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.