Birthright: Chimaeron

I am not allowing it going forward. That is not the intent of the blood failure chart, and I don't like getting dragged into these disagreements on the application of complex treaties. I am not retroactively voiding their application, but you cannot include it anymore.

I feel like a blood oath is an important, mechanic to keep.

I agree it shouldn't be a routine thing, and a person who undertakes the oath should expect to suffer its consequences, should they come even close to a grey area of being in breach.

In this case, there is a clear breach, a promise of tribute that never arrived. Good reason, bad reason, doesn't matter.

The investiture should have failed, as soon as Riva's allies were expected to recite the vows of their office, they should have flubbed it no knowing what and to whom they were committing to, nor deriving their authority.

There should not be some universal arbiter of truth when committing to a blood oath. It needs to be derived from a binding force.

You swear before a Priest of God X, then you are in their hands. Hope that they are corrupt/not corrupt as the case may be to rule on your behalf. DM only needs to decide if the priest is acting according to their alignment and faith. The priesthood that sword the blood oath goes defunct? then it's unenforceable.

Just like Quest/Geas need to meet certain criteria so should a blood oath.

A blood oath cannot be a seal on the treaty, it needs to be specific.

It's an important mechanic, yes, but it's one the players have zero control over. The DM decides when a breach of a vassalage agreement or other regency failure occurs, and to the extent that anything in the contract is 'just a suggestion', it's a suggestion that is never heard.

It's the spirit, not the letter, of the agreement that matters for this. The land isn't paying attention to legalities. And even when the spirit of the agreement is breached, it doesn't matter if the subject of the agreement is not relevant to regency itself.

Vassalage breaching is its own failure type. Binding complex contracts to blood isnt workable, or working.

The Gods are alive and PCs this game, it is on them to decide if someone has breached a divinely sanctioned agreement.

It depends on the God. Lawful Gods would say no. The letter of the agreement is what matters.

Choose the God of your investiture carefully

MF - Morcuan the Fay wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:25 pm

It's an important mechanic, yes, but it's one the players have zero control over. The DM decides when a breach of a vassalage agreement or other regency failure occurs, and to the extent that anything in the contract is 'just a suggestion', it's a suggestion that is never heard.

It's the spirit, not the letter, of the agreement that matters for this. The land isn't paying attention to legalities.

Id inclined to agree.

I think if an arbiter is not part of the oath, ie swearing on a specific god, then the blood in the veins decide.

Look at Riva's derivation, and by the nature that derivation make a snap decision. An azrai bloodline would accept deceptive dealings, but an Anduiras would demand justice over specifics, Brenna whether the person breached or bad luck.

I would expect the DM to pull the trigger on blood oaths very readily. Its good human nature to not want to mete out consequences and punishment. I think that nature has to be reversed, and these things applied arbitrarily.

Make blood oaths have real consequence, such that they are never far from the top of the mind. Far more likely to trigger than not, and people won't use them as often. Apply them almost arbitrarily, looking at a small section or a broad overview only as you feel in the moment, and pull the trigger.

As a consequence people will narrowly define, the who, what, where, and how of their oath.

If complex treaties are going to blow up instantly, they arent going to be sealed with blood oaths.

In games where the Gods are ascended, yes that makes sense. But adding decisions to players that generates conflict and difficult options, is a net plus, and none of the Gods are truly split from their earthly representative currently. If Gaia granted a special investiture that evaded priests entirely, it makes sense that Gaia has to judge whether a breach occurred.

Yeah, its so subjective than it would be a failure Juan ruling over that, we are talking of politics, really. If an agreement is written under faith rules, its up to that faith to punish it, nothing more. I never expected than the Von Maul's were punished by the DM with reductions of lineage, not sure why a non existant (yet) god(dess) shall punish Riva , if we talk of that.

I personally have the opinion, that blood oaths or forced vasslage combined with loss of blood if breached are used to dominate and control other players. It should be something really seldom or bounded to a special course and not a routine where you can give contracts more security. Why should gods have interest in such petty matters.