|
|
Post by andremassena on Apr 3, 2019 16:27:32 GMT
Stannis tells Davos that, "I mean to scour that court clean. As Robert should have done after the Trident" but in the mod he gets a tyranny penalty for trying to arrest Pycelle, Littlefinger, and Varys. To fix this, I suggest Stannis gets a free CB to arrest those guys. I also suggest he gets a CB to execute Lancel without tyranny because presumably he would figure out Lancel's role in Robert's death.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabec on Apr 3, 2019 19:08:22 GMT
I recommend the same solution for when Jon Snow, or any Stark takes the North back from the Boltons, I always gain tyranny by arresting, revoking all titles and killing Roose and Ramsay;
I do not care if Roose made a baby with Walda too, the child should not inherit anything.
It's bizarre if we think of the canon.. Usually when winning the war, Roose Bolton is only released to return to the Dreadfort even though he has killed my brother.
You always have to use the console.
|
|
|
|
Post by rufff1 on Apr 3, 2019 19:40:40 GMT
I recommend the same solution for when Jon Snow, or any Stark takes the North back from the Boltons, I always gain tyranny by arresting, revoking all titles and killing Roose and Ramsay; I do not care if Roose made a baby with Walda too, the child should not inherit anything. It's bizarre if we think of the canon.. Usually when winning the war, Roose Bolton is only released to return to the Dreadfort even though he has killed my brother. You always have to use the console. perhaps a mechanic like where Robb defeats the lannisters and any in kings landing get imprisoned - although I disagree on roose's baby with Walda - whenever I wipe out the Bolton's I then make them my ward and raise them from infancy to view me as their father in all but name finally making the Bolton's loyal, peaceful, honourable l vassals to the Starks - frankly I think Rose and Ramsay would hate that even more than the Boltons being wiped out lol |
|
|
|
Post by Don't Wake the Dragon on Apr 3, 2019 20:01:03 GMT
I recommend the same solution for when Jon Snow, or any Stark takes the North back from the Boltons, I always gain tyranny by arresting, revoking all titles and killing Roose and Ramsay; I do not care if Roose made a baby with Walda too, the child should not inherit anything. It's bizarre if we think of the canon.. Usually when winning the war, Roose Bolton is only released to return to the Dreadfort even though he has killed my brother. You always have to use the console. Last time I played that scenario, Jon had something like eight stacks of tyranny, because I chose to wipe out the entire Bolton line and their wives. Wish there was a way to avoid it, but fat Walda always pops out a kid or two before I can take the North (Usually because Stannis' AI is terrible at war) and I don't like leaving loose ends. |
|
|
|
Post by gabec on Apr 4, 2019 1:57:52 GMT
I recommend the same solution for when Jon Snow, or any Stark takes the North back from the Boltons, I always gain tyranny by arresting, revoking all titles and killing Roose and Ramsay; I do not care if Roose made a baby with Walda too, the child should not inherit anything. It's bizarre if we think of the canon.. Usually when winning the war, Roose Bolton is only released to return to the Dreadfort even though he has killed my brother. You always have to use the console. perhaps a mechanic like where Robb defeats the lannisters and any in kings landing get imprisoned - although I disagree on roose's baby with Walda - whenever I wipe out the Bolton's I then make them my ward and raise them from infancy to view me as their father in all but name finally making the Bolton's loyal, peaceful, honourable l vassals to the Starks - frankly I think Rose and Ramsay would hate that even more than the Boltons being wiped out lol I do not kill the babies, I do not like to do this, but they become landless or rulers of small castles, Dreadfort will always become the seat of a cadet branch for the Starks . And I think the continuity of House Bolton with the whole territory is a big mistake of the Starks after so many betrayals and rebellions, they should have been eliminated or landless many centuries before, as they did with the Greystarks and perhaps the Rayders, and who knows about another Houses... |
|
|
|
Post by soulbourne on Apr 4, 2019 12:18:58 GMT
It should be noted: It can be argued "Scouring the court" in cannon may be tyrannical, just stannis doesn't care. You see, in politics, sometimes you have to be a tyrant who defies all common sense or justice to purge elements you deem too dangerous to let live, especially if they have legal rights under the current legal code.
It should also be noted on the case of the boltons-the red wedding was far from the first time the boltons betrayed the starks. The norths history is practically defined by the bloodshed between boltons and starks in numerous eras. Yet, never once in that time, no matter the attrocities or laws broken, did the starks ever choose to purge the boltons. And the only reason for this I can see-they had no legal justification to do so, and the starks being the only house to truly care about that, it would mean they would refuse to commit such an attrocity even if it was well deserved in a personal sense.
The fear system was implemented to allow for such tyrannical moves however, as it discourages them from forming overthrow factions and such as a result. So executing major officials without cause does three things: One, removes a powerful and dagerous player no doubt replaced by a much lesser individual, two, incurs tyranny due to not having sufficient legal backing to stand in court against their own arbiter, and three, inspires fear in the others so they think twice about justifiably calling you on your betrayal of their rights and the laws of the land, which I'm sure rhaegar can tell you doesn't always go unanswered by the lords of the iron throne.
|
|
|
|
Post by sourjapes on Apr 5, 2019 2:05:43 GMT
It should also be noted on the case of the boltons-the red wedding was far from the first time the boltons betrayed the starks. The norths history is practically defined by the bloodshed between boltons and starks in numerous eras. Yet, never once in that time, no matter the attrocities or laws broken, did the starks ever choose to purge the boltons. And the only reason for this I can see-they had no legal justification to do so, and the starks being the only house to truly care about that, it would mean they would refuse to commit such an attrocity even if it was well deserved in a personal sense.
There are only two Bolton rebellions against Winterfell that I am aware of; one was when they rose up with the Greystarks and the Greystarks were wiped out but the Boltons eventually bent the knee. The other is when the King whose daughter was taken by Bael the Bard; "One o' his lords peeled the skin off him." Nothing is really known about the context of this rebellion. In any case, I would wager the reason the Starks never purged the Boltons is because they never had the chance. The Dreadfort is a strong castle able to endure a few years of siege. So most likely in either case the Boltons held out during a lengthy siege and time and other concerns tempered the Stark's wrath. After all, after several years of a siege winter maybe approaching if not there already and support for effort may be slipping whilst the ironborn or southron enemies start looking at the North for plunder.
That's the only reason I can think of anyway. Ned and Robb are outliers among the Starks; most Stark lords were not people you wanted to cross. How else do you think the Starks held dominion over the wild Skagosi, savage hill clains, or brutal families like the Umbers or Boltons? It wasn't by being nice. So, I can thus only speculate that practical considerations prevented them from eliminating their rivals.
|
|
|
|
Post by andremassena on Apr 5, 2019 5:13:16 GMT
It should be noted: It can be argued "Scouring the court" in cannon may be tyrannical, just stannis doesn't care. You see, in politics, sometimes you have to be a tyrant who defies all common sense or justice to purge elements you deem too dangerous to let live, especially if they have legal rights under the current legal code. It should also be noted on the case of the boltons-the red wedding was far from the first time the boltons betrayed the starks. The norths history is practically defined by the bloodshed between boltons and starks in numerous eras. Yet, never once in that time, no matter the attrocities or laws broken, did the starks ever choose to purge the boltons. And the only reason for this I can see-they had no legal justification to do so, and the starks being the only house to truly care about that, it would mean they would refuse to commit such an attrocity even if it was well deserved in a personal sense. The fear system was implemented to allow for such tyrannical moves however, as it discourages them from forming overthrow factions and such as a result. So executing major officials without cause does three things: One, removes a powerful and dagerous player no doubt replaced by a much lesser individual, two, incurs tyranny due to not having sufficient legal backing to stand in court against their own arbiter, and three, inspires fear in the others so they think twice about justifiably calling you on your betrayal of their rights and the laws of the land, which I'm sure rhaegar can tell you doesn't always go unanswered by the lords of the iron throne. But Stannis has a legal justification to arrest and execute Littlefinger and Pycelle at the very least. Stannis knew about his brazen corruption from being at court and it wouldn't take much digging to find out about the dagger lie. Stannis also knew Pycelle was a Lannister toady and could pretty easily wrinkle out all of his other wrongdoings (look how quickly he blabbed to Tyrion!). You should be at least be able to arrest them without a penalty in the game, especially since you can arrest people for silly nonsense plots. |
|
|
|
Post by soulbourne on Apr 5, 2019 6:09:46 GMT
I will concede, getting a few arrest charges free would potentially be legit-though not one that I personally could write up. After being aarrested you could then perform the trial-and if things go well use the trial mechanics to prove your case for execution as they already exist, and if the trial finds in their favor-well, you tried, the courts said no, defy their legal rights if you want.
I thought there were quite a few wars between the starks and the boltons throughout the north history, not just rebellions but active wars for dominion over the north, with the two most prominent players most often being the starks and boltons with it sometimes devolving nearly to a blood feud between them. In general, if the starks were going to arrest and execute the boltons, they didn't need a siege if the boltons were bannermen-they simply needed to wait for them to leave the castle and then take the opportunity to accost them. A siege is a long drawn out thing, but if there's no politics or legal reason for you to NOT take action, then generally noble families had to leave their fortified lands sometime, and then you simply had to be waiting for them. If the other nobles wouldn't throw any complaint about it, then accosting a threat any time they left their castle and either imprisoning them or summary execution was a fairly simple task to pursue. Especially if the starks have a long history of hard men who's viens are steely ice, if they could get away with it then just grabbing the boltons every time they left home would likely be sufficient and easily doable without a siege-worst case scenario it would kick off another rebellion, which if your fresh off the prior victory, there's a good chance that they're not in the best situation to actually succeed in a rebellion, and in this scenario you have no reason to siege them-they'd be the agressive party trying to retrieve their family members, let them come to you when they felt brave.
|
|
