If your first character dies...

[CalPal]

I find it interesting that it's a game that focuses on your faction living, and not your character, while also starting the game with making your very own character. I actually like this, but I do want to have my character live on in some form or another.

So when the other gender is finally included in the game, I'd like to have the option of raising children who can carry on a part of your original character and have inheritance to your faction as a whole. It doesn't have to really mean anything, since I do think the focus on total destruction of your party/faction is far cooler and easier to recover from, but it would be nice to have this as a sentimental feature.

I kinda realize this belongs more into new features, but I thought I would throw my two cents in here since this is where the conversation is happening.

[Tolwrath]

There's already a few feature requests pertaining to it, but yeah I definitely want to see marriage and children in the game.

[neronix17]

I generally lose the will to give a fudge about the rest of the characters if my main one dies, my factions are more like "oh our leader is dead, well, time to kill myself since there's no reason to go on without our glorious leader". I do carry on but odds are the rest of my faction have been knocked into a coma anyway...

[CalPal]

I would approach this game like Rome: Total War's campaign. True, you don't get to design your first character, but the health of your nation can't rely purely on the guidance of one man, anyways. The passing of your faction leader is sad but necessary, and it allows for potential new talent to rise beyond what he could ever achieve on his own. As an example of this in R:TW during one of my campaigns, my first faction leader wasn't all that impressive in his stats; however, when I met my necessary victory conditions, I had a leader more exceptional in commanding and influence than any other in my army.

To apply this to Kenshi, your first character is the necessary step towards expanding this empire. S/He will likely die some day, but what they leave behind is a basis for greater development than he could ever achieve on his own, and someone from his/her own family, or perhaps his/her first and most loyal friend, will take what s/he built and turn it into something far more powerful than s/he could ever imagine.

Where your first character watched as bandits gave up on attacking your settlement and its people, your descendant leaders will see entire cities burn and factions collapse as they steamroll through Kenshi's land and conquer the in-game world. Where your first character was proud to finally have expert guards in protecting him from bandit attacks, your later leaders will build a trading enterprise that brings all the people together and endless supplies of money to fuel further expansions.

That's the way I would envision the death of your character working: yes, it will be sad to see him/her gone, but s/he will (hopefully) be proud of what you did without them, should you become more and more successful.

[Xeib]

I think you nailed it CalPal. I don't think it could have been philosophized any better.

[Bard]

Whilst I accept other people have different views in the case of Kenshi I view my starting character not simply as a founder or leader, he is much much more in that he is my Genghis Khan, my Alexander, my Legendary Mythical leader who stands in the realms of godliness.

He's the person that will be remembered more than all but the most exceptional of his successors. His passing would be the darkening of the world, the passing of the "golden age". Of course you can happily think along the lines of CalPal with the R:TW example but I prefer to imagine my leader as the exceptional individual who's name would be remembered throughout the ages and long after the cities of his time have turned to dust.

Saying that, I don't particularly mind if this kind've feature was implemented where perhaps when your faction reached a certain size or something there was some benefit given to infrastructure according to your "leaders" abilities in say "Ruling" or something. But if it's just a personal thing imagination is as good as anything. Infact a few of my more enterprising characters have earned themselves nicknames in my head based on (admittedly what I've forced them to do) what they've done or the extent of their stats.

[hypekillah]

I really like the idea that ypu first char isnt special in anywya tho. at least not untill he has proper training.

I would love to se a impliment of a training system for learders. so you might train squad leaders captains ect.

Giving you squd a small morale or combat bonus if he is near them. this i think would fit the world perfectly.

[CalPal]

Whilst I accept other people have different views in the case of Kenshi I view my starting character not simply as a founder or leader, he is much much more in that he is my Genghis Khan, my Alexander, my Legendary Mythical leader who stands in the realms of godliness.

He's the person that will be remembered more than all but the most exceptional of his successors.

Except the very design of this game makes it almost, if not outright impossible, to perceive any character as achieving this level of greatness. You start out incapable of killing even a low-class bandit; you have to train a long time to get to the point where you can fend for yourself against just ONE bandit, but even then you're gonna need people to continuously help you. If your character falls in combat, that's it; you need to have someone to fix you up when you fall - I won't even bother with 'if', since it's a given you will likely have at least one character fall in combat at some point in time.

Sure, your character may get really good at fighting, but that means nothing in the face of over 100 enemies. Your character will eventually die fighting them unless s/he has friends to help him/her fight the enemy, and they need to just as well be really good. It would also be impossible for your one character to build a city all by themselves. Everything around becoming a conqueror means your character can't be mythic without having really good soldiers to compliment him/her.

[Bard]

Except the very design of this game makes it almost, if not outright impossible, to perceive any character as achieving this level of greatness. You start out incapable of killing even a low-class bandit; you have to train a long time to get to the point where you can fend for yourself against just ONE bandit, but even then you're gonna need people to continuously help you. If your character falls in combat, that's it; you need to have someone to fix you up when you fall - I won't even bother with 'if', since it's a given you will likely have at least one character fall in combat at some point in time.

Sure, your character may get really good at fighting, but that means nothing in the face of over 100 enemies. Your character will eventually die fighting them unless s/he has friends to help him/her fight the enemy, and they need to just as well be really good. It would also be impossible for your one character to build a city all by themselves. Everything around becoming a conqueror means your character can't be mythic without having really good soldiers to compliment him/her.

But that's the thing, these people didn't single handedly butcher the armies they fought on their own, they had good soldiers to compliment them, that didn't stop however their empires pretty much falling apart afterwards (in the case of Alexander almost immediately whilst the Mongol empire obviously had a few generations before it broke down). The mythicness isn't so much about their individual strength at fighting as to what they managed to be the driving force behind in their lifetime. Which doesn't really clash with the design of the game it's just another view. Really what it comes down to is the way that people view history because the facts and limitations of reality still bound those mythic people.

[CalPal]

Those historical examples, of Alexander and Genghis Khan, I view them as exceptions to the norm. They had very quick expansions but lost almost all the land they acquired precisely because they lacked the leadership necessary to keep them moving forward. Most of the time, famous characters make some impact on the course of history, but nothing that radically defines and gives life to the entire faction, as Genghis Khan did with the Mongols, or Alexander with Macedon. As an example of this, the Roman Empire existed thanks to the actions of numerous generals and politicians who made it great. No one leader defined the Roman Empire by themselves, but they all made their contributions that led to its prosperity (or even its demise!). Many other real-world political factions are defined by the culmination of actions by their individual leaders.

I can see we have very different views on our starting characters. Your first character is the fundamental pillar, without which the entire empire you wish to build cannot stay up on its own. That makes sense. I see mine as a foundation, the place which won't be recognized at first, but is the first step towards something greater than what it can achieve on its own. That also makes sense. I guess when the full game is finally released, we can see whether one of us is right, or how our play styles lead to a very different outcome within the game.

[iSuck345]

I see mine just as a very small step. When I get some cities, I'll let him die. Why? Because he will most likely have soured relations with other people, and his heir will be a mercenary that has REALLY good relations with them, thus I won't have trouble, I'll be able to form alliances and make trade treaties with others that don't agree with free market, only mercantilism.

In other words, when Kenshi is more developed, I'll just see my first character as the one that will simply be discarded later. In Crusader Kings 2, if you substitued your king/Sultan, the opinion that other kings/Sultans have on the king affected politics, and if the new king/Sultan had a good opinion of the kings and the other kings/Sultans had the same opinion about him, it wold be good news.

[TheCowabungaKid]

I'm way too much of an RPG player to simply NOT care about my first character, but I don't really care if he's special in terms of game mechanics. Kenshi is explicitly designed as a squad-based game, so there's no point in that. Mine has a background story, character traits and everything - in my head. As a Pen & Paper-Roleplayer, that's all I need anyway.

[iSuck345]

Say wasn't this thread on the Gameplay/General forum?

[Dongsmasher]

Do your mercenaries take over? I am talking after he bleeds out to death, of course. However, I must know, before I go out in a mission to exterminate a town of EVERYONE inside! >:D!

As far as I see it, you're playing as a faction, not as a character.