i shouldn't lose reputation with my own faction for executing enemy faction prisoners

Users who are viewing this thread

I have written this somewhere else some time ago, you can think of it as socially unacceptable thing to kill your prisoner, so that way everybody will hate you, regardless if they would do the same or not - as political figure it is appropriate to criticise socially unacceptable actions, even if they happen in your country.

This is the logic I think has place here.
Bruh it's medieval times.
 
Relations loss should be related to character traits. Cruel characters in your faction should love you for it. Honourable ones should hate you for it. And whether the enemy hates you should be about their relations with the executed character.

But the way I think about it, is similar to how it often worked in late medieval North-western Europe - Captives aren't killed because they are worth money, but also, because it is a guarantee that you wont be killed if captured - it's a gentleman's agreement.

Now, if the player could be executed... then perhaps you might have more of a vested interest in maintaining niceties.
 
Relations loss should be related to character traits. Cruel characters in your faction should love you for it. Honourable ones should hate you for it. And whether the enemy hates you should be about their relations with the executed character.
So your suggestions is that traits actually mean something in the game? That´s madness!
 
The middle ages were not this lawless and savage time. Back then, there were expectations and codes that dudes followed.

Among them generally being that nobles were not generally executed when captured.
We're talking early middle ages here though. Chivalry wasn't even a thing yet - it developed in the 1200s.

Nobles were generally not executed *because* they could be ransomed, that was the reason, but that didn't mean they couldn't be executed if you wanted them dead. Your entire nation and even nations on the other side of the world weren't going to hate you for executing a sadistic guy who repeatedly raided your villages.
In semi-made-up cultural environment. Setting does not exclude that some things will be different, especially culture, as it forms in weird ways sometimes.
I don't agree with this line of reasoning, but if you are using it and saying real life doesn't matter, then there's no argument for keeping the current system anyway, because it makes for unsatisfying gameplay players frequently complain about, and the only argument people are giving against it is real life.

I'm not sure why there are a few people going out of their way to defend this. Executing nobles should be something you can do without the entire world hating you. It isn't realistic, and it isn't fun. Hell, Saladin executed a Crusader noble and despite this he has the best reputation among the Crusaders of any "Saracen" ruler.
 
I'm not sure why there are a few people going out of their way to defend this. Executing nobles should be something you can do without the entire world hating you. It isn't realistic, and it isn't fun. Hell, Saladin executed a Crusader noble and despite this he has the best reputation among the Crusaders of any "Saracen" ruler.
I think it's mainly to deter players from abusing it too readily as mid/late-game - most of us get to the point we can just auto-battle all these diminished lord parties and execute them. And executing just snowballs the delicate balance the game has as is already.

To make it more...sensible, they have to add a bunch of other underlying features to make it a heavier decision for the player. Ie. more drastic negative impacts (not just -reputation with X clans as there's no 'consequence' really with -reputation), additional dialogues/functions that utilize the traits systems, recruiting penalties from associated parties, assassin/bounty hunters, targeted raids/sieges, etc...
As of now, you (at least for me) get to a point where you execute them solely because of how they keep respawning so quickly with a new party; like swatting flies.
 
The middle ages were not this lawless and savage time. Back then, there were expectations and codes that dudes followed.

Among them generally being that nobles were not generally executed when captured.
You're also assuming that all peoples were the same. Maybe late medieval times in Europe your claim is correct, but taking into account the Battanians, Khuzait and Aserai (and their relatable real world cultures) I'd argue that executing the enemy was common and almost expected.
 
Back
Top Bottom