Combatants Vs Scholars

Vayne

Recently, especially related to the Renaissance, I have seen quite a few people make comments along the lines of, "I try to be a combatant, but I am a scholar." and " I'm a combatant, but I also attempt to be a scholar."

While it is prett clearly defined what a "combatant" is, I wonder if "scholar" is less concrete in the world of Achaea. Is it merely a designation for a non-combatant? Can anyone just don the title with little to no effort? Is it a catch all title for ritualistic, crafters, politicians, clergy, fanatics, and actual scholars? 

As as someone who has put considerable effort into it, I wonder what the basis for being a legitimate scholar by Achaean standards is compared to what it takes to be considered a legitimate combatant.

Mishgul

defining scholar is a bit odd. In the real world it can refer to "Someone who got into school based on having a high intelligence/examination results", or "Someone who studies humanities/religion"  or "Someone with an aptitude for studying." Generally seems to be a student of some kind. You can gain a scholarship based on your services in the army in the real world.

Herenicus

Sounds like a simple shorthand to describe how someone sees themselves spending their time. 

Mishgul

or wants to spend their time, since technically everyone has the abilities of a warrior bestowed upon them by the great lord Certimene\Bob the janitor from the new intro that I haven't done yet\City tutors, and certain groups will willingly force you to become the warrior you want to be within the game. 

Being a scholar would probably more entail trying to be religious.

Synest

Well, I play Synest as a preacher hence why he is in the Harbingers, however I figured that since I wanted him to at the least be able to defend himself, I spend just as much time in the arena as I do reading scrolls and writing for my requirements. I hold no claim to being a combatant because that isn't my goal, and in truth I hold no claim to being a scholar. However, if I some how fall under one or both of those titles then so be it. It's not how I view Synest though.

Caoimhaen

I think you can be a combatant and a scholar at the same time. To me, scholar Is defined as someone who studies one or more subjects in depth and tends to read quite a bit as well as generally seek knowledge. @Anedhel‌ is an example of a scholar and a combatant. He was a in the Dawnblade for quite While, but decided to join the Harbingers to pursue another goal. Anedhel is still a leader in the army, but is also somewhat bookish. (Pardon if the observation is wrong). <<-------------------schol·ar 1.a. A learned person. b. A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar. 2. One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student. 3. A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.-------------------------->> In achaea there is -tons- of history. Tons of lore. Many gods. Many religions.Many different ways of thinking. So even dedicating yourself to any of these subjects in a way could make you a scholar. I would tend to think the person would continuously have seen interest to learn. Just an observation. <<--------------------Edit:editor on the forums is stupid on my phone. Definition is squished in. Trying to separate it some how from the body of the rest.

Tael

I think achieving "legitimacy" for a scholar is about two things (and one need not necessarily achieve both to be a "legitimate scholar"):

1. Knowing more of the existing lore/history/philosophy about something than the average person in your position. The latter bit is important: if you're in Targossas, the bar for being a scholar of Evil is considerably lower than if you're a citizen of Mhaldor. The point is that you went out of your way to know more about something than most people do. Or, as Herenicus put it, that's how you spend your time - finding out more about these things.
2. Creating more lore/history/philosophy - people who write historical treatises, give sermons offering a novel view on an in-game philosophy, etc. Crucially, I think this usually has to be novel for someone to be considered a "scholar" - someone who gives a sermon that just reiterates the Seven Truths is not really a "scholar", someone who delivers a sermon interpreting the Truths in some personal way might be (I disagree that a character who is religious is necessary a scholar).

That's the way I've observed the term being used anyway.

Synest

I guess it all depends on the person themselves. How they view themselves, and what they seek to do with their 'life' per se. I am sure there are a lot of people out there who want to be on or the other they just don't have the... skill? Patience? Whatever you might call it, you can essentially become whom ever you wish to be here. Do you wish to be an evil scholar in service to Sartan, but in reality you are to nice to do such a thing? Well here you can do it. It isn't hard. You just have to know the line that you walk and you have to be able to find a way to separate yourself from the game itself, when I play I do my best to remember that I am no longer living my life. I am living the life of Synest, a priest whom seeks knowledge of the world around him and wishes to defend Creation, Good, and Light. It's just how he ended up being developed.

Mishgul

Tael said:

I think achieving "legitimacy" for a scholar is about two things (and one need not necessarily achieve both to be a "legitimate scholar"):

1. Knowing more of the existing lore/history/philosophy about something than the average person in your position. The latter bit is important: if you're in Targossas, the bar for being a scholar of Evil is considerably lower than if you're a citizen of Mhaldor. The point is that you went out of your way to know more about something than most people do. Or, as Herenicus put it, that's how you spend your time - finding out more about these things.
2. Creating more lore/history/philosophy - people who write historical treatises, give sermons offering a novel view on an in-game philosophy, etc. Crucially, I think this usually has to be novel for someone to be considered a "scholar" - someone who gives a sermon that just reiterates the Seven Truths is not really a "scholar", someone who delivers a sermon interpreting the Truths in some personal way might be (I disagree that a character who is religious is necessary a scholar).

That's the way I've observed the term being used anyway.

But religion is so intertwined with everything it's more difficult -not- being religious. Cue Terry Pratchett's Discworld atheists.

Trey

Combatant or Scholar?

 

Tael

Yes, certainly I think a scholar can be religious (and I think most in the game are). I just meant that being serious about religious RP doesn't necessarily make a character a scholar (which is, I think, true in real life too - you wouldn't necessarily call every Minister (the religious kind) a "scholar", at least not in the typical sense).

I disagree pretty strenuously that being a "legitimate scholar" is just a matter of how a character sees themself and what they want to do. It's a matter of how other characters see (and treat) the character in question and what the character actually does.

You can see yourself as a combatant, RP a combatant, and that definitely does not make you a combatant (e.g., I have always been terrible at combat, but about a decade ago (Jesus Christ) I really wanted to RP like a combatant, and other characters quite reasonably did not take me seriously at all). Similarly, you can see yourself as a scholar, RP as a scholar, and definitely not be a scholar. If your character thinks that they're a scholar, but doesn't possess any special knowledge and hasn't contributed any novel ideas, they're just mildly delusional, they're not a scholar just because that's what they consider themself or that's what they want to be.

Synest

@Trey negative, he is a meat popsicle. Neither combatant or scholar.

Herenicus

Edit: Could set up an organization mirroring the Fellowship of Scarlatti and run a quarterly fictional non-fiction peer review publication to recognize and legitimize scholars.

Jeslyn

Poor Cyrene gets no love. Where is the honorable mention for the artists? But seriously, I like to think people should play however the heck they want without getting too technical about it. I find putting a bar up and saying 'you can't play your character, as that role, until you can jump this high' rather bothersome. Sure, being good at something is wonderful to strive for, but if someone comes to Jeslyn and says 'I'm a scholar'... she'll be like 'wonderful, show me what you've got'. The only thing that bothers me about 'scholars' is their use of four or five complicated words in a sentence. Come on, people, I went to school for design and I work in construction. The most complicated word in my field is dimension. If I have to pull out my dictionary in the middle of your sentence,  I won't be interacting with you that often. You should be able to get your point across simply without trying too hard.

Mishgul

You could always say "I aspire to be x" instead of saying "I am x". Then when people treat you like one, you know you've done the work.

Shirszae

I tend to think an IC scholar should generally me much more knowledgeable than any other random character in a decent/broad range of subjects, and go out of their way to acquire new knowledge.  It definitely ties in with the way they spend their time, as @Herenicus said, but obviously if they just read a lot of things, only to forget what they read, then there's not much of a point to calling themselves scholar, since they are basically as bereft as when they started.

In other words, a scholar fully demonstrates that knowledge is important to them.

Tharvis

Shirszae said:

I tend to think an IC scholar should generally me much more knowledgeable than any other random character in a decent/broad range of subjects, and go out of their way to acquire new knowledge.  It definitely ties in with the way they spend their time, as @Herenicus said, but obviously if they just read a lot of things, only to forget what they read, then there's not much of a point to calling themselves scholar, since they are basically as bereft as when they started.

In other words, a scholar fully demonstrates that knowledge is important to them.

rp dementia, done

Ruth

Most people name individuals 'combatants' and 'scholars' by virtue of the areas they focus most attention on and explore in detail.

However, scholar does not always exclusively mean non-combatant and combatant does not always exclusively mean having no interest in the scholastic/written aspects of things.

I love combat, enough that I'll even do MIB tasks that tests my knowledge of each skill, their usage and their restrictions, but I can't do single combat. I can try but my interest isn't there to motivate me to excel in it.

I love submerging myself into the history, the written and the spoken aspects of the world lore too. I like writing, I like sermons, I like conversations and conversions, and I'll do my best to claw and search for history, and keep a library, filling it with books of varied topics.

It's easy to see here which aspect of Achaea I enjoy more, going by which I slave over and explore more of. However, does being a 'scholar' make me any less of a 'combatant' then? I'm not a good single fighter by any means, but I don't think it makes me any less of one.

Vayne

I find it an interesting dichotomy because if Vayne was to go around boasting that he is a combatant, he would get stomped into the ground and proven a sham, but it seems many people do the same with "scholarship" and get by without challenge. It may be a result of the combat focus of the game or perhaps my limited perspective, which is why I wanted to stir up he conversation. 

There are definitely means that legitimize a person in their scholarly pursuits, orgs and systems within them, but as @Herenicus‌ and others pointed out it often becomes a shorthand for their desired or perceived archetype. 

I think @Jeslyn‌ makes a good point too, just pontificating and using fancy worlds does not make one a scholar, but the hard work and study you put into your field, just like combat.

Usually, the testing grounded is debate where players cross intellectual sabers, but interestingly like in the war system, it is often hard to determine who actually won among the scoffing and self congratulating.

but my real question remains, I do not contest anyone can be a scholar if they want, just as anyone can be a combatant of they want, but what distinguishes and sets apart the good ones from the bad? Is it just who yells the loudest or has them best vocab? We have already seen that volume and fancy words do  not equal good communication. Does renown in the among the cities determine it, even when most will champion their own fanatically despite how skilled or knowledgeable they really are? Is there a correlation between merely spouting your sides dogma and effective reasoning with it to prove your point superior?

Santar

Vayne said:

I find it an interesting dichotomy because if Vayne was to go around boasting that he is a combatant, he would get stomped into the ground and proven a sham

Plenty of people go around boasting that they're combatants when they're completely inept, and continue to carry on this reputation in gated communities. Pretty easy for low-tier Cyrenians/Hashanis to get away with this IG, not so much on the forums. I've also seen plenty of people join Mark or such and get stomped into the ground as well. Obviously there's more of a competitive nature in combat. 


As far as "combatants" and "scholars", they're just two words that people use to describe someone's identity in short. They're not the only two words people use. It's no different than real-world cliques. Jocks, nerds, whatever else. It's the same deal, and it happens all over the world. It happens in high school. It happens in the real world. It happens in Achaea. It happens in virtually every activity there is, be it video games, sports, or fishing. 


There are a lot of respected scholarly types in Achaea, and I don't think there's really an issue with those type receiving the respect they deserve.

Rangor

the hybrid scholar/warrior would go under the old title of BATTLEMAGE (lolz).

I'd say a scholar is someone who spends much of their time trying to learn more about various topics in the game. Be it history, religion, or other made-up-topics of scholary study.

You'll also have people who fall under being a "hunter", a "ritualist", a "teacher" and a "snugglebunny". Often one person is a little bit of many things. Except @Jhui who's only a lolpker (right?).

Bluef

I don't like the idea of putting players in boxes...or corners...in terms of what they are or are not. That's one of the reasons I was a little wary of "combat" vs. "scholarship" Houses. There is always going to be crossover. 

Like anything in Achaea, there are rankings to these thing, albeit informal and in some cases completely within our own minds/perceptions. I would no more call someone who only does what is required of them to be a scholar IC than I would call someone who has only gained minimal exploration rank "an explorer." Where my opinion may diverse from others here though is that I don't think it takes work or commitment to become any of these things because Achaea is a game and I don't come to work there. If someone else does, I think they should re-consider how they're spending their "free time." 

What I mean by this in a larger sense is that people who become explorers may spend a lot of time exploring but they do it because they enjoy it. It's not work to them, it's fun. People who like roleplaying scholars and combatants do likewise.

I would also argue that there are some people who are just naturally gifted or hold more information than others about IC topics than others from the onset of things. For example, I've run into several real-life occultists and wiccans who have in-depth knowledge of the practices of some IC things and only had to supplement it with a little basic knowledge of the realm, its organizations and their histories to "pass."

I do agree that you don't have to be either/or though and I would go a step further to say that where you are and who you're interacting with determines how or whether you're perceived as either a combatant or scholar (for example, one shaman may kick another's ass but that doesn't mean that person can kill anyone who is top tier in that or any other class -- Are they a combatant? Yes. But perceptions of their ability as such will depend on who they are fighting. 

Herenicus

Vayne said:

I find it an interesting dichotomy because if Vayne was to go around boasting that he is a combatant, he would get stomped into the ground and proven a sham, but it seems many people do the same with "scholarship" and get by without challenge. It may be a result of the combat focus of the game or perhaps my limited perspective, which is why I wanted to stir up he conversation. 

There are definitely means that legitimize a person in their scholarly pursuits, orgs and systems within them, but as @Herenicus‌ and others pointed out it often becomes a shorthand for their desired or perceived archetype. 

I think @Jeslyn‌ makes a good point too, just pontificating and using fancy worlds does not make one a scholar, but the hard work and study you put into your field, just like combat.

Usually, the testing grounded is debate where players cross intellectual sabers, but interestingly like in the war system, it is often hard to determine who actually won among the scoffing and self congratulating.

but my real question remains, I do not contest anyone can be a scholar if they want, just as anyone can be a combatant of they want, but what distinguishes and sets apart the good ones from the bad? Is it just who yells the loudest or has them best vocab? We have already seen that volume and fancy words do  not equal good communication. Does renown in the among the cities determine it, even when most will champion their own fanatically despite how skilled or knowledgeable they really are? Is there a correlation between merely spouting your sides dogma and effective reasoning with it to prove your point superior?

What constitutes success at e-sports is well-defined: winners and losers. But beyond that there are the acknowledged innovators (and their sinful counterparts, bug-abusers!) whose contributions constitute more of a grey area. We could make a comparison here to explorers. By an objective metric, successful explorers can be measured by their explorer rankings. A better metric might be the depth to which they have familiarized themselves with the places they have visited. A scholar's oeuvre (sorry, @Jeslyn ) can be judged in terms of information, entertainment, and persuasiveness. Craftsmanship matters, too. But remember that rhetoric is an art, and there's no accounting for taste.

But if there's somebody you're itching to call out, @Vayne, the Mhaldorian junior varsity speech and debate club meets Wednesdays.

Vayne

I am not intending to call anyone out, @Herenicus, but your suggestion to join the debate club, unfortunately, I have others commitments on Wednesday, again is interesting to me. You say success can be determined by winners and losers, but what is the framework to determine winners and losers? As I said, Achaea has issues with this even in the arena of combat where victory conditions are not well defined. Likewise, you imply that debate is them counterpart to this for the scholarly types, but nearly every debate I have witness ends with both sides asserting they won. I agree innovation, persuasive rhetoric, and popularity haven more influence than logic and reason in Achaea, but that is he way the real world is, so that's that in the end. Perhaps, we need to determine conditions and judges for this just as much as with the war system. A measure of how well, an individual can argue their side convincingly. 

On on the other hands, who says you are required to debate to be a good scholar? No doubt you can designate yourself with that title and be satifisfied with your personal roleplay. However, at an organizational and intervarsity level you need to be convincing and practical to your peers and opponents.

On another note, could we draw parallels between natural coding talent with combatants, and ooc knowledge of rhetoric, religion, or philosophy for scholars? It's difficult not to use transcendent knowledge and no one wants to repress their knowledge and intellect and play a lesser character than they perceive themselves to be.

Addama

The point of a debate isn't for one side to concede that they lost, it's for both sides to present their arguments and for the audience to develop a nuanced understanding of the subject.  "Victory conditions" only trivialize the debate by declaring that one side is less relevant when it should be the individual audience member's job to decide how to process the information for themselves.

Vayne

Addama said:

The point of a debate isn't for one side to concede that they lost, it's for both sides to present their arguments and for the audience to develop a nuanced understanding of the subject.  "Victory conditions" only trivialize the debate by declaring that one side is less relevant when it should be the individual audience member's job to decide how to process the information for themselves.

Ahah, so the winner is the side who persuades enough converts, if not outright, who at leasts plants the seed that will eventually bloom into enlightenment?

Achimrst

To me it just looks like the way the people set-up the houses splits them into Scholar or Combatant. Like if you ask around Eleusis, Sentinels are the combatants and Sylvans are the scholars.

And then in the Renaissance thread. People, to me, tend to  push houses into being Scholar or Combatant houses. So, that is really the only way I can determine the difference between one or the other in game.

Herenicus

I think to address @Vayne's legitimate beef with the dark art of speaking through an opponent to deliver pre-written talking points, organizers might adopt practices used by modern institutions like debate moderators, strict formats, and a mix of pre-screened and audience questions. Sounds exciting, right?

Rangor

@achimrst Sentinels/Sylvans can define their own roles though, which would be more than being a scholar for one house and being a combatant for the sentinels. It's just a way of overly simplifying it. Sentinels require that people know basic combat, besides that there's plenty of paths in the house to walk down even if you aren't a "combatant", but you'd still play the sentinel type. Sylvans require that their members are capable at basic "scholary" tasks (right?), on top of that you can become a "learned" battlemage of the sylvans or whatever warrior type you'd imagine a sylvan being.

Dunn

Whatever floats your boat, man. It's a game that you can define how you want. You can be both a combatant and a scholar.

Babel's order, for example, is divided into the Spear (combat) and the Crown (scholarly, RP). Membership in one does not preclude involvement in the other.

Vayne

Obviously, we would not want every debate strictly moderated and timed, spontaneous and meaningful debates happen all the time without extensive structure. However, who is to say that some high profile debates would not benefit from some of those accoutrements? 

Again, the conversation keeps gravitating towards debate but scholarly pay has other mediums that work the same way but les directly. Books can have a scholarly influence that is more lasting than a speech. Even historic and scientific works usually have a religious or facial bent. Like wise posts work essentially as an open forum for debate that allows flexibility over instantaneous debates. Lectures, culture ministries, novice programs, and more all work towards that same end.