Finally someone thinks like Mara 
All of you summarize my gripes with Hippieman 
there is no a flying hamster icon he is as useful as one ^^. But if he became hardened like Alistair Mara loves his husband Aly aka The royal bastard 
If he becomes hardened (ya know, I tried typing ābecomesā like 6 times before realizing I still had my hotkey script on XD) iāll probably like him even more.
Donāt get me wrong, I LIKE naive silly Arthurā¦
But heās still naive and silly and needs to shape up to be an effective ruler.
Thus why ThalyGuen gets annoyed by Arthur! ā¦Heās kinda incompetent by her viewpoint (even though she loves him)
ā¦Though if Hardened Arthur is no longer quite so loving to Guenā¦ I am gonna murder him XD
Why does Arthur need to shake up? What has he done to indicate heās not an effective ruler (as opposed to a ruler, that just like every other ruler that has ever ruled ever), made some mistakes)?
Frankly, the idea of measuring how effective Arthur is by how brutal he is is a really, really disturbing attitude. Not to say you canāt be excessively merciful - but we donāt see Arthur giving away crown holdings left and right and we donāt see him giving obviously untrustworthy people positions of great authority, for example (looking at one of Englandās historical excessively merciful kings, who only managed to alienate his not favored noble subjects to the point of rebellion).
I doubt the barons rebelled because of a very effective general deciding that it was unnecessary to massacre the enemy.
āOur king isnāt sufficiently bloodthirsty! Letās give him an excuse to be bloodthirsty!ā sounds like a silly motive. Iām not against a more hardened Arthur, but the more Arthur not favoring cruelty and violence is condemned the more Iād like to see something where favoring cruelty and violence is shown to be a bad thing as far as what happens to Guen (either personally or her goals).
Vlad the Impaler did not die of old age.
4 Likes
Thatā¦ isnāt what I have a problem with really.
Itās more that Arthur kind of justā¦ forgives everyone!
It makes him too easy to manipulate in my opinionā¦ the fact the Queen could get kidnapped inside his castle kind of proves it, in my opinion. Him pardoning the barons is veryā¦ dumb since they DID commit treason! He has to actually punish people sometimes! Thatās my complaint really.
2 Likes
So the solution is for Arthur to forgive no one?
Because otherwise youāre left with whether or not his judgment on who to forgive is any good, and āharderā=/= better able to determine who wonāt do it again (because fighting him again just means being knocked down again) and who will be a mortal enemy.
And why is it dumb? They did commit treason. Remarkably, I can find examples of historical rulers pardoning rebels against their authority without them being stabbed in the back immediately afterwards.
If the nobles of Britain were as eager to stab Arthur in the back as some people seem to want him to treat them as, I imagine weād see more trouble from them than we actually have.
Fallaner really shows my point you could be a merciful king, but what Arthur does goes against good judgment. Old Greeks had a fable about a foolish guy that picked a ill snake dying in a frozen soil he put it in her clothes trying warm it. When the snake felt better bite the man who ended poisoned. The man angry insulted it. and snake reply why youāre angry i did what i suppose to do by nature laws you were the foolish trying to change it. Ruling since classic times is a balance over a really slippery rope. The Damocles sword still hanging. Itās as bad a Comodo or Neron ruler as a Arthur and Boabdil. And Vlad was an amazing ruler that still being loved in Rumania he had saved part of Europe from Turkey otoman empire in a guerilla fight we must be thankful to men like them
1 Like
And thatās why weāve had nothing but trouble and more rebellion with the barons for the last three years.
Apparently we should just label them vipers because once a problem, always a problem.
As for Vlad: No, Iām not thankful to men like him. If I have to choose between his rule and the Ottomanās, Iām at best choosing between two things I donāt support - especially as someone who has no inherent passionate attachment to ānational indepndenceā for its own sake whether well ruled or badly ruled.
1 Like
In my opinion, if you donāt punish treasonous behaviorā¦ you really donāt GET anywhere. It sets a bad precedent and a bad example for your subjects. If they arenāt punished for treason, then they may continue to commit treason. Iām not saying you have to be heavy handed, but iām saying you shouldnāt give out forgiveness like itās air.
You do not simply pardon treason, of all things.
It seems you misunderstood and thought I wanted him to forgive no one. No, I want him to be able to forgive, just I donāt want him to forgive EVERYTHING. You shouldnāt pardon treasonous behavior, for example.
1 Like
No, it seems like āArthur is showing bad judgment.ā is based entirely on the idea that being merciful is in and of itself an act of bad judgment.
If weād spent the last three years with the barons rebelling again and again I would happily argue for the idea that they should be punished instead of forgiven. But saying āthey committed treason, the only acceptable response is punitiveā is endorsing being punitive, not having good judgment on if youāre dealing with vipers or not.
Exactly BALANCE is the key of good ruling. For sake of your peasants you have to punishment some treacherous bastards at least the leaders. Isabel de Castilla our best ruler ever killed only few rotten rebels in the civil war she forgive the rest even give help to commoners bad treated by her own army thats a good ruler balance
1 Like
Each time period had his ways trying to put our own mentality to them is worst error a historician could make. High Treason only punishment until french revolution was death Elizabeth had really gruesome methods same The sun king in France
1 Like
Mara here seems to be running on the same idea as me, or at least similar. At least we agree.
So Iāll defer adding more to this right now XD
I believe Jean has stated somewhere that the Britain of this game world isnāt meant to be historical Britain.
But even if it was, not every single medieval ruler treated execution as the only acceptable treatment of rebels - not even rulers like Basil II (Bardas Sclerus, to name one example).
Iām not saying that there should be no executions, but insisting on Arthur executing rebels for the sake of executing rebels doesnāt seem either wise, historical, or anything else that would be a positive.
Iām not saying he has to execute them, you can punish them without executing them. Taking away some of their stuff, for example.
1 Like
Sure. But taking peopleās stuff can provoke resentment, which makes future rebellion more likely.
Given that we donāt have any sign that the barons have been wreaking havoc for the last three years, I wouldnāt say punishment should be treated as mandatory.
Elfwine really you are at least as stubborn as me XD. we donāt have knowledge about barons misdemeanor or not really. We have indications for Morgana and Barbie that they always do. Anyway further than barons Do you think Happy king has to punish criminals or has to forgive everything and everyone Insert sarcastic tone the individual has litteraly being as nasty of some really evil bastards had being in that time? I even could actually accept the fact let the barons keeping harassing commoners from not only their land when barons rebeled do you think they didnāt looting rape women and children and randsom any money people they could get hands of in the land they try to get by force?? Because of course thatās ultra fair for the innocent people they slaughtered .
2 Likes
I think that the insistence that Arthur should be harder and more violent has nothing to do with actual kingly duties and everything to do with wanting more ruthlessness.
Refusing to punish people despite the advice of your friends is a very bad idea!
Part of a duty of a king in this time period is that they have to be able to dole out proper justice! The Barons have broken the law, commited treason, and likely a bunch of other things. It IS his duty as a king to punish them for it, not let them get away scot free!
People are HANGED for less than treason!!
1 Like
Punishing people or not punishing people simply because Morgana and others say so is very ill advised.
And it his duty as king to bring them to submission. If they submit, it his duty to prevent further rebellion. Punishment is a tool in this process, not an end unto itself.
Not punishing TREASON of all things ENCOURAGES an uprising! If they lose they wonāt be punished! If they WIN nothing bad happens! Its a relative win-win for the leaders!!
A punishment helps teach people their lesson and reform, and allows justice. We HAVE a legal system for a reason!
1 Like