To gain favour and to avoid trouble. Greed and fear of course. 
And few will have the same opinion as the next, which leads to storypotential.
Well, the "no secrets" provision, as part of a contract, is a payment for your liege not acting like a right tool. Also, our reporting of history tends toward the soap operaish, and so it may seem like nobles are continually poltting against their lieges, but in period, this is mostly because their lieges are acting like right tools. I might, King John? Henry III? Both regularly acted like right tools. In those circumstancces you are allowed ot tell you lord he's not fulfilling his part of the contract.
Lower down the pyramid of power, outright toolery is rather scarcer, rebellion is rather scarcer, and so I think your 1/3 is wildly overstating the degree of tumult in these societies.
Also, be aware that thesepeople really and truly did believe that if they were dihonest with their lieges, they were going to be tortured eternally with sharp flaming implements.
These are not modern people, and they are not postmodern cynics.
It's not about pathological honesty: it's about a contractual agreement not to keep from your liege things which it is good for your liege, from their perspective, to know. You are trying to make this about every little secret, and claiming that that's the same as hiding what you can do as a magus. Once again, trollish extrapolation to the absurd.
So you are hijakcing the original poster's thread to pick arguments through absurd extrapolations?
Again, no they wouldn't. That's not what treason is in the C13th. Treason requires a physical assulat on the person of the monarch.
"Join or die"? Would the order want an oathbreaker to swear THEIR oath? Whats to say it wont be the next oath to be broken, the next time its convenient?
[/quote]
Because it creates the contractual arrangement of membership, which allows them to justly put you to death, without having the sin of murder upon their souls?
Again that's a series of absurd extrapolations from what I've said.
In theme, though, you are trying to have it both ways: either with strong magical opposition to being a magus noble makes for a good story or not. Your argument seems to be that the Order is fine with you being a magus noble. So, how is that conflict, drama and good storyelling? It seems to be reducing the drama and conflict, by having the Order cut you a break and say its fine with you being a magus noble, in theory.
The idea that whatever fluff any author wishes to write makes it into the line is false.
The idea that lords just made the rules up as they went along is also false, by the way. They are answerable to their lords for their half of the contract. Deviations to make exceptions make the nobles nervous, and lead, if large enough, to rebellion.
Incidentally, the Rulebook states, p. 56, in the definition of the Oath of Fealty flaw :
Magi are forbidden to take Oaths of Fealty by the Hermetic Code. Some don't let that stop them.
That's as clear as it gets.
1 Like
There is a big gap between "plotting against" and unimportant secrets.
And i generally stay away from the "soapy reporting". Having once specialised on WWII very seriously, i know perfectly how misleading such "reporting" is.
Tumult? Who said anything about things going that far? I most certainly didnt.
Some yes, perhaps even many. Some didnt care, others didnt care enough not to stray a little at times.
And they´re always dirty and everyone has bad teeth, right...
No, i have noted that rarely are contracts between lords completely forthcoming and "perfect" according to the contract. As long as the spirit is upheld and any failures amended, it was usually not a big deal.
Except when the liege is paranoid or outraged or similar.
Oh masterful ad hominem! Im sooo impressed by your marvellous eloquence in berating my horrid appearance.
Wonderful, more personal attacks. And you accuse me of trolling?
No, you were categorical and talking in 100% absolute terms when reality to my knowledge was commonly far more "realpolitik" style.
Considered as potential usurpers, rebels, traitors, treacherous, betrayers etc etc, pick whichever you suits you.
I wasnt talking about legal terms. Who´s doing the "trollish extrapolation to the absurd"?
And again you are talking absolutes and i never did.
When did i say the order would be FINE with it? I said they would probably have to accept it sometimes, because exceptions tend to happen.
When did i say that it did? Maybe i should repeat the question, who´s doing the "trollish extrapolation to the absurd"?
When did i say that? I stated, completely correctly that rules got bent at times.
Like for example the collection of women who were officially considered male to be allowed to hold specific titles restricted to men because the other options were worse.
Yes. But sometimes exceptions still happened, among others either because the other options were worse, or because someone with enough power to enforce it said so.