Accepting people into your court - Easy Suggestion/Request

[Premu]

Yeah something like that would be cool. One thing i liked in Dragon Age Origins: Awakening was the choices you had for people who committed different crimes. For instance there was a peasant who stole a bread and you had the option to make him a knight which was awesome because i love choices like that.

You grant a title to a petty thief? I doubt that this is in any way historical. Perhaps a peasant was pardoned if he was starving, but this would be the best result he could achieve.

Sometimes new titles were created, but they were only given to already important persons, i.e. a member who is already a member of a court in an important position.

 

[unmerged(155641)]

You grant a title to a petty thief? I doubt that this is in any way historical. Perhaps a peasant was pardoned if he was starving, but this would be the best result he could achieve.

Sometimes new titles were created, but they were only given to already important persons, i.e. a member who is already a member of a court in an important position.

Dude im the ruler i can do whatever i want.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

You grant a title to a petty thief? I doubt that this is in any way historical. Perhaps a peasant was pardoned if he was starving, but this would be the best result he could achieve.

Sometimes new titles were created, but they were only given to already important persons, i.e. a member who is already a member of a court in an important position.

Actually, in Dragon Age Origins: Awakening, you have the option to pardon the thief (falsely accused) in exchange of military service as soldier. In the game end it´s told he eventually became a knight - but only later.

 

[unmerged(109046)]

But that's part of the whole dynastic thing IMHO. You are the head of the dynasty after all, and children should seek their parents' permission to marry or at least their blessing. Maybe not absolute veto but some consequences for relations perhaps if you agree or disagree publicly with who your family members choose to marry. Every marriage raises or lowers the dynasty's prestige, so the dynasty head I think should at least have some moderating powers over marriage choice, and close relatives should get temporary relationship modifiers based on that choice, based on how it is seen to affect the dynasty's standing. The sons and grandsons of kings should marry royalty or at least aristocrats. But as in Ck1, if as King of Leon I marry my daughter to my parvenu marshal, then it should cause a stir among all my dynasty members.

I think that'd end up in various AI weirdnesses. If you're playing that duke who's a son of a king, your AI father would most likely end up disagreeing with every marriage, no matter how pretty or how high stats your spouse has - only blessing a marriage with some random 1/8/5/2 courtier from Finland or Adal. While it would make sense to appear in some way (just a random event probably) that wouldn't really be all that crucial. Too much potential for the AI to screw up.

 

[RedRooster81]

You grant a title to a petty thief? I doubt that this is in any way historical. Perhaps a peasant was pardoned if he was starving, but this would be the best result he could achieve.

Sometimes new titles were created, but they were only given to already important persons, i.e. a member who is already a member of a court in an important position.

No, only really big thieves should get titles. ;P

But I'm all for ennobling commoners and reducing poor nobles to commoner status. Your republican vassals, if you have towns as vassals, will be commoners, so there might be a way to create a "nobility of the robe" avant la lettre. And the church might be a way for upward mobility for poor people, and a noble person of either sex could gain friends, lovers, companions who are commoners, slaves, heathens.

Actually, I think it would be an interesting thing to have events for such unequal relationships, for example in realms on religious or cultural frontiers or for nobles who went on Crusade. So if the Prince of Wales returns from the Holy Land with an Arab retainer whom he insists on bringing to court with him, or the King of Sicily attends official functions with his Berber concubine on his arm (or heaven forbid if he insists on marrying her), or the Holy Roman Emperor insists on making a poor Bohemian friar his spiritual lord, over the Archbishops of Cologne, Milan, or Mainz.

The point is that you would have to defend your friendship against your nobles, with maybe negative relations with those who do not approve, maybe even events by members of your court who want to get rid of your unequal friend for your "own good"--because it is scandalous for a person of your standing to have people below your station in your inner circle, while of course you are keeping your nobles or family members out.

Some historical examples (medieval and not): Edward II of England and his Gascon companion Piers Gaveston; Carlos IV of Spain's favorite Manuel de Godoy (later "the Prince of the Peace" and the queen's lover); Rasputin; Queen Victoria's Mr. Brown. You get the idea. Could be an interesting aspect of court life and tension in your realm: unequal friends like these would be more trustworthy than the realm's magnates (they owe their place entirely on you, not lineage or inherited power) but also deceitful in trying to establish their own power base in many cases.

 

[RedRooster81]

I think that'd end up in various AI weirdnesses. If you're playing that duke who's a son of a king, your AI father would most likely end up disagreeing with every marriage, no matter how pretty or how high stats your spouse has - only blessing a marriage with some random 1/8/5/2 courtier from Finland or Adal. While it would make sense to appear in some way (just a random event probably) that wouldn't really be all that crucial. Too much potential for the AI to screw up.

Valid point; I hadn't thought it out from the child's point of view. It depends how the event or mechanic is coded. If she is the child of an established noble family, with a father with a decent amount of prestige or something like that, then there should be approval. Disapproval should be the less common response.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

I feel so left out.

In Sword Of Aragon, there was also one bloke wrongly accused, and you could pardon him. What i also liked about Sword Of Aragon was the ability to customise your troops. That was wicked. In Knights Of Honor i liked that armies could roam freely on the map and loot other settlements. But to control the province, you still had to take the provincial capital. The marchalls skills were also quite cool and battles didn't have to be resolved tactically. There are few cool features in EU Rome too that might make into the game.

Notice no sarcasm in this post.

Surprisingly, Dragon Age Origins is a good game for oldschoolers. I mean, I also liked Sword of Aragon and Kights of Honor very much on their days.

 

[Francis II]

Another part of this should be the ability to invite your near relatives to come back to your court. Often in CK1, when you have an unpopular ruler, everyone leaves for foreeign courts, even near relatives. When that guy dies and his realms pass to a more likeable relative, it would make sense for him to be able to invite those relatives in exile to come back home.

 

[RedRooster81]

Another part of this should be the ability to invite your near relatives to come back to your court. Often in CK1, when you have an unpopular ruler, everyone leaves for foreeign courts, even near relatives. When that guy dies and his realms pass to a more likeable relative, it would make sense for him to be able to invite those relatives in exile to come back home.

That is an excellent idea! I did it in save game files, but there should be a way to call your dispersed dynasts back to the ancestral hearth. "Come home. I've got land, jobs, and good wine to anyone named <dynasty_name>." And bring those lovely claims with you.

 

[xox]

I just hope we have a way to get new people for court.
Whether it be paying big money to hire a expert steward or just drafting in some random guy because you only have 2 people in your court. That was always an annoyance in big realism breaker in CK1- I can't have a steward as I have nobody to fill the spot! Surely I can just go into town and grab a merchant who can do at least basic sums and he would be better than nothing?

 

[Xain]

I just hope we have a way to get new people for court.
Whether it be paying big money to hire a expert steward or just drafting in some random guy because you only have 2 people in your court. That was always an annoyance in big realism breaker in CK1- I can't have a steward as I have nobody to fill the spot! Surely I can just go into town and grab a merchant who can do at least basic sums and he would be better than nothing?

Well, I guess that with baronies and the possibility of calling vassals at your court, this won't be a problem. You will always have your dear Dukes, Counts and Barons you can call to fill a place...

 

[RedRooster81]

Well, I guess that with baronies and the possibility of calling vassals at your court, this won't be a problem. You will always have your dear Dukes, Counts and Barons you can call to fill a place...

Indeed. Even as a simple count, you will have at least a few barons, including at least one bishop (there will be one barony-level bishopric per province at least).

 

[Orinsul]

I would like the ability if i'm lacking courtiers to make a peasant a noble. That would be cool.

accepting a minor noble into the court would make more sense and be functionally the exact same thing

It'd be nice if randomly generated courtiers could not be part of existing dynasties or if they are be linked in the family tree [i.e. given is put beside an existing character as though a sibling but with the footnote of cousin or something].
But to have the random creation mechanic exclude any dynasties who hold titles would be easier and just as good

 

[Orinsul]

I think that'd end up in various AI weirdnesses. If you're playing that duke who's a son of a king, your AI father would most likely end up disagreeing with every marriage, no matter how pretty or how high stats your spouse has - only blessing a marriage with some random 1/8/5/2 courtier from Finland or Adal. While it would make sense to appear in some way (just a random event probably) that wouldn't really be all that crucial. Too much potential for the AI to screw up.

I think control over who your dynasty marries should be there but only for the player not the AI.
If youre playing the Head of the House and your brother is King and youre only Duke then youre still head of your house. Because youre playing the head of the house.
And theres nothing worse then when your son marries an ugly girl. Meant that in CK you always had to keep your eldest son landless to prevent all your long-term plans from getting mucked up.
And its not important to the AI who marries who, but it is important to the player. So it should be a feature the player has some say over, the marriages of the members of his house no matter where they may live so long as theyre not rival of your current character though i suppose. And if you deny a marriage the chance for them to run off and elope could be fun, but only under specific circumstances like them already being in a romance event chain or something.

 

[unmerged(109046)]

I think control over who your dynasty marries should be there but only for the player not the AI.
If youre playing the Head of the House and your brother is King and youre only Duke then youre still head of your house. Because youre playing the head of the house.
And theres nothing worse then when your son marries an ugly girl. Meant that in CK you always had to keep your eldest son landless to prevent all your long-term plans from getting mucked up.
And its not important to the AI who marries who, but it is important to the player. So it should be a feature the player has some say over, the marriages of the members of his house no matter where they may live so long as theyre not rival of your current character though i suppose. And if you deny a marriage the chance for them to run off and elope could be fun, but only under specific circumstances like them already being in a romance event chain or something.

But what if I'm not the head of the house? What if I'm playing a duke who's the king's son? This way AI gets the authority to refuse marriages. If we on the other hand, limit that authority to players, it stops making sense immersion-wise: why am *I* the one deciding who to marry? My father is the head of the house after all, I shouldn't have that right! And we know how actually giving that authority would end up, so I call it a no.

 

[Orinsul]

But what if I'm not the head of the house? What if I'm playing a duke who's the king's son? This way AI gets the authority to refuse marriages. If we on the other hand, limit that authority to players, it stops making sense immersion-wise: why am *I* the one deciding who to marry? My father is the head of the house after all, I shouldn't have that right! And we know how actually giving that authority would end up, so I call it a no.

um you kind of didnt read anything i wrote did you.
The bit where i said for the player not the AI in the first line. and then half of it being the reasoning for how the AI doesnt care so it doesnt make any sense for the AI to have it.
and then later when i say for game purposes youre the head of house no matter how many higher titles other members of your family might have youre the head of house. Morcar was superior in terms of title to Edwin but it was Edwin as older brother who was head of the House. And for Scotland most of the clans would be headed by someone without a non-clan title even if there was a king among them as houses dont reckon from political authority but that their own ways of doing them.
The head of a house wasnt always the highest title, not historically and not now.
The player is the hand of destiny of the Dynasty, not just the one character he is playing but the driving force behind the dynasty. You are playing a dynasty not just a single character which is why the game doesnt end when he dies. So yes the player would have the authority, because the player is the DYNASTY itself.
And as with all features, if you didnt want to use it you wouldnt have to so if its not something you would use it wouldnt effect you. But it would give you the power to both allow your heir to own land and not have to suffer him screwing up everything yourve planned for him.

 

[Nick B II]

And theres nothing worse then when your son marries an ugly girl. Meant that in CK you always had to keep your eldest son landless to prevent all your long-term plans from getting mucked up.

In CK2 there will be betrothals, so this won't be an issue.

Nick

 

[unmerged(109046)]

um you kind of didnt read anything i wrote did you.
The bit where i said for the player not the AI in the first line. and then half of it being the reasoning for how the AI doesnt care so it doesnt make any sense for the AI to have it.

But this creates the incosistence I seem to forgot to adress in the previous post (I was planning to). It creates a completely artificial barrier that breaks the immersion. Why is, story-wise, AI refused the right to object to my marriages, if he's my father or the older brother who's got all the important titles and should be the head of the house, as my father was before him? Story-wise AI should have the possibility of having that right, but gameplay-wise, it can't. That's why I say the whole thing shouldn't be made, as it would either break the immersion or gameplay.

Of course, there are far worse things than breaking the immersion and if they do make something like this, I won't mind it all too much... but I still won't like it.

 

[Ruwaard]

Maybe the AI will just object to marriages below a certain station, but as long as the candidate is of a certain rank it will be allowed and the closer or higher the rank is relative to your own rank will improve the chance of approval. So even marrying below a certain station could have a small chance of approval, but a player should be able to go through with those if it's willing to face the consequences, like bad relations with other members of the house and possibly the exclusion of any potential offspring to a part of the inheritance. However if it's someone from a rival house then relationship with other members of your house could be hurt or lead to reconciliation between the houses.

 

[RedRooster81]

Maybe the AI will just object to marriages below a certain station, but as long as the candidate is of a certain rank it will be allowed and the closer of higher the rank is relative to your own rank will improve the chance of approval. So even marrying below a certain station could have a small chance of approval, but a player should be able to go through with those if it's willing to face the consequences, like bad relations with other members of the house and possibly the exclusion of any potential offspring to a part of the inheritance. However if it's someone from a rival house then relationship with other members of your house could be hurt or lead to reconciliation between the houses.

I have to agree with that. Taking on an "unequal marriage" should have just those consequences. So marrying your unlanded steward's daughter because you got her pregnant should get you piety points, but draw the ire of your peers and the members of your dynasty.

As to AI approval, I also agree. It should be about comparing status and landholding; it should also be possible for both the AI and player to defy their liege's or parents' decision against the marriage, with suitably bad consequences.