Why is arresting a murderer (who also embezzled) tyrannical?

[mojomonkey3]

Does anyone know why we can't imprison vassals for murder (or embezzlement) without incurring negative opinion for tyranny? Even after exposing them (for both crimes).

I haven't found a solid answer to this anywhere- just other confused players.

[Bishi]

Murder is only criminal if it goes against a religious doctrine such as dynastic slayings. Murderer for all intents and purposes outside of that is just an opinion malus. Not sure about the embezzlement thing though. I think it's just a secret that lowers opinion with the victim. I only deal with regencies maybe once or twice a campaign at most, so sorry I can't be more helpful in this regard.

[mojomonkey3]

Originally posted by Bishi:

Murder is only criminal if it goes against a religious doctrine such as dynastic slayings. Murderer for all intents and purposes outside of that is just an opinion malus. Not sure about the embezzlement thing though. I think it's just a secret that lowers opinion with the victim. I only deal with regencies maybe once or twice a campaign at most, so sorry I can't be more helpful in this regard.

Oh gotcha. Weird.
Thanks anyways. :)

[Abacus]

Originally posted by mojomonkey3:

Originally posted by Bishi:

Murder is only criminal if it goes against a religious doctrine such as dynastic slayings. Murderer for all intents and purposes outside of that is just an opinion malus. Not sure about the embezzlement thing though. I think it's just a secret that lowers opinion with the victim. I only deal with regencies maybe once or twice a campaign at most, so sorry I can't be more helpful in this regard.

Oh gotcha. Weird.
Thanks anyways. :)

Actually it was something accepted in many cultures for moronic reasons.

IIRC it was standard practice for siblings in the Ottoman Emipre running to kill off the competition (their brothers.)

It wasn't some unspoken thing, it was out in the open and accepted as a mechanic of the state. So it really matters what their beliefs are. Ck 3 simulates some of this.

[jpcerutti]

If you ARE the state, the crimes have to be directly against you to be a 'state' crime - if that makes sense to you.

Might makes right and individuals, and their families, are the source of power and responsible for doling out justice (or injustice) as they see fit. Individually. As just bigger versions of organized gangs/tribes/robber barons - with a nicer house, fancy clothes, and a structure they create, and modify, to allow them to do what they want when they want.

It is 'tyrannical' when you are dispensing 'justice' for somebody other than you. Their house, their crime, their responsibility to deal with it. If it is a crime against your religion you can go a little broader with enforcement, since you are supposed to be enforcing your religion on all your subjects as part of your responsibilities as a ruler - as well as being able to force them to be members of that religion in the first place. Crimes against religion are crimes against religion AND you.

[Jerubius]

Originally posted by Abacus:

Originally posted by mojomonkey3:

Oh gotcha. Weird.
Thanks anyways. :)

Actually it was something accepted in many cultures for moronic reasons.

IIRC it was standard practice for siblings in the Ottoman Emipre running to kill off the competition (their brothers.)

It wasn't some unspoken thing, it was out in the open and accepted as a mechanic of the state. So it really matters what their beliefs are. Ck 3 simulates some of this.

Not to mention some cultures had things like a blood price. If you killed someone, you had to compensate the family of the person you murdered. The state only got involved if you were unable or unwilling to pay an appropriate compensation.

Part of it is also just that the way they viewed the world in that period was radically different. Kings were not so much head of state as much as landlords. And a kingdom wasn't a nation so much as a hierarchy of agreements to collaborate between different property owners. Their goal wasn't to arbitrate a clear body of laws to maintain a society so much as protect what's theirs. That's also why primogeniture took so long to catch on. There wasn't any concept of a state or nation greater than the current ruler, so they didn't have much care for preserving the strength of the nation beyond making sure their kids are well off, so every kid gets a little bit of the inheritance. Like if you look at people now, no ones leaving their entire inheritance to their firstborn child to preserve the strength of their family, because that'd be silly. That's the same exact headspace feudal lords were in with managing their realms. It was just property to be managed and inherited, not a nation.

Which is also why you don't see police until about 200ish years ago as anything we recognize, and their roots aren't too much older than that, relatively speaking. Religion governed what was moral, and the nobility only looked after others to the extent which they were obligated because you were part of the property they managed or in some kind of vassal contract. So maybe the Church decided that a certain action was immoral, and the ruler, as someone ordained by said church is obligated to enact a price for that. If the church is silent on something, the ruler isn't going have any reason to care unless the victim was one of their people.

[CrUsHeR]

https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Prisoner#Crime

[Harris]

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

If you ARE the state, the crimes have to be directly against you to be a 'state' crime

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

As just bigger versions of organized gangs/tribes/robber barons - with a nicer house, fancy clothes, and a structure they create, and modify, to allow them to do what they want when they want.

Originally posted by Jerubius:

Their goal wasn't to arbitrate a clear body of laws to maintain a society so much as protect what's theirs.

Originally posted by Jerubius:

Religion governed what was moral, and the nobility only looked after others to the extent which they were obligated because you were part of the property they managed or in some kind of vassal contract.

Some amazing takes there, guys. My favorite way of viewing kings is as glorified crime bosses, running a large-scale protection racket. When you view it like that, you begin to understand things and it also informs your playstyle. Like I'd always strive to milk my vassals for money as much as possible - this not only leads to a more stable rule which is harder to challenge, but also to a prosperous capital metropolis - in great contrast to an underdeveloped wasteland outside of that. A great example of how historical this is is Russia - with Moscow and Saint Petersburg by far more developed and populated than the rest of the country by virtue of both cities being a capital at some point.

So really, a vassal contract boils down to serving loyally (aka recognizing you as the boss) and paying protection money in the form of taxes and dues. And in exchange, you are supposed to protect them from external threats and be just to them - after all, even gangsters have a code. So religion aside, it makes sense the most common crimes you get to punish are rebellions and a failure to pay up some bs fee you contrived as part of your taxation tour.

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by Harris:

Some amazing takes there, guys. My favorite way of viewing kings is as glorified crime bosses, running a large-scale protection racket. When you view it like that, you begin to understand things and it also informs your playstyle. Like I'd always strive to milk my vassals for money as much as possible - this not only leads to a more stable rule which is harder to challenge, but also to a prosperous capital metropolis - in great contrast to an underdeveloped wasteland outside of that. A great example of how historical this is is Russia - with Moscow and Saint Petersburg by far more developed and populated than the rest of the country by virtue of both cities being a capital at some point.

So really, a vassal contract boils down to serving loyally (aka recognizing you as the boss) and paying protection money in the form of taxes and dues. And in exchange, you are supposed to protect them from external threats and be just to them - after all, even gangsters have a code. So religion aside, it makes sense the most common crimes you get to punish are rebellions and a failure to pay up some bs fee you contrived as part of your taxation tour.

Feudalism, as well as any other governing structure, is basically a set of rules protecting 'me and mine' and depends on the benevolence of those writing and enforcing those rules for it to be extended any further than that.

I think Feudalism to be a blend of that with the added twist of everyone being fiercely defensive of their role, rights, and responsibilities within the system as rules and law develops out of the sheer anarchy of who ever is the most powerful, or maybe even just the most violent, making whatever rule they want whenever they want wherever they want. If not caught in the act by someone you personally trust, or with undeniable physical evidence, all crime is he said/she said. You need martial might even to search for physical evidence and to weigh what the repercussions are if you are wrong - or even if you are right and fall short of that martial might.

You come into my domain and start rooting around and enforcing your will I am going to resent that. That's me and mine. I probably resent it some even if we have agreed to allowing the enforcement for something specific. I'm not going to extend that liege right any further than I absolutely have to. Do it often enough and I'm going to start asking peers how they feel about that and see if they want to put an end to it before all of us have to go back to anarchy.

They have seen and lived the anarchy beyond the walls.

[Kublaioi]

Funny to see how educational responses to these discussions can be, haha

[Wolfsun]

@mojomonkey3: The nobility (especially in CK3) are all a bunch of amoral murdering and mostly evil sacks of feces. Get used to it. Hell, join the crowd. Might as well cuz' eventually someone will be coming for you so it's best to go for them before they can go for you.