The Problem with "Excellence"

If one complains that the requirements for knighthood are too stringent, the powers of be trot out the old mantra of "standards" and "excellence." "Git good" they say and most people just shut up. Unfortunately, no one analyzes what is meant by excellence and if it truly benefits the game.

In most LARP organizations, "standards" and "excellence" focus upon individual development and achievement. For example, the mark of martial excellence is usually beating other players and winning tournaments. These achievements distinguish the truly excellent warrior from the merely average soldier. Likewise, producing works of art distinguishes the excellent artisan.

But do these forms of excellence truly benefit the game as a whole? Not necessarily. Let's use combat as an example. Let's say that a new park forms. All the players are newbs and are not very good fighters. Yet the group as a whole can be having a ton of fun because the skill levels are similar. Because combat in this case is balanced and competitive, the group benefits.

Now let us assume that one individual studies and practices until he or she becomes a highly skilled fighter. If the rest of the park does not also improve, then the group can actually suffer. Combat becomes unbalanced when the uber-fighter is present. Less skilled fighters become frustrated with being cannon fodder while the uber-fighter is annoyed by the lack of challenge. Battle games cease being fun, the members are increasingly disgruntled, and the group begins to splinter. In such as case, the pursuit of individual excellence actually hurts the group.

Let me make a couple of caveats to my argument. First, I am not talking about a player who develops a skill and then teaches it to others. Obviously, teaching is a tremendous service to the group. However, it is the teaching that is knightly not the initial development of personal skill.

Second, I am not saying that individual achievement should not be rewarded. I think there is a place for recognizing personal excellence. I am questioning the nature of the reward; in particular I do not think it should be the basis for knighthood. A true knight should practice the virtue of humility and should not seek individual accolades. Knighthood based on personal success contradicts the very essence of knighthood. Instead, I believe that the proper reward for individual achievement should be some sort of masterhood rather than knighthood.

The problem with excellence then is that, in my opinion, the wrong type of excellence is being used as the basis of knighthood. When knighthood is predicated upon individual skill, then there is a great potential that truly knightly people can be overlooked.

So what is our solution to the problem of excellence? I'll take up that question in my next post.