I thought I was guilty of all 4 for a moment, but then I made these arguments for myself at least;

(A fine thread Gollum),

1. I pillage every now and then, when I need the cash. Especially I tend to enjoy destroying economic centers if I am a backwards Kingdom and wish to bring higher powers to my level.
But I do not assault specifically for this purpose, nor do I engage in pillaging for the money, nor do I choose to pillage often - because for the first 150 years I want all that infrastructure intact for my own use! Every building destroyed is a grief for my invading army!
Especially if a Citadel is lost!
The only time I pillage is when, as I have stated in other threads, I am playing Overlord and wish to reduce a neighbour whom I deem overly-ambitious. But by this stage I am the superpower in my region, I could destroy easily the neigbour in question, and I hardly need the money. This then for me is an option that adds to my freedom of play and control in the later stage of the game, not a sin.

2. Perhaps I am simply lucky, or hallucinating! But my AI often refuses to buy prisoners, and has sometimes denied me the chance to ransom my own men! Indeed, the screen simply never appears! I lost a King in that manner once!
I kill prisoners in the roleplaying manner you mentioned. In my recent Aragonese campaign I was lenient, until the Arabs did a particularly nasty deed and I slaughtered 1200 prisoners as retribution.
Usually I won't consider it if there are more than 400 - but it depends on the nationality of the prisoners, and also the attitude of my King - (I roleplay for the AAR!).
Nonetheless, as you mention there are disadvantages for both mercy and cold-blooded murder.

With the use of mercy, one receives money and can in fact witness civil war within the enemy, but also returns a considerable part of their military to them at times. When one is cold-blooded, the general starts on a road to moral loss within the army, he is denied ransom money, the chance of starting a civil-war, and also he frees the enemy revenue for the maintainence of new troops.
I captured 800 English as the Scots in one game - they were outdated, scattered units.
Had I kept them alive, they would have outnumbered other English units and ensured continued financial loss and poor quality of the English army. Instead I gave them a chance to produce some new Chivalric units with +3 armour.
There are circumstance fair for both decisions, and the AI is given the same choice apparently.

3. In the same way the random conduct of the game has never shown you how the AI can choose with it's prisoners, and never shown me how Volga-Bulgaria can take more than 2 provinces, I also have never seen particularly worthy mercenaries for hire.
They have always been Naptha Catapults, Mangonels, or mounted crossbowmen for twice the currency they deserve.
I always manage more economically in all cases without them.

4. In my recent Aragonese campaign I had 7 1500 man Feudal armies when the year came to 1205.
I did not disband, because then my main defense line would have been weakened.
Instead I used my income to create one Chivalric army, I moved that to Tolouse, and the Feudal army in Tolouse was sent against the Holy Roman Empire.
I disband units only when, for example; I have lost all but five units of a certain brave cavalry group, and I send a fresh unit to them, merging the two, and deleting the remaining five recruits. It makes things very tidy.
I often assist the AI, by destroying scattered eight-man units when they become my prisoners.


There are no doubt many players who do abuse parts of the game, there always are, and they enjoy it still.
But I always play with a realistic style, and I take things very literally whilst in the game!

----

But one cheat I certainly am guilty of using, for the sake of my interest in the political developments of the world is .matteosartori. especially in writing up an AAR! It can be so ruinous of suspense at times, when there are four provinces of a faction you are targeting invisible to you - and you simply cannot know their true troop strength!
Then you say to yourself; "Well, I will just peek at how the English crusade is advancing in Nicaea".
And before you can stop yourself, you are there, peering into Ile de France or Novgorod, right-clicking every unit in sight and calculating the exact numbers of all your rivals in man-power.
It can be very destructive of the difficulty one faces, and it never allows the player to witness those circumstances when they think; "What?! Poland has just been at war with Kiev for the last fifteen years? And they won - although they lost most of their military in the process? That 1400 man stack they had in Brandenburg was everything they could muster? But now they have rebuilt?! Oh!! Fooey!!"
Instead you can guiltily plan everything with a terrible advantage.

Yes! After typing this, from now on - I will use .matteosartori. but I will also have my view centered on the Mediterranean and only gaze at the minimap. That will satisfy my wish to know the world-wide events, and also keep me in doubt as to the decision of striking my neighbours.

A good topic, Gollum, I will pay attention to advice offered - although I am already quite fair and forgiving with the AI - I am very human in fact!