All or nothing: Are you Good or Evil: Chivalrous or Dreadful?

[Divinus Arma]

Which do you prefer overall? Are you a chivalrous faction with great global reputation or are you a faction with dread leaders and untrusted by all?

[knoddy]

i tend to be quite chivilrous despite executing most prisoners and the like most of my generals tend to be quite chivilrous due to lots of crusading. but yes most of the time i struggle to get and with high dread, despite executing prisoners.

[maestro]

I tend to play each general on their own merits so those who are naturally chivalrous I play chivalrously and those who are naturally dreaded I play dreadedly. Thos who are inbetweenies I play either way depending on their other traits. Role-playing generals is great fu

[cassiusdio]

Being Chivlrous seems to make gaining ceasefires and negociating for other things a lot easier. I would much prefer to be well regarded as trustworthy by my opponent, than feared and find it impossible to reach favourable terms

[Ice]

I'm usually pretty dreadful. If you screw me, I execute your prisoners and sack your cities.

[Grimmy]

Dread all the way.

Any general that offers or requests quarter of any kind from an enemy will be punished for treason by his king.

My countrymen are in the business of conquest and make no bones about it, offer no appologies for it and have plans already drawn up to slaughter all who complain over it.

[Husar]

I'm usually trying to be nice but since my neighbors always attack me, I end up with almost everyone hating me, especially neighbors. Haven't found a way to ally with a neighbor for more than a few turns. Almost all my diplomatic offers are usually very demanding unless I put some money on top, sometimes up to 50000. I really wish diplomacy would be more than that in the game.

[sapi]

If the other nation has initiated the war, they're dead - i execute their prisoners and sack their cities. If not, i try to ransom the prisoners, unless it would give them so much of an advantage that i can't afford to.

[Poopflingr1]

I play my generals as their traits dictate... I usually realease all prisoners... unless there are so many, its just better to kill them.. ransoms only come into my mind when there is ALOT of money on the line... and I know im either gonan make a ton of money... or they refuse and I get to kill them anyways!

[IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer]

Dread, most definately.

I execute every prisoner I take, without fail. I sack every city I take, with the exception of the faction's capital - which I exterminate. I break alliances. I give allies money and military access to butter them up, than invade their capital city. My Sultan and his entire blood line routinely bear the title of "The Mad."

Yeah, chivalry is for the Sardaukar...it has no place in the real world. Oddly, despite this, some of my generals still have 4-6 chivalry. Shrug.

[BigTex]

Chivalry definately all the way. Always release prisoners, except in rare cases they are ransomed for high amounts. Makes the AI a little tougher also, you must refight those who were released eventually. It also doesnt deteriate your relations as much. I sack cities on occasion but I only exterminate towns owned by heathen infidels. It also helps when you get chivalry into your bloodline, it makes gaining it easier latter on. It can help quite alot in the late stage of the game, even towards the end of the high period, crusading slacks off, there's less and less need for it. It also helps with morale on the battlefield. With a 10 chivalry general with reasonable star's your men will almost never break. After getting 8-9 star's and high chivalry even spear militia gain the Bastogne effect.

[John Johnston]

I choose one or the other at the start of the campaign, and usually stick with it throughout. I had great fun playing as the super-chivalrous French, (it was surprisingly easy to keep control of conquered cities); I'm having equally much fun with the murderous Sultan Galib the Merciless, who has a list of unpleasant traits as long as yer arm and spends most of his day torturing, pillaging or consorting with assassins.

I tried to play the HRE as "somewhere in the middle", letting each general develop into either chivalry or dread, but it didn't really work out that well.

[Sir Moody]

Im usually dreaded (my many experianced assassins make sure of that) but that said i am very Loyal to my allies - so far infact that i have the best diplomatic reputation in the game and have factions literally falling over themsevles offering me alliances - i never break these alliances and only one nation has ever broken one with me - the HRE who soon found themselves on the recieving end of a Fixed Billemen and Long Bow formations

Generally ifind that by keeping alliances the majority of my allies spend more time dealing with their enemies rather than eyeing up my cities for a betrayal...

[mor dan]

i start out chivalrous and work my towards dread in the later periods. chivalry gives an increase to population bonus along with the law bnonuses, so it helps my cities grow faster. but once i get around 15,000 population i need to start curbing the growth rates more than the tax changes can do. for whatever reason, once i get to around 30,000 in any city i always get the plague, no matter what public health buildings i have. London, for whatever reason, is the only place i never have this issue. they grow to around 46k and the growth stops itself (at very high it finally reaches high enough pop that the growth becomes 0%).

so yeah, it's a gradual change from city to city as they grow.

[Goofball]

Let them hate us, just so long as they fear us.

Mwahahahahahahaha.....

[Bob the Insane]

I let my generals decide...

Chivalrous ones at chivalrously and Dreaded ones act dreadfully...

Chivalrous governers build churchs, stables and grand civic structures... Dreaded ones build brothels, archery ranges and siege engine workshops...

Chivalrous generals repeatedly charge the shield wall head on in an effort to break it, Dreaded ones let the peasant militia tie up the enemy troops while they make for the flanks or assault the enemy general...

I alwasy end up with more dreaded generals for some reason...

[madchoochter]

I like dread because the enemy run like sissies sooner rather than later. Sometimes I forget whether the general has dread or chiv and mess up. It'd be good if the prisoner and settlement screens had indicators for the generals alignment so that wouldn't happen. It's not good when Rufus the Chivalrous murders 4000 Scottish Catholics and executes all their army after sieging Edinburgh.

Anyway, I prefer Dread but only because I don't use governors much. I'd rather sack places like Antioch, Jerusalem repeatedly for cash than keep 'em when they have high Islamic populations. Catholic lands don't seem much of a problem with a good garrison until population goes through the roof. Then you evac, raise the taxes and after a rebellion sack/exterminate the joint. I guess that makes me a bad person!

[Faenaris]

Chivalry all the way. Other factions love me and the poor soul that dares attack me, gets excommunicated and is then subjugated to a crusade. It is good to be good.

Although, I do have to add, if I was there and I fought a people that defied me, I would probably set a bloody and gruesome example. And if someone actually killed a loved one ... May God have mercy on your souls, for I shall not!

[Redtroll]

Well, I tried a french campaign playing the White Knight (never declaring wars or executing prisonners), but looting all those big cities was too much incentive so I finally fell from grace.

Now I'm in the middle of a Byzantine Game, busy fighting a mongol invasion in Armenia. Probably due to repeated execution of mongolian prisonners (don't want to see them coming back at me for they cost me a lot to beat) and an immoderate use of assassins, my emperor John Commenus quickly earned his 10 skulls.
I'm quite certain even mongolian leaders were impressed ... His successors seems also to be going on the "dark side".


I'll try to stay an honest man in my next catholic campaign. Btw, does exterminating an excommunicated faction's town earn you some bad trait or is it just considered the right thing to do, burning pagans ?

[katank]

Dread is great. Makes the enemy rout faster. Besides, why let them come back to fight you?

I tried chivalric characters before but just found that it doesn't fit into my conception of TOTAL WAR!!!

[Decker]

DREAD all the way. Nothing says like "Don't Tread On Me". Anyone on the battlefield is game, and if I'm broke....well lets just say no one is walking out of that city with their teeth.

[Blademun]

I am a Dread Lord. Muhahaha...

I just won a long campaign as the HRE in three days H/H difficulty. I did it in 90 turns. I won 140 battles, lost 4. In every one of those battles I executed every prisoner I took, sometimes I even played with them, letting my mouse wave over the release button, then suddenly dash over and click execute. I sacked every city I took, and when I declared war, I never made peace again, except till the very end. I was very fond of completely wiping out my enemys without giving them any quarter or chance.

My family line had all kinds of dread attributes. My Last king had such nice traits as 'Dreaded Father', 'Dubious', 'Merciless Leader', 'Mixed Loyaltys', Oh, and he had Warts, too..He was known as Emperor Phillip the Merciless.

My rep was very Untrustworthy, which I guess I deserved. Afterall, I made a alliance with Portugal, just so I could attack spain, and then turned around and destroyed the Portugese faction and made the Moors into my vassals. I sacked Rome to end the game, I had been allied with the Pope Throughout the game till that last moment. It warned me that I would be attacked by all the other catholic factions if I sacked rome. I found that rather funny, since I was one of 4 Catholic Factions left in Existance. I had already destroyed Venice, Milan, France, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Sicilly, and crippled Hungary and England.

I really take Niccolo Machiavelli's teachings to heart, especially

"When it comes to whether its is better to be loved or Feared, it is preferable to be Feared."

and

"Whomever should conquer a free town and not destroy it, makes a terrible error, for it could very well destroy him."

[nameless]

Prepatch I was always dread, exterminating and executing everyone that stood in my way.

Now postpatch...I dunno, it really depends on the situation. Some cases I'll let the citizens live and just occupy their city if I need to tech it up quickly but for others I'll just exterminate. In regards to prisoners I'll ransom if there's alot of money involved but most cases they end up being cut down. So it's in the middle for me now.

[Von Nanega]

I tend to roleplay significant family members. Crusader types, Chivalry. War agianst Europeans, Dread.

[Naefen]

Emperor Lothar the Killer

Rebels, heathens, heretics and every other imaginable scum of the earth.... I have killed them all. And I wont rest until every Venetian lie dead at my feet. Die! Die!! DIE!!!

My emperor, Lothar, have 10+ Authority and 10+ Dread. Nickname is Killer. His first nickname was actually "the Cunning", then changed to "the Merciless" and now "the Killer".

Like someone else said above I too play the Family members as they start out. If they have some dread at the beginning, they rarely evolve the other way around. With Lothar though, I descided he had such a firm grip on his empire that I started acting horrible with all my family members and generals.... HRE turned a kingdom of doom ehhehe

Lothar the Killer is now closing in on 60 and I have started letting some of his relatives go back to their chivalric ways. It seems the days of horror is coming to an end....... or are they?

[Somebody Else]

I play chivalrously - always occupy and ransom/release (ransom if there's lots, release if there's few - chances are, they'll be executed anyway). I've sacked two cities in my Venice game - but that's because they revolted on me (Constantinople and Jerusalem). Yet, for some reason, my faction leader - despite being a crusader, respectful to prisoners, saint of battle &c. has the epithet 'the Merciless'. Must be all those dodgy hooded characters wandering around. His hands are clean though...