i would very much like to see if the developers would include trail by combat. for instance if i was to kill an npc and someone reported me i could challenge him to a duel to the death.(witness elimination)
That’s make no sense at all. This isn’t wild west.
1 Like
game of thrones much? D:
2 Likes
Don’t take this as promise of anything, but this doesn’t so wild westy
Duels were quite a common forms of trial in middle ages when both sided claimed to be innocent or dishonored although it became less common in late middle ages. It became illegal eventually but if there’s no plaintiff the illegality is only formal. And since the habit survived well into 18th and 19th century it is easy to believe that duels happened even more in the past. Mainly between higher born dudes of course, yet still. I would like to point out that the main goal was not to kill but to win and that even man-woman duels were a thing, with specific rules.
6 Likes
I like the idea of Trials by Combat (and they do fit considering they were mainly a Germanic thing) but it could not be over the smallest offences/a get out of jail free card. Mainly because, if memory serves, in some countries and time periods only nobles were afforded this privilege: the son of a blacksmith is not noble and neither is the shop keeper whom you stole from - you’d have your hand cut off (or would be hanged or some such), the shopkeeper might get his item back, and the world would continue on without remembering the silly little peasant who demanded a noble’s privilege.
Though, that said, my knowledge of this time period is lacking where the privileges of nobles is concerned, exactly, and I am not 100% sure if this was the privilege of only the nobility. I don’t think it was but I cannot imagine it was allowed for just any old criminal act.
That said, the whole point of a trial by combat is that there were no witnesses to the alleged crime, which is entirely possible, but how many times are the guards going to let you set up a trial by combat before they cotton on to the fact that you end up on trials against a large number of goods providers…
An almost witnessless murder, though, might be allowed to be decided by such a trial. But what happens if the player loses? These things are, entirely possibly, to the death and, if they were not, would result in the defeated accused being found guilty of a crime which can have some severe punishments.
1 Like
Thumbs up for @MadSmejki for an elegant response!
My quick note: You need to keep in mind that two guys dueling is not the same as trial by combat. Trial by combat is ordered by some higher instance (i.e. Lysa Arryn condemning Tyrion to have a trip through the moon door, my first and last GoT reference, pinky promise!). I can imagine duels that were contests for honor and reputation but more important matters in HRE of 15th century were ussually settled in land court where politics and wealth played important role.
However I was recently told by my friend (who happens to be an aspiring historian) that there was some regulation for duels between man and a woman. To balance the forces man was forced to stand in a hole up to his waist. I will ask him to provide more on this topic as it can be quite hillarious. 
Just throwing this in here for a giggle.
A formal duel and a trial by ordeal is absolutely NOT the same thing.
But both were quite common among the nobility during the middle ages:
-
Formal duel:
If you offended the honor of a knight or the honor of a noble woman a knight could demand satisfaction in a formal duel, often by tjousting or with the sword. This duels often weren’t about killing the other knight but about beating him in combat. The winner often got all the gear and even the horse of the loser. Formal duels in middle ages were often about humiliation and not about the wish to kill somebody. It was common that you could either fight for yourself or delegate that role to someone who was willing to fight for you. That was very common about the “non-fighting” part of the nobility.
You usually couldn’t demand satisfaction for “no reason”, for example to kill off a witness. And usually only members of the nobility were able to fight in a formal duel. It wasn’t common or respected to challenge a nobleman if you were none and a nobleman would never have challenged a peasant or someone below his own class. -
Trial by ordeal
If the judge in a trial (in most cases the landlord himself) couldn’t decide between two positions he could install a trial by ordeal between two parties/opponents. Two knight had to fight (often with swords and without wearing armour for a faster end) until one of them was hurt enough to not be able to continue fighting. Again killing the enemy was only the worst outcome of such a fight. The winner of the fight proved to the court and the judge that that his position was right. In a trial the word of a nobleman usually counted more than the word of a peasant or someone who was not part of the nobility in general so only in struggles between two members of the same class a trial by ordeal was common.
I think both would fit nicely to the game IF implemented properly and intertwined with the overall story. But I don’t think that one of the two elements should be “a sandbox gameplay element”. You shouldn’t be able to challenge each and everyone just as you wish. That would be totally unrealistic. But it could definitely make sense in some quests or special cases with all the proper requirements to make a formal duel (e.g. by trying to insult a nobleman/knight until he demands satisfaction in a formal duel) or a trial by ordeal (e.g. by trying to push the judge in that direction in a case without any other evidences or witnesses) a valid result of action.
4 Likes
It would need to be done properly and also make it very difficult, you shouldn’t be allowed to kill someone then demand a trial by duel and easily beat an opponent to walk free again, it defeats the purpose of punishment or trials in the first place.
Here you go:
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Talhoffer_Fechtbuch_(MS_Thott.290.2Âş)
And here are some people trying it out
2 Likes
Funny enough, the same thing once happened when a court decided that the accuser in a murder case was a dog.
The dog won.
5 Likes
yeah, in game of thrones its a duel to the death but that was very rare. And for good reason, why waste a good knight on some squabble they were for fighting wars and a dead knight is useless. they just might have had something like the gladiator kind of fight between two prisoners or something if at all one on one combat in an offficial way. A duel where both fight till the other party can’t fight and is declared the loser is possible though. The jousting events were one of those things where this was in, the way that in GoT is called the melêe or combat on foot with blunted swords and axes etc. They key was to wear down the opponent rather then kill him. If it were to happen they would not take that lightly and see if punishment is needed.
actually commoners CAN have trail by combat they just have to consult the judge first. But still it is true that nobility helped in this cause. I hope i get knighted…or forge some papers of nobility.
i feel a teaser in this…i like it.
in trail by combat with man in a pit, they once recorded a woman lift a man out of his hole by the crotch.
Animal trial are fun any chance there gonna be in the game? Wasn’t a dog companion a stretch goal what if he was trialed and you had a quest chain to prove his innocence.
Trail by combat as an easy way out after a crime may not be ideal but what’s the alternative skyrims guards releasing you after sleeping over a night? If the player really goes on a crazy killing spree (maybe breaks the main quest in the process) then yeah most people should just turn hostile but in other less obvious chases a trial by combat might be the best solution. It could still be very hard maybe you get a stronger opponent each time. If you already won a trail by combat after all people would remember that so you clearly made some enemies that may arrange for your opponent in the trail to be represented by a very good proven fighter. (could even be impossible to beat at some point to punish the player)
“Crazy killing spree” = game over -> reload savegame
Simple.
It doesn’t have to be game over, no need to return the player to the main menu but you should be notified as proposed in the Immortality of quest NPCs Thread. I actually meant “Crazy killing spree” as an example of a situation where I don’t want a trial by combat as an easy way out. I edited the above post a bit hopefully it’s more clear now.
Oh, I didn’t mean a game over screen neither.
I agree that trial by ordeal/combat shouldn’t be an easy way out of trials. But I don’t agree on your conclusion since I think there are just actions which should indeed lead to “a broken game”. If you go an a killing spree, killing a few townsmen, the rest of the people and guards should just fight against you til you die. If you surrender you should be killed immediately or executed later. There shouldn’t be an easy way out. Neither trial by ordeal nor the Skyrim “solution” are imo fitting the situation. Personally I think that players should be responsible for their playstyle. Playing a “realistic medieval game” should implicate that you won’t be able to kill each and everyone like you’re used from GTA or Skyrim. In a realistic game you won’t “slip through”, but it will get you killed for sure, sooner or later. I don’t think that Warhorse should cater in any way to such flawed sandbox mechanics and playstyles. Actually players should be realistically punished for their crimes. That’s what I meant with “game over -> reload a savegame”…
1 Like