More Dueling Options

[Norrel]

This is tangentially related to my latest suggestion, so feel free to yell at me if you think this doesn't deserve its own thread.

Anyways, there are basically two different reasons for dueling:
When someone's insulted you, and you have to show how honorable you are by risking life and limb in a duel
and
When that one guy just HAS to die.

Supposedly, surrender duels should be used in the first instance, while death duels should be used in the second. However, this presents an issue; you can't die in surrender duels, so any risk involved is either nonexistant or negligible. This basically makes them worthless as a method for proving a character's bravery.
I propose this modification: surrender duels have a higher chance of wounding either participant, and the loser has a small (as in, <1%) chance of dying during the duel. These would be used in circumstances where the duel was being used to prove one's honor, and not as a method to attack another noble.
The message for a death in a surrender duel would be something like "x faces y in a battle to surrender. After an exchange of blows, y takes a sword to the heart, and dies instantly. All witnesses, seconds and even his opponent mourn the accident."
Death duels would have the same odds as now, but each participant will get a checkbox next to their stance choice: "strike down wounded opponent". Basically, should someone select this option, their opponent will ALWAYS die if they lose. The killer would lose some honor, and a message would be sent to the realm saying: "x faces y in a duel to the death. After a few blows, y falls to the ground, wounded. As the seconds cry out, X walks over, and finishes the job."

This would make surrender duels actually mean something, would allow people to make some moral choices for their opponents, and should overall lead to some interesting roleplay with the second option. Considering how training matches basically take over the niche of the "for-fun swordfight", I don't see the necessity in having surrender duels be basically the same thing with a higher chance of wounds.

[De-Legro]

This is tangentially related to my latest suggestion, so feel free to yell at me if you think this doesn't deserve its own thread.

Anyways, there are basically two different reasons for dueling:
When someone's insulted you, and you have to show how honorable you are by risking life and limb in a duel
and
When that one guy just HAS to die.

Supposedly, surrender duels should be used in the first instance, while death duels should be used in the second. However, this presents an issue; you can't die in surrender duels, so any risk involved is either nonexistant or negligible. This basically makes them worthless as a method for proving a character's bravery.
I propose this modification: surrender duels have a higher chance of wounding either participant, and the loser has a small (as in, <1%) chance of dying during the duel. These would be used in circumstances where the duel was being used to prove one's honor, and not as a method to attack another noble.
The message for a death in a surrender duel would be something like "x faces y in a battle to surrender. After an exchange of blows, y takes a sword to the heart, and dies instantly. All witnesses, seconds and even his opponent mourn the accident."
Death duels would have the same odds as now, but each participant will get a checkbox next to their stance choice: "strike down wounded opponent". Basically, should someone select this option, their opponent will ALWAYS die if they lose. The killer would lose some honor, and a message would be sent to the realm saying: "x faces y in a duel to the death. After a few blows, y falls to the ground, wounded. As the seconds cry out, X walks over, and finishes the job."

This would make surrender duels actually mean something, would allow people to make some moral choices for their opponents, and should overall lead to some interesting roleplay with the second option. Considering how training matches basically take over the niche of the "for-fun swordfight", I don't see the necessity in having surrender duels be basically the same thing with a higher chance of wounds.

Since duels to surrender can result in wounds, I would assume that for characters with titles it would be possible to lose that title due to wounds suffered from the duel, so hardly no risk. There is also the lost time of playing the character if wounded, which depending on the player and character could be a big loss.

The problem I see with providing a chance for people to die in duels is Tom has always said that mortality is a choice. If there is no duel were you have no chance to die, you basically force players who don't want their character to die to avoid dueling all together. I'm not sure that is an appropriate choice.

[Norrel]

If there is no duel were you have no chance to die, you basically force players who don't want their character to die to avoid dueling all together.

People have to make the choice between bravery and longevity. Heroes can die, and its not like they make the choice before each battle about if they'd like mortality enabled or not. If you want your character to be a hero, you have to deal with the consequences. Shouldn't playing an aggressive or honorable character of any kind carry with it some kind of drawback?

[Jens Namtrah]

The point of a duel is not to find a winner.

The point is, it PROVES there was an insult and incident because both participants agree to fight over it. It draws a line in the sand and says, "You must apologize or cross it". The winner isn't "right" and the loser "wrong" (though at some times and places people said God guided the hand of the right) - it's merely a situation that can only be settled with blood.

It's not about killing your opponent, it's about clearing the air. It's about SHOWING up to the duel so your honor is intact. It's about how you behave when fighting the duel.

As such, the only adjustment I think is needed is players attitudes about being in one. Duels to surrender were put there precisely so you don't have to lose your character, and yet most players still won't use them.

Put more role play before and after and I think everything is fine.

(I cannot think of dueling without remembering a short story (by Maupussant?) about a man who had to fight a duel the next morning. He was a good shot, had reasonable expectations of winning, and yet became so worried that during the duel he might show some Human Emotion and let his hand tremble that he preferred to blow his brains out the night before rather than risk dishonoring himself by winning but giving  any sort of visible sign of fear. Granted, this was 19th Century France with pistols, but you get the idea. )

[Norrel]

The point of a duel is not to find a winner.

The point is, it PROVES there was an insult and incident because both participants agree to fight over it. It draws a line in the sand and says, "You must apologize or cross it". The winner isn't "right" and the loser "wrong" (though at some times and places people said God guided the hand of the right) - it's merely a situation that can only be settled with blood.

It's not about killing your opponent, it's about clearing the air. It's about SHOWING up to the duel so your honor is intact. It's about how you behave when fighting the duel.

The purpose of the duel is to clear the air by putting both participants in mortal danger, which is why I would say that duels to surrender should have a chance of death.
To refer back to pistol duels (the only kind I know anything about, really), the main idea is that both participants would likely remain unscathed, especially if they did it at a fair distance. They often only took one or two shots at eachother and the pistols were inaccurate as all hell, but it proved the honor of both men because they willingly risked their lives, and it would put their grievances aside.
The entire purpose of my suggestion is so that "winning" and "losing" are less important.

[De-Legro]

People have to make the choice between bravery and longevity. Heroes can die, and its not like they make the choice before each battle about if they'd like mortality enabled or not. If you want your character to be a hero, you have to deal with the consequences. Shouldn't playing an aggressive or honorable character of any kind carry with it some kind of drawback?

You don't need to make the choice of mortality before every battle, you made it by selecting to be a Hero. Mortality and the inability to change out of the class are the two most defining features of the class. It pretty much exists for the player that WANT that extra risk from every wound.

The problem is playing as an honorable character SHOULD be the default, not some special edge case for the risk takers. In terms of draw backs well lets see, aggressive characters tend to attract many enemies within and without their realms that would love nothing more then to block the characters agenda. Honorable characters get all the baggage and restrictions that living a morale honorable life still bring. You are a servant to your ideals, even when reason or desire would lead you elsewhere.