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

[Rob McDonald]

On 3/4/08, Robert Croson, Jr <robert at arcm.com> wrote:
>
> On 4 Mar 2008 at 21:00, Rob McDonald wrote:
>
> > Although I agree that the region lords hand over authority to a marshal
> > when they assign knights to the army, it is also impossible for them to
> > see into the future to such a time where orders may conflict between
> > them and said marshal. Removing knights from the army and setting up a
> > new army and marshals and putting them into it seems very cumbersome to
> > simple avoid the fallout that would otherwise ensue.
>
>
> Not at all. It's, what, two clicks per knight? Is two clicks per knight
> worth
> avoiding all the hassle and arguments that result when you don't? How many
> clicks and keypresses resulted from the desire to save those two clicks
> per
> knight?
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Also, it's not quite like the duke is countering his own orders. Giving
> > someone the authority to order your men for now does not mean he orders
> them
> > as you, but with your blessing. If you decide that for now you want to
> order
> > them in a different way you are just exercising your right over your men
> and
> > temporarily revoking the other guy's powers over them.
>
>
> You signify that you don't want them to follow the marshal's authority
> by...
> Removing them from the army. For so long as they are in the army, the
> marshal is empowered to issue them orders. So you set the knights up in a
> situation where they *have* to disobey someone, by giving them
> contradictory
> orders.
>
> Also, it's common courtesy to remove them from the army. Otherwise you
> have
> a marshal who has no idea how many of the 10,000 CS in his army is really
> his
> to command. So he *thinks* he has 20 nobles and 10,000 CS, but in reality
> he
> only has 3 nobles and 1,500 CS. In addition to setting up your knights to
> be
> disobeyong orders no matter what they are doing, you are setting up your
> marshal for failure by not giving him the forces he is counting on to
> engage the
> enemy.



Yeah, I can see that it is probably just easier to do it that way. I
didn't realise it was that simple to reorganise knights into different
armies.

I still don't understand how the orders become contradictory though. A
region lord's orders will always supercede those of anyone else to his
knights, regardless of who does it, since any authority they do it under
will be from him, and he can therefore revoke that at any time. Telling your
knights to do something contrary to an order from someone you have given
authority to is essentially just like revoking their authority, not
contradicting their orders, since you have given your knights a command
straight from you, as opposed to through a medium.

Similarly in RL, if a guy your boss put in charge gave you someting to do,
you would do it, since he orders with your boss' authority. If your boss
then comes back and tells you to do something different you'd change what
you were doing, because your boss has obviously decided differently
to the guy he put in charge and that's his
right. There might be a brief moment of 'well, what about what the
other guy said?', but that would
easily be cleared up by, I'm your boss".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080305/c9937032/attachment.htm