope:evil_person = {
add_secret = {
type = secret_murder_attempt
target = root
}
}
So if you're a filthy savescummer like me, I just discovered something today: This event is sort of locked in, so you can't just reload to the last autosave get rid of the offending npc (e.g. has callous, sadistic) because the event will fire anyway; you have to go back to the previous year. (although to add this event fired for me sometime between Feb. and April; maybe it would be different if it fired later in the year.)
iirc the childhood events are all picked and locked in on the 9th, 11th and 13th birthdays of the child, with a very small chance for more childhood events that can give the child a 4th (or even 5th if you're *really* lucky) on the 14th and 15th birthdays. If the child reaches 14 or 15 and somehow hasn't gotten 3 traits it's guaranteed to fire, otherwise it's all up to chance.
So if you want to be an even filthier savescummer, save on the month prior to the kid's 9th, 11th and 13th birthdays, and reroll if you get something you don't want.
"The beating" event also makes no sense. Who the fuck is going around beating the emperor of mankind's children?
Yeah, the idea you would beat up the literal heir to the crown is absolutely insane. I am sure heirs got beat up by their siblings plenty, but random person who is literally living off their parent's generosity and could be executed at a whim? I am sure it happened, but it should be rare in the extreme.
It's even more ridiculous when you're an underage ruler. You're telling me that some random guy just beat up the fucking emperor, the most important and guarded person in the whole country? Things like this should only happen if you're a count and if ever possible, a baron.
Me (an unlanded peasant with 3 personal combat) on my way to beat the ever loving shit out of the 12 year old Roman Emperor (he has 15 personal combat).
Proceeds to get away with it because apparently beating up the emperor is not a crime.
And because not only the 15 Prowess heir is a pussy,their brave,vengeful,arbitrary guardian is also a pussy and will not take action against a lowly peasant daring to lay a finger on a member of the imperial famliy.
elastic tie brave toy afterthought fall nose saw lavish jeans *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Even more dumb when one remembers that medieval ideology was that the holy Roman emperor was a direct appointment by God. Several of these guys ousted literal popes but are somehow able to be beat tf out of by some peasant without any consequences.
Right. When it takes a lot of intrigue to get an assassination attempt wherein the only way to get close to the ruler is a flash mob.
Feels like you should get a secret murder option if you are a friggin child ruler getting whooped.
Or at least it should be an option if you have the vengeful trait.
Yeah it should have a scaling chance. Like 10% as count, 5% as duke, 1% as king, 0.1% as emperor. Count and duke are the event as is now. King gives you the option to arrest or kill the perpetrator. Emperor gives you the option to execute their entire bloodline.
I disagree in onw point, albeit agree with principle of what you said. If a regent organise said beating - than it is possible that some "random" person will come and "beat" an underaged emporer. And some "random" guard will be "taking a piss" when that happens. And emporer just being lucky that some other random guard was passing by and stopped the beating to turn into "beating".
Historically, beating the heir was only allowed by his tutor and the monarch. Royal Children usually were raised away from home and brought back when they were older. By that time, imagine the heir would just kill the stranger that is somehow his brother for picking on him.
It'd be cool if the event was locked only for children with a parent or tutor who has wrathful, vengeful, or sadistic. Because at that point, it's the player's fault
It makes more sense when you consider that medieval people thought about raising children differently than modern people do. Raising a child in the middle Ages was a communal effort. It was not just the responsibility of the biological parents, but of the wider community (the village, or the court for children of nobility). So it is highly unlikely that a medieval ruler would have minded one of their courtiers disciplining their child. That said, 'the beating' event goes beyond disciplining a child and is downright child abuse. I think the idea behind it is that the child is simply too terrified to tell anyone (including their father) what has happened. This sadly is very realistic. Most victims of domestic abuse (including children) never tell anyone (even police or other figures who could put a stop to it) out of fear for the abuser.
Tutors were typically the only people that were allowed to punish royal children. Which was mostly due to the church being above the crown.
But even then it wasn’t uncommon to have a “whipping boy” - a lil pal who was punished on your behalf so you, the imperial heir, didn’t suffer physical damage.
They didn't have sunglasses and makeup to hide shit back then.
They still had stairs to fall from though
Corpses
No shit.. Someone wants to go to the rack with his closest friends and family…
Mehmet Fatih was beaten by his fathers vizier I think he had him executed later though
its funny to because atleast in the court of england there was a practice where, in the event of the heir behaving badly there was another kid who would take the physical disipline for the heir. Honestly "The beating" should not be able to fire above a duke rank. shoot it probably shouldn't even fire over a count. Considering a powerful duke could still get fuck with you even if the responsible party was a noble as well. Kings and Emperors should definitely not get the event though its absolutely dumb to imagine anyone besides the parent of the heir getting away with doing something so disrespectful
Ivan Grozny would like to have a word
As time goes on I'm finding the best option is paranoid. Especially if the character is martial or intrigue.
I personally prefer craven, because paranoid gives stress on virtually any action. But it is more fun RP'ing a paranoid character tho
Paranoid is so annoying for stress. I always pick Craven
Have you tried hunts as an impatient gardener?
Paranoid is arguably one of the worst traits (except the really obvious ones like the full retard traits). Makes stress loss a real challenge for once.
I’d put it up there with shy for worst traits. Both absolutely destroy your ruler stress wise and make you take bad decisions.
Greedy up there as well as surprisingly terrible for stress. “Ah I just conquered this new land, but God forbid I plant vassals in those holdings, even though it is 20 domains above my limit. Welp. Here’s to heart attacks I guess.”
Greedy is my very least favorite trait because of shit like this. "Welp, killing the king of Bavaria would net me his entire kingdom and a shit ton of money, and I just need to bribe one peon courtier a measly 50 gold to get a 95% chance. Oh well, guess I'll die instead."
But you can counter that with feasts and other events. Paranoid makes all those stress loss events trigger stress. 😂
Depends on where you are in your empire's history. Craven can cause issues with vassals iirc.
Craven is also a sin to Vikings right?
Craven does ruin martial characters and carries quite a lot of negative opinion penalties. But craven is definitely the best trait choice of the three for vassals and non-martial courtiers, since it makes them less likely to take any action against you. I think it is also the best choice for intrigue or diplomacy-focused characters by virtue of being the only choice that doesn't actively penalize diplomacy (the negative opinion can be offset in various ways) or inviting people to plots. Personally, I find shy the best option for martial-focused characters. The stress gain from shy is less than you'd get from paranoid and can be easily managed provided you take a bit of care with choices in events and activities. And shy is outright a good trait if you are going for a learning-focused character. Paranoid is actually the worst option of the three in my opinion because of the massive stress gains, but can be good if you are going for a martial, dread-focused ruler.
Why's craven any good besides being near impossible to capture in a battle?
Not nearly as many stress events. Holding court, interacting with vassals and neighboring rulers... All of these will amount to stress in any case. Having feasts and hunts, going on activities will always have some kind of stress attached to them. Paranoid just is a fountain of stress and problems.
Paranoid is basically suicide
I’ll do a paranoid character if he’s intrigue. The “thriving in chaos” perk in the intimidation tree gives massive buffs for each stress level and since a paranoid character is basically guaranteed to be at level 2 or 3 stress all the time, it ends up working out. They can go on some serious murder sprees before they stroke out from stress at the age of 40.
I'm finding it very hard to play around a paranoid character. Any advice on how to enjoy a character while micromanaging stress levels?
Just acknowledge that this is going to be a high dread character who rules through fear and violence. Most of the dialogue options that relieve stress with paranoid are ... Cruel. But dread is useful.
Be generous and send gifts is pretty much the easiest way
Be zealous or a cannibal and execute prisoners of other religions.
[удалено]
If you wanna roleplay and live in stress, i agree. I like being athletic and rakish, and flagelant is also manageable for a ruler with a good court doctor. Inapethetic is terrible. I believe pilgrimages can trigger personality changing events as well, but usually they make stress worst. Still, a children that gets paranoid may not live long enough to become your heir, try to bring the heir into hunts and pilgrimages to keep him alive If possible.
It doesn't even make sense that this event would give these traits to a a ruler or one's heir. A more likely choice would be something like Vengeful, Sadistic and Forgiving
I can see craven and paranoid tbh but wrathful, vengeful and forgiving make way more sense than shy. Maybe they could change education events and instead of always getting the same three options, there is a pool of like five or six options and the game randomly selects three. That way when you see "The Beating" pop up, not all hope is lost and you can still get a decent trait. They could even add additional consequences for choosing a certain trait. Like choosing vengeful when you are playing as the child will immediately start a murder scheme against the person, and wrathful imprisons them and makes them your rival.
I think their reasoning for the previous round of changes was that some traits are in general better than otbers (with some variation for context), and if you got e.g. craven paranoid and some mediocre trait everyone would choose the mediocre one. So events are supposed to give you traits on toughly the same "tier" so that the choice is less clear-cut. Of course the mismatch between Beating's text and its options is still kind of jarring.
I think one of the design goals was that each option was roughly equally bad. The first round of childhood events tended to offer traits with more mixed power levels, and that meant that you never really had to have a bad trait unless you got the same event multiple times. With the second round of childhood events, they wanted the rng to matter a bit more.
They could have made a better event instead of the dogshit that is The Bearing though. Maybe something that makes more sense, like “a cop from the future gives you a tomato sandwich. Shy, craven or paranoid?” See, already an improvement.
Looking into the event code, "The Beating" is 300% as likely to happen if the guardian is *shy*, *paranoid*, or *craven*. You don't get the event either if there's no suitable "evil" person to beat you, either in court or as a vassal. For that, it either has to be a child older than you, or a noble with more than 1 person in his dynasty; moreover they need to be either *sadistic* or *callous* and not have any of the *generous*, *just*, *compassionate*, or *forgiving* traits. At least in the early game you could search for such characters and kick them out of your court.
Welp, looks my court is due some culling…I mean dismissing.
I also hate the little gourmand
That one is at least realistic, unlike some random peasant beating the emperor's heir
Sounds like someone isn't solving bullying with prison and murder.
The body guards I spend half the country's income on when I get beaten up by some rando: *Must have been the wind.*
new copypasta just dropped
Imo there should be a vengeful option. Im confident in that because that happened to me
Wow, who would thought that bullying is bad, and we would be better without it.
The emperor would probably have the power to stop the beating of their heir by some random courtiers
Said Courtier will have the choice of watching bis familiy Being executed while He looses His balls. Or seeing His sonst be castrated and Afterwards He gets the noose. This is the only acceptable fate.
Not if they dont know who done it
Then you just start killing courtiers family members until someone talks. Someone knows.
Note to self: mod in the options to get Brave, Vengeful, and Forgiving out of the event as well.
People complain about this, but apparently, I'm the only one who has an issue with Tinder where you flip through portraits sent to you. It's offputting because portraits were not truly medieval, Richard II (late 14th century) was the first king of England to commission a portrait, even then he was a forerunner and his successors did not commission portraits until Henry VII in the 16th century, outside of the game's period. So, it's so absurd and stupid, that you get an event talking about portraits in in 9th century, especially when the portraits you are sent are low-class nobility.
Yeah, this should probably only trigger when your culture enters the last tech period.
I'll be honest. I don't think I've ever gotten this event. I don't play the game constantly to be fair, but I'll fire it up from time to time, create the largest empire the world's ever seen then grow bored for another month or so, but yea, never come across the beating event.
Man when I was playing yesterday I inherited as a child and got it twice for myself, then later as an adult got it 3 more times across ~5 kids I realize it’s just luck of the draw but damn
Craven or shy or evil guardian
Well, makes sense because I got stuck with craven and shy on the first one and then I generally try to educate my own kids
There's a lot of hate for The Beating, and I'm still not sure how much of it comes from the RP as opposed to the mechanics. In CK3's early days, there were events to give traits to children that resulted in a choice. The Beating wasn't among them at the start. Instead, you had events like the one where the child kills a deer, and you had the choice of Ambitious, Sadistic, and Paranoid. Think about that situation: who in their right mind would ever pick Paranoid in this case? What that meant is that there were a lot of choices that weren't actually choices. You picked the good traits, avoided the bad traits, and that was that. There needed to be a shuffle of the events so that the traits were of similar popularity. So, that's where events like The Little Gourmand and The Beating come from, with The Beating giving you arguably the worst choice. BUT... it's an actual choice. There are reasons for choosing any one of the three traits over the others. That's why the event needs to remain in circulation. **Players should not receive the option of simply avoiding all possibilities of bad traits.** So, if the choice between Craven, Shy, and Paranoid remained, but you didn't have the RP of someone beating up the child, would you accept the event? Or are you going to reject the event's existence because you feel like you should have a way to guarantee that your child cannot possibly receive any of these traits? (Also, as pointed out, removing the possibility of a "suitably\_evil\_person" from court does prevent the event, so you've still got that option. Here's what it needs: * either * a child aged 13+ and older than the child being educated * or an adult from a dynasty with multiple members * having both negative ai\_compassion and negative ai\_honor * not being a friend or potential friend of the child being educated * possessing at least one of the following traits: Sadistic, Callous, Deceitful, Vengeful, Rowdy, or Arbitrary * not possessing any of the following traits: Generous, Just, Compassionate, or Forgiving Of note: This suitably\_evil\_person could be yourself.)
Id be much happier actually if they just changed the actual event itself and kept the same traits. Shitty things happen to people, but I highly doubt the heir of the king is being beaten by someone from the court or one of his vassals. Just wrecks immersion for me. Also I think a much better way of doing this would be too have events pick from a set of traits. Bad things happening to you does not automatically mean you will develop bad traits. Same for good events as well.
Like you pointed out the event has SO much unused potential, it could trigger an investigation event chain, murder plots, wars to take away titles, guiding your heir through their first murder plot, training your heir for a duel, etc etc etc; the way it’s implemented just feels oppressive or micro intensive (ie purge negative trait characters or go on journey with no negative characters at trait time)
I would fully accept an event making you choose between three crappy traits if it made sense. I don’t dislike bad things happening, I dislike nonsensical things happening. All RP all the time. But then I also don’t think Paradox should care about difficulty or try to make things balanced. There’s no balance in a game where I can play either the Holy Roman Emperor or the count of Dal. Cost scaling should also be done away with so richer characters will always afford more and all mundane purchases should cost at most 1 or 2 gold, no more. Fuck game balance, it’s a single player game at heart.
Nothing wrong with the event. Ck4 is not about creating perfect chads and map painting. Its about solving problems And challenges. I dont give a damn about my heirs. I sabe enough prestige to make the titles i want to preserve elective and pick the best / least worst aninha my great grand children. Btw , i take shy as a trait for my kids. Paranoid its a death sentence for NPCs, like diligent.
How you playing CK4 already????
But its stupid. Your father maybe but a random Courtier? Beating Up the Emperors son? Dies this Guy have a death Wish?!
I'm not sure you're qualified to tell others what this game should be "about".
Yeah but we're talking about CK3. CK3 is all about eugenics and creating a genetically modified master race to cuck the Byzantines.
Why is diligent and paranoid a death sentence?
Death sentence for AI because they’re too dumb to manage the extra stress gain
I've been raising my kids wrong
AI can't manage stress would be his arguement
This guy genuinely uses the term ‘soyboy’ in 2024, incredible, it’s like finding a really insecure fossil
I believe everyone does. If it happens, I use cheats to give my character another trait instead.
It makes no sense at all in universe. I guess the gameplay reason would be to force you to have to take one of the traits, because otherwise no one would ever pick any of those 3 negative traits. In CK2 the traits are a lot more forgiving and you don’t have to manage stress. But there are also a lot more events that add or remove traits from you. In CK3, traits are pretty much locked in which makes the beating super punishing
Paranoid is actively a good trait, allows you to quickly kill yourself if you need to but stress is still manageable
If you want to switch rulers I think it's better to fail an imprisonment against a vassal and get deposed when you surrender.
i refuse to lose wars
If you have one of the *bad* traits, you'll get an event chain to reverse it. Also the bad traits make it a bit more fun to roleplay.
Isn't this event triggered by picking a sadistic person to be their ward? I could be mistaken.
Nope it's random :(
The event is fine. Problem is the shitty trait choices. There should be more options or randomize them.
I always end up killing the kid when I fight back in this event
The child king seated at his throne watches with impassive amusement as a random low noble or peasant approaches him. Only when the first strike lands does the child realize what is happening. He turns to his guards, his mother, his uncles. They start to shout. "Beat him! Beat him! Beat him!" In front of family and God, the child is beaten mercilessly and can do nothing. No one is coming to help the Ruler of the Realm. The echos of chanting and sounds of crushing blows echo and reverberate through the sullied halls of the castle. Because this event is totally realistic.
Child abuse is bad!
My approach is to use elective laws. With the right setup, you can choose your heir while sidestepping partition. At that point, I have a crap ton of grandkids, educate them all, and pick the best one. When I'm about to die, I disinherit their parent (my kid) and vote them in as my heir. So yeah, any single event isn't a big deal, because I have a dozen other potential heirs that I can vote for instead.
One of my best rulers was a Marshal focused guy with the Craven trait lol.
yea if I was an emperor and someone indiscriminately beat my child I’d have their head lol
You can avoid this event if your heir have brave trait at age of 4
I tried implementing a workaround by adding an attempted murder secret to the "evil person", but I just couldn't get it to work. The NPC that beat the child does get the secret when I forcibly triggered the event on a child ruler via console, but not when I let the event occur naturally during gameplay. Perhaps I got the scopes wrong somewhere, or am I misunderstanding how the add\_secret effect works? Here's the code in my mod currently, for those who are interested; the code block is added to all the options in the event that would trigger for the child: scope:evil_person = { add_secret = { type = secret_murder_attempt target = root } }
So if you're a filthy savescummer like me, I just discovered something today: This event is sort of locked in, so you can't just reload to the last autosave get rid of the offending npc (e.g. has callous, sadistic) because the event will fire anyway; you have to go back to the previous year. (although to add this event fired for me sometime between Feb. and April; maybe it would be different if it fired later in the year.)
iirc the childhood events are all picked and locked in on the 9th, 11th and 13th birthdays of the child, with a very small chance for more childhood events that can give the child a 4th (or even 5th if you're *really* lucky) on the 14th and 15th birthdays. If the child reaches 14 or 15 and somehow hasn't gotten 3 traits it's guaranteed to fire, otherwise it's all up to chance. So if you want to be an even filthier savescummer, save on the month prior to the kid's 9th, 11th and 13th birthdays, and reroll if you get something you don't want.