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

[Rob McDonald]

On 3/4/08, John P. Murphy <john.p.murphy at dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>

Why is it? A region lord can order his knights to do whatever he
wants, they're his knights. It doesn't matter if he put them in an
army, he can
take them out whenever he wants, because they're his. If the marshal
objects, laugh at him. He has no jurisdiction over your knights if you don't
want to give him any, that's your choice. As was mentioned, you just pull
them from the army and problem solved. Then you can send them on any number
of crazy quests, and it's up to them to object to that if they want, but you
are within your right as their lord to do it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080305/0cc4192b/attachment.htm