Dueling

Over the course of my time in Illy I have been challenged to "duel" on at least a couple of occasions.   These are my thought on dueling in general, and dueling in Illy in particular.

First, dueling is illegal in most civilized societies.  Why is that? Because it tends to be used to satisfy the "honor" or a person who has been bested (fairly or not) in an argument.  In other words, it's usually an escalation of a verbal altercation and therefore not thought of an an acceptable means of answering the question around which the debate was centered.  Most civilized societies have a sharp distinction between verbal exchanges and physical violence.

Second, dueling has always been rare even when it was legal.  This is because there developed a set of steps necessary for a gentleman to actually engage in the duel.  The steps were, roughly, a follows.

1) Perceived offense to the honor of the gentleman.
2) Confrontation of the offender and announcement of the point of contention
3) Opportunity of the "offender" to give "satisfaction."
4) Issue of the formal challenge.
5) Selection of the "seconds" (the persons who from this point forward would be expected to assist in the negotiations and details of the duel, should it actually take place)
6) First Negotiations (to determine if the altercation can be resolved peacefully)
7) Formal acceptance of the duel
8) Selection of means of dueling (the weapons and the place).
9) Second Negotiations (to come to agreement re the weapons and the place and to try again for a peaceful resolution).
10) Formal agreement of the terms
11) Arrival at the dueling location
12) Inspection of the weapons by the seconds and/or (sometimes) a neutral party selected by the seconds.
13) Final request for satisfaction (Final attempt to negotiate a settlement)
14) Final denial
15) The duel

As you can see, it was a long and very formal procedure, which is why it almost never occurred.  Some key points to consider though, are that there was every effort to avoid the actual duel, and that the challenger did not have the right to select the weapon or the place.  The one challenged would select the weapons and location.  The challenger could reject the weapons, but once the weapons were selected the challenger was expected upon his honor as a gentleman to accept the weapons and place if they were at all deemed reasonable.

Now for some thoughts on dueling in Illy.  The steps here appear to be:

1) Decide you don't like what the other person is saying, whether it's dishonorable to you personally or not, and challenge them to a duel, usually in GC.
2) Keep needling until they respond.
3) Bluff if you don't really want to duel but are just doing it for the sake of appearances.
4) If you really want to duel and if they don't accept attack anyway.

It does seem to me that "dueling" in Illy is hardly honorable.  But, perhaps, more to the point are these observations:

1) If you are challenged to a duel the challenger is hot blooded and/or has planned in advance to do so.
2) If he or she has planned to do so in advance then he or she is prepared while you are not.
3) If they are just hot headed and haven't prepared it's quite likely they have been in many more wars than you (lack of verbal discipline does have that advantage) and thus are much more experienced.
4) If they are a warrior, even if they didn't prepare, they usually have larger standing armies than non-warrior types, hence are better prepared.

So in the end, if one is challenged to a duel you are probably at a great disadvantage from the start.  You haven't chosen or prepared to duel,  You won't have time to prepare.  The challenger is not only probably more prepared but, if he's also cunning, has support already lined up (if he's in a large alliance or at  least one much larger than your own he most certainly will have more resources upon which to draw).

And then there are the practical matter of confirmation.  Should you negotiate a set of limits about your duel you may find it difficult to say who thieved you, who sent saboteurs, or from where the support your opponent is receiving is coming, etc, etc.  So even if you are an honorable duelist, in a protracted conflict if you get the upper hand it may be that your little war may not stay in the boundaries negotiated at the start.   As I noted above, the person challenging you has little compunction to avoid escalating things.  You know he or she did so since they chose to escalate a verbal exchange into a duel.  From being beaten verbally, they go to a duel.  From a duel, should they also lose the military exchange, to a war.

Now you know why I refuse to duel in Illy and probably always will.

AJ

i know of no illyriad tradition of dueling nor of any reason why ajqtrz ought to accept one, but some of his points about historical dueling beg dispute or correction.

ajqtrz wrote: First, dueling is illegal in most civilized societies.  Why is that? ...it's usually an escalation of a verbal altercation and therefore not thought of an an acceptable means of answering the question around which the debate was centered.  Most civilized societies have a sharp distinction between verbal exchanges and physical violence.

this reason for the decline of dueling is far from established. duel would have been an extension of the idea of trial by combat, which has the virtue of producing a clear winner every time even if the "right" of the situation is somewhat murky. (also, it has the virtue of settling an argument between irreconcilable nobles without requiring a liege to show partiality.) i suspect the decline of duels tracks closely with the development of effective and available civil courts and a legal structure to punish crimes against honour (libel, etc.). there are, of course, no such courts available in illyriad and so, in the absence of a dueling culture, illy is stuck in a cycle of personal insult fueling group resentment and ultimately alliance war. far from being more advanced, the illy system seems to me less advanced than dueling, which at least decides a winner by involving only the aggrieved.

ajqtrz wrote: Second, dueling has always been rare even when it was legal.

this is a bit vague and entirely unsupported. in what sense was it "rare"? per capita? common enough for hundreds to die in a single country each year, it seems.

According to Ariel Roth, during the reign of Henry IV, over 4,000 French aristocrats were killed in duels "in an eighteen-year period" whilst a twenty-year period of Louis XIII's reign saw some eight thousand pardons for "murders associated with duels". Roth also notes that thousands of men in the Southern United States "died protecting what they believed to be their honour."

the wikipedia entry is highly available; others who crave more authoritative sources can search them out and post as it suits them.


Edited by Angrim - 28 Jun 2015 at 04:53

I been thinking Idea of something that could be fair duel setting in Illyriad:

The 5 square Duel 

After the challenge, and the stakes are accepted.

Duelists, adjutants or mediators (such as alliance leaders for example) agree on neutral party who will make sure terms are followed and inspects the evidence of rule breaking and declare victor and looser. 

Each duelist chooses One of their city
Duelists or adjutants agree on starting time.

If these cannot be agreed Duel can be still canceled honorably.

Duelist can use maximum of 4 commanders, armies and divisions the composition can be selected freely.
Duelist can use only elite sized divisions with commander.

Five duel squares 1 mountain, 1 hill, 1 forest, 1 plains and one random square that has shortest possible distance from both Dueling cities. Other duel squares also must have equal distance from both dueling cities preferably short as possible.

Who holds most squares after 2x catapult (Back and forth) moving time to the farthest duel square is victor.  

Duel begins when duelist has sent a catapult with orders of feint to farthest battle square after the agreed time has passed. Duel ends when First catapult returns to its duel city.   

No other attacks, magic or diplomatic actions.
No other player involvement.

In case of infringement of rules:
Clearly rule breaking Duelist is considered to be yielded and lost according the terms.
Refusing to follow terms after loosing or during the duel. Duelist should be declared honourless in Forum and should face punishment such as loosing the dueling city for example.
   
Any Outside influence to dueling cities or armies in beginning of Duel (including anything from random animal encounter to attack by other player):Duel should be considered unsettled and Duel repeated if both parties still willing.

If there is Outside influence when one or two duelist has already lost armies in duel battles,  it must be repeated with handicap of lost armies included, no acceptable canceling anymore except for yielding.

There is some benefits to this setting:

It give chance to have duel between 2 different sized players because of using only elite sized units.

Involves tactic and strategy not only brute strength but still gives a edge to prepared player.

Painless:
No remarkable strain on the players militaries if you would happen to be waiting for tournament or war.
Relatively short and has clear ending time.


Problems:
Outside involvement.
Requires agreements on practical matters.
Might not be considered fun by martial types with big armies.
Its Bit Complicated (a duel tool would be great)
Im not sure about the timing it could be just agreed time also since you have to use one commander with the catapult and the time can vary since commander and horses have speed bonuses.

Opinions, suggestions welcome :) You may try this out just for friendly fun or training with less rules.  


Edited by Thexion - 28 Jun 2015 at 19:41

True perhaps time and army limitation is useless. Then you could resurrect low level commanders and army speed is a more important factor.

ajqtrz wrote: My points were that dueling in Illy is nothing like dueling in any part of the world because a wise duelist in Illy would be well prepared to duel before issuing the challenge.  And the unprepared ought not to engage in that for which they are not prepared.

this is not less true of rl dueling than it would be of illy dueling. fortune favours the prepared. i took from the OP that you disliked the fact that trial by combat advantages the combative, but the idea behind trial by combat is that the righteous side of an argument is not apparent, perhaps not knowable, and that the two sides cannot abide one another. a judicial system similarly favours, depending on its form, the well-connected, the wealthy, or those gifted in oratory--skills the rising middle class of the period were more likely to possess. although western society clings to the idea that a trail by jury renders a more correct verdict than trial by combat, all we can know is that trial by jury renders a verdict generally more palatable to those who will survive the judgement (i.e., the jurors themselves, and by extension, the public).

ajqtrz wrote: Ultimately a judicial system is only as good people are willing to submit to it.

a judicial system is only as good as the the force of coercion that enforces its rulings. what i hear from most players is that they would prefer not to play the game in an environment where a single entity holds power enough to "govern" illy. what i think you are describing here i would term "mediation".