Head of House

Answer: Societal Expectations

Head of House to Noble Family:

-Respect

Expectation: Generally, most noble houses of the Compact believe in showing solidarity in public, and not keeping up with appearances of a unified family is damaging socially, though the Lycene houses often are assumed to do so intentionally to keep people guessing. Particularly, it is assumed that if noble family has an issue with the their Head of House, they will always address it privately rather than ever publically challenge their authority, or at least do so in a friendly and very courteous way that would come across as mild and polite disagreement rather than a challenge that must be met. Similarly, it is assumed that heads of house won't embarrass or chastise their family in public, unless they have an extremely good reason to do so.

Obligation: Explicitly challenging the head of house or their voices in public is a good way to no longer be in the house. Public quarreling with the head of house is a leading cause for being denobled and thrown out of the family. Even in private, most heads of house can expect a degree of polite deference and if they declare a matter is settled, that should really be it.

-Fine to say or do:
--Any polite questioning in private rather than public.
--Raising a dubious eyebrow in public.
--A leader politely deciding that they won't discuss the matter.

-Questionable to say or do:
--Very politely disagreeing with a leader in public in a friendly and courteous manner.
--The head of house harshly cutting off a family member in public and telling them to leave.
--Violently disagreeing in private.
--Head of house refusing to chastise family that repeatedly challenge their authority in public.

-Ruinous to say or do:
--Insulting one's own head of house in public.
--Continuing to argue in public, even politely, after the Head of House has decreed that a matter is done and to drop it.
--A head of house openly mocking his own family members in public with no justification in a cruel and extremely uncomfortable way.

-Marriage

Expectation: It is expected for nobles to marry for duty, with a political match that will strengthen their house. It is generally expected that the head of house allow nobles some freedom in finding a reasonable match, and the responsibility of a head of house to find matches really only extends in so far as they need new treaties or pacts with other potential allies, or to bind their house closer to another. A noble marrying for love is considered a luxury, which might be afforded if there's no current pressing needs, and someone is far enough down the line of succession to diminish their importance, or the head of house is willing to sacrifice the gain for the happiness of a family member. Once a noble is married in a marriage pact, the expectation is that the marriage is for life, but that the faith has the authority to grant a divorce and release the couple from their vows if a compelling reason is presented. Being released from vows or oath by the Faith dissolves those, and someone cannot be considered an oathbreaker if there is no oaths to break. It is assumed that marriages are monogamous, but the societal expectation is that it's not really the business of anyone but the couple, whether they allow for favorites or have an open marriage, and if so it is expected to maintain discretion and that any arrangement is equal in power (monogamous or not equally for both partners). These are usually not explicitly stated but understood, and an accusation of infidelity is taken as someone being dishonest in coming to an arrangement with their spouse. The head of house isn't really expected to settle the particulars of that between the couple, except in so far as making certain it would be a lasting marriage.

Obligation: No one by law can be compelled to marry by force, but heads of house are under no obligation to keep a family member in the family, so they can threaten someone to marry or be disowned and denobled. For a marriage to be considered legitimate between nobility, it has to be performed by a priest of the Pantheon (as opposed to commoner marriages, who don't require this, and can just declare themselves married or divorced). The head of house or a voice must give consent for any marriage pact to be considered valid between two houses.

-Fine to say or do:
--Mention to a Head of House a potential political match that is interesting to you.
--Express a preference between different options, including prefering not to marry.
--As HoH, mention different potential matches and talk to other houses, even without consulting the family member.

-Questionable to say or do:
--Do full marriage negotiations as HoH or as a family member without notifying the other of your intent.
--Pursue a love match that would preclude a political marriage.
--Violently reject a potential political match without consulting family/HoH.
--Seek a divorce for minor reasons.
--Threaten to disown a family member if they won't consider a political match.

-Ruinous to say or do:
--Elope with a commoner.
--Break marriage vows without being released from them by the Faith in a formal divorce.
--Use force or threats of violence to compel a family member to marry.


-Allowances

Expectation: The Head of House is in control of the family finances, and can do with it as they wish, but it's expected that at least half of the family income will be distributed among all family members, and every noble in the family will have a reasonable allowance as long as they are not considered insubordinate to the family. 'Reasonable' varies considerably, but as a rule of thumb, at least half of the gross income of the house evenly divided between family members currently in Arx, with trusted house servants given a smaller stipend, perhaps a third of the size. Reducing an allowance or removing it entirely is considered punitive, and a clear sign of house disfavor, and should only be done as a punitive measure short of removing a family member. It is generally considered reasonable for just head of house and voices to have access to the house financials.

Obligation: The funds do, in a strict sense, belong to the family, not the head of house. The head of house is expected to make all reasonable decisions for the family, but if a head of house cuts out the rest of the family entirely and would use it all on themselves, that would be considered breaking trust with family (even if there is no specific oath prohibiting this). It would be considered by most lieges as grounds of someone being unfit as a leader, but embezzlement has to be at truly extraordinary levels, such as using 100% of funds for the better part of a year. Single large purchases just don't reach that standard unless it would be potentially ruinous to the family and forces all of them to live below their station routinely.

-Fine to say or do:
--Family member asking for an allowance now that they've come to Arx.
--A head of house deciding to spend half the house savings on preparing a meaningful event that is useful politically.
--Family members doing whatever they see fit with their own allowances.
--A head of house reducing or removing an allowance as a punishment because of clear, unambiguously disrespectful behavior from a family member that embarrassed them publicly.
--Minor oversights, like forgetting to give an allowance to a family member that arrives in Arx until they point it out.

-Questionable to say or do:
--Have wildly different allowances based on how much the HoH likes someone.
--A family member asking for more funds constantly past an allowance, or telling crafters to just bill the family.
--Griping to a HoH about the size of allowances repeatedly.
--Reducing allowances below half of the family incomes because of an impending war and military buildup, but not a clear cut emergency.

-Ruinous to say or do:
--Cut all allowances from everyone and say, "they can just come to me if they need money."
--Cut all allowances or reduce them below 25% of total income to focus solely on investing in the domain, military, etc.
--Publicly accuse your head of house of embezzlement or misuse of family funds if it's not unambiguously true.

-Voices

Expectations: Voices are not assistants to the Head of House, they are plenipotentaries who are expected to have full authorizations to make any decisions for the noble house, and therefore must have the trust of the head of house and family. A voice is customarily a member of the family, but it could be anyone extremely close and trusted by the family and the head of house in particular, or someone highly respected and honorable. But since the voice's entire importance comes by speaking for another, rather than necessarily on their own merits, a commoner that might never hope to be ennobled and made family could still serve as a voice, if they were completely trusted, or really anyone that would be completely trusted and not have a conflict of interest that would make the service potentially dishonorable. In family members treating voices, it's generally expected that they give the voice the full respect and courtesy they would extend to a head of house, while the voice is acting on their behalf. Similarly, other families treating a voice poorly would usually be taken as an insult upon the house honor. Voices acting in a way contrary to the HoH is rare but is usually assumed to be more from confusion than malice, and generally a worrying sign when a voice and HoH quarrel, as it invites schisms in a house, particularly if a voice has been leading in absentia for a vacant leader. Removing a voice is never trivial, but a voice should never challenge their HoH in public and show they cannot be trusted in that manner, as removing them would be all but necessary.

Obligations: It is generally expected for any noble family to have at least one voice in the city of Arx, in case the HoH is currently preoccupied, and not appointing any voices could be taken as a leader failing to meet their obligations. Voices, if leaving the city of Arx for an extended period or taking some other leave of absence, are expected to offer to surrender the position to reduce any potential confusion in leadership.

-Fine to say or do:
--Appoint a new voice that's known to be trusted by the family, even if they aren't part of it
--A voice giving up the position of voice by taking a leave of absence or extended leave from the city
--Asking for a voice to be appointed if petitions have gone unanswered, and there is a clear need for more assistance

-Questionable to say or do:
--A voice or a HoH to contradict each other in public.
--A HoH wishing to strip the position of voice from someone without unambiguous cause
--Anyone not treating a voice with the respect of the HoH they represent
--Asking to speak the HoH instead of a voice, shopping for different answers.

-Ruinous to say or do:
--HoH or voice insulting one another in public and openly quarreling.
--HoH deciding there will be no voices at all and demanding they run everything themselves, dismissing calls for one.
--Voice actively subverting the will of the HoH and undermining their directives in a clear, unambiguous fashion.
--Family ignoring a voice entirely and saying they only listen to the HoH.

-Housing

Expectations: Many noble houses don't maintain permanent residences in Arx at all, and family rent inn rooms when they visit Arx, but it has become increasingly in fashion for more powerful and wealthy houses to maintain estates. For any noble house maintaining an estate, it's usually expected that they attempt to build adequate housing for any visiting family and offer them a room, but it is also considered option on the part of visiting family if they wish to stay with the family, or in an inn, or in their own private residence for personal use. However, a noble house should never have multiple split residences- there should not be a main estate and then a minor one they banish the second cousins to, or the like, just one large sprawling estate. Aside from that, the discretion for who gets what room is left entirely to the Head of House, and it is inappropriate to argue over it.

Obligation: If the family has an estate, they should be using family funds to supply housing for visiting family. A family member should be offered a room, even if they decline and decide to stay elsewhere instead, which is always permitted. Throwing a family member out of the estate is another means of punishment short of denobling them.

-Fine to say or do:
--Asking for a room at the estate when arriving in Arx
--Expanding the estate to accommodate more family
--Deciding not to live with family and having a house in the Boroughs, or to live in an inn room
--Host a party on family grounds with the permission of HoH

-Questionable to say or do:
--Throw out family from the estate over a quarrel or disrespectful behavior
--Invite personal friends hostile to other members of the family into the family estate
--Use room assignments to show favor in the family, and inviting quarrels over them

-Ruinous to say or do:
--Refuse to accommodate family at the estate simply to save money
--Sell the family estate or demolish it without checking with the rest of the family
--Go through a family member's room and take their belongings
--Put a family member under house arrest without overwhelming cause to do so

-Information

Expectations: Families talk to one another ideally, and it is usually considered courteous to keep others informed of matters that could have an impact upon their daily lives, such as threats or opportunities that they might not be aware of. But generally, leaders should not be expected to hunt down family members to keep them informed, nor should family members feel they must let leaders know aspects of their private affairs. There is a vast gulf between politely informing others of useful information coming to light, and being obligated to.

Obligations: Unless a family member is withholding information that would be clearly deeply damaging to the family if it's not acted upon, such as a plot to assassinate the HoH or a surprise attack upon family lands, there is no obligation to share information. It's great if they do, but family members are not employees to find out information for the HoH, and the HoH is not a dispenser of actionable information. Both ways are welcome to do their own thing, and someone can politely ask, but they can't put obligations on someone's time and personal business.

-Fine to say or do:
--Hold a family dinner to talk about recent events or for a planning session
--Not mentioning personal events that don't have a bearing on the family
--Having a private line of inquiry that doesn't involve the family
--Have confidants outside of the family.

-Questionable to say or do:
--Discuss potentially damaging family secrets with outsiders.
--Imply a family member is disloyal for not volunteering information
--Get upset at a HoH for not keeping someone fully informed
--Ask family members for details on their personal lives.

-Ruinous to say or do:
--Punish a family member for not volunteering information that wasn't necessary for the family well being
--Withholding something actively treasonous that's clearly and immediately threatening to the family's existence
--Publicly calling family members or the HoH as disloyal, incompetent, etc due to not actively pursuing someone to pass on information.

-Equipment

Expectations: It is generally expected that a reasonable allowance will cover the needs of a family member arriving in Arx, but it is not unreasonable for family members to ask for basic tools to properly perform their duties if they are lacking. However, this is in the most basic fashion- a knight might be supplied with high quality steel, or rubicund, or a diplomat might ask to make an impression in silk, but generally nothing more expensive than those qualities. As a rule of thumb, asking for more than a month's worth of their allowance would be unreasonable, which for most families is going to be in the low tens of thousands of silver. However, once arms, armor, clothing and the like are given to a family member, it is considered in their possession, rather than merely in their keeping and to be returned to the house (like house heirlooms).

Obligation: It is the duty of the house to provide arms and armor for its warriors, clothing for its family, and food and shelter, if it is outside the family member's means. But these can be at a very basic level. There is no obligation whatsoever to help anyone outside of the immediate family and house.

-Fine to say or do:
--Upon arriving in the city, ask for help in equipment if one has none.
--For an important social function, if one is broke, as the family for help.
--For a HoH to say no to anything that would exceed five or so allowance payments to a family member.

-Questionable to say or do:
--Imply a HoH is cheap for refusing to help.
--Ask for anything exceeding the value of five or so allowance payments.
--Asking a HoH to pay for armor or weapons for friends or allies.

-Ruinous to say or do:
--Publicly quarrel with family over unreasonable demands.
--Get angry if the family refuses to bankrupt itself for alaricite, shadowmeld, steelsilk, etc.

Liege

Answer: Societal Expectations

Liege to Vassal:
-Self rule

Expectation: To allow a vassal to do with their lands as they will. This means allowing them without interference to determine their own succession, to decide their own laws, to ennoble and denoble family, to deal with their own vassals, to raise their own military forces, to expand their territories. A vassal may wage war if not explicitly forbidden to do so, and even then a liege is obligated to allow a vassal to defend themselves if attacked. This can be questioned politely and courteously, but the decisions are theirs. A domain once granted traditionally remains in a family's hands in perpetuity.

Obligation: A liege doesn't take any explicit vows guaranteeing self-rule to a vassal. When creating a new fief and entrusting it to a vassal, all the vows are vassal to liege, and in fact the grant typically is worded, "<Vassal house> is hereby granted <domain name> in service to <Liege House>", with the explicit wording allowing that it could be revoked without the grave sin of oathbreaking. This is almost never done, but land forfeiture is always technically possible, and if a liege feels they have been wronged by a vassal sufficiently, they could attempt to reclaim their lands. For high crimes, this often means going to the highlord of that region and asking the highlord to pass a writ of attainder over that house, denobling the vassal house in part or in whole and declaring their lands forfeit. The highlord, however, is NOT obligated to pass the lands back to the original liege if they pass a writ of attainder, even if that would be expected, meaning lieges are often very reluctant to seek this, and would rather go to war and hold the vassal's lands by force rather than bring in their own highlord to arbitrate.

In terms of obligations for self-rule and succession, as long as a noble of a line lives, it's expected the next eldest family member can decide succession. However, if there is a dispute and a family member with a claim asks for arbitration from a liege, that effectively passes the decision upwards to avoid civil war in a domain. If an entire line is completely extinguished, the expectation is the direct liege will appoint a new family to hold sway over lands (as was the case with House Aviaron and Acheron, or House Fireviper, as examples). However, again, there are no explicit vows forbidding liege interference, so if a liege does not fear looking utterly tyrannical, they could attempt to impose their will regularly and be loathed for it (Donrai Thrax, for example).

-Fine to say:
--"Vassal, understand though I don't want to meddle in your affairs, but is provoking a fight with Grayson wise?"
--"My liege, while I respectfully understand you have outlawed thralldom on your lands, we'll still permit it on ours."
--"Vassal, I implore you to settle the issue of succession between your squabbling children before you ride into battle. Don't die and drop this into our lap."

-Questionable to say:
--"We are outlawing the color blue and expect all of our vassals to follow suit. Fuck blue."
--"Grayson wine is terrible, we're only importing Lycene wine. All our vassals should only buy from Lenosia."
--"Our liege hates blue, but we love blue. Go blue! We like contradicting and embarrassing our liege in public, woo! Nothing bad will happen!"
--"All right, I know your two houses have been rivals for centuries, but as your liege I'm tired of hearing about this so stop your border skirmishes over the mutually claimed mill."

-Ruinous to say:
--"We hearby think Marquis Upopular should abdicate and be replaced by Lady Reasonable."
--"We are reclaiming the lands held by your family. This will go well and surely not result in a war."
--"Bob died and didn't leave a will. His family hasn't asked my opinion, but I like butting in and feeling important, so as his liege his successor should be Ted, who I like better than his older sister Paula."

-Respect

Expectation: Lieges and vassals typically speak with one another with respect and courtesy. Honor based societies tend to be much, much more polite, as discourtesy is often seen as undermining someone's authority. So criticisms of a liege or vassal tend to be very carefully coached in respectful, polite language that might be critical of someone's actions, but is not critical of them as an individual. That said, just disagreeing with a liege is never seen as treasonous on a vassal's part, nor is a liege being critical of a vassal grounds to talk about trying to find a new liege. The expectation is that a vassal or liege is respectful in public, and disagreements are courteously phrased.

Obligation: Vassals can't question a leader's fitness to rule publically, or imply they have no honor. Those two are the important 'can't do's, because no one is under any obligation to follow a dishonorable leader, and implying that they are no longer willing to follow someone into battle implies they are breaking their own solemn oaths of fealty. These are very dangerous, very serious. "Marquis Bob is a liar, and isn't cut out to be a Marquis" isn't dramatically different from saying, "Any vassal can ignore Marquis Bob, support his younger brother Ted to overthrow him, or abandon him on the field of battle and let him die". For this reason, most vassals in public would tend to skirt around this, if someone has serious questions about their fitness to rule, "In the quest for the Pendant of Truth, I think perhaps we should have Ted come instead of Bob because... Ted's integrity is so great. And Bob is probably really busy dealing with that rebellion." while privately making their concerns known. Anything more overt can be taken as a direct challenge from a vassal trying to see if their liege is too weak to respond, and could potentially be replaced. From liege to vassal, there's very few hard obligations save that questioning someone's honor is typically seen as beyond the pale, and would usually be taken as an explicit notice that they are thinking of attainting them or replacing the leader quite possibly through force. Bear in mind however that any startement like this always will have one side asking the other to clarify it, and walk it back. The "Are you calling me a liar?" type line is one that lets everyone know this is very serious, and the appropriate answer is, "No, my apologies" unless someone is ready to go to war. Asking for clarification is seen as a hard requirement before action is taken. Publicly and clearly stating that someone has no honor, and is unfit for a leader, or is an oathbreaker is roughly as serious as declaring that someone is guilty of a capital offense- it is vastly more serious than a slight that can be settled with a duel by champions, as someone could never keep their place in society if they were the loser in that confrontation much like if they lost a trial by combat for a capital offense.

-Fine to say:
--"In the future, I would humbly ask to allow me to contribute to our battle plans, as I believe the losses were costly and could have been avoided."
--"I believe my liege's son could benefit from protocol lessons from a Whisper, before he gets us into an avoidable war."
--"Respectfully, I think that plan is terrible, and cannot advocate its adoption."
--"With respect, I am uncertain that is true, and my liege might be mistaken."

-Questionable to Say:
--"I strongly counsel you to get your family members under control before they cause an incident. Maybe some time as a commoner could do them good. Fresh perspective!"
--"Not sure Lord Frumpingham was completely honest when he said he never received the messengers, but sure whatever."
--"That drunken brawl was disgraceful for nobles to be involved with. It was beneath them."
--"That decision was terrible and moronic."

-Ruinous to say:
--"She is a liar and an oathbreaker."
--"She is unfit to lead the great house. I will not follow her."
--"He has no honor."
--"He does not really believe in the Faith of the Pantheon, and his vows mean nothing to him."
--"That facial expression looked dubious and was disrespectful. Therefore you are a traitor."
--"In private I heard those two people made a joke about the liege. They are traitors and must die."

-Taxes

Expectation: During peacetime, a domain should never pay less than 1/13th of their gross income to their liege (roughly 7 percent), though lieges will sometimes generously permit a vassal to pay 1/20th, or even waive taxes all together as a show of favor. Higher than 13 percent taxes is considered punitive and a sign that a liege is intentionally punishing a domain if it is in peacetime. Facing an existential threat like invasion, a liege could raise it as high as 50 percent, though more than that could see a vassal petition the highlord of that region or the Faith as someone being unreasonable and abusing their vow of fealty. The expectation is lieges will not raise to higher than 13% unless they wish to show disapproval towards an insubordinate vassal, or there is a powerful reason to force them to do so.

Obligation: Not paying taxes at all is a violation of a vassal's oaths. This could result in them being declared an oathbreaker, and forever shaming them, or even having them outlawed, thrown out of the Compact, and being declared Abandoned. Raising taxes is a punitive measure of lieges, though the precedent set by a previous Dominus of the Faith holds that taxes cannot be set higher than 30 percent during peacetime, or 50 percent during war time if (and this is important) those percentages are shown as ruinous to the vassal that cripples their ability to sustain themselves and forcing them to face impending bankruptcy. Therefore, a wealthy vassal has little to no protection if they are quarrel with a liege until it would become ruinous, save for hoping for widespread social condemnation.

-Fine to say:
--"Taxes are raised to thirteen percent."
--"Due to insubordinate behavior, taxes are raised to 20 percent until they apologize."

-Questionable to say:
--"Due to insubordinate behavior, taxes are raised to 50 percent until they apologize."
--"While we continue pay, we'll petition our highlord to intervene against these unreasonable taxes."

-Ruinous to say:
--"We refuse to pay these taxes."
--"Not a coin will pass through vassal hands that we will not possess."

-Levying Troops

Expectation: If banners are called, a vassal should support the war effort with as much force as they can while still providing for their own domain's defense. They should respond as quickly as practical to do so, while seeing to the training and preparation of their forces. This, in terms of expectation, allows a wide degree of interpretation on when and with how much forces they are to respond with, but responding with anything that looks half-hearted tends to make a vassal look weak and unreliable. The expectation for lieges is that they will only call banners in case of truly dire threats, such as imminent war with another great house, or invasion from a major threat. Once called, it is expected that a liege will only keep the forces in the field until the threat is dealt with, and that bannermen would stay for the duration. Traditionally, lieges offer troops the option of leaving after thirteen months in the field, but it is also traditional to refuse the offer if it would put the liege at risk of defeat. Bannermen bring their own commanders to lead their own force, but are still under the overall command of their liege and their appointed general. Refusing to come because they disagree with the appointment of the general would be considered oathbreaking and grounds for the house being attainted and cast from the Compact.

Obligation: Any less than thirteen percent of available forces would be considered oathbreaking, and refusing to answer a call is oathbreaking unless the domain is currently in battle, such as under siege when forces are physically incapable of disengaging. Past that, even fighting their own war does not free them from their obligations, such as a prolonged border skirmish, and they would still need to commit at least thirteen percent of their forces to their bannerlord for no less than 169 days. It is not considered oathbreaking to leave after 169 days, but it draws grave societal disapproval to abandon a lord or to only commit minimal forces to their cause. Similarly, a liege is allowed to call banners for any reason, but trivial reasons would result in societal disapproval.

-Fine to say:
--"We are calling our banners due to an imminent threat."
--"Due to being under threat from a shav invasion ourselves, we regret to send only half our available forces."

-Questionable to say:
--"We are calling our banners to intimidate another great house."
--"Though we are under no specific threat, we are only sending a third of our forces."

-Ruinous to say:
--"Due to a squabble with our liege, we aren't coming."

-Diplomacy and Information

Expectation: The respect for self-rule and independence goes both ways, with lieges not trying to micromanage vassals, and vassals not questioning the decisions of leaders. It is, however, considered polite for lieges to give vassals notice and to possibly consult with them before committing their fealty chain towards an action that could involve them. For example, before declaring war or taking an action that will call banners, or picking a personal fight with an adversary that would then create a trade embargo upon the entire fealty line, or embarking on an endeavor that would necessitate massive taxes. Similarly, vassals should not question the wisdom of their lieges in public, but bring their concerns up privately out of respect.

Obligation: Lieges do not need to inform their vassals of anything, and there is no requirement to do so, it is merely considered polite. Similarly, a vassal needn't tell a liege anything that they are doing at all, but if it could impact a liege's decisions, it would also be considered polite. Withholding information cannot be considered treasonous or oathbreaking or anything like that, unless the information is so dangerous that silence would be considered tacit approval of the threat- knowledge of an impending assassination attempt would be a rare example of something that must be informed, while vague rumors of a supernatural threat or a shav army would not.

-Fine to say:
--"House Rivalus has been quarreling with us for some time, and we are considering ending the feud with a marriage pact. You've been critical of it publically and we'd politely ask you to stop."
--"We meant no offense by not informing you of our plans, we simply had been preoccupied of late."
--"This is an internal matter, while we can understand your curiosity, we would prefer to handle it on our own."

-Questionable to say:
--"We wrote a white journal critical of the decision of our liege that seemed unwise."
--"We're calling our banners and going to war over a slight, and the opinion of our vassals does not matter."

-Ruinous to say:
--"We demand our vassal/liege tell us everything."
--"Due to our vassal not giving us a messenger about this vague, unconfirmed threat, we are declaring them traitors."

-Promotion and changing fealty

Expectation: Domains growing, waxing and waning in power is a slow process but it does happen. If a domain grows strong enough, expands over enough lands and starts to reflect a higher rank, they can expect to seek promotion. It is expected that the vassal seeking promotion would have the consent and agreement of their liege, their liege's liege (who they would typically change and swear to) the highlord, and Faith of the Pantheon to make certain there are no vows prohibiting this, and then the Assembly of Peers. Typically, these are most formalities if the relationships here are strong, and the domain is clearly powerful enough to merit it, but they do have a vow to serve their liege. They must be released from that to be promoted, with the consent of their liege, or the Faith declaring that they are not under obligation to keep it, such as if the liege has acted in bad faith.

Obligation: Houses cannot simply switch from liege to liege without their consent. Without it, they could be considered oathbreakers and would be cast out of the Compact. On the other hand, during the Crownbreaker Wars when the Faith is split and there's conflicting opinions on who is honorable and whether vows have merit, that's ample grounds for civil war. But under normal circumstances, a vassal can't just decide they are sick of their leader and switch to another fealty chain. Even with the consent of the Faith and their highlord, that's dangerous, because there is no vow that requires their liege to not attack them, so disloyal vassals can be crushed by their lieges.

Oaths

Answer: Societal Expectations

Oaths, Vows, Honor and Promises

'Oaths' and 'Vows' are used often interchangeably but they have a subtle distinction in Arvani culture. An oath is given to another person, but sworn in the presence in Limerance, as the god of fidelity notes it and makes it have religious and cultural seriousness as an unbreakable obligation until formally released. A vow is given from a person to the gods themselves, or other spiritual or supernatural force, and only the Faith could speak for the gods and release one from a vow, since it was made directly to the gods. And while Arvani take honesty extremely seriously in an honor based society, a promise does not formally have the weight of either an oath or a vow and is informal, unless it follows specific forms.

As an honor based society, the importance of being able to be seen as honorable is absolutely paramount. If someone is understood to be an oathbreaker, this essentially means that their word is meaningless, and any kind of formal agreement with them is not necessarily binding. In other words, if a liege becomes an oathbreaker, they are probably politically dead, because no one will ever take them seriously or feel they can negotiate with them in good faith. Someone could recover socially from being a convicted murderer. They are unlikely to from being an oathbreaker, it is far more serious.

-Oaths

Expectations: Oaths are very formal promises given before witnesses, and the god of fidelity Limerance is also considered a witness, so it is typical for a godsworn member of the faith to act as a witness for an oath. These are typically intended to be binding for life, but they can be for specific periods of service, and the holder of the oath is always welcome to release an oathgiver from the confines of the oath. For example, a vassal to a liege swears they must provide soldiers when banners are called, they must pay taxes, and defend and justly rule the lands they are given, and the liege swears they will demand no service that would forever dishonor their house. The latter is the only oath a liege takes in turn, so that they could not demand a service that would be dishonorable, such as ordering bannermen in war to massacre children, but that's a very, very narrow scope. It is considered incredibly dishonorable to ever try to abuse the letter of an oath rather than the spirit of it, for example, for someone to swear an oath whose wording would exempt behavior that both oathgiver and oathholder would think of understood. Once an oath is given, someone is expected to perform to the letter and spirit of it to the best of their abilities regardless of circumstances, unless it contradicts another oath. If someone does have conflicting oaths, and they fail to uphold one, they are likely still going to be considered an oathbreaker. Honor is unyielding. However, it is critical to note that someone being released from an oath is never, ever considered an oathbreaker, and typically the only person who is thought to have the right to label an individual an oathbreaker would be the holder of their oath. Most common oaths are oaths of service between vassal and liege, but legal agreements and important treaties will often be accompanied by an oath to fulfill the treaty to the best of their abilities, to underscore the seriousness. Oaths of fidelity in marriage are considered an oath, rather than a vow, which means the only person that has the right to say their spouse is unfaithful would be the spouse, as it would be up to the holder of the oath to decide whether the spirit of their agreement has been violated, and the oath for marriage is typically worded as, 'I swear an oath before Limerance to be faithful'. Most oaths are worded in very general terms which give the oathholder most of the authority on whether they consider it violated, but the form is very specific, with someone making a clear note of, 'I give my word of honor', 'I give my solemn word', 'Under the view of Limerance, I swear an oath to...'. These are always solemn, emphatic and clear that an oath is being given.

Oathbreaking is not something that can be resolved with a simple honor duel. It is much like an accusation of high treason or a capital offense, where if someone was to fight an honor duel when accused of oathbreaking, and then lose the duel, they would be dead regardless. Therefore, much like trial by combat and capital offenses, these are customarily done as duels to the death, where a loser usually will be executed or exiled if their champion dies. If someone is ever accused of being an oathbreaker, it is expected that the accused give the accuser a chance to walk back the accusation, in case they misunderstate their seriousness. This is analogous to a deathly silence when someone asks for clarification, 'Are you calling me a liar?' and then violence is sure to follow if the affirmitive is given. If at any part someone withdraws the accusation, then the slight from someone even speaking of it could be a much less serious honor duel, but the accusation of oathbreaking should never, ever be done trivially.

Obligations: Oaths are considered legal agreements in Arvum. It is usually assumed that a godsworn representative of the Faith to be present, but it's not strictly required. Anyone bending the knee would be swearing an oath of service, and would be assumed to be swearing it before Limerance whether a godsworn representative is present or not, therefore anyone that openly rejects the Pantheon in a violent way or mocks the existence of the Pantheon would not be permitted to bend the knee, though a shav agnostic allowing for the possibility of Limerance might be tolerated. For being released from an oath, this does not necessarily need to be public, but it is customary for it to be to avoid any accusations of oathbreaking if the oathholder is not available to speak for someone. Examples of this would be if the holder of an oath would release someone privately from an oath, then immediately die, and be unable to speak as to whether the released individual was an oathbreaker, making their family or the Faith honorbound to speak for the deceased. Terms being in writing is not that uncommon.

It is important to note that virtually all oaths of service from vassal to liege are sworn not to the liege's person, but to the liege's house or to an institution such as the Crown. This means that a Grayson sworn sword takes an oath of faithful service in battle to House Grayson, and this does mean that in civil wars, it can be very vague who is speaking for the House. This also means that during the Crownbreaker Wars, when multiple individuals declared themselves King of the Compact simultaneously during some periods, a King's Own knight might have had ambiguity in who they owed their loyalty, with different members of the Faith or lieges declaring individuals oathbreakers without a clear distinction who was in the right.

-Fine to Say or Do
--Take any oath that would not reasonably conflict with another oath of service
--Ask permission to be released from an oath from the oathholder you are sworn to
--Release an oathgiver from their oath if you are the oathholder

-Questionable to Say or Do
--Swear an oath when either the oathholder or oathgiver do not have a clear, shared meaning of the terms
--Swear any oath that has the potential to conflict with another oath
--Swear any oath that might have terms that could conceivably be impossible to keep
--Demand an oathgiver perform any action that could be considered dishonorable

-Ruinous to Say or Do
--Call someone an oathbreaker, particularly if one was not the oathholder
--Break an oath
--Attempt to pervert the letter of an oath and violate the spirit of it

-Vows

Expectations: While an oath is a binding promise to another person, a vow is a solemn promise of personal conduct given directly to the gods. For example, a knight takes an oath of service to their lord, promising their faithful service and sworn sworn in battle, but they take vows of chivalry before Gloria, promising to defend the weak, show courage in battle, and to be true to their word. A vow is usually done to show dedication to an entirely new way of life, such as godsworn vows when they vow they will never take any responsibility that will get between themselves and the gods, such as having children to care for. Typically, the Faith of the Pantheon are the arbitrators of vows, and are the ones with the moral authority to formally declare someone an oathbreaker for failing in their vows. It is not all that rare for some arrangements to have both an oath and a vow, when both makes a commitment to the person they make the oath too, then a personal commitment of something they might sacrifice or dedicate themselves to in the form of a vow before the gods.

Obligations: The Faith of the Pantheon is typically the only ones that police a holy vow before the gods being broken or not, and unless a vow has grave significance, they are unlikely to. An example of a vow the Faith of the Pantheon would police would be the vow to never reveal the contents of a Black Reflection, and if one breaks that vow, they must become a Silent Reflection or be executed. An example of a vow that the Faith are unlikely to police would be a knight make a personal vow of poverty that they only mention in passing to those close to them. If someone does not make a vow part of the public domain, and does not make it before members of the Faith to note it, it is unlikely to be taken in a formal way. This is why it is ambiguous whether many knights uphold vows of chivalry, since the details of any vows taken when they were knighted varies so wildly from region to region, and how diligent a knight has been in keeping thos vows, that is usually not considered in the interest of the Faith to police unless someone has a written record or witnesses of vows they took in a clearly public fashion. This is also why the Oathland knights are thought to be 'true' knights, since the oathlands is far more strict than other regions about how seriously vows should be taken, and a dishonorable knight there is far more likely to be held to be an oathbreaker. As a rule of thumb, the Faith is the only one with the power to formally declare someone an oathbreaker for breaking a vow, and only then for egregious and visible cases that happen clear to the public, that force the Faith to act.

-Fine to say or do
--A knight taking vows to defend the weak, speak only truth, honor the gods, never show cowardice when they are knighted
--A senior godsworn representative of the Faith releasing an individual from a vow
--The Faith of the Pantheon trying a godsworn member in their own courts for violating a sacred vow

-Questionable to say or do
--Making a public vow before the gods, such as in white journals, for a claim that cannot be verified. ('I swear before the gods this happened')
--Making a trivial vow, showing a disrespectful for the seriousness of vows
--Discussing a previous, unverifiable vow, such as claiming one had a vow of poverty they were released from.

-Ruinous to say or do
--Break a formally declared and witnessed vow.
--Call someone an oathbreaker for breaking a vow without very clear, unambiguous proof, nor were they released from the vow by the Faith
--Violating guest right or sanctuary, by inflicting grievious harm upon a guest, host, or one on holy ground
--Kinslaying

-Promises

Expectations: Honesty is a highly cherished virtue in the Compact as an honor based society, though promises do NOT carry the weight of vows or oaths, and someone who breaks a simple promise is not considered an oathbreaker without a formal oath. Someone who promises money for a delivery and then never pays up would have a terrible reputation for dishonesty and dishonorable practices, but they are not considered an oathbreaker until and unless they formally give their word of honor for an agreement, which would then be considered an oath. Being considered a liar is a serious thing, but it is still something that can be settled by regular honor duels over slights, and is not anywhere remotely as serious as being considered an oathbreaker.

Obligations: Verbal agreements are far and away the most common agreements in Arvum, so being known even as a liar will seriously hamper one's ability to conduct business, even if it won't be as ruinous as being an Oathbreaker. Lying is considered a particularly terrible affront in the Oathlands, however in the Lyceum, lies aren't considered anywhere near as serious as oathbreaking and it is seen as very crude and insulting to insist upon binding oaths in the southern city-states, where oaths are thought of as an extremely blunt instrument that removes nuance and subtlety from dealings.

-Fine to say or do
--Give a misleading statement in the Lyceum
--Tell a white lie to spare someone's feelings over something trivial

-Questionable to say or do
--Give a misleading statement anywhere outside of the Lyceum
--Tell a white lie in the Oathlands, even over something trivial
--General dishonesty

-Ruinous to say or do
--Lie about something critically important in the Oathlands in a public fashion
--Mislead others in a spectacular way that would eradicate any form of lasting public trust, except in the Lyceum.
--Make others believe you are under an oath or vow that you aren't, such as false flag attacks, attacks under truce.