Duels in the Imperium

[Agemegos]

I figured the point of the duel may be to punish the transgressor without resorting to the 'barbarity' of a fistfight, the 'risk' of mortal combat, or the further dishonour of not giving the fellow a sporting chance to defend himself.

Assuming that duelling has any point at all!

Many noblemen and gentlemen boxed: bareknuckle. The reason that a fistfight won't do as a duel is not that it is 'barbaric', but that it is not lethal enough. Without the risk of mortal combat, a duel demonstrated neither the willingness to risk death nor the willingness to deal it out in defence of one's honour.

Look at a list of famous duels, such as that in Wikipedia. Quite a number of them involve one participant deloping or refusing to fire. (Eg. Wellington's duel with Winchelsea, Hamiilton in his duel with Burr.) Those men were obviously not there to punish anyone.

In many cases the offending party is willing to apologise after the duel. After demonstrating his willingness to fight on a point of honour he surrenders the point itself. He has had 'satisfaction' in the opportunity to demonstrate that he is prepared to kill or die over a wound to his self-esteem, or rather than be intimidated into an apology.

 

[Icosahedron]

Interesting, but I'm happy to have duels with non-lethal weapons IMTU regardless.

 

[far-trader]

We used screwdrivers, Dan, but the same game.

A little safer. I was like 8 or 9.

Yep, about the same age here.

Dan, we called the game 'Stretch' (ingenious, eh?) Dunno how widespread the name is, but this is the UK, so the game is pretty widely played.

Thanks, 'stretch' sounds kinda familiar. The other one bouncing around my head was 'splits' (also ingenious no? ).

I played it. D*mned if I remember what we called it

Thanks for another point on the map zonk.

So far it's from Texas to Alaska and points between (I'm about in the middle of that in Saskatchewan) and the UK on the other side of the pond. I suspect it's one of those global things with something very like it known to a certain group around the world at one time or another.

Danged if I can remember how we started playing it, if it was an "invention" or taught. I wonder if it's still done anywhere in this age of categorizing everything as a lethal weapon to be screened for and confiscated and everyone treated as psychopathic killers until proven otherwise (he ponders while treading water in the undertow to The Pit ).

Anyway, I liked the idea sparked by the thread that it was a kind of juvenile dueling and thought it might offer ideas for alternate dueling modes.

 

[BlackBat242]

Of course, with TL 9+ medical knowledge, knife wounds will become nearly automatically survivable (in the semi-controlled environment of a formal duel)... so knives might become the preferred weapon for such activities.

"Knives at 10 paces? Of course... does three sound sufficient? Alternating throws, challenged party first. Each exchange of throws to be at 3 paces closer than the previous."

 

[jatay3]

I figured the point of the duel may be to punish the transgressor without resorting to the 'barbarity' of a fistfight, the 'risk' of mortal combat, or the further dishonour of not giving the fellow a sporting chance to defend himself.

Assuming that duelling has any point at all!

What constitutes a point depends on what one values. Duels can be criticized on moral grounds. To say out of hand that they are pointless assumes that ones own idea of what constitutes a point is unquestionably superior. Someone who duels presumably considers honor a "point" and dueling a necessary means of protecting honor. Criticizing on pragmatic grounds is impossible as a duelist has different priorities.

 

[pendragonman]

What constitutes a point depends on what one values. Duels can be criticized on moral grounds. To say out of hand that they are pointless assumes that ones own idea of what constitutes a point is unquestionably superior. Someone who duels presumably considers honor a "point" and dueling a necessary means of protecting honor. Criticizing on pragmatic grounds is impossible as a duelist has different priorities.

Heh, See Hamilton V Burr for details.

 

[jatay3]

Heh, See Hamilton V Burr for details.

I know the story.

 

[castiglione]

Modern dueling would probably run the gamut from playing "chicken" with automobiles or your average bar brawl where two guys butt chests and then their friends (seconds) drag them apart whilst the two "combatants/duelists" yell colourful insults at each other after nary a punch or head butt has been thrown; apparently, many duels in Italy followed this model during the age of dueling although one must substitute rapier thrusts for punch and head butt.

 

[Bishop Odo]

Historically, duels followed a certain protocol, and where generally between relative “social” equals, as this was mentioned earlier. Considering the class structure and even the Soc stat, a duel between two people of unequal rank must have some special insult or social stigma involved to occur, but in general this would be unlikely.

Duels in the military where only between equal ranks, you can have a lesser rank channeling a higher one, it would be chaos. I could be wrong, but it’s just a thought, and It might have been already said in a earlier post.

 

[Zowy]

There are allso ritual duels. The encounter between the miners and the ladies could be run as a duel, as part of the elaborate pilgrimage in this adventure http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/advents/rites.html

No one tells the adventures beforehand, because even thought it happens every year on the return part of the pilgrimage and both sides know a number of duels to first blood. With ritual swords is going to happen on the docking ring ( with lots of beting going on ). Part of the pilgrimage is that they all pretend that the duel is not a set up and that the young miners who did not restrain thier friends from insulting the ladies and geting hurt. Are now going to be fighting 1v1 duels with them. You could toss in a ritual gift giveing after the fights, representing the cargo loaded on the ship and the grain being brought back. With lots of "Bounty of Mother Heya" and "Gifts of the stars" mumbojumbo if you want

 

[Nick Nova]

One of Ridley Scott’s early pictures was a wonderful piece called “The Duelists”. In it, two French officers fight a series of about a dozen duels over as many years during the Revolutionary/Napoleonic period. Swords, sabers, pistols, cavalry duels, the works.

The stated rules for NOT being able to issue or accept a challenge were if:

1. The officers were of different ranks,
2. The country was at war,
3. They were posted to different locations (i.e. out of contact).​

When a duel occurred, combat continued until one party was incapacitated or killed (or about to be killed).

I have not yet had an opportunity to run a duel in a Traveller campaign, but if I ever do it will probably follow these rules. If the parties are nobles but not officers, then I would substitute Social Standing for military rank.

With The Duelists as inspiration, I can see this as being a very entertaining sub-plot to an ongoing campaign…

 

[aramis]

My last traveller campaign had a young son-of-a-duke jerk NPC, who, when a PC Marquis challeneged him over his lack of military bearing, they fought the duel. It was technically a violation of the ICMJ... but since it resulted in a future leader realizing his coronet wasn't his authority source, but his own leadership qualities...

 

[knirirr]

This essay on dueling may be of interest - it's a defence of the morality of the practice from a time when it was still indulged in but was declining in popularity:
http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Articles/Machrie/Machrie.php

I have always treated duels (between officers or nobles) as illegal but possible to indulge in if one is of sufficiently high social rank to get away with influencing a court in one's favour. This would not be because duels are specifically banned but because they could be considered assault, murder or manslaughter unless the participants can show otherwise, and influence helps here.
The purpose of protocols and traditions is to show that if both parties abided by them then they were clearly not coerced into taking part. If a gentleman chooses to participate in a silly and dangerous exercise of his own free will he may argue that it is no business of the state to interfere with him. After all, the various offences mentioned above assume that the other party has initiated force against one's will.

Of course, any individual world may have its own strange customs...

 

[Agemegos]

Historically, duels followed a certain protocol, and where generally between relative “social” equals, as this was mentioned earlier. Considering the class structure and even the Soc stat, a duel between two people of unequal rank must have some special insult or social stigma involved to occur, but in general this would be unlikely.

Yes. One duelled with fellow-aristocrats. If members of the middle class gave offence, one beat them with a horsewhip. And if workers gave offence, one got one's servants to thrash them.

If you recall The Three Musketeers, D'Artagnan formed a lasting hatred for Rochefort (his "man of Meung"), not because Rochefort mocked his horse and clothes (which could have been satisfied by a duel) but because Rochefort had him beaten by lackeys (an unforgivable insult).

 

[Kyle Aaron]

[...] your average bar brawl where two guys butt chests and then their friends (seconds) drag them apart whilst the two "combatants/duelists" yell colourful insults at each other after nary a punch or head butt has been thrown [...]

I heard a rumour that someone whose last bar brawl was in the Army, on being threatened, did not bump chests, but instead clocked the guy in the guts and head with a pool cue, then turned and ran away.

On topic, if you have a Social stat and barons and so on in your game, and the Social stat helps you get a commission, and if you have swords - then really you have to have duels. Duels go with social class and swords the way bushy sideburns and silly accents do.

 

[Kyle Aaron]

Duels in the military where only between equal ranks, you can have a lesser rank channeling a higher one, it would be chaos. I could be wrong, but it’s just a thought, and It might have been already said in a earlier post.

In the British army of the 18th-19th centuries, an officer was not allowed to challenge a senior officer, only one below or equal to him.

Of course, promotion was by vacancy in the higher office, so that was probably part of the ban...

"I've been a lieutenant for twelve years now, and that Major really has rather bad table manners..."

 

[jatay3]

One rule I thought of is that the seconds would broker the method of the duel independently and the contestants are honor bound to accept their decision. That way a bully cannot count on being free to be obnoxious simply because he is a skillful duelist and the preservation of manners which is a compensatory by-product of an unfortunate custom shall be preserved. Anyone who gets involved in a duel is taking a risk as he cannot know the fight will be according to his specialty.

 

[Chaos]

One rule I thought of is that the seconds would broker the method of the duel independently and the contestants are honor bound to accept their decision. That way a bully cannot count on being free to be obnoxious simply because he is a skillful duelist and the preservation of manners which is a compensatory by-product of an unfortunate custom shall be preserved. Anyone who gets involved in a duel is taking a risk as he cannot know the fight will be according to his specialty.

Or, as an alternative, if the challenger is known to be much more skilled and/or experienced in the approved methods of duelling than the challenged party, then the challenged party can name a champion to fight in their stead.

Makes for a nice plot hook, too, if one of the PCs is asked to be someone´s champion. Or if the non-combatant PC must find a suitably skilled swordsman as champion for one of them.

 

[Eamon]

IMTU I have these rules for dueling.
1. All government employes (military and civilian) are banned from dueling and it is illegal to challenge.
2. No one can be forced to accept a challenge. It is illegal to stalk or harras anybody who refuses to duel.
3. What is the reason for the duel. Who cares! You don't need a reason as far as the government is concern.
4. Both parties must show up, drugfree and sober, to the legal dueling location. The police supervise all duels so no seconds are needed. The challenged party gets to choose weapons. The possible weapons are:
1) a caged fight using any martial art you want
2) dueling pistols any combination giving each person 1,2,or 4 shots
3) rapiers
EMS is present so the duelers have a good chance of survival.
I wanted to move duels from affairs of honor to just being another extreme sport.

 

[veltyen]

In the British army of the 18th-19th centuries, an officer was not allowed to challenge a senior officer, only one below or equal to him.

Of course, promotion was by vacancy in the higher office, so that was probably part of the ban...

"I've been a lieutenant for twelve years now, and that Major really has rather bad table manners..."

Wow. The wives and mistresses of the higher ranks would have their pick of the lower ranked officers I guess.

That would lead of course to more regulations about impropriety, and court martials.