-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
For all those who think the Lord execution is totally fine and shouldn't be changed because it's 'realistic'
- Thread starter SimonDoesntSay
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Recruit
solsnake
Recruit
Execute a noble lord is NOT FINE in middle age because they were all blood tied.
Excution should have much more penalty in game.
1) Execution should only be available for faction leader. AI faction leaders will not excute any lords. If you are the faction leader and you excute a lord, all his/her friends in your faction will betray your faction immediately and your relations with all your lords with good character will drop a huge amount, makes them more likely to betray you.
2) If you excuted any lord, you will be excuted when being captured, 100%, no discussion.
3) Friends of the lord being excuted by you will no longer join your faction.
That's only my opinions. Anyway, excution should work together with relation and persuasion systems, since the relation and persuasion system is not ideal now, its hard to give any useful suggestion.
Excution should have much more penalty in game.
1) Execution should only be available for faction leader. AI faction leaders will not excute any lords. If you are the faction leader and you excute a lord, all his/her friends in your faction will betray your faction immediately and your relations with all your lords with good character will drop a huge amount, makes them more likely to betray you.
2) If you excuted any lord, you will be excuted when being captured, 100%, no discussion.
3) Friends of the lord being excuted by you will no longer join your faction.
That's only my opinions. Anyway, excution should work together with relation and persuasion systems, since the relation and persuasion system is not ideal now, its hard to give any useful suggestion.
Dickplomacy II when?
Well the problem IMO is not the penalty for execution. I think it is fine atm.
The problem is the fact that the only way to take an enemy lord and their potential military strength out of the conflict, is to execute them.
If you capture them, they flee immediately. If you ransom them the same.
TBH I moved from donating them to other lords dungeons in return for influence to simply freeing them directly after the battle in return for good relations. Since the outcome for the conflict is the same and they will just raise another army immediately, I rather take the good relations.
The problem is the fact that the only way to take an enemy lord and their potential military strength out of the conflict, is to execute them.
If you capture them, they flee immediately. If you ransom them the same.
TBH I moved from donating them to other lords dungeons in return for influence to simply freeing them directly after the battle in return for good relations. Since the outcome for the conflict is the same and they will just raise another army immediately, I rather take the good relations.
Kangamangus
Sergeant
I've actually had great luck putting captured lords in prisons without them usually escaping quickly. I've been ending the campaigns of opposing factions by imprisoning most of their leaders.
The worst what I did was chop, chop... I load save the file, because of that and lost ~4hours because of that.
1. The prisoners will have a much lower chance to escape, especially when the game has the full version. Now they are escaping because we don't have many lords in-game and the chance for escaping is very high, especially when you are them not in settlement.
2. They too easy, too fast go-to health and get a group of 30 recruits.
3. This is realistic, you killed one, they hate you and they start a fight, so we have a war and only war with revenge.
When I start killing any lords I have two issues:
1. No one likes me. So get a vassal or something like that was impossible.
2. No recruitment options. I have a chance to get 5 recruits from town and 10 from villagers... only from my fiefs. When I started fights with others Lords I lost something like 4-8 recruits from one fight and 1 "veteran" troop. In one moment I get only 100 Empire Legionary 100 Imperial Palatine Guard and 50 Imperial Bucellari + 50 mix of what I get from prisoners, taverns and recruits. Ofc. with silly Lord who has 50% of recruits, I lost max 3 troops, but I was not able to replace that lost. When I attack a small army (180) I lost 13 of the most experienced troops. After 3 days of that fight my army starting lose more and more troops because I don't have 250+ soldiers, but 200+ next 150+ and simply I don't have new soldiers, not enough, they die too fast to replace the veteran troops!
Yes, I killed all lords from one faction, but after that, I lost everything, no chance to come back...
1. The prisoners will have a much lower chance to escape, especially when the game has the full version. Now they are escaping because we don't have many lords in-game and the chance for escaping is very high, especially when you are them not in settlement.
2. They too easy, too fast go-to health and get a group of 30 recruits.
3. This is realistic, you killed one, they hate you and they start a fight, so we have a war and only war with revenge.
When I start killing any lords I have two issues:
1. No one likes me. So get a vassal or something like that was impossible.
2. No recruitment options. I have a chance to get 5 recruits from town and 10 from villagers... only from my fiefs. When I started fights with others Lords I lost something like 4-8 recruits from one fight and 1 "veteran" troop. In one moment I get only 100 Empire Legionary 100 Imperial Palatine Guard and 50 Imperial Bucellari + 50 mix of what I get from prisoners, taverns and recruits. Ofc. with silly Lord who has 50% of recruits, I lost max 3 troops, but I was not able to replace that lost. When I attack a small army (180) I lost 13 of the most experienced troops. After 3 days of that fight my army starting lose more and more troops because I don't have 250+ soldiers, but 200+ next 150+ and simply I don't have new soldiers, not enough, they die too fast to replace the veteran troops!
Yes, I killed all lords from one faction, but after that, I lost everything, no chance to come back...
Yeah I don't get it why is executing even in the game at this state. Giving the player the possibility to execute every campaign wandering agent at nearly no penalty? Sure go ahead. Should make it that even headsmen hate you and you can't recruit jack sh*t if you kill a lord.
DestructoRama
Banned
If by “nearly no penalty” you mean “ruining the diplomacy system for the rest of the game”, then uh, sure.
You're literally chopping off fellow nobles' heads. No **** the rest are going to hate you.
Teslanbenz
Recruit
No, most of the royal blood ties in europe werent established until late in the late middle age. Further, executing a enemy lord is not uncommon, in fact, its almost neccesary during conquest to keep him and his heirs from returning. In english history you will find numerous examples of a king/queen executing presumptive heirs to the throne as well as nobles executing kings. Another thing to consider is royalty/nobility has a direct connection to religion. It is granted by god (supposedly). So a foreigner who worships a "strange" god isnt a noble from a "Christian" perspective anyways. Im not familiar with nobility in islam. It likely mostly stems from blood relations to muhammed. And the great thing about being noble, is you only answered to the king, not other nobles. They could ofcourse imprision you and you would need to appeal to the king fpr help. Because a noble only answers to a king. It is very common in history that when a ruler comes to power, be that a count, duke or king. Any direct threat to that power- like an uncle, cousin or brother end up loosing thier heads. The #1 rule to keeping power- kill your enemies before they kill you. And strangely, it kinda a good thing. Yea, i killed my brother but i prevented a war that would have killed thousands and wrecked the economy. And it was designed this way. In the early middle ages we practiced "gravelkind" inheritence- spliting the nation between all legitimate heirs. This left europe in turmoil for most of the early middle ages. It was primogenture inheretence(first born) that brought stability. Further, nations were very decentralized in the middle ages. A kings power stemmed not from himself but from his vassals.
Last edited:
That mixes up a lot of stuff. In the Middle Ages class and standing was more important than anything. What you would see in executions would be one side having or claiming judiciary power to judge and execute someone because that other person was a subject of him and e.g. denote them a traitor or rebel because he opposes you. That was what happened to other heirs to the throne, if they were executed they were charged for high treason or other high crimes and had a trial beforehand. Otherwise you had unlawful murders.
No random vasall would be allowed to randomly murder other lords under the guise of execution because you could not be the judge of someone of equal standing. They needed that order from someone above them that had that standing.
You overstate the idea of might makes right. For kings as heads of the judiciary and any act against them being treason that would be easy, though even they got offed when they pissed off enough vasally, but not anyone else could just execute people they captured without invoking some higher authority.
I am not sure about the claim nobles executed many kings in the middle ages. There were murders, but not executions which implies a judiciary right to do it. Killing a lord your captured (which implies he surrendered to you) would be seen as highly dishonourable and criminal by many other lords.
Medieval times were bad at enforcing the law, but they were not really lawless.
The problem in Bannerlord is that this action is not really well thought out or defined.
Capillati
Banned
Wrong. Most executions had no trial or just a mock one (very rarely, most of the time it was off to the chop block, see ya, bye!).
He doesn`t. He`s actually spot on with it. Entire lineages of nobles and kings were slaughtered by all sorts of warlords (vikings would be just one of the examples that comes to mind, killed boatload of nobles in England, did that stop them from enforcing their rule on the land for 200 years? Nope.) One more so you can understand how actually of an unlawfull period it was. Famous Robert of Bruce, first independent king of Scotland, kills his rival in a CHURCH! Does anyone care? Nope. Any trials? Nope. Reason for meeting the guy there? Truce and alliance! Loads of barbarian tribes from the east came in Europe and murdered loads of noble lineages from Germany and France for instance, same happened in the former Byzantine Empire, even in Iran and North Africa among muslim cultures. Ottoman empire had loads of sultan heirs killing each other like it`s no tomorrow (as a romanian there`s loads of documents from my country that depict local romanian lords joining one side or the other in these conflicts).
Yes they were. It was Western Europe that came out of the lawlessness first, but lawless were the times nonetheless!
The problem in bannerlord was actually pretty good implemented the first time around. Maybe add the hatred of the executed guy`s clan. Anything else though is just dumb. And seing how lords just magically spawn with an army instantly after being defeated, killing them remains the only option to actually conquer the map if that`s the objective you set for yourself.
Last edited:
Yeah your 100% right on the money here. There would be no need to execute lords if they stayed captured once your captured them but they escape very, very quickly, even when you secure them in a dungeon and it takes them almost no time to recruit another army and be right back raiding your villages or joining up with a bigger army to try to take your castles or towns. I call it the never ending zombie horde of lords.
Honesty, lords, especially those secured in dungeons, should find it a lot harder to escape. Also they really need to implement so sort of SMART war system where so sort of attrition mechanic takes place and Factions eventually decide they cannot effectively pursue a war. I also wish they would make it so factions try to avoid being engaged in more than one war at a time and limit their wars to factions they share a common border with.
Exactly, the relation penalty would bother many less people, if actually keeping lords in prison was viable.
I got my very fist fief of the game deep in enemy Aserai territoy. Right in the center, where the canyons are. All I could do form then on was defending my villages against lords, and retreating to the castle when a stronger force appeared.
But sure enough, none of the lords I captured stayed in my dungeon. I always defeated the same lords raiding my village.
The lord name Tais has branded itself into my memory! So yeah, at this point the only way out I saw was to start executing them, because I did not want to spend hours pf playtime defending Medeni village in the desert against Tais the Cockroach.
Robert the Bruce was excomunicated mate.The whole situation was massively complicated political issue. Don't base your knowledge of this on a movie with Chris Pine (very good movie, but took some liberties
)In well developed feudal societies, killing fellow noble without a trail would create massive uproar. Was it happening? Sure. Was it left without any consequences? Very rarely. There are multiple examples of nobles being put at the trail for killing other blue bloods. The whole idea of feudalism is that the only person capable of beheading the nobles under the law would be a king. And only a weak king would allow his nobles to go on the rampage. Again - did it happen in the history? Sure. But there would be consequences, much bigger than "relationships penalties"
In Bannerlod, while I can certainly see Sturgia or Battania being weak and fragmented and rather primitive when it comes to political organisation, and Khuzaits being pretty much nomadic raiders that have settled, thus making these nations more accepting of such things, I cannot imagine Empire factions or Vlandia ignoring it with only a perk and negative relationships. Seriously, nope.
Capillati
Banned
I`m sorry, did he not end up being king despite killing a guy in a church ? If anything, I think the movie actually exaggerates the consequences of that act... Realistically there were probably none. He was excommunicated? I`m sure he could barely sleep at night just thinking about it...Robert the Bruce was excomunicated mate.The whole situation was massively complicated political issue. Don't base your knowledge of this on a movie with Chris Pine (very good movie, but took some liberties
let`s see some examples cause all I see here are romanticised visions of what you see in historical movies...
1. Robert the Bruce - you are overly simplifying this, mate. please don't. First of all, the whole killing wasn't a murder, it was a duel. Second of all, excommunication was a real threat in middle ages. The only reason that Robert maintained his claim was because his local church authority ignored the papal bull out of fear of being incorporated under English church (they wanted their independence). This was also the case with many other European kingdoms that were fragmented due to early middle ages inheritance laws. Local church was trying to unify such countries and keep them independent to be able to control weak monarchs as opposed to being divided and canibalised by stronger conquerors.
2. There are myriads of examples. Actually murdering captured nobles was an exception from the rule (Agincourt). There was massive uproar throughout the whole Europe afterwards. granted, Edward could ignore it due to his own power. Now imagine that some 3rd rate vassal (you) executed enemy king after some battle - your own king would want to have a word with you. Habeum corpus was a common occurence in the middle ages, meaning that nobles cannto be imprisoned without valid court varrant. Granted, only king had jucicial authority over nobles, not other nobles. Feudalism had a very strict society. Now if you would be a king and you would be cruel turant that is executing everyone around, sure, you could do it. But then your own vassals couldn't sleep safely as what would stop you from killing them on a whim?
tl;dr - TW should make executions penalties much more severe than they are now. Who sows the wind shall reap the storm
