home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!INTERNET!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
- From: 71431.167@compuserve.COM (REED E HARRIG)
- Subject: Non-fighting Royalty
- Message-ID: <921231005303_71431.167_EHJ37-1@CompuServe.COM>
- Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
- Organization: The Internet
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:53:04 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
-
- Greetings all from Palymar
-
- Juan (colin@ips.oz.au (Colin Yuile)) writes:
- > Allowing non fighters to become royalty won't stop dumb decisions,
- > but should allow better informed decisions in non fighting areas.
-
- Peder Klingrode responded:
-
- >I agree. Futhermore, for a fighter to enter a list as champion for
- >couple, _three_ people has to agree, not just two. I think that
- >alone should stop several unsuitable rulers-wannabes (though not
- >all).
-
- Why? It seems to me that a good number of people accept it as fact that
- fighters are not good rulers. The logic generally goes: The skills
- required to win Crown Tourney are not the same as those needed to
- rule. Therefore fighters do not make good rulers. Why would a
- non-fighting couple make better informed decisions in non-fighting
- areas? More to the point, every fighter has a perspective consort who
- is generally a non-fighter anyway.
-
- I am not concern about the prospect of a fighter championing a
- non-fighting couple. I think it would be a healthy change to the
- system, and at the same time give more people access to the throne. I
- do not believe that such a change would produce any better rulers.
- Being a non-fighters does not give you an exclusive insight on how to
- rule a kingdom any more than being a fighter does.
-
- -Palymar
-
-
-