Why does executing "nobles" make one dishonest?

Currently viewing this thread:

Bluko88

Recruit
This is something that has perplexed me for some time, but why does executing Nobles make you "Dishonest"? I mean sure executing captives isn't exactly what I call honorable - but aren't executions seen more generally as barbaric/cruelty? Being dishonest usually means that you're a liar or don't keep agreements.

It just gets me that every time I capture a Noble they say something like "I am at your mercy."

Welp guess they are wrong, because they are actually at my Honor.

So before I ramble on about the entirety of Traits, TLDR: Players should get -500 Mercy for executions not -1000 Honor

I realize Traits probably aren't the most critical aspect of the game to be working on right now, especially given that A.I. can't use ladders, battlefield reinforcement spawns are completely ridiculous, smithing is money printing, etc. But I really do feel having a working Trait system could breathe some much needed life into this game. Besides what I've previously mentioned I'd say the next biggest flaw is how utterly lifeless NPCs are. So here is what I'd like to see:

Honor
zKdMSSv.jpg

Player: Gains by completing quests for Quest Giver and stopping Raids | Loses by betraying/failing Quest Giver and Raiding (+/- 20-50 Points per Quest, +/-5 per Raid)

Notables: Honest always pays full reward | Dishonest may pay less reward

Nobles: Honest much less likely to leave Faction, always pays full reward | Dishonest more likely to leave Faction, may pay less reward

Companions: Honest always finishes Quests | No-Trait will fail 1 out of 10 Quests w/ Full Reward | Dishonest will fail 3 out of 10 Quests w/ Extra Reward

Companion Honest: +/-5 Relationship for every 200 Honor Gained/Lost, remark latest Successful or Unsuccessful Quest, dislikes Raiding
Companions Dishonest: -/+5 Relationship for every 200 Honor Gained/Lost, remark latest Unsuccessful or Successful Quest, likes Raiding

Mercy
HB1DE1b.jpg

Player: Gains by releasing Prisoners/Nobles and some Quests (10 Troops Released +1 Point, Noble Released +50 Points, +20-40 Points per some Quests) |
Loses by taking Prisoners/Nobles captive, executing Nobles, and some Quests (20 Troops Captured -1 Point, Noble Captured -25 Points, Execution -500 Points, and -20-40 Points per some Quests)

Notables: Merciful more relationship loss to hostile actions | Cruel less relationship loss to hostile actions

Nobles: Merciful always releases Prisoners | Cruel will execute enemy Noble Captives based on relationship (i.e. -10 Relation = 10% Chance, -100 Relation = 100% Chance)

Companion: Merciful Party Leader always releases Prisoners | Cruel Party Leader will execute enemy Noble Captives based on relationship

Companion Merciful: +/-5 Relationship for every 200 Mercy Gained/Lost, commend last Noble release, -10 Relationship & condemn execution
Companions Cruel: -/+5 Relationship for every 200 Mercy Gained/Lost, condemn last Noble release, +10 Relationship & cheer execution

*Player should also gain/lose based off City Captured options - however I have not yet tested.

Valor
cW7GZDw.jpg

Player: Gains by defeating enemies, fighting battles at poor Odds (+1 Point per Kill, Battle Strength Ratio *10 - 10 = Points Gained/Lost) |
Loses by retreating, sacrificing troops, fighting battles at good Odds (-50 Points per Battle Retreat, Points lost based on # of Troops sacrificed i.e. 10 Troops = -10 Valor, Battle Strength Ratio *10 - 10 = Points Gained/Lost)

Notables: Valorous higher tier recruits | Cautious lower tier recruits

Nobles: Valorous does not retreat from battles, more likely to engage bigger Parties | Cautious will always retreat from losing battles, less likely to engage bigger Parties

Companions: Valorous does not retreat from battles, more likely to engage bigger Parties | Cautious will always retreat from losing battles, less likely to engage bigger Parties

Companion Valorous: +/-5 Relationship for every 200 Valor Gained/Lost, commend last victory, condemn any sacrifice event
Companions Cautious: -/+5 Relationship for every 200 Valor Gained/Lost, commend last retreat, support any sacrifice event

Generosity
LuB4Vth.jpg

Player: Gains by High Morale, Gifting Money, some Quests (every day: [Morale - 50] * 0.5 = Points Gained/Lost, 100 Denars Gifted = +1 Point) |
Loses by Low Morale, some Quests (+/- 10-30 Points per Quest)

Notables: Generous will reward 10% more for Quest | Closefisted will reward 10% less for Quest

Nobles: Generous will reward 20% more for Quest | Closefisted will reward 20% less for Quest

Companions: Generous +5% Party Income, Closefisted -5% Party Upkeep

Companion Generous: +/-5 Relationship for every 200 Generosity Gained/Lost, commend generosity or lack of
Companions Closefisted: -/+5 Relationship for every 200 Generosity Gained/Lost, commend restraint or lack of


As an aside at this point I think Calculating/Emotional should just be scrapped as I can't see a good way to implement Gains/Loss for it based on current game implementation. Just replace as a Charm Check/Bonus.
 

Pensaci

Sergeant
I feels like if it's dishonorable then I can understand.

A thing I just know is traits have levels? Like honor 1, valor 1. Mercy 2 is Compassion, on one of my companion, having no idea how did he got it.

Also it seems a character(hero?) with Cruel trait is more likely to raid village.

I realize Traits probably aren't the most critical aspect of the game to be working on right now, especially given that A.I. can't use ladders, battlefield reinforcement spawns are completely ridiculous, smithing is money printing, etc.
Yea. Time like this and situation like this especially, also. But I believe we can still discuss it if we see fit, for better or worse you know. I mean sometimes it's not like what we are trying to say is only or so eagerly pointing to a sort of deliverance.
 

redmark

Squire
I think executions affecting honour rather than mercy is correct, because an execution contravenes the accepted code of conduct - which is a dishonourable act. The slight confusion I think is that the first positive level of 'Honourable' is called honest; obviously the words have a common etymology, but have diverged in modern meaning. Mercy applies to commoners (some quests affect mercy depending on actions taken affecting soldiers - oddly, including noble branch - and bandits) not lords (your peers).

(Would be better replacing +1 honor description 'honest' with 'honourable', and +2 replace 'honourable' with 'virtuous' or 'paragon', for example).
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Because you're not supposed to execute nobles, they expect you to uphold a medieval code of honor

Probably historically true - i know Caesar was said to have been visibly upset when seeing Pompeii's severed head as well as taking a hit in the eye of the public. The problem from what im hearing (ive never played that deep into game) is that execution is the only remedy to Escaping Lords who then insta-return with an army. That most certainly is not historically correct but a gamey way that BL tries to counter snowballing and too quick dominations of factions.
 
Yes, I agree with everyone in this thread. Executing captive nobles is a violation of the expected medieval code of conduct, and is thus dishonorable.

Releasing them is something that is NOT required by the code of conduct and is thus an extra act of mercy, hence merciful.
 
What about Rebels? I executed a few rebel lords and got the the cruel or dishonest trait (I can't remember which one). Feel like this shouldn't happen? It was pretty normal to execute traitors and rebels in medieval times from my understanding.
 

Bluko88

Recruit
Because you're not supposed to execute nobles, they expect you to uphold a medieval code of honor

But you have 6 culturally different factions, there's no way they all share the same code of honor. Most factions see anyone culturally distinct from them as being "barbarians". I can understand an Imperial sparring a fellow Imperial Lord being "proper conduct"/honor. But a Battanian? A Sturgian? Why would you show a barbarian any kind of decency? Why wouldn't you make an example out of them when at war?

Generally speaking captives are taken for bargaining leverage - I mean yes through-out time there have been "codes of conduct", but generally those are more about not mis-treating prisoners (i.e. starvation/torture). Again as far I'm aware executions were deemed a-okay through out most European history especially for anyone who was a criminal or enemy of the state.

Perhaps I'm approaching this more from a Feudal Japan mindset where doing your Lord's bidding is paramount to the idea of Honor. But again even in the West I'm pretty sure following your King/Sultan's directives is the most important thing. If your Lord tells you to do something you do it. Otherwise you'll be the one losing your head.

Again as far as I'm concerned an execution is not inherently "dishonest". Where or what code of honor does Calradian nobility follow?

If Calradia is so "honor-bound" why is everyone constantly waging war, raiding villages, etc. No one seems to have any qualms about attacking weaker parties, peasants, caravans. Seems to me Calradia is very open season and not particularly chivalrous. Truthfully the A.I. should perform some executions. I mean if the Hidden Hand for example is constantly raiding say the Southern Empire - you expect me to believe the Southern Nobility would just keep jailing them indefinitely?
 

Bluko88

Recruit
I feels like if it's dishonorable then I can understand.

A thing I just know is traits have levels? Like honor 1, valor 1. Mercy 2 is Compassion, on one of my companion, having no idea how did he got it.

Also it seems a character(hero?) with Cruel trait is more likely to raid village.
I haven't seen any Level 2 Trait beyond Deceitful (-2000 Honor) personally. I have no idea what the others are.

I also don't see why there are Level 2 Traits anyways, because they are never applied to NPCs. It's one of those redundant things that plagues Bannerlord.

i.e.
Troops that fulfill the same role or are basically identical (Valandian Calvary branches for instance)
Barbers being in-game even though you already can edit your appearance via a simple shortcut
Two forms of conversing with NPCs
 

Zwade

Sergeant
I feel they have to either make prisoner escapes almost impossible(.5% / day) or lessen the negative effects of execution. There is no real benefit to defeating lords. You let them go, get a small charm xp, and they pop up again with a new army in one day. Or, you capture them, imprison them, they escape after 2 days and pop up with a new army. It's like shoveling S**t against the tide.
Or, at least make it a mission. IE: Based on importance of the lord there might be rescuers sent to break him/her out at night. You and x number of men have to kill y number of attackers before they get to the prisoner(tied up in the middle of the map), untie him, and make it to the red map border. This is for prisoners in party. For prisoners in a dungeon, there is virtually no chance of escape.
 
Last edited:

niekdegrijze

Sergeant at Arms
but the games not amedieval simulator! it should make you feared.

execute 1 lord 50% join you, 50% want to kill you!
Yes it should give you penalties with honourable lords and bonuses with dishonourable lords.

same as Releasing an enemy should have penalties, now it gives you a big relationship boost, which I like. But it should give you an decrease with lords in your faction, or at least other lords in the Army. this means there should be other methods of increasing relationships in your faction (fighting together, defending another's noble village, executing an personal enemy of a noble, feasts etc.)
 
Last edited:

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
I think executions affecting honour rather than mercy is correct, because an execution contravenes the accepted code of conduct - which is a dishonourable act. The slight confusion I think is that the first positive level of 'Honourable' is called honest; obviously the words have a common etymology, but have diverged in modern meaning. Mercy applies to commoners (some quests affect mercy depending on actions taken affecting soldiers - oddly, including noble branch - and bandits) not lords (your peers).

(Would be better replacing +1 honor description 'honest' with 'honourable', and +2 replace 'honourable' with 'virtuous' or 'paragon', for example).
Actually this is a good point. What I think people aren't understanding mostly because it hasn't been made clear, is that the Kingdoms and minor factions in this setting all operate under a "Code of Honor" and that code means that your supposed to treat Nobles with honor. You can free them or imprison them and that stays within the Code of Honor, but if you kill them, why that is just dishonorable.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Taking someone alive, only to kill them later, does seem a tad dishonest to me.
Well to be fair. The reason you take them alive and then execute them would be to demoralize your enemy and/or raise the morale of your own troops/country. Dying on the battlefield is one thing but dying as a spectacle where everyone could see it happen could often drastically effect morale especially if the execution method involved massive pain and suffering. It wasn't uncommon for there to be so much fear or being captured and executed that men would refuse to even fight or leaders would commit suicide at the mere thought of defeat and capture.

Also it is only dishonest, if everyone agrees it is dishonest but I think that is the thing about Bannerlord, I think as a general principle, execution of lords is frowned upon.
 
But you have 6 culturally different factions, there's no way they all share the same code of honor. Most factions see anyone culturally distinct from them as being "barbarians". I can understand an Imperial sparring a fellow Imperial Lord being "proper conduct"/honor. But a Battanian? A Sturgian? Why would you show a barbarian any kind of decency? Why wouldn't you make an example out of them when at war?
What about Rebels? I executed a few rebel lords and got the the cruel or dishonest trait (I can't remember which one). Feel like this shouldn't happen? It was pretty normal to execute traitors and rebels in medieval times from my understanding.

giphy.gif

 
But you have 6 culturally different factions, there's no way they all share the same code of honor. Most factions see anyone culturally distinct from them as being "barbarians". I can understand an Imperial sparring a fellow Imperial Lord being "proper conduct"/honor. But a Battanian? A Sturgian? Why would you show a barbarian any kind of decency? Why wouldn't you make an example out of them when at war?

The origins of the conflicts go back to the warband days I.E. several generations. For several generations, as seen in warband, for whatever reason, the system has been in place among the various kingdoms. For that is what they are what, feudal kingdoms. No one has rocked the boat for such a system by deliberately killing prisoners. You can think it is stupid, but that's the status quo before the player becomes involved. All the kingdoms abide by it.

Thus when a player upends the system and rocks the status quo there are ripples. You can cite it is more effective or otherwise better, but it is nonetheless shaking up the norms and that does lead to ostracization to those who don't directly rally to you.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
But you have 6 culturally different factions, there's no way they all share the same code of honor. Most factions see anyone culturally distinct from them as being "barbarians". I can understand an Imperial sparring a fellow Imperial Lord being "proper conduct"/honor. But a Battanian? A Sturgian? Why would you show a barbarian any kind of decency? Why wouldn't you make an example out of them when at war?

I would counter and say that the world we live in today has a lot more then 6 culturally different factions yet dozens of these cultures all operate under the Geneva Convention and other such treaties governing how one must conduct war so it isn't outside of reason that only 6 cultures in just a small continental area such as represented with the world map would come together to agree upon a standard governing warfare.

Honestly there is no right or wrong answer here other than what Taleworlds has decided to include as part of their world building process. One part is that in this fictional world, there is a shared concept of honor between cultures and violations of that concept of honor come with certain repercussions. You kind of got to accept that because that is the lore of the game. I mean this is kind of like arguing that in Star War the Sith are actually the good guys because the Jedi had twice before attempted genocide against the Sith Culture. It just doesn't fit the creators narrative that frames the Jedi as representing ultimate good and the Sith as representing ultimate evil.
 
Top Bottom