Luria

[Chenier]

Well, usually, at least one of them does have *something* to lose. It's just a little different when that something is an entire kingdom.

What is the ratio of duels that are actually accepted?

Usually, you have a guy that has nothing to lose that challenges someone that has much to lose. Then, the first guy is scandalized that the guy who has much to lose refuses to accept his challenge...

[Solari]

What is the ratio of duels that are actually accepted?

Usually, you have a guy that has nothing to lose that challenges someone that has much to lose. Then, the first guy is scandalized that the guy who has much to lose refuses to accept his challenge...

I can count the number of duels involving councilors that I've witnessed on one hand, and I think two of them are Lorgan's doing.

[JPierreD]

Sevastian isn't Tybalt. He can make things far, far worse than Tybalt could.

I'd like to see what he can do.

Malus or Fulco refusing the duel would be tantamount to admitting treachery and dishonour upon their houses. It's too public a matter to be refused without great shame.

I remember Pianese, Capets, Vesperians, Tybalt, Jeffrey and others saying the exact same thing. And Sevastian laughing at some of them.

[Dante Silverfire]

I remember Pianese, Capets, Vesperians, Tybalt, Jeffrey and others saying the exact same thing. And Sevastian laughing at some of them.

This.

Honestly, duels don't really get fought unless both characters are on the same level, and both "players" are willing to risk it. I think duels would be much more effective as an RP tool if deaths were common. Such as with enforced mortality. As it is, characters are too valuable to simply lose to a toss of the dice. Not every player views things this way as there are quite a few that RP their characters without regard for their living. However, I'd say a vast majority care whether or not they can keep playing their favorite char.

Brom did the same thing as many of the above listed, but the difference was that he was bluffing the whole time, because I care too much about the character to put it up to chance if he dies from a simple duel. At least one for revenge. A duel for love or otherwise, I'd go forward with. I guess I've RP'ed it as being more pragmatic that revenge wasn't worth such a risk in Brom's point of view, but I'm not fully sure how I feel on the issue.

In general, duels are not what they were originally intended for as we as players recognized that other players don't want to lose their chars. This means we won't necessarily punish a char IC as much for refusing a duel simply because we might as well.

[Woelfy]

I remember Pianese, Capets, Vesperians, Tybalt, Jeffrey and others saying the exact same thing. And Sevastian laughing at some of them.

Some of them had laughable causes to warrant their challenges. Not to mention, the majority of duels that Sevastian has seen fought were fought by people of vastly different levels of the hierarchy. With the exception of Duke Karibash v. Duke Thomas, afaik.

Sevastian isn't the nicest guy, but he definitely adheres to the hard line definition of a Noble. He has been since his birth.

My other character is quite the opposite.

[Norrel]

Not to mention, the majority of duels that Sevastian has seen fought were fought by people of vastly different levels of the hierarchy.

And this isn't?

[Woelfy]

And this isn't?

How would it be?

Malus is a Duke. Sevastian is now just a Duke. Perhaps the duel against Fulco would be improper now that his crown has no country, but the duel against Malus would be completely in line with the hierarchy.

[Norrel]

Malus is a Duke. Sevastian is now just a Duke.

Didn't know that Sevastian still held a duchy.

[Woelfy]

Didn't know that Sevastian still held a duchy.

Indeed he does, even if it is a craphole of a duchy.

[Norrel]

Indeed he does, even if it is a craphole of a duchy.

Anyways, duels tended not to be fought IRL over stuff like this. It was mostly a thing for knights trying to prove themselves by getting hotheaded about everything - rulers tended to just !@#$ eachother over ruthlessly.

[Woelfy]

There is a bit of a personal betrayal involved between Malus and Sevastian. An Oath broken is a serious breach of honour in Sevastian's eyes.

[Norrel]

There is a bit of a personal betrayal involved between Malus and Sevastian. An Oath broken is a serious breach of honour in Sevastian's eyes.

Right, he's fully within his rights to demand a duel, but it's not exactly precedented for someone in Malus' situation to accept, IRL or ingame.

[JPierreD]

Some of them had laughable causes to warrant their challenges.

Sevastian isn't the nicest guy, but he definitely adheres to the hard line definition of a Noble. He has been since his birth.

Ask any of those Sevastian laughed at and they will reply the very same thing.

[Solari]

I imagine this is obvious to anyone who's reads Malus' past comments on duels, but it isn't going to happen. Not in a million years. People have very personal opinions about duels, but it's a feature of the game that I feel has been twisted by weird, anachronistic notions of romanticized nobility, like Aaron Burr dueling Alexander Hamilton or something.

"You shall retract your slander!" 'I refuse!' "Sabers at dawn, sir!"

No thanks. I created the idea of blood debts exactly because it seemed stupid for a duke/ruler/priest to go dueling knights, lords, and lower nobles. A man or woman of power doesn't, IMHO, whip out a sword and demand satisfaction. They leverage their resources to suffocate, kill, or drive off their enemies. Ain't that right, Brom/Ramiel/Norrel/Arundel/Finsternis? I think Malus even made that comment to Brom, when he came knocking for a duel.

"Pick up your sword!"
'But I have a thousand. I have an army.'

[Nosferatus]

I imagine this is obvious to anyone who's reads Malus' past comments on duels, but it isn't going to happen. Not in a million years. People have very personal opinions about duels, but it's a feature of the game that I feel has been twisted by weird, anachronistic notions of romanticized nobility, like Aaron Burr dueling Alexander Hamilton or something.

"You shall retract your slander!" 'I refuse!' "Sabers at dawn, sir!"

No thanks. I created the idea of blood debts exactly because it seemed stupid for a duke/ruler/priest to go dueling knights, lords, and lower nobles. A man or woman of power doesn't, IMHO, whip out a sword and demand satisfaction. They leverage their resources to suffocate, kill, or drive off their enemies. Ain't that right, Brom/Ramiel/Norrel/Arundel/Finsternis? I think Malus even made that comment to Brom, when he came knocking for a duel.

"Pick up your sword!"
'But I have a thousand. I have an army.'

Yes if your chaarcters feels the acuser is to low to be fought, pick a champion.
I believe a true lord shouldn't step away from any challange, unless the challange can be arrested and executed, or just banned.