Knighthood

Jhaeli

As an addition to the House Renaissance thread, I thought I would open up a forum thread to discuss Knighthood in and of itself. 

In the past, I was a part of @Carmain's Knighthood Council clan and passed it on to @Aerek before I went inactive, but it never really got the life that it should have and the changes to Houses provide a good opportunity to gauge interest and opinion in regulating Knighthood itself across the six cities. I can't say that this discussion will decide anything IG, as the Council itself will need reviving along with acquisition of new members, but it seems like a good place to start as well as allowing those who are interested in the topic to add their two cents without necessarily joining.

Some questions worth considering, just to start the discussion:

-  Whether or not Knight Houses survive the changes is a moot point - four of six cities do not have a Knight House at this point anyways. Does the idea of Knighthood fit within all six cities' ideals? What standards would cover the idealogical differences between the cities while still maintaining the feel of Knighthood?

- Class is obviously a factor for most people and we still do not know whether multiclass is going to allow anyone to be ANY class or if they will be restricted to, say, three classes total. Should Knighthood require a person to have a Knight class as ONE of their classes, or should it be open to anyone period?

- The idea of a Knight Council started with having representatives from the Houses and Recognized Organisations. With House changes, it may change instead to something like one representative from each city being a part of the Council. Thoughts on election procedures?

Mishgul

It's difficult to judge now because the Knight class will no longer be as integral to the concept of Knighthood as it was, especially with multiclass around the corner. We are invariably going to have some half Knight half Jester folk running around making tomfoolery or a Knighted guy who picks Jester. 

The definition of a Knight needs re-envisioning. A lot of people confuse and mix the ethics of the different Knight houses currently as it is, and a lot of people don't seem to understand the concept of standing up for what you believe in and confuse it with playing fair/committing suicide. 

I think the Council of Knighthood will probably struggle to stand in the climate Achaea is heading towards. There is no way for that character archetype to provide for their city under a common standard for all cities. Each city is just too different (and should be). Knighthood should perhaps become a thing for each city to decide upon themselves if they want that tradition to continue. I mean cities can technically do what they want, and Knighthood may exist in other, more subtle forms.

Jules

Mishgul said:

I mean cities can technically do what they want, and Knighthood may exist in other, more subtle forms.

Draekar

I'd love to see Knighthood continue in Achaea even if purely from a nostalgic point of view. I think class RP in general be it Priests, Serpents, Magi, or Knight classes provide some of the richest and most engaging RP in the game.

I am a little saddened that it might all but be lost in the changes.

I'd fully support a move to retain some class RP for any/every class and I really think the idea mentioned in other threads about providing class specific support and clans/channels is a good idea as well.

As for Knights I am sure there are a number of us in Targossas who would engage with the Council of Knighthood again if someone wanted to pick it up. I think Antonius, Achilles and myself are all active and still members.

Ladrun

There should always be a place for Knightly characters. They have a unique place in deep fantasy settings. It just wouldn't be right to not give them a place to continue their deep traditions.

Aerek

I don't think it would be fair to cherry-pick "Knightly" classes, either it's knight-only, or class-independant. I agree with Carmain class pluralism will probably be the new standard, because the whole game is moving away from class as a defining characteristic. I will miss the idea that every Knight is also a knight class simply because of the familiarity that established between Knights, (Even two Knights who had never met before could instantly talk shop) but traditions changing with the times is a natural evolutionary process, and that's what makes Achaea fun as a living, breathing, evolving world.

As mentioned in the Renaissance thread, my only real fear is exactly what Carmain suggests, that each city will simply set their own expectations and requirements for Knighthood, because that will dissolve the only real aspect of Knighthood that matters to me: its universality. When you see "Sir" or "Dame/Lady", even if you don't fully understand Achaean Knighthood, there are still some assumptions you can safely make about that character. If there is no cooperation between cities, then the title will effectively be meaningless outside it's own faction, except that all 6 factions will be using it. If a city wants a generic honorific title that it can set its own requirements for, they can just do that now with a CHELP and title privs. But if Knighthood is going to be preserved as some special distinction with it's own unique game mechanics for bestowing it, then it needs to be a special distinction with its own unique circumstances.

I know there's no way to "force" a city to conform to a universal standard if they don't want to, but I think it should be encouraged via a neutral body (Like the Council of Knighthood). If we can get 3 or 4 cities to agree on some basic principles, then that will at least establish a baseline that will put an element of peer pressure on other cities to be "recognized" by the rest of the world. Even if they don't conform, which is their right, the controversy around whether or not one's Knighthood is "recognized by the Council" has potential as a line of interesting roleplay in my opinion, and that would maintain an aspect of Knighthood as we know it in the new era.

Kerria

As long as It stays a title given to those who have worked for it, and not a title given in the manner of 'just b' cause'. I have no qualms with it. The aspect of a clan could work, with other classes as well, some I think might be a bit inclined to be silly (Jester knight) but I would hope that whomever is chosen/picked/does lead the Rennisaunce of Knighthood will nip that in the bud, and quick.

Trey

I don't like the idea of excluding anyone willing to work for it, but I've always felt like even with the proper demeanor, attitude etc, a Knight's combat style should focus around skill with arms. Infernal, Runewarden, Paladin are the obvious ones, as are Blademasters. I wouldn't argue against Bard, or for that matter any other class that followed suit (if we got a blunt-weapons class, for example, or polearms). I really think that the rest of the classes are just antithetical.

Blujixapug

I love knighthood. It's awesome. I love the idea of excelling in all of these varied aspects of the game - talking the talk with the noble, code-bound RP, walking the walk with PK - and being honoured by your House as a #1, certified, no shit representative of their virtues, with an honorary title and all the glory.

I don't think all six cities should have a knight program.

I used to feel the opposite. At one point, many years ago, I was associated with one of the Knights of the Iron Citadel clans someone was trying to make work in Ashtan. But the concept does not fit every city. You can find ways to connect knighthood with each city - eg. the Illuminati or the Iron Citadel in Ashtan - but it's trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

Knighthood is cool, in Mhaldor and Shallam and Cyrene, where it works (no verdict on Targ yet). And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But trying to transplant knighthood, verbatim, is missing the point. To be a knight is to live up to all the ideals of the Maldaathi, Wardens, or PalaGuardTempDawnblade: to be a representative example. Ashtan doesn't have a House like that, so if you try to 'live' by similar ideals in Ashtan, you'll be doing it alone. Without numbers, you'll struggle to keep a knighthood program alive, and make it into a recognised institution.

What Ashtan does have is the its own Houses, with their own ideals. Why not have program for the paragons of those? Why should Ashtan have knights instead of, say, grandmasters representing the Ashuran ideals? Or archmages, or some cool title for a paragon serpent. That is what I'd rather see, than each city having knights for the sake of symmetry in six colours.

This paradigm will change with the new form of multiclass. Knighthood is inextricably tied to the knight classes. Just as elementalism is tied to elementalists, or communing with nature is tied to the forestal classes. When you think 'knight', you think of a figure in shining armour. You can try and have monk knights, blademaster knights, serpent knights - but you can also have monks practise elementalism or jesters manipulate Chaos, and it doesn't really work. You're forced to overlook and work around the mechanics that don't support your gameplay and roleplay, rather than being reinforced by them.

I don't think non-knight classes should be shoehorned into knighthood. But will there be a choice? IMO knighthood is fundamentally about 1. being a knight class, and 2. living up to the ideals of a knight org. Knight orgs may remain, but they will no longer be limited to knight classes. In that environment... You could try to group together your knight class members somehow, to try and keep up the numbers for your knighthood program to be a recognised institution; knight orgs may become factions within Houses - the Maldaathi might be an arm of one of Mhaldor's two new Houses, for example. Or your House could require members have a knight class as their primary class, to remain a 'knight House' in spite of being multiclass. Or you could open up knighthood to members of all classes, and try and make that work somehow.

Shirszae

But we don't even know if there will be such a thing as 'primary class.' What are you going to do? Forbid all knights from ever multiclassing into something else that is not another knight class? Revoke the title if they do multiclass into something else? 

Blujixapug's idea about other classes having the 'equivalent' or something similar to what knighthood means for knight classes is great, but even if that actually took off, I still don't see a way to prevent knight/jesters

Blujixapug

Shirszae said:

But we don't even know if there will be such a thing as 'primary class.' What are you going to do? Forbid all knights from ever multiclassing into something else that is not another knight class? Revoke the title if they do multiclass into something else?

Right, I'm not assuming 'primary classes' would be a mechanical thing, it'd have to be something player-enforced. And it would possibly be the type of thing Sarapis would not be happy with, and would crack down on... But even if you do manage to force everyone to hold a particular class, if they're spending most of their time multiclassed out as a monk or mage, and not a knight, has it really made a difference?

Exelethril

I agree with @Blujixapug‌ : Knight classes are related to knighthood, the term describes the association. If players of the 14 other classes carried themselves in a knightly manner, that doesn't equate to being a knight, simply because they aren't knights. The imagery and title should fit the class.

Instead of aspiring towards generic "Sir/Lady" titles, I think it would more flavorful if each House/class had an equivalently recognizable title to strive towards, like "Archmage, Prophet, Deathbringer, etc". As an example, the title of "Guardian" in Eleusis is the forestal equivalent of knigthood, in terms of esteem.

On another note, the concept of knighthood is appealing but quickly loses its esteem when high standards in terms of conduct, martial strength and city/army rank aren't met before awarding said title. Personally, I think this has been the case over the past 50 IC years, especially in Cyrene.

Mithridates

Archmage Mithridates

I like it. 

Kresslack

Exelethril said:

I agree with @Blujixapug‌ : Knight classes are related to knighthood, the term describes the association. If players of the 14 other classes carried themselves in a knightly manner, that doesn't equate to being a knight, simply because they aren't knights. The imagery and title should fit the class.

Instead of aspiring towards generic "Sir/Lady" titles, I think it would more flavorful if each House/class had an equivalently recognizable title to strive towards, like "Archmage, Prophet, Deathbringer, etc". As an example, the title of "Guardian" in Eleusis is the forestal equivalent of knigthood, in terms of esteem.

On another note, the concept of knighthood is appealing but quickly loses its esteem when high standards in terms of conduct, martial strength and city/army rank aren't met before awarding said title. Personally, I think this has been the case over the past 50 IC years, especially in Cyrene.

Set this up with Vexlore in Ashtan under the Steel Bastion. Instead of being called Knights, squires and the like are called Tornoch of various ranks, and the Knights are called Kordathen. Sergeant, Captain, and Commander ranks, as well as Tornoch 1-3.

Friztic

I was hoping that there wouldn't be any more finger pointing, but oh well...

Anyways, I think we're at an interesting crossroads with Knighthood. This discussion has, on the main, been pretty interesting as it has given people the ability to voice where they want this RP construct of theirs to go. From my experiences in the Wardens, I know that we've got more than ten years of people RPing like their decisions and legacy mattered and made the world a little bit less static, and I think that I can speak for us all when I say that nobody wants to just see that get erased under the greater aspects of the Renaissance, and I doubt that the situation is any different for the Maldaathi or the former Templars. Having said that, I have to agree that basing everything on class ideals has restricted the number of people who will ever experience what we have had to offer, and as the population of the game waxes and wanes, ours seems to only wane over time. A more inclusive change seems necessary, and it's a kind of paradigm shift for everyone, not just Knights, where we step away from the idea that your class defines who you are.

Don't get me wrong, I've long been a proponent of the idea that you RP out your class choice, but there are so many classes and so many styles thereof that it is increasingly difficult for a game to keep up a population where all of those choices remain valid at all times. What we have in Knighthood is a construct that has been built by and is being left to us, and my observation is that for it to survive, it needs retain some kind of legitimacy. Knighthood has always been based in elitism, and for you to be elite you need to be rare and recognized. It's for those two things that I think that you need to find some legitimate backing (since you aren't a major organization of the game any longer), and that not every place should be scrambling to have their own version of it.

Just my 2 cents for now. Apologies if I 'sound' weird, it's still quite early and there is no coffee in the house.

Mishgul

The Council of Knighthood will probably have to be reborn some time into the changes if people are determined to push for it. Initially people will probably be panicking over their house structures and city structures. Knighthood is a luxury that will probably need talking about afterwords.

Jhaeli

It would need time to revive anyways and may or may not provide a decent resource for getting the opinions of other Knights and other programs and how they've worked it out, especially if they're doing one city at a time. But yeah, the Council will need some evolution to make it work.. 

Silas

Couldn't agree more with Bluji's assessment. Would love to spend time on recognising and building on archetypes of each class/class-type in Targ, and have always intended to. It's just such a mammoth task that starting it seems way too much like hard work.

Jurixe

I attempted to do something similar a while back, but the hardest part for me was actually finding names that didn't sound terrible (at one point I just wanted to go with Arch-everything because a lot of things sounded weird and I didn't know a good knight-equivalent title) as well as how the requirements would match up. A Magi, for instance, would not be able to do everything a Chivalry class does, which made trying to make roughly equivalent requirements very difficult. There's also the issue of balance - would it be more difficult for a Serpent to achieve the same level of recognition than a Jester, for instance? How would something like that be measured and balanced? I suspect that one way of doing this would be to focus on achieving a goal or an ideal instead of purely mechanical tasks, like what the Wardens do with running from NoT to Cyrene while being attacked by falcons, and so on, but I didn't have the time to puzzle it out then.

I hope this made sense, it's 2 am and I'm only half awake.

Mishgul

Technically these are things we are attempting to address with the advent of new houses. The ideas I explained to you over skype was exactly what you are saying now. I already have a basic overview written up with ideas from various people smushed in. I just need a bag of chips and 12 cans of cokes and I will do it.

Trilliana

This thread, to me, feels intimidating. When I first found out about the House changes, I got excited because I was going to instantly bug Friztic on Skype to ask about rejoining the Wardens if I came back, even though I don't want to quit being an Alchemist. Anyone that knows Trilliana can tell where her Knight-side is engrained, but she's a scientific mind - hence why she went Alchemist.

I guess I'm one of the few people that feels that being Knight-like isn't class dependent because you can be Knight-like without the Knight skills. IE: the personality of a Knight without the swords. *shrug*

Mishgul

It's a player driven thing. If you want to be Knighted as an alchemist, fight for it in game. It's hard work, but the voices of the loudest people (occasionally most reasonable) tend to call the shots at the end of the day.

Nim

Names shouldn't be difficult, if the underlying concept is solid. What do you call a master of lore and mystical forces? Probably a wizard or a sage.

The thing with class-based concepts is what's a paragon serpent?

A runewarden need not be knightly, just as a jester need not be foolish.

The concept part isn't too tricky either, though. I can come up with fifty if you'd like. The tricky part is taking this concept and attaching actual recognition to it. This requires standards - harsh, closely guarded standards - and time... and for the concept to allow recognition in the first place.

Tohran

One thing that I noticed in this thread is the lack of mentioning of the Eleusian Knights. There are two orders of knights in Eleusis, The Order of the Ithmian Knights, which was brought about only after the Age of Houses, and the second has a long standing RP in Eleusis, in the form of Cwincan, our raid NPC, the Gaian Knights. We always held that a knight must be knight classed, and seeing how we don't like Infernals and Paladins aren't welcome in Eleusis after Rho (which was great RP, even if Tohran absolutely hated the entire situation). That means Runewardens. Tohran has not earned his knighthood, but he aims to become a Gaian Knight, even though he is in Artemis' order.

It's going to be tricky, but the knighthood thing should be limited to those who have a knight class, and RP it out. If you have a jesterknight who is a joker, and does nothing but bounce around with firecrackers, nah, not a knight. You have an Occultist/Runewarden who wears his armour, uses his swords, and traditionally is known as a Runewarden, then yes, knighthood. It's all very open to interpretation, but Knighthood needs to be a very VERY RP driven thing.

Nim

What if you have a jester who wears a coat of arms tabard over their scalemail, adopts swordplay as much as jesters are able to, rides a warhorse, adopts an air of respect, serves as a military leader with hardened combat experience, swore an oath of fealty to X (Cyrene/Sartan/Nature/etc) and follows it, and behaves with an air of respect and honor?

Replace jester with any of the following: magi, serpent, druid, shaman, alchemist, monk, etc.

A monk's swords are their fists. Their feet are axes. They are more knight than knights. They don't even envenom (usually)!

Jhaeli

That's the crux of it and (partly) why I started this thread. In the end, is Knighthood more about the class or the "way of life"? Can there be a middle ground? Should it be left to individual Knight programs to decide?

Both sides have incredibly valid points - Knighthood should be about honest individuals openly fighting for the sake of their cause. But could a serpent be conceivably recognized as such despite the deceitful nature of their abilities? And so forth. I don't think opening up the class requirement would negate the necessity of creating other "Paragons of X Class", but I do think that characters whose classes who aren't inherently "knightly" would have to face a major uphill battle to earn the recognition of the title.

It also brings up the question of combatant. Frankly, I'm a terrible combatant, mainly because it is not one of my areas of interest and I haven't put any effort into it in a very long time. This probably makes me a terrible choice to roleplay a Knight, but I nevertheless roleplay her as at least knowing which end of the pointy stick to hold and which end goes in the victim's belly. On the other hand, I've read countless books that include "soft" Knights who have let their bodies go and focus more on training the minds and souls of young Squires instead, etc. I'm not pushing for softening the combat focus (I pushed for increased combat training as HL), but I do question whether being a top-tier combatant should be an across-the-board requirement for Knighthood.

Silas

There can be a middle ground, but there shouldn't be if you want to maintain the integrity of text-Knighthood. Throughout fantasy Knights are considered the elite - they should be exclusive. And they should fight with melee weapons and heavy armour.

Sarapis

Just a point: Arguing that something is accepted as generic fantasy is not really a compelling argument. For instance, across most fantasy, Dragons are not random races that can turn into a dragon - they're dragons. Smaug wasn't a dwarf who got powerful enough to turn into a dragon part of the time (for example), but that, in no way, means that we have to limit ourselves to how other authors conceive of them. And of course, if these were knights based on real life, they'd be the weakest of all the classes, by far, as they'd have no magic.

Realism is almost always a bad argument for anything in games. "This is how other fantasy books do it" is an even worse one.

Silas

I completely agree with your point, but I don't really think it's relevant to the discussion, given that Achaean Knighthood is entirely derived from the medieval/fantasy Knighthood archetype. It's not a matter of following real-life or fantasy Knighthood canon in that case, but of following Achaean Knighthood canon.

Edoren

I disagree with Silas. I still remember when the Wardens had a bunch of different classes as Knights and I never thought of them as less than what they were. In fact several of them were the best people the house had. Your class doesn't make you a knight, but the manner in which you act makes you knightly.

Draekar

Exceptions don't make the rule though.

@Silas, as usual is pretty on the ball with his assessment! 

If other Knights are interested in renewing the Council and some point in the future to do something ICly I'd be pretty keen to help. Pretty snowed under with my House and whatnot but always have an interest in this.