AI lords must execute each other

Users who are viewing this thread

bonerstorm

Veteran
Can't tell, but it doesn't seem to be that way.
It's been months since I played.

Please please tell me that they finally execute leaders of minor factions who are literal criminals or cult leaders?

It was so immersion-breakingly annoying to see my faction leader force me to ransom actual bandits in peacetime. Much less my OWN kingdom forcing me to.
It sounds odd but killing prisoners (specifically nobles) was seen as a very bad thing during the high-medieval age. For multiple reasons; however the primary one is ransoms. Ransoming enemy nobles was big-business and the main reason knights were so keen to get into battle. A relatively poor land-owner could make a fortune by capturing a rich opponent.

After the battle of Agincourt the English King demanded the French nobles be executed as there was simply too many to hold. Nor did he much wish to profit from them. The English Knights refused to do it and eventually it fell on the longbowmen to perform the executions. It didn't do him any favours with the 'relationships' of the English or French nobility.
1000% correct. Even in the context of a civil war, summary battlefield execution of nobility was not standard practice.

If you captured a rebel claimant to the throne, that might be another thing... but ransoming even minor rebel lords was incredibly profitable AND - by draining resources - it would harm the enemy war effort.

Any noble who developed a reputation for murdering captured nobles would almost certainly be murdered in turn. Medieval nobility were always conscious of the likely possibility that they'd be captured at least once in their lifetimes and had a vested interest in ensuring that capture would not equal death.
 
Last edited:

Nogand

Recruit
I've already killed several lords in battle. I don't know if its possible for NPCxNPC battles. But if it is, then executions on top would be an overkill for the lord population unless balanced, for example cruel has 10% execution rate, merciful has 1% execution rate (for those they hate) and without traits a 5%.

There was a mod for this but now its outdated.

P.S they should fricken add the option for NPC's to surrender.
Remember when you could get castles to surrender in Warband if you as the besieger outnumbered them enough?
 
Remember when you could get castles to surrender in Warband if you as the besieger outnumbered them enough?
Yes bro I do now that you've said it, though the odds were usually against me and I would just go into a meat grinder against armies twice the size, its amazing that it was possible though. :razz:

It would be a great mechanic to have, and for example the surrendered troops get to stay as garrison or you can take them as prisoners, that would make an expansionist playthrough easier, and it could be balanced if they added a % calculation to the surrendered castles/towns whether they will revolt or stay loyal (adjusted by culture, relation etc) so players don't take the surrenders for granted.
 
1000% correct. Even in the context of a civil war, summary battlefield execution of nobility was not standard practice.

With a minor caveat that this did not as often apply between different cultures. One has to only see how crusaders and caliphate warriors executed each other with impunity, nobles supporting the wrong king/religion in civil war were also sometimes executed in trials, or how the mongols basically murdered anyone who displeased their agenda. So in this case, it would not seem far fetched for example Khuzaits making a line to execute an entire Imperial clan.
 

bonerstorm

Veteran
With a minor caveat that this did not as often apply between different cultures. One has to only see how crusaders and caliphate warriors executed each other with impunity, nobles supporting the wrong king/religion in civil war were also sometimes executed in trials, or how the mongols basically murdered anyone who displeased their agenda. So in this case, it would not seem far fetched for example Khuzaits making a line to execute an entire Imperial clan.
True, though there were exceptions to intercultural lack of chivalry in the Crusades and the "trial" part is exactly the exception to the battlefield executions we're talking about. Nobles expected execution to be rare and, furthermore, expected it to be part of an at least superficially "fair" process.

Also Calradia is roughly 200km x 200km and, until recently, was dominated by one superpower culture which set the standard for the entire region. Just like with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it wouldn't be surprising for nobiles of different cultures to afford each other the traditional niceties they all inherited from the same source.
 

Nogand

Recruit
True, though there were exceptions to intercultural lack of chivalry in the Crusades and the "trial" part is exactly the exception to the battlefield executions we're talking about. Nobles expected execution to be rare and, furthermore, expected it to be part of an at least superficially "fair" process.

Also Calradia is roughly 200km x 200km and, until recently, was dominated by one superpower culture which set the standard for the entire region. Just like with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it wouldn't be surprising for nobiles of different cultures to afford each other the traditional niceties they all inherited from the same source.
To be fair Calradian nicety involves yelling "I'll eat your liver!" &c. at your enemies when closing into melee range.
 
Any noble who developed a reputation for murdering captured nobles would almost certainly be murdered in turn.
Saladin slaughtered Templar knights like cattle and executed a Lord called Raynald after a battle. He also had half the nobility of Fatimid Egypt murdered. Nevertheless he was revered as a kind of warrior saint by both Christians and Muslims.
Similarly Richard the lionheart was an ******* who executed thousands of prisoners to provoke Saladin, but Islamic writers still suck his cock down to the base.

Nobility, knighthood and chivalry were very nebulous concepts prior to about 1400. The idea of Noble warfare with individual moral rules is something that only crystalizes once it is no longer relevant, and writers are projecting their fantasies onto it. Just because ransoms are common, doesn't mean war leaders had an aversion to killing notables. The main reason executing lords wasn't that common is that there weren't many reasons to do it. They could be ransomed or even released (to cause problems for whoever took the throne on their absense). But I can't think of a single primary source from before the 1300s or so that is particularly morally averse to the murder of nobles. In fact what comes up more often is descriptions of the normal people they kill, or the sacred places they defile, or whatever. It really depends of whether the writer likes them or not. When the Mongols massacre the Khwarezmian royal family in the 1200s, not a single source blames the Mongols, instead victim blaming the khwarezmians for being so stupid.
 

bonerstorm

Veteran
Just because ransoms are common, doesn't mean war leaders had an aversion to killing notables. The main reason executing lords wasn't that common is that there weren't many reasons to do it.
We're not disagreeing there, but there's also a difference between Richard the Lionheart killing a legion of Saracens vs Baron ****Wit of Dogpatch beheading the Earl of Porkchop Sandwiches instead of collecting a fat purse for his safe return.

The medieval early versions of the honours of war were hardly ever about honor: they were a matter of practicality and survival. Your enemy in this year's civil war may very well be your ally in next year's defense from an invasion. Your captive today could be the captor of your son tomorrow. Also hostages have historically been a better guarantor of peace and security than pieces of paper.

I am absolutely down with the idea of lesser penalties for beheading lords if it means the AI will behead you if your Honor stat is too low. Or, even better, if "You killed my father! Prepare to die!" That would actually make sense.

IDK if this was a mod or what, but I remember getting no dishonor from killing dishonorable lords - even if it did cost me relation with their families. Maybe with Merciful lords too? I don't remember... it's not like this game is playable right now anyway.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
But I can't think of a single primary source from before the 1300s or so that is particularly morally averse to the murder of nobles.
My favorite story in this regard was a highly-esteemed French knight named Geoffroi de Charny, who tried to buy off the garrison commander of an English town. The guy he'd bought (actually an Italian) was discovered and flipped on him, so Geoffroi was pretty damned mad about it. Some time later he and a few of his men slipped into the guy's castle, pulled him off his mistress, took him back to Geoffroi's town where the Italian was promptly decapitated, quartered and put on display over the town's gates.

Contemporary writers praised the chivalry because it was clearly personal (he didn't take the dude's property) and Geoffroi wasn't doing it for financial gain (ransoming) but rather as pure revenge-driven honor killing.
 
We're not disagreeing there, but there's also a difference between Richard the Lionheart killing a legion of Saracens vs Baron ****Wit of Dogpatch beheading the Earl of Porkchop Sandwiches instead of collecting a fat purse for his safe return.

Are you implying that medieval sources would consider the latter worse? Because both Christian and Muslim sources admonish Richard for doing this (the "most" favourable Christian source has an entire paragraph of excuses), some even suggesting he felt guilty the rest of his life, while giving zero damns about Saladin executing a bunch of lords not even a decade prior. In sources from the 1100s and 1200s at least, lords are only even mentioned in terms of their ransoms.

In the context of the game, I really don't think anyone except the close family of the dead should give a single crap about you executing them. Calradia has something like 200 lords, there is no central moral authority like the pope, and it's "supposed" to be set long before the link between mounted warriors and nobility even existed.
 
Are you implying that medieval sources would consider the latter worse? Because both Christian and Muslim sources admonish Richard for doing this (the "most" favourable Christian source has an entire paragraph of excuses), some even suggesting he felt guilty the rest of his life, while giving zero damns about Saladin executing a bunch of lords not even a decade prior. In sources from the 1100s and 1200s at least, lords are only even mentioned in terms of their ransoms.

In the context of the game, I really don't think anyone except the close family of the dead should give a single crap about you executing them. Calradia has something like 200 lords, there is no central moral authority like the pope, and it's "supposed" to be set long before the link between mounted warriors and nobility even existed.
Indeed, a simple fix would be if simply the specific clan lords gave negative relationship points. And it should be extended if they were killed in battle as well, just maybe with a lesser penalty.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
In the context of the game, I really don't think anyone except the close family of the dead should give a single crap about you executing them. Calradia has something like 200 lords, there is no central moral authority like the pope, and it's "supposed" to be set long before the link between mounted warriors and nobility even existed.
mexxico made it the way it is now so people would stop executing everyone. He wasn't even pretending it was meant to be realistic or immersive, just raising the penalties past the penalty threshold most players are willing to tolerate.
 

bonerstorm

Veteran
Are you implying that medieval sources would consider the latter worse? Because both Christian and Muslim sources admonish Richard for doing this (the "most" favourable Christian source has an entire paragraph of excuses), some even suggesting he felt guilty the rest of his life, while giving zero damns about Saladin executing a bunch of lords not even a decade prior. In sources from the 1100s and 1200s at least, lords are only even mentioned in terms of their ransoms.
I'm implying that, practically, powerful rulers had more incentive to kill their opponents and also were better able to get away with it - regardless of whether contemporaries would view it favorably. Minor lords within the same nation (and Calradia is effectively a nation) should generally shy away from murdering nobility for practical reasons as well as social/moral ones.

Not saying it shouldn't happen. It TOTALLY should. I WANT it in my games. I WANT specific enemy lords I've wronged to execute my character if they ever get their hands on him - or even my kids. But it should be tied to personality traits and limited in scope to where it makes sense.
mexxico made it the way it is now so people would stop executing everyone. He wasn't even pretending it was meant to be realistic or immersive, just raising the penalties past the penalty threshold most players are willing to tolerate.
That was at a time when nobles didn't generate more offspring, so they weren't a renewable resource. As that changes, the penalties should change as well.
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I'd like to execute the notables too.
93c9f3fc602ecf5793a32e660d0ee19a.jpg
 
Top Bottom