Knighthood

24

Comments

  • edited May 2014

    Wrong thread, sorry.

  • KatzchenKatzchen Mhaldor
    edited May 2014

    ..



                   Honourable, knight eternal,

                                            Darkly evil, cruel infernal.

                                                                     Necromanctic to the core,

                                                                                             Dance with death forever more.



  • MishgulMishgul Trondheim, Norway

    Knights are the way they are in Achaea primarily because of guilds and player choices after guilds. The Maldaathi have been severely opposed to non infernal/runewarden/paladin knights since they were made but Knighthood is going to become what we shoehorn into its ideals to make a certain group of players happy. 

    The Maldaathi are very likely going to cease to be, and their legacy will probably remain in some form to preserve everything they have done. It seems unfair to put them into a situation where their integrity will be questioned due to the mechanics of Achaea. 

    Obviously with a background as fanatical as Mhaldors something will replace them but it will never be the same, and it's easily justifiable to change with the advent of people gaining the ability to learn multiple skills and the whole advancement shmancement thing.

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
  • Even though it's a tiny house, Maldaathi are the biggest loss, as the very interesting idea of honourable evil will probably die with them.

  • edited May 2014

    @Tohran the Gaian and Ithmian knights are non-existant at the moment. There was very, very mild interest to restart the Ithmian Knights by a few, but there are simply not enough runewardens in Eleusis to make it a big thing. Instead, the Sentinel House has the prestige title of Guardian of Nature, which does not follow the knight ethos, but could become similar in terms of prestige. It's also more likely that that will happen than Eleusis starting up a knight program (again?).

    image
  • @Aerek Not true! I joined at the start of Houses as a Priest, was Knighted, then later changed to Runewarden. I was one of the few exceptions though. 

    "Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that [everlasting] life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man." 

  • TohranTohran Everywhere you don't want to be. I'm the anti-Visa!
    Alrena said:

    @Tohran the Gaian and Ithmian knights are non-existant at the moment. There was very, very mild interest to restart the Ithmian Knights by a few, but there are simply not enough runewardens in Eleusis to make it a big thing. Instead, the Sentinel House has the prestige title of Guardian of Nature, which does not follow the knight ethos, but could become similar in terms of prestige. It's also more likely that that will happen than Eleusis starting up a knight program (again?).

    Remind me to take a screenshot of Sentinels HW. There are more Runewardens than anything else whenever I'm online, granted, most of them ARE newbies. They won't be newbies forever and I'd really like to see Forestal Knight RP gain some depth. Druid, Sentinel, and Sylvan classed RP works really well in Eleusis, while the others are just sort of there to supply venoms, forgings, and cute dolls of your significant other. 

    I had hoped with @Gaia‌ returning that She would push a little to get them started back up. The Ithmian Knights were founded to give forestal knights an organization since Gaia was, well, dead.  (HINT HINT @Gaia‌  HINT HINT!)  Perhaps I'll have Tohran start mentioning it here and there.


  • Pretty sure Naomh was Druid because she didn't change class until after Trilliana got Knighted. Ariettie was Sentinel as far as I know.

    meh


  • Aerek, this is why you don't drink without me.

  • So most of this I'm reading is that knightclasses have to be a certain personality type to obtain a Sir/Lady title? <That's bogus.

    Knighthood should be a goal set standard in service not personality based on whether a person can be "liked" but rather combat prowess, reasoning skills, raid tactics, and service to their city.

    Knighthood is a large rp thing sure, but watering it down and giving it to someone as a retirement political title is lame

    Note: when I started infernal, I was lost on vivisect and dsb, I practiced my ass off learning these skills and the ideas from people along the way.

    It's a long hard road, for classes that imo are geared more towards dueling than group, but it's feasible and being a knight is kick ass. The whole "other peoples opinions to becoming knight" is dumb if you've done everything required and have shown initiative to progress in your house/city.

    P.S. - knighting non knight classes is stupid and an insult to those who have taken the path of a knightclass.


  • Vicious said:
    So most of this I'm reading is that knightclasses have to be a certain personality type to obtain a Sir/Lady title? <That's bogus.

    Knighthood should be a goal set standard in service not personality based on whether a person can be "liked" but rather combat prowess, reasoning skills, raid tactics, and service to their city.

    Knighthood is a large rp thing sure, but watering it down and giving it to someone as a retirement political title is lame

    Note: when I started infernal, I was lost on vivisect and dsb, I practiced my ass off learning these skills and the ideas from people along the way.

    It's a long hard road, for classes that imo are geared more towards dueling than group, but it's feasible and being a knight is kick ass. The whole "other peoples opinions to becoming knight" is dumb if you've done everything required and have shown initiative to progress in your house/city.

    P.S. - knighting non knight classes is stupid and an insult to those who have taken the path of a knightclass.

    I don't think anyone here is surprised that you disagree with the bolded.

  • Think of it this way.  Why does any other class need the honorifics associated with knights in the first place?  Why do "Sir" and "Lady" hold such sway over players' imaginations such that they'd even want to extend it to those other classes (while hoping against all hope to somehow maintain the power of those titles).

  • Because it's just about the only house title that has any real recognition outside the house that came up with it. Some titles are well devised that they generally tell you what the person does, but a lot are mysterious, and some houses seem to allow (or even encourage) nonstandard titles for full members.

    It's still iffy because Sir/Dame are simple enough to grab without being a knight (and Lady is outright ambiguous), but people at least know knighthood exists. How many people here can tell me which order the full member Mojushai ranks go in, that haven't been a mojushai, nevermind what they are? (Kinsei, Daisei, and Insei, in no particular order)

    I thought dreadborns were apostates for the longest time, and unnamed (or whatever it was) must be serpents. A shoremaster must be related to ships, right? Does hashan even have titles? Etc.
  • edited May 2014
    Silas said:
    I think the priesthood titles from the priest/appstate guilds held similar sway, just with a lot less fanfare. You just need to work on building the reputation of your class archetype title/program, and people will recognise that.

    Non-knight classed knights will always be an abomination.

    I lean more toward your side of the fence than the 'any class can be a knight if they act right', but I'm willing to reach a middle ground where the general consensus should be that skill at arms is the primary class function. I realize that's only five classes out of the lot, but it would allow for more if any fitting the bill later on. I do disagree that a knight should be a heavy armour user, though. Just look at the Crusades: most of those guys rocked chainmail, not fullplate, and if they're not one of the most prevalent traditional images of 'knight', then I don't know what is.

  • @Silas: So then do you think the idea of knighthood should just be deleted once multiclass is in? Or should knights be class-restricted?

    It's fine to say they're an abomination now, but this seeming abomination may soon be an unavoidable part of knighthood short of just scrapping the idea.
  • edited May 2014

    There are ways of preserving the already established "Way of Life" that Knighthood encompasses without latching into the knight classes as a requirement. These standards could continue to encourage things like force of arms, chivalry and honour, open combat, etc., without the hard limitations.

    As much as we might want to keep it knight classes only, as Arador says, Knighthood must evolve or die. Multiclass will force our hand whether we like it or not.

    ETA: Depending on how multiclass is implemented, Kazu's point of requiring the individual to maintain at least ONE knight class is likely as close as we would get to keeping class restrictions. It would come with its own set of complications though - for example, do they need to use the class regularly? Do they have to be tri-trans'd to be recognized? Etc.

    "Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that [everlasting] life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man." 

  • Arador said:
    Yep, it is al fine and well to say "Well I would like it this way and keep it this way" but what then off multi class? Should Knights be prohibited from taking a second non Knight class? Or limited to only weapon wielding ones? That is as shitty a deal as I've ever seen and will most likely lead to Knighthood dying out. We are opening up this entire toy box and then saying "because this is the way I know and like things to be, you can not play with any of this if you want to be a Knight".

    I would be a lot more concerned about preserving the QUALITIES OF CHARACTER that define a Knight than with crying about a mental familiarity formed around a class historically associated with that name.

    No one said that they'd be unable to take a second non-knight class. In fact, knights were well known for having other traits such as poetry or music in ancient times. Many were often part of some priesthood as well. I see no reason that a knight couldn't pick up a second class as long as they were originally a knight and continue to maintain at least one knight class.


  • I wouldn't have a problem with a Knight having another class. As Kazu noted,  Knights had many other hobbies that they were pretty decent at in the old days, I wouldn't see a problem with an aspiring knight taking up another class if they complete all their requirements and tasks as a Knight class and still remain 'knightly' in other forms.
  • Silas said:

    Non-knight classed knights will always be an abomination.


    Finally, someone gets me.

  • Oh and yes those titles from the Apostate and Priest Guilds indeed carry great meaning and respect, if slightly lesser known and I would not say that those who earned them post auto class, playing as other classes watered then down. They put in exactly the same effort as the Priests and Apostates that earned then and established the weight of those titles in the first place.

  • i wanna be a knight

  • edited May 2014
    After multiclass, I'd say knights should still be primarily knight-classed. If you spend most of your time as a jester or a serpent, you should get the Caerid treatment.

    ETA: I don't see blademaster or bard as being knightly classes. They play to their own archetypes already, and neither really fit in with the typical idea of knighthood. Not overly arsed about the heavy armour, though, so I'd be willing to concede that, just as I'd be happy for knights to wield blunt weapons.

  • JurixeJurixe Where you least expect it

    While I am a proponent of knighthood as you suggest, I would suggest that the whole point of this (or at least the impression I'm getting from Sarapis) is to move away from the 'typical' idea of knighthood beyond the very fundamental idea that knights must be 'chivalrous'.

    I would also assume that all knight programs of every city would have to receive final approval from the Council of Knighthood in order to ensure that a base standard is maintained, which would allow for the continued intercity respect between the different knights which is so unique to knight roleplay. With that in mind, it seems like it will be quite the task to get everyone (or if that is too optimistic, a majority) to agree on the sort of limitations that would define knighthood worldwide, especially in terms of class limitations. I would hate to see there be a breakdown in that consensus and every city going off and making their own programmes, but I suspect that might be a very probable reality.

    If you like my stories, you can find them here:
    Stories by Jurixe and Stories by Jurixe 2 

    Interested in joining a Discord about Achaean RP? Want to comment on RP topics or have RP questions? Check the Achaean RP Resource out here: https://discord.gg/Vbb9Zfs


  • Arador said:

    MEGASNIP


    @Arador, man, I like you, but the position you're taking on this is about as retarded as Sarapis' argument involving 'your character isn't hearing English'.

Sign In or Register to comment.