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

[John P. Murphy]

On Mar 4, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Rob McDonald wrote:

> If the region lords have the right to pull their knights from the  
> army and order them around themselves, then that should just be  
> taken as implied when they order a knight to deviate from a  
> marshal's order, in my opinion. Removing them from the army and  
> setting up a new one just seems like a few extra button clicks to  
> achieve the same end.

Except that it's not -- dispatching a knight to the army means  
placing that knight under the command of the marshal.  The marshal  
then has the right to issue orders to those knights.

If the region lords then say, "Hey, follow this other guy over here  
leading the religious war", then they've set up a position where one  
person (the old marshal) is legitimately issuing orders (which the  
lords say aren't really orders), while another person (the religious  
faux-marshal) can at best issue requests (which the lords say *are*  
orders).  Sounds like a lightning bolt situation to me.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080304/c40cea90/attachment-0001.htm