Executions and Traits

Users who are viewing this thread

I have been executing quite a few enemy lords recently and have earned the trait 'Deceitful'.
It caries with it an -2 Honor stat. (Can't find where my honor stat is displayed by the way)

I am thinking that the Honor penalty is justified depending on what mechanics it affects. Hopefully that will come to light soon.

I do however take exception to the trait name of 'Deceitful'. I fail to see how enemy executions are deceitful. Ruthless, yes. Barbaric, maybe?
Brutal? Unforgiving? I am sure we could come up with dozens of appropriate traits, I just do not agree that Deceitful is one of them.
It is not secret in the realm that I execute each and every lord that I capture in battle. How is that deceitful? I would even be happy to state this fact before the battle joins in case they want to attempt to flee.

I also have some other suggestions on some fine grain tuning of the execution mechanic.
- If I execute a relative, that should carry a higher penalty to some stat (honor? loyalty?) and result in a separate trait. (Maybe this is already implemented)
- If I execute an enemy while at war, that should carry a lower penalty.
- If I execute a non relative, while not at war (maybe he has been hanging out in my prison for a bit) that should be a greater penalty compared to an enemy.

Other thoughts/suggestions?
 
I suppose the reasoning is that you're a two-timing dog who can't be trusted. The perception being that you're willing to kill in cold blood if it means getting ahead. Not quite the right word, of course, but... If they were to flavor it as Cunning, Vile, or Underhanded, it might make more sense.

I agree with the relative thing. However, I don't agree with the enemy thing. Execution of enemies wasn't something done on the regular, particularly when those enemies were noblemen. Those who executed their enemies simply for being on the opposite side of a war would've been viewed as rather worthless human beings historically. Even samurai didn't regularly behead other samurai, and they collected heads for a living! So to me, it makes sense - even putting game balance aside, which is another point in its favor - for the execution of enemies to carry just as harsh a penalty as neutrals.
 
I beg to differ:

Caligula: murdered by Praetorian Guard in 41
Claudius: Poisoned by his wife Agrippina in 54
Galba: Murdered in plot orchestrated by Otho in 69
Vitellius: Murdered in 69
Domitian: Assassinated by court officials in 96
Commodus: Assassinated in 192
Pertinax: murdered by Praetorian Guard in 193
Didius Julianus: death ordered by Senate
Caracalla: Assassinated on orders of Marcrinus in 217
Geta (co-emperor): Assassinated on orders of Caracalla in 211
Macrinus: Executed on orders of Elagabalus in 218
Diadumenian (co-emperor): executed on orders of Elagabalus in 218
Elagabalus: murdered by his troops in 222
Alexander Severus: murdered by his own troops in 235
Maximinus Thrax: murdered by Praetorian Guard in 238
Pupienus (joint emperor): murdered by Praetorian Guard in 238
Balbinus (joint emperor): murdered by Praetorian Guard in 238
Gordian III: murdered? in 244
Trebonianus Gallus: murdered by his troops in 253
Aemilian: murdered by his troops in 253
Gallienus (junior co-emperor): murdered by his generals in 268
Aurelian: murdered by the Praetorian Guard in 275
Tacitus: assassinated? in 276
Florian: murdered by his troops in 276
Probus: murdererd by his own soldiers in 282
Carus: probably assassinated by the Praetorian Prefect Aper in 283
Numerian (co-emperor): murdered? in 284
Severus II (junior co-emperor): executed by Maxentius in 307
Constans I (co-emperor): killy by Manentius in 350
Gratian: murdered by rebel army faction in 383
Valentinian II: murdered? in 392
Valentinian III: assassinated in 455
Petronius Maxims: Murdered by Roman mob in 455
Majorian: Murdered by Ricimer in 461
Libius Severus: Assassinated by Ricimer in 465
Anthemius: executed by Ricimer in 472
Leo II: assassinated? in 474

Some well known assassinated English lords:
Thomas Becket
Giuliano de Medici
Conrad of Mentferrat
Louis I, Duke of Orleans
John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy
Philip of Swabio
Kames I of Scotland
Charles I, Count of Flanders
Nikephoros II Phokas
Vaclav I, Duke of Bohemia
 
Last edited:
Quite true, but all were long before the 11th century. By the time "medieval" society took root, the practice had gone out of vogue. Particularly when nobility became formalized and it was accepted that nobles were to be treated differently than everyone else.
 
A few Japanese assassinations:

456 Emperor Ankō, Emperor of Japan
592 Emperor Sushun, Emperor of Japan
645 Soga no Iruka, son of influential statesman Soga no Emishi
1160 Minamoto no Yo****omo, head of Minamoto clan, father of Minamoto no Yoritomo
1219 Minamoto no Sanetomo, the third shōgun of the Kamakura shogun
1441 Ashikaga Yoshinori, the sixth shōgun of the Ashikaga shogunate
1486 Ōta Dōkan, samurai, architect and builder of Edo Castle
1507 Hosokawa Masamoto, shugo daimyō of Ashikaga shogunate
1535 Matsudaira Kiyoyasu, daimyō, feudal leader in Japan
1551 Ōuchi Yo****aka, daimyō, feudal leader in Japan
1557 Oda Nobuyuki, Japanese samurai, younger brother of Oda Nobunaga
1565 Ashikaga Yo****eru, shōgun, feudal leader in Japan
1566 Mimura Iechika, daimyō, feudal leader in Japan Endō Matajirō and Yoshijirō
1578 Yamanaka Shikanosuke, Japanese samurai
1582 Oda Nobunaga, samurai warlord
 
I have been executing quite a few enemy lords recently and have earned the trait 'Deceitful'.
It caries with it an -2 Honor stat. (Can't find where my honor stat is displayed by the way)

I am thinking that the Honor penalty is justified depending on what mechanics it affects. Hopefully that will come to light soon.

I do however take exception to the trait name of 'Deceitful'. I fail to see how enemy executions are deceitful. Ruthless, yes. Barbaric, maybe?
Brutal? Unforgiving? I am sure we could come up with dozens of appropriate traits, I just do not agree that Deceitful is one of them.
It is not secret in the realm that I execute each and every lord that I capture in battle. How is that deceitful? I would even be happy to state this fact before the battle joins in case they want to attempt to flee.

I also have some other suggestions on some fine grain tuning of the execution mechanic.
- If I execute a relative, that should carry a higher penalty to some stat (honor? loyalty?) and result in a separate trait. (Maybe this is already implemented)
- If I execute an enemy while at war, that should carry a lower penalty.
- If I execute a non relative, while not at war (maybe he has been hanging out in my prison for a bit) that should be a greater penalty compared to an enemy.

Other thoughts/suggestions?
is game create new npc to Replacement of deads for prevent lack of lords in the clans?
 
Quite true, but all were long before the 11th century. By the time "medieval" society took root, the practice had gone out of vogue. Particularly when nobility became formalized and it was accepted that nobles were to be treated differently than everyone else.

The Romans were a bit 'special' in terms of how many of their leaders met treacherous ends.
 
is game create new npc to Replacement of deads for prevent lack of lords in the clans?

That is an excellent question. In Warband the answer was no. There were some mods that addressed this, but my goal is to eliminate certain lords without them being replaced so I am hoping the answer is still no. I would fully expect to see a mod eventually to give us the choice of respawning lords however.
 
executions should be cultural. i doubt an imperial would care about executing a barbarian, but would be rather pissed at you for executing a fellow archon. same can be said for battanians, who seem to love taking heads. additionally, you should definitely lose more mercy than honor.
 
I agree completely. Not only that it is not deceitful to execute your enemy who just killed all your peasants an hour ago, but I dont even think its dishonorable. I like the system in TW Medieval 2; dread or chivalry. Chivalry level goes up if you let enemies go, dread goes up if you execute them.
 
I agree completely. Not only that it is not deceitful to execute your enemy who just killed all your peasants an hour ago, but I dont even think its dishonorable. I like the system in TW Medieval 2; dread or chivalry. Chivalry level goes up if you let enemies go, dread goes up if you execute them.

Peasants are peasants, peasants suffer, thats what they are for.
A code of honour among the ruleing class was not uncommon.

I agree with the weirdness of "deceitful" though, ruthless or even vile would be more fitting.
I also like the idea of a honour/dread system.
They may think you are rotten filth and won't talk more to you than they have to even in times of peace, but they will still **** their armour when they know you are commanding the troops they have to fight against, because they know you are a rabid dog that gives a crap about their life.
 
Of course it's deceitful to pretend to be a nobleman only to violate the customs of that social stratum!

Anyways, I had a lord die to assassination. Not execution - assassination. Weird stuff.
 
Of course it's deceitful to pretend to be a nobleman only to violate the customs of that social stratum!

Anyways, I had a lord die to assassination. Not execution - assassination. Weird stuff.
You sure khuzaits care about the empires social stratum ?

Assasinations are in confirmed?!
 
Well Assassinations would be another thing of course.
If that is possible at some point, deceitful would be a fitting description.

But an execution of a noble is ruthless and honourless.
If you're doing this on a regular basis you should be hated and feared among the other nobles.

One can argue ofc how it behaves between the different cultures, but i could imagine that its difficult to get such a thing working and balanced.
 
That is an excellent question. In Warband the answer was no. There were some mods that addressed this, but my goal is to eliminate certain lords without them being replaced so I am hoping the answer is still no. I would fully expect to see a mod eventually to give us the choice of respawning lords however.
I think new lords come in the form of their children growing up, although atm there are not enough women for every noble to marry (as far as I know) and it takes too long for said children to grow up at the current pace of the game
 
Agree with the OP. Deceitful is not the right word at all. Cruel would be more appropriate if you ask me.
In fact, at some point TW should focus on the naming of things, as many are quite off. Apart from breaking the immersion, it will confuse players(especially those who are not native English speakers) and screw up the localisations down the line.

The same can be said about some other attributes,skills, perks and traits. I'll eventually get some more data and bring this up on another thread.

As for the penalties...I think that depending on the culture, one could get less of a penalty depending on the current law. Like the Khuzaits having a lesser penalty would make sense, since executions were very common during the Mongolian Empire period.
What I do not know yet is if the set of policies varies according to the culture, or they're the same for all the factions. They definitely should be different set so that a faction will remain unique and avoiding bizarre variations like an Aserai Senate.
 
Well Assassinations would be another thing of course.
If that is possible at some point, deceitful would be a fitting description.

But an execution of a noble is ruthless and honourless.
If you're doing this on a regular basis you should be hated and feared among the other nobles.

One can argue ofc how it behaves between the different cultures, but i could imagine that its difficult to get such a thing working and balanced.

Yes! I would love to see the 'hated' and 'feared' implemented in their behavior in some way.
 
Back
Top Bottom