Dueling

That "truly contentious ones are settled on the map", as you say, Angrim, is often because once you have begun to flesh out the various opinions on a subject you begin to get to the underlying principles or attitudes toward the subject.  In land claims those principles are best expressed as "It's just a game" or "It's about how players ought to treat each other as human beings."  If the former is true then of course land claims opposition is just another excuse for war and pretty meaningless since nobody should care if avatars go to battle and get mad and express themselves for good or ill.  If it's the latter though, then the whole matrix of play becomes a social interaction and how we treat others is a moral question.  "It's just a game" lets us off the hook and allows us to treat all others as pixels on the page.  "I'm sitting here playing a real person a game" means I have, if I'm a moral person, to consider how my actions effect and affect the person, and therefore, sometimes modify especially the "meta-game" aspects of my behavior so as to be a good sport. 

So the real problem is that just as we got to the question of "If the avatars of this game represent real people, how should those real people be treated" the moderator decided that we had strayed from the question and closed the thread.  It's kind of a shame that he either couldn't see the relevance or didn't like the intensity of the debate (or perhaps some other reason of which I am not privy) and closed the discussion, because I've always found that often when we begin to examine the assumptions upon which we are arguing we find more common ground and resolve conflict....without armies at that.

AJ


Edited by ajqtrz - 17 Jul 2015 at 20:18

Angrim,

Had the pragmatic reasons for avoiding dueling listed in my original post been all I said, you could indeed, conclude my avoidance of a duel was based entirely upon my not being prepared for such an encounter.  However, I do have a couple of observations re your response.

When you make the claim that, "but the idea behind trial by combat is that the righteous side of an argument is not apparent, perhaps not knowable, and that the two sides cannot abide one another" you are perhaps correct.  However, quite often the problem has little to do with the logic of one side or another but a lot to do with ego.  It is very difficult for a person, once they have taken a public stance, and once they have become, or feel they are, a "guardian" of the stance they take...representing many and gaining some social benefits from their skills....to admit that their logic is flawed.  This happens a lot more often than you think but it is just human nature.

One thing that prompts admiration in many is exactly the certainty with which the person handles the arguments against their own position.  This is especially true if they address those arguments in a non-threatening manner.  The fastest way to see who has the weakest arguments (tho not necessarily the weakest position, I my add) is to see who attacks the motives of the opposition or tries to change the question from "What is the most reasonable answer" to "who has the biggest armies."  Thus, it should surprise no one that we are in the state we are in with challenges being issued and wars declared. 

I sometimes agree with you re the state of the legal system in the West.  We have, in some ways, merely exchanged the swords for legal briefs and gladiators in three piece suits charging hundreds of dollars an hour to make a group of people -- usually selected for their lack of knowledge in a particular area -- believe one narrative over another.  On the other hand, at least in most cases, nobody is carried out of the courtroom run through with a sword.  Progress...probably.  Ideal -- certainly not.

In any case, it's the change of the question that I object to with dueling.  If the question is "what is a reasonable thing to think" and you want to decide it by the strength of armies then you haven't answered the question at all.  And thus, it will be asked again someday.

You are certainly correct that, ultimately, force is implied in a court system.  However, if the system is seen by a large majority as the best that can be hoped for and at least at some level just, they are more willing to submit to it's rulings.  A corrupt court is an abomination and destructive of the society is should be serving.  But sometimes it isn't force which causes a person to submit, sometimes it's respect and sometimes it's honesty.  When the court is neither respected or honest, then force is the only option they possess.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

AJ


Edited by ajqtrz - 05 Jul 2015 at 01:03

That there were a lot of people who participated in duels and many who died in "trial by combat" is certainly true, but the number of actual duels was a very small percent of the actual challenges issued.  My choice of the term "rare" was an overstatement perhaps, but the fact is, duels were the last resort to resolve a gentleman's disagreement.  "Discipline and Punish" by Foucault is a good source and the source of my comments.  His analysis examines French judicial systems and the shift from public displays of trial and punishment to the movement of such spectacles into the private realm (meaning the public could not observe). In this Angrim may be right as the sophistication of legal systems does increase during the same period.

But that is a side issue, I think.  My points were that dueling in Illy is nothing like dueling in any part of the world because a wise duelist in Illy would be well prepared to duel before issuing the challenge.  And the unprepared ought not to engage in that for which they are not prepared.

Finally, perhaps we should have a judicial system in Illy to negotiate disputes.  I tried once to do that and came to a conclusion with which both parties seemed to agree...but alas, one party was then hounded out of the game anyway.  Ultimately a judicial system is only as good people are willing to submit to it.

AJ

This proposal would strongly favor dwarf accounts, players with very high level commanders, and players familiar with elite divisions and crafted gear.

ajqtrz wrote: So in the end, if one is challenged to a duel you are probably at a great disadvantage from the start.  You haven't chosen or prepared to duel,  You won't have time to prepare.  The challenger is not only probably more prepared but, if he's also cunning, has support already lined up (if he's in a large alliance or at  least one much larger than your own he most certainly will have more resources upon which to draw).

Precisely why many "trial by combat" systems allowed the challenged to appoint a champion. Presumably if the challenge were terribly unjust (or the challenger sufficiently hated), a suitable champion would volunteer their sword.

I agree with Angrim, a duel culture with commonly accepted rules would be more sophisticated than Illyriad's current state. Such a system might not even make sense in Illyriad, given the comparative ease of defense vs offense in this game, assuming a competent military player. Carrying a siege to completion is far more challenging than destroying one, given approximately equal budgets (and admittedly assuming no major city construction mistakes).