From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 16:21:11 EDT
There has been a good deal of talk lately about the actions of the Overlord. More than a few people seem to strongly disapprove of the petty and selfish way that she flexed her muscles during Zen's challenge to Ariadne, myself among them. One or two individuals have even gone so far as to say that her Loyal Barons should go Renegade because of her actions. However, it is important to note that, with the exception of
Unagi, none of her Loyal Barons are anymore fit to hold title than she is. I know that it would take more than a change in Deluthan or Ariadne's alignment for me to think they honored their titles. As for Unagi, well, he almost has to be Loyal to Taylara. She is, after all, a retainer to his house. Her loyalty to him somewhat demands his to her.
Loyalty, as a few people have mentioned, needs to be a two way street. This doesn't mean giving someone your loyalty in order to gain theirs, but it does mean choosing to be loyal to someone for a reason. Drakewyn has said that loyalty is not a two way street, that loyalty is fealty. Well, speaking as someone with a lifelong experience of feudalism and fealty, I can tell you that fealty is very much a two way street. While this is a sport and
analogies to political systems will always be imperfect, I will use France as an example.
Fealty and the feudal system are driven by the most nervous types of self-interest. The peasants are loyal to the king in the hopes he will protect them from the great lords. The great lords are loyal to the king in the hopes that he will protect them from foreign enemies. The king attempts to win the loyalty of the great lords because he fears the peasants and hopes to inspire the patriotism of the peasants because he fears the great lords. While
the baron's oath of loyalty binds him to come at the king's call, the king's oath as liege binds him to defend the baron. Very much a two way street. No baron would swear fealty to a king who does not do his duty by his vassals.
So, what does that have to do with this situation? The problem here is that Taylara 'defended' her Loyal Baron when Ariadne claimed to prefer to fight her own battle. This is within Taylara's rights as Overlord, but it is exceedingly selfish. Taylara has said herself, in an attempt to make it some kind of accusation against Zen, that the reason for her Intercession was that Zen was going to challenge her if he beat Ariadne. On the one hand she said
that everyone knew this, yet on the other she claimed this intention as proof that Zen was 'deceitful'. This attempt to justify her actions at the expense of the challenger is somewhat thin. If 'everyone knew' Zen's intentions, then he must not have made any effort to hide or conceal them. If no effort to hide or conceal them was made, how was he deceitful?
This is a case of the Overlord doing what she wanted to do, because she wanted to do it. Perhaps she really thought Ariadne needed help, perhaps she was afraid to be challenged by Zen, perhaps she just felt like it. It isn't really terribly important. However, either her attempt to justify her actions is intended to be deceitful itself or it is one of the most poorly worded posts I have ever read. The very fact that she feels the need to attempt to
justify her actions at Zen's expense would tend to hint that she might, possibly, realize she was in the wrong herself.
All I can say is this: Best of luck to Madameoiselle Capitan Morgan!
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
The Subject of Loyalty
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: darylkyle@aol.com (Daryl Kyle)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 16:32:52 EDT
::nods with a clap at Percy's words of fielty and the feudal system::
Daryl Kyle
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
Former Baron of the 6th Baronial Ring
Knight of Paladine
Date: 29 Jul 2000 16:32:52 EDT
::nods with a clap at Percy's words of fielty and the feudal system::
Daryl Kyle
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
Former Baron of the 6th Baronial Ring
Knight of Paladine
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 16:44:16 EDT
>Unagi, well, he almost has to be Loyal to Taylara. She is, after all, a
>retainer to his house. Her loyalty to him somewhat demands his to her.
Percy,
At the start of your missive you display your lack of knowledge so I feel no need to go on...
~Tay~
Date: 29 Jul 2000 16:44:16 EDT
>Unagi, well, he almost has to be Loyal to Taylara. She is, after all, a
>retainer to his house. Her loyalty to him somewhat demands his to her.
Percy,
At the start of your missive you display your lack of knowledge so I feel no need to go on...
~Tay~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 17:41:01 EDT
>This is within Taylara's rights as Overlord, but it is exceedingly selfish.
And?
You've already stated that self-interest is at the very heart of feudalism.. That being the case, one should be expecting selfish actions.
To say something is a two way street is to imply that all things are equal as among two parties. Such a claim in regard to fealty could not be further from the truth. I do not wish to say that a King owes no duty to his lords, but rather that the two duties are so indifferent that they can hardly be referred to as a "two way street." A King may order action of a Lord, were the opposite attempted, said Lord may find himself in an early grave.
Taking the Feudal argument to a point could actually show that it is Ariadne who should be questioned here.. not Taylara. Here we have a known enemy of the Queen marching on the walls and the Lady does not employ every measure in her power to oppose him. A poor vassal that, to be sure. Such disservice to the Queen might call to question the true loyalties of her Ladyship.
In such a scenario, I would offer the Lady as the one truly selfish. "No no, My queen. No need for your assistance, I can handle this threat myself." Such statements come from fools who fancy themselves brave. More interested in proving their own prowess in battle than in protecting the crown.
Of course, perhaps the purpose of the duel of swords is just that... to prove one's prowess in battle. It was not I who made the initial comparison to fealty.
~Kalamere Ar'Din
Date: 29 Jul 2000 17:41:01 EDT
>This is within Taylara's rights as Overlord, but it is exceedingly selfish.
And?
You've already stated that self-interest is at the very heart of feudalism.. That being the case, one should be expecting selfish actions.
To say something is a two way street is to imply that all things are equal as among two parties. Such a claim in regard to fealty could not be further from the truth. I do not wish to say that a King owes no duty to his lords, but rather that the two duties are so indifferent that they can hardly be referred to as a "two way street." A King may order action of a Lord, were the opposite attempted, said Lord may find himself in an early grave.
Taking the Feudal argument to a point could actually show that it is Ariadne who should be questioned here.. not Taylara. Here we have a known enemy of the Queen marching on the walls and the Lady does not employ every measure in her power to oppose him. A poor vassal that, to be sure. Such disservice to the Queen might call to question the true loyalties of her Ladyship.
In such a scenario, I would offer the Lady as the one truly selfish. "No no, My queen. No need for your assistance, I can handle this threat myself." Such statements come from fools who fancy themselves brave. More interested in proving their own prowess in battle than in protecting the crown.
Of course, perhaps the purpose of the duel of swords is just that... to prove one's prowess in battle. It was not I who made the initial comparison to fealty.
~Kalamere Ar'Din
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 17:46:03 EDT
"At the start of your missive you display your lack of knowledge so I feel no need to go on..."
Would it be beneath you to educate as well as criticize, or were you just pining for an excuse to brush off his posting?
~ Lupton
Date: 29 Jul 2000 17:46:03 EDT
"At the start of your missive you display your lack of knowledge so I feel no need to go on..."
Would it be beneath you to educate as well as criticize, or were you just pining for an excuse to brush off his posting?
~ Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 17:49:35 EDT
To put it bluntly...
Percy, your worldview skews your perception. Having been taught of many cultures by my father, I find that the one I am Grand Duchess of is most like the one that Baron Miyamoto comes from.
Loyalty is unswerving, unwavering and most of all undemanding.
It is my belief that, once you give your Loyalty to someone it is for life. If the person you are Loyal to does something that you think is wrong, then you set it aside and go on. If you question the actions of the person you are Loyal to, then you must weigh the reasons you declared your Loyalty in the first place.
I will state it again. One who is truely Loyal to another will set down their very life, while never asking anything in return.
One can be a friend, or a supporter, and still act as you seem to believe... but once Loyalty is sworn, it should never be recinded.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 29 Jul 2000 17:49:35 EDT
To put it bluntly...
Percy, your worldview skews your perception. Having been taught of many cultures by my father, I find that the one I am Grand Duchess of is most like the one that Baron Miyamoto comes from.
Loyalty is unswerving, unwavering and most of all undemanding.
It is my belief that, once you give your Loyalty to someone it is for life. If the person you are Loyal to does something that you think is wrong, then you set it aside and go on. If you question the actions of the person you are Loyal to, then you must weigh the reasons you declared your Loyalty in the first place.
I will state it again. One who is truely Loyal to another will set down their very life, while never asking anything in return.
One can be a friend, or a supporter, and still act as you seem to believe... but once Loyalty is sworn, it should never be recinded.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zenithi@aol.com (Zenith I)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 19:16:55 EDT
Loyalty in the Duel of Swords is a difficult thing to explain, because the very circumstances are unlike any other in which Loyalty may be definitively given. The Duel of Swords is not a feudal system; the titles themselves carry no real power unless a patron chooses to let him or herself be guided by said titleholder.
Because the situation is unlike any other, the very nature of loyalties is different as well.
Date: 29 Jul 2000 19:16:55 EDT
Loyalty in the Duel of Swords is a difficult thing to explain, because the very circumstances are unlike any other in which Loyalty may be definitively given. The Duel of Swords is not a feudal system; the titles themselves carry no real power unless a patron chooses to let him or herself be guided by said titleholder.
Because the situation is unlike any other, the very nature of loyalties is different as well.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 19:51:32 EDT
Kal~
Taylara is the Supreme Dueler, not a queen. I truly cannot stand it when people try to make this sport a kingdom. It is nowhere near one. Loyalty here should be earned by respect, not by title.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 29 Jul 2000 19:51:32 EDT
Kal~
Taylara is the Supreme Dueler, not a queen. I truly cannot stand it when people try to make this sport a kingdom. It is nowhere near one. Loyalty here should be earned by respect, not by title.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shadowrun@aol.com (Shadowrun)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 20:42:33 EDT
>Taylara is the Supreme Dueler, not a queen. I truly cannot stand it when
>people try to make this sport a kingdom. It is nowhere near one. Loyalty here
>should be earned by respect, not by title.
- Sidartha
> In such a scenario, I would offer the Lady as
> the one truly selfish. "No no, My queen. No
> need for your assistance, I can handle this
> threat myself." Such statements come from
> fools who fancy themselves brave. More
> interested in proving their own prowess in
> battle than in protecting the crown.
>
> Of course, perhaps the purpose of the duel
> of swords is just that... to prove one's
> prowess in battle. It was not I who made
> the initial comparison to fealty.
- Kalamere
Milady Sidartha,
Perhaps you did not read Milord Kalamere Ar'Din's missive fully, in your haste to press the point that we do not live under a duelist Monarchy?
I am in complete agreement that the Crown, as it were, is one of duelist prowess and respected title in a sport.
However, you appear to have grossly misunderstood Kalamere's statement. I would reread his last sentence carefully, and reconsider your assumption regarding his position on this matter.
With regards,
Fandral Kurgan
Date: 29 Jul 2000 20:42:33 EDT
>Taylara is the Supreme Dueler, not a queen. I truly cannot stand it when
>people try to make this sport a kingdom. It is nowhere near one. Loyalty here
>should be earned by respect, not by title.
- Sidartha
> In such a scenario, I would offer the Lady as
> the one truly selfish. "No no, My queen. No
> need for your assistance, I can handle this
> threat myself." Such statements come from
> fools who fancy themselves brave. More
> interested in proving their own prowess in
> battle than in protecting the crown.
>
> Of course, perhaps the purpose of the duel
> of swords is just that... to prove one's
> prowess in battle. It was not I who made
> the initial comparison to fealty.
- Kalamere
Milady Sidartha,
Perhaps you did not read Milord Kalamere Ar'Din's missive fully, in your haste to press the point that we do not live under a duelist Monarchy?
I am in complete agreement that the Crown, as it were, is one of duelist prowess and respected title in a sport.
However, you appear to have grossly misunderstood Kalamere's statement. I would reread his last sentence carefully, and reconsider your assumption regarding his position on this matter.
With regards,
Fandral Kurgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 31 Jul 2000 08:09:19 EDT
Sidartha said: "Taylara is the Supreme Dueler, not a queen. I truly cannot stand it when people try to make this sport a kingdom. It is nowhere near one. Loyalty here should be earned by respect, not by title."
Loyalty is still loyalty, no matter how it is earned or given.
The half-hearted loyalty that is so often shown here is hardly worthy of the term.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 31 Jul 2000 08:09:19 EDT
Sidartha said: "Taylara is the Supreme Dueler, not a queen. I truly cannot stand it when people try to make this sport a kingdom. It is nowhere near one. Loyalty here should be earned by respect, not by title."
Loyalty is still loyalty, no matter how it is earned or given.
The half-hearted loyalty that is so often shown here is hardly worthy of the term.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: unagim@aol.com (Unagi M)
Date: 31 Jul 2000 15:57:51 EDT
heh...
When did shogun Taylara-san become retainer to House Miyamoto? Strange I know nothing of this....
Date: 31 Jul 2000 15:57:51 EDT
heh...
When did shogun Taylara-san become retainer to House Miyamoto? Strange I know nothing of this....
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijahbasiauhr@aol.com (Elijah Basia Uhr)
Date: 31 Jul 2000 16:24:22 EDT
The only political affliation I have ever known Taylara to be apart of is Atrebla. How did it come about in rumor that she was of House Miyamoto?
~Elijah Basia-Uhr~
Warlord of Swords
Humanity is a virus, I just happen to be a feral strand in this very sick world.
Date: 31 Jul 2000 16:24:22 EDT
The only political affliation I have ever known Taylara to be apart of is Atrebla. How did it come about in rumor that she was of House Miyamoto?
~Elijah Basia-Uhr~
Warlord of Swords
Humanity is a virus, I just happen to be a feral strand in this very sick world.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: khrystawlf@aol.com (KhrystaWlf)
Date: 31 Jul 2000 19:22:23 EDT
Actually, Elijah, Atrebla itself isn't of a political affiliation. Atrebla is a school of dueling that was run by the late Dex Montoya, and is now run by his family and friends. It was also the co-sponsor of Team Atrebla in the Team Dueling League, which Taylara was a duelist for last season. The other sponsor of Team Atrebla is the GoT (Guardians of Truth).
Although there has been discussion in the past of asking Taylara (who is close to the GoT) to join officially, she isn't currently a member.
I hope that clears that little bit of this discussion up.
Khrysta Wûlfgar
Branch Commander - Main GoT Strike Force
Date: 31 Jul 2000 19:22:23 EDT
Actually, Elijah, Atrebla itself isn't of a political affiliation. Atrebla is a school of dueling that was run by the late Dex Montoya, and is now run by his family and friends. It was also the co-sponsor of Team Atrebla in the Team Dueling League, which Taylara was a duelist for last season. The other sponsor of Team Atrebla is the GoT (Guardians of Truth).
Although there has been discussion in the past of asking Taylara (who is close to the GoT) to join officially, she isn't currently a member.
I hope that clears that little bit of this discussion up.
Khrysta Wûlfgar
Branch Commander - Main GoT Strike Force
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shadowrun@aol.com (Shadowrun)
Date: 31 Jul 2000 21:05:01 EDT
>Khrysta Wûlfgar
>Branch Commander - Main GoT Strike Force
Milady Wulfgar,
I pray you pardon my impudence in asking...
Is a Branch Commander more like an Assistant Branch Manager or a Field Commander?
I was unaware that our fair land had organized strike forces stationed nearby, let alone units with "main" and presumably "reserve" strike forces.
Now that I hear that such forces are so closely tied to our overall civil sport, I am uncertain as to whether I should sleep more soundly or not at all.
Sincerely,
Fandral Kurgan
Date: 31 Jul 2000 21:05:01 EDT
>Khrysta Wûlfgar
>Branch Commander - Main GoT Strike Force
Milady Wulfgar,
I pray you pardon my impudence in asking...
Is a Branch Commander more like an Assistant Branch Manager or a Field Commander?
I was unaware that our fair land had organized strike forces stationed nearby, let alone units with "main" and presumably "reserve" strike forces.
Now that I hear that such forces are so closely tied to our overall civil sport, I am uncertain as to whether I should sleep more soundly or not at all.
Sincerely,
Fandral Kurgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 31 Jul 2000 22:20:04 EDT
Guilds...
Revolting, isn't it?
G
Date: 31 Jul 2000 22:20:04 EDT
Guilds...
Revolting, isn't it?
G