Comments | uuriel: Randall's Challenge in Knightood discussion

uuriel

Randall's Challenge in Knightood discussion

Jul 30, 2009 08:40

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 ( Read more... )

Comments 18

grendel_macg July 30 2009, 14:46:20 UTC

you propose a very good challenge ( ... )

uuriel July 30 2009, 14:58:43 UTC

I like the brainstorming process and I thank you for your ideas. I will comment on some of them since maybe my comments will spark more ideas.

Since I think the awards system including knighthood is a net positive, I dont want to scrap it without a great replacement in mind.

I sort of like the running for the office of knighthood idea in some ways. Of course, I like the current pool of knights better as long as all of us live up to the office of knighthood. Still thats not a fair comparison since we dont.

I have done nothing long enough. I dont disagree with some of your points about human nature but I dont want to take a pass on it any longer. There are creative ways to improve almsot anything.

This is a great idea in theory but it practice its tough. Who enforces the code of conduct. How subjective is that enforcement.

grendel_macg July 30 2009, 15:11:15 UTC

maybe the code of conduct would be a maleable document, something that can be amended and grown, and begins with a minimum service requirement for each belt. other things may be added or changed, maybe with clan changes ( ... )

phargle July 30 2009, 16:22:16 UTC

I do like the idea of doing away with all four belts and letting any of the masterhoods or office serving we have now lead to a person being able to be knighted.

Oddly, this would be a step backwards in some ways to 1983, but back then the masterhood breakdown was not as mature as it is now.

I don't think this would pass but I can hope.

Thread 5

kord July 30 2009, 15:17:47 UTC

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 ( ... )

grendel_macg July 30 2009, 15:20:54 UTC

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 July 30 2009, 16:15:52 UTC

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 July 30 2009, 17:46:30 UTC

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 ( ... )

Thread 7

phargle July 30 2009, 16:17:29 UTC

This conversation is fun in some ways because the questions we're asking, and the solutions we're struggling to come up with, have stumped brilliant men since the 14th century.

uuriel July 30 2009, 16:22:16 UTC

Indeed. The meaning of chivalry or even morality has certainly challenge man much longer than that. I therefore dont expect a perfect solution. Still I think improvement is possible.

phargle July 30 2009, 16:20:09 UTC

On the oath idea, I think it would be worthwhile to get a broad consensus from Amtgard knights on what knighthood ought to be, including notions of continued service, continued good behavior, and so on, and then work from that on writing an oath.

We might need a Book of Chivalry for the game at large.

The hard part of this will be those good knights who are so inactive that they cannot participate in the discussion at all, and return to find a game that may no longer consider them knights. I can think of several off the top of my head for which that would be a shame, who would be knightly no matter what system we design. Perhaps, if we do move this from brainstorming stage to project stage, we can work out something to make things work for them.

yoto July 31 2009, 04:48:43 UTC

Let me begin by saying that I'm all for the idea that you stand before everyone and you say something that represents a commitment of the 'office' of Knighthood but there are individuals in many walks of life that cannot, for religious reasons or for strong personal convictions, swear an 'oath' to anyone. Dare I say that I could even see a day where someone cannot swear for role play reasons ( ... )