Proposed changes to our Charter Options

[Netheril]

There has been a lot of discussion about whether we need to clarify certain things from our Charter. It is my belief that we, as an order, would benefit from doing so. I hold no rank within the knights, and apologise if any feel I overstep my place, especially given how close I came recently to leaving. But it is my nature to act when I see a need, and in this I do see such a need. If others do not agree, I will accept that of course.

But I feel it will do no harm to at least make the below suggestions, in the hope that they prompt discussion. I have marked in bold the changes I have suggested to what already exists.

……

RESTRICTIONS

1) You must not harm knights directly or indirectly and are required to help each other to the extent of sharing all equipment during an adventure.
2) You are expected to act honourably and without treachery at all times
3) A knight will never hide his/her membership as it is a thing to be proud of
4) No level or points are earned from an adventure if a fellow knight is left behind on an adventure, dead or alive. If this does happen then the Lord Knight and the GSM must be notified by the referee. They will then discuss if this warrants casting out or not.
5) A knight will endeavour to never leave any other mercenary behind on an adventure, dead or alive. Unless the knight believes the mercenary to be a danger to the lands and its people.
6) It should be clear that once a knight of the Land has been "cast out" for whatever reason they may not rejoin the guild.
7) At the beginning of each adventure each knight must announce his/her presence by loudly and clearly affirming his oath:

"Shield on arm, sword in hand,
Brothers and sisters together,
We defend the Land"

8) Our oath to defend the land, and its people, is our primary oath and takes precedence over any and all other considerations, including all of the above
9) A knight is expected to use common sense, and their conscience, to navigate through the challenges mercenary life presents, especially with regard to obeying the above. If you feel you lack the ability to do so, you should not join the knights.
10) The spirit of the above applies at all times. You will not be judged by the letter, but by the spirit of our oaths.


((please ignore the ooc nature of part 4, just included for completeness as it's how it currently reads)).

Any suggestions for removals, additions, re-wordings or whether this is entirely unnecessary welcome.

With regard to the change to the oath, it is something I've heard discussed before and believe it is long overdue. With flexibility for those who wish to remain traditional free to do so. Brother together we defend the land when no women are present, Sisters together we defend the land when no men, all seem sensible to me.

May Harmony guide your thoughts, and Purpose your actions,

Sirac Drakeson

[duncanmatthias]

I like your enthusiasm Sirac.

Point 8, I feel will see our numbers dwindle drastically, if it doesn’t it should.

I am currently agreeing a date and appropriate tavern with Lord Amorphus such that members of our orders can attend an open forum to debate necessary changes to our codes and oaths.

Given a number of us can sense an upcoming extended campaign in the near future, it is likely to be after that.

Castiel
Lord Unity

[Netheril]

I like your enthusiasm Sirac.

Point 8, I feel will see our numbers dwindle drastically, if it doesn’t it should.

I am currently agreeing a date and appropriate tavern with Lord Amorphus such that members of our orders can attend an open forum to debate necessary changes to our codes and oaths.

Given a number of us can sense an upcoming extended campaign in the near future, it is likely to be after that.

Castiel
Lord Unity

Cas,

I was aware after our discussion that you planned the forum for the future, so apologies if I have pre-empted it.

But not all will be able to attend, and am sure any such changes will take time. So hopefully this can act as a precursor to that forum.

With regard to point 8, our ethos already states that the protection of the land and its people is our fundamental reason for existence. And as a direct quote... "no cause, whether religious or political, can take precedence over this".

So my hope is that we reflect this in our oaths. But yes, I suspect you are right that it will impact our numbers.

Sirac Drakeson

[Ryan]

I understand the intention and I think it is probably something to discuss further, your own charter seems to very much be written from the perspective of an Ivory Drave however and not necessarily with what is best for our orders in mind. I have mentioned before I was an Ivory wizard once and respect the code by which you live but changing the charter to reflect it is dangerous.

This sort of thing is very much the kind of thing I take interest in, hence why I got in to the legal system and began life an ivory wizard, I like rules. I don't find it helpful when it comes to our oaths however, I find the Demon is very much in the detail, we could go on for pages with changes such as these - you'd have to spend 3 years translating a tome of text before you could safely go in to the world and help people - and let's be honest helping people is why we are all here.

Point 2 - always act with honour... honour is doing at all times what is morally right even if you don't want to. This is good but what is morally right? Seems like we now need to further elaborate on what we deem to be a moral code all knights can live by. To some violence is abhorrent, clearly that moral code doesn't line up with a martial order.
Also in times of war we can't always uphold this in relation to our enemies, certainly many of them don't extend us the same courtesy either.

Point 5 - Absolutely not, I have met many an idiot that doesn't know when the day is done, all the Knights have agreed it is time to leave, we transport home leaving one or two people. You are suggesting all the Knights despite being in agreement the day is won and there is nothing further to be gained must stand and fight with someone because let us say for example he believes all Demons must be killed.

Point 8 - It is an interesting one, certainly I think the ivory oath is one of the most likely to be a problem - My Ally has decided to kill a lot of innocent people, he seemed ok at the start of the day but now he is dangerous. Also he has killed lots people so the common folk he is killing distrust us and won't take my mark so I am left unable to stop him - When I do attack him because I am a Knight first I suddenly lose all my magic and I am left unable to help at all anyway.

Point 9 - This is absolutely how every Knight should be going about their daily trials already - Just add this and do away with the rest.

There is lots of talk that our orders are losing their edge and respect in the wider community etc. I travelled with a large group of Knights toward the end of last year with 2 or 3 people who had fears they would not be looked after as non-Knights. The group were exemplary in action, we dealt with every problem effectively and we treated each and every member of the group as though they were one of our own. I have never actually seen Knights act in a way I believe to be damaging to our reputation except in one case where Imrazil cast them out. Is there actually even a problem?

Louis Athanyn
Lord Warmage

[miles]

If we as KotL require a set of instructions covering every act so that we know and understand what is correct under our oath of defending the land and the people that dwell within, there is something very wrong.
What we need to start doing is to remove people who do not show what it is to be a kotl. The Lord Knight can or should be able to remove people from our order before it goes so far as to having to cast them out.

William Sommers

[bendy]

If we as KotL require a set of instructions covering every act so that we know and understand what is correct under our oath of defending the land and the people that dwell within, there is something very wrong.
What we need to start doing is to remove people who do not show what it is to be a kotl. The Lord Knight can or should be able to remove people from our order before it goes so far as to having to cast them out.

William Sommers

Aye I agree we don't need a list on how to wipe our ar*e but I would like it made that we should act honourably at all times not just with our brother Knights and that punctuation shouldn't save any toe rags amongst us.

For what it's worth I agree with Athanyn on point 5, point 2 pretty much covers not letting non nutter mercenaries die horribly on another plane whilst your drinking ale with your fellow knights.

Gathran

[Stevelouch]

If we as KotL require a set of instructions covering every act so that we know and understand what is correct under our oath of defending the land and the people that dwell within, there is something very wrong.
What we need to start doing is to remove people who do not show what it is to be a kotl. The Lord Knight can or should be able to remove people from our order before it goes so far as to having to cast them out.

William Sommers

Surely we have always had he option to suspend and or remove a member of our orders even if something does not warrant casting out.

I do not feel well really need to adjust our rules but if people act against the spirit of our Order then as always I would support the Lord Knight acting against those who actions are questionable.

I cannot really say I am current with many aspects of the mortal world but it is clear that there have been many issues with our membership over recent years and something must be done.

Jander

[gormaden]

On this point, is there anything to describe how we change the charter? I know the knights is not a religious order but surely this is a doctrine. Who wrote the original charter, was it ordained my Lord Imarzel himself?

Who's agreements do we need to make the changes?

Do we know if needs to be put to a vote? and if so do we have vote on that we agree it needs changing and seperately what it gets changed to?

This can be rather drawn out process but I will happily scribe anything that's necessary.

Brother Rathlin.

[Netheril]

I respectfully disagree with those that say there is no problem. Not based just on my beliefs, nor my nature, but on my conversations with many others of our order. But equally, it may be that I speak with those most of like mind to myself, and there are many others that do not see there to be a problem.

I could indeed debate the law and interpretations of the above for a very long time. I tried to keep the changes minimal, and to reflect what I believe any knight really should be able to accept. But maybe I failed in that intent.

I will not debate each point back and forth, as at the moment it seems the consensus is this is too much / not needed.

But just to identify for each point why I feel the necessity of the change. And then I will accept if this is deemed unnecessary. I know my way of looking at the world influences me more than I realise sometimes, and apologise if it has here.

Point 2: Always act with honour. This is already in our requirements, but apparently only for dealings with other knights. This to me is a shock. I feel that as Knights we should act with honour in almost all our dealings. If it is truly the consensus that is not the case, then at least I will know I have seriously misunderstood the nature of the Knights.

Remember that point 8 means that where honour would endanger the land and its people, then our principal oath takes precedence. Likewise for treachery, if it is truly necessary to use deceit and underhanded means to protect the land, then most knights would still be free to do so under these oaths. But if you are capable of acting with Honour and without treachery with your brothers and sisters, why are you not capable of doing so with other mercenaries at least? Perhaps that should be the requirement instead?

There are many different definitions of Honour. It is the spirit of the oath that applies. But there are certain situations in which it is very clear when a Knight has not acted honourably, and stained the reputation of all Knights as such. I feel they should be accountable for such.

Point 5: I accept that this is not necessary if point 2 exists. It was merely included as an accusation I have heard against Knights is that we care only for our own. I know myself and many other knights already try to adhere to this rule. And it does only say endeavour, if you have tried to get all to leave and some will not, then you have made the effort at least. Nonetheless, I see that this is unnecessary.

Point 8, yes it is problematic. But for me it is the core of what it is to be a knight. And as said above, in our ethos it is stated this is our core oath, and should be above other considerations. Each of us would seek to meet this requirement in our own way. But it should never be ignored. Attacking a fellow mercenary is not the only way of dealing with the issues Louis describes.

Anyway, those were my thoughts when I wrote this. If nothing comes of this, I look forward to the forum Castiel has suggested, and will see what comes from that.

May Harmony guide your thoughts, and Purpose your actions,

Sirac Drakeson

[OxMatt]

Point 1: Do what Ignatius says, he is generally correct.

Point 2: You are referred to Point 1.

I'm not sure why people think law is so difficult....?

Ignatius

[miles]

I have not said there is no problem, but more attention should be made to remove people who can’t or won’t follow the code before it gets to the casting out stage where it is to late.

William Sommers

[MattWest]

This may sound odd coming from me, but I strongly urge the virtue of simplicity. If we overcomplicate this, we risk making the Perfect the enemy of the Good, especially for those of us who could run into real social problems in our ordinary lives if we ended up being painted as oath-breakers because of some difference of interpretation of some complicated covenant or even managing to forget a key clause. Bearing in mind this Oath governs us even in circumstances of fraught and frantic combat when we hardly have a moment to think.

We do not need to expand the oath. All we need to do is say that if you blatantly bring the Knights into disrepute, the Lord Knight in agreement with, say, Imrazil or two Heads of Orders, can suspend your membership. That should sort it.

I am opposed to re-writing large sections of the Oath because it takes a long time for the details to sink in even if it's just a short oath and we do not want to deter people from joining our ranks, encourage them to leave or make it harder for them to know what is expected of them and what they can expect of each other, just because of too much detail. Like I said, our laws have stood for a long time. We should not change them unless there is a really good reason to, and if we do it should be the smallest change we can live with.

Razil

[Stevelouch]

This may sound odd coming from me, but I strongly urge the virtue of simplicity. If we overcomplicate this, we risk making the Perfect the enemy of the Good, especially for those of us who could run into real social problems in our ordinary lives if we ended up being painted as oath-breakers because of some difference of interpretation of some complicated covenant or even managing to forget a key clause. Bearing in mind this Oath governs us even in circumstances of fraught and frantic combat when we hardly have a moment to think.

We do not need to expand the oath. All we need to do is say that if you blatantly bring the Knights into disrepute, the Lord Knight in agreement with, say, Imrazil or two Heads of Orders, can suspend your membership. That should sort it.

I am opposed to re-writing large sections of the Oath because it takes a long time for the details to sink in even if it's just a short oath and we do not want to deter people from joining our ranks, encourage them to leave or make it harder for them to know what is expected of them and what they can expect of each other, just because of too much detail. Like I said, our laws have stood for a long time. We should not change them unless there is a really good reason to, and if we do it should be the smallest change we can live with.

Razil

The Lord Knight should make the decision and the Knight of Unity is there to veto a decision they feel is wrong. That is the origin of the order and that is how it stands now. If the Lord Knight chooses to ask a few Lords of Order to decide between them and then ratify that decision then that could also work?

In my time as Lord Knight the decisions I made on casting people out were tough but had to be done.

Equally telling someone they need to leave is more ideal for a lesser offence perhaps with the option to return if they change.
Jander

[TimTreadwell]

Point 7: Replace "Brothers & Sisters" with "Knights"?

Kurth Honeyman.