[Discuss] Oaths of fealty and their confliction with other orders

[Rob McDonald]

There is a debate and argument going on in Eston at the moment about a
conflict of orders, and what supercedes what.

Basically, the army was ordered by the marshals to move out to somewhere or
other, but at the same time the Head of some religion in Eston received a
request for help along theological lines. He asked his followers for help,
and a duke responded, ordering his region lords to respond. They in turn
ordered their knights, who headed off to help. Now some of those knights
were in the army that had been ordered by the marshals to move so of course
accusations of treason abounded, and the argument became both IC and OOC.

To my knowledge, a duke's region lords owe their fealty first to him, and
then to the king above him, and so similarly their knights owe fealty to
their region lords above anyone else. This means that if there was a
conflict in orders, an order from your lord would trump any order from your
marshal, correct? Since it is he who you have an oath directly to. However,
the judge has just stepped in, and stated that an order from a marshal
appointed by the king trumps any other order, since his power is given to
him by the king.

This is wrong, isn't it? We are trying to become more duchy-dentric, so a
knights loyalty is to his duchy above his realm, hence a king's marshal does
not have more control over you than your lord does, as far as I understand.
I want to step in and set things straight here, because confusions like this
are only going to set up bad habits that need to be stopped. If I can get
some consensus on this it would be much appreciated.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss-moderated/attachments/20080304/30147866/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss