Design question

[Full Frontal Yeti]

I want to understand what was the influence to design this game with no 'execute/assassinate' option?

Up to a point I have been just rolling with it as is. I'm pretty well ready to just accept whatever as is and roll with it, but i hit a wall the other day and can't stop going ???? over this design direction that seems so odd and just well kinda wrong to me.


Basically now that i am offically working with the anti slavers, i wound up in an alliance with the rebel farmers. And guess what their boss says is the best plan of action for how to take down the united Cites power base?
Wait you don't have to guess, you designed it...

So exactly why is it we apparently have a perfectly plausible in lore situation of, political assassination, and no mechanical game play to back that up at all?

I'm just have the upfront assumption:
that the player left to execute anyone they choose arbitrarily, wound up being too much fate in their own hands for the player that didn't understand the mechanical implications of their actions? Later finding out they had made permanent and significant changes to the world in advance of their personal wishes?
+
maybe some POV on the world NPCs not doing this to the player, while the player can do this to them didn't seem right?


Which i can see.
However edits to remove from the world reference to assassination would seem the way to go on that, or we're kinda rubbing the player's face against a mechanical "invisible wall" so to speak.
Instead refer to the situations as political abductions/political imprisonments, sense in world mechanically this is the only actual option to willfully carry out.

And just let me say, leaving people to starve to death in cages in my camp feels way worse of a way to do this than an on the spot execution options after they have been captured/incapacitated.


Just really curious how this design situation of no mechanics to willfully assassinate, but we do talk in world about carrying out assassinations, came to be.