|
|
| Line 77: |
Line 77: |
| | | | |
| | ! | | ! |
| − | <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Lions and Warriors</h2> | + | <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">He What??</h2> |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | ''By Michele Ellington [[Tawnee Darkfalcon]]''
| |
| | | | |
| − | This one is a history lesson on the award of the Lion and Warrior.
| + | By [[Luke Wyndegard]] his RP reaction to the recent elections in the Wetlands. |
| | | | |
| − | How ironic these statements are! I feel pressed to offer a little
| + | [[Template:Event Reporting]] |
| − | history lesson. When we first started the club, the only order
| |
| − | offered for fighting was the [[Order of the Lion]]. At that time, [[knights]]
| |
| − | had a very definite code of conduct, which was expected of them. Not
| |
| − | everyone in the club wanted to be a knight. The [[Corsairs]] and a few
| |
| − | others recognized and freely acknowledged that this code of conduct
| |
| − | was not for them, and did not even solicit Orders of the Lion.
| |
| − | However, it quickly became clear that some of these "mavericks" were
| |
| − | some of our best fighters. It was clearly unfair that there was no
| |
| − | way to make public note of their skills. So we invented the [[Order of the Warrior]]. It was intended that a fighter who earned ten Orders of
| |
| − | the Warrior would become a [[Warlord]]. A Warlord was to be the
| |
| − | equivalent of the Knight, but not bound by the code of conduct
| |
| − | expected of the knights. When [[tournaments]] were conducted, the
| |
| − | fighters were watched for both skill and conduct, and were awarded
| |
| − | Warriors or Lions as was deemed appropriate by the [[Monarch]]. At this
| |
| − | time, there was only one form of [[Knighthood]]. [[Roses]] attributed to
| |
| − | titles of [[nobility]], and [[Dragons]] were simply prestige [[awards]]. Time
| |
| − | passed. Some confusion evolved about the intended difference between
| |
| − | Warriors and Lions. An odd sort of dichotomy arose, wherein Lions
| |
| − | were almost impossible to earn, yet Warlord was the club's most
| |
| − | coveted title. In my opinion, this was the result of the fact that
| |
| − | most of the really skilled fighters were the "maverick" types, and
| |
| − | the Monarchs all but forgot the existence of Lions and what they
| |
| − | meant. Warlord was a separate title from Knighthood, but was no
| |
| − | longer regarded as its effective yin/yang opposite. Warlords won
| |
| − | [[Crown Tourneys]] and were also knighted. The intent of the creation of
| |
| − | the Warrior as an Order separate from the Lion fell away. The focus
| |
| − | became wholly skill based, with no real evaluation of attitude
| |
| − | included. Monarchs came and went.
| |
| | | | |
| − | After a couple of years, the Monarch decided that Knighthood should
| |
| − | be broken into four belts: [[Sword]], [[Serpent]], [[Flame]], and [[Crown]]. To that
| |
| − | end, the Orders were all evaluated. The Order hardest hit was Lion.
| |
| − | The Monarch making the changes added Warriors as one of the Orders
| |
| − | contributive to Knighthood of the Sword. Then he broke the Order of
| |
| − | the Lion into Lions for combat and Griffins for chivalry. Then the
| |
| − | persons holding Lions were subjectively reviewed, and decisions were
| |
| − | made about whether they were good enough fighters to hold that number
| |
| − | of Lions, or if some of those awards had been given for chivalry more
| |
| − | than combat prowess. Some players' Lions were converted to Griffins,
| |
| − | and, if I recall correctly, no longer contributed towards Knighthood
| |
| − | of the Sword. As combat had always been the focus of the club,
| |
| − | deleting combat orders to make them "orders of the nice guy",
| |
| − | read "orders of the chump" by the much acclaimed Warlords who weren't
| |
| − | expected to play fair, was hardly a compliment. So now you see the
| |
| − | irony of your reference to Griffins as a highly sought after and
| |
| − | scarcely offered award.
| |
| | | | |
| − | I am sorry we lost the dichotomy between Warlords and Knights. I
| |
| − | think that a lot of the problems we experience today with Knights
| |
| − | acting in unsportsman like and un-chivalrous fashions would be
| |
| − | alleviated if there were another Prestige Track available to those
| |
| − | who aren't truly "knightly stuff". I have mixed emotions about
| |
| − | whether the "code of knightly conduct" should be enforceable, for
| |
| − | right and wrong are ever subject to interpretation. But there was a
| |
| − | time when those who knew themselves to prefer a less "moral" set of
| |
| − | expectations were able to earn prestigious titles and awards for
| |
| − | their skill alone. With this option available, it was certainly
| |
| − | easier to argue that Knights should be expected to meet certain
| |
| − | behavioral requirements.
| |
| | |- | | |- |
| | | | |
