What makes a great lord?

An interesting take. However, I intentionally wrote it this way on the following ideas:

  • The lord is usually competent. If not enough to run the army by themselves, they have good advisors to help them (the Oifey, the Malledus etc.). However, what if the lord simply isn’t competent and doesn’t get competent. It helps show that giving authority to people by virtue of lineage isn’t always the best option, especially when said person isn’t competent.
  • Another issue I find is that oftentimes despite the lord being relatively minor on the world stage with power players like the Rudolf, the Nyna, the Gharnef, the Jiol etc. all with their large plots and plans, by the end of the game the lord’s army has become one of the dominant forces on the world stage due to absorbing other armies and becoming powerful. However, what if the lord’s role as the Nyna’s enforcer was all that there is, in that the Nyna is still the overarching leader with all the authority and that the lord only follows the Nyna’s orders, and hence when the Nyna brings out their much larger army, the lord is ultimately just following their orders. The lord is not the face of the anti-Rudolf coalition and their army is just one of many doing the Nyna’s work in the field. When the Nyna does properly show up, they Nyna is the authority of the army, and thus becomes the new lord in a sense.

That being said, this isn’t meant to be a pure deconstruction; there is to be some reconstruction in it.

  • While the lord is incompetent, he eventually does undergo character development and learns that he can’t do everything himself. He eventually hands control over to the starting party members who are competent while he himself makes use of his talents to be useful to the army without harming it in the process by acting as a morale booster and inspirational leader, as well as the face of diplomacy when involved with other authority figures. When this happens, player-hostile map design also eases up significantly as the lord’s incompetence isn’t placing the army into disadvantaged situations anymore.
  • When the lord’s father dies early in the story, it’s because the father was assassinated by the Empire in preparation for their invasion. The lord’s duchy is justifiably shaken but the lord is not the heir; he has a competent older brother who has no issue getting everyone’s act together and competently fights the Empire. While the lord makes legitimate contributions which lead to the Empire being forced to retreat, his older brother ultimately still does most of the work. Likewise, this serves as a foil to the lord, in that both he and his brother were born into nobility, his brother did actually have the useful talents and made use of the resources available to him to become a competent leader that is respected by his subjects.
2 Likes

With that kind of wording, that actually sounds better than before. I think I can see a bit of the scenario. Perhaps the lord is a bit too overconfident or borderline arrogant enough to realize that his “tactics” is actively harming the party. It’s only after a serious close call or outright a costly failure that makes him realize his mistakes. (Probably he tried to pull an “Ephraim attacks a castle with small troops” only to get caught when trying to break to the east.)
Although I’m a bit concerned it might cause an Early Game Hell.

As for the Nyna part, being only a part of the army rather than the main army leader seems interesting. Several war games that I know usually put you in an important part as an officer or something, so being a grunt once in a while helps a bit to add variety.

For some reason in many games they decided to balance a Lord as a unit that has access to a great weapon especially for the final boss but let the unit be terrible in almost every other aspect.

I think a Lord doesn’t need to be the best unit of the game but it should come with good qualities and/or tools in order to make using them worth rather than dragging them along because you have to.

Even a Sword-locked Lord can be useful if the game lets swords shine or if it has different aspects that he can provide. Something like a good skill the game eventually is built around or that is just very useful in general. These can even outmatch growth and base stats although especially the latter can be very important (imo more important then a potential chance to become way better later on).

Storywise it is better to have a Lord that prooves his importance through gameplay to underline its role in the story. If thats a basis then the story can feel free to elaborate a bit about its importance.

Overall with a lord its not much different than with every other unit of the game - The game must be designed around the tools you give the player. Or vise versa, the tools must be designed to fit the vision of your game although I think that’s more challenging even tho it sounds very similar. The only difference between other units and your lord is - The Lord will become more attackable if it sucks to play with it. Because it is an important figure of the game.