Pip's Poll: Duelling Rules

[zanzibar]

Verrliit, I agree with everything you just said, including the bit on Seytra (unfortunately).  Yes, this is about establishing an honourable way of duelling by the dominant / most popular definition of honour.

But it seems to me that a few people also feel that this is the correct way to duel.... the right way, the only way.  So strongly, that such rules should even be built into the mechanics of Planeshift --  that violations of this IC code should have OOC consequences.  Am I wrong?  Is this attitude not actually there, and I\'m chasing shadows?  Or do we all agree that this is merely a set of rules that many characters will agree upon, but everyone will have the opportunity to break them if and when they choose to, with only IC consequences?

[Lolitra, Celorrim Purrty Twins]

Look forward to the finished \'Code of Conduct for Duelists\'  and will happily give comments on it when it is here...

In the mean time... one really shouldn\'t just challenge without first RP the build up to the Challenge... or at least /tell if if is an assassination attempt ... as some players do take offence when it is done to them with out provokation.

[Seytra]

Originally posted by zanzibar
Verrliit, I agree with everything you just said, including the bit on Seytra (unfortunately).

Obviously, I never doubted you would.

Originally posted by zanzibar
But it seems to me that a few people also feel that this is the correct way to duel.... the right way, the only way.  So strongly, that such rules should even be built into the mechanics of Planeshift --  that violations of this IC code should have OOC consequences.  Am I wrong?  Is this attitude not actually there, and I\'m chasing shadows?  Or do we all agree that this is merely a set of rules that many characters will agree upon, but everyone will have the opportunity to break them if and when they choose to, with only IC consequences?

We do agree that this is merely a set of guidelines. With valid IC reason, and with the proper OOC clarification and the proper way to RP this, then characters will obviously break these rules. And they need to also fully accept the IC consequences should they get caught realistically.
On the other hand, this is by far no free for all for rulebreaking through pseudo-RP (i.e., OOC PvP disguised as RP). Those cases need to have OOC consequences, just as any other disruption of RP.
The only exception is that IMO players should still try to move duels off populated places, but I already explained that and the reasons for it.

[zanzibar]

That\'s all nice Seytra, and I appreciate that you held back the flaming and ad hominems.  Sometimes that\'s not an easy thing to do.  But I also know that your definition of what constitutes out-of-character behaviour is sometimes radically different than the views held by other players, so I think we should try to be as clear and objective about what we\'re saying as possible.

Personally, I have no intention of interupting RP with OOC notification that I\'m about to RP an evil, or misguided, or true neutral, or chaotic, or roguish, or misleading character or action.  I think that such \"OOC notification\" is disruptive, and that people should assume a reasonable element of risk when engaging in an RPG, but perhaps I misunderstood you?

[Seytra]

Originally posted by zanzibar
That\'s all nice Seytra, and I appreciate that you held back the flaming and ad hominems.  Sometimes that\'s not an easy thing to do.

This is hard only when there is no noticable good will coming from the other side. You will (or should) have noticed that I try to abstain from overly harsh comments for quite a while before stating my opinions more bluntly. Apart from that, it wasn\'t true flaming anyway.

Originally posted by zanzibar
But I also know that your definition of what constitutes out-of-character behaviour is sometimes radically different than the views held by other players, so I think we should try to be as clear and objective about what we\'re saying as possible.

Personally, I have no intention of interupting RP with OOC notification that I\'m about to RP an evil, or misguided, or true neutral, or chaotic, or roguish, or misleading character or action.  I think that such \"OOC notification\" is disruptive, and that people should assume a reasonable element of risk when engaging in an RPG, but perhaps I misunderstood you?

No, you understood me perfectly well. Due to the vast amount of bad, or non-RPers, the common trends to abuse the internet\'s anonymity to be shielded from retaliation, and the experiences from other MMORPGs with how the majority of players (ab) use the PvP system, I have come to the conclusion that one can not only not assume that other players are good RPers, in character or even not trying to gain OOC benefits from the use of any such system, but that one must assume that everything that doesn\'t clearly stem from RP with that person is OOC. If that person is either not known to one, or if that person never RPd with one, then they must be assumed to be OOC.
And even if not, RP storylines can vastly differ, sadly, due to OOC constraints. So one person may be farther down the timeline than another, and thus the assassination attempt wouldn\'t be due in the one RPers reality yet until they manage to get to the point in time.

All these mean that an OOC agreement must be reached beforehand. They are most definitely not disruptive to RP. On the contrary, they clear up how the RP is meant to be received and thus exclude misinterpretation. Not having such an OOC agreement beforehand is a lot more disruptive to RP, because the RPer has no way to assess if it is OOC or IC and if IC matches.

People must not assume any risk when engaging in RP.  At any one time, people must be able to choose if they wish to take a risk or not, as I explained in one of the previous posts.
But without any notification, how are they even going to know whether or not you are actually RPing at all? So even if they are willing to assume \"risks\" by engaging in RP, if they see a random duelling request popping up, how will they know that it is from another RPer, not from an OOC PvP er or griefer?
IMNSHO, the one who wishes to truly RP a malicious deed, will have the burden to make sure that it is clear to everyone that the deed is IC, and also to ensure that it is acceptable to everyone einvolved. I think you are making it a lot too easy for malicious people, and you are placing the burden of figuring out if it\'s IC or not and all the other implications onto the victim, who has more than enough o do with dealing with the results.

Fact: most people in PS are not exceptional RPers.
Fact: only exceptional RPers can deal with being the victim side almost universally
Fact: there are by far less RPers, even less good ones, than there are abusers, griefers, jerks and OOC PvPers in any online game.
Conclusion: malicious deeds must be previously agreed upon OOCly to avoid any grief.

And since I am unable to further explain it, and because I think that this is so obvious and clear that I can\'t see why anyone would not agree with that (except for OOC maliciousness), I will stop with this post on this subject. If you really think so radically different than I do, then no amount of clarifying will ever make sense to you. Everyone else can read my other posts. I can\'t make it any clearer, so I won\'t try.

[zanzibar]

Ha!  Well that certainly didn\'t last very long.

Anyway, Planeshift is an RP game.  So, unlike you, I assume that what people do is IC first and foremost.  Also, I don\'t assume that everyone around me stinks at RP relative to my own leet role-playing skills or is behaving OOC without apology.  Some people call it benefit of the doubt, other people call it RP.  Also, we aren\'t talking about random duels popping up.  That\'s a different issue, and everyone pretty much agrees that duel spamming is bad.

Then again, if you go around assuming that everyone around you is either acting OOC or stinks at RP, then you will see what you want to see.  You admitted in your post that you\'re incapabable of seeing the other side of this discussion, which I think is fairly alarming:

I think that this is so obvious and clear that I can\'t see why anyone would not agree with that (except for OOC maliciousness)

It\'s nice.  Anyone that disagrees with you is practicing \"out of character maliciousness\".  You do realize that this forum id strictly out of character, yes?  Anyway, you should still work at seeing issues from all sides.  It helps in moving discussions forward.  And I\'m not sure if you answered my concern about consent to malicious deeds being intrinsic to simply playing a RPG.  Perhaps I missed it in your post?

[Verrliit]

I am slowly parsing the language of the Code Duello, that Sensotaka was so gracious to gift to us.


Since no one else has had time or seen fit, to post on-topic as yet, I will make a beginning, myself.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - THE CODE OF HONORABLE DUELLING -


PREAMBLE:

Those who have Honor, take heed of this code.

A Duel of Honor is a fight for Honor.  It is not sparring.  It is not fought to gauge one\'s strength or skills.  It is fought to gain by force, an apology or redress, for an insult or wrong.

You who challenge for a matter of honor, take care that you do not dishonor yourself whilst you punish one deserving.  Search your heart well, for one who but pretends to duel for Honor, is a scoundrel, to whom no respect is due.

Both challenger and challenged, must search their hearts; for honor is best served by apology and forgiveness, negotiation and redress.


THE PROTOCOLS:

1. The challenger accuses the one to be challenged, preferably in public, proclaiming that insult or injury is his cause.  (Specifics need not be public, but the matter at issue, must be clear to both parties.)

--------------------------------------------------


It is a beginning.

I could use some help.

Anyone?



Verrliit

[darkw00t]

an Honour duel should be public, fun duels shouldn\'t have to public, but everyone will be going \"But that was an Honour duel!\" so it could be hard to do this

[Verrliit]

Originally posted by darkw00t
an Honour duel should be public, fun duels shouldn\'t have to public, but everyone will be going \"But that was an Honour duel!\" so it could be hard to do this

In case you were worried:

Hide-and-go-Kill is quite safe, as is sparring. These are both outside of the RP of duelling, and both will continue.

We have simply recognized that outside of those two things,  the Devs have cleverly forced RP upon those who wish to be duellists, because they cannot obtain an opponent otherwise.

Since that is so, we are creatiing RP guidelines for honorable duelling.

These are not Rules for players. These are definitions of terms, and of courtesy.

Following the code or not, depends entirely on whether or not one is playing an honorable character.

These are only a starting point for RP, a common language to discuss duelling, and a reference to measure the quality of our duelling RP against.

I am not about to give up Hide-and-go-Kill, either.

Having fun is why I\'m here.


Verrliit

[Lolitra, Celorrim Purrty Twins]

why not look up dueling throught the ages... and see what gentlemanly rules there used to be and start from there...?

http://renaissance.dm.net/compendium/26.html

[Pip]

Verrliit, may I offer the following:

2. The accused may counter with further accusations against the challenger, but if apology is forthcoming and accepted the duel is concluded.

3. If the parties prefer to continue, they may fight on until one is wounded, disabled or first blood is drawn.

Perhaps someone else can continue....................

[Askr]

Originally posted by Verrliit
Um.

Now that the obligatory, \"I am better than you are.  I play and RP properly, and you don\'t.\" posts by Seytra are out of the way...

Its true and good RP...

Back to topic.

In this thread, we are creating a Code of Honorable Duelling.

Since links were asked for I would like to present a link on Norse dueling in Old Iceland.  I admit that I had made a comment about limited rules for dueling in Iceland, and apologize for the mistake.  I had confused the actual formal duel with informal single combat.  This link provides some interesting information and is not quite as restrictive-detailed as the other Code presented.   Perhaps an amalgamation of the two?

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/drengur.htm

from the Hurstwic website:

Many of the descriptions of duels in the sagas begin with a recitation of the dueling law (h?lmg?ngul?g). The law seems to vary from one saga to the next, but there are similarities.

For the duel, a cloak was laid on the ground, about three meters square. If either man stepped off the cloak, he lost the duel and was deemed to be n??ingr.

Weapons used were swords, spears, and axes. Each man was allowed three shields, in the likely possibility of breakage. If either man\'s blood fell on the cloak, he was permitted to withdraw from the duel. The man with the worse wound could buy himself off. However, if a man died, all his property went to the winner, so most fights were to the death.

Chapter 9 of Svarfd?la saga provides slightly different details:

Then they proceeded to where they were to fight, and Moldi said he would state the duelling rules, \"for I have challenged you. Each of us will place his cloak under his feet, and each of us must stand on his cloak, not moving the thickness of a finger, and the one that moves will bear a coward\'s name, while the man that wins will be called a valiant man wherever he goes. Whoever is wounded or defeated can release himself from the duel by paying three marks.\"

Additional links on the subject:

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/holmgang.htm

Wikipedia on duels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel

General Info:

http://faculty.smu.edu/bwheeler/Ency/duels.html

Interesting for its possible context in-game:  

http://www.alliancemartialarts.com/history.html

Is this what you had in mind?

[Sensotaka]

In support of a code of honorable conduct, I offer the Defenders Code Duello as it is currently written. It is a product of several guild leader\'s attempts to civilize dueling (see: an invitation to all guild leaders). Perhaps it will spark a bit of interest in the specifics of such a code.

Note: it assumes the agrieved is intent on dueling to restore his or her honor and therefore does not cover the use of preduel formalities or other methods (such as the use of an apology) to settle disputes. Such things are thought to be normal courtesy.

SensoTaka Kishu : Defenders Banneret      
\" I would rather die with honor than live with shame...\"    
Note: in this context, \"defender\" refers to the being that is on the defense, not to a specific guild.


The Defenders Code Duello
Rules For Honorable Duelling

1. All communications concerning the duel are to be made in person and using the \"/say\" communication window so that others in the area may hear the conduct of the potential duelists.

2. In a formal duel, the rules should be gone over immidiately before the duel begins so that both parties fully understand them and agree to any variations.

3. No duelling in the plaza or any tavern at all, or anywhere that is well populated. (Unless by a prearranged audience)

4. A verbal challenge is made by the challanger or agrieved party giving (a) reason for challenge, (b) weapons preferred (including fists), (c) whether magic should or should not be used, (d) the prefered time and place of the event.

5.The defender may countermand the challanger\'s choice of weapons, the challangers choice concerning the use of magic and / or choice of time and date without damage to his honor. The challenge is then verbally accepted or declined by the defender.

6. When the conditions discussed in (b), (c) and (d) have been met, the duel should begin (assuming that the challange is accepted immidiately). Both the challenger and the defender should place themselves at a convenient length facing each other.

7. At an agreed signal, from a 3rd party if possible, the duel will begin.

8. If you use the PvP system for your RP fights, then any form of exploitation is not allowed. Commodities like shortcuts may be used for convenience, but not for speed.

9. For training purposes duelists should go to an empty room in the arena or away from areas which are busy, where parties can challenge each other as much as they wish. (This may suit those who like to fight each other for fun). In the case of multiple continuous practice sessions, a verbal challange is necessary only at the beginning of each session.

Note: it has ben suggested that the pit in the DR be used as a training area.

[r.guppy]

With the new update the pit in death realm is not posable so suggested areas are:
 To right of temple on grass near podium/ empty rooms in arena/ as you enter main city up steps to left grassy area/ Ojavada there is a empty room to left of first ramp in the warehouse districted/ open for more places.

  )

[Sensotaka]

An appendium to the Code Duello posts...

It should be noted that neither the origional Code Duello nor the Defenders Code Duello previously posted necessarilly required the death of a participant. Honor is satisfied if one or the other yeilds at any time durring the course of a duel and at such time the duel was formally ended with the shaking of hands.

If the attack was continued after this point or one participant attacked another after the duel was over, it was considered dishonorable (and usually resulted in termination of the offending participant by BOTH seconds).

Note: seconds (generally close and trusted friends) were often employed to ensure proper conduct by dueling participants, prevent interference by outsiders  and to act as witnesses.

SensoTaka Kishu : Defenders Banneret      
\"I would rather die with honor than live with shame...\"