This conversation has actually made me interested in another option while romancing Clara. Nutella Queen has said on tumblr that if MC breaks up with her, they get the option of never caring about her in the first place and doing it only to hurt Richard. I think it could be really interesting if they also had an option where they started romancing her to upset him, but actually fell hard.
Is it cliche? Yes. And am I a sucker for that trope? … also yes. If it’s not too hard to code I’d really have fun with it. Thoughts from you all?
I’d so love to see my MC doing that. I personally hate cliché situations, but sometimes they just never get old and will either make you smile, laugh or cry… so, yeah.
No, i actually think it’s pretty interesting in how the characters will react. As you’ve already said since we have that option, i think it’s only logical that they have that choice as well.
Just so you know Richard is ahead of you in every possible sense of the word, especially when it comes to combat. So if you try to force him to do anything and he decides to put hands on you…well you’re getting your face knocked loose and with the ending to book one I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. Also if play the route of having an actual relationship with him you will know that he cares about the MC and I even had him in that force marriage. The problem is people are putting 21st century expectations on a royal from a completely different setting. While its your story the world is the same no matter what and the setting has been established by the author so fact is Richard’s character is possibly one of the best ones because it remains true to the concept of a royal rival. I mean its not like he tired to kill the MC while they slept and trust me when it comes to matters of the throne that’s not out the question.
Unless the MC have high combat stats, then he couldn’t do shit, I still remember when MC in Unwanted warrior beat down their older brother Alexander in pure combat, and it was based on stats.
It’s purely left to the stats to be the deciding factor in the game. And yes even when we are King our rule is shaky at best and disputed at worse, but not all Monarch must be good at combat others are weak but good at other specialties. Besides you don’t need to be an all conquering god of war to be called Great in your moniker. And we can just order someone to get rid of him let’s just say an mysterious accident perhaps?
You do know that there is literally a stat called combat and that’s what I mentioned. And yes all Monarchs must be good at combat or atleast half decent, no kingdom is going to follow a king that can’t protect himself ( even in cultures where the women lead they had to be good at combat he time of kings, queen and emperors was ripe with war and guess what time period this game is most closely related to) also in this situation you do need to an “all conquering god of war” since you know your kingdom and family is in danger of being wiped out. Now lets say you give that order, word gets out that he was killed since they would find out given your relationship you will be suspect number one. Now imagine how your kingdom would react since they all pretty much prefer Richard and imagine Clara’s reaction to pointless violence.
Well it does kind of depend. And a lot of female leaders definitely didn’t have combat ability. Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Olga of Kiev, Cleopatra VII, ect. They did engage in war, but never on the battlefield and even in terms of tactics, that was mostly left to generals who knew what they were talking about for kings and Queens. These queens were still respected by their people. Catherine the Great usurped her husband is a political coup, not by fighting him directly.
Also the time period this is based on is pretty vague and anachronistic. It seems to be a mix Medieval to Renaissance. And the Middle Ages spanned from 500 AD to about 1300 AD. While many leaders did fight on battlefields, by the time the late Medieval period was turning to the Renaissance, Kings were definitely discouraged from fighting since they couldn’t risk losing their leader on a battlefield. Richard the Lionheart was a great warrior and commander and he left and refused to rule England constantly to go on campaigns and ended up dead by an arrow in an unnecessary battle leaving his much worse brother John to take the throne. Edward the Black Prince was a great warrior and apparently a great leader but died of dysentery due to being on campaign, leaving his less prepared brother who was ultimately overthrown due to his misrule. Emperor Augustus in contrast was infamously cowardly in battle and constantly feigned sickness to not put himself directly in them. He would have battle, just made sure he specifically wasn’t involved, but he is still considered the first (and usually the greatest) Emperor of Rome and was a very successful emperor.
If they were in battle, late Medieval and Renaissance Kings were expected to stay in the back so they wouldn’t be hurt due to fears of situations like these. In many of these courts, political intrigue mattered just as much if not more than brute strength.
I agree with your point since that’s why we have our subordinates advisors, ministers and generals alike to work for us since we are not expected to be good and experience in all fields, we’re only human after all. You only need to be decent, wary of who you trust and levelheaded to make the right call. Know when to fold, be compassionate or ruthless especially when to cut our losses and call it quits. It’s called “REALPOLITIK”. I still stand my point @Dahariel . Besides you don’t see a lot of modern world leaders who knows how to fight with just a few exceptions like Canada’s Prime Minister, Russian President Vladimir Putin and a handful of countries that is a dictatorship who’s rulers are Generals
Popping in to say that I really hope a ruler MC’s stats play into their reign. A high knowledge one could be like a scholar king/queen, someone who, rather than expansion, focuses on infrastructure; high charisma king/queen could focus on diplomacy and forging alliances and trade routes to stabilize the economy; a high combat one could focus on expansion and war.
If the war with Erwan will take 3-4 books I think it would be cool to have something playing out in the meantime as well. Thoughts?
I actually notice the MC could be both knowledgeable and skillful in fighting. I had manage to raise my knowledge skill to a reasonable high level and Swordsplay to above 80 .
Hence , it is possible for MC to become King Arthur or King Aragon type of ruler if readers choose to concentrate on running the kingdom effectively , needless to say we need to sacrifice our romance time with potential lover.
I would think for a potentially long series of the books, the challenge would be for the route of letting Richard becoming the King. By not directly making the ruling decision, MC would follow the path of either supporting or sabotaging Richard’s reign, i am intrigued on how the author would present MC as a loyal supporter of Richard and what kind of role such MC could engage upon the story, as an usurper/traitor , naturally the story path would be clear cut but the challenge would be to present an interesting story for a supportive MC, especially if this MC choose to pursue a romance route with Princess Astryn, how could the MC balance between the love of Astryn and the loyalty of Richard🤔?
Is the patreon demo still available? Cause I went to the patreon and there was a post that said the demo was deleted and I’m not sure if it was brought back.
Me: does a run with a MC close with Richard for the promised additional angst of romancing Clara in the future.
Also me: genuinely likes him when he’s not being a dick and grows to appreciate/love his character.
I don’t have the patreon anymore but I think remember reading that it’s fixed now. You can shoot Nutella Queen and ask or a message on tumblr to double check if you want. She’s good about clarifying things like this over there.
