Keluric wrote:The thing to remember is that the corpora is a living document, it is controlled by the Monarch and the will of the people of Westmarch.
This adds a requirement that the WM-CoK be consulted for potential knew knights, and those knights must also be active members of our Kingdom.
If this creates a situation where it is as Sir Randall fears could happen, then the Monarch and the people can ammend the corpora to have to function another way. As a young kingdom, I see no harm in restricting our immediate use of Kingdom level authorities. They should be hard to apply on a whim. We will have one chance to show our true colors as a Kingdom initially, and I think that requiring more, not less, input and approval is a good thing.
Keluric wrote:Please understand, I am debating the side I am largely for the ability to boiler-plate either concept. This type of discussion needs to happen in order to make the transition to this new copora sound.
Etah wrote:To me it doesn't logically follow that one person with sole authority would have less of a potential for corruption than a group of people. To expound on a point I made earlier in this thread, there is too many separate agendas in even our current Circe of Knights for any single narrative to take over.
Laoric wrote:Etah wrote:To me it doesn't logically follow that one person with sole authority would have less of a potential for corruption than a group of people. To expound on a point I made earlier in this thread, there is too many separate agendas in even our current Circe of Knights for any single narrative to take over.
Removing a monarch is way easier than removing a knighthood. Monarch terms are 6 months, knighthood is for life. Monarchs will want to get knighted and will rubber stamp the CoK's choices in the interest of getting their support.
These are all reasons why giving the power to knight to the circle are bad.
deimos wrote:By the same rationale, a monarch (who is temporary) will make a permanent decision. And the idea of "removing" a monarch after they have made a "bad knighting" is closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. If the goal is to attempt to minimize the "bad knightings", then the decision can't rest on one person with zero culpability after the fact. You said it yourself, removing a knighthood is hard. It should be just as difficult to attain.
deimos wrote:A CoK approval and a monarch approval is a good check and balance. If time goes by and the populace of Westmarch thinks the CoK is stonewalling or vetoing every candidate, then an Althing can be brought forth to change the corpora. At the onset, we should at least *try* something different to show that Westmarch doesn't want to be a kingdom just so we can churn out knights. If we try and the method is no more successful than others, then at least we held ourselves to a higher standard and tried to do the right thing.
Laoric wrote:deimos wrote:By the same rationale, a monarch (who is temporary) will make a permanent decision. And the idea of "removing" a monarch after they have made a "bad knighting" is closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. If the goal is to attempt to minimize the "bad knightings", then the decision can't rest on one person with zero culpability after the fact. You said it yourself, removing a knighthood is hard. It should be just as difficult to attain.
The disadvantages for a monarch to go rogue are a strong check. As Randall has said, both systems have produced bad knights. The idea is to create a good culture of choosing knights.
Yet, and those disadvantages dont take effect until after they have acted. This system does promote a good culture of choosing knights - by making it the responsibility of more than one person. If one side has a difference of opinion, then it is up to those two parties to come together and discuss it.deimos wrote:A CoK approval and a monarch approval is a good check and balance. If time goes by and the populace of Westmarch thinks the CoK is stonewalling or vetoing every candidate, then an Althing can be brought forth to change the corpora. At the onset, we should at least *try* something different to show that Westmarch doesn't want to be a kingdom just so we can churn out knights. If we try and the method is no more successful than others, then at least we held ourselves to a higher standard and tried to do the right thing.
Appealing to a sense of difference is cool, but not really a good reason to do something. Most people's teenage years are examples of this. ;P Personally, I don't think either system creates a sense that Westmarch will begin churning out knights. Remember that when the Desert Winds got kingdom status they specifically didn't knight anyone until a year had gone by out of respect for the office of knighthood.
This is good discussion. Regardless of what method gets chosen, I think it'll be cool to see it in action someday.
deimos wrote:
Wow, way to reduce a concept of innovation and genuine effort to comparing it to teenage angst and misguided attempts at non-conformity. You are totally right, we shouldn't attempt anything new or different in hopes it provides excellent results.
Guyvas wrote:I feel Grand Duke is too easy to get; look at the people that are Grand Dukes/ Duchesses there are about 50 (46) in a game of several thousand so maybe instead of 2 terms do 3 or 4 full terms as kingdom monarch.
evil Randy wrote:I would also love it if the COK would draft a code of chivalry that could be used by perspective knights as a guideline. Otherwise how are we suppose to know what the COK expects of its peers?
Return to Westmarch Kingdom Corpora
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests