Oaths (was: Re: Most infamous nobles of Dwilight)

[OFaolain]

The regency never had any formal vows or oaths. I've only known a couple realms to ever have an explicit oath that characters must swear.

Which is really something more people ought to do.

[Indirik]

Why? Oaths don't stop people from doing whatever they want. At most, it just prompts them to provide some rationalization for why whatever they went to do is right, and was really someone else that broke/invalidated the oath first. Thus their character was perfectly morally justified in doing what they did anyway.

[OFaolain]

Why? Oaths don't stop people from doing whatever they want. At most, it just prompts them to provide some rationalization for why whatever they went to do is right, and was really someone else that broke/invalidated the oath first. Thus their character was perfectly morally justified in doing what they did anyway.

Why not?  Such justification is good.  Plus you can call them "Oathbreaker" forever and with Baal the Betrayer and Jonsu the Usurper we need a good epithet for Enoch.

[Marlboro]

Why not?  Such justification is good.  Plus you can call them "Oathbreaker" forever and with Baal the Betrayer and Jonsu the Usurper we need a good epithet for Enoch.

Enoch the Doodoohead.

[Stabbity]

Why not?  Such justification is good.  Plus you can call them "Oathbreaker" forever and with Baal the Betrayer and Jonsu the Usurper we need a good epithet for Enoch.

Someone should capture and castrate him. Then he can be Enoch the Eunuch.

[Dishman]

Someone should capture and castrate him. Then he can be Enoch the Eunuch.

I expect a bad end to this character, but I'm hoping it is far away. At least until Jonsu's head is on a pike, then we'll see who the next focus will be.

[Daycryn]

Why? Oaths don't stop people from doing whatever they want. At most, it just prompts them to provide some rationalization for why whatever they went to do is right, and was really someone else that broke/invalidated the oath first. Thus their character was perfectly morally justified in doing what they did anyway.

It'd be nice to see more oath swearing in a world where swearing oaths is the foundation of real estate ownership and the social and political structure of the land. Oaths won't prevent actions, but they'll make them more interesting and appropriate to the atmosphere of the game, not least because when oaths are broken others might treat that like it's a big deal and rationalizations might actually be made in the first place. As it is, nobody bothers rationalizing anything because players act like oaths aren't actually a thing, when regardless of whether they are explicitly roleplayed, they are a part of every knight-lord and lord-duke and duke-ruler relationship there is.

[De-Legro]

It'd be nice to see more oath swearing in a world where swearing oaths is the foundation of real estate ownership and the social and political structure of the land. Oaths won't prevent actions, but they'll make them more interesting and appropriate to the atmosphere of the game, not least because when oaths are broken others might treat that like it's a big deal and rationalizations might actually be made in the first place. As it is, nobody bothers rationalizing anything because players act like oaths aren't actually a thing, when regardless of whether they are explicitly roleplayed, they are a part of every knight-lord and lord-duke and duke-ruler relationship there is.

The importance of oaths in medieval times is often romanticised and over stated

[Daycryn]

The importance of oaths in medieval times is often romanticised and over stated

Not in Battlemaster. Quite the opposite really.

[De-Legro]

Not in Battlemaster. Quite the opposite really.

Do you want the reality? Oaths for all their lauded two way pledge and responsibility were more often then not a one way system empowering the higher party at the expense of lower party, especially when the lower party was a simple knight.

[OFaolain]

Do you want the reality? Oaths for all their lauded two way pledge and responsibility were more often then not a one way system empowering the higher party at the expense of lower party, especially when the lower party was a simple knight.

Or at the expense of the king if enough barons get together; it all depends on who does what and who is friends with who, but having oaths of service and oaths of this and that would still, in my opinion, be a nice roleplaying touch.

[De-Legro]

Or at the expense of the king if enough barons get together; it all depends on who does what and who is friends with who, but having oaths of service and oaths of this and that would still, in my opinion, be a nice roleplaying touch.

The problem is that if it is RP only, well then we can do that right now. Nothing stops people from recording oaths on the wiki and causing a ruckus if they are broken. If they are game mechanic supported, besides adding yet another system when we are in the middle of fixing/balancing existing systems, it would be a massive job to make them flexible enough to satisfy people.

My advice on this has been the same for a long time, if a realm wants Oaths, they already have all the power needed to implement them. It does however require work from those holding positions of power, notably the Judge who probably ends up enforcing oaths and perhaps recording them, and the Dukes and other council members making enough noise to convince people to actually codify their oaths and write them down.

[Daycryn]

Do you want the reality? Oaths for all their lauded two way pledge and responsibility were more often then not a one way system empowering the higher party at the expense of lower party, especially when the lower party was a simple knight.

Well that idea definitely offends my 21st century sensibilities... but it would be more in keeping with the game setting and atmosphere. Breaking oaths and switching allegiances should be seen as a social more, the same way that someone proposing that peasants are equal to nobles would be. We do the latter pretty well, but the former gets kind of short shrift.

[Stabbity]

Can a mod split this into a different thread? Its gone pretty off topic.

[Buffalkill]

Do you want the reality? Oaths for all their lauded two way pledge and responsibility were more often then not a one way system empowering the higher party at the expense of lower party, especially when the lower party was a simple knight.

Sounds no different from how contracts are used today.