{Ed. note: Article posted with permission of author. Edited slightly for web formatting.}

From:		"Tim Clancy" <[email protected]>
Subject:		[stcircle] What the Oath was not meant to be
Date sent:		Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:30:09 -0400

I may be able to provide some perspective as to what I originally intended when writing the Oath and the Oath-Plotkit back in the summer of 1999. Keep in mind that was over three years ago and as IC reactions and ST officership changes hands what was originally intended can often be enhanced and improved upon. I left ANST Cam-Anarch back at the end of 1999 so there's been a longer period of time that I haven't been an ST in relation to the Oath than that I have. I have no complaints or criticisms about what other ST's have done with it, its their ship to run. But perhaps some perspective can help on the current discussion.

The Theme for the Cam-Anarch Venue at ICC 1999 was Affirmations: What do you believe in and how strongly do you believe in it. All our storylines, plots, and themes revolved around this. They centered on three key approaches: political affirmations (freedom vs. control), family affirmations (clan vs. clan) and moral affirmation (the sense of self versus political and family needs). I won't go into all the details but these three were woven together heavily in every plotkit run, the Oath obviously was a mainly political affirmation (for or against) but it also challenged family and morality.

The Oath was not about a rules mechanic. It was not a bennie or a negative for any PC, nor in any way was it a plot in the traditional sense. It was a concept and vehichle which allowed the players to drive to the theme of the game. Nothing more and nothing less. This helped drive the Gangrel leaving the Camarilla efforts, the Edict of Barbs announcement, the splitting of Clans along political lines etc.

The Oath is based off two interesting events in history: the crusades in the middle-ages and the Civil War of the US. The first event was a uniting effort of belief and public decleration of that belief in a cause which led to terrible destruction in the name of righteousness. The second event was a bitterly dividing influence on families and a nation that shaped thought and perceptions for decades to come. I wanted to challenge players on one hand to see if they had the guts to publically come forward and stand for something (for or against) and also create the divisions within groups as lines were drawn. Fence sitting was not an option.

I put in obvious loopholes, I put in subtle loopholes, I even built into it some intrinsinc contradictions and complications. Originally I was hammered by OOC questions: "What does this mean? What should players do? Where does this plot end?" My answer was unequivically and universally: "That's up to the players." Nothing in the real world is black and white, easy to choose. I was slight disappointed at the end of the Varosja plotline when no one raised their hand to answer Varosja's temptation. As awesome as that effort was, at the end I think everyone got the idea of which side of the line they should fall on. Since I could not possibly top the Varosja plotline at an ICC (that was the best run mass-participation scene I've ever seen), I wanted to at least provide more of a challenge to the players in terms of eliminating the clear and easy distinction of right and wrong.

See the Oath was not a demon to be conquered like Varosja, or a war to be fought like the Giovanni-Brujah of pre-reset. It was simply a concept which would require players to think about their stance, and then make that stance. Honestly...we were ready for everyone to ignore the heck out of it at ICC and not have anyone swear it at all. I was fine with that, once born it would have a life of it's own not determined by an ST but by an actual player base and how their in-character perceptions flavored their veiws of it.

No, it is not a core White-Wolf source material. I specifically choose something not from source so that players wouldn't be tempted to consult a book on *how* they should react. I wanted them to be forced to consider it in character and react as they would..well...as if someone in the real world had presented them with an Oath to their own government. In the real world we don't get to consult guidebooks...and our choices often run against family, politics, and often morality.

I was amazed how many players took the bit and ran with it. Arguments, debates, and even fights erupted around the concept of the Oath. On every list people put out reason for and against. Loyalists were insulted at having to publically declare allegience to something they already believed in, anarchs took aim and said they'd kill anyone who took the Oath. On the other side some entire cities decided to go oathsworn and veiw dimily those that did not. This was powerful stuff...great story. And it was all in the mind's of the PC's...for there never was any more of a plotkit than an NPC to announce the Oath, the Justicars to run it, and the Oath itself. Once the Oath Chapels became more common the arguments didn't fade, but grew, split and evolved. Demons were behind the Oath. Symposiums should find Oath Breakers. Oath Breakers were demon haters. The Oath was a tool of Anarchs/Sabbat/Inconnu. It was great!

It was never designed to be a permanent fixture, it was a reaction to the current situation in North America at that time where Anarchy was tolerated, diablerie frequent, and the edicts of the Camarilla in constant question. North America was also a place of strong princes, ruthless enforcement in some domains and other Camarilla holdovers. A litmus was needed, and the Oath became that litmus. It was a new thing (for awhile some ST's said this was the Oath the Justicars took and that was *not* the intention which hopefully we cleared up at the time). It was an experiment. Who put it in play and why I leave off the stage so as not to possible tred on future plotlines.

Like the crusader oaths it was limited in duration. If you weren't there when the pope called for crusaders you missed your chance. Thus goes the world. If you didn't get a chance to march with Martin Luther King in Washington DC and hear "I have a dream" you can always view it on TV but you can't go back and insert yourself there, nor is it likely to happen again. Even those who lived at the time of our worlds greatest revolutions sometimes wake up later and say "what happened, did I miss it"? For those coming in with characters who *would* have taken the Oath I always ruled they could not retro it in their background. The Oath had to be a personal, direct affirmation, either in person or by proxy. It was too powerful a decleration to be done in a written background.

I'm personally fine with there never being another Oath Chapel again. I'm happy if they become a seasonal fixture. I disagree this unfairly advantages or disadvantages new players coming in. In some parts of the country simply having the Oath attached in your status is reason enough for your character to be hunted down and killed. In others it can be make or break in a political situation. Limited durations however attach a symbolic importance to the conflict and dissension the Oath causes...like veterans of WWII over time the ones who took the Oath or argued against it slowly disappear from the Chronicle...and their reasons for and against are only carried on in the interpertations of other PC's. In that regards I don't think the Oath will go away ever.

Hope this helps with some clarifications, if there are specific questions as to original intent I will answer them if I have time, but I don't want to get into a rollicking debate about this. As I said I left the Oath off back in 1999 and others have taken it from there. Besides I'm a Sabbat ST now, and of all the great theories people have put forward not one player or ST to my knowledge has yet realized the Code of Milan and Oath have the same number of letters in it.

Tim C. 9307-018
VST Sabbat

ps. That's a joke. =)