Why does Mormont take North when Stannis wins the war?

[highsis]

Stannis won his war against Boltons. I was expecting Jon Snow or anyone related to Stark to take the North, but Lady Maege from house Mormont became Lord Paramount of the North. She has no marriage to Starks, no claim to the land, but she ended up owning both Winterfell and the North. I reloaded the save and the same thing happened.

Is this working as intended? How does this war's result work? I have no logical explanation for this disturbing turn of events. I understand since Jon is a night watch that the north can goto another house, but how did it end up in hands of a minor lord with 1 county(bear island), no marriage relationships with Stark, and no claim to either Winterfell or the North?

 

[KaiserNoncehelmIII]

Stannis needs the bad pussy...

 

[TheAnguishedOne]

If Jon declines Stannis' offer and none of the Stark kids have been found, Stannis will give the North to some Northern lord who will help him fight for the Iron Throne. It just happens it's Mormont for you.

 

[Pokonic]

Honestly, what's a better heir to the wolves then the bears? Presumably, Longclaw will manage to filter back down to them once Jon Snow kicks the bucket, so they even have a house sword.

 

[Red Roo]

Because house Mormont knows no King but the King in the North - who's name is Stark!

 

[highsis]

If Jon declines Stannis' offer and none of the Stark kids have been found, Stannis will give the North to some Northern lord who will help him fight for the Iron Throne. It just happens it's Mormont for you.

Is there a any to assist finding Stark kids? In most games I've played North ends up in one of random northern houses and I would rather see it back in the hands of the Starks.

 

[KaiserNoncehelmIII]

When a stark is discovered the northern lord should give the title to them imo

 

[TMSaxon]

When a stark is discovered the northern lord should give the title to them imo

This is meant to happen, but for various reasons, Davos never ever finds Rickon, and Bran remains hidden. Basically, all the times that I've seen Stannis win (which is probably around 60% of times that I play this start date), I've seen Rickon resurface once. I would suggest that the likelihood of Rickon being found, by Davos or by someone else, or else the Stoneborn and/or Lord Wyman Manderly simply declaring him Lord of Winterfell and the North, should be drastically increased.

To be honest, this goes back to one of my bigger gripes with the mod in general - Great Houses die too easy. As we see throughout aSoIaF, loyalty to the great houses is practically religion in some areas - the amount of Stark reverence and respect in the North is astonishing, and even if you don't buy the GNC, it is clear that the Northerners will only accept you as their overlord if you are of Stark blood and (almost certainly) name.

 

[Lapsed Pacifist]

This is meant to happen, but for various reasons, Davos never ever finds Rickon, and Bran remains hidden. Basically, all the times that I've seen Stannis win (which is probably around 60% of times that I play this start date), I've seen Rickon resurface once. I would suggest that the likelihood of Rickon being found, by Davos or by someone else, or else the Stoneborn and/or Lord Wyman Manderly simply declaring him Lord of Winterfell and the North, should be drastically increased.

To be honest, this goes back to one of my bigger gripes with the mod in general - Great Houses die too easy. As we see throughout aSoIaF, loyalty to the great houses is practically religion in some areas - the amount of Stark reverence and respect in the North is astonishing, and even if you don't buy the GNC, it is clear that the Northerners will only accept you as their overlord if you are of Stark blood and (almost certainly) name.

There should probably be an opinion penalty for owning the North if you're not a Stark/Karstark/child of a Stark. Far too many southerners end up inheriting the North!

 

[Red Roo]

Maybe traditional great houses should have traits which correlate with their traditional regions which are inherited by birth and have effects on the stability/loyalty of (most) of the lords there. There should be factions to restore these characters if the title passes on to someone without the trait and also for someone with the trait who claims the title after the family dies out (or no) to decide to change their dynasty to the original owner.


(Sorry for the grammar, I am in a rush)

 

[highsis]

Same grief here. Some houses have supposely ruled their domain for almost eight-thousand years; it can only be feasible if the ties of vassal and suzerain is extremely firm, treachery and conflicts are rare between houses, and all ASOIF humans are pacifists content with their places, because in our medieval world a house surviving for over a thousand years is not probable, let alone multiple houses having existed for so long.

CK2 needs to introduce the Bad Boy notion so that if you were an upstart house that raised to a higher station through schemes or treachery, you should to be universally hated. I once put my legitimized bastard, former slave female count of age 16 starting in a barren northern county to become the queen of Westeros at age 32 and every vassal was so happy under her rule; that was such a nonsense.

 

[Red Roo]

CK2 needs to introduce the Bad Boy notion so that if you were an upstart house that raised to a higher station through schemes or treachery, you should to be universally hated.

This! SO MUCH YES!

 

[DorlasAnther]

I don´t think that CK2 should make upstart houses hated, if they become powerful. There were many rulers, who were lowborn, for example Roman (Byzantine) emperor Basil I., who started the greatest Byzantine dynasty.
But GoT mod is different. Even in books, we see that house Frey, which was 6 centuries old, was sometimes considered as new house and Walder had some issues with that, because some people thought that Freys were below them, even though they were powerful and rich. So, putting something like that "bad boy" thing in this mod would be actually good. But only for this mod.
But, there is one problem: Which house should have it? For example, Velaryons are really proud and prestigious house, which married with Targaryens and if Rhaenyra had won, they would have inherited the throne. They have been the backbone of Targaryen navy. Yet, in ranking system of CK2, they are only counts. So, if Velaryon became lord paramount or king of the Iron Throne, would he be considered as someone, who got higher rank than he should?

 

[knuckey]

This is AGOT in CK2, not CK2 in AGOT, so crazy dynamic shenanigans are staying

For those who crave more dynastic stability however, please look at this sub mod: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/sub-mod-dynastic-stability.859721/

 

[ramblymanguthri]

and Bran remains hidden

Which is because unless you manually move Bran south right after starting the game, he will be killed by Others within a very short time.

 

[Red Roo]

I don´t think that CK2 should make upstart houses hated, if they become powerful. There were many rulers, who were lowborn, for example Roman (Byzantine) emperor Basil I., who started the greatest Byzantine dynasty.
But GoT mod is different. Even in books, we see that house Frey, which was 6 centuries old, was sometimes considered as new house and Walder had some issues with that, because some people thought that Freys were below them, even though they were powerful and rich. So, putting something like that "bad boy" thing in this mod would be actually good. But only for this mod.
But, there is one problem: Which house should have it? For example, Velaryons are really proud and prestigious house, which married with Targaryens and if Rhaenyra had won, they would have inherited the throne. They have been the backbone of Targaryen navy. Yet, in ranking system of CK2, they are only counts. So, if Velaryon became lord paramount or king of the Iron Throne, would he be considered as someone, who got higher rank than he should?

Baratheons are a bastard, non-valyrian cadet dynasty of the Targaryans, and Robert was a LP - he was still hated not just for his poor leadership, but also for being a 'usurper'.

Makes sense to me to have anyone who isn't appointed by the Throne or inherited without any foulplay involved (except for situations like the North in the WOTFKs) to be seen as upstarts and usurpers.

 

[SBerger]

There's really no evidence that Orys Baratheon was Aegon's bastard brother. It is only a very popular theory among the Westrosi nobility because so much honours were bestowed upon him, but if you really look at it, when Orys married Argella, not much things were changed. Orys kept Durrandon coat of arms, words, and very much blood because there are still Durrandon blood through Argella.

And it an extremely generous way, there were plenty of upsurped houses that achieved grand things. The Starks usurped most of the North through their conquests, Lann the Clever usurped Casterly rock from the Casterlys.

 

[TMSaxon]

There's really no evidence that Orys Baratheon was Aegon's bastard brother. It is only a very popular theory among the Westrosi nobility because so much honours were bestowed upon him, but if you really look at it, when Orys married Argella, not much things were changed. Orys kept Durrandon coat of arms, words, and very much blood because there are still Durrandon blood through Argella.

And it an extremely generous way, there were plenty of upsurped houses that achieved grand things. The Starks usurped most of the North through their conquests, Lann the Clever usurped Casterly rock from the Casterlys.

The difference is that most of those conquests were ancient. By the time of Aegon's Conquest, Houses generally aren't destroyed except in extreme cases. Even during those ancient days, more formerly royal houses survived than were destroyed. Off of the top of my head, in the North, House Stark destroyed four royal houses (including Houses Frost and Greywolf), and exiled another (Blackwood), whilst the Glovers, Umbars, Flints, Lockes, Boltons, Dustins and possibly others that I can't currently recall became vassals, largely ruling other the lands that they had already ruled over - the only House truly broken down is House Flint, and they seem to have been seeded everywhere else in the North.

Edit: Correction, "Amongst the houses reduced from kings to vassals we can count the Flints of Breakstone Hall, the Slates of Blackpool, the Umbers of Last Hearth, the Lockes of Oldcastle, the Glovers of Deepwood Motte, the Fishers of the Stony Shore, the Ryders of the Rills, and mayhaps even the Blackwoods of Raventree...House Greenwood, Towers, Amber, and Frost met similar ends, along with a score of lesser houses...yet the bitterest foes of Winterfell were doubtless the Red Kings of the Dreadfort...Yet in the end, even the Dreadfort fell before the might of Winterfell...even as the first Andal longships were crossing the narrow sea..."

That to me still means an unusually large amount of houses, specifically former royal houses, survived being conquered. We know of no houses in the North that have died out since Aegon's Conquest - Lord Willem Dustin was noted as having several family relations, one of whom I suspect will inherit Barrowton once Lady Barbary Dustin dies. So, overall, I'd personally say that dynastic continuity is more important in Westeros than it was in real life.

 

[karmaepsilon]

I like the idea of a mix of the dynastic stability+bloodlines mods to achieve a bad boy effect