Honour. Are LGDR games becoming too dominated by it.

I wonder, One Grain, if you're acting in the style your character would behave historically? More and more I play this game, I am certain simply behaving in an 'honourable' way isn't enough, you need to act like your character should behave-so the Chinese mustn't be too nice to barbarians, the French not too nice to...well anyone...

I suspect one grain from the little I've read in the paper, that you're quite an eccentric ruler.

I think that Richard rewards players who breathe life into their leaders with small honour gains that add up over time. So you can play the game as a pure war game, but you are rewarded more if you mix in some good roleplay too.

Interesting take on it deacon & Jason. Possibly that is true, food for thought.
Not having played long enough to get a firm insight into how it may work, will be interesting
to see the effects to come.
And after all how can one not fail to gain honour from beheading those annoying French Onion sellers.

One Grain.

Frog abuse is always popular!

So one bonus honour point for every French onion seller beheaded....*picks up axe, heads off to marketplace...*

I did once make an English trader, who was trading illegally, into a eunuch and honour went up two points...not sure that would go down too well in the games if I tried it elsewhere...

A marvelous 2 honour points and a monetary and diplomatic bonus for on-selling the Eunuch to Pu Yi.
Well Done.

One Grain.

I like this honour system - sure we don't know everything about how it works but its more than mere celebrity and so long as you have enough to get your orders actioned thats good enough for me. I appear on the leader board from time to time but sometimes you have to make hard economic choices that you think will knock your honour score a bit but ultimately set you up for the future.

This keeps us in period - otherwise no one would keep the slave trade going.....

Oh, you wacky barbarians...with your cute adorable, childlike ways...

shurely you cant mean me????

It is said that Honour is awarded for playing a position historically correct. What if a position or a certain leader (and I'm not talking about pirates) were aggressive and did break a few treaties or inter-state agreements in the real history, would that be awarded with Honour for that particular position then?
Same if a leader was known to be really bad to his lower subjects but good to the nobility, will mistreating of the common people in order to give benefits to the nobles be positive or negative for Honour when playing that position?

In short, what's more important (in order to gain Honour) playing a position historically correct or actually being Honourable to as many as possible that could regard your leader positively?

Treaty breaking is dishonorable, so it doesn't matter if you did it historically, you'll take a hit in game for doing it.

But peasants are fair game!

Honor varies from position to position. Thinking in the right frame of mind for the 1700's helps. Also you can do things other than historically, but bear in mind how your lords etc may react. Some times honor is rewarded for simply bashing your long time foe in the pres (England v France, Austria v Prussia, etc).

Basically when you order an action and your honor goes up look back and see what you ordered....when it goes down likewise....