Requiring both parties to accept new oathes?

[Bedwyr]

One thing that's caused all kinds of bizarre interactions in the game is that, for the most part, if all you want to do is join a different entity (as opposed to being granted something additional), you need not have the agreement or even knowledge of that entity.  Which leads to crazy situations like a traitor to one realm defecting to a federated realm and then managing to flee or commit further crimes before the other Judge can act.  Nobles, Lords, Dukes, switching regions, duchies, realms, all of which are theoretically bound by oaths, but which the theoretical liege has no way to refuse.

That said, it has allowed some quite amazing and infamous feats in the game.  So, this is more of a general question...Do people like this, or would people prefer it being something that a liege lord has to agree to?

[Anaris]

In the new estate system, there is no oath required to take up an estate.

[Norrel]

In the new estate system, there is no oath required to take up an estate.

So knights don't owe fealty to their lords?

[Penchant]

In the new estate system, there is no oath required to take up an estate.

But you are their knight, implying you swore an oath. Also, in messaging, The lord of the region you have took an estate in is called your liege.

[Indirik]

Game-mechanics-wise, there is no oath required. It does establish a lord-vassal relationship, however.  The lord is informed when a knight takes an estate in their region. If they don't want that knight, he can be freely dismissed at any time. Alternatively, if the lord wants to individually approve of each knight before he accepts them, he can make sure he has no free estates.

[Penchant]

Game-mechanics-wise, there is no oath required. It does establish a lord-vassal relationship, however.  The lord is informed when a knight takes an estate in their region. If they don't want that knight, he can be freely dismissed at any time. Alternatively, if the lord wants to individually approve of each knight before he accepts them, he can make sure he has no free estates.

Currently game mechanics state that the lord is your liege, which implies an oath by definition of a liege. If the new message system changes that it can be said otherwise but currently, you take an estate with an oath taking place implicitly.

[Eldargard]

The game does not, however, specify what kind of oath that may be. Oaths can range from "Knight tends estate and collects taxes and pays liege taxes in return" to "I will lick your boots and do anything and everything demanded of me." Mechanically, I only see the first happening.

It is my opinion that a Lord should contact any noble that takes an estate in their region and formalize an oath. I t can be a simple as a few quick messages like:

"Do you, $NAME_OF_NOBLE, swear to care for and protect $ESTATE_NAME, to maintain a strong troop of soldiers, and perform the tasks given to you by me, $TITLE_OF_LORD of $NAME_OF_REGION in exchange for the income provided by $NAME_OF_ESTATE, minus taxes owed by you to $NAME_OF_REGION, and the guidance and protection of myself, $TITLE_OF_LORD of $NAME_OF_REGION?"

"I so swear." or "I do." or "Yes."

"Welcome, Knight $NAME_OF_NOBLE, Master of $NAME_OF_ESTATE. I have assigned you to $NAME_OF_ARMY under the command of Marshal $NAME_OF_MARSHAL and Vice Marshal $NAME_OF_VICE_MARSHAL. Please follow their orders in military maters as if they were my own."

Now you have an oath that is quite a bit less ambiguous and much more fun. I think it would also be more engaging for a new players. If an oath is not made, I can not see how one would expect anything more than taxes. That is just my opinion though. One could argue that it should be assumed that a big fancy oath took place and that the new Knight should simply know that they are now the lieges lap dog. I do not like assumptions - though I make more than my share of them!

[Penchant]

stuff

I am not arguing about what the oath is, merely that there is one, and thus Bedwyr's suggestion is valid.

[Eldargard]

If I understand the question right, I like that one can change their allegiance without needing to get their prior lieges permission.  I would prefer to not have this change. I think those kinds of changes help make a fun story.

I would not mind requiring the agreement of the new liege before a change is made for shifts of Lord and above. As far as I understand, Astrum did not want Kabrinskia's duchy to join them but the duchy did not need their leave as Astrum had no direct means of preventing it. Of course, there are means of punishing such a move after the fact.

[Bedwyr]

If I understand the question right, I like that one can change their allegiance without needing to get their prior lieges permission.  I would prefer to not have this change. I think those kinds of changes help make a fun story.

Completely agreed, and I don't think that will ever change.

I would not mind requiring the agreement of the new liege before a change is made for shifts of Lord and above. As far as I understand, Astrum did not want Kabrinskia's duchy to join them but the duchy did not need their leave as Astrum had no direct means of preventing it. Of course, there are means of punishing such a move after the fact.

That was one (of many incidents) of the reasons I brought this up. 

[Psyche]

The only part of the old oaths I miss is forcing a duke to secede, by means of demerits.  Otherwise, in terms of estates, I like how easy it is to give an unwanted knight the boot.

Though, I do somewhat miss lords protecting knights in good standing with merit points.