I'm looking for opinions on the idea of "lending" a knight to another region. One of my characters is in a realm that is having trouble keeping control of a couple regions as there are no spare characters who can be knights for these regions. The scheme would work kind of like this:
A lord in a stable region that can spare the loss of a knight "orders" one of his knights to go and work in another region. The knight would continue to receive funds from the original lord (or perhaps a flat sum) and the understanding would be that they are still bound to the lord. The knight would then be offered an oath by the new Lord who would get the benefit of having the knight's estate. Once the threat of rebellion is past and the region can be handled by just the lord, the knight would return to his original oath-holder.
I don't want to suggest this in character yet because I can see how this could be working the game dynamics too much, especially since it's a realm on Dwilight. But on the other hand, the stable region actually loses production so there are disadvantages to the scheme and the game supports moving around from oath to oath.
Thanks in advance for any comments and clarifications.
I see nothing wrong with it. The new estates system will make it unnecessary, but until then, asking people to behave in ways counter to their survival when you are actually giving more consideration to the oaths than usual would be silly.
It would seem completely against the mechanic's spirit, but sometimes there just aren't other options...
On the other hand, for the original Lord to pay the knight for his service to another would provide enough counter-balance, no? Especially in this case, where a richer region will lose a knight to a poor.
It seems like you could accomplish this just by letting the Knight switch Lords and the old Lord sending a little money to the Knight every week in compensation.
Quote from: Perth on August 07, 2011, 11:45:03 PM
It seems like you could accomplish this just by letting the Knight switch Lords and the old Lord sending a little money to the Knight every week in compensation.
Yes of course. The question is, though, if this is acceptable, or leaning towards mechanics abuse/breaking immersion/cheating.
Quote from: Shizzle on August 07, 2011, 11:50:55 PM
Yes of course. The question is, though, if this is acceptable, or leaning towards mechanics abuse/breaking immersion/cheating.
Oh. Well, I don't think it would be anything negative.
If anything it creates some kind of IG questioning/thoughts about oaths and to whom your responsibilities truly lie whereas, sadly, you rarely see any.
I can't see as to how "lending" knights would be anything other than gaming the mechanics. The oath between the lord and knight is an oath of honor, not a simple contract for services rendered. It would seem to me that being "farmed out" and asked to swear a non-binding, or temporary oath to that lord, would be very insulting to the knight. Kind of like being treated like some common laborer or servant. The fact that you're offering to pay the knight a lump sum of gold on top of it, would seem to increase the "being treated like a common laborer" part of it.
Personally, I rather dislike the idea. If any of my characters were asked to do something like this, they would probably not only not go to the other region, but seek out a different lord who more values their noble service.
The few times I, and others, have reported such noble-swapping schemes on Dwilight, the answers have always come back as "handle it IC".
Quote from: Indirik on August 08, 2011, 02:20:26 AM
I can't see as to how "lending" knights would be anything other than gaming the mechanics. The oath between the lord and knight is an oath of honor, not a simple contract for services rendered. It would seem to me that being "farmed out" and asked to swear a non-binding, or temporary oath to that lord, would be very insulting to the knight. Kind of like being treated like some common laborer or servant. The fact that you're offering to pay the knight a lump sum of gold on top of it, would seem to increase the "being treated like a common laborer" part of it.
Maybe. But I don't see how this is anything different than when realms shuffle Knights around solely to be able to keep control of the regions they have. Every realm does this these days. "Hey, Region X is low on Knights and City B has a couple extra, lets get them to switch over." Every realm I am in these days does this without so much as blinking about anything like an "oath." And while I agree it would be nice to see people care about oaths, until the estate overhaul the current conditions are basically forcing people to disregard them in favor of keeping regions under control.
Quote from: Perth on August 08, 2011, 02:31:27 AMMaybe. But I don't see how this is anything different than when realms shuffle Knights around solely to be able to keep control of the regions they have. Every realm does this these days. "Hey, Region X is low on Knights and City B has a couple extra, lets get them to switch over."
I always oppose any such talk I hear about in the realms I am in. It's one thing for a lord to make open offers to the realm, and even to make offers to specific nobles. But lords talking about trading and moving knights around like pawns, I'll always step in and oppose such plans. My characters also refuse to participate in such plans.
I like the idea but I would do it differently. I'd like to make it a Duchy thing.
Duke Kepler has five knights, Lord Ossim has none. Duke Kepler orders one of his knights to aid Lord Ossim in the name of the Duchy of Keplerstan. Lord Ossim pays Duke Kepler's knight nothing.
While the service is being given, Lord Ossim loses some abilities such as switching duchy.
Ideas?
Quote from: Indirik on August 08, 2011, 02:20:26 AM
I can't see as to how "lending" knights would be anything other than gaming the mechanics. The oath between the lord and knight is an oath of honor, not a simple contract for services rendered. It would seem to me that being "farmed out" and asked to swear a non-binding, or temporary oath to that lord, would be very insulting to the knight. Kind of like being treated like some common laborer or servant. The fact that you're offering to pay the knight a lump sum of gold on top of it, would seem to increase the "being treated like a common laborer" part of it.
Personally, I rather dislike the idea. If any of my characters were asked to do something like this, they would probably not only not go to the other region, but seek out a different lord who more values their noble service.
The few times I, and others, have reported such noble-swapping schemes on Dwilight, the answers have always come back as "handle it IC".
That's what estates have turned nobles to, passive labor. So while I agree with your sentiments, I rather blame the mechanics than the person adapting himself to them.
Quote from: Chénier on August 08, 2011, 06:43:25 AM
That's what estates have turned nobles to, passive labor. So while I agree with your sentiments, I rather blame the mechanics than the person adapting himself to it.
Ditto.
Quote from: Chénier on August 08, 2011, 06:43:25 AM
That's what estates have turned nobles to, passive labor. So while I agree with your sentiments, I rather blame the mechanics than the person adapting himself to them.
Precisely. And this is why new estates will make me ever-so-happy.
you mean estates coupled with low pop? it won't be a problem with high pop and i don't think estates is to blame for low pop. it might accelerate the decline though.
Quote from: Bedwyr on August 08, 2011, 05:38:41 PM
Precisely. And this is why new estates will make me ever-so-happy.
But until then...
Quote from: Chénier on August 09, 2011, 01:59:28 AM
But until then...
Until then, we should continue to treat oaths seriously. If a knight switches lieges, then he's switched--none of this 'loan' nonsense. If you want to compensate him for switching, fine.
Quote from: egamma on August 09, 2011, 02:54:30 PM
Until then, we should continue to treat oaths seriously. If a knight switches lieges, then he's switched--none of this 'loan' nonsense. If you want to compensate him for switching, fine.
This is absolutely correct.