Fealty Oaths to Commoners
Posted by Apostate on 07/09/20
Q: Lore Limerance Dogma 2 does an excellent job identifying what the fealty oaths are and certain expectations by each person (liege, bannerman, sworn sword, commoner). What typically is the expectation if care when a liege or bannerman swears to "defend my land and my people?" In terms of land, that seems general and basic enough to assume defense in times of war, defense against abandoned attacking the land . . . but defend people? Modern times can hold a variety of expectations from care to health, education, and poverty, but in terms of a fealty oath and considering under the commoners section there are mentions of abusive lords . . . what is the bare minimum expectations? The traditionalist expectations? And what has been the more progressive expectations?
A: The common understanding that is that 'defend my land and my people' is considered a single thing, as in, 'defending my land from attack' implicitly means to defend everyone living there from attack. Quality of life is not considered, just by actors attempting to do violence upon them. The way a leader could be considered an oathbreaker would be if they ceded towns and let everyone inside be slaughtered in a fit of pique, because they were upset at villagers or the like. It would be exceedingly rare. A handful of more progressive peers see it as their responsibility to provide for a higher quality of life, and see it as part of their oaths, but that's an extreme minority opinion. Most of the peerage thinks it reflects well upon a leader to be a caring leader, but virtually none think it is a religious obligation to be.
A: The common understanding that is that 'defend my land and my people' is considered a single thing, as in, 'defending my land from attack' implicitly means to defend everyone living there from attack. Quality of life is not considered, just by actors attempting to do violence upon them. The way a leader could be considered an oathbreaker would be if they ceded towns and let everyone inside be slaughtered in a fit of pique, because they were upset at villagers or the like. It would be exceedingly rare. A handful of more progressive peers see it as their responsibility to provide for a higher quality of life, and see it as part of their oaths, but that's an extreme minority opinion. Most of the peerage thinks it reflects well upon a leader to be a caring leader, but virtually none think it is a religious obligation to be.