Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 257 The Matsuhama Arena
- 885 The Golden Dais of Creation
- 299 The Scarlattan Theatre
- 149 The Blank Canvas
- 2K Getting Help
- 412 General Questions
- 258 Quick Class Questions
- 1.3K Tech Support
- 313 Client Help
- 486 Curing Systems and Scripts
- 841 Off-Topic
- 255 The Wander Inn
- 586 The Universal Membrane
- 298 Class Discussions
- 298 Individual Class Sections
- 20 Alchemist
- 9 Apostate
- 30 Blademaster
- 9 Depthswalker
- 14 Druid
- 4 Infernal
- 20 Jester
- 19 Magi
- 34 Monk
- 11 Occultist
- 8 Paladin
- 7 Priest
- 29 Runewarden
- 18 Sentinel
- 26 Serpent
- 20 Shaman
- 9 Sylvan
Comments
Aww, I like you too, @Trey. But Multiclass in its mechanics renders your argument moot. Either you forbid a second class, or you call it a "Hobby". But then do you plan to police how much time is spent in that second class form? Or if a person can stay in it permanently do they have to hold on to a secondary Knight class just to tick a checkbox even if they never plan on using that class again? Or do they temporarily change titles when they change into their second class?
All of these are just desperate compromises to protect an idea that is mechanically broken with the advent of multiclass. Are they technically workable compromises? Sure! That does not mean they are not mind-numbingly stupid, though.
Heh, now I'm even more convinced of what I was half thinking before. Get rid of the Sir title (perhaps leaving those currently knighted with it), or, admit that it truly will become a much, much more generalized title for those of some sort of "high status", because that really is where that story goes after a few more chapters. That's not the end of the world, but don't kid yourself that that isn't what a knighthood will become.
There is a standard that has to be maintained but that is not centred around class. It should be centred around every single quality that is currently expected from a Knight. It should not a be a lifetime service award, it should not be a city title, it should be bestowed on those that have upheld the tenets of Knighthood in their lives.
But yes, if you strangle Knighthood with a blind class restriction based on nostalgia it will be come become meaningless, and if it does, any oversight Council will become powerless, leading to the title becoming used by whoever feels like it.
Essentially if you want the title to still matter you have to release your grip to some extent or you will end up becoming King of Nothing.
That love soon might end You are unbreaking
And be known in its aching Though quaking
Shown in this shaking Though crazy
Lately of my wasteland, baby That's just wasteland, baby
Why not just start out fresh, with new titles? As Nim had mentioned, some in-game titles are descriptive enough that people get a sense of what they mean, and those titles do have an inherent sense of meaningfulness to them. It would certainly help if houses published a title guide, as cities do, though, so people could find out more readily what each title actually means (thus giving it more weigh).
(i.e. titles that would have a strong tie to the new houses and their ethos)
There's nothing wrong with making new titles. There SHOULD be new titles for the new Houses to sever them from lingering nostalgia. But that doesn't mean that you have throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. It's also going to take time for the new Houses to establish themselves and for people to earn those new titles regardless.
"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."
(but someone like me, who currently holds the page title, would be stripped of that and progress under whatever the new system is)
Well the council of knighthood is a player made clan, so, that's irrelevant.
@Trey I've never seen you participate in a raid, in defense, in sparring, in arena events, in dueling other than a time you bitched at me for just using a kelp stack and vivisecting you at Stygian. People stay away from bringing up your disgusting lack of participation because you're a decent guy, so let us discuss our future as knights without you nitpicking at everything that's being said, since I don't even know what the hell you're talking about.
I agree with @Silas to keep it to knight classes, as I'm 100% SURE that Multiclassing won't be that cheap. And the simple solution of having a chivalry path in a combat house would also be feasible to some degree. Knighthood having a special title to work for that gains utterly the a BIG part of respect in the game is an awesome concept and should be kept.
We should all clarify, somehow and some way, what the Achaean idea of honour is, it's largely unspoken of but, we all have very similar ideas to it. It should be a fundamental teaching, not a dying art to those in the said chivalry path.
I just think of Ned Stark for the most part, speak honestly and carry fast rapiers, be confident in your combat abilities and serve your city and gods. etc etc
Knighthood really will be part of an old world once the Renaissance happens though, for the exact reasons we've been discussing. It doesn't mean you can't take the concept of the honourable warrior and do something interesting with it in the new world, though. Speaking of which, I had been lamenting that the idea of honourable evil would likely die with the Maldaathi, as it is already at odds with Mhaldor as a whole, but if Mhaldor as a whole somehow decided to adopt honourable evil in this Renaissance, the city's ethos could be more coherent (and interesting) than ever.
The Council is player made, but Achaea IS the players. Player made is its biggest selling feature. Your point?
A lot of this is currently moot until the Renaissance finishes and we know what we're working with, in terms of new Houses and city programs.
"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."
I can recognize the salient points that you've brought up - a comprehensive, cohesive definition of honour being necessary for any council activity, limiting classes (I'm at a crossroads between @Arador and @Silas: I feel like Blademasters and Bards are easy to shoehorn into a Knightly image, but the thought of a Jester or Magi makes me cringe), and the like.
However, I feel like the shit show that was your attempt at knighthood doesn't give you a whole lot of room for smack-talking. You are -half- right, though: People stay away from bringing up that I don't jump at offensive raids and shit now not only because I'm a decent guy. I carry myself with the right attitude and I've got RL -years- putting in work the past. Now, if we're outnumbered, I show, and if not, I uphold the standard of even numbers, or I come if I'm called.
Lastly, if you want to talk about disgusting, let's start with the fact that there isn't one time that I spoke up in your defense that you didn't make me regret it by invariably regressing to the things that you continued to get in trouble for.
Actually, that King Arthur movie from like, 2004, leads me to believe that we could have some other classes as Knight, like...
Blademaster -
Monk -
and even Serpent -
..but I'm still not sold on say, Magi, Sylvan, Druid, Apostate, Sentinel, Jester and the rest.
PS. Loving the fact that the 'monk' is in leatherarmour and the 'blademaster' is in ringmail.
I could see a case for Sentinel Knights. Though I don't see the problem if the person-to-be-knighted just has the one Knight class as part of their multiclass set and then they can have whatever the f they like as their other class(es) right? It all depends on how multiclass is actually going to be implemented.
They way it's being discussed now it feels like you're arguing for reducing the class restrictions for Knighthood in pre-multiclass Achaea.
I guess Knighthood will be moved over to a High Clan, there should be one in each city in my opinion. If one city strays away from the globally accepted standards in the Council of Knighthood, then their Knights' reputation would suffer and they would be seen as of a lower order than the other cities' Knights.
I'm willing to swing more in a lax direction solely because @Arador did have one point that I'm starting to agree with: At what point do you set that a Knight has to spend time as their Knight class before you say that they can't be 'Sir' anymore? And who is actually going to police it at that point?
The attitude, devotion, excellence of service and demeanor are really what Knighthood is about, and I'd rather encourage that point of it than discourage based solely on 'You aren't a runewarden, infernal or paladin'. I still think that it should be limited, as I've said before, to 'strength of arms' classes, but I'm willing to broaden my view a little to accommodate a wider view of exactly what that's supposed to mean. I'm not crazy about Sentinel if only because their primary attacks come from Metamorphosis, and the rest of their abilities are more ambush tactic than honourable combat (see: Traps).
For example, rather than say "serpents have backstab, therefore they are unknightly," it should be seen more as "serpents who backstab are unknightly," short of them finding some chivalric means of using the ability (perhaps announcing their presence beforehand, optionally declaring themselves to be the one who will surpass God, but that second part might be less knightly).
It's hard for me to think of distinctly unknightly magi behavior, but I've always thought that, in Achaea where each 'knight' class already has magical talents, a magic-wielding knight is perfectly on course, and many magic wielders make some use of arms or another. Then again, I've always liked the idea of knights that wield magic instead of swords anyway, and in a game where magi are far from rare, it makes some amount of sense to consider the elemental forces a magi wields as just another weapon from a militaristic point of view.
Even if there aren't hard limitations on class, a Magi is going to have more difficulty than, say, a Runewarden in passing the requirements. And that's okay. If they manage to prove themselves to be just as Knightly, I'd be willing to accept that. But it's going to discourage casual attempts by classes that are less than ideal, especially if you consider that people playing Magi are more likely to be drawn to the idea of a all-powerful Archmagi instead anyway. In this way, encouraging a certain image and way of life will provide limitations all on their own.
ETA: Ninja'd beautifully by Nim.
"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."
Agreed with @Jhaeli. Actually, I am 100% OK with there being some amount of bias against unlikely knight classes to make it more difficult. The path to knighthood is defined by grueling challenges, and with more potential recruits, I think there should be more challenge as well.
I just think that bias should take the form of roleplay or soft limitations rather than "wrong class, can't be a knight" logic.
@Nim and @Jhaeli are really helping me keep the hope on being comfortable with Trilliana having the Dame title again. Anyone can be a knight-class, but that doesn't inherently make them a Knight-type. There's been a lot of people who were of the knight class, but completely dishonourable and unKnightly in how they acted.
Actions speak louder than words. It's like saying (as an example) that all gay men are very feminine and completely girly. Just because you identify as something, it doesn't mean that is what you are. You can be manly and gay (hello~ bears~).
The entire concept of Knighthood is player-made, so it's quite relevant. While plenty of Gods have helped it along, these rumored city Knighthood mechanics will be the first hard-coded recognition of the role that I'm aware of. (Stressing game mechanics, plenty of Gods recognize the RP) The foundations, expectations, and traditions surrounding Knighthood have been almost exclusively set down by players, even the knight-class-only tradition, so it's (or should be) up to the players to redefine it and keep it alive during the next era.
I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm expecting a ton of disagreement on this opinion based on the general direction this thread has been heading. However, I want to share my opinion on this matter.
I feel like opening up the concept of Knighthood to more classes is a great idea. However, I disagree with the method this thread is taking. It's true that Knighthood is founded upon the actions of Chivalry and Honour. However, it is also founded on the profession of actually being a Knight. Removing either of these concepts from the definition equates to a pale imitation of the title that is supposed to represent the epitome of a class. Knights are supposed to be the cream of the crop. Holding them to both standards ensures that only the best suited will wear the title. I feel that we have a responsibility to uphold Achaean tradition as best as possible.
However, this does not mean that change needs to be ignored. Multiclass is certainly inevitable, and I do not want to overly limit anyone who wishes to appeal for Knighthood. I honestly feel that most classes will work just fine, so long as they remain secondary. By that, I mean that they do not vastly overtake a Knight's class identity, as per Arador's example. At that point, I feel like the person has chosen to embark upon a separate path, even if it is is an honourable one. To further demonstrate what I mean, I'd be fine with someone multiclassing as a monk to hunt. They'd switch over when they wished, but still play predominantly as a Knight based character.
My final point is something that I believe Knighthood needs. As far as I'm aware, there's not really any upkeep once you receive the title. I could be Knighted tomorrow, and I would never have to fight again. I feel like this degrades the integrity of the title and should be a point of emphasis in the new regime. I'm not saying that you actively have to raid, participate in mark, or so forth. However, you should maintain a certain level of combat ability with your KNIGHT class. I'll take it one step further by saying that all class-based evaluations for Knighthood should require you to use your Knight class.
I know that these opinions are going to be unpopular, but I simply feel like the methods discussed previously are going to dilute the prestige of the title. I'm fine with Nim's suggestion of a non-traditionally based class trying to be accepted, but I feel like that should be handled on a case-by-case basis and be attached with HEAVY skepticism. I can only say that if the concept of Knighthood moves towards just allowing almost any class to become Knighted
, then I will honestly be forever turned off the class.
Kazu said:
This does not answer the issue brought up previously, however. Who is going to police this? Are you really going to keep a record of how much time people invest in their non-knight classes compared to their 'knightly' ones? Because there is honestly no way to do that. And forcing people to 'make time' is about the worst solution you can come up with
And you won't understand the cause of your grief...
...But you'll always follow the voices beneath.
I'd say it would be a job for the council, and I'm not talking about measure people's time like "You only spent 30 minutes this week on your Knight, but 31 on your monk!" I'm just talking about in a general sense of things. If you begin to consistently and heavily favour one of your other classes, then I think it becomes a problem.
That's just a bad idea. Your general sense of it will amount to opinions rather than fact which will just lead to drama. Keeping actual track would just be a hassle, since i'm sure no one wants to constantly watch and see just how often people are playing the "right" class.