Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

It's gonna cause a bit of an issue if the first thing most of the team hears about you is that you
refuse to take an oath. How are we supposed to trust you when you've all but said " I can't be trusted. "

1) No, Aurora refuses to take this oath. Because it's not reasonable. There are certainly oaths Aurora would be willing to make. This is not one of them.

2) The only reason this is even coming up is because Aurora is the most trustworthy of the group. She is an honorable gentlemare and she takes these things seriously. Sam clearly doesn't. He's incapable of it. As you phrased it: "Mentally he's still a child complete with the naieve lack of understanding and emotional instability." And Rolepgeek made it clear that Basyen is willing to lie about this, and even so...he still qualified his response.

Next you've got Sasha, who once switched to the winning side mid-war, and once switched sides simply for more money. And then there's Mead Mix, who happily announced that his nickname is "two faced Mel" and that he befriends ponies in order to betray their trust and murder them.

Curiously, the only applicants who don't appear to be either unstable or dishonest...are the two unicorns. Something that I'm sure Aurora would find very interesting.

If it's really so important to them to get a recruit willing to tell them they'll do whatever they're told do, they can go ahead and recruit the unstable manchild, or the war deserter, or maybe the pony who murders his friends. I'm sure they'll have no problems taking that oath. Or, they can recruit the mare willing to look them in the eye and tell them she finds it unacceptable, because truth and honor are important enough to her that she refuses to step into such an obvious minefield of potential ethical conflict.

Who do you think will be the more trustworthy candidate?

Uhh you want to make first contact and represent a nation without taking an oath first? No nation would allow that.

Even real life ambassadorial oaths do not include assertions of obedience. Nor do presidential oaths. Nor the oaths of supreme court justices. Generally the only oaths that contain obedience clauses are military oaths, and we've already established that we are not to be knights or vassals.

What those non-military oaths often do contain is clausings stating, for example, to protect a cause or nation from enemies, both foreign and domestic. To faithfully execute the duties of office. "Faithfully" as in the legal context of good faith:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith

If the ring wishes Aurora to promise to act in good faith, that is something she would be willing to do. If they want her to promise to protect the principles of Equestria from enemies both foreign and domestic, that is something she would do. "Just follow orders" is not something she will agree to.

[Patrick Hunt]

Real embassadors are from that nation to begin with so it's expected that they are already loyal, besides which the same thing you've been asked to swear an oath about is in the contract they sign when they accept the job. So they do agree to the same thing.

Presidents and PM's actual oaths include that they do what is best for there respective country, which again pretty much covers the same thing and that is common sense if you win the election to take that job anyway as is it for Justices.


Sam is taking it seriously btw which will show up fairly soon, he is capable of thinking like any child is if they put the effort into it. Also, I'm sure you've noticed children can be far more insightful then adults at times because of that same naieve lack of understanding.
He may be slow but sam is by no means incapable of understanding what is going on around him if he has enough time to mull it over. ( He will still likely get the complete wrong end of the stick frequently but not always. )


The key problem though is your not willing to take an oath that you'll follow orders, your not willing to take an oath that you'll do whats best for them, your not willing to take an oath that you will not go against there wishes. So in short your a pioneer who refuses to agree to any of the oathes a pioneer has to take. How can they take you when your basically telling them you want the job but only if it's on your terms because you don't trust them? Why should they trust you?

[Patrick Hunt]

What oath are you willing to take that would convince them that you can be trusted?

[LordBucket]

These questions were answered in gratuitous detail. See the two posts above yours.

I note however, that you didn't respond to any of the questions I posed.

[Patrick Hunt]

The only question I noticed was who's more trustworthy, and at present I have to say none of you and especially not Aurora or Baysen.

The Griffon can be trusted as long as she's well paid for her services and the fights not total suicide, Mel can be trusted to fight to save his own ass if nothing else both of them it's easy to gauge the risks. Baysen for now it's easy because he's playing good boy so nobody knows he's lying.
Aurora on the other hand is point blank refusing because she might not agree with what she's told to do, I'll trust the others then my enemy before I trust Aurora who might just decide she doesn't like the order and leave us to die at any minute.


What happens when protecting Equestria from foreign enemies means fighting against your own people? Are you going to do it and kill your own people or sell us out?

[Silcugar]

Oh boy, as much as I enjoy this (the questioning of npc motives and logic, that is) I don't want this to escalate into an argument, if I can avoid it.

Here's the thing, Bucket, you're right. The kind of politicing the ring is engaging in is, at best, questionable. And the phrasing is intentional. The ring, and Clover especially, expects full obedience from their pioneers. They expect an oath not only to protect themselves, but to protect Equestria. But know this: Although they could (technically) banish the zebra to the salt mines, and they could manipulate their pioneers into doing their dirty work, they would never do that. And your character would know this because, although the ring is somewhat unstable right now, they are known for their benevolence and righteousness in the face of evil, in regards to how they treat their subjects. If there's one government you can trust, it is Equestria's. You are witnessing the ring at its lowest point. Never before has their been such treachery, or such secrecy among the ring members. It is a time of desperation, for in times of peace there is only tranquility. And who wants that?

But their mindset is not modern, like you might think. They're not employers, of the traditional, modern sense. Yes, modern oaths do not include blind obedience as a given, but in the type of pseudo-medieval society I'm trying to construct, and in Equestrian society especially, loyalty is the currency by which political goals are achieved. But the key here is that pioneers are not vassals. They're something beyond the history books. At least, as far as my education of history has taken me. They're a position of their own calibre, status, power, and position within Equestrian society. It's a highly sought after, and (usually) hard earned position. By the time ponies usually attain this position, or the possibility thereof, they're more than willing to submit themselves to the ring. That means they become pseudo vassals, agents (for the lack of a better term), special forces for the ring. Perhaps my mistake is that I have never emphasized the rigorous testing that's involved in the elimination of prospectives.

In theory, this is the calibre of recruit the ring is looking for. However, politics get in the way, and, OOCly, the fact that I'd like every type of character to be involved. Just look at the current pioneers, via the Band page on the wiki. Almost all of them are highly qualified in some way. Even Fixer is qualified, through his ingenious scheming. The Illustrious Eighth are qualified, in their own ways. In all honesty, the Farwalkers are somewhat meagre compared to the rest. But what's the fun in starting out as number one?

All three of my NPCs have reasons to be trusted. I was hoping not to divulge these reasons, but to make my point clear I will.

Mel is already an agent of the ring, but in a different mode. This is pretty much a promotion for him, and he's already shown himself loyal in the past through reasons unspecific. He's not just some freelance assassin they picked up off the streets. Sasha is closely tied to Hurricane, and this upgrade from merc to pioneer is a personal favour. Still, she is highly skilled and qualified. Autumn... Well, she earned this position fair and square.

I think the main problem is that we are underestimating each other. I underestimated your dedication to your character (something that I very much respect) and your ability to see my (potential) traps (I assume you are a good DnD player, as a key skill in that game is catching on to the DM's bullshit early). You though, I think, are underestimating the effort and work I've put into this setting. I don't throw out propositions like total obedience form my characters lightly. But this is a special case. The ring is immensely powerful, compared to your characters. Asking total obedience of your lot comes easily to them. Not to mention their reputation as just and benevolent rulers.

All in all, my mistake was underestimating you. Not only that, I assumed something vital. I assumed you'd trust the government, without adequately displaying their reputation. You are correct. This request is somewhat unreasonable. But you have to see it from the prospective of what basically amounts to a level one character, in a medieval society, in the face of a powerful and just, if somewhat unstable, government. This isn't just any job interview, form any job interviewer. It's the job, from the interviewer. 

Now tell me, would you say that your character, Aurora, would still refuse to take this oath, or assure her obedience, in light of this new information? If so, I have a plan to remedy the situation that I whink we'll both agree with.

Also, forgot to mention, the oath doesn't take effect until you are initiated. I mean, it's kinda the precursor. Like, it's implied that this oath is in reference to your initiation. At least, I meant it that way. It is null if you do not become a pioneer, as I'd think common sense would dictate. They're not going to say, 'You said the words, now you man the wall.' But I guess I underestimated the implications of what they're asking in this context. Perhaps I should have waited, but this was a good way to solidify Baseyen's loyalty before the selection. So, this too was my mistake.

[Rolepgeek]

Something else to note; the qualifications were placed so he didn't have to lie. If I were them, I would trust someone less if they didn't qualify it like that.

And also, it's about upholding the tenants of being a pioneer, which breaks a lot of the straw man arguments you brought up. No offense to you, it's a common practice and a decent one, but that's what they are.

[Patrick Hunt]

Heh I had a feeling something was off about the 3 npc. Sam is good to go anyway.

[Silcugar]

Something else to note; the qualifications were placed so he didn't have to lie. If I were them, I would trust someone less if they didn't qualify it like that.

And also, it's about upholding the tenants of being a pioneer, which breaks a lot of the straw man arguments you brought up. No offense to you, it's a common practice and a decent one, but that's what they are.

Let's not start that, shall we? I don't want needless arguments in my thread.

[LordBucket]

would you say that your character, Aurora, would still refuse to take this oath, or assure her obedience, in light of this new information?

Yes, she would still refuse to swear now to unquestioningly obey future orders that she doesn't even know yet what they're going to be.

But the key here is that pioneers are not vassals.

...ok...how are they not? From my point of view though, you're saying pioneers aren't vassals...but then you're describing vassals. Actually, to be really specific...you're describing landless knights. Same medieval-ish obedience relationship in generally military type service plus public relations in exchange for a lesser psuedo-noble title, prestige, respect, and material aid. The only real differences are that in this case the obedience is to a council rather than an individual, and they're giving us equipment instead of land.

Changing the name doesn't change the substance of the relationship, which is one of absolute obedience. And that's a problem. The ring is offering to give her a lesser psuedo-noble title, but she's already an actual noble. She is a Lady of Glistens House Dawn, and that position has a conduct requirement. Just like a pioneer would be expected to conduct themselves in a certain manner.

Here's a very simple test: Aurora has a personal code of ethics. What happens if she promises to obey the ring...promises to do "anything they say" without knowing what it is first, and the ring then orders her to do something that violates her code? What does she do? That puts her in an unreconcileable position. If she follows the order she'd be violating her code by doing that thing, and if she fails to follow the order, then she's violating her code by failing to honor her oath.

What possible reason does Aurora have to put herself in that position?  The simplest solution is to simply not step into that trap. Problem solved. The ring can give her any order they want, and she can then choose to do it or not do it. So long as Aurora executes  her duties to the ring's satisfaction, they have no reason to fire her. And if the ring is as benevolent as their reputation suggests, then they will give no orders that Aurora is unable to fulfill. There's no need for any conflict to exist.

you have to see it from the prospective of what basically amounts to a level one character, in a medieval society, in the face of a powerful and just, if somewhat unstable, government. This isn't just any job interview, form any job interviewer. It's the job, from the interviewer. 

Ok, but look at that from Aurora's point of view. She's Glistens nobility, she's a potential future heir to House Dawn, and she's being offered a lesser title in a foreign nation. Imagine if before Platinum's coma, Regal had been offered a knighthood in Glistens. Yes, no doubt that's a great honor. But is it such a great honor that Regal would be willing to jeopardize her future seat on the council for it? Probably not. That's basically Aurora's position here.

I really didn't expect that any of this conflict of interest stuff would come up. Read the second paragraph of the opening post of this thread. "Pioneers braving the frontier" didn't really sound like a knighthood requiring obedience oaths to me. Honestly, even now that we're here, I still don't have the context that justifies it. All I can conclude is that there's a whole lot of treachery floating around the ring for them to be this paranoid. Which doesn't exactly encourage me to want to promise to obey them.

I underestimated your dedication to your character (something that I very much respect) and your ability to see my (potential) traps (I assume you are a good DnD player, as a key skill in that game is catching on to the DM's bullshit early). You though, I think, are underestimating the effort and work I've put into this setting.

Thank you. Experienced dungeon master, actually. And yes, I'm operating at a disadvantage evaluating the setting because there's six months worth of game history that I don't know about. It's possible that all of this is entirely justified by events of which I have no knowledge because they happened before the game came here, but based only on what I know this whole obedience thing comes across as either incredibly arbitrary or a deliberate trap. You've layed out so many clues that there's secret backstabbing going on, and personally I suspect that somebody on the council knows a lot more about who killed Morphic Tale than is public knowledge.

Yeah, when a GM hands out world history, you read it, because that stuff always come up later.

If so, I have a plan to remedy the situation that I whink we'll both agree with.

Yes, the situation itself should be easy to resolve. I see several solutions.

For example, if Regal Silver is patterned after her mother, who is patterned after Rarity...then it seems plausible to me for her to hear Aurora speak of honor and nobility, speak of noblesse oblige, and for her to believe her. At which point Clover and Hurricane can object all they want, and Regal could sponsor Aurora anyway, because the fact is that Aurora is going to treat the ring honorably regardless of what oath she does or doesn't take. They can't have mindless obedience, but truth and honorable conduct will be given freely with or without promise to do so. If Regal is A Lady, she'll understand that. Clover, unfortunately, from what I've seen of how you're portraying her, probably won't. And I suspect that the commander probably won't either. The rest of the council probably won't really care. Like Aurora pointed out in her speech, it makes a lot of good sense to choose her, and if there's an Applejack expy on the council somewhere, Aurora's genuinely honest intentions won't go unnoticed. If Regal sponsors Aurora, and half the council says "yeah...this is the right thing to do," I have a difficult time imagining Clover overruling that.

Actually, it wouldn't even have to be Regal. Any of the earth ponies could do it. Aurora gave them a compelling case, and if the earth ponies are willing to vouch for the unicorn supremecist "because this one is one of us" nobody's going to tell them no. That would probably turn out better for Aurora. I suspect nobody really likes Regal, but an earth pony sponsoring a Glistens unicorn sends a strong "hands off our candidate" message to everyone.

Ironically, when I gave the speech, I anticipated something very different than how this is turning out. You'll notice that while Autumn appealed exclusively to Clover, Aurora appealed to everyone except Clover. Because I expected her reaction to be basically "wait...you got my perpetually squabbling council to agree with each other? You are so in."

Or another option, if we want to take the easy way out...let's remember that none of this conversation occurred in character. Aurora said nothing when the oath was requested of Basayen. If nobody says anything there's no reason for it to ever be an issue.

The first several paragraphs of Aurora's speech was all about the political implications of her participation here. Her invitation could been motivated by desire to foster closer ties with Glistens. It's reasonable to suggest that House Silver has connections with House Dawn, Clover asked Regal to find someone in Glistens, and she found me. Regal, Pale Seer and Clover were my sponsors. I'm not sure what Pale Seer's motivation was, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that the Ring Chief and the Magister together could have arranged for certain formalities to be skipped if it meant achieving political goals more important to them than merely filling a pioneer position.

So yes, lots of solutions.

[Patrick Hunt]

It's gonna be fun to work out how to show Sans complete disregard for Auroras safety and security.

Politics are so funny from a child's perspective.

[LordBucket]

It's gonna be fun to work out how to show Sans complete disregard for Auroras safety and security.

...and yet you accuse me of being the untrustworthy one?  Personally, I'm starting to feel like a paladin surrounded by psychopaths.

[Patrick Hunt]

He's a kid, rational thought isn't his strong point.

Jumping to conclusions based on his very limited judgement and getting it wrong is. He sees you not take the oath so the most obvious answer to a kid is your hiding something which means he can't trust you.

Besides which your speech was a good way to look arrogant and stuck up in a kids eyes.

It just means Sam likes you less then the rest. He's a kid he changes his mind a lot so won't be hard to get him to like you, unless you treat him as less then an equal anyway.

[Silcugar]

Alright, then a different approach I shall take! My method will be more... hands on, though. Time to move the thread forward.

Oh, and if your going to debate ethics, try to do it without being insulting, you two. Saying things like "you accuse me" and "Sam likes you less" makes the accusations a bit too personal. Simply replacing these terms with "my character" or "Aurora" or "Sam" will prevent unnecessarily aggressive undertones. Because I like my players to have fun, and to like each other, but I also like lively debate.

[Patrick Hunt]

Sorry I didn't consider it could be misinterpreted as being aimed at the player.

It was all in regards to Sam and Aurora not me and Bucket.


Sam has nothing to bet so rules him out.