ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: Thorsteinn on 2014-06-13, 03:04:54
-
A question of Honor came up today:
Imagine two fighters reach finals of an SCA Crown/Coronet. X beats Y after a hard fought match. In that moment of victory X suddenly realizes that Y would make a great King/Prince, while X would not. X then declares Y to be the winner for Y would be who X would want for the Crown/Coronet.
Is X being dishonorable? Is X wrong?
-
I would say that is very honorable. Also humble and noble of X for he put the welfare of the kingdom ahead of his own glory. Whether he was correct or not in his self estimation of his qualifications to rule, he relinquished the glory of victory for an even greater and more noble accolade. Truly your kingdom is blessed to have such honorable knights to serve them. :)
-
Within the bounds of the SCA I think that's kind of weird. A crown tournament's sole purpose is to determine the next King right? And a tournament is the only way that Kings are determined in the SCA. You know before entering that you're fighting for that title and that title alone. If you think you'd be a bad king, why would you enter the tournament in the first place? It seems like a question that should have been answered before taking the field. It's one thing if he just feels like the other guy would be better, but if fighter X felt he would make a bad king from the start he should not have entered the tournament.
I think it puts fighter Y in an awkward position. If he is king now, he knows he did not earn it through combat at arms, which is the SCA way. So that could affect his ability as King. It may cause him to second guess his validity.
-
Maybe X just wanted the competition; I'm confused, what exactly does 'rule' entail that he would be bad at it?
-
I second Sir Ian's question about SCA context in it. If suitability as a King is determined solely through martial combat, and X has beaten Y, then shouldn't X be king. What qualification(s) is it with Y that makes X think that Y should be king instead? And why would this suddenly be recognized at the end of a tournament bout?
If I threw myself into that as Y, I would decline X's offer as having not been legitimately beaten by him/her.
If I threw myself into that as X, I would take the crown as earned, and when able to speak with Y privately, tell them I feel they would make a better King and ask if they wish to take over. I could see it as being very demeaning to Y for X to imply "I beat you and I earned this, but you take it instead"; it's being given something that wasn't earned.
-
Hmmm...I don't know. That's a toughie there. I agree that it would be noble of X to step down if he didn't feel he could reign properly, but at the same time, I also agree that it puts Y in an awkward position.
Granted, I'm not really familiar with SCA rules so take this for what it's worth, but I think it depends on the circumstance. Did X go in with the intent to win, but had some last-minute "epiphany" after he had won? In that case, I think the thing to do would to be discuss it with Y and make sure he was okay with accepting the reign instead of just saying, "Y'know what? I don't really wanna be king. It's all on Y now."
Or did he go into the competition with no desire to be king and just want to fight or want bragging rights?
Basically, I guess it kind of depends on whether X had some kind of ulterior motive, or if was it an honest change of heart.
Edit: ninja'd by Sir James.
-
If I threw myself into that as Y, I would decline X's offer as having not been legitimately beaten by him/her.
If I threw myself into that as X, I would take the crown as earned, and when able to speak with Y privately, tell them I feel they would make a better King and ask if they wish to take over. I could see it as being very demeaning to Y for X to imply "I beat you and I earned this, but you take it instead"; it's being given something that wasn't earned.
That begs the question- did Y in fact take the crown from X? If X is honorable to accede the throne, is Y necessarily honorable in taking it- since it has been noted that victory via trial by combat is the only way to take it?
-
I find it hard to decide as well. On one hand, I agree with Sir Brian's assessment about his selfless and honorable act to concede, based on his assessment of their relative ability to lead as King.
But... if I were the one who lost the fight, I would feel I didn't earn that position. That it needed to be gifted to me. It would be a hollow "victory", because it was gained in defeat.
-
I just think it comes down to the fact that no one should enter a Crown Tourney that they don't want to win. It's not a secret that the reason the tournament exists is to determine the new King. If you don't want to be King, don't compete in the one thing that's sole purpose is to become the King. There are plenty of other opportunities to fight and compete.
Did fighter X just suddenly have this realization at the end, after he won?
-
Did fighter X just suddenly have this realization at the end, after he won?
That very well could be the case as this is discussion is nothing more than hypothetical and based upon rudimentary information, it could have been a situation where X was so focused on the combat aspects of the tournament that he didn't truly consider all his qualities needed to truly lead until during the tournament when he had perhaps witnessed Y's qualities were greater than his own? :-\
-
Yes, it was an in situ realization. The point being that hot fighters don't necessarily make great Kings. That no one ever talks about winning and saying "bet the other guy/girl would have done better".
In that moment of victory X suddenly realizes that Y would make a great King/Prince, while X would not.
-
The point being that hot fighters don't necessarily make great Kings.
True, but someone forgot to tell the SCA that because that's the only way to make a King!
-
Well...while honorable I think the SCA and reigning royalty would have an issue with it cause it goes against the oath that you as a fighter took at the beginning of the tournament. It also goes against the letter of intent that you, along with your consort, sent into the crown to fight in the first place. And if you did that what would it do to the honor of your consort, who thinks you would make a good king or would not have agreed to be your consort?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
And if you did that what would it do to the honor of your consort, who thinks you would make a good king or would not have agreed to be your consort?
That's a whole different Kettle of Fish. Just ask Viscount Annora Rains of Cynagua whom became Princess cause the nice Knight asked the day before the lists, not knowing he had won the Coronet several times before and was known to be an absentee Prince. Were it not for the fact she was a member of the war unit Tribe RotMahne she'd have been screwed.
Well not to mention he thought he'd get laid for winning, even though she said she'd not sleep with him just cause she was his consort this causing innumerable problems, especially when she started dating her Ex again midway through the reign (it's OK now, she & her Ex since married and are very very awesome people).
I asked the same question (https://www.facebook.com/groups/345950972172327/) on a Facebook page called Ask The Knights.
-
And if you did that what would it do to the honor of your consort, who thinks you would make a good king or would not have agreed to be your consort?
That's a whole different Kettle of Fish. Just ask Viscount Annora Rains of Cynagua whom became Princess cause the nice Knight asked the day before the lists, not knowing he had won the Coronet several times before and was known to be an absentee Prince. Were it not for the fact she was a member of the war unit Tribe RotMahne she'd have been screwed.
Well not to mention he thought he'd get laid for winning, even though she said she'd not sleep with him just cause she was his consort this causing innumerable problems, especially when she started dating her Ex again midway through the reign (it's OK now, she & her Ex since married and are very very awesome people).
I asked the same question (https://www.facebook.com/groups/345950972172327/) on a Facebook page called Ask The Knights.
My point exactly...and that was not very knightly of him...I would of recommended to take his spurs, chain and belt away....
I am also a member of ask the knights on facebook....as a squire I find it very informative...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Well...while honorable I think the SCA and reigning royalty would have an issue with it cause it goes against the oath that you as a fighter took at the beginning of the tournament. It also goes against the letter of intent that you, along with your consort, sent into the crown to fight in the first place. And if you did that what would it do to the honor of your consort, who thinks you would make a good king or would not have agreed to be your consort?
Wait WHAT! :o >:(
Okay I know nothing about the inner intrigues of the SCA world. With this additional information I recant my earlier determination and deem him his act to be dishonorable. If he swore an oath that was also carrying the honor and reputation of a lady then his action is twice as deplorable. However he certainly proved his lack of suitability to be king.
-
Well...while honorable I think the SCA and reigning royalty would have an issue with it cause it goes against the oath that you as a fighter took at the beginning of the tournament. It also goes against the letter of intent that you, along with your consort, sent into the crown to fight in the first place. And if you did that what would it do to the honor of your consort, who thinks you would make a good king or would not have agreed to be your consort?
Wait WHAT! :o >:(
Okay I know nothing about the inner intrigues of the SCA world. With this additional information I recant my earlier determination and deem him his act to be dishonorable. If he swore an oath that was also carrying the honor and reputation of a lady then his action is twice as deplorable. However he certainly proved his lack of suitability to be king.
Wow, yes, that sheds a lot of additional light on the matter.
-
coming into this late. But yes I think that is very honorable, in fact in the same situation I would do the same thing.
-
Having fought in four crown tournaments I take this very seriously....if I didn't think I would be a good king then I would have never sent in my letter of intent. You swear on the sword of the King to fight with honor and chivalry and for the honor of your lady/consort. And you also swear that if you win you will honor the thrown of the kingdom, so if you win and then give it up it goes against what you swore to your leige and the queen, let alone the oath you swore to your consort when you asked to fight for them. It goes against personal honor, your ladies honor, their royal majesties honor and the kingdom's. If you don't feel worthy enough then don't enter or if you did enter withdraw with the permission of your consort, so that you can remain honorable and respected. Stay true to the virtues that you strive to uphold...!!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Yeah, that definitely sheds some more light on the matter.
But then, what do you do in the situation? On the one hand, if X was allowed to concede to Y, then Y would be king, but if X was dishonored for trying to concede (because if the crown tournament is that involved a matter, then would you really want a king who would shirk his duties so readily?), then it seems like Y would end up being king anyway.
-
But then, what do you do in the situation? On the one hand, if X was allowed to concede to Y, then Y would be king, but if X was dishonored for trying to concede (because if the crown tournament is that involved a matter, then would you really want a king who would shirk his duties so readily?), then it seems like Y would end up being king anyway.
If in the middle of your final fight you deem your opponent to be the better king, then lose the fight. That way your honor is in tact and so is your lady/consort's. Don't win unless you are able to take the throne, if you do not think or have any doubts that you would get a good king then don't enter the tournament in the first place.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
The better fighter should take the crown. He won it. If he thinks the other guy needs to rule, make him your regent or head adviser or something. Pull a Robert Baratheon and let the Hand (regent/adviser) unofficially rule. It's a win-win, legitimacy and good rule.
-
Lady consorts, letters of intent and everything? Way more political than anything to do with chivalry at that point, I'd say.
-
Yes indeed. That's why you cannot remove this situation from its context (That of specifically an SCA Crown Tournament and all the rules therein included). Without the context, you can't answer the original question. It's dangerous to remove a situation from it's greater context and examine it in isolation. :)
-
Yes indeed. That's why you cannot remove this situation from its context (That of specifically an SCA Crown Tournament and all the rules therein included). Without the context, you can't answer the original question. It's dangerous to remove a situation from it's greater context and examine it in isolation. :)
Ah but that is the beauty of having hypothetical discussions and interesting in of itself to see the shift of perspectives as more evidence is revealed. Even if it is ‘first hand’ observations! ;)
It certainly reinforces the notion not to be hasty, somewhat of an occupational hazard of mine working as a supervisor in a job that is proverbially in nonstop ‘crisis’ management mode. :-\
-
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. ;)
-
So here is the relevant bit of the West Kingdom Crown Invocation & Oath (taken from the Heralds Website (http://heralds.westkingdom.org/index.htm)) 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.
-
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. ;)
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Thorsteinn, playing SCA as long as we have...you and I both know politics with a sledge hammer can sometimes backfire :)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Thorsteinn, playing SCA as long as we have...you and I both know politics with a sledge hammer can sometimes backfire :)
When you use a sledgehammer folks tend to not try with you ever again. ;D
-
Thorsteinn, playing SCA as long as we have...you and I both know politics with a sledge hammer can sometimes backfire :)
When you use a sledgehammer folks tend to not try with you ever again. ;D
True very true...but I hate the politics part of why I am not playing right now... :D
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Not in the SCA and unaware of all the rules, but conceding after the fight is won seems more cowardly than charitable in my opinion. Perhaps the original intent of X was to disgrace Y by defeating him and then handing him the crown, which is certainly unchivalrous at least. I can't think of any way to deem the act honorable, even if the result is a better king. The end does not justify the means.
This reminds me of a friendly contest between comrades in which you recognize an opportunity to win. Do you let the other win because he's your friend and you desire him to be happy, or defeat him because he's your friend and you desire to be honest with him?
Scott
-
I feel, and this is only my opinion, that handing Y the crown after defeating them is cowardly. I feel that if you swear an oath with all of the information on the work involved in being King/Queen, and fight people who think they can do the job, and defeat them, that it is now your responsibility to fulfill the duties you signed up for. By defeating everyone else and handing the crown to the other guy, what you are saying is, "I just wanted to show how awesome I am, I didn't really want the job and this sucker can have it now, aren't I just so awesome?"
This is not honorable but to me does say that X would have made a terrible King. Personally I don't think being able to kick other people's butts is a good measure for the top spot in administration, although I suppose it is a good way to shut down people wanting to argue with you. Disagreeing courtier 1 "But Sire, are you sure ordering every fighter to fight is purple paisley tights is a good idea?" King "Do you want me to prove how right I am with my sword again?" No longer disagreeing courtier, "No no Sire, of course you are right!"
Seriously, the King/Queen isn't a position that involves fighting, that is why you have guards, knights, and nobles with sharp pointy swords and maces and axes and etc....
Still, if X feels he would not make a good King/Queen, then don't enter, don't find a consort, don't make the oaths, and bottom line, don't fight. This is called common sense and forethought. Poor Y fought with all their might and might or might not make a better King/Queen, but are now going to have their reign known as the one handed to them for losing. You now stain *their* honor rather than simply losing or not fighting in the first place. This seems like attention seeking to me, not honor.
-
I don't think that that is honorable at all. I think that is an egregious insult, to be honest. The person who lost would forever feel inadequate and disgraced. To go so far, lose to someone who legitimately outdid you, then have them say that they don't want the victory? A knight should not shame someone in such a way.