Open discussion on a core concept of ck. I don't really have one answer, as a masochistic roleplayer I like playing even lunatic excommunicated rulers untill they meet accidental/natural death, but as a strategy gamer I hate having no incentive to do so.
You play a character but also a dynasty identifying itself with a nation.
And in many cases your interest as a dynasty or nation is to get rid as soon as possible of your bad character. Extreme negative traits are so extremely negative (and often triggering events giving more negative traits or more and more problems) that you can hardly allow a flawed character a full reign without seeing your dynasty lose most of its territory or his heir suffering the same problems as the bad previous monarch (if for example you had to annex 12 times all your vassals due to chained revolts the problem will probably continue for some generations).
Except in the very beginning of the game, when your dynasty can still lose its throne, there is just no incentive to play your character instead of suiciding him if he gets a negative trait. After two or three generations, when there are cousins with your blood everywhere and once you have pressed the "My dynasty won't lose" button (called "salic primogeniture") or the "My dynasty will probably win" one ("salic consanguinity") there is just no reason, out of masochistic roleplaying or will to give the AIs a chance by playing like them, to let your throne to a lunatic/excommunicated/kinslayer or other unlucky ruler suffering realm duress for long or just to allow an heir with bad stats to sit on it.
With a problematic ruler the game become making him take as much risks as possible untill you succeed to have your character killed (or for less scrupulous players tired by decades of continuous revolts, "F12 die" works too). The interest to have a bad ruler killed asap is so strong that MP players have to establish house rules to forbid players to ask others to assassinate their own rulers.
Often, when your character has extreme negative traits, the heirs are as rebellious as other vassals or even the main rivals. So... the interest of your character is to win this war to keep his throne and get rid of the rebellious family members through assassinations, while the interest of your dynasty is to see him lose and let the throne to a better heir claiming it. You need some real schizophrenia to be able to both roleplay the ruler (supposed to have some sense of self preservation) and play a strategy game (where you want your dynasty to succeed) in this case.
So... I don't have very precise ideas of a better system but I'd like the game to find a way to reward the player (dynasty ?) for fully playing (allowing to reign as long as possible) a bad character, and force him more often to do so. I'd also like the game to make playing such rulers more manageable (with more ways other than the death of the character or the annexion of all vassals to solve the problems) while keeping the very bad traits as bad or even worse for a while.
I think a minimum would be to have a "score" for the player rewarding him for long reigns of direct line heirs, and more for the long reigns with problematic rulers, so even competitive strategy gamers would find a reason to fully play an excommunicated lunatic.
I think it would be even better if allowing bad rulers to reign has some other purpose than just improving this score (as most players wouldn't pay attention to something having no effect in game), and so reward the player/dynasty with some positive long term effects. For example a realm ruled by an heretic during decades may have less problems to make several religions coexist in the future or maintain regal supremacy (as the pope is so happy once a non heretic heir take control, he don't ask for more). A dynasty who allowed a cruel despotic ruler to keep the throne during decades, destroying his vassals estates in civil war and slaying rebellious heirs, may have become feared, and make the next generations of vassals/pretenders think twice before they rebel. Etc...
But I think there shouldn't only be rewards, the game should also be made harder for those playing to beat it (chosing the best possible rulers instead of roleplaying them).
First thing I'd like to see is the number of characters considered as your blood, and so the choice of potential rulers, reduced a lot, with families branching every generation, so you don't have hundreds of heirs allowing you to continue to play your nation, and may sometimes be forced to allow a very bad one to stay on the throne, like in the early game. I'd support his uncles and their sons becoming a different dynasty as soon an adult character has the family crown. When the Capet have been replaced by their cousins it was no longer the Capet but the Valois. Someone playing the Capet dynasty should have no reason to want a Valois to take the throne, as long a true Capet from direct line remain. Eventually the player may be allowed to continue the game with the Valois (a first degree cousin / uncle), but he should lose something big in the process (legitimacy ?).
Also I don't think the player should ever be rewarded if a rival of his character inherit. I would even say : if a rival of the player character gets the throne, no matter how, the player should just lose the game, so you eventually find a serious reason to become a kinslayer. On the other hand chance of direct heirs to become rivals of their ruling father/brother who hasn't disinherited them should be reduced a lot, not something happening every generation (I find totally lame to see rivalry happening so often when you give big duchies to your heir, as a lot of rivalry events seem to be triggered between ruler and the biggest vassal).
Finally, while there should be both incentives to fully play bad rulers and situations where you are forced to play them, the game with a bad ruler should be make a little more manageable, instead of a continuous succession of revolts where everyone is finally against you and chained bad events making things worse and worse. I think courtiers/vassals ambitions should play a big role there, with a reasonable amount of people (personnality types) accepting to serve a problematic ruler as long he satisfies their own ambitions. The worst despotic dictators in history have always find some people ambitious enough to forget who they were and support their reign. It should be the same for ck rulers with the worst traits. Each bad trait should be tolerated by some people, at least as long the ruler serve their ambitions. While of course a fanatic believer should never accept to serve an heretic king, a sceptic shouldn't find too much problems doing so, especially if this king has served his own objectives, ie given him the advisor post he always wanted ; as well a cruel vassal may tolerate a liege who slayed his brother, etc..
You play a character but also a dynasty identifying itself with a nation.
And in many cases your interest as a dynasty or nation is to get rid as soon as possible of your bad character. Extreme negative traits are so extremely negative (and often triggering events giving more negative traits or more and more problems) that you can hardly allow a flawed character a full reign without seeing your dynasty lose most of its territory or his heir suffering the same problems as the bad previous monarch (if for example you had to annex 12 times all your vassals due to chained revolts the problem will probably continue for some generations).
Except in the very beginning of the game, when your dynasty can still lose its throne, there is just no incentive to play your character instead of suiciding him if he gets a negative trait. After two or three generations, when there are cousins with your blood everywhere and once you have pressed the "My dynasty won't lose" button (called "salic primogeniture") or the "My dynasty will probably win" one ("salic consanguinity") there is just no reason, out of masochistic roleplaying or will to give the AIs a chance by playing like them, to let your throne to a lunatic/excommunicated/kinslayer or other unlucky ruler suffering realm duress for long or just to allow an heir with bad stats to sit on it.
With a problematic ruler the game become making him take as much risks as possible untill you succeed to have your character killed (or for less scrupulous players tired by decades of continuous revolts, "F12 die" works too). The interest to have a bad ruler killed asap is so strong that MP players have to establish house rules to forbid players to ask others to assassinate their own rulers.
Often, when your character has extreme negative traits, the heirs are as rebellious as other vassals or even the main rivals. So... the interest of your character is to win this war to keep his throne and get rid of the rebellious family members through assassinations, while the interest of your dynasty is to see him lose and let the throne to a better heir claiming it. You need some real schizophrenia to be able to both roleplay the ruler (supposed to have some sense of self preservation) and play a strategy game (where you want your dynasty to succeed) in this case.
So... I don't have very precise ideas of a better system but I'd like the game to find a way to reward the player (dynasty ?) for fully playing (allowing to reign as long as possible) a bad character, and force him more often to do so. I'd also like the game to make playing such rulers more manageable (with more ways other than the death of the character or the annexion of all vassals to solve the problems) while keeping the very bad traits as bad or even worse for a while.
I think a minimum would be to have a "score" for the player rewarding him for long reigns of direct line heirs, and more for the long reigns with problematic rulers, so even competitive strategy gamers would find a reason to fully play an excommunicated lunatic.
I think it would be even better if allowing bad rulers to reign has some other purpose than just improving this score (as most players wouldn't pay attention to something having no effect in game), and so reward the player/dynasty with some positive long term effects. For example a realm ruled by an heretic during decades may have less problems to make several religions coexist in the future or maintain regal supremacy (as the pope is so happy once a non heretic heir take control, he don't ask for more). A dynasty who allowed a cruel despotic ruler to keep the throne during decades, destroying his vassals estates in civil war and slaying rebellious heirs, may have become feared, and make the next generations of vassals/pretenders think twice before they rebel. Etc...
But I think there shouldn't only be rewards, the game should also be made harder for those playing to beat it (chosing the best possible rulers instead of roleplaying them).
First thing I'd like to see is the number of characters considered as your blood, and so the choice of potential rulers, reduced a lot, with families branching every generation, so you don't have hundreds of heirs allowing you to continue to play your nation, and may sometimes be forced to allow a very bad one to stay on the throne, like in the early game. I'd support his uncles and their sons becoming a different dynasty as soon an adult character has the family crown. When the Capet have been replaced by their cousins it was no longer the Capet but the Valois. Someone playing the Capet dynasty should have no reason to want a Valois to take the throne, as long a true Capet from direct line remain. Eventually the player may be allowed to continue the game with the Valois (a first degree cousin / uncle), but he should lose something big in the process (legitimacy ?).
Also I don't think the player should ever be rewarded if a rival of his character inherit. I would even say : if a rival of the player character gets the throne, no matter how, the player should just lose the game, so you eventually find a serious reason to become a kinslayer. On the other hand chance of direct heirs to become rivals of their ruling father/brother who hasn't disinherited them should be reduced a lot, not something happening every generation (I find totally lame to see rivalry happening so often when you give big duchies to your heir, as a lot of rivalry events seem to be triggered between ruler and the biggest vassal).
Finally, while there should be both incentives to fully play bad rulers and situations where you are forced to play them, the game with a bad ruler should be make a little more manageable, instead of a continuous succession of revolts where everyone is finally against you and chained bad events making things worse and worse. I think courtiers/vassals ambitions should play a big role there, with a reasonable amount of people (personnality types) accepting to serve a problematic ruler as long he satisfies their own ambitions. The worst despotic dictators in history have always find some people ambitious enough to forget who they were and support their reign. It should be the same for ck rulers with the worst traits. Each bad trait should be tolerated by some people, at least as long the ruler serve their ambitions. While of course a fanatic believer should never accept to serve an heretic king, a sceptic shouldn't find too much problems doing so, especially if this king has served his own objectives, ie given him the advisor post he always wanted ; as well a cruel vassal may tolerate a liege who slayed his brother, etc..
