Where does it say that? You don't invest a point into the Familiar, therefore you don't lose the point invested. It never explicitly states that the point you gain from initiation is invested into the familiar, and in fact, it says that you do not lose a point of Magic Rating at all. I agree that the concept behind the investure of the magic point for initiation makes sense from a mechanics standpoint, but the only rule that applies canon-wise is the fact that you have to check for Magic Loss (just like taking a Deadly Wound) if the familiar is killed or goes free. You don't lose the point of Magic automatically.

Also, the magic point invested in a regular Ally is permanently gone anyway. You don't get that magic point back unless you banish your own Ally spirit.

You are allowed multiple ally spirits. Technically, there is no limit other than your own magic rating. I don't believe there ever has been an entry in canon saying that the limit is one, and the Great Dragons (most notably Dunkelzahn) have several.

I'm not sure where it actually says it. I might be having flashbacks to a previous edition, or I might just be pulling it out of my @$$, not having my books with me at work.

Could someone with access to MITS have a look?

I'm not trying to ride your ass here, I'm just saying that in MitS and the Grimoire, it does not state that the Ally Spirit conjured for the Familiar ordeal uses the Initiation Magic Point for investure. It simply states that you do not lose a point of Magic Rating for the familiar, and that you check for Magic Loss if the Familiar is killed/goes free. I'll type out the actual entry here:

As an addendum, they never state that this ordeal cannot be repeated, but I'd imagine that most GMs would not allow it to be repeated due to the cheese factor.

Heh, I'm at that page right now (obviously, since I just typed out the Familiar ordeal), and it says that ordeals may only be repeated by GM permission, and some ordeals can never be repeated (using the Oath ordeal as an example). I do believe that the Grimoire (not with me at the moment) stated something to that effect, though, but I'd have to check. MitS takes precedence in 3rd edition, obviously.

If a group has the Oath restriction, I make my PCs take Oath as their ordeal for the next initiate grade after they join the group. No magical group would be dumb enough to let in a member without making them swear the Oath if they had that as a stricture. If the PCs choose to create their own initiate group, and they choose Oath, then they follow the same rules... their next initiation must have the Oath ordeal. By the way, from personal experience, having Oath as a stricture for a newly formed PC-only magical group is a very bad idea... you can't disobey your peers, even if you want to (or you are booted out of the group). Fraternity is almost as bad... you can't leave your chummers behind, even if you want to (again, you can if you want to be booted from the group).

That would depend on the wording of the oath, neh?

We interpret the Oath stricture in our group to mean "complete obedience to other members of the group according to the hierarchy of the group". I guess more liberal-minded groups (i.e. PCs) can make Oaths to mean "I swear fealty to the holy Sock of Ask'ente" or "To serve the public trust" or something like that. Maybe a Librarian-centered group would have an oath stating "to seek out knowledge". The magical groups in our games all have the obedience clause in it, however, simply because no group with that stricture would be stupid enough not to include it... magical groups are, after all, mostly about influence and power.

Well, it came about as a long and bitter argument, mostly from the magicians in the group arguing in favor of coming up with their own oath and the non-magicians in the group in favor of saying that the oath must have certain requirements/restrictions in order to count as a magical oath (the mages wanted to create a one sentence oath that they would follow anyway, like following their own totem). Eventually, we settled it as the oath in-game is a certain length, by necessity includes the strictures of the group, and has that "obedience clause" in it (because no magical group would make an Oath without some form of hierarchical obedience clause), and in terms of game mechanics, means that the character must obey the requests of his/her peers and superiors and breaking any stricture will count as a double whammy (because you break Oath as well... Oath by definition includes the rest of the strictures as part of the Oath).

You cannot geas the point of Magic, because it is being invested as part of the cost of the Ally spirit. You permanently lose the point and it cannot be offset by any means.

Your example is correct. It's a really good idea if you can afford the Karma (and that's a BIG if, since Ally spirits plus initiation is a hell of a lot of Karma). This is assuming you even want an Ally spirit in the first place.

Yes, I have to disagree with you here, hahnso. Obedience is not a REQUIREMENT of an Oath. That is Swearing Fealty as you say. Take for instance, the Scout Oath from Boy Scouts here in the US, the Oath only promises to do one's Duty, and to Obey the Laws of the Pack.

Unless you are joining a Fascist type Organization, or a Religious one, I would think your Oath would be more like that... A Plegde to Uphold the Tenets of the Group, not to Obey every command of the Groups Members.

I have to disagree that a group with the Oath stricture would be stupid not to have the Obedience clause, because only a loser who needs help, or a fool would pledge unrestrained Obedience to a group, and that means the group would be full of weak, useless members.

Unless the group are hardcore traditionalists (like Classical Hermetics, or Qabbalists, or a Black Magic sect). Or the group was some time of military order (like the Iraquois warrior societies, or the initiatory groups that work through the Leapard and Jaguar Guard (and other fighting forces).

Note that the majority of powerful magical orders fall into these groups. The Black Lodge or the New Templar, as well as most corporate research groups, for example. You may have to do some unpleasant things to continue to advance through the paramid, but you control quite a lot of power once you get to the top.

Groups that require that level of devotion from their members would also tend to accomplish more in the way of progressing the Art. Its easier to research that new technique if you have a few lesser ranking mages that are obligated to obey your "request" for assistance. So such groups would be more likely to develope and teach rare/unique Metamagics.

Umm, that's the Cub Scout Oath, not the Boy Scout Oath. The Boy Scout Oath goes "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight".

I never said that Oath/Obedience was a GOOD idea (and I ended up mixing up the two simply because our particular gaming group had an argument about the conditions of the Oath stricture). In fact, I specifically stated that it was a BAD idea for PC-only initiatory groups. Either way, you are creating a way for PCs to use undue leverage on each other, and no matter how good of chummers they may be, that power can be pretty corrupting (especially if you are actually roleplaying Shadowrunners and not just recreating your RL friendships)... and entertaining, depending on the runners.

Again, you're confusing the Oath stricture with Obedience and/or Deed. Oath is simply swearing fealty to a groups ideals. The specific strictures already cover what you describe.