• Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    And what happens when the Democrat tells him to fuck off?

    The first rule of dueling was that a challenge to duel between two gentleman could not generally be refused without the loss of face and honor

    “lol” said the Democrat, “lmao”.

    • OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      In truth, there were several reasons that one could decline a duel without loss of honor. For example if the duel challenge was issued with obvious quarrelous intent.

      Eg:

      “You’re a liar”

      “No I’m not. What are you talking about?”

      “Ah, so you deny being a liar?”

      “Yes, wtf are you getting at?”

      “Then by your denial, you accuse me of being a liar! This insult shall not stand. I demand satisfaction.”

      “Lol, fuck off”

      Another case would be if one duelist was not of sufficient station to match the honor of their opponent. A freshly-minted bourgeoisie vs a nobleman, for example.

      Lastly, duels might be turned down if it were obvious to all that that a significant skill mismatch were at play. For example, a military officer might not be allowed to duel a civilian with sabres. Guns, however, were generally considered more egalitarian.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        To be fair only because pistols at the time were so innacurate that even the worlds best shot wouldn’t have been able to garauntee a hit. Modern pistols would be a different story.