It could just be me, but I see no shame at all in declining a duel. Or are we going to go back to when the challenged get to choose the weapon and location? Naked, with whips, to the death would likely make most people trained with a firearm question it. I’m not sure how popular whips are, but I wouldnt consider myself completely inept with them and could probably tag their twig and berries pretty early on in the fight.
Refusing to participate in a ritual that is commonly practiced will always make society recoil. As the system gets normalized and the idea of dueling loses its absurdity, refusing to participate in them after commiting to an idea would inevitably send the message that you don’t truly believe in your words, at least not enough to “bet everything on it”. And not having enough resources/experience to stand your ground would literally cost you your life.
Besides, we already have dueling in the court of law.
-I believe your organization has wronged me, I demand retribution
-I disagree and to double down by inviting you to sue me
Now do you put your capital and livelyhood at risk to stand your ground or back off?
You can not represent yourself (You don’t have experience)
Your opponent has a whole legal team and doesn’t have to sacrifice production to fight you (You lack the resources to fight back)
There’s got to be some weapon that’s impossible to aim, takes no skill, and kills instantly. Something to make it a 50/50 chance with no lingering injury for the winner.
In germany in the 18th/19th century there was the extreme duelling form of “übers Sacktuch schießen” where both duellists stood very close (both gripping the same cloth) and were shooting at the same time with pistols, but only one was loaded. Since the distance was so close, missing was impossible and only random chance decided the winner/survivor.
It could just be me, but I see no shame at all in declining a duel. Or are we going to go back to when the challenged get to choose the weapon and location? Naked, with whips, to the death would likely make most people trained with a firearm question it. I’m not sure how popular whips are, but I wouldnt consider myself completely inept with them and could probably tag their twig and berries pretty early on in the fight.
Refusing to participate in a ritual that is commonly practiced will always make society recoil. As the system gets normalized and the idea of dueling loses its absurdity, refusing to participate in them after commiting to an idea would inevitably send the message that you don’t truly believe in your words, at least not enough to “bet everything on it”. And not having enough resources/experience to stand your ground would literally cost you your life.
Besides, we already have dueling in the court of law.
Now do you put your capital and livelyhood at risk to stand your ground or back off?
Ah yes. Dueling for the rich. The He who has the most money and best lawyers approach.
There’s got to be some weapon that’s impossible to aim, takes no skill, and kills instantly. Something to make it a 50/50 chance with no lingering injury for the winner.
In germany in the 18th/19th century there was the extreme duelling form of “übers Sacktuch schießen” where both duellists stood very close (both gripping the same cloth) and were shooting at the same time with pistols, but only one was loaded. Since the distance was so close, missing was impossible and only random chance decided the winner/survivor.
Proto-Russian Roulette, but with a smaller random factor?
(Statistics nerds feel free to enlighten me to a better description)
Hand grenades, at 5 paces lol.
Edit: yeah, there’d be injuries all around but very low skill.
Oh no! ANOTHER whip duel? I hope I don’t lose again. ;)