Life Oaths or Tour of Duty

[Potaje]

RAT:

I wonder why they make being in the militia in either city-state a life sworn thing. It would seem to me that it would be more realistic if soldiers served Tours. Four or five year commitments.

Each rank after the initial first year of recruit, or basic, would be a contractual agreement for another Tour.

I guess I wonder why one would have to store to retire.

I could maybe see its relevance in a Noble house, them seeking life sworn servants.

sure food and resources and training, but the soldier does off up their life in the line of duty.

I just think stories would be richer if there was growth away from certain clans and perhaps promote  longevity in more characters in stead of only having storage as the answer.

Just a random thought.

[Kismetic]

I wonder why they make being in the militia in either city-state a life sworn thing. It would seem to me that it would be more realistic if soldiers served Tours. Four or five year commitments.

No clan that I know of requires a life oath.  It's typical of all clans to achieve a certain rank, however.

[Barzalene]

Maybe I'm the exception, but for me hunted down and killed is often a selling point.

[Potaje]

I wonder why they make being in the militia in either city-state a life sworn thing. It would seem to me that it would be more realistic if soldiers served Tours. Four or five year commitments.

No clan that I know of requires a life oath.  It's typical of all clans to achieve a certain rank, however.

I believe that was my point, after recruit's first year, would simply become a Tour.

[FantasyWriter]

Maybe I'm the exception, but for me hunted down and killed is often a selling point.

Sometimes, aye.

[Kismetic]

I wonder why they make being in the militia in either city-state a life sworn thing. It would seem to me that it would be more realistic if soldiers served Tours. Four or five year commitments.

No clan that I know of requires a life oath.  It's typical of all clans to achieve a certain rank, however.

I believe that was my point, after recruit's first year, would simply become a Tour.

What I'm saying, though, is that if someone is telling you that you have to take an oath to become a "Private," then this is an IC action, and not consistent with documentation.  Staff can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Talia]

What I'm saying, though, is that if someone is telling you that you have to take an oath to become a "Private," then this is an IC action, and not consistent with documentation.  Staff can correct me if I'm wrong.

You are incorrect.

[Potaje]

 I wonder what the thoughts of others are on the perspective of the militia based play in both city-state, if it was to be set up as Tours of Duty, as apposed to Life oaths. And why they may think that a life oath is needed or not?

[Kismetic]

What I'm saying, though, is that if someone is telling you that you have to take an oath to become a "Private," then this is an IC action, and not consistent with documentation.  Staff can correct me if I'm wrong.

You are incorrect.

This is a problem.

[Jeshin]

As this isn't specific IG information, I will not briefly explain lifeoaths.

Knowledge is power
No written word for commoners means knowledge is passed by people
After a certain amount of time you begin to know things about clans
clans don't want you blabbing these things
lifeoath
break lifeoath by betraying secrets or desertion
death!

[Jeshin]

As this isn't specific IG information, I will now* briefly explain lifeoaths.

Knowledge is power
No written word for commoners means knowledge is passed by people
After a certain amount of time you begin to know things about clans
clans don't want you blabbing these things
lifeoath
break lifeoath by betraying secrets or desertion
death!

[brytta.leofa]

After a certain amount of time you begin to know things about clans

This seems like a big deal for noble houses, but less so for merchant houses (perhaps excluding our famously-paranoid drug-dealin' Kuracis), and practically a non-issue for militia.

If the tens of thousands of militia privates in Allanak are being told top secret stuff, something is wrong.

[Kismetic]

If the tens of thousands of militia privates in Allanak are being told top secret stuff, something is wrong.

This is so accurate*, that I just assumed it was true.

That, and I've never seen anyone even reference ICly a life oath being a requirement outside of special circumstance.

*except the numbers, probably

[Talia]

That, and I've never seen anyone even reference ICly a life oath being a requirement outside of special circumstance.

If you don't play in Allanak, around or in the militia, I'm not sure why you would know about this ICly. That being said, it's not a secret, either. Also, this is nothing new. This is the way the Allanaki militia has been run for a number of years.

Life oaths in clans (and all clans require life oaths at one level or another) are not necessarily about secret knowledge. To my mind, they're a realistic characteristic of a very harsh gameworld.

[Nyr]

In Zalanthas, fostering a sense of loyalty to X while demonizing everything that is not X is the way you keep people serving the needs of an organization.  This is done in several ways for several different groups that have life-oaths for various positions. Each of these organizations have a particular method (or series of methods) by which they proceed to engender loyalty and devotion.  Nationalistic pride, as we know it in the real world, is transformed into pride in whatever the organization is (whether it be a militia or a merchant house or a mercenary group).  Why wouldn't you want to swear to X for life?  At that point, you should be sufficiently indoctrinated, or just not interested at all.  If you change your mind later on, well, time to figure out what to do.

There are clans in which one can simply do "tours of duty," as you put it.  It is all a matter of choice for the PC as well as the organization in question.  Perhaps it can even be brought up IC.

[Kismetic]

Those are great reasons to have life oaths, I agree.  The question is playability.  Asking for a life oath off the gate seems fairly damning to recruitment.  I am speaking, of course, of PCs, not the virtual world, who all fear/love the Highlord/Sun King.

[Talia]

Those are great reasons to have life oaths, I agree.  The question is playability.  Asking for a life oath off the gate seems fairly damning to recruitment.  I am speaking, of course, of PCs, not the virtual world, who all fear/love the Highlord/Sun King.

Experience shows that this is not the case. The AoD has a hiring cap and it is almost always full to near that cap, or at the cap.

[Kismetic]

Those are great reasons to have life oaths, I agree.  The question is playability.  Asking for a life oath off the gate seems fairly damning to recruitment.  I am speaking, of course, of PCs, not the virtual world, who all fear/love the Highlord/Sun King.

Experience shows that this is not the case. The AoD has a hiring cap and it is almost always full to near that cap, or at the cap.

You keep bringing up Allanak, as if that's the only place in the game.

[Talia]

You keep bringing up Allanak, as if that's the only place in the game.

I'm not sure whether the Tuluki Sun Legions requires a life oath, or at what stage they do (they probably do at some level). You can certainly try to find out IC. Generally, when we speak of "militia" we mean the Allanaki militia. The Sun Legions aren't called "militia" in common parlance, they are just called "soldiers."

[Kismetic]

I wonder what the thoughts of others are on the perspective of the militia based play in both city-state, if it was to be set up as Tours of Duty, as apposed to Life oaths. And why they may think that a life oath is needed or not?

Which has sort of been my question (and assumption) from the beginning.

[Talia]

There are many, many differences between the armies in the city-states. You should find out IC what the restrictions, requirements, responsibilities, etc. of each are and how that affects PCs.

[Kismetic]

There are many, many differences between the armies in the city-states. You should find out IC what the restrictions, requirements, responsibilities, etc. of each are and how that affects PCs.

lol, honestly, I thought I had, and stated as much back in the RAT thread.  Though, clearly, I was wrong on some level.  Thanks!

[Nyr]

Asking for a life oath off the gate seems fairly damning to recruitment

I am unfamiliar with any clan that does this, for what it's worth.

[Talia]

Asking for a life oath off the gate seems fairly damning to recruitment

I am unfamiliar with any clan that does this, for what it's worth.

Tribals? 

[Rhyden]

I wonder what the thoughts of others are on the perspective of the militia based play in both city-state, if it was to be set up as Tours of Duty, as apposed to Life oaths. And why they may think that a life oath is needed or not?

I would really prefer tours of duty. Life oaths are a little bit too harsh. Nobody wants to stay in the same clan forever.

Also, this is nothing new. This is the way the Allanaki militia has been run for a number of years.

True, but an Allanaki militia recruitment rule that has been run for a vast number of years has been recently broken. Why not change other rules to afford players a more playable clan lifestyle?

It seems hypocritical to me that some rules that have been upheld for thousands of years can be broken at a whim, yet others (such as life oaths) can not.

Let there be tours of duty. Keep the one year recruitment phase, then allow one, two, or three year tours of duty.

Honestly, I don't think plots should be centered around "this fellow left Life Oath Clan X", KILL HIM! (which they tend to be these days) but rather around character's life stories that may or may not include their journeys through several different types of clans.

[Potaje]

 This idea came while watching Rome and thinking about old soldiers retiring in game with out being stored and the difference in what having a Tour of duty might mean versus life oath for those in the Militia or Legion clan.

Has little to do with getting in and wanting to get out as much as allowing a player to have more options in their Pc's life that are not going to innately be detrimental.

   

[Tzurahro]

As a player I hate lifeoaths.  

As a player, I hate being excluded from the juicy things that are hidden from everyone but the most trusted of the inner circle occurring within a clan.

As an organization (with sometimes I get to be as a Storyteller), I'm not giving up my goodies unless I got my hooks in someone good.  If they want the juicy stuff and to be part of the inner circle, I have to own them.

[Kismetic]

Asking for a life oath off the gate seems fairly damning to recruitment

I am unfamiliar with any clan that does this, for what it's worth.

"We'll take you as a recruit for a year, but after that, you've gotta swear your life to us."  That's off the gate.  It doesn't sound very fun, either.

[Talia]

True, but an Allanaki militia recruitment rule that has been run for a vast number of years has been recently broken. Why not change other rules to afford players a more playable clan lifestyle?

It seems hypocritical to me that some rules that have been upheld for thousands of years can be broken at a whim, yet others (such as life oaths) can not.

Staff needed to do a thing that was potentially a big bummer for a group of players, so in order for those players to feel like they had options and weren't being screwed over, staff made a decision to allow a one-time exception to the rules. It doesn't seem really fair to call that "hypocritical," nor was it whimsical in the least.

I get that some players have long-standing negative feelings about life oaths in certain clans, but that doesn't make life oaths a bad thing for the game. And, no one is forcing you to play in those roles. You will not always have unlimited freedom in every role; that's part of what produces interesting differences in various character roles in the game.

[Marauder Moe]

I wouldn't mind seeing life-oaths done away with, at least as a broad clan policy.

Life oaths as an enforcement of trustworthiness seems meager as best, seeing as the life oath itself is already a matter of trust.  One can still commit treason and/or flee a clan after swearing such an oath.

Furthermore, not every character who would desire to leave a clan would also desire to betray that clan's secrets.  Some just want a different life that the clan simply cannot provide.

I'd just as soon have each circumstance (of a character wishing to leave) handled on a case by case basis.  Though, in truth, this already happens with clan policies.  Sometimes exceptions are made, as has been noted.

[Potaje]

I want to reinforce that I do not mean my post in anyway as a condemnation of the Life Oath, just a contemplative questioning of it versus the idea of Tours of duty. And to field others insight or feeling of that.

[EldritchOrigins]

Organizations don't want to train "noobs" and have them leave to their enemies/competition.  They want some kind of commitment.  If there weren't official life oaths, there'd be implied ones.  If Amos quit Tor and started working for Salarr after a couple years, I'm sure he'd probably have an accident soon after starting with Salarr.

Also there is always breaking the rules.  Sure there are consequences, but consequences can be exciting (even if short lived).

[Whiran Luck]

If you don't want your pc to have full access to a clan's 'secrets' or goings on, or don't want to be promoted to a leadership position, no one is forcing your pc to take a life oath. At the same time, you can't really have it both ways. If an organization wants to trust you enough to take care of you, protect you, give you money, power and authority, as well as juicy secrets, then you need to prove it to them by swearing your life-long service to them. It's a pledge that basically says if they invest all this money, effort, time and trust into you, you're not going to bounce as soon as something turns your head, and that you'll follow your orders and not betray whoever is giving them.

Personally, I fail to see the problem or even how this wouldn't or shouldn't be commonplace in the game world.

For most commoners who work for any organization, I am sure many take life-oaths after a few years regardless of rank since it generally means they can ensure their family is taken care of, they will always have a place to work, and the house now protects them. Still, many other organizations offer positions where a lifeoath is not needed, and some will choose to keep certain employees at a certain level even if they do offer life oaths. It all depends on the organization.

The feeling that this is unfair may coincide with the change to a majority of player-run plots, with players/characters believing they are much more important in/to the gameworld than they would otherwise be.

Why should life oaths be important and taken:

- Job security. Generally, being offered a life oath means whoever is offering you this wants you to work for them and doesn't intend to fire you (or kill you).

- Protection. Many people who offer life-oaths also offer the clan protection to go along with it. Organizations are less desirous to see their lifesworn employees, of proven loyalty and mettle, killed than that of some fly-by-night who doesn't even know if they're going to be working there the next year. Sometimes, they'll even go to extra lengths to ensure this protection. And the life-swearee now has people they can mostly trust to watch their back.

- Comfort. In many organizations, the comfort and happiness of loyal and trusted servants is of importance and a life-sworn oath-taker may even finagle for the care of their family in return for swearing the service, ensuring a hassle-free life for them. Lifesworn members of organizations tend to have a higher standard of living overall compared to those who are not, whether this be through increased pay, or even having the organization take care of their expenses altogether.

- Trust. The organization will trust you, and thusly open up deeper wells of information for you to partake of. As a player, you may learn cool new things and secrets. As a character, this makes your pc even more valuable as a resource to protect.

- Peer acceptance. In organizations that employ a mixture of lifesworn and non-lifesworn employees, the lifesworn employees will likely be trusted more, be paid and outfitted better, enjoy better discounts or even free goods (GMH), receive less punishment or better 'missions', so on and so forth. Many lifesworn may even share a comraderie by this fact that by its nature stringently excludes the non-lifesworn employees who may share a state of being an 'outsider'. Becoming lifesworn to this end, ensures that your fellows trust you and at the very least, accord you the same respect they do to others in their brother/sisterhood of similar status.


As far as retirement goes, I'm not sure why that's even relevant. No job in the game has retirement benefits, though I could be mistaken. Nobles of advanced age might step down from whatever title they granted if their family pressures them into it, but most will cling to the power their position holds until death. People don't retire, they work until they either cannot physically work (at which point they might change professions, or if they are lucky, have enough doting children who are able to pay their upkeep), or until they drop dead. Soldiers might end up being promoted to more decorated ranks and be expected to take up mentoring/teaching duties as opposed to field-work as age makes it more difficult, or may receive special dispensation as a 'reserve' soldier and go on to find some other business to do for their respective employer as an aide, shop-keeper, advisor or dung-sweeper should age and accumulated injuries prevent them from actively participating as a soldier.

I'd actually argue that the closest thing to retirement in the game only comes WHEN you swear a life oath-- in that your organization is more likely to let you step back from whatever duties you're responsible for to take a more sedate, more advisory role as your age prevents you from doing as much work as you did in your youth. They're more liable to trust you after the service, you'd still probably be helping them out from time to time, and they might even pay your upkeep if you don't have children to take care of you.

*plink plink*

[Talia]

From a player perspective, as someone who has played under life oaths, to be honest I do not think that most of the dissatisfaction with life oaths comes from the oath itself; it comes from month after month of being in the same city, playing the same guild, with the same characters, with the same activities available. The problem is, though, let's say Lieutenant Amos is allowed to quit the Arm of the Dragon...realistically, what is he going to do next? If he goes to Tuluk, they'll probably off him as a spy. I guess he could go to Red Storm and greb spice for a change of pace   The most likely result of all is that he'll start wandering the wilderness and just get himself killed like any other character. Which is fine. But like I said, I don't think the boredom problem really comes from the clan or the life oath to the clan; it comes from playing Amos for 6+ months (or much more).

I think there are methods of combating boredom that are available to all players. (That is, methods which are ICly realistic and won't necessarily end in a dumb/pointless death.) The first step is to talk to the dudes in charge. Maybe your PC can get a leave to go off and do whatever for an IC month. Maybe your PC can be appointed to run a scouting group to X location. Maybe your PC can do blah blah blah. Apply some creativity rather than griping about the circumstances, because your creativity can potentially benefit both you and the players around you.

Also, everything Whiran Luck said is A+.

[Nyr]

Asking for a life oath off the gate seems fairly damning to recruitment

I am unfamiliar with any clan that does this, for what it's worth.

"We'll take you as a recruit for a year, but after that, you've gotta swear your life to us."  That's off the gate.  It doesn't sound very fun, either.

I wouldn't really call that "off the gate."   That's a year later.  That's a year past the gate.  That's not "off the gate," that's about a year down the road through the gate.  You can even turn around a year after you've gotten past the gate and go back to the gate, heading somewhere else!  Hell, as Marauder Moe puts it (correctly), sometimes later than that, depending on circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. IC determinations, and all that.

I'd just as soon have each circumstance (of a character wishing to leave) handled on a case by case basis.  Though, in truth, this already happens with clan policies.  Sometimes exceptions are made, as has been noted.

So, anyway...

Maybe the answer isn't to change the clan policies because you don't think that is very fun.  The easiest thing to suggest would be to not play in a clan that does stuff that you don't agree with policy-wise (whether that be IC or OOC).  Play what you want to play, and all that.  You can also talk to the pertinent staff via the request tool to see if they're interested in reviewing policies and such based on your experience (it's possible that you could be mistaken on something as well, so they can correct you if need be).  Things have changed before by going through the right channels.

[Kismetic]

Nyr, I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying, here.  A recruitment period of a year may well be a period of time after the instant of joining.  So is five minutes, dude.  The idea presented is that the life oath is expected, and required to join the clan in an official capacity (as in, not Doogie Noobhauser).

And looking at it from a realistic perspective --  is a year really enough time to ensure that someone is trustworthy and competent enough to earn something like a life oath?

But again, my issue was with playability.  People who want to swear life oaths with their characters seem few and far between.  It should be a reward, not a sacrifice.

[Nyr]

A life oath is expected and required past a certain rank in many clans.  This is more than likely not going to change.  Your problem is with one (or perhaps two) clan(s) in particular, it seems.  Please discuss this with clan staff, as suggested, or deal with it IC.

[Kismetic]

A life oath is expected and required past a certain rank in many clans.  This is more than likely not going to change.  Your problem is with one (or perhaps two) clan(s) in particular, it seems.  Please discuss this with clan staff, as suggested, or deal with it IC.

Those situations where someone has worked hard, and clawed their way up the ranks to get to X rank in Y clan ...  it makes perfect sense taking a life oath, at this point.  You're correct, in fact, that I'm referencing only a couple clans.  You're also correct about the inclusion of this debate into my next report.

If it's unclear, I'm batting for the home team, here.  I think it makes reasonable sense to ask why, in these (one or two) case(s).

Edit:  And thanks for your (and Talia's) quick responses.

[EldritchOrigins]

I don't think these life oaths are mandatory, but what is an organization to think if they offer the opportunity and someone doesn't take it?

[Case]

I've spent the majority of my time on Arm under a life oath and I'm a player that thrives on variety. Instead of worrying about the confines of the characters, I've tended to make it my goal to do what I want regardless of what the rules say. That's pretty Zalanthan in my mind. Only issues I've ever had are slaps on the wrist for not doing things on the sly enough from time to time. Some things you just can't do, mostly due to the risk of it. *shrug*

If you are so worried that you'll get fed up doing something routine, why even be in the clan to begin with? If you stick it out long enough, you may be able to change things. If you put in efforts to fix the rut, there's a good chance you'll generate fun and risk for everybody involved. On all the RPIs I've played, this expectation that everybody will hand you fun on a platter day in day out is a significant reason for leader PCs burning out and the high turnover for clanned PCs. If your barrier to enjoying a clan is the idea you are intended to stay in it for the character's life, you're doing it wrong. If the clan was fun and worth being in, from the efforts of all the PCs involved, you would stay anyway!

[Synthesis]

Everyone knows life oaths are just a reason to pursue a character beyond all measures that would grossly be considered reasonable, given the character's status, and in a manner completely disproportionate to the offense committed.

Private Schmuckatelli deserts the AoD to live with his boyfriend in Red Storm?  

10,000 'SID BOUNTY

SCRAMBLE THE WHIRAN FORCE

MURDER EVERY PC WHO EVER SMILED AT HIM

CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR

[Celest]

A life oath is expected and required past a certain rank in many clans.  This is more than likely not going to change.  Your problem is with one (or perhaps two) clan(s) in particular, it seems.  Please discuss this with clan staff, as suggested, or deal with it IC.

While this is true, I think it's also worth mentioning that in a few of these clans, the non-lifesworm rank is recruit and thus isn't really considered a part of the clan, ICly. So to suggest that there are no clans which require you to be lifesworn to join right at the gate is a little... iffy. Codedly, from an OOC perspective? No, there are no clans. From an IC perspective? Yes, many clans require a Life Oath to officially join their ranks, instead of being a temp who gets to wear their colors.

Edit: "many" being, many of the ones I am aware of. All the ones I'm not aware of may be the opposite, but I know two clans off hand which I'm fairly certain require life oaths to join.

Also, I think Jeshin is absolutely right. There absolutely are clans which give "taboo" knowledge to their members, and the two I can think of that are the most obvious are the two which happen to be lifesworn clans IIRC, specifically because they deal with those who use "taboo" knowledge on a regular basis. In other words, it's not stuff you would want Runner Amos talking about in the Gaj. This knowledge may not be secret OOC, and many players may be aware of it, but they're not commonly known IC I think.

Of course I may be confusing just which clans are life sworn and which are not

Edit edit: I also think that Life Oaths would be a pain, not because of the life oath themselves, but because leadership or minion stagnation can mean that your long-played PC can end up out in the cold with few options. I've never done a life oath, though, so I don't know for sure.

[brytta.leofa]

If I were renovating AoD docs based on my own limited experience and viewpoint, I'd start the life oaths at corporal, not at private, but require privates to enlist for at least 3 years at a time.

[MeTekillot]

Why don't you guys just have your characters make total asses of themselves while in the clan that gets them thrown out but not killed?

Why not trying to pull some string with the higher-ups and a little application of favors and coin to have you "fired"?

[DustMight]

But what do you mean "require 3 years of enlistment" - how do you enforce that "required" aspect if not with the only punishment that we currently have in place: death.

I would like to see more enforcement options:  break and oath and get banished from a city or unable to sell to NPCs of a particular House or have unofficial bounties.  You split from the Byn as a runner with your training sword?  Maybe the privates arrange something just 'cause your character is an idiot and used them.  More fun than officially sanctioned death-hunts.

That said - as much as I used to not like life oaths - what's the real problem?  Your character joined and clan and now doesn't like it?  That's the real-world man, RP it.  When people join the Army and don't like it they figure something out.  Some of them end up in jail.  Since we don't put characters in jail the options are storage or death.  Maiming would be cool, but likely a deserter's player isn't going to let that happen - unless they are a pretty cool RPer. 

In the end life oaths SHOULD remain for many ranks (as has been stated by multiple posters) but perhaps desertion at lower levels could simply result in maiming, banishment, loss of wealth (even bank accounts in the case of city militia) and status.

Being known as an oath-breaker in a harsh world should put a character on par with the lowest of the low, when thieving scum wouldn't want anything to do with you as they couldn't trust you.

Which brings to mind another type of punishment - codedly marking the character as a oath-breaker.  Watch him try to get another job.

[Potaje]

But what do you mean "require 3 years of enlistment" - how do you enforce that "required" aspect if not with the only punishment that we currently have in place: death.

I would like to see more enforcement options:  break and oath and get banished from a city or unable to sell to NPCs of a particular House or have unofficial bounties.  You split from the Byn as a runner with your training sword?  Maybe the privates arrange something just 'cause your character is an idiot and used them.  More fun than officially sanctioned death-hunts.

That said - as much as I used to not like life oaths - what's the real problem?  Your character joined and clan and now doesn't like it?  That's the real-world man, RP it.  When people join the Army and don't like it they figure something out.  Some of them end up in jail.  Since we don't put characters in jail the options are storage or death.  Maiming would be cool, but likely a deserter's player isn't going to let that happen - unless they are a pretty cool RPer.  

In the end life oaths SHOULD remain for many ranks (as has been stated by multiple posters) but perhaps desertion at lower levels could simply result in maiming, banishment, loss of wealth (even bank accounts in the case of city militia) and status.

Being known as an oath-breaker in a harsh world should put a character on par with the lowest of the low, when thieving scum wouldn't want anything to do with you as they couldn't trust you.

Which brings to mind another type of punishment - codedly marking the character as a oath-breaker.  Watch him try to get another job.

Desertion was not the comparison, It was Tour of duty versus Life Oath, so where you launch into a good point about desertion, the real consideration and answer to the proposed issue was the three year commitment. A soldier with looking at three years has a point of departure attainable with out the need to be hunted.
Never needing to -desert- in the first place.

I would add is a factual, rl, part of our working army if you wish to pull that aspect out. Hence, Tour of Duty.

[MeTekillot]

I've seen the force-storage from high-ranked people trying to leave clans. I wonder. Why do they get force stored, exactly?

[Wolfsong]

Probably because it wouldn't make sense to break established game documentation to slot them in elsewhere.

[My 2 sids]

For newer players, PCs used to have to take their life-oaths a lot sooner than they do now.

I think what some are forgetting are the VNPCs:
1) most commoners go from job to job, most don't even have full-time employment directly interacting with the rich and noble.

2) we no longer play slaves.  ICly the word for a full-time servant who would be given close access to secrets and truly protected is slave



That's the way the game is right now.  Maybe they'll open up slaves again, maybe we'll have Arm.2, maybe they'll start requesting leadership-rolls for unclanned.  But, until then, there is the semi-IC/semi-OOC need for almost every PC to take an oath and die from murder.

[Nyr]

I've seen the force-storage from high-ranked people trying to leave clans. I wonder. Why do they get force stored, exactly?

I haven't seen this happen without damn good reason.

Is it a sponsored role?  Okay, sorry, you were brought in for a specific purpose.  Tough titties if you don't want to play it.  Either play it or store.
Is it a tribal role?  Okay, sorry, you agreed to play to the documentation, not the exception to it.  Tough titties if you don't want to play it.  Either play it or store.

Otherwise, you'd need to provide specific examples, and I can't think of any example of force-storage on someone that tried to leave a clan that didn't fit the above two categories.

But, until then, there is the semi-IC/semi-OOC need for almost every PC to take an oath and die from murder.*

*in some specific instances in perhaps two clans in the entire game
I mean, if you don't want to play in a clan exclusively, don't play in a clan...exclusively...or work it out IC.

If I were renovating AoD docs based on my own limited experience and viewpoint, I'd start the life oaths at corporal, not at private, but require privates to enlist for at least 3 years at a time.

We are not discussing what to do for specific clans on the GDB.  You may take this to discussion with the clan staff, but clan documentation/policy for specific clans will never be decided based on player consensus on the GDB.

[evilcabbage]

Honestly, if you're willing to put in tht first year as a recruit? You can probably take a life oath.

If you can't take the life oath, then you can't take it,leave the clan and find one that doesn't require it, or find a way to be contracted as a mercenary. I'm sure this is possible.

[Nyr]

While this is true, I think it's also worth mentioning that in a few of these clans, the non-lifesworm rank is recruit and thus isn't really considered a part of the clan, ICly. So to suggest that there are no clans which require you to be lifesworn to join right at the gate is a little... iffy. Codedly, from an OOC perspective? No, there are no clans. From an IC perspective? Yes, many clans require a Life Oath to officially join their ranks, instead of being a temp who gets to wear their colors.

Edit: "many" being, many of the ones I am aware of. All the ones I'm not aware of may be the opposite, but I know two clans off hand which I'm fairly certain require life oaths to join.

So where should the line be drawn?  Okay, if you join any clan in the Known World that recruits people in-game, you basically have no real authority, and you have very little (if anything) you can do without the approval of the higher-ups.  If you want to do more, you stick with it over time.  Past a certain point, you'll probably have to say "okay I'm going to stick with you guys" or say "okay I'm not going to stick with you guys, have a nice clan."  A recruit is the shit end of the stick of the clan, maybe, but they're still part of the clan. Semantics?  Maybe.  If you're arguing that recruits aren't really part of the clan, then I'd argue that the recruit stage shapes what a player wants to do in a clan--or whether they want to even stay in the clan at all.  It doesn't matter if it's "part of the clan" or not.  It matters what the player and the PC decide to do with what they have available.  If you want to play a role in which you don't have to swear for life to it and can leave at any time, there's a word for that, and it's "mercenary" or "partisan" or "grunt" or whatever the lexicon is for an IC group of people.  Some groups might even let you hang around at the "no authority and few responsibilities" stage of their clan ranks, too. 

The reason for the differing cutoffs for a life oath is more often than not based in IC stuff that should be left as IC speculation, really.  (Perhaps it can even be addressed IC--through your clan staff via a report, if necessary.)  There are some really good IC reasons for it being the way it is in the majority of these cases.  Maybe you aren't privy to knowing why.  Still, if you're unsure or have some concern, it can't hurt to inquire with your clan staff.

Edit edit: I also think that Life Oaths would be a pain, not because of the life oath themselves, but because leadership or minion stagnation can mean that your long-played PC can end up out in the cold with few options. I've never done a life oath, though, so I don't know for sure.

Good point, and--as mentioned above--exceptions are made, and sometimes more frequently than you might think...that's because we get this point.  Clan gets closed because there's no interested nobility/staff decide to shut it down rather than re-recruit?  I've discharged members due to that in Tuluk in the past.  "You leave on good terms.  Yes, it's rare.  Here's a final bonus for your trouble, enjoy, shop S-MART."  If that's not feasible due to the nature of the role, I'd offer, "You can transfer to this other group that works closely with this existing clan," or...you can store.  We want you to be happy, so we will do our best to provide an option.

[Celest]

Good point, and--as mentioned above--exceptions are made, and sometimes more frequently than you might think...that's because we get this point.  Clan gets closed because there's no interested nobility/staff decide to shut it down rather than re-recruit?  I've discharged members due to that in Tuluk in the past.  "You leave on good terms.  Yes, it's rare.  Here's a final bonus for your trouble, enjoy, shop S-MART."  If that's not feasible due to the nature of the role, I'd offer, "You can transfer to this other group that works closely with this existing clan," or...you can store.  We want you to be happy, so we will do our best to provide an option.

I've seen a few of those examples first hand (including some of my PCs, in the not-really-in-the-clan-but-are way), so I know that it does happen and am appreciative for that. My post wasn't meant as a criticism of staff, or those clans in any way, or to suggest that life-oaths are an OOC construct, just to demonstrate why some people feel as if they're "locked" into a role as soon as they join. You were saying that they aren't, and I was pointing out that it depends on when you consider "joining" to happen. In some ways, they are, because you're not a member of Clan X, you're a recruit and thus have none of the privileges even though you're technically a member of the clan, and forums, and can leave/enter their compound. However, you're absolutely right when you say the recruit phase is a good way to determine if you as a player will enjoy this routine before being locked into a Life Oath role, and I think that's why so many people "wash out" of these organizations during that phase. The RP certainly does mold and shape the characters, but that's as much a mark against you being in the clan as it is for it, because while you're involved in the clan's stuff you're still being trained and not involved in the actual clanny stuff. Usually because it's secret, hence the life oath

Where should the line be drawn? I think it depends on the clan. Of the two lifesworn clans I know of, one should definitely stay as out-the-gate. The way the clan is set up, and their reputation, you just know what you're getting into, and the recruit phase should demonstrate that if you don't know already, and out-the-gate makes total IC sense. It would be bizarre for them to have tours of duty. The other I don't know enough about to draw conclusions. Tours of duty would make IC sense, from an IC lore standpoint (I think?) but not from a pragmatic IC standpoint due to aforementioned speculative stuffs?

I guess the best solution, for the people who don't want to work as a life-sworn PC but still want to get involved in that sort of thing, is to do what you mentioned and try and get involved as an "independent contractor."

[evilcabbage]

For the record, I was the one who said get in as a mercenary of some kind, i.e. independant contractor.

[Whiran Luck]

I don't agree that recruits aren't part of the clan. As Nyr said, they may be the shit-end-of-the-stick clan-wise, but they're still part of it. They get, choose from the assorted following: pay (in most clans), training (in most clans), a chance to see what the higher-ups do and decide if they can do it, like it, or do it better later on (in most clans), the grunt's share of the action (they tend to be the disposable cannon-fodder, like it or not, but this also puts them in a good place to see the action after the plotty-plots get moving-- in many clans), a moderately safe place to sleep/sex/relax (in most clans), a moderately safe place to store their stuff (in many clans), food/water (in many clans) and much, much more.

Not only a time of trial to see if they like who they're working for, it gives the clan a chance to see if they like them back, if they're a good fit, and if they're worth keeping on, as well as offering them some training and seeing where they'd fit in the best among the other rank and file. I haven't heard of any clan offering life-service right off the bat, though some people do choose to take a life oath when they first come in. There are good and bad aspects to this sort of thing, but that's best left IC.

Further, unless you app-in to a role, authority is earned in game, so yes, you have no authority when you're first recruited to any position. Depending on a clan, it can take as little as an OOC week to gain some authority or it can take OOC months, depending on the clan and the position. To say that you don't get any authority and that doesn't make you a member of the clan is erroneous. You're a member of the clan, sure, but you're a grunt at the bottom of a steep totem pole. And yes, you -should- have to earn it, unless you app in to a leadership position. The latter, however, gives you no real choice to stay at the bottom, if that's what you want to do.

[valeria]

I think life oaths are very Zalanthan, especially in the sense of the militias and some of the more militant noble houses.  If I was a God-King, I wouldn't approve of the wishy-washy.

Also, they've never personally deterred me on an OOC level.  Usually I toss so many restrictions on my own characters that one more 'restriction' doesn't cramp my style.  And I have a feeling if I ever had a character who really wanted out of a life oath, they'd find a way and take any consequences.

[Potaje]

I wonder what the thoughts of others are on the perspective of the militia based play in both city-state, if it was to be set up as Tours of Duty, as apposed to Life oaths. And why they may think that a life oath is needed or not?

Bump to keep the question at the forefront.

[Down Under]

I like the idea. Tours of duty. Kurac already does this, I believe, with Mercenary and Regular being completely different ranks. Mercenaries are kept at arm's length, Regulars aren't. It'd be nice if most, if not all, clans had ranks with this distinction. I still believe that PC's shouldn't need to take a life oath unless they make it past the bottom 'accepted' rank (Private, in most cases). Promoted to Corporal? You gotta oath up.

[Dan]

If you are just signing on for a tour of duty, I expect it would be known to everyone that you'll be doing low-level, basic work. Life will probably suck for you, but you will make enough to support yourself and a small family. Sort of like being a conscript. Comparing it to modern military, it would be like joining as an enlisted man or woman. There is room for advancement, but you'll probably never get the super deep down dark secrets and will always be answering to someone for nearly anything you do.

Life sworn are those who can be trusted to act with some of their own initiative, take charge of soldiers and will earn a bit more. They are the officers of a modern military. Even at lower ranks, someone life sworn will be trusted over anyone on a tour of duty, and probably placed in charge of them. The life sworn can now be told about this, that, and the other, be given certain secret things, access to various places, etc, simply because, they have sworn their lives in defense or protection of these things. Breaking that bond is akin to suicide, and who the hell would want to give up their career, full of benefits and security for some outsider?

Do I think life oaths are necessary? Not really. If someone decided to leave and started spilling secrets it would be up to the clan/clan leaders to flex and have them shut up, permanently. Then everyone they told these secrets to would also be on the chopping block. Leaving a clan after being an officer in super-sekrit black ops for twenty years would probably result in your being watched after than point, and you would have to periodically check in to ensure no one has scooped you up and tortured you to get their hands on what you know.

If a recruit acts up and wants to leave after two months? Who gives a shit? It makes room for someone else of value and you'd be damn glad you found out they were worthless so soon before they got into a position to find out anything that could be used against you. Have a nice life.

If your life sworn soldier of twenty years has had enough, their body is breaking down and nightmares keep them up from seeing their old comrades die over and over? Hold a celebration, maybe a minor arena event in their honor and let them be a walking, talking example of loyalty. Thanks for serving, your life oath is complete because you did give up your useful years to us. Now go inspire the people, and relax.

[Dan]

Just because you take a life oath doesn't mean the person holding you responsible for that can't cut you loose. Persuade them as to why you suck and should be let go and I am willing to bet that after some negotiation you can be set free or it can be declared that you've fulfilled your life-sworn oath.

If they deny your request and it turns into something akin to being a slave, you would be stored, however.

This should also be the exception, and not the rule.

[Riya OniSenshi]

Most of you seem to be making this more an issue than it really is.

[X-D]

I have not read the second page of this thread.

but I will throw in my 2 cents.

I do not like life oath, I have done it a couple times in the now far distant past and made a life oath to myself to never do it again.

Life oaths do nothing to foster loyalty, in fact they do quite the opposet for many PC/players. My PCs in the life oath clans made quite high rank in both. In both*, I had more problems with treason and desertion with the life oath PCs then I have had playing a leader in any other non-life oath clan.

I personally think that tours of duty foster greater loyalty and a greater % of long term PCs. It also makes it easier on the leaders, since recruitment is easier with tours, you are more willing to let somebody go that does not fit, with life oath you tend to keep them around, the warm body or bird in the hand rule.

I have rarely seen or had a problem with storage, desertion or suicide when dealing in tours, be they 2 years, 3, 5 or even 10.

*I really had four, but since 2 were HG I do not count them, the idea that somebody would take a life oath from a HG is just silly.

You can't leave, you gave life oath.

Huh, what is that?

It is when you promise to serve for your entire life.

Oh, What is a promise?

A promise is when you swear to do something.

Oh, I can swear...Fuck!

(assume this goes on for a while)

So you see, you can't leave because you gave that oath.

No I did not.

Yes you did.

Nah-uh!

You did

When?

Five years ago.

I don't remember.

You did.

Not if I don't remember!

GAH...just leave!

Why?

Cause you said you wanted to.

I did not!

[Majikal]

While life oaths make perfect IC sense, I have to say they don't do much from a players standpoint. Being stuck somewhere that may have suddenly grown stagnant, another clan appealing to you for playability reasons etc, it's nice to have a set time when you can step away from a clan.

Because of this, you end up with long-lived pc's deserting, storing, suiciding, or playing for the other team.. just for something to do.

This is why I steer my pc's away from life oaths, personally.

[Potaje]

I think its funny how the idea of considering Tour of duty versus Life oath is instantly considered someone trying to get out of a clan. It seems that is most the focus, but really its about an alternative perspective to service.

[Celest]

I wonder what the thoughts of others are on the perspective of the militia based play in both city-state, if it was to be set up as Tours of Duty, as apposed to Life oaths. And why they may think that a life oath is needed or not?

Bump to keep the question at the forefront.

To respond to the question itself, I wouldn't be opposed to having cake and eating it too. I think it would be nifty if there was a "general" militia that deals with crime, shoveling poo, and writing tickets (okay, you get the idea) who serves tours, and then the Elite Badass Mofo Squad who only recruits from the general militia, and is lifesworn. As it is now, I think the two may mingle a bit too much. It honestly seems like it would be fun, for me, to RP a really, really crappy guard who is given virtually no responsibility aside from making sure that no one brings raptors to the gate, but the way that things work IG with the militias, no matter how bad you are as long as you're good enough to not-be kicked out you're bound to be pointed at a magicker sooner or later. In other words, I want to play a Beat Cop but the way it is now, I'm a Navy Seal who just happens to write tickets and do a lot of paper work.

I don't expect any of this to ever take place, though.

[Fathi]

I originally typed up a huge rambling post that included an awesome story about a PC of mine repeatedly throwing herself against the brick wall of trying to quit a clan after rising exceptionally high in the ranks... but I can distill it down to the following:

I believe in the Kuraci Model™. That is to say, I think clans should have more places for folks who are willing to work hard but not swear their blood to the clan. But they shouldn't be treated as well, get as much cool stuff, get as much tail, or be given as many high fives as people who are life-sworn.

Zalanthas is a tribal-minded, jingoistic world where people have a cultural bent toward zealotry and oppression. People who willingly submit to the machine and prove trustworthy should be held in esteem compared to those who do not.

Conversely, I understand how life oaths can be a pain in the ass for players. I have been there. But I have also seen plenty of players (myself included) get out of lifesworn positions through clever finagling, deception, bribery, desertion, awesomeness, murder, and just plain outliving the people who made you swear your oath in the first place.

[Spoon]

I personally like them, restrictive as they are. It's an Armageddon theme anyway, with power comes IC restriction.

[Lizzie]

I've experienced that it depends mostly on the nature of your PC's job.

If they aren't allowed freedom of movement without a higher-ranking person there..
if they aren't allowed to buy/sell for their clan and manage their end of the clan's profits...
if they don't have the coded/roleplayed authority to hire/fire the crew..

then being life-sworn can be way too restrictive. Especially when the boss dies/stores/goes on vacation for 2 RL weeks.

I think once you're lifesworn, it means you have proven that you "have what it takes" to exist as a fully trusted member of the clan, and therefore are trusted with the sids, the sales, and the support staff.

[Cutthroat]

I wonder what the thoughts of others are on the perspective of the militia based play in both city-state, if it was to be set up as Tours of Duty, as apposed to Life oaths. And why they may think that a life oath is needed or not?

I think, even with the current way the life-oath is treated in the Legions and the AoD, that a soldier-type PC could arrange a tour-of-duty style arrangement with a templar, provided the soldier could make it worth their while. If it works, they definitely wouldn't be treated to as much of the kind of stuff that life-oathers get (keeping in mind that the PC units in militaristic clans are generally elite, separated from the vNPC and NPC units, so the life oath makes sense for them and might not necessarily be applied to the other units in the same way). If they're not worth it, then the PC is SOL.

[Nyr]

I merged the derail from RAT into this thread.  If your post is about the nature of life oaths or the nature of tours of duty, this is the thread for you, even if (especially if) you're defending the reasons for the creation of the thread in the first place.

[lordcooper]

I've skimmed this thread extremely lightly and have never played a militia PC, so I can only comment on clans as a whole.

My personal viewpoint is that I just plain love the concept of life oaths.  They'll take you in off the streets, feed you, train you and damn well own you.  From a playability perspective, I can see why some people are against them, but don't necessarily agree.

Maybe it would be a good compromise to have clans swear people in for an incredibly long time instead?  It's open for abuse ICly on both sides, and could provide both the concept of (practical) ownership and the opportunity for players to have a little more variety.

Code Select Expand

At your table, the bulky, one-eyed stump says in sirihish, her unblinking stare fixed on you:
    "Yer time's up trooper, walk outta tha door now an' yer free to find yer own way."

At your table, you say in sirihish, rising slowly from your seat:
    "It's nothin' personal sarge, but I got kids ta think about now..."

You stand up from a scuffed, agafari table.

A sly grin playing across her lips for a moment as she shifts her hand ever so slightly closer to her obsidian shortsword, the bulky, one-eyed stump says to you, in sirihish:
    "Aye.  It'd be a right shame if their father didn't look after 'em in any way he could."

You sit at a long, scarred bar of agafari wood.

At your table, the bulky, one-eyed stump says in sirihish, her tone open and friendly:
    "So that's anotha fifteen years, aye trooper?"

The defeated trooper nods glumly.


Note: I'm not arguing for this so much as simply trying to throw an idea out there.

[valeria]

To address the 'why not just make the tour really long' thread in this discussion, I don't see how a really long tour of duty would fix anything.  If you're absolutely miserable in your role, being stuck it in for several more IC years can be just as discouraging as being stuck in it for life.  I'm thinking of my second character, who was stuck in a clan for a term of years after a change of circumstances that made both her and I absolutely miserable.  Knowing that I was only going to be stuck in Miserable Land and not wanting to play the character for three more months wasn't very helpful, and that was not with a long term of years.

[Nyr]

I wonder what the thoughts of others are on the perspective of the militia based play in both city-state, if it was to be set up as Tours of Duty, as apposed to Life oaths. And why they may think that a life oath is needed or not?

Bump to keep the question at the forefront.

I'm still not that clear on what your question is.  However, if my previous posts did not elaborate on it, I'll try and explain here.

Every clan requires life oaths past a certain point.  You are suggesting incorporating tours of duty in at least two clans, at least up to a certain point. I am making an assumption here based on the one sentence there--correct me if I am wrong.

Pros of changing things, OOC:

--some players may like more opportunities to do different things in existing clans
--some players do not enjoy the concept of a life oath
--allows for more mainstream mobility within existing clan structures

Cons of changing things, OOC:

--staff review of a process that both works out of the game and makes sense IC
--you can just not play in a clan that requires a life oath if that is important to you or your PC
--life oaths are, as mentioned, not necessarily as rigid as they are on paper (mostly because you can't write)

So if two of the cons against an idea are "well, you don't have to do it" and "there are exceptions to this anyway," you generally get less interest in changing things, especially when it is coupled with "we'd have to make sure this makes sense, isn't abused, and actually provides these clans with what they need."

Why I think a life oath is needed:

I think it fits the gameworld pretty well.  There are places where a tour of duty might work.  There are places where tours of duty already work.  The ones not doing that may have deeper reasons for not doing it.  Most of the powers that be want dedicated, talented people working for them.  They don't want them working for other people later on.  That's a loss of an asset into which time and effort has been invested.  It makes IC sense from that very basic level.  Does it make OOC sense?  Probably not to those that disagree.  Maybe it is too restrictive for a certain style of play.  However, that's part of playing a game like this.  You do have to figure out what you like and play that.  If not that, you may have to figure out what you don't like, and not play that.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I like the idea. Tours of duty. Kurac already does this, I believe, with Mercenary and Regular being completely different ranks. Mercenaries are kept at arm's length, Regulars aren't. It'd be nice if most, if not all, clans had ranks with this distinction. I still believe that PC's shouldn't need to take a life oath unless they make it past the bottom 'accepted' rank (Private, in most cases). Promoted to Corporal? You gotta oath up.

I absolutely agree with this. I've always thought that most clans should have a temporary position above Recruit. There is one clan that I can think of that shouldn't (Tor), but that is because of how they present themselves, as the elite of the elite. Per the Kuraci Model, and the Byn model, most clans should have tours of duty at low ranks, and life oaths at higher ranks.

A Recruit, BTW, is not a rank per say. It's more of a testing position, where the leader sees if you are worth a shit. Are you part of the clan? Eh, sure, but not really.

[EldritchOrigins]

Just play raiders in Red Storm all the time.


Wait!  Do raiders make people take life oaths?

[Celest]

I like the idea. Tours of duty. Kurac already does this, I believe, with Mercenary and Regular being completely different ranks. Mercenaries are kept at arm's length, Regulars aren't. It'd be nice if most, if not all, clans had ranks with this distinction. I still believe that PC's shouldn't need to take a life oath unless they make it past the bottom 'accepted' rank (Private, in most cases). Promoted to Corporal? You gotta oath up.

I absolutely agree with this. I've always thought that most clans should have a temporary position above Recruit. There is one clan that I can think of that shouldn't (Tor), but that is because of how they present themselves, as the elite of the elite. Per the Kuraci Model, and the Byn model, most clans should have tours of duty at low ranks, and life oaths at higher ranks.

A Recruit, BTW, is not a rank per say. It's more of a testing position, where the leader sees if you are worth a shit. Are you part of the clan? Eh, sure, but not really.

This is everything I have been trying to say, but without rambling and weird analogies! Thank you.

[Rhyden]

I like the idea. Tours of duty. Kurac already does this, I believe, with Mercenary and Regular being completely different ranks. Mercenaries are kept at arm's length, Regulars aren't. It'd be nice if most, if not all, clans had ranks with this distinction. I still believe that PC's shouldn't need to take a life oath unless they make it past the bottom 'accepted' rank (Private, in most cases). Promoted to Corporal? You gotta oath up.

I absolutely agree with this. I've always thought that most clans should have a temporary position above Recruit. There is one clan that I can think of that shouldn't (Tor), but that is because of how they present themselves, as the elite of the elite. Per the Kuraci Model, and the Byn model, most clans should have tours of duty at low ranks, and life oaths at higher ranks.

A Recruit, BTW, is not a rank per say. It's more of a testing position, where the leader sees if you are worth a shit. Are you part of the clan? Eh, sure, but not really.

This is everything I have been trying to say, but without rambling and weird analogies! Thank you.

Totally.

I think this is a great idea - why not compromise by having tours of duty and life oaths?

I think this would really make certain clans more bearable, more realistic, and way more interesting.

[roughneck]

I like very long tours of duty over life oaths because I believe it enforces the idea of an oppressive regime and gritty, barren gameworld.

As it is, serving in the militia is a privilege.  A privilege so sought after you need to be a citizen and willing to devote your life to it.

Long tours of duty could help enforce that, 'life in the AoD ain't no picnic', and maybe after a twenty year term a non-citizen would be granted citizen status.  I believe the Roman legions did something like this, as Roman citizenship was something so sought after, people were willing to do it so they could have a better life if they managed to survive 20 years of fighting barbarians and conquering the world.