What's better Dread or Chivalry ?

[EzCorp21]

I've never released any prisoners that I have taken,I've sometimes done randsoms But I mainly execute all prisoners I take.In my campaign right now I've been executing all prisoners Since I'm at war with everyone except the Turks(((((I took out scotland,France,Spain,Portugal,Moors and Venice.The mongols just came so I'm at war with them too.I'm playing as England btw,Just thought I would let you know the backstory.)))))
So is I bad that I execute everyone that I capture?Also when I capture a settlement and the people are mad I always choose to kill the people.
What are the benefits of either?

[Comrade Roboto]

Executing prisoners will make it harder for you to be successful in diplomacy, because factions will like you less for it. It also gives your general dread, dread gives a morale penalty to the enemy fighting against said general. Chivalry gives your troops a morale bonus and also has some bonus for the city your chivalrous general is in (growth?).

[puddingkip]

If you're good at Medieval 2, dread.

Dread is far more useful than chivalry on the battlefield as your opponents will become cravens and run away after a minor setback. Good way to capture them and get more dread without losing any of your valuable soldiers.

Chivalry is useful for governing cities because it increases public order and chivalry and if you are being nice to everybody diplomacy gets easier because people trust you.

The problem with Medieval 2 diplomacy however is that it is nearly useless. Allies will backstab you with very little reason to do so and will often not honour the alliance if a strong nation attacks you.

So chivalry can be good for growing your cities but i much prefer dread. Conquering an AI city because your general has so much dread you win a very tough battle is usually way better than having a somewhat more developed city. The battlefield is more important than governing I find.

[apostrophefz]

I'm just starting my irish campaign, in Kingdoms, and so far, I don't have a personal preference. I like to weigh the own general's personality, and indulge him, and my enemy and diplomacy with him. I haven't executed anyone, although no major battles have been fought. I preferred ramson, and England paid every case. ... but I was hoping she didn't so I could have less militia archers and spears against me... But the executions will not haunt me, once I begin with them, because England is not open to a ceasefire, so, there will be blood.

An interesting addendum: my mayan campaign taught me differently about general traits. NONE of my mayan royalty never knew one speck of chivalry. Or management. Which is a very curious. Gameplay-wise, you sacrifice (the Sun God doesn't know executions) with no regrets, hundreds of souls. But of course, all my generals were mean, cruel, or hard servers of (dreadful) justice, and most were poor traders or dull administrators. In my first battle against the spanish, a siege to the city east of Vera Cruz, I tried releasing the prisoners, my first decision post-battle in M2TW, and so I did, and my general got one more Command star, not a chivalry point.
A nice touch to the Natives; what is chivarous to us, the West, may not be to them. Of course, to adapt this maybe would require an overhaul in the interface.