[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Greetings to the Merry Rose,
First of all, I would like to inform his Highness, and any one else
who is distressed by this conversation, that in fact I tend to support
the current system for chosing our Crown the way it is.
That does not, however, prevent me from having fun thinking about
Both Alfredo and Jonathan have wondered about the notion of having
more viscounts kicking around. They both seem to think that this
might not be a good thing.
(I don't know where you got this idea about me. Check your posts...
To insert a chunk of an earlier post,
However, if the Princes were territorial, even if they didn't get to
be King, they would get retirement titles. That is, they would become
(We're not talking about ACTUALLY, Contractually, and legally
splitting the kingdom into principalities, are we? People tend to
think of the kingdom in terms of thirds anyway - Northern, Central,
and Southern - and yet they're not legally separate critters.)
(Oh, BTW, so what if they become Viscounts? The world needs more
[I can see [sort of] where you'd get the idea that I wasn't in favor
of it, [primarily from the ";>", but rest assured the concept doesn't
bother me. If anything, I think there aren't ENOUGH titles in the
SCA. What about Margrave (Margravine), or any one of a couple dozen
names I could think of? I like the concept...it adds flavor. [plus,
the 'viscount' title provides a rough sort of sobriety test! ;> ]
Frankly, considering how much I've come to respect both Viscount
Wolfbrandr and Viscountess Leia, I can't imagine any reason not to
have more of them around.
Jonathan seems to think having a bunch of intra-kingdom wars on the
schedule would be a good idea. Considering the fact that for the last
few years we have not been allowed (by the Crown) to have
Inter-baronial wars, just because of the bad blood they engender, the
idea of inter-regional wars does not wash well. Wars, including
Pennsic, start to get stall and nasty if repeated to often. I don't
object to the idea of an occasional war, especially if the groups form
at each one. Annual, and semi-annual wars are just not that great an
(I'm quoting various Royal peers about that one ;-)
[OK-I can accept the concept that wars that continually divide the
groups the same way over and over (witness Pennsic & Atlantia having
fought w/the East for ...how long? I don't know) tend to turn the
situation unpleasant at best, and downright bad at worst. So have a
COIN FLIP @ THE BEGINNING OR Whatever...of course, then we'll just get
into the standard "His coin cheats!" or something...
Anyway- Properly moderated, wars are quite a lot of fun. I remember
going to Boat Wars last year - it was supposed to be the Normans and
the Saxons, or was it the Vikings? Whoever...I don't remember who was
supposed to be on what side, because we ended up shifting quite a few
people around to even the sides up numbers-wise, and after that we
reassigned some more as people got tired and dropped out. I
personally was in on at least two side changes.
Folx, if the war just isn't fun any more, declare victory for one side
(which side should be fairly obvious at the time) and let everybody go
fight where they want. You'll meet a lot more people and make a lot
more friends that way [again, properly handled. Not to toot my
knight's horn (at least, not in public...;>) but Kane can usually
manage to split things up so that one side isn't kicking the crap out
of the other repeatedly. Note that I said repeatedly...
I think Atlantia SHOULD have principalities. I think there should be
more then one, maybe as many as four. I think they should be drawn in
such a way as to encourage cross border movement and to discourage
ideas of going Kingdom.
As for the idea of having three Crown tourneys, and letting anyone go
to any of the tourneys, have you considered the ways to game this.
Three knights of the same household decide to go to different
tourneys, rather then meet in their local one?
[then if they're hot sticks, it's a better idea than concentrating
them in one area, where they're likely to run people over; and if
they're not, so what?]
Will you allow losers from the earlier tourneys to travel to other
tourneys? Lots of opportunity for gaming in that scenario.
[Not that I'm arguing about the opportunities, but again, why not?]
Will you all the winner of an earlier tourney to fight in a later one?
LOTS of opportunity for gaming in THAT scenario.
[Why would we allow it? Why would the victor want to? To reduce his
competition? I don't think that any honorable knight would want to
win that way. Besides, a three-way war is more fun!]
As for having the winners of the Crown tourneys who do not become
Crown Prince get no title at all, well, heck, whats the point of
Leifr: Is the point of fighting to *win*, or to do your best?
Because if the point of fighting is to win, then you're going to start
having a lot of really depressed people running around thinking dark
I recently figured out (mirabile visu!) that the point of fighting
isn't to beat the other guy, it's to come out of the practice (or
tournament) a better fighter than when you went in. In that respect,
I haven't been fighting very well for a while; I hadn't figured that
little trick out yet. I was getting quite annoyed at myself and
couldn't remember the last time I had had fun at a fighter practice.
The reason I hadn't had fun in awhile was because I quit putting
emphasis on learning and more on winning, and that just doesn't work
unless you're the God of Death.
Fortunately, I have quite a few friends that (in their shrewd and
subtle ways) pointed out that fighting to win is garbage. Fight your
best, and if it's good enough, you'll win.
To unsubscribe to the Kingdom of Atlantia mailing list, send a message
to email@example.com with no subject and the body consisting of: