Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bob_the_Theurge 02-05-06, 10:11 PM	I've got a character who has the Honored Lord of Tenh (and similar earlier plot points) from the year 3 "Duke of the Dust" story arc. Problem: Many of the current meta-orgs in my region require that the PC joining them swear fealty to the leader of the group in question, and the triad has said that being sworn to the current Duke of the Tenha region precludes this. The larger question, I guess, is whether or not I am ever going to see any benefit of my 1000 acres of dust, or whether I'm better off just asking the next judge to certify my abandoning the oath and join the meta-orgs. It's painful that a two year old plot point is able to derail meta-org memberships thanks to all the new meta-org rules suddenly entering play.
solbergb 02-05-06, 10:45 PM	This isn't a new thing. My wife, for example, has a character that is a member of an exclusive metaorg - one of the entry requirements is that you can't belong to any other. This caused a problem in a recent mod where you were temporarily expected to join an army - she felt that the spirit of the restriction precluded her signing up, even briefly, with any other organization. Most military orgs have always required that you swear fealty to the local government. I've had several characters who had consequences from either declared allegiances via metaorgs, or lack of willingness to declare allegiance. This is all part of what makes the game seem a little more real. Getting back to the main point...taking titles from core mods can mean divided loyalties and it is perfectly reasonable for your local government to insist that you make a choice between the Duke of Redspan and them for your allegiance. You won't find any Honored Lords of Tenh in any Pale PC that wants to be a member of a government metaorg, for example. We were after all at war with the Duke of Redspan. For that matter, even the lesser titles offered for saving the Duke from assassination had to be given up to remain in good standing. This was a good thing, IMHO. Sometimes not all characters can use all rewards. Conflicting allegiances is every bit as much of a barrier to a favor or award as lack of cash for adventure access, wrong alignment for an intelligent item or simply having a reward not be useful to your character (as the 50 zillion armor favors my monk has...or the spellbooks my sorcerer keeps finding)
JohnduBois 02-05-06, 11:30 PM	I guess it depends on how important that title is for your character. My characters, for example, would be asking questions like, "and how is being a lord of Tenh helping me fight Iuz/Rary/all the vampires in Chendl?" and then drop it like a stone. One of my friends, however, has a PC who loves the title as long as he can keep up his sign saying "Bears Welcome Here" (the PC believes himself to be a bear - don't ask).
Madfox11 02-06-06, 04:44 AM	It's painful that a two year old plot point is able to derail meta-org memberships thanks to all the new meta-org rules suddenly entering play. I concur with the others that such a rule makes sense, but it has nothing to do with the new meta-org rules. Your local triad made that discision. In Sunndi there always have been some MOs that prevented their members from joining other MOs.
JamesMaissen 02-06-06, 02:43 PM	I concur with the others that such a rule makes sense, but it has nothing to do with the new meta-org rules. Your local triad made that discision. In Sunndi there always have been some MOs that prevented their members from joining other MOs. I think that last sentence speaks to the core of the issue. In your region there have always been MetaOrgs so restricted, likewise in some other regions. There's nothing new here to you. But perhaps for the original poster there haven't been such in his region's metaorgs. He takes a benefit in character from a core module (rather than an outside regional) and then finds himself in the position that the core module's benefit may never deliver, while at home he suddenly is denied access to all his region's new metaorgs due to a fairly common benefit that's floating around. That can, indeed, seem to be a poor twist of things. But I also agree that it is something that you should take up with the people directly involved. Namely your Triad. Talk with them about it and get thier advice and help. -James
Bob_the_Theurge 02-06-06, 08:48 PM	I think that last sentence speaks to the core of the issue. In your region there have always been MetaOrgs so restricted, likewise in some other regions. There's nothing new here to you. But perhaps for the original poster there haven't been such in his region's metaorgs. He takes a benefit in character from a core module (rather than an outside regional) and then finds himself in the position that the core module's benefit may never deliver, while at home he suddenly is denied access to all his region's new metaorgs due to a fairly common benefit that's floating around. That can, indeed, seem to be a poor twist of things. But I also agree that it is something that you should take up with the people directly involved. Namely your Triad. Talk with them about it and get thier advice and help. -James My triad says I have to "pick my loyalties." Which begs the question - this plot point spans 1/2 a dozen AR's. I presume I have to go through them all with some Judge, have him cross them out and initial it, and then notate on the next AR played that I swore off my oaths to Tenh?
redgamer 02-07-06, 01:32 AM	I would just cross them out yourself. If you don't accept a favor then you don't have it. There may be a case were this doesn't work but this should cause problems here.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-06, 12:22 PM	I would just cross them out yourself. If you don't accept a favor then you don't have it. There may be a case were this doesn't work but this should cause problems here. In terms of roleplay, I don't quite like that answer. Plus, "rewards" on an AR are supposed to be there until legitimately removed - you couldn't just strike off a curse the same way, legally, right?
King Kashue 02-08-06, 01:46 AM	Not sure if this argument will work, but an oath of Fealty does not need to be exclusive and was often not. Such oaths dealt specifically with the personal relationship between Lord and Vassal, and while overlapping oaths (i.e., those likely to come into conflict, same region, enemy Lords, etc) are issues, historically a particular person would have several such oaths made over specific lands granted... If you want a run down of historical examples, I could easily provide one for you, I'll even sign my name to it (complete with Oxford Degree in Medieval History ;) ) As I said, your Triad might not care, but having an oath of Fealty to a Duke in Tenh over your lands there should not on it's face prevent you from having one to a Baron in Furyondy over your lands there...If your feudal duties between the two come into conflict, then you have an issue, but if Earth's medieval history is any model, multiple ties of fealty is not only allowed, it's common...
solbergb 02-08-06, 04:43 PM	Right...and it is up to your Triad to decide if the oaths conflict. As an example, the Pale is at war with Redspan. "Honored Lords of Tenh" are essentially traitors if they are Pale citizens, and the enemy if they aren't. As a result, you can't be in a government org if you are one, and will certainly be treated with suspicion if you announce that you are one to your average Pale citizen or official. Nyrond and the Duchy of Urnst, and perhaps the County all have treaties with the Pale, and have also had on-again/off-again treaties with the former Duke. I don't know the situation with the new guy who's supposed to Heal Tenh via his mystic connection who they've put in charge, but I could see the triad of any of those regions asking a PC to declare his allegiance one way or another, because the duties may conflict or interfere with negotiations involving the Pale. The BK borders Tenh, and Redspan has raided them for food and of course has battled Iuz. Clearly there could be consequences for being a Lord of Redspan in the BK. Any of the Iuz Border States may have strong feelings about a Redspan Lordling, because he's an avowed enemy of Iuz. These may be positive or negative, but will figure into the triad's decision. If you are in Ket, they probably don't care at all what is going on in Tenh or that you've got a bunch of worthless land there, but the government may still have policies about divided loyalties...that's a highly lawful land, and they may not look kindly on swearing oaths to more than one master. Bottom line...if the Triad says your oath conflicts, then they've got ingame plotline or societal reasons for it. In the Pale, we were given a remedy (cross off the minor favors if you have them, don't accept any of the Lord of Tenh titles and if you somehow became Lord of Tenh before learning it was a problem, quit the metaorgs for now and ask for a special mission to be reinstated) or the option of being an Honored Lord of Tenh, but being about as disliked as a Cuthbertian or Hieronean (Cuthbertites WILL prostlytize, and Hieroneous is the Great Oppressor of the Pale...Pale was occupied by Nyrond Hieroneans for quite a while).
solbergb 02-08-06, 04:49 PM	In terms of roleplay, I don't quite like that answer. Plus, "rewards" on an AR are supposed to be there until legitimately removed - you couldn't just strike off a curse the same way, legally, right? I'd say you can't cross off a curse or disfavor. But a favor? Sure....just cross it off and say why in the margin. It isn't any different from using the favor, you are just "using" it without getting any benefit from it. It might not be possible to cross off some favors if they're determined that they "owe you one" and they're too dangerous to offend, but that's a purely roleplay decision, not an RPGA one. In the case of an oath of fealty, it would be better to refuse it at the outset from a roleplay standpoint. Repudiating it after swearing seems like it should have social consequences, should you ever return to Tenh, or should you be discovered to be an oathbreaker. If it was me, I'd mention it if I thought it should matter to the DM, just like I tell a Judge about the Emnity of Grigkind my archer has every time he encounters the smaller Fey. (it is mutual, and he announces his full name when he encounters them so they will not mistake him for someone who likes the little jerks)
King Kashue 02-08-06, 09:41 PM	Bottom line...if the Triad says your oath conflicts, then they've got ingame plotline or societal reasons for it. That's an assumption...Maybe the Triad just thinks that the oaths are exclusive in nature... Ask them, if they've got an ingame reason (like the Pale has with their whiney Theocrat), then it's roleplaying...But it could be a mistaken conception of what an oath of fealty is, and they may change their mind or formulate a specific in-game stance, which will only improve the environment of the campaign by fleshing out the game world...
King Kashue 02-08-06, 09:43 PM	In the case of an oath of fealty, it would be better to refuse it at the outset from a roleplay standpoint. Repudiating it after swearing seems like it should have social consequences, should you ever return to Tenh, or should you be discovered to be an oathbreaker. Indeed...Historically, breaking an oath, to quote Bugs Bunny, "of course you know, this means war"...Lots of accounts exist of open military conflicts starting because someone repudated their oath of Fealty (and it was never something done lightly)...