On the Nature of Duels in Battlemaster

[JeVondair]

Hi Everyone. I write with the intent of this being a short thread. My question is, in character, when is it appropriate to decline a demand to duel and at what point is doing so considered dishonorable or cowardly?

For years I've played the game without specific clarification, but I operated under the assumption that a noble who was higher in the chain, like a Duke, would be able to decline a duel from a mere lord or knight with no problem. However, a Knight or a Lord that declined to duel a Duke would and should be remarked upon. Then there's the matter when party A offers clear insult to party B but then declines a demand from B to duel. How is/should that be viewed IG?

I ask because consequences for declining duels are not (and should not be) enforced by game mechanics, but I wish to gget a better understanding as a player as to what sort of responses/observations a character should make when this happens IG.

[Zakilevo]

You can ignore duel requests of knights if you are a lord or duke or ruler. I mean who wants to duel a no name?

To be honest I think the whole duel system should get a rework (To make the style you choose have more impact on the outcome than the swordfighting skill %). But that is just me.

[JDodger]

nahh it doesn't really matter what styles are used in a fight the superior fighter will almost always win.

i feel like duels get ducked foo much, but thats up to the player and everyone can use their own judgment. some of my chars wouldn't turn down a duel, others are more cautious, others conscious of their position and therefore discriminating in their opponents.

[Vita`]

nahh it doesn't really matter what styles are used in a fight the superior fighter will almost always win.

Not true unless they are the superior fighter by large amount. If they are even remotely close (say, 20-30% within each other), fighting style and pure luck can affect the result.

i feel like duels get ducked foo much, but thats up to the player and everyone can use their own judgment. some of my chars wouldn't turn down a duel, others are more cautious, others conscious of their position and therefore discriminating in their opponents.

Yes, like most area of the game, its what the players make of it that determines what is 'allowed' or 'appropriate' in most cases. The beauty of a social game - one can experiment with different ideas in different realms and islands.

[JeVondair]

I always imagined that in the medieval world, when one knight called another a coward, they either proved they were not, or a stigma was attached to them. In BM, it seems like that doesn't matter to players at all. A Knight can insult a King and walk off and no one really RP's that as negative because, in my experience the challenged player and/or other players will swoop in and start OOC spamming that the affronted challenger is being unrealistic

[JDodger]

in most cases i dont think players should be forced to choose between losing their char or keeping them with an attached stigma.

[steelabjur@aol.com]

I always liked the Eastern concept of duels being used as an opening or deciding factor in a battle. Two champions fighting for their Lord/Realm/Religion's honor, or a noble shouting a challenge at the enemy line for a worthy challenger. I've considered suggesting that a noble leading a unit that refuses a duel (either type) suffer a morale hit (enemy troops mocking them, doubt in their leader's bravery, etc.), while a noble who accepts and wins gets a bonus to their unit's morale.

[Zakilevo]

I always liked the Eastern concept of duels being used as an opening or deciding factor in a battle. Two champions fighting for their Lord/Realm/Religion's honor, or a noble shouting a challenge at the enemy line for a worthy challenger. I've considered suggesting that a noble leading a unit that refuses a duel (either type) suffer a morale hit (enemy troops mocking them, doubt in their leader's bravery, etc.), while a noble who accepts and wins gets a bonus to their unit's morale.

Funny. Eastern people think western knights did this. At the end of the day, duels hardly happened on the battlefield. They preferred their warriors to lead their soldiers not do 1v1.

[steelabjur@aol.com]

Funny. Eastern people think western knights did this. At the end of the day, duels hardly happened on the battlefield. They preferred their warriors to lead their soldiers not do 1v1.

Read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Lu Bu was all about fighting duels (even up to 1v3, himself versus the sworn brothers), and the book is littered with duels between generals, usually before battle. There is also Miyamoto Musashi in Japan, who went undefeated in 60 duels, the first of which happened when he was 13.

[Wimpie]

In my experience, most of the duels or invitations I witness is between two rivals from the opposite realms. So most of the time they're arguing when in the same region and then one challenges the other to a duel (mostly to dead). Clearly, the challenger is a very skilled swordfighter and why would you make the choice to lose your character over an argument. Instead they reject it (on whatever grounds) and are mocked by the other side.

For intra-realm duels, I think you're quite right that the lower knights shouldn't reject a duel from a higher placed noble. However, if we're talking about duels to the death, that would seriously diminish the noble count in said realm 

[GundamMerc]

Read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Lu Bu was all about fighting duels (even up to 1v3, himself versus the sworn brothers), and the book is littered with duels between generals, usually before battle. There is also Miyamoto Musashi in Japan, who went undefeated in 60 duels, the first of which happened when he was 13.

A. That is widely regarded as a historical dramatization, not the actual history. Though it does provide valuable into the various players involved, I would hesitate to use it for more than passing reference. It's as informative as any other historical fiction. (it's actually regarded as one of the originators of the genre).

B. Miyamoto Mushashi isn't even known to be one person, let alone that all those duels actually took place. Besides, using one person to generalize for an entire society is a bit extreme.

[Zakilevo]

Read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Lu Bu was all about fighting duels (even up to 1v3, himself versus the sworn brothers), and the book is littered with duels between generals, usually before battle. There is also Miyamoto Musashi in Japan, who went undefeated in 60 duels, the first of which happened when he was 13.

LOL Romance of the three kingdoms... That is a fiction my friend. Not even historically accurate. Who uses a fiction as a source?

It wasn't even written in the era when three kingdoms actually happened. If I remember correctly it was either written during Song or Ming dynasty. That is why weapons from the book are from that time period not during the end of Han Dynasty.

You only need to think logically. How often did you see generals in the old charge to find their enemies' generals just to duel them? Most people hid behind where they could command comfortably and could look over the field so they could make the right call. Also, why would you want to duel someone when you can just steamroll them with your army?

[steelabjur@aol.com]

LOL Romance of the three kingdoms... That is a fiction my friend. Not even historically accurate. Who uses a fiction as a source?

It wasn't even written in the era when three kingdoms actually happened. If I remember correctly it was either written during Song or Ming dynasty. That is why weapons from the book are from that time period not during the end of Han Dynasty.

You only need to think logically. How often did you see generals in the old charge to find their enemies' generals just to duel them? Most people hid behind where they could command comfortably and could look over the field so they could make the right call. Also, why would you want to duel someone when you can just steamroll them with your army?

When was the last time you cast a spell from a scroll, or saw some undead? Battlemaster isn't a historical simulation, so a historical novel (where a rebel leader is a powerful spellcaster, to use one of the more outlandish examples) is as valid a source as the bayeux tapestry in this case my friend.

[JeVondair]

In my experience, most of the duels or invitations I witness is between two rivals from the opposite realms. So most of the time they're arguing when in the same region and then one challenges the other to a duel (mostly to dead). Clearly, the challenger is a very skilled swordfighter and why would you make the choice to lose your character over an argument. Instead they reject it (on whatever grounds) and are mocked by the other side.

For intra-realm duels, I think you're quite right that the lower knights shouldn't reject a duel from a higher placed noble. However, if we're talking about duels to the death, that would seriously diminish the noble count in said realm 

Then know your place and don't annoy your betters 

So some of you were present in Xavax for an odd exchange wherein some knight compared Selenia to Mendicant, which was an affront to me as a player and a MASSIVE insult to her ash she grew up under his rule. Naturally, she challenged him. Nothing, not even a word in response. THis is just one example from my personal experience, I'm sure you all have seen something similar.

IS it possible to create some sort of mechanical consequence? Would that even be something we should encourage? Personally, I do.

[Wimpie]

True, most players/characters use their words but when it comes to fighting a duel, they pull back. Might just also depend on whether it's a duel to first blood or death or so.. Most people are very attached to their character.

And that's why I don't provoke such persons