Why does executing "nobles" make one dishonest?

[Bluko88]

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.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be repercussions or any negative trait gained, I just think the way it is currently doesn't really make sense. (Also lots of cultures don't really feel obligated to uphold the Geneva Convention, it's only larger more prosperous and globalized nations that strictly adhere to it. And most everyone "bends" the rules a bit.)

Let's think about this in the event a character is Honest and Cruel. Like Todd McWarcrimes:

Todd is the feller who always get the job done. Got some cattle you need delivered to a distant city? He'll get them there and he'll make sure any bandits he runs into don't bother anyone again. Are there some peasants complaining about their lands being redistributed? Todd will set them straight by making them an offer they can't refuse. Is there an enemy Lord who just won't stop raiding your farming village? Todd will stop them and he'll stop them for good. Maybe he'll take an eye, maybe he'll take a head. Point is you don't want to be Todd's enemy.

 

[chemical_art]

Todd is the feller who always get the job done. Got some cattle you need delivered to a distant city? He'll get them there and he'll make sure any bandits he runs into don't bother anyone again. Are there some peasants complaining about their lands being redistributed? Todd will set them straight by making them an offer they can't refuse. Is there an enemy Lord who just won't stop raiding your farming village? Todd will stop them and he'll stop them for good. Maybe he'll take an eye, maybe he'll take a head. Point is you don't want to be Todd's enemy.

Raganvad made a frown as he read the scroll handed to him. Todd was ambushed by bounty hunters claiming a bounty of his harm to some young noble girl. Whether he actually been responsible was irrelevant, he had the reputation for it. To kill the odd merchant or even village leader could be looked the other way, but the moment he entered the noble circles he stood out like a camel in the snow.

Raganvad sighed as if he had lost a good horse. Regrettable. More like a mule in how stubborn he was. Raganvad told him 100 times he would never fit in with those of his birth. You could take back a castle next season. But without honor your only defense to the gallows was gone.

 

[Midnitewolf]

Raganvad made a frown as he read the scroll handed to him. Todd was ambushed by bounty hunters claiming a bounty of his harm to some young noble girl. Whether he actually been responsible was irrelevant, he had the reputation for it. To kill the odd merchant or even village leader could be looked the other way, but the moment he entered the noble circles he stood out like a camel in the snow.

Raganvad sighed as if he had lost a good horse. Regrettable. More like a mule in how stubborn he was. Raganvad told him 100 times he would never fit in with those of his birth. You could take back a castle next season. But without honor your only defense to the gallows was gone.

Damn good reply.

 

[Askorti]

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.

In medieval times there was an understanding that high-born prisoners were taken for ransom. So when you take a prisoner, it's like an agreement that, for a right sum of money, you will eventually set them free. Killing them is very much dishonest.

And it does not matter what cultures are involved really, as money and prestige are universal. Battanians might be considered barbarians by the Imperials, but if the clan of a battanian noble that was captured has deep coffers, their money wont stink any more than an imperial coin would.

 

[chemical_art]

In medieval times there was an understanding that high-born prisoners were taken for ransom. So when you take a prisoner, it's like an agreement that, for a right sum of money, you will eventually set them free. Killing them is very much dishonest.

And it does not matter what cultures are involved really, as money and prestige are universal. Battanians might be considered barbarians by the Imperials, but if the clan of a battanian noble that was captured has deep coffers, their money wont stink any more than an imperial coin would.

Not only for money, to ensure a reasonable chance if your own family got captured they could be ransomed. The system in itself only holds so long as both keep up the policy. That takes work, time, and luck. But if established tends to keep going since somehow beneficial to both (otherwise it never would have started) and so tend to police within to keep it going.

If anything, to start killing prisoners and being labeled dishonest is tame. After the second or third prisoner killed anyone in your clan would be killed if captured. That includes caravans, non combatants, anything. The house of cards can fall. But it doesn't stop half way.

 

[Bluko88]

In medieval times there was an understanding that high-born prisoners were taken for ransom. So when you take a prisoner, it's like an agreement that, for a right sum of money, you will eventually set them free. Killing them is very much dishonest.

And it does not matter what cultures are involved really, as money and prestige are universal. Battanians might be considered barbarians by the Imperials, but if the clan of a battanian noble that was captured has deep coffers, their money wont stink any more than an imperial coin would.

Yes but not everyone plays by the rules. That's the point. I'm just saying there should be characters who are less "savory" then others. There should be Lords you don't want to be captured by and by extension you can't trust. And maybe there are Lords you can generally trust, but who will probably be a bit too bloodthirsty when set loose to make war.

Yes if you captured a wealthy young prince you'd probably want to ransom them for a big pay day 99% of the time. But on the other hand if you capture Robin Hood you aren't just going to set him free because his grandma pays you a 1000 gold. Likewise if you capture a particularly dastardly enemy Commander or Mercenary Warlord you aren't just going to set them free, so they can cause x100 times the amount of damage again.

All I'm saying is there are Lords who should be Pro-Execution and Anti-Execution. You guys also seem to be forgetting that there are "Relationships" in-game which is overall a more realistic way to gauge how Characters would react to an execution. Some are going to approve and others won't. Look if there was no Mercy trait I would absolutely agree executions should be "dishonorable". Perhaps it would be most sensible to have an execution lose you some Honor, but mostly Mercy.

Think about it this way: currently executing a Lord loses you no Mercy.

How does that make any sense?

Raganvad made a frown as he read the scroll handed to him. Todd was ambushed by bounty hunters claiming a bounty of his harm to some young noble girl. Whether he actually been responsible was irrelevant, he had the reputation for it. To kill the odd merchant or even village leader could be looked the other way, but the moment he entered the noble circles he stood out like a camel in the snow.

Raganvad sighed as if he had lost a good horse. Regrettable. More like a mule in how stubborn he was. Raganvad told him 100 times he would never fit in with those of his birth. You could take back a castle next season. But without honor your only defense to the gallows was gone.

Raganvad isn't really a good example, since he's more or less a punk. Raganvad of all the Kings would not give a single #$%^ if you started killing enemy Nobles, unless it started a war he didn't want - but I believe allied Lords dislike it when you do something like start a war by raiding a village. End of the day all Raganvad care about is himself, it's implied he even wasn't that upset his father died. So yeah not exactly a Knight.

I think I would trust Todd the uncouth mercenary a lot more then Raganvad:

 

[Cybersbe]

Considering Medieval standards, it does make sense for you to be considered dishonorable for executing nobles.

To me what doesn't make sense is why it doesn't happen anyway. As far as I can tell, the player is the only one who ever executes people.

Bluko is absolutely right saying not everyone plays by the rules. NPC lords should occasionally execute others based on their honor score. (And/or the severity of personal grudges.)

Of course, there's also the slight matter of how nobles could and did get executed for being deemed as threats. I can think of two ways to resolve this:

1: When nobles get captured, it may be a decent idea to implement a system where they get put on trial to determine their sentence. It could play out similarly to the already implemented system for determining kingdom laws. One of the sentences can be execution. If a noble is executed this way, no one will lose honor.

2: If the aforementioned implementation of NPC executions is done, then it may be a good idea for a noble to get a reputation if they make a habit of executing their enemies. If they have a reputation as an executioner, then it may be reasonable for anyone who kills THEM to be acknowledged as doing what they had to, and thus having no impact on honor. (Two caveats, tho: anyone who was friends with the executioner will still hold a grudge if you kill them. And the executioner reputation can be applied to the player as well. If you aren't careful, you may find YOURSELF on the chopping block!

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

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

The Mongols in Iraq were probably as far from home as any invader has ever been, and they sent out messages ahead of them saying how they were going to wipe the locals off the face of the earth if they didn't surrender. But even they were paranoid about how killing nobles or kings would be bad PR or would curse them. They famously stamped on him under a carpet to avoid spilling his blood directly.

Almost all premodern societies have some concept of a "divine order" and hospitality, and it often manifests in ways that seem nonsensical to modern atomised individuals like us. Prisoners are basically guests and were usually treated well, even while the host is plotting to have them killed. Wars also have to avoid upsetting the divine order, and murdering nobles is tantamount to genocide in most premodern (ruling class) worldviews, because you're killing the people who are there to "protect" society. (Obviously this is from the perspective of the nobles themselves, and for most of history the lower classes didn't like them or care about them, but that's another story)

A really striking example of this is how Saladin offered a drink of water to 1 of his 2 prisoners after the battle of hattin, but the other took a drink as well so Saladin killed him on the spot for violating his hospitality. The other prisoner was kept for years, even though he was the king of Jerusalem which Saladin spent the rest of his life fighting against. Saladin is also known and applauded in both Christian and Islamic chronicles for being gracious to prisoners, even though he was basically fighting a total war against the crusaders at the time. Conversely Richard the Lionheart is reviled for executing prisoners of war in the exact same campaign. Bear in mind that these are two men from polar opposite sides of the Mediterranean, but they are held to almost the same standard in both christian and islamic writings.