[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: heartache

Poster: Aelfgar GreySeas <aelfgar@access.digex.net>

Galmyr writes:
> I think we have had enough bashing for now.  Why don't we come up with 
> some reasonable plans of action for policing our own behavior and those 
> of our friends to be sure everyone has a better time at the next event.

In that spirit, I have a thought or two for general consideration. Before I
begin, let me say that I am not a heavy fighter (I was for a while, but that
was long ago), and I do not know if the ideas below will make much sense in
the current environment. I put them forward as a basis for conversation, and
if they deserve it, as a starting point for brainstorming.

First, I am impressed with the notion, mentioned elsewhere, that individual
fighters can have an impact by adjusting their personal acknowledgement
 downward, in the expectation that others will follow suit. Such a decision,
 if widely enough spread, would be very helpful.

Second, I wonder if a change of definition might be helpful. It occurs to me
that our tournament fighting, as currently defined, is closer to the 
gladitorial games of ancient Rome than to the tourneys of High Chivalric
period. The bouts are contests to the death, where a _killing blow_ determines
the victor.

For reasons I only dimly comprehend, the definition of _killing blow_ has,
over time, become heavier and heavier, and the dynamics of who wins and who
loses do tend to push that trend in a way many have found disturbing.

Suppose we were to redefine what it is we simulate when we fight-that instead
of simulating combat to the death, we simulate martial contests among friendly
competitors? In such a contest, with weapons of war, the best of warriors are
those who can demonstrate their martial prowess without doing serious harm to
their opponents. Death is still possible, but not the intended outcome.

Such a change would allow us to redefine a _good_ blow at some generally
accepted level of force, acknowledged to be less than lethal. It would also
open the possibility, if we were of a mind, to define some level of force as
too much, by saying that killing your opponent is not as good as successfully 
hitting him with adequate but sublethal force. (No, I haven't the faintest
notion of the details, but the possibility is there.)

Well, there it is. I know this doesn't address fighting in wars, and the ideas
are less than detailed, but maybe it will do for a start.

Thanks, one and all, for your patience.

I remain yours in service,


List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org