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

[John P. Murphy]

On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Rob McDonald wrote:

>
>
> On 3/12/08, Tom Vogt <tom at lemuria.org> wrote:
> Rob McDonald schrieb:
>
> > There is a debate and argument going on in Eston at the moment  
> about a
> > conflict of orders, and what supercedes what.
>
>
> Good.
>
> I won't help you. That kind of conflict is exactly what keeps the game
> interesting. It allows people to make choices. It forces people to  
> make
> difficult choices, choices with consequences.
>
>
> Yes, that is true, but there were also issues which seemed to  
> directly contravene your policies on who can issue orders, which  
> you strongly
> reinforce with lightning bolts. It would appear some guidance is  
> necessary, otherwise the discussion could culminate in them getting  
> the completely wrong idea about miltary hierarchy, and then getting  
> killed by you when they put it into practice.

I agree:  It's wonderful to have conflict from a knight getting  
conflicting valid orders, but it's important to stress that they are  
both valid orders.

The way I see it, there are complicated matters of etiquette and  
tradition which are being simulated by the game so that if a player  
ever sees the red Orders box (including the standing orders), he  
knows that his character received a valid order according to  
tradition and his own obligations.  If a person cannot send a red  
Orders message to another character, then that person should not be  
giving orders.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080312/ce3aac02/attachment.htm