Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reincarnations and Oaths

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reincarnations and Oaths

    Hello! A newbie player on our game raised a question none of us knew how to answer. Do changelings' Oaths persist through different lives? Could a noble demand the loyalty of a kithain whose past life swore fealty to him (or maybe even a past life of said noble)? Would a couple still be bound by True Hearts after one or both died and reincarnated?

    Thanks in advance!

  • #2
    I've always played as if they did.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes. This is part of how the Sidhe hold power. They held oaths from very different times. So fae had best mind their oaths.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MythAdvocate View Post
        Yes. This is part of how the Sidhe hold power. They held oaths from very different times. So fae had best mind their oaths.
        Except they live for countless of reincarnations and most can't remember any of them.

        Ergo more, than half of the changelings should be Oathbreakers for breaking all of those Oaths by not being where they're supposed to be and do what they're supposed to do.

        Also. If Oaths are inherited from reincarnation to incarnation, Oathbreaker status (recognized by Dreaming ittself) should be inherited too. If we assume, that majority of the changelings doesn't have Remembrance 3-5, then it's safe to infer, that any changeling broke at least one Oath. That means, absolute majority of Commoners are Oathbreakers in the face of Dreaming (disadvantages are quite severe).

        I'm running this assumption to it's extreme, but you as can see, you have to carefully consider the implications of this question.


        "Okay, damn, ow. I just gotta… why the heck do all games about faeries read like they are written by them, too?" © open_sketchbook

        Comment


        • #5
          It is possible to atone for oathbreaking, and remove the status.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MythAdvocate View Post
            Yes. This is part of how the Sidhe hold power. They held oaths from very different times.
            Except Sidhe did not Undertake a Changeling Way and therefore haven't reincarnate - they left Earth, when fae didn't need human bodies and had to stsal some, on their way back.

            So, Sidhe can't be a proof of Oaths carrying over through changeling 'reincarnation'.


            "Okay, damn, ow. I just gotta… why the heck do all games about faeries read like they are written by them, too?" © open_sketchbook

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Firkraag View Post
              Except Sidhe did not Undertake a Changeling Way and therefore haven't reincarnate - they left Earth, when fae didn't need human bodies and had to stsal some, on their way back.

              So, Sidhe can't be a proof of Oaths carrying over through changeling 'reincarnation'.
              Part of how they took over in the Resurgence was calling upon old oaths.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm immediately reminded of this episode of Star Trek.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Firkraag View Post
                  Except Sidhe did not Undertake a Changeling Way and therefore haven't reincarnate - they left Earth, when fae didn't need human bodies and had to stsal some, on their way back.

                  So, Sidhe can't be a proof of Oaths carrying over through changeling 'reincarnation'.
                  The Arcadian Sidhe are in the same lifetime that recieved oaths from ages past. Because of this, they can hold the oathgiver's word against them though the oath was given many lifetimes ago. This is also how they have been able to call on oaths with the Garou (who are also reincarnated) and other supernaturals.

                  In folklore ( and in real life) unwise oaths can have terrible consequences. Though in CtD, I would say the type of oath determines the durability.
                  Last edited by MythAdvocate; 06-26-2017, 08:38 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MythAdvocate View Post
                    Though in CtD, I would say the type of oath determines the durability.
                    This is wise.


                    "Okay, damn, ow. I just gotta… why the heck do all games about faeries read like they are written by them, too?" © open_sketchbook

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by zenten View Post
                      It is possible to atone for oathbreaking, and remove the status.
                      Allowing it all the time would be anticlimactic and a profanation. If anyone could atone for their oathbreaking easy and free of charge, nobody would worry about turning into an Oathbreaker.

                      If it's hard, there will be much more Oathbreakers around.

                      Actually...

                      If Oaths are still relevant regardless of being remembered, all of the Commoners that disobeyed the returned Sidhe ARE Oathbreakers, every single one of them.

                      Like few thousands of Commoner Oathbreakers, that have to atone for breaking Oaths, that they can't even remember taking. How they would atone for it? How they coexist with their loyalist brethren? Oathbreakers are marked by Dreaming, could be denied a refuge of freehold and almost universally despised.

                      It's not like High King can just grant them a pardon and be done with it.
                      Last edited by Firkraag; 06-26-2017, 08:36 AM.


                      "Okay, damn, ow. I just gotta… why the heck do all games about faeries read like they are written by them, too?" © open_sketchbook

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You're assuming all commoners were at some time oathbound to sidhe, and for that matter sidhe that they ever encountered.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by zenten View Post
                          You're assuming all commoners were at some time oathbound to sidhe, and for that matter sidhe that they ever encountered.
                          Not really. In the Medieval Paradigm, oaths from commoners would generally be considered to be nonsense (honor is a noble concept). So no, most would not have had oaths. However commoner fae with holdings or rank, especially Trolls, Eshu and Satyrs, would be oathbound as part of their gaining rank. However the Commoner/Sidhe conflict would go much deeper, and be tied to the ephemeral aspects of the fae.

                          In legend, what is deemed "commoner fae" (Boggan, Satyr, Pixie, etc) are often "place spirits", bound to certain places and times, only having access to the Earth under certain circumstances. While greater fae "Lords and Ladies" had much greater mobility. So I assume that the majority of Oaths held by the ancient Sidhe are the right to rulership over Freeholds Glens and similar places of power. That commoners consider the hard-won Freeholds as "theirs" would surprise the Sidhe, who would see the commoners as part of the freeholds rather than having any rights to them.

                          This discussion of oaths from an immortal standpoint reminds me of the haughty attitude affected by Elves in the Lord of the Rings books. When they looked at Men, they saw all of the betrayals enacted by that mans ancestors, and not just the man himself. To the Elves, the man before them was an embodiment of all those past sins. This longevity was a boon i many ways, but made life in a wicked world all the more painful.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ok, but just because they saw things a certain way doesn't mean the Dreaming backs it up. Especially with say Redcaps or Sluagh.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Another way to put it, you're describing the commoners as serfs, while I'm saying they were free commoners.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X