Kingdoms Map: The Code of Nobles

[Gis]

I do too, I think adding magic is a great idea. Since however magic was mostly lost to Rutileo,
I might not be the person to add these requirements. However, I can think of a few.

I am working on what "Magic" means in Belathre, but as it is as of yet unclaimed, I think that is what Belathre will be famous for: It's Magic Academy.

I think during Battle we should allow all types of Magic within reason. In court the use of Magic is frowned upon to use as a method of influencing people. Tricks and such are perfectly fine. Would that work?

Are you sure some "Rutileans" didn't come to the Belathre Magic Academy? (Will think of a better name at some point)

What about the Surrender and Ransom rules do you find too easy?

I can imagine a champion that is taken with much effort (at the expense of 3 of a kingdom's finest knights) will not be handed back over lightly for just a ransom, if the threat of ar still exists (even if there is a current cease fire) Only in exchange for some of their own men maybe, but not for any amount of money. Maybe it should say that these kind of prisoners can only be exchanged for other men (of equal value) as part of a peace treaty.

Just some thoughts.

[Wolf Knight]

Looking good guys! My mind is bloked... can't think of anything good, but you have covered many ideas so well!!!! 

[WarriorOfToys]

...
Are you sure some "Rutileans" didn't come to the Belathre Magic Academy? (Will think of a better name at some point)

Maybe one day, but for now Rutileo is just beginning to talk with other Kingdoms.
It is the first time in a long time it has been able to,
Due to wars within it's kingdom. Now there is peace, Rutileo can finally expand.

I can imagine a champion that is taken with much effort (at the expense of 3 of a kingdom's finest knights) will not be handed back over lightly for just a ransom, if the threat of ar still exists (even if there is a current cease fire) Only in exchange for some of their own men maybe, but not for any amount of money. Maybe it should say that these kind of prisoners can only be exchanged for other men (of equal value) as part of a peace treaty.

Just some thoughts.

That is how chivalry worked in the Medieval ages...
And in the same scenarios.
It was just: the way things worked, their way of life.

If the other side had captured some of your sides men,
then yes there were also prisoner exchanges.

[Gis]

That is how chivalry worked in the Medieval ages...
And in the same scenarios.
It was just: the way things worked, their way of life.

If the other side had captured some of your sides men,
then yes there were also prisoner exchanges.

Do I understand correct that you are agreeing with me. (Apparently it's miscommunication day today)

What I am proposing is that you should not just be able to pay a ransom and get your people back. It needs to be a mutual agreed upon exchange (of whatever for whatever) or as part of the peace treaty. I personally don't like the code to involve if we capture your knight, you just pay xxx and you get your knight back. That doesn't sound how it is supposed to work (I may be wrong of course)

[Giorginetto]

I personally don't like the code to involve if we capture your knight, you just pay xxx and you get your knight back. That doesn't sound how it is supposed to work (I may be wrong of course)

I agree with Gis ....

[WarriorOfToys]

Do I understand correct that you are agreeing with me. (Apparently it's miscommunication day today)

What I am proposing is that you should not just be able to pay a ransom and get your people back. It needs to be a mutual agreed upon exchange (of whatever for whatever) or as part of the peace treaty. I personally don't like the code to involve if we capture your knight, you just pay xxx and you get your knight back. That doesn't sound how it is supposed to work (I may be wrong of course)

I am and I am not.
I am saying exchanges are acceptable,
but to pay a ransom is a very reasonable way of getting your men back.
The ransom is based upon the status of the knight, his armor, and weapons.
It is not a fixed amount if that is what you are thinking.

[Gis]

I am and I am not.
I am saying exchanges are acceptable,
but to pay a ransom is a very reasonable way of getting your men back.
The ransom is based upon the status of the knight, his armor, and weapons.
It is not a fixed amount if that is what you are thinking.

Well it "is" a fixed amount.

Status "X" -> Amount "A"
Status "Y" -> Amount "B"
Status "Z" -> Amount "C"

I specifically said the exchange can be "whatever for whatever" maybe this country is in dire need of money and will settle for a small amount. Maybe they don't need moeny but want something else (land) entirely. Maybe it is an exchange for goods people...marriage....the options are endless. But I would not like to see this codified, but really treat it on a case by case bases between the involved parties.

If they cannot make come to terms, then maybe they are not so peacefull afterall.

[WarriorOfToys]

Ok, I see what you are saying and I agree.
The parties may choose the method of payment,
Be it land, food, materials etc.
Unless that is not what you are saying, is it?

[Gis]

Ok, I see what you are saying and I agree.
The parties may choose the method of payment,
Be it land, food, materials etc.
Unless that is not what you are saying, is it?

Yup that is what I am saying.

Also to make 100% clear, it is not just the method of payment also the "amount". It might be that to free one Knight costs a lot more from a certain Kingdom then to free another somewhere else.

[Giorginetto]

Yup that is what I am saying.

Also to make 100% clear, it is not just the method of payment also the "amount". It might be that to free one Knight costs a lot more from a certain Kingdom then to free another somewhere else.

on such incidents we cant just put strict rules for them as it all depends in negotiations etc