|Against Single-Seat Kingdoms
[05/13/2002] [The Isolated Knight]
Personally, I am against the idea of a conglomerate kingdom. It makes no sense to have a beast without a head. If you have 20 shires of 10 people, it should be 20 shires, and not a Kingdom.
--Squire Twitch, May 12th, 2002.
Twitch wrote these words in defense of the single-kingdom system. It’s something he believes in and he's willing to back it up. But there are some serious flaws in this kind of system. To be honest, this started out as a reply on the forum. It got so long; I thought it best if maybe it was made into a serious rant about types of kingdoms and the bias of the single-kingdom system.
Twitch says, “If you have 20 shires of 10 people, it should be 20 shires, and not a Kingdom.” But what about kingdoms where the "Kingdom" has less numbers than a duchy? It can happen. Should those kingdoms lose their status because they've fallen well below the 75+ number requirement? Wouldn't it be easier for a kingdom to be made up of several lands where everyone gets to vote for offices?
Why should the many ever consent to be ruled the few, especially when the few 1) provides no support for the land 2) never stops by to visit, especially if the few are on the way to visit another land, 3) when the few has no voice in the kingdom?
I tell you this; I've lived in some kingdoms like that. I've also lived in a kingdom where everyone has say and part of the dues money goes to the collective good for events and rulebooks. I prefer to live in a land where everyone can share in the responsibility.
There's also the distance factor. Not every land will be a kingdom. It simply isn't feasible. Lands that are less than 2 hours away from an established kingdom have no chance. Why should they be made to suffer continuously, holding on to a dream that can't/won't come true that is perpetuated by the kingdom. Isn't it fairer to say, "Hey, you won't be a kingdom, so have an active part of ours"? This way people can hold offices and such. There are a lot of people in these singular kingdoms that have a lot to offer. Some of them want the titles that go with those higher offices, like Count or Duke. Is it fair to punish those who want to give to the club and exclude them from holding office?
I’ve heard a lot of talk about giving to the club, most of it from Aramithris, I grant you, but I have to agree with him in this one aspect. We all have to be willing, to let new people hold office. Back when I was just the Isolated Squire, my first knight told me “Ok, you’re my squire now, the first thing I want you to do is run for king, just so people will get to see you.” Would I have had the balls to do this if I had stayed the Isolated Joe-Regular Player? Hell no. Sorry, that was a tangent.
The point is, single-seat kingdoms might not be all that helpful. Sure, there are problems with the multi-seat kingdom, but there are also loads of problems with single-seat kingdoms as well. When you look at it from the point of view that we’re all in this game together, they make a helluva lot more sense.
Thanks to Squire Twitch for the cannon fodder! A valid point is hard to find or make these days. Sorry I had to single yours out, but at least you weren’t flamed.
Until Next time, Campers!
[ discuss on forums ]