Main > The Round Table

Is it Honorable to win, then say the loser should reign?

<< < (6/8) > >>

Ian:
Oh no Thorsteinn... you're not getting away with it this time. :)  You do this in all of your threads.  You get everyone to discuss your question but you never ever tell us you're own opinion on it.  So, let's hear it.  Call this situation.  ;)

Thorsteinn:
So here is the relevant bit of the West Kingdom Crown Invocation & Oath (taken from the Heralds Website) that will be spoken this weekend in Tres Pinos, CA. I can't take the 600 mile round trip due to a bad case of Poor, mores the pity.

Herald: You have all heard the conventions of combat for this tournament, and you all know the Rules of the Lists. Do you swear to abide by these rules and these conventions during these Lists?
 
Fighters: I so swear.
 
Herald: And do you each have one whose favor you shall bear in these Lists, and who shall reign beside you should you be given victory over the field?
 
Fighters: I do.
 
Herald: And do you each swear that, should you be given victory in these Lists, you and your consort will swear fealty to the Kingdom and populace of the West. And do you swear that you and your consort can and will fulfill the duties and obligations of a King or Queen of the West, and that you will rule justly and to the utmost of your abilities, as long as you shall reign?
 
Fighters: I do.
 
Herald: Then upon pain of expulsion from these Lists, let none here present enter these lists bearing any stone, charm, or herb of virtue, by which they hope to gain advantage over their opponent. Let each of you prove by your skill and strength alone the worth and virtue of those whose favors you bear, either in victory or in honourable defeat.

Thorsteinn:

--- Quote from: Ian on 2014-06-18, 23:33:34 ---Oh no Thorsteinn... you're not getting away with it this time. :)  You do this in all of your threads.  You get everyone to discuss your question but you never ever tell us you're own opinion on it.  So, let's hear it.  Call this situation.  ;)

--- End quote ---

I think that it could be seen as Honorable to let Y have it. it is the best move for the Kingdom to have a great King, rather than a poor King. To say that there have never been Crowns the populace wished would have gone the other way is to lie.

If X keep's the Crown: He fulfill's his Oath as expected, and he get's the "Prize" he has striven so hard for (As a Western KSCA said once: "Only gotta win 10 fights after all, and you can lose 2 on the way there, how hard can it be. Oh wait, that's 10 of 12 that have to be won, and you can't lose 2 in a row").

If X gives Y the Crown: He does what is best in the long run for the Kingdom, and makes sure that he has put the best person on the Throne. That also must be honorable. He loses public renown but then again he may, in the long run, gain much word-fame from the act.

THe question ultimately would be: What can X live with at the end of the day. What will allow him to sleep at night?

Sir Edward:

Perhaps the whole question can be rephrased: Is it better to "take one for the team", by taking a stain upon your honor, in order to serve the greater good?

Rephrased that way, I can see that under some circumstances, that the answer can be yes.

But of course, in this particular case, if X is abdicating in favor of Y, then he, and he alone (in that moment), is making the call as to whether Y is truly the better king. We have to assume that he has good judgment.

Thorsteinn:
Personally, if I were X, I would feel some regret at Y not having the Throne, however I know how to surround myself with good people, and I play politics with a sledgehammer so I would quickly drive snotty courtiers & backbiters from my midst. Thusly I would accept the Crown and gladly too.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version