SyrRhys: When you say "wrong" do you mean "morally repugnant", historically "inaccurate", or simply "not the way I want it to be"?
Also, are you sure that "courage" is the word that you want to use to describe the trait that Owen is employing as he speaks his mind?
The total effect of that sentence as written is to imply that "You are in a morally lower position than I; however, I must grudgingly grant that you were brave enough to defend what should be morally indefensible." Did you mean to come of sounding that condescending?
Which brings us back to Owen's point: The SCA was founded on a combination of 60's Berkeley culture and the romantic ideal of chivalry (and I will add that Prof. Tolkien's works almost certainly flavored the mix a little). Right or wrong, the result was a rules structure for our game that has some pretty amazing characteristics: It's held together for 30-odd years; it is coherent, yet non exclusive; and it is flexible enough to allow you to play just about whatever kind of game you want _within_ the game.
The thing is that the spirit that keeps the SCA alive is a delicate one. The group structure is founded on an artificial culture that is as shaky as a house of cards. Would we be more accurate if the rules structure more depicted medieval life and culture as it really was, if we were able to treat some portion of the population -- say, the newbies -- as peasants, to be commanded and generally condescended to: Probably. Would the SCA continue in the long run? Probably not.
Try it out: Find a bunch of like minded folks and form a household divided into estates. In time, if people like the way you play, then the more and more people can join your household and you will have effectively changed the SCA. I honestly wish you well in your endeavor, although I think that it would present a daunting challenge.
Personally, I don't mind combat archery, but I also don't mind having events that exclude it. We are fortunate enough to be in a group that is flexible enough to allow games within the game.
------------------
The defining characteristic of fanaticism is the inability to understand why everyone else is not a fanatic.
documentation of armour being defeated by arrows.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Noe:
SyrRhys: When you say "wrong" do you mean "morally repugnant", historically "inaccurate", or simply "not the way I want it to be"?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I mean historically inaccurate, which also means it's not the way I want it to be.
Yes. It's not the only adjective that applies ("honest" comes to mind), but it's the word I was looking for.
There was no attempt at condescension, but your analysis doesn't match my intent, either. A better way of putting it would be: "You're still arguing for something indefensibly inauthentic, however at least you have the courage to admit to that and not try to pretend that your position is defensible".
So? I'm glad they set it up... But, like so much else from the 60s they got it wrong. Doubtless a lot of the things we now "know" to be true will be proven to be wrong in time, and I hope the SCA will continue to improve on them.
The point is you're really saying the equivilant of "well, he's wearing armor designed after a Frazetta calendar, but that doesn't keep *you* from wearing something more authentic". That's just wrong. That fighter in Frazetta-esque armor ruins it for those around him, and he needs to be corrected (as gently as possible but as harshly as necessary) or expelled.
Why not? The ACW people treat new folks as raw recruits, and I suspect they have as many particpants as we do; they certainly have *many* more people who make a decent effort to do what they're supposed to be doing.
And why do you think the right way to treat the lower classes is to be insulting and mean? That doesn't follow at all. They need to be required to be respectful and deferential, but you don't have to play Simon Legree! That's the kind of idea that comes from too many movies where the Lord is always evil and the peasant is always pure and noble.
I don't believe we'll ever achieve our potential until we learn to expunge the unnecessary inaccuracies as we learn about them.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
SyrRhys: When you say "wrong" do you mean "morally repugnant", historically "inaccurate", or simply "not the way I want it to be"?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I mean historically inaccurate, which also means it's not the way I want it to be.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, are you sure that "courage" is the word that you want to use to describe the trait that Owen is employing as he speaks his mind?</font>
Yes. It's not the only adjective that applies ("honest" comes to mind), but it's the word I was looking for.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The total effect of that sentence as written is to imply that "You are in a morally lower position than I; however, I must grudgingly grant that you were brave enough to defend what should be morally indefensible." Did you mean to come of sounding that condescending?</font>
There was no attempt at condescension, but your analysis doesn't match my intent, either. A better way of putting it would be: "You're still arguing for something indefensibly inauthentic, however at least you have the courage to admit to that and not try to pretend that your position is defensible".
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Which brings us back to Owen's point: The SCA was founded on a combination of 60's Berkeley culture and the romantic ideal of chivalry (and I will add that Prof. Tolkien's works almost certainly flavored the mix a little). Right or wrong, the result was a rules structure for our game that has some pretty amazing characteristics: It's held together for 30-odd years; it is coherent, yet non exclusive; and it is flexible enough to allow you to play just about whatever kind of game you want _within_ the game.</font>
So? I'm glad they set it up... But, like so much else from the 60s they got it wrong. Doubtless a lot of the things we now "know" to be true will be proven to be wrong in time, and I hope the SCA will continue to improve on them.
The point is you're really saying the equivilant of "well, he's wearing armor designed after a Frazetta calendar, but that doesn't keep *you* from wearing something more authentic". That's just wrong. That fighter in Frazetta-esque armor ruins it for those around him, and he needs to be corrected (as gently as possible but as harshly as necessary) or expelled.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The thing is that the spirit that keeps the SCA alive is a delicate one. The group structure is founded on an artificial culture that is as shaky as a house of cards. Would we be more accurate if the rules structure more depicted medieval life and culture as it really was, if we were able to treat some portion of the population -- say, the newbies -- as peasants, to be commanded and generally condescended to: Probably. Would the SCA continue in the long run? Probably not.</font>
Why not? The ACW people treat new folks as raw recruits, and I suspect they have as many particpants as we do; they certainly have *many* more people who make a decent effort to do what they're supposed to be doing.
And why do you think the right way to treat the lower classes is to be insulting and mean? That doesn't follow at all. They need to be required to be respectful and deferential, but you don't have to play Simon Legree! That's the kind of idea that comes from too many movies where the Lord is always evil and the peasant is always pure and noble.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Personally, I don't mind combat archery, but I also don't mind having events that exclude it. We are fortunate enough to be in a group that is flexible enough to allow games within the game.</font>
I don't believe we'll ever achieve our potential until we learn to expunge the unnecessary inaccuracies as we learn about them.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
sarnac
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5874
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Windsor, ON, Canada
- Contact:
and you fail to realize that the potential that YOU wish to reach is not the one that someone else may...
When are you going to realize that "my way or the highway" is unacceptable...
right or wrong... your version of this game is just as vaild as mine or anyone else's but NEVER moreso...
NEVER!
It is the sum of what you put into it...
It is the accumulation of what YOU decide your experiences should be....each person...individually.
When are you going to realize that "my way or the highway" is unacceptable...
right or wrong... your version of this game is just as vaild as mine or anyone else's but NEVER moreso...
NEVER!
It is the sum of what you put into it...
It is the accumulation of what YOU decide your experiences should be....each person...individually.
-
Karl-Magnus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Lakewood,OH
Gentlemen,
As a relative newbie to the martial side of the SCA and having never been to a "war" as some would call it, I propose this...
Allow CA, but modify the rules to account for the diference between the assumed armour standard and what is actually worn. I know this opens an entirely new can of worms regarding other weapons, but no-one seems to start 100+ reply threads about a great-sword.
For example: fighter A. wears a full hauberk and spangenhelm. Fighter B. wears full transitional harness and fighter C. wears full gothic or milanese plate....All three fighters ignore CA hits except on unarmoured areas or a bargrilled face. The all wear the Cadillac of armour for the time period their persona portrays. Let us reward them for the effort.
The group I currently play with (although they mean well) was agast when I showed up to the first fighter practice with all my plate armour. They are primarily an early period group. No doubt swayed by the style and taste of it's founding members. I portray an english billman durring the war of the roses period. " those full arms and legs are going to hurt you...you are going to be slow" they said. Of course I am Einstein.
My point is that, as written, the rules do not promote authenticity. The effectivly penalize the 14c and 15c persona's because of the presumed armour standard.
I know this leads to the acted wounds and counted blows arguments again but let's shelve that. Maybe this is an easy way to keep both sides happy. If acher X wants a piece of white harness Duke...you'd better aim really well! Maybe Mr. Armour Minimum should get stung instead!
Standing by to get crushed for talking out of turn...
J
RLTW
As a relative newbie to the martial side of the SCA and having never been to a "war" as some would call it, I propose this...
Allow CA, but modify the rules to account for the diference between the assumed armour standard and what is actually worn. I know this opens an entirely new can of worms regarding other weapons, but no-one seems to start 100+ reply threads about a great-sword.
For example: fighter A. wears a full hauberk and spangenhelm. Fighter B. wears full transitional harness and fighter C. wears full gothic or milanese plate....All three fighters ignore CA hits except on unarmoured areas or a bargrilled face. The all wear the Cadillac of armour for the time period their persona portrays. Let us reward them for the effort.
The group I currently play with (although they mean well) was agast when I showed up to the first fighter practice with all my plate armour. They are primarily an early period group. No doubt swayed by the style and taste of it's founding members. I portray an english billman durring the war of the roses period. " those full arms and legs are going to hurt you...you are going to be slow" they said. Of course I am Einstein.
My point is that, as written, the rules do not promote authenticity. The effectivly penalize the 14c and 15c persona's because of the presumed armour standard.
I know this leads to the acted wounds and counted blows arguments again but let's shelve that. Maybe this is an easy way to keep both sides happy. If acher X wants a piece of white harness Duke...you'd better aim really well! Maybe Mr. Armour Minimum should get stung instead!
Standing by to get crushed for talking out of turn...
J
RLTW
Sarnac wrote-"It is the sum of what you put into it..."
True!
And if people keep adding inauthentic things, why EVEN PRETEND we're medieval?
Because if you keep putting stuff like that in, allowing it and presenting it as "the norm", just what the hell ARE we going to be left with?
And I disagree with your statement-
"your version of this game is just as vaild as mine or anyone else's but NEVER moreso..."
Really?
So if I'm out there in an authentic rig, using weapons a person of my station would be using, but there's some other guy in blue plastic armor, fighting with a madu, wearing a spangenhelm, he is just as valid a representation of a medieval soldier as I am?
No.
And no again.
And until we STOP with this silly idea that we MUST cater to the lowest common denominator, while we penalize those who choose to try to be historical, we are going to stay in the land of elf ears and fangs.
VvS
True!
And if people keep adding inauthentic things, why EVEN PRETEND we're medieval?
Because if you keep putting stuff like that in, allowing it and presenting it as "the norm", just what the hell ARE we going to be left with?
And I disagree with your statement-
"your version of this game is just as vaild as mine or anyone else's but NEVER moreso..."
Really?
So if I'm out there in an authentic rig, using weapons a person of my station would be using, but there's some other guy in blue plastic armor, fighting with a madu, wearing a spangenhelm, he is just as valid a representation of a medieval soldier as I am?
No.
And no again.
And until we STOP with this silly idea that we MUST cater to the lowest common denominator, while we penalize those who choose to try to be historical, we are going to stay in the land of elf ears and fangs.
VvS
-
Diglach Mac Cein
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14071
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
I don't think ANYONE here has advocated exposed blue plastic armour, elf ears, or the like.
BUT, as long as we allow 6th century Irish, 10th Century Viking, 15th Century Swiss and 12th Century English on the list at the same time, your authenticity is going to be imperfect,even if those individual personas are authentic.
In the SCA, all you can do is focus on your personal development, and find satisfaction in that. You cannot force your committment on others, beyond a group accepted minimum - which the SCA has. Sure we slip sometimes, and we should do better to police THAT MINIMUM.
But the SCA as an organization will never be on the same level of authenticity as other organizations out there. Individuals might be, households / tournamnet companys might be, but never the Society as a whole.
But what the SCA has (mostly, there excpetions out there) is a spirit, a desire to live a Romantic Chivalric Ideal (Victorian as it might be), and express that ideal through our works, actions, and dealings with others - at least on weekends...
Dilan
BUT, as long as we allow 6th century Irish, 10th Century Viking, 15th Century Swiss and 12th Century English on the list at the same time, your authenticity is going to be imperfect,even if those individual personas are authentic.
In the SCA, all you can do is focus on your personal development, and find satisfaction in that. You cannot force your committment on others, beyond a group accepted minimum - which the SCA has. Sure we slip sometimes, and we should do better to police THAT MINIMUM.
But the SCA as an organization will never be on the same level of authenticity as other organizations out there. Individuals might be, households / tournamnet companys might be, but never the Society as a whole.
But what the SCA has (mostly, there excpetions out there) is a spirit, a desire to live a Romantic Chivalric Ideal (Victorian as it might be), and express that ideal through our works, actions, and dealings with others - at least on weekends...
Dilan
-
corbin skarlocke
- Archive Member
- Posts: 803
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, TX
*snip*
Allow CA, but modify the rules to account for the diference between the assumed armour standard and what is actually worn. *snip*
Thank you Karl, I suggested something similiar in previous thread- making plate and even possibly maille proof to arrows. Unfortunately compromise- even if it would increase authenticity seems to be a dirty word here.
Regards,
CS
Allow CA, but modify the rules to account for the diference between the assumed armour standard and what is actually worn. *snip*
Thank you Karl, I suggested something similiar in previous thread- making plate and even possibly maille proof to arrows. Unfortunately compromise- even if it would increase authenticity seems to be a dirty word here.
Regards,
CS
So how come even that minimum ISN'T policed?
Because we're so preoccupied with bending over backwards to include everybody.
Look, even if we go the Victorian Romantic route with regards to our goals, CA doesn't fit in.
Because the knights at the round table didn't do their deeds with bows.
We have vampires because few people have the stones to take a stand about that.
Are they in victorian chivalric tales?
We have people who have been in the SCA for YEARS walking around in a tunic, jeans and sneakers, and they'll NEVER CHANGE because they don't HAVE to!
WHO is going to MAKE them?
WHERE are the sanctions?
All of these things aren't something that it would be far-fetched to disagree with either, but try it sometime!
Anytime you even MENTION doing some "housecleaning" in the SCA, people slam you for being an egotistical jerk, or some authenticity nazi.
What's wrong with wanting people to play by the "rules" we have?
VvS
Because we're so preoccupied with bending over backwards to include everybody.
Look, even if we go the Victorian Romantic route with regards to our goals, CA doesn't fit in.
Because the knights at the round table didn't do their deeds with bows.
We have vampires because few people have the stones to take a stand about that.
Are they in victorian chivalric tales?
We have people who have been in the SCA for YEARS walking around in a tunic, jeans and sneakers, and they'll NEVER CHANGE because they don't HAVE to!
WHO is going to MAKE them?
WHERE are the sanctions?
All of these things aren't something that it would be far-fetched to disagree with either, but try it sometime!
Anytime you even MENTION doing some "housecleaning" in the SCA, people slam you for being an egotistical jerk, or some authenticity nazi.
What's wrong with wanting people to play by the "rules" we have?
VvS
-
Diglach Mac Cein
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14071
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
Where are all these vampires?
1 year they showed up for Pennsic (at least 1 year in numberthat were noticable), and the next year, they were gone.
The Fay came one year, and they were told that if they wanted to come back, that had to blend in, as long as there were outside of their camp - and they have.
I agree about the whole blue jeans and tennis shoe rule - If I invite a new person, at the least they wear a long tunic (I loan), sweatpants (I tell them to wear black), and boots or black shoes (even black tennis shoes if that is all they can manage. I help where I can. I explain why I request they wear black shoes and sweatpants as a minimum, and also that not everyone they see will be doing this.
What kind of sanctions do you feel should be in place? What is accepted minimum? (Sorry, your 8th Century persona wouldn't wear glasses, take them off or leave...)
How do we houseclean? That implies throwing people out. What criteria determines who stays and goes? Lets say a group has 5 15th century English fighters, and 1 10th century Viking. Not horribly authentic - glaringly out of place. But wait - the VIKING does the best job in his persona. Who goes?
And I never said that we should base or re-creative efforts on the Victorian ideal - It is the mind-set, the spirit and ideals of character that we draw from the Victorian ideals of Chivalry.
Dilan
1 year they showed up for Pennsic (at least 1 year in numberthat were noticable), and the next year, they were gone.
The Fay came one year, and they were told that if they wanted to come back, that had to blend in, as long as there were outside of their camp - and they have.
I agree about the whole blue jeans and tennis shoe rule - If I invite a new person, at the least they wear a long tunic (I loan), sweatpants (I tell them to wear black), and boots or black shoes (even black tennis shoes if that is all they can manage. I help where I can. I explain why I request they wear black shoes and sweatpants as a minimum, and also that not everyone they see will be doing this.
What kind of sanctions do you feel should be in place? What is accepted minimum? (Sorry, your 8th Century persona wouldn't wear glasses, take them off or leave...)
How do we houseclean? That implies throwing people out. What criteria determines who stays and goes? Lets say a group has 5 15th century English fighters, and 1 10th century Viking. Not horribly authentic - glaringly out of place. But wait - the VIKING does the best job in his persona. Who goes?
And I never said that we should base or re-creative efforts on the Victorian ideal - It is the mind-set, the spirit and ideals of character that we draw from the Victorian ideals of Chivalry.
Dilan
-
Jean Richard Malcolmson
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Whitehouse, TX, USA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vermin:
And until we STOP with this silly idea that we MUST cater to the lowest common denominator, while we penalize those who choose to try to be historical, we are going to stay in the land of elf ears and fangs.
VvS[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I obviously don't go to the same events y'all do. In Ansteorra, I have never seen elf ears nor fangs in well over 20 years of eventing. I did see elf ears at Pennsic XXIII a few years back.
Regards,
Jean Richard
And until we STOP with this silly idea that we MUST cater to the lowest common denominator, while we penalize those who choose to try to be historical, we are going to stay in the land of elf ears and fangs.
VvS[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I obviously don't go to the same events y'all do. In Ansteorra, I have never seen elf ears nor fangs in well over 20 years of eventing. I did see elf ears at Pennsic XXIII a few years back.
Regards,
Jean Richard
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Owen:
<B>Please note that I said "you might be technically correct"; not "right", or that I thought I was wrong. The fact that many of us enjoy "wars" and CA and seige and the like, to me, IS enough reason to continue them.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Amen, in spades.
Dan
<B>Please note that I said "you might be technically correct"; not "right", or that I thought I was wrong. The fact that many of us enjoy "wars" and CA and seige and the like, to me, IS enough reason to continue them.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Amen, in spades.
Dan
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
-
Jean Richard Malcolmson
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Whitehouse, TX, USA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
Yeah, JR, but I've seen yer royalty wearin' their coronets on their cowboys hats. Might as well be vampires... -c-</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm guessing that you are refering to the painted leather hat that Duke Sigmund the Wingfooted, KSCA, OP, OL, Lion, WSA etc.,former BOD member, etc, wears while in the sun. That bothered me for a while, too. Oddly enough, it was made for him by a Laurel and he can document it as a period style. I've seen the documentation (years ago), but I could not cite the source(s) now.
In Texas, you expect to see a cowboy hat, so you see a cowboy hat. It is actually very different construction.
Regards,
Jean Richard
"Look, before you leap."
[This message has been edited by Jean Richard Malcolmson (edited 04-04-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Jean Richard Malcolmson (edited 04-04-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Jean Richard Malcolmson (edited 04-04-2002).]
Yeah, JR, but I've seen yer royalty wearin' their coronets on their cowboys hats. Might as well be vampires... -c-</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm guessing that you are refering to the painted leather hat that Duke Sigmund the Wingfooted, KSCA, OP, OL, Lion, WSA etc.,former BOD member, etc, wears while in the sun. That bothered me for a while, too. Oddly enough, it was made for him by a Laurel and he can document it as a period style. I've seen the documentation (years ago), but I could not cite the source(s) now.
In Texas, you expect to see a cowboy hat, so you see a cowboy hat. It is actually very different construction.
Regards,
Jean Richard
"Look, before you leap."
[This message has been edited by Jean Richard Malcolmson (edited 04-04-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Jean Richard Malcolmson (edited 04-04-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Jean Richard Malcolmson (edited 04-04-2002).]