[Discuss] Oaths of fealty and their confliction with

[Rob McDonald]

On 3/6/08, Timothy Collett <danaris at mac.com> wrote:
>
> Boštjan Pajntar wrote:
> > And this is good. Why o why must there be a one and only one chain of
> > command.
>
> The military chain of command, like everything else, is superseded by a
> noble's oath to his liege.  I don't think you understand how supremely
> important that oath is.  You serve your liege absolutely.  You do what
> he says.  Your sacred honour rides on it.  Your marshal has no such
> authority over you.
>
> Timothy Collett
> Anaris Family
>
> --
>
> The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire is your heart.
>
> ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan



It's probably going to take a while I think before everyone fully
understands the way the oath system is supposed to work. Problems like the
one that started this thread will keep occuring until it is properly
explained and implemented by everyone.

Possibly a message at the log-in page detailing exactly who you owe loyalty
to first and why? As was pointed out, the game tells you you owe it 'first
and foremost' to your region lord, but I'm not sure how many people actually
check that. If Tom stuck it where they all have to look to hammer home the
gameplay point he is trying to make, we might see less problems like this.

Although, part of it could also be due to the current upheaval with command
structures and generals, which people could be confusing with orders from
region lods.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss-moderated/attachments/20080306/47f44ad0/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------


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