Life Imprisonment in CK3?

[Denkt]

In CK2 being imprisoned is very annoying since you are unable to do much and unfortunately quite often the ai will not accept ransom which mean you could be imprisoned for a very long time if not for Life which is really annoying, in fact it would be more merciful of the ai to execute the player character so the player is actually able to do more than just waiting for decades.

I hope CK3 will give more reasons not to keep characters, especially once that hold titles imprisoned for Life, like there could be penalty for not accepting the ransom and maybe more reasons to simply execute or maybe give an option to abdicate if the character is imprisoned for a long time and maybe have been refused ransom.

 

[Dlin369]

I hope that a person being arrested had a choice of resisting or surrendering peacefully - resisting creates a chance of arrest, successful flight and rebellion, or a small chance of accidentally killing the target (causing a loss of prestige for the arrester). That way you can protect your titles a bit more

 

[Tryvenyal]

Yes it should. It should be expensive to hold landed prisoners. They and other vassals should make constant demands for freeing him and better quarters. If a prisoner is of a powerfull House/Dynasty, you should have all of it after your back. A lowborn would be replaced after 6 months or so(Mayor, Priest if they are still a thing in CK3).

 

[Ezumiyr]

This situation very rarely happened to me (2750 hours in fame). Usually the AI accepts the ransom.
And in CK2 you will usually have events for prison escape anyway. I never had a character imprisoned for life, and while it seems possible, it is also very unlikely to happen. I don't think there's a problem to fix there, honestly... or maybe just make the AI more likely to accept ransoms?

Yes it should. It should be expensive to hold landed prisoners. They and other vassals should make constant demands for freeing him and better quarters. If a prisoner is of a powerfull House/Dynasty, you should have all of it after your back. A lowborn would be replaced after 6 months or so(Mayor, Priest if they are still a thing in CK3).

In theory it's not a bad idea.
But in practice... imagine you are spammed by your prisoners and their families so they can get out... So you do it just to avoid the spam. Is it really the kind of game mechanic we want?

 

[j.margenat]

I agree, being a prisioner is really annoying. The only time i got jailed was in a mp game with some friends and I as the emperor/Filkyr of Scandinavia got caught due to a random event so a rival count sent me to jail for my whole life. And no matter the amount of gold or the times my friends (the kings of norway, denmark and findland ) wage war against that stupid count and sieged his capital to the ground, no matter what i wasnt set free for ***** 20 years until my character, the ***** emperor died from illnes.

You should be able to escape due to events or something and if you can then i was extremely unlucky as i didnt get a single event.

 

[Denkt]

You should be able to escape due to events or something and if you can then i was extremely unlucky as i didnt get a single event.

Yes you can but it basically just pure luck and that can get really annoying. Also imprisonment of landed characters are extremely powerful since it basically shut down the whole realm while also making it less stable with the maluses to diplomacy score, thats a bit extreme to be honest and often it make more sense to keep the landed characters imprisoned for Life than any other option.

 

[j.margenat]

Yes you can but it basically just pure luck and that can get really annoying. Also imprisonment of landed characters are extremely powerful since it basically shut down the whole realm while also making it less stable with the maluses to diplomacy score, thats a bit extreme to be honest and often it make more sense to keep the landed characters imprisoned for Life than any other option.

I dont think it was better for the AI, as if i was released i propably minded my own business as i had better thing to do that deal with a powerless count in my realm BUT it pissed me off and made a whole sesion of mp into a "Cant do cause you are prisioner and the regent wont do that". So the first thing i did as the oldest son got the imperial crown was to take revenge and wage war after the count refused to give his land. So i take all his family including him as prisioners and let them experience the same fate.

 

[Tryvenyal]

In theory it's not a bad idea.
But in practice... imagine you are spammed by your prisoners and their families so they can get out... So you do it just to avoid the spam. Is it really the kind of game mechanic we want?

Ofc there should be an of option to "Shut the f**k up! He stayes where he is forever and that´s my final answer!!" making you bunch of rivals and enemies.

EDIT: There could ofc be more diplomatic variants as well.

Like:
For now he stays. Come back in a/2/5/10 year(s).

 

[Andrzej I]

Personally, I'd rather see more meaningful regencies and abilities to negotiate. History provides a plethora of examples of when rulers were imprisoned and how the realm might react.

For example, you have the famous imprisonment of Richard the Lionheart on his return from the Third Crusade, where both his brother John and Philip of France not only waged war on him while he was in prison, but they even went so far as to try and bribe Henry VI of the Holy Roman Empire to keep Richard imprisoned! I think it could be interesting to have to compete with rivals in order to negotiate your release, that your regent and loyalists might have more trials and struggles to deal with in your absence, giving powerful kingdoms a bit of a challenge, perhaps even to the point of breaking up blobs.

Another example, more on the ability to negotiate, is the imprisonment of John II of France. Not only did his regent and heir, Charles, have to also deal with several rebellions, but in order to free his father, he had to cede several contested lands, offer a ransom in cash, and offer up hostages to England before he was released (said hostages being insurance of the full payment of the ransom). It would be nice to be able to offer or demand different means of securing one's freedom - not limited to a one time payment in gold, but being able to recognize claims, offer advantageous marriages, etc. Being able to offer up a hostage in order to gain your freedom, for instance if you're making regular payments of gold rather than one lump sump, would be another nice option, too.

Anyhow, just a few quick thoughts on some ways imprisonment could be nuanced and made a little more interesting!