Duels costing honor when not done

[Indirik]

Which Is why there need to be some way to enforce Duels especially on SMA worlds. Having it social and RP is fine, but then there needs to be some sort of record of what duels were refused and why. A history of refusing to participate in a duel (where there are valid reasons) should be known to all. If there was a duel between King Richard and Prince John in the middle ages, then the entire country would know about it. What ever happened would become public knowledge as soon as the news could travel.

First, I don't think any mechanic such as this would be added, so this is mostly a philosophical discussion.

Second, any such system would also need to account for the stupid duel challenges as well. The idiots who challenge someone to a duel to the death for insignificant reasons. Like... "How dare you not buy my food for 32/100, and then buy *his* food for 33/100? Defend your financial ineptitude with your life, dog!"

Which is a major reason why the mechanics you are requesting won't be added. Who gets to decide if the reason is valid or not? The challenger? The challenged? The challenger's buddies? You keep saying you want to punish people for refusing duels that have "valid reasons/RP". But who decides? Obviously the person you are challenging doesn't think you have "valid reasons/RP". A vulgarity-like system wouldn't work. How would it be reported? *What* would you report, and how would you convey all the background behind it? You'd end up with the challenger saying he had a good reason, and if the challenged gets to respond as well, they would say the challenger's reason is bad.

Also:

I am trying to stop people gaming the system that are entrenched into powerful positions with no way of getting them out.

Removing characters from positions is not the intention or purpose of the dueling system. Using it for that purpose could even be considered an abuse of the system.

[fodder]

kings won't mind duelling..

as long as they can hire npc duellers as champions with 100% sword fighting. (dukes 90% XD)

[Crusader]

Anaris,

We are expected to play SMA, it is moderated to ensure that we are. Yet why do we not enforce all areas of it? My last post did not say anything about losing honour/prestige as Tom has already said that. What I siad was that there should be a way of making sure that the SMA is followed correctly.

People will jump down some ones throat when they do not call them "my lord" Yet they will not enforce a legitimate duel? When there are valid IG reasons?

If people are too scared to accept a Duel to the Death, why not remove the feature? Unless you actually start claiming down on a breach of SMA then people will always flout the rules. What's the point of playing as a noble with a code of honour, that when someone else slights you, you are just going to shrug it off as nothing? Nobles would not do that in the correct circumstances (I.e a valid reason)

[Anaris]

Anaris,

We are expected to play SMA, it is moderated to ensure that we are. Yet why do we not enforce all areas of it? My last post did not say anything about losing honour/prestige as Tom has already said that. What I siad was that there should be a way of making sure that the SMA is followed correctly.

People will jump down some ones throat when they do not call them "my lord" Yet they will not enforce a legitimate duel? When there are valid IG reasons?

If people are too scared to accept a Duel to the Death, why not remove the feature? Unless you actually start claiming down on a breach of SMA then people will always flout the rules. What's the point of playing as a noble with a code of honour, that when someone else slights you, you are just going to shrug it off as nothing? Nobles would not do that in the correct circumstances (I.e a valid reason)

The game mechanics cannot do anything about this.

If you think someone is breaching SMA, in this or any other way, then use the SMA Report option under Messages. That's what it's there for.

[Crusader]

A vulgarity-like system wouldn't work. How would it be reported? *What* would you report, and how would you convey all the background behind it? You'd end up with the challenger saying he had a good reason, and if the challenged gets to respond as well, they would say the challenger's reason is bad.

The way I had imagined it that the reason box, that you have to fill in as a challenger, would be sent to the deciders. So the emphasis is upon the challenger to present his case in that box. If the person refuses the challenge, the challenger has the option to choose to allow peers to decide on whether it was right/wrong for the defendant to refuse such challenge.

Lets say that three random nobles form across the continent are chosen. If your example was in the reason box, they could say yes, this is a valid reason, or no, thats a stupid reason.

If it was a well thought out, RP'd reason (Im sure most spammers would not put much time into it), they could say this is a valid reason, the decision is then told to the two participants, with the option to have a duel. If the defendant refuses again, then he is publicly shamed (in line with Toms rule of leave it to the players/social to deal with). Whether this is just in the realm, or continent wide, I dont know.

But it would not result in any loss of honour/prestige but it would provide RP ammo against that person.

[Velax]

Honour and Prestige are meaningless, beyond a certain point. No one respects Noble A more than Noble B because the latter has 120 Honour and the former 125. And Prestige has no real in-game effect on how famous or infamous a particular noble is. Respect and fame are decided by what a character does, not what his H/P scores are, and a noble that is known for continually refusing legitimate duels will become known for it, with the commensurate loss of respect from other characters.

[vonGenf]

If people are too scared to accept a Duel to the Death, why not remove the feature?

Duels to the death do happen, which is reason enough to keep the feature.

[Indirik]

The way I had imagined it that the reason box, that you have to fill in as a challenger, would be sent to the deciders. So the emphasis is upon the challenger to present his case in that box. If the person refuses the challenge, the challenger has the option to choose to allow peers to decide on whether it was right/wrong for the defendant to refuse such challenge.

So, the challenger could lie, make up whatever he wants, misrepresent the entire situation, or do whatever they want. And the challenged noble doesn't get to respond at all with their side. And the results get permanently attached to that character? No thanks.

[Crusader]

So, the challenger could lie, make up whatever he wants, misrepresent the entire situation, or do whatever they want. And the challenged noble doesn't get to respond at all with their side. And the results get permanently attached to that character? No thanks.

Why not put in a box that say reasons Duel refused?

So you have both sides of the story.

[Foundation]

Thank you for your inputs, everyone.  As Tom has plainly stated, there will be no game mechanics consequences to refusing a duel.  Game mechanics vs SMA is not within the scope of this thread.

[Tom]

but Dukes were never expected to accept duels.

Also, there were often champions - trained fighters who fought on behalf of their lords.