Swords in a modern setting

So I've got this character, with a backstory, motivation, personality, emotional issues, everything. He's kinda been my default character since middle school, although he matured as I learned the basic do's and don'ts of characterization. He's a Proud Warrior Race guy living in a modern urban setting. Feasible so far, right?

The thing is, he uses a sword and a shield, and he has ever since I created him, back when I failed to see the impracticality of using a melee weapon where guns are prevalent. But I can't just make him use guns instead, because the sword is an inseparable part of his character.

I could resolve this by putting the story in a purely fantasy-themed setting, but that would be a lot less fun to write- plus I like the modern edge. So I have the problem of placing a character hunting down "demons" (close enough) and affiliating with a sorceress...in the middle of a 21st century American metropolis. How do I reconcile the two? I toyed briefly with the idea of making the "demons" exist only in an alternate universe where swords are more effective, and the character travels between the two worlds, but hasn't that been done before? And would I be able to pull that off? I say yes and no, respectively.

So, any ideas, or will I have to compromise one or more elements?

We had discussion on this a while back. There's some interesting stuff in there if you're prepared to dig through the over 500 posts.

The demons could be resistant to firearms but not bladed weapons. Inb4 someone makes a bullet that has blades stick out the side mid flight.

That works, right up until you remember that you can put a bodkin bullet in a discarding sabot and fire it out of a shotgun or similar large-diameter weapon. Plus of course, bows.

Of course, one question is what sort or sword is your hero using, is it slashing sword (ie, sabre or katana), a 'bashing' sword (ie, longsword or claymore) or a thrusting sword (ie estoc)? This is actually kind of important, since killing a demon is going to require a certain weapon, and so you'll want to mould your demon's tactics around the weapon you chose.

edited 24th Apr '12 2:45:48 AM by MattII

What if the only thing that can kill a demon is a certain substance, but:

• The substance is too scarce, or
• The substance gets messed up by whatever the gun does to it

Need more info before I can reasonably speculate, though.

A traditional weakness of non-human humanoids is cold iron, so there's that.

In any case, the shield is the really strange factor here. Walking around with a sword is bizarre enough in and of itself, but a shield is a tool of premodern battlefield warfare, and was never really kept around for personal defense unless you count bucklers.

The other thing is that the sword is, to this day, pretty much the ultimate close combat weapon for unarmoured combat. A gunman can shoot a swordsman down at range, so it's no use comparing the two. But close in, especially against adversaries who prefer close combat, a sword has a great variety of potential applications. Not only can one cut and thrust with one, but it can be used as a grappling lever and most Western swords are built with some polearm functionality in mind. For instance, longswords often have crossguards and pommels made specifically to deal better impact force damage when used offensively.

In the master methods of medieval and Renaissance swordsmanship, there are also particular techniques that block and strike in the same movement during the same instant. A good swordsman can therefore defend from an attack and defeat an adversary at exactly the same time.

The trick here is closing the distance against gun-armed adversaries. But then again, why can't your character use both? Perhaps they have a gun for general use and a sword for special scenarios? If you character mostly deals with close-range combat, they might use a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other, like some endlessly brutal combination of gun kata and historical master methods. Or perhaps the use a pistol normally, which also leaves a hand free to draw the sword if need be. Perhaps they taught themselves to fire left-handed, or to fight with a sword left-handed, to allow themselves the greatest amount of functionality.

European Swordsmanship has some good information on the use of swords themselves, should you need it. What you should know, though, is the biggest factor acting against swords is logistics. In modern armies, there's need for close combat skills, and ergo swords could technically be useful. The thing is, though, that a combat knife is also a bayonet, and swordsmanship takes a while to learn. It would cost a lot more for armies to be outfitted with swords, and take up much more training time in addition to and compared to rifle training. Ergo, while swords could technically be used in those close-range encounters, it's not worth the money or effort for military bodies when a bayoneted rifle is good enough for the task.

For an individual with the training, though, a sword could prove to be an advantage in the right context. Weapons are all about skill and context. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, but then again, a knife fight takes place at such close range that you wouldn't bring a gun to that, if you see what I'm getting at here. The essential point here is that a sword can make a meaningful contribution to close combat, but it can't magically close the distance between a swordsman and a gunman. Grenades and suppressing fire can help with that, or if the context means there are no guns in play there's no worry. But don't feel as though your character has to use their sword all the time.

And hell, this could be a good narrative trick. Because when they draw their sword, you just know shit has gotten real.

edited 24th Apr '12 5:00:13 AM by MadassAlex

Thank you for the thorough and informative response. On the question of sword type, think the Master Sword. As for the reason he's carrying a sword and shield: He is a member of a tribe from either an uncharted island on Earth or (more likely) another planet or dimension. This tribe and its enemies have only advanced as far as medieval technology. The character finds himself an unwitting pawn in a chess game between demon gods, and after the destruction of his homeland he finds he needs to do a lot of traveling.

edited 24th Apr '12 9:00:59 AM by BrainSewage

So, a long-sword then, plus a shield. That would suggest an enemy that can teleport to close range, but that our hero can sense where it's going to arrive. Guns aren't particularly useful against this kind of foe because they can teleport, and can absorb a few bullets without noticeable effect.

edited 24th Apr '12 1:24:52 PM by MattII

I don't know if this jives with your character, but perhaps they have some sort of..."aura" for lack of a better term that allows them to damage demons in the first place and affects the weapons they carry? You could then argue that while such an aura could, say, extend to gun, it's not going to do the bullet a whole lot of good once it exits the barrel.

Failing that, the sword and shield themselves could have some sort of enchantments that make them effective against demons. You could argue that such enchantments could be carried out on bullets, but it's a long, slow ritual that would have to be performed on each individual bullet, thus highly impractical for the amount ammo required.

Sorry to be anal, but in medieval terminology, "longsword" referred to lightweight two-handed swords that could also be used in a single hand. Essentially what most people refer to as "bastard" or "hand and a half" swords. This was the default battlefield sword of the late medieval and Renaissance eras.

A single-handed sword is referred to as a "single sword", "arming sword" or simply a "sword" in manuscripts from comparable time periods.

One thing you'll have to lose, I think, is the shield. A sword makes sense as a dedicated close combat weapon, because it can be used in scenarios where a gun might not be such a strong choice. A shield, on the other hand, won't stop bullets and isn't well-suited to small-scale combat anyway. Shields were battlefield tools for formation fighting, and your average medieval warrior won't be carrying one around during their day-to-day business. They'll keep their sword and dagger on hand, but nothing else.

Actually a targe/parma or heater shield would have been more effective in man-to-man fighting than in formation, where it would be too small to offer any protection. Also, the hero is fighting demons, not other humans so the shield will only have to turn aside claws probably/

edited 24th Apr '12 9:02:29 PM by MattII

I think the problem with the heater shield was that it was really hard to move around in, so it depends on the situation (if you want armour or speed).

But generally, I really don't think it's that outrageous (okay the shield is a bit over the top) if you're going to be fighting demons. I was thinking, a sword and he's going into a war zone. But against demons? Why not? They're demons. There's so many reasons why you want a sword over a gun.

• You might be able to justify killing quieter with a sword, but that might be tough... of course a loud angry scuffle in an alley way versus the sound of gunfire is less likely to get you three dozen 911 calls in the space of a second
• Demons may only be afflicted by swords for mythical reasons
• You need to cause massive damage (like limb cutting), so guns don't make the cut (hurr a pun.)
• The secret order he is part of is backwards and traditional, thus teaching him to use a sword rather than a gun but seeing as how it is still effective, there's no real reason to switch (remember, if there's no need, tradition can trump everything else)

Those are a few reasons off the top of my head.

Also, the demons may be able to teleport, and absorb a few small calibre shots without going down immediately, which means you suddenly have a tough, angry demon right up close, and maybe an empty magazine in your gun.

Well, yeah, he was trained in sword/shield combat since he was a toddler, and after the rise of Harrumek he continued to train in other forms of melee combat. Guns were available in some of the places where he trained, but he stuck with melee, first out of ignorance and then out of tradition.

There are other reasons to use a sword instead of a gun:

• the sword could use some sort of handwave so that Muggle's Weirdness Censor makes them not see the sword and shield when the character isn't using them

• spells to kill demons need/only work with a sword

• the sword was made of some special handwaveium that kills demons and a gun just won't do.

• some demons are able to disguise themselves as humans, ergo a demon hunter has a disguised sword.

For a disguise it could be anything. Window blinds and a book, a 2X4 and a bag. Or it could change depending on the viewer, he has a Somebody Else's Problem field when your character's not actively hunting.

"It was weird officer! That man attacked the other man with a loaf of french bread and a cheese pizza."

That opens up the possibility of Glamour Failure if a bystander has any magical talent or might even be a demon.

edited 25th Apr '12 3:46:04 AM by TairaMai

Not quite, as the targe saw battlefield use in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in the hands of Scottish battlefield swordsmen. It's not the slightly more passive defense of a old Viking shield and certainly tiny in comparison to a Roman shield, but the capacity to separate offense and defense is useful in formation all the same.

As for heater shields, some were surprisingly small for good reason. During the transitional period of the High Middle Ages to the Late Middle Ages, shields became smaller as the nature of combat changed. For instance, German combat tradition teaches swordsmen to use small shields and hand weapons as a single unit, making the fighting style almost identical to the two-handed longsword style. The purpose of this was manyfold:

• With both hands working in tandem, the whole body supported the motions biomechanically.
• At any point, the sword and shield could be separated. For instance, if the two weapons bind, the shield can "slap" an adversary's weapon aside and force an opening.
• A shield can conceal a portion of a sword and some of its motion.

There are, however, two good reasons to use a sword and shield as separate units, too:

• One can defend one area and strike another at the same time. This can be done with a two-handed weapon, but it's more difficult.
• A shield is a weapon in its own right, albeit a defensive one. It supports punches nicely.

Also note that a lot of smaller shields (especially bucklers) used arm straps rather than complete grips. Having a free hand was useful; Scottish troops used to carry a dirk for a grand total of three weapons, allowing them to triple (!!!) wield. With an open hand, however, one can grapple or hold their sword by the blade for half-swording techniques, which are important against heavy armours and for closer encounter. Half-swording is also useful for environments that are too narrow for conventional sword techniques.

The size of a shield doesn't really influence whether it was used on the battlefield or not, but it certainly influences how it was used. Larger shields were obsoleted because they were passive defenses and made a strong offense very difficult. Imagine trying to fight a plate-armoured knight in a Roman's battle gear; they could simply dance around you, even using your shield as cover against your own attacks while your gladius fails to penetrate even the gaps in their armour.

Smaller shields remained useful because they allowed a warrior to maintain some degree of agility. Given that medieval and Renaissance formations tended to break into a whirling melee at some point after contact, this could be pivotal. As armour advanced, shields became smaller, such as Crusade-era shields used by knights, all of whom were clad in maille and therefore needed less passive protection. As soon as full plate armour game in, shields were abandoned in favour of faster, more powerful and more easily used two-handed weapons.

Bucklers remained popular as tools of self-defense, however, and were even used by Renaissance-era Spanish troops to counter pike formations. They'd use their bucklers to defend themselves from the largely passive field of blades in front of them and, when they were too close for pikes to make a difference, start attacking their now largely defenseless wielders. The Germans took a different attitude, thus the development of the zweihander; the most obscenely hyperbolous greatsword to ever exist, meant to striking pikes aside or breaking them and cleaving pretty significant paths through pike blocks. The "doppelsoldner" of landsknechte units were the most feared footsoldiers of their time.

As noted before, the targe re-emerged when the Scottish decided that swords were cooler than muskets and decided to throw a bunch of swordsmen at English bayonet units, which actually worked brilliantly until the English caught on.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of shields in my training — I'm all about two-handed weapons — but they have quite a diversity of application on both an individual scale and a mass scale. While I still think the shield is a bit much for a modern setting (moreso than a sword), it also comes down to the type of shield.

A two-handed weapon OTOH lacks any real defensive capabilities, which would require out hero to get the first strike in first, and do it right every time, which is, I feel a bit of a stretch, whereas a shield gives you a bit of leeway.

Yeah, the easiest way to solve this problem is just to make the sword be a magic sword. Given there are already demons and stuff like that, it makes sense for the setting.

There are a ton of reasons to make a character use a sword in a modern setting. Magic augmentation is the most common. Even if tradition is the reason why he chooses a blade, magical augmentation is a great reason for his peers to accept that.

edited 25th Apr '12 2:49:29 PM by Akagikiba

Something you should take into account; a sword is going to be pretty hard to conceal. Not to mention the trouble it could cause - police, bus drivers, landlords and the like are not going to be very happy to see somebody carrying around a blade that size.

The character being from a tribal setting is another issue that could prove troublesome. How does he deal with cars, telephones, radio, and heaven knows what else?

Not to mention that his own society may have radically different views on some subjects (personal property, gender roles, religion, authority, honor, hospitality, and crime and punishment, to name some) then ours. If tradition didn't stop him from getting used to modern technology and society, why would it stop him from using firearms?

He's a supernatural being himself, so the damage he inflicts with a sword is bigger than that of a gun.

Why does there seem to be this tendency to say "hey, this is fantasy, so let's make it as magical as possible"? What's wrong with just finding a way for the demons to negate some of the advantages of guns?

It would justify him sticking with his sword if it were magical, just saiyan.

If the demons can teleport, or are tough and fast you basically remove the advantage of guns anyway. Plus there are a couple of other advantages brought up by breadloaf in post #12.

This isn't true at all. The German "Secret Strikes" or "Master Strikes" (of which I can pull off a couple) are based around defending and attacking in the same instant. Apart from techniques like that, though, there are three major ways to defend with a sword in your hands (two-handed or one-handed):

• Void, which is dodging. Simply don't be in the attack path.
• A parry, which uses the flat of the sword to absorb and redirect an adversary's attack. A parry can also be turned into a counter, using the absorbed force to bring the weapon around and strike again.
• Displace, which is to say attack in such a way that you intercept their attack. This is essentially an edge-block that keeps them on their toes, and is the preferred defensive technique if you wish to engage in a bind (where two weapons meet for more than an instant). Note, however, that a displacement is exactly the same physical technique as an attack — the difference is in why you're using the motion.

Furthermore, here's a little bit about binds:

A bind is not a push-and-shove match of strength. The idea of a bind is to measure your adversary's strength through the weapon (via a technique called "fuhlen") and react accordingly. For instance, if they're putting more strength into the bind than you, you could step aside, slip your sword around or over and attack them as their blade goes past. Alternatively, if they're weaker than you in the bind, you can push through with a thrust.

If you want to reclaim strength, the idea is to get the strong of your sword (the bit of the blade near the hilt) against the weak of theirs (the bit of the blade near the point) while keeping your point trained on them. Ergo, in a bind, the sword remains in a sort of "cone" where the point never stops pointing at your adversary until you want to use a weak reaction.

What should also be noted in general is that a two-handed weapon is defensively superior to a one-handed weapon in almost all cases. Remember, a two-handed weapon has the strength of two arms behind it, so it can resits force better and is subject to much finer control. Two-handed weapons, despite what video games might tell you, are superior to one-handed equivalents in just about every way. The only reason to use a one-hander is if you have greater skill in or preference for a style that uses a shield or additional weapon. For instance, rapier and dagger, which probably epitomises the potential efficiency found in two-weapon fighting.