The value of an oath

[Bhranthan]

So apparently, the value of an oath is currently almost entirely one sided, and based on giving a knight his share.
It is barley mutual, and if it is mutual in some cases it is just a lord caring that his knight is not cashing his share without leading a unit or doing anything else in service of his lord/realm.
But the true value of an oath, which is a deep tie of allegiance to a superior, is not considered.
Oaths are broken and signed like nothing, for the Lord the oath fully has lost(never had) its value.
It is more often called simply 'taking of a vacant estate' then swearing fealty.

It is in my opinion that both having the freedom to break an oath repetitively like a baguette, or a kit kat as well as suffering  the consequences from it, are important.
In other words, as a knight i can simply leave my estate and join another lord, duchy or realm, but if i do that without my lords consent(not necessarily acceptance), i might have to acknowledge the consequences.

Right now, in the extremest case i can take a vacant estate from a lord, cash a few tax days doing nothing and then betray my lord for the enemy and still be as 'honourable'.
But if i am caught 'accidentally' slipping a huge rock out of my hands, which i was conspicuously holding on top of the towns gate, which ow so unfortunately fell on some militia(infiltrator actions), i lose honour?
 
Some how an oath has to be and mean more then just a guarantee to get some gold for a knight.
Before, Lords where rewarded with gold to take in knights, it didnt work, but neither is it necessary.
If some how Lords can express their opinion(with effect/consequences for the knight) on their knights actions(for example leaving the lord for the enemy), the oath would mean something again.
Lords might become interested again in having knights, as they now(with my idea implemented) have much more power over them instead of the situation before, where knights slipped through the lords fingers like liquid.

I personally am thinking of honor/prestige penalties possibilities for certain actions, based on the lords reaction.
For example, a knight leaves you, do you consent(has he discussed this with you/do you find his action honourable) or not?
If not, him leaving his lord and thus breaking his oath will make him lose face, status and thus honor and prestige.
You'd be known as the knight who broke his oath.

Yes lords can abuse this, so what?
This kind of abuse can be pretty fun.

If the Lord just hates his knight, the knight can do what ever he wants, still the Lord will slander his name.
Even if the said knight is actually one of the most honorable persons in the world.
Fair? no. interesting? in my opinion, yes.

Please discuss the value of oaths in BM and a solution if you deem so necessary.
I am quite interested to hear how this subject is viewed.

[egamma]

My view? Knights no longer have an oath. They're more like tenants. The game languages supports this; it doesn't say "oath" at all, it says "estate".

[Bhranthan]

My view? Knights no longer have an oath. They're more like tenants. The game languages supports this; it doesn't say "oath" at all, it says "estate".

I agree, thats what iw as trying to say exactly.
Oaths seem to have no value, instead it is more like taking up an estate.

So let me formulate my question better: Should oaths have (mutual) value?
If yes do we do that along the lines i suggested or otherwise?

[Anaris]

I agree, thats what iw as trying to say exactly.
Oaths seem to have no value, instead it is more like taking up an estate.

So let me formulate my question better: Should oaths have (mutual) value?
If yes do we do that along the lines i suggested or otherwise?

No, you have misunderstood.

The relationship between a knight of a region and the lord of that region no longer necessarily includes an oath.

Leaving your estate to find one in another region no longer involves breaking an oath, unless you have explicitly sworn one to the Lord via in-game message.

[Indirik]

So let me formulate my question better: Should oaths have (mutual) value?
If yes do we do that along the lines i suggested or otherwise?

Yes, the relationship should have mutual value. At the moment, the only value a knight brings to the region/lord specifically is that of an extra vote in representative elections. There are other intangible benefits, both to the lord and the realm, but as can be expected the value of those will vary from realm to realm and lord to lord.

There have been various things in the past that knights have given to regions, such as occupied estates giving bonuses to control and production. There are various proposals on the long-range radar to add these things once again. Whether or not they will ever happen is not really known.

[Eduardo Almighty]

Even worse happens when you have a war to fight and some nobles begin to think that you cannot win... then the Dukes just change sides to keep a position doing what they need to do to continue as lord. The excuse!? "I did what I need to keep my people safe"... when in truth we was trying to say: "Honor? I don't care. I like to be Duke..."

I would love to see the Judge just saying: "Thank you for the lands... now, you're banned. We have people with more honor to lead your city, low traitor. Adios, amigo". But it's hard to see when people are just trying to win the game.

[Tom]

Even worse happens when you have a war to fight and some nobles begin to think that you cannot win... then the Dukes just change sides to keep a position doing what they need to do to continue as lord. The excuse!? "I did what I need to keep my people safe"... when in truth we was trying to say: "Honor? I don't care. I like to be Duke..."

Lies and dishonour, yes. In other words: Perfectly normal politics.

[Bhranthan]

Even worse happens when you have a war to fight and some nobles begin to think that you cannot win... then the Dukes just change sides to keep a position doing what they need to do to continue as lord. The excuse!? "I did what I need to keep my people safe"... when in truth we was trying to say: "Honor? I don't care. I like to be Duke..."

I would love to see the Judge just saying: "Thank you for the lands... now, you're banned. We have people with more honor to lead your city, low traitor. Adios, amigo". But it's hard to see when people are just trying to win the game.

You don't get my point, and possibly the entire BM concept.

Why in Tom's holy name should we prevent people from doing something like this (a perfect example of feudal power/politics)? and why give the judge such power?
Just because IG something similar just happened? the Hamadan/Mines ceding wouldn't have been prevented by the Judge in this case anyway(whos the brother of the Lord of the mines).

What i am trying to say is that, in this case for example, the Caligan King could have given the Duke or Margrave of Hamadan a what we used to call something like a bad mark.
If someone breaks an 'oath' or allegiance, the person above the oath breaker can decide if the break of allegiance was honorable or not, resulting in honor and or prestige penalties for the action.
It means everyone can still do what ever they want, betray their king and all, yet if they go against the will of a superior, they will personally suffer from it, not withholding them from doing it.

An !@#$%^& of a superior could also first agree with his vasal changing allegiance, then slander him when he actually does. :)

We used to have bad marks for this, i suggest to bring them back with a few additions, like giving a sort of final mark when allegiance is changed.
Three good marks used to protect that vassal against judge actions too, which also was really fun and incentive for inter realm conflict.
I didnt like the concept that you needed to give bad marks before kicking a knight out of his estate though.
If i suddenly want to kick out my best and favorite knight in an unsuspected burst of impulse, then let me!

I understand timothy's point that their are no more oaths, that's what i am trying to say.
Oaths should actually be one of the central concepts of this game in my opinion.
You dont go 'shopping' or product comparing for allegiance in the middle ages.

[Zakilevo]

MAY TOM CONDEMN THOSE ACCURSED OATHBREAKERS!

[Lorgan]

Marks rocked.

[Eduardo Almighty]

Perfectly normal politics.

Yes. But the very concept of "I prefer to die to be considered a coward" of a medieval mindset is always forgotten. I don't think we are playing Game of Thrones here, so you must have at last the two sides of the coin instead of just one: "I will do what I need to keep my power even if the entire world thinks I'm a low traitor, a coward and an oath breaker"... also, people who receive these Lords will never do nothing to punish them, because they prefer the lands instead of honor. Just because it's normal politics it doesn't means that we must forget the other side of this question.

Erik had the chance to become King when we was in control of three cities and something around 10 regions. Even with the dream to become King, he didn't... he have an oath with Sirion and he prefers to die before being considered a traitor. Also, when Zakilevo tried to make changes in regions that belonged to him, he ordered his Lords and Ladies to keep his oaths to him and ignore the Prime Minister. They did. Then, for me, oaths are still very important.

[Penchant]

Yes. But the very concept of "I prefer to die to be considered a coward" of a medieval mindset is always forgotten. I don't think we are playing Game of Thrones here, so you must have at last the two sides of the coin instead of just one: "I will do what I need to keep my power even if the entire world thinks I'm a low traitor, a coward and an oath breaker"... also, people who receive these Lords will never do nothing to punish them, because they prefer the lands instead of honor. Just because it's normal politics it doesn't means that we must forget the other side of this question.

Erik had the chance to become King when we was in control of three cities and something around 10 regions. Even with the dream to become King, he didn't... he have an oath with Sirion and he prefers to die before being considered a traitor. Also, when Zakilevo tried to make changes in regions that belonged to him, he ordered his Lords and Ladies to keep his oaths to him and ignore the Prime Minister. They did. Then, for me, oaths are still very important.

The idea that barely anyone cares about oaths and not being a coward is ridiculous. You don't hear about them much because keeping the oath prevents news. Most wars till death, no one secedes and the reason it was a war till death is because the realm refuses to accept surrender terms because it's cowardice and they would rather the realm die.