Randall's Challenge in Knightood discussion

[uuriel]

Randall challenged me to list the problems with knighthood and look for a comprehensive solution. Well I am willing to consider that route although I am not willing to get bogged down in it and end up not doing anything. On that basis I will split this post between Randall’s challenge and revisions to my proposal of two days ago.

Please respond to

Comments

[kord]

I've always liked the idea of asking for a standardized oath of new knights (and of existing knights who want to continue with their belts).

I think it's important to impress on people who are up for knighthood that it is not just an award, but rather is an office that they are filling. I think that is one of the primary issues (yet also one of the primary strengths) I see with knighthood; everyone interprets knighthood in their own way. The ones who tend to either maintain a negative attitude, or fail to continue to perform in the area of their recognized expertise are those who consider knighthood to be an award; these are the people whom your proposal are not going to really reach; very few of them care whether or not they get to vote on candidates, as they only wanted the trappings of office for the inherent respect and adoration that goes along with them (or at least in areas where knights are not the majority of the population). The ones who are good examples of knighthood are the ones who do consider knighthood and office, or an ongoing responsibility.

I'd suggest a three-fold path for making new knights that attempts to impress the gravity of what is being offered to them upon them.

1) Do away with ninja knightings, at least for first belts. It is unfair to the new knight to ask that much of them without giving them the ability to take time to reflect on what is being offered.
2) Require vigils for all first belts. There is an unfortunate stigma in this game where in many cases non-knights who attempt to find out more about what knighthood is like or how to achieve it knighthood get labeled as belt-hungry if they ask directly; a vigil gives the prospective knight the ability to hear first-hand from those who have the belt in a way that does not bear that stigma, and is expected.
3) Write a standard oath (or specialized for the particular belt) that the new knight must recite as part of their ceremony. I would suggest asking the new knight to memorize the oath, but not requiring it if they are unable to do so in the time frame provided. They can either recite it themselves, or repeat it after the individual dropping the sword.

Asking someone to make a promise or a commitment may help to deter negative behaviors that give knighthood a bad name. It might also encourage those who made the commitment to continue following through on it, thus helping to keep those individuals active. I think it also might help to increase the memorability of the ceremony for the new knight; may times I've heard knights say that they were too stunned by the fact that the ceremony was occurring to remember any of it, but requiring active participation and focusing on the part of the knight might help to bring it back into focus and memory.

[grendel_macg]

I like the recitation of the oath/promise idea. I think this could also serve to demonstrate what the person is agreeing to do. It would also serve to remove doubts on knights in certain situations and say "ok, they are agreeing to be and do X,Y,Z publicly, they are basically welcoming us to help them and to be accountable"

there are some knights where if this had been done I would have had more faith in them, and probably a better relationship. I don't know if that would be the same for others, but I like this.

[phargle]

I really dig the oath idea, but I wonder if it would only remove good knights from the pool. The bad ones would rules lawyer a way to claim that they are living up to their oaths.

It's still a good idea and might reduce the number of bad knights who make it through. Especially if we get rid of ninja knightings and give people notice (perhaps a month out) that we want to knight them, those who are disinterested in having to swear such an oath and be held to such a standard of conduct will presumably decline.

[kord]

It depends on the individual in question. I would think most people would think twice about swearing an oath to accept the belt, which I hope would deter many individuals who only view knighthood as an award with no incumbent responsibilities to the game or its players. My hope is that the "good" knights already follow such principles, and would therefore not be reluctant to explicitly state them as such. However, for some people, their word is worthless, and they won't think twice about ignoring such an oath,particularly one administered in a game. But I do think it would at least give a greater understanding of the gravity of the honor which is being bestowed, and that, at least, would help to bring a greater concept of honor back to the "office" in question.

I've been playing around with some wording this morning to try and come up with at least a template of how this sort of thing would work. Let me know what you think:

"I, _______________, do hereby swear to do my utmost to uphold the ideals of the knighthood that, by the grace of my Kingdom and the acceptance of my peers, is being conferred upon me. I promise to (insert appropriate ideals here, as per the suggested discussion amongst those of the peerage). I further swear that, in the event that my Kingdom or I feel that I can no longer in good conscience uphold these ideals, I will surrender my belt back unto my kingdom, along with all the rights and privilege obtained thereof. All of this I swear, with the members of Amtgard and of the Peerage as my witnesses."

Eh. It's a rought draft. Thoughts?

[uuriel]

This oath goes much further than my proposal, never mind its not binding on people who dont care. For those who care it means giving up squires too. The heritage of mentoring that the knight/squire relationship entails is too valuable to risk that way in my mind. In my proposal I left the wearing of the whilte belt as part of the award partly out of real political considerations but my stance on squires is rooted in a ferm belief in that system.

[kord]

1) I would argue that the belt should not be the only thing holding together a knight/squire relationship. Losing the physical symbol of the relationship itself should not stop the relationship from existing, nor really change it in any meaningful way. The only substantial difference would be that one is no longer able to act as an advocate for the squire in the circle; otherwise, I see no real reason why such a relationship should be substantiall effected.

2) True, it is not binding to those who don't care. But it does give the Kingdom greater recourse if the knight does fail to uphold it, as the knight publicly and openly made a verbal commitment to surrender the belt not only on his or her own judgment, but also that of the Kingdom. How the Kingdom chooses to exercise that right is up to the individual Kingdoms, but it can be an immense amount of pressure when someone says, "look at what you swore before we gave you the belt." It provides a constantly available reminder to the knight that they are not an exemplar of our game, as the belt so indicates. That can be a very powerful tool in correcting behavior and potentially removing poor knights, despite whether or not it is binding.

And it does this by adding pomp and circumstance to the knighting ceremony, and hopefully a more memorable experience not only for the knight, but for all of those watching.

I would be inclined to say that the oath should be incumbent upon new knights, but that it should be optional for already established knights to take it in front of the populace. Those who choose not to do so can, but risk ostracism for an unwillingness to make a commitment to upholding the virtues of the office.

[uuriel]

I see what you are saying Kord. Certainly a good knight/squire relationship is more than the physical symbol thereof. On the other hand, Knight/squire relationships in Amtgard are often stronger than other normal mentor/mentee relationships specifically becasue the are explicit to the world and contain a visibile symbol of that committment. Would they generally surrvive the loss of the symbol unchanged. I would like to hope so but since I consider the relationship the greatest part of knighthood, I am not really willing to risk it.