As well as some pregnant women and family pets like dogs etc.
3 Likes
dogs and kids confirmed. pregnant women not known.
HaXD, “dragonborn” the peasant. The might hath fallen… :’(
Well, to be fair, dragonslayers aren’t in high demand around here.
Where do you have that from? 
NO!
I don’t agree with you at all!
Adding kids NPC will ruin the realism, because for some sh*tty US reasons the player won’t be able to loot, beat, kill or do anything with them. So if we all want to have an open-minded realistic game, kids are no-no!
This has been disputed many times in the past, please don’t start again now! It was so good when you kid lovers had forgot about your passion and actually concentrated on the gameplay…
Do not forget about old people. Also weak ill people. And let us kill them all because that’s the dream of every lunatic.
Not having kids at all would ruin realism as well… 
4 Likes
well, children’s wealth was in the Middle Ages existentially for pensions and child labor (from today’s perspective outlawed) completely commonplace. Missing children would therefore be just as unrealistic as lack of beggars, cripples, lepers, monks of various Coleur, pregnant women (no, pregnant without judgment, without evaluation woman :))
The question is where you want to draw the line playful need. In addition, you must/need do not want to kill all the same, that is not the purpose of game.
then … they’re not again present
1 Like
they said early on that children were majority of population in medieval period and implied it was going to be included. maybe plans change and there is difference internally with unprepared public statement.
hope you guys still would include children though. i’m fine with them not being killable.
1 Like
Wow. Apparently anything you cant kill and loot is meaningless for the game and only wierd people would like to have it. Your logic kills me :- )
I think it isnt’t real if kids aren’t included.
And to other future posts…
most of statements are very ugly and even against real games like KCD.
No children, No realism.
But all ppl can download a killable children mod for TES or Fallout !?
shame on most of ppl!
And if a game has blood we have a C-S disaster
having kids would be great and realistic. A majority of the people in medieval times were kids
I dont see a problem with the killing aspect, henry could be unable to do so because of his moral
And if theres another problem like what kids should do when they are included just talk to us
I would say all people in medieval times were kids at some point
1 Like
The term children differs in the Middle Ages largely on our current understanding.
In the Middle Ages were children aged 7 years (because if they were that old) small adults. According to their constitution they took part in the everyday life and were measured from a legal point of view to their usefulness to the community. A child killing drew the same consequences, which also had a murder of an adult. In addition, the status or rank added the child’s family, so the “value” of the plaintiff.
No matter whom Henry so kills, it would have consequences if he is caught.
1 Like
I think there should be kids of all ages in this game and yes, they should be normal NPCs that can be killed. But since there seems to be social problems with the possibility of killing kids there should be a game mechanic which severly punishes you as a player for doing such things in the game
You could for example lead the player to a “game over” screen after he killed a kid.
I’ve prepared such a screen as an example (see below). The same mechanic was for example used in Wasteland 2 in case you did some things (like blowing up a nuke…) that blocked your ingame character from progressing in the story. Normally you only see a game over screen when you’re dead. But you could do the very seem in other situations in which the player do such stupid things in game that there is no possibility to continue the game the way “it’s meant to be played”.
2 Likes
That seems fair. Nice solution imho.
(We are playing the role of human being who cares about his own parents afterlife etc., he would therefore probably never kill a child unless in fight.)
For the sake of discussion you would be probably persecuted harder for killing an adult than for killing an infant or children. I am not so sure about 15th century because the social role of children and the relationship to children started to change during high and late medieval but previously a child was considered of less value then domesticated animals.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
1 Like
Wait, where did you get that? Do you have any proof/links for that statement?
But the screen could be used for ANY murder or major crime, not only kids murder. I’m personally not a friend of this “you have to be able to kill everyone in an open world game” philosophy, especially not if we talk about a story-driven game with a realistic foundation in medieval times. Every major crime - and murder is definitely one - would probably lead to consequences that prevent the player from continuing the story. So there is no reason to break the immersion and let everything happen. The solution with a game over screen is imo much more elegant. It lets you actually kill everyone but such an action would indeed be severly punished - by a game over screen that forces you to reload.
Alas actually I haven’t. I remember reading some study on this topic but I don’t remember where or by whom. It struck me because of the emotional bound between mother and child. I hoped someone may be able to confirm or falsify it and perhaps even point out to the study I read.
Thats quite true and it is an interesting concept too. Maybe you would be able to obliterate traces leading to you as a murderer / criminal but your criminal actions should at least disrupt the general situation in the concerned area. Patrols would roam the streets, commoners would be alerted, the inquest would take place etc. I firmly believe it should not simply result in game over but your progress should be seriously hindered. Quite a challenge for the game designers.
1 Like
Well, that depends a lot on how much realism the devs are able to achieve in that direction. Time, tech and money is limited and it’s maybe not the devs primary goal to lead any crime to a realistic end with ingame means.
Let’s stick to that murder situation. If you murder someone (no matter if a kid or someone else) ingame it should lead to the guards patrolling the streets looking for you, commoners being terrified and so on, like you’ve written yourself.But what happens if you get caught? Will the devs be able to implement a whole trial with prison and maybe an execution that also reflects your crime and situation in a meaningful and realistic way? And would something like that justify the costs of development?
If you ask me they only have few possiblities:
either they make people or kids unkillable. This is a clear immersion killer.
Or they make them killable without meaningful consequences in the game itself. That would be another, maybe even bigger immersion killer (and it would be pretty controversial as well for sure maybe leading to some problems with rating agenies in some countries).
Or they make them killable with meaningful ingame consequences. That would of course be the best solution but like I’ve mentioned above, it’s also the most costly and diffiuclt and probably a quite unrealistic solution.
Or they make them killable with external meaning consequences like the game over screen. That would be a “second best” solution but still a solution that values immersion and the inner logics of the gaming world to some extend.
2 Likes