Knights of the Realm vs Knights of the Guard

[Nexian]

Originally posted by Gabs in another thread
That's something I really wish SPs could agree on, eventually. Some plotters told me RG Knights actually become "regular" Knights if they leave, others said they remain "lesser" Knights without such priviledges as having squires and being able to sponsor people for the Knight's Challenge. Or how they can't agree about whether RG Knights can have personalised arms or not lately, despite the fact I've always been told they can have personalised arms on top of using the RGs (depending on the situation). It's frustrating because in three years Umi has been a Dame, the concept of a RG Knights was defined, then contradicted, the redefined at least 5 times. -_-

Actually this statement struck me as deserving its own thread. I know there were some opinions post in that other thread, but I figured why not open a talk about this too.

In my perspective from the castle there are really 3 types of knights. Royal Guard Knights, Knights promoted for favor, and then the ones that win it in the Knight's Challenge. It's been my view that the ones that won it in the challenges seemed worth more respect and that was largely why that is how my main is trying to reach Knighthood. The other was because he was told it was the proper way his first night here.

Challenge Knights, I think get the most or near the most benefits for becoming a Knight and I think that seems fair since there has been only 1 Knight's and 2 Squire's challenges in the past 5 years I think. And there is no gauntees in the challenges, trust me. From only being in the Squire's I found out I had risked perma death if I -really- messed up during a part of it. Or at least that was how it was presented to me at the time. I can only suspect the Knight's has a similar risk to it. Now this group doesn't have near the same daily work loads as say the Royal Guard Knights they do have a heck of a time getting the favor needed to earn sponsorships for the challenges. I know I tried many possible sponsors only to squek by last second thanks to the kind old man.

Royal Guard Knights, while working their butts off and earning it via the Guard, just seem like it is a promotion similar to Sergeant and upper-middle rank for the Guard. Get some nice benefits and all but depending on the character they might not see them as true knights of the realm as it were. I'm sure any of them would slap you and challenge if you said it aloud though. While they can't take Squires or those duties they can arrest the other Knights that get really out of line. I look at these as more the group of knights meant to keep the others in line more than training others to make more Knights.

Knights promoted to it for favor, only example I can think of is Vestio and Viceran from a while ago and I could be wrong about that one. Honestly I'm not really sure what to think of them, I think of them similar to the Guard Knights. They got the spot for working their butts off but instead of having their Knight status depend on their army stance and I think they get almost all the benefits the ones that earn it in the challenges do.

Now I'm not claiming expertise in this area, just trying to get some views on it so Staff might be able to make a final say on it and we can stop guessing which of us is right when claiming so-n-so is or isn't a "true" Knight of Marrach

-Jeff

[John]

Originally posted by Nexian

Now I'm not claiming expertise in this area, just trying to get some views on it so Staff might be able to make a final say on it and we can stop guessing which of us is right when claiming so-n-so is or isn't a "true" Knight of Marrach

-Jeff

The problem is, what staff may have said at one point may not always be true, or may even be altered by another staffer for some reason. I mean heck, umi has been a knight longer than some of staff have been staff.

[miyaa]

I would rank them...

3) Knights who become Knights through Challenges (I would imagine them to be something out of Double Dare.)

2) Knights of the Royal Guard

1) Knights who become Knights because of favor (or more likely) actually doing something worth being Knighted for (i.e. Slaying Dragons, Devoted to a particular cause, massaging a StoryCoder's feet)

To me, it boils down to what pressures did you face in becoming a Knight. To me, there's a lot different pressures facing a foe that could possibly destroy the whole castle versus a foe that could only kill you in a contest. It's kind of like being MVP of a league (regular season) and being the MVP of the Playoffs. Two differently completely levels of pressure.

If it were up to me, I'd wish that Knights would be split by the Knights who say Ni and the Knights who wish for shrubbery.

On a more serious note, this does present an interesting problem: what to do when various StoryPlotters have differenting opinions about how should the "NPCers society" feels about a particular group or layer of society? Should our gameplay have a sense of uniformity so that the reactions that players have on the gameplay be as consistant as they can be given the situation?

[Nexian]

Originally posted by miyaa
1) Knights who become Knights because of favor (or more likely) actually doing something worth being Knighted for (i.e. Slaying Dragons, Devoted to a particular cause, massaging a StoryCoder's feet)

But from what I've seen the favor Knights are promoted for long time service to particular causes (I've yet to hear anyone Knighted for say fighting off seiges from potatos, elementals, rats, elfs, wyvrens, basalisks, or shadows). I can't really say what the causes are but I'm sure there are a range of them.

The challenge Knights don't just enter a dare thing, they have to prove themselves in a series of tests to earn the rank on their own merits. And it's a wide range of tests - mind, body, and spirit. Also, I think these are the only group of knights that get to enter the Petal or Stone orders, but feel free to correct me on that one if I'm way off base.

-Jeff
P.S. And if all it takes is massaging a Coder's feet I'd be more than willing to pick up that cause.

[Eeva]

Honestly, I wouldn't really split them up at all.

They're all Knights regardless of how they attained it.

I DO see how a Guard Knight while in the Guard would be prohibited from having Squires as it could be presumed that the Sergeants and Yeomen beneath them are akin to Squires.

However, that to me should only be while they are in the Guard.

Taking Knights from each of the three catagories as listed and comparing them is silly. Because you really can't. For example..

Sir Cyril, Sir Vestio, Sir Viceran = Knight through Service

Anyone who knows Cyril knows he is leagues different than Viceran and Vestio considering what Cyril did -to- get his Knighting. (No offense Cyril ;-) )

Sir Howe, Sir Lucus, Dame Umichan = Guard Knights

The attained this through tons of work which accumulated and generally have it their duty (even prior to Knighting) to protect the "realm" (even if it is confined to a Castle currently). That is what a Knight does to me. Protects the realm in which they reside.

Dame Hannah, Sir Davog, Dame Elsie = Challenge Knights

Every one of these guys is vastly different from each other. (Aside the fact they all used to be Duelists), but anyway.

Hannah nor Davog are as martial as Elsie, Elsie nor Hannah are as subdued as Davog was etc. However, their accumulated "Knightly" work is on par to or below the Guard and Service Knights.

So, IMO they're all even and just because one goes through a challenge should not make this person more important in their title considering that when all boiled down it is service/favour.

1. RG Knights give service and gain favour and are then recommended for Knighthood based on what they do.

2. Knight of Service are knighted for their service and favoured by someone of high rank and get recommended for Knighting

3. Knights of Challenge are knighted for their service either to another Knight or are in some cases outright sponsored by someone who holds them in high favour.

^-- So far, they're still... all on par with each other.

So the seperation is really a bit.. pointless.

And to be honest, I watched the Knights Challenge and Squires Challenges and (not to offend anyone) but alot of the trials could have been easily passed by anyone if they paid attention to the Castle enough. So then it does boil down to favour (again).

So in short, a Knight is a Knight is a Knight.

[Dariel]

I disagree completely. I too 'grew up' with the idea that Knights of the Guard are -at best- second rate Knights, because, simply enough, their knighting is -as it has been and is being handled- just another promotion within their chain of command. Without knowing any and all surely great and important things they've done, I've found myself OOCly wondering about all PCs who ever made Knight of the Guard. It pretty much appeared and appears that after a year or so of working successfully in the RG, you get Knight by default. Or how else is it explicable that a person who was a wanted criminal only some 1.5 years ago can now get knighted?

Mind you, I'll OOCly disagree with Knights made by other means too. The Knight's Challenge is not perfect and nothing made by humans ever will be, and I don't like the idea per se, but at least it requires several more stipulations (sponsorship, successfully going through the trials) and is more transparent of a process.

The only two ways Knights should IMO be made is by either serving as a Squire until their Knight deems them worthy of Knighthood or by receiving a 'battlefield promotion' for outstanding deeds of courage. Incidentally, these are the 'classic' ways Knighthood was received in the real world Middle Ages, though Knighthood by favour was of course also known back then.

So yeah, for me to suspend my disbelief, there are two types of Knights in the Castle. One type is the classic depcition of the Knight from stories like those of King Arthur, the Ring of the Nibelungen or Ivanhoe. And one is just a military rank without any of the attached meaning, duties or privileges. Otherwise it just wouldn't make sense to me.


Have a nice day.

[Diedra]

My view on the Knights is generally in line with what Dariel said above. One of the reasons I tend toward viewing the game setting (aside from the garb) in a British medieval state has to do with the Chain - since there was a very specific hierarchy that was followed called 'The Great Chain of Being.' Offhand I remember that St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the people that was attributed to writing it down, but I don't recall if there were others, and its moot anyway.

My point being that the Knight title in that Chain was, predominantly, one of a worker title. Surely there are stories of people who managed to gain the title of Knight without being Pages and Squires first, and most tend to do with rewards for great valor in a time of need. I think that category of title, that being Knight, tends to most closely align with where I would lump together those that win Knighthood by challenge or those promoted within the military.

On the other hand, because there are more long-term benefits for Knights given station by other means, I wish they would just use a different title. For instance, if a Sir Viceran has more intrinsic rights than Sir Lucus, then I don't think they should have the same title. One title involves rights that stay regardless of position and indicate either the creation of a line more like nobility, and the other is granted for progression in duty. For instance, for Viceran he's already at the top of his progression of duty in work related things, the Knight title is separate and grants him a long-term intrinsic right, even moreso than what is allowed for the RG Knights. That said, I really wish we using more titles (and yes, I know I've been complaining and begging about that for a long time).

In 'The Great Chain of Being' it was...

King/Queen
Prince/Princess
Duke/Duchess
Marquises/Marchionesses
Earls/Countesses
Viscounts/Viscountesses
Barons/Baronesses
Abbots/Deacons
Knights/Local Officials
Ladies-in-Waiting
Priests/Monks
Squires
Pages
.... yadda yadda all the way down to rocks.

Of course, in that chain, the associated titles from Baron and up would be applicable upon marriage as well. So, considering that, the next applicable step (non-religious) above a Knight would be a Baron, and that is a title that indicates social status which grants greater rights (and as an extension of a lineage or the creation of a noble line, depending) than that of a Knight. So eh, I guess in most ways I perceive Knights who didn't get that by RG or Challenge more as Barons or above.

Anyway, so that's my two bits on it.

~Nicole

[Eeva]

So basically we only have one type of Knight in your opinion.


Guard Knights.

Solves that.


Or to get really specific *paraphrase* Favour Knights were also known.. *paraphrase*

As noted, they're all in essence favour Knights and we're back to noone being second rate regardless how anyone "grew up".

Last time I saw any of our super Knights do anything to protect anyone was during the Shadow plot, but I don't think in the past three crisis' (probably more) over the past two years that really counts much for having them be anything other than 6th linkers who can order pretty clothes.

No offense, but I don't consider any Knight higher than any other Knight. I probably won't until the Queen comes down and annoints one herself.

We're not "historically" speaking of Knights anyway.

I think we'd all be alot better off if we detached from -everything- being RL related. Some things, fine. But we usually wind up talking everything to death and getting nowhere because it is always being based on RL stuff.

"Well, in THIS period we didn't HAVE this type of garment." or "In historic times Knights did this and this." Well, we're niether in an RL period or an RL historic time so it's all fairly moot.

So, back to Marrachian Knights?

[Diedra]

Originally posted by Eeva
So basically we only have one type of Knight in your opinion.


Guard Knights.

Solves that.

Pretty much. The ones who win it by challenge end up in the same category as those who IC gain it by non-RG service since both of those apparently have more IC rights/priveleges. My point was simply that I never have understood why it is that the same title is used when one gives more power than the other. Just another way to add confusion.

[Eeva]

Ya. I personally don't really think any Knight is better than another (unless they're also enobled, but that doesn't really count) or very old. But the VP Knights obviously have a seniority bit over the "new" Knights.

>_> Thousands of years does that for a person I think.

So if they're all treated the same (with the exception of Squires while in the Guard) it'd cut down confusion. Or.. if someone who knows for certain why they are all viewed that way put up a reason. That'd work too.

Alternatively, we could cut out Knights from the Guard, but I think that'd be shafting people.

[Dariel]

This is where I mention that the idea of a standing army is pretty much lost between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Absolutism with Louis XIV of France, right? As such, there is no medieval example that coincides with CM's RG and/or the Knights of the Guard. That is discounting the Knights Templar and similar organizations, but they in turn didn't nominally owe fealty to any worldly rulers. Neither did the ever-present mercenary bands who represent 'the' professional soldier of the Middle Ages.


Which is probably the problem with Knights of the Guard. Lacking an appropriate historical European counterpart, people have a harder time placing them to begin with. And an easier time just dismissing them.


Have a nice day.

[Diedra]

While I used the example of the British version, I'm not saying they have to follow that to the letter. Merely that it would seem that if they are going to go and say that one Knight has more intrinsic right than another - then it doesn't make sense to call them both Knights. Why not just use an existing title (I used the example of Baron) or create a new title for all I care, that is an indicator of lesser nobility (which would essentially be what they would be as having more power than a Knight).

I can't agree with getting rid of the titles of Knight for the RG though, because to me, those make more sense in the concept of a person being a Knight. On the other hand, to suggest that we make the RG Knights equal to the others without also raising the rights of those other Knights, would be to demean the the non-RG Knights by making their 'lessers' suddenly their 'peers.' Even though I can't see it happening, I'd just flat out prefer it if Queenie got some random desire to call courtly Knights something else and gave them a separate title above Knights of the RG so that the distinction is more clear. That way, the current 'courtly' Knights wouldn't be offended, and the RG Knights would keep that title.

[John]

For the record, the reason people dont know why favor knights are knights is a CM flaw. In CM we have a tendancy to hide storys and live with secrets. So taking viceran and vestio for an example. There are a handfull of people who know the final things that pushed them to knighthood, so the public at large just knows "They have favor."


Actally an idea that will prob never come to pass, is an article written IG about a knight and how they actally got to be a knight.

[Rosalind]

*peeks*

Personally, in Castle Marrach society, I think of all the Knights differently. Based on how they came to have their rank in part and what I think of their character.

In the end though, all Knights can order the same metals, dyes, and fabrics and the same laws apply to each of them, including "Insult to a Knight".

For example, I would rate each Knight based on other Knights and personal perceptions. Lucus would be lower than Alrik. Alrik is thousands of years older and has served longer. He's also fought bravely in many battles. Lucus has yet to do so. If you choose to group some Knights by category, that's still personal perception, but I bet most of you think differently of Umichan and Lucus, based on other factors, though both are RG Knights.

I'm so glad Rosalind was never Knighted. Another position that grants Knighthood, hint hint, is the Master of Heraldry. Intrinsic 6th Link, Job Rank 4th Link. Heraldry is always looking for people, especially in the absence of... well, everyone.

Including me still.

*waves*

[Fez]

I'll give some possible differences between a RG knight and other knights. (I can also go on similarities)

Made a knight by....

This is a basic question of infeudation... who made you a knight.

A knight of the Royal Guard seems to be made by the Lord Marshal. Note Sir Alrik's posting. He on his own authority raised Lucus and Howe. Thus they are granted intrinsic rank as semi-vassals to him.

I totally forget, but I guess that Vestio and Viceran were raised by Lord Boreas who is a Lord as opposed to Sir Alrik, who is a knight and who is royalty too. Thus they are perhaps a bit higher in the chain of vassalage.

Knights made directly by Her Majesty are direct vassals of Hers, and thus would have a bit more glory to their knighting.

Acts under the authority of...
EDITED
An individual knight is much like a knight errant here. They are supported by their liege (get room and board and weapons, etc), but aren't part of the army. They act under their own authority. They go off and add glory to their liege by their individual actions

I see a knight of the royal guard as a bachelor knight, and member of the Army first. They aren't expected to go off on their own, but serve with the forces of the keep to protect it. They are the leaders of the commoner troops for Her Majesty. When they act, they act with the authority of the Army first.

Granting Alrik a blade
This goes a bit with Her Majesty's recently formally investing Sir Alrik with his blade as Lord Marshal. Where before he was simply a knight of the royal guard, made by the previous Lord Marshal, now the Queen has granted him a blade in a ceremony much like a formal granting of blade to a knight of the realm. This is perhaps raising him to a peer of the knights of the realm for his long service as Lord Marshal. It also indicates the difference between being raised by the Queen and one of her vassals.

The entire question of favor knights and other things isn't really feudal. Knights exist in a heirarchy of vassalage. Just follow the chain of infeudation. If you're made a knight by the Queen, that is best. If you're made a knight by another royal, that is next. If you're made a knight by the Guard, that is third. It seems other nobles and knights aren't granted the authority to infeudate a new knight.

Also there is no reason knights themselves shouldn't jockey a bit IC about this. There is the intrinsic glory of who made you, but there is also the individual glory you earn. Much of knights dueling and adventuring and taking chances in the arthurian tales was about that gaining of glory.

Jonathan