About Real Knights
This is a listing of players thoughts in their own words about Knighthood
Luke
Strangely enough, that's EXACTLY what I'm telling (rather, suggesting) you do.
Do you love to fight? Then fight and get better.
Do you love to sew or paint? Then do it and get better.
Do you love to help out and make the club better? Do it and enjoy yourself.
Do you love to hold office and organize things? Sweet. Enjoy it.
Making Amtgard better is 1) easy, 2) everyone's job and 3) it's own reward. If you aren't enjoying yourself, stop, we don't need any more bitter tards ruining it for others. If you can't be bothered to help out, then go home, we don't need any more dead weight. If you can't just DO SOMETHING without expecting a reward of some kind, then go check yourself into a mental health facility because you have some kind of issues that we aren't qualified to assist with.
If you've been fed some line of shit that "real knights" can fight, I invite you to check your reality at the door.
REAL KNIGHTS help the club without expecting reward or even recognition.
REAL KNIGHTS help grow the club without belittling others for doing the same.
REAL KNIGHTS help others learn to be as "great" as they are, and then revel in the accomplishments of those same people.
REAL KNIGHTS volunteer. For everything.
REAL KNIGHTS treat every squire and page as if they were his own.
REAL KNIGHTS do not think the club owes them anything other than fun and comeraderie.
REAL KNIGHTS don't wave their creditentials, rest on their laurels or fade into obscurity.
REAL KNIGHTS care more about their club than about their own good time.
Sir Andacar
Written shortly after he became a knight
I have often been asked by newcomers, “what does it take to be a knight? What should I have to do? What, if any, ideals should I follow?” It’s a tough question, and I’m often tempted to tell them to ask people who’ve been a knight longer or better than I. However, I was recently asked the same question by fellow knights, and decided it was time to put my thoughts on paper on the subject.
I should note that these are my opinions, and that a Knight candidate shouldn’t necessarily have to strictly meet all these requirements. However, I feel the criteria that are listed in the Corpora are vague. “The Knightly Virtues” are mentioned, and debated endlessly. What are they? I’ll try to elaborate a bit on what I think they are. I do not think such virtues are merely a matter of opinion, nor can they be tossed off as some “Christian” ideals for some that don’t apply to others. Obviously a Knight shouldn’t have to constantly show these virtues and. But they should try to show them to the best of their ability.
I firmly believe a Knight should have been in Amtgard for at least three years, preferably longer. This shows a willingness to stick with the club, be patient, and learn about what Amtgard is really all about. I have a hard time taking a knight who got belted after being in Amtgard for 6 months very seriously. And yes, I have met a few. I believe a Knight should be no younger than 17. There’s simply a certain amount of maturity required in a knight, and I don’t think you can find that in a kid. I’d honestly prefer one who is older, at least in their 20s. I once met a knight at Clan who couldn’t have been older than 13, and I was not impressed at all. His arrogant swagger, careless demeanor and boast of having done “as little as possible” brought shame to his belt in my opinion. This is not elitism. It is a matter of who you want to represent your lands. I think a Knight should, regardless of which belt they seem to deserve, be a “well rounded Amtgarder.” They should make some attempt at leadership, service, fighting and the arts and sciences. Obviously there are exceptions here, especially if the person has some physical problems, or simply isn’t artistic. But a Knight should make attempts to do more than just exactly what their belt shows them to be a master of. I don’t think a knight should ever be given a belt for reasons of personal friendship, politics or to “make a point.” The stigma of the “buddy belt” hurts the name of knighthood, and a king who knights someone because of internal Amtgard squabbles, to “show who is boss” or (sadly) because of some bribe, does not deserve their crown. Character is something that seems to be lost when awards are discussed these days. I recently was told, “You cannot make decisions about awards based on a person’s character, because that’s a personal value judgment. What they have done should be the only criteria.” I could not possibly disagree with this more. I don’t think anything influences me more when I ask whether a person would make a worthy knight than what I think of their character. With this in mind, here are some questions I would ask about a candidate’s character. I stress that such things have nothing to do with a person’s persona. The candidate can’t be a mean asshole on and off the field and say it’s “my persona to act that way."
Is the candidate someone who is thought of immediately when a certain area of excellence is mentioned? Who do you think of first when you think of excellence in fighting? The arts? In leadership? In service? Do they excel in their area and help others to do the same? Does the candidate show a general attitude of respect for the crown under which they serve, and of the institution of Amtgard? Do they help to keep the institution going? Does the candidate put the needs of Amtgard and the crown before the desires of their friends? Can you honestly say this candidate is a person you recommend because they are a loyal and good person, or merely because they are your buddy? Does the candidate seem to be interested in helping new people get started and feel welcome? Do they beat up newbies, sneer at their work and boss them around? How willing are they to be a role model? Does the candidate seem to volunteer for things in order to help, or are they mostly interested in getting awards? Do they make a big deal about awards, or do they complain when they don’t receive something and whine about being a martyr? Does the candidate want to be a Knight? It is, I think, a good thing to earnestly desire to be a Knight “one of these days.” But do they really want to take on the responsibilities of being a Knight (and the whole point of this letter is that I do think there are responsibilities)? Do you think the candidate will continue in their efforts after they are knighted? Will they do more than before, or will they sit back and say, “I got a Knighthood, you all suck. I don’t need to do anything else”? Does the candidate seem to show a willingness to bring new ideas, honor and fraternity to the institution of Knighthood? Conversely, will they “put on airs” and use their white belt as a way to be superior? How well does the candidate take constructive criticism? Are they incensed by it or are they willing to make changes in their way of doing things if it is brought to them in a constructive manner? I should note that these requirements are high and I make no apology for them being so. I am extremely judgmental in this regard. Knighthood, and all noble titles for that matter, were once things given to people with the greatest respect, not simply our friends. We do ourselves only shame if we lower our standards in the name of being “fair” or “democratic.”
