Objective way of measuring battle prowess?

Hi guys!

I am currently writing a fantasy novel, and at the same time doing a bit of world-building to be added to the chapters I have already written. I am a bit of a fan of the Wuxia genre, and something I think is really awesome is how they divide the most badass of the badasses into ranks (like the Five Greats of Condor Heroes, or the Seven Shichibukai/ Four Emperors of One Piece) and wanted to include something similar. This is what I have so far. Any comments, critiques or observations about plausibility, I'd be more than happy to receive!

"There are two different "branches" on which people could have a "rank": prowess in duels and prowess in battle, with the system being basically the same. Those who haven't killed anyone are considered to be outside of the hierarchy, thus having no obligations or privileges. Those who have killed someone are considered "initiates", and can progress through three circles by killing more people. Once on the third circle, there are three more superior levels, attained by killing a certain number of people of at most one circle below your own. Once you reach the highest echelon, a surname is usually given. Each rank has certain perks and responsibilities (like not being able to challenge someone of lesser rank than your own but having the privilege of sitting in the first row in the theater, or things like that). The prowess on duels can be shown by using a band on the left arm with different signs, and the prowess on battles with a band on the right arm. Obviously, those who pretend to have a rank superior to their own are scorned.

Outside of both ranks, those considered to be the greatest warriors in their particular area are considered one of the "Five Greats" (one each for east, west, north, south and center) and, known only to those in the highest echelons of both rankings, are the Three Emperors, the mightiest warriors of all the land."

Today the highest murder rate is 187 per 100.000 inhabitants. So, assuming a metropolis of one million souls, it would take more or less ten years for one of the top tiers to be born...However, I am thinking for this system to be used across a whole continent, with let's say 50 million people. Then it would be a couple of them a year in different parts of the land, which would give quite a lot more movement to the system, as new warriors are emerging all the time, and doing their best to outshine the older ones, and flocking to their abodes once they think they're ready to face them.

I have a couple of questions, if I may:

• How do the warriors prove their kills?

• And, is the system only used on duels and challenges? I assume killing civilians doesn't count, but what about killing other warriors during a war?

As for the homicide rate, I'd say that the number would be higher (way higher) for a society that actually encourages killing other people. I imagine such a world would be like One Piece, but instead of pirates you'd have a world plagued by a lot of killers.

Of course, you may make all the questions, observations, comments and critiques that you wish :D

For the first one, I'd say that the fact of killing/defeating (haven't decided yet) someone of the required circle means that you have either the skills or the will to keep advancing on the ladder, even if technically that might be inaccurate (challenging a hotheaded man or teenager that has more guts than brain, for example). This possible inaccuracy should get remedied as they reach the first "advanced" rank, where they can just kill anyone: in order to count, they must kill someone of their own circle or one below, which obviously makes it a lot more dangerous.

For the second one, in the second paragraph I say ""There are two different "branches" on which people could have a "rank": prowess in duels and prowess in battle, with the system being basically the same.", meaning that both system coexist at the same time, with kills in battle counting only towards the "battle meter" and kills in duels only counting for the "duel meter". It's perfectly possible to have ranks in both. I was thinking that the distinction would be a crimson cloth band (with decorations to be determined for each circle) worn on the left arm for duels and the right arm for battles.

And yes, I agree that things would get really ugly REALLY fast, especially for tournaments and such :P I'm still note sure about the level of violence/ brutality I want there to be. If I go for a tamer version, it'd probably be enough to just soundly defeat an opponent in order for it to count. Also, there should probably be an order or something with the purpose of having a register of the number of kills for those in the upper circles, maybe giving it a bit of a religious significance. Maybe the other warriors/ duelists just think they're crazy but they accept that what they do is quite useful in order to prevent impostors.

Hm. What are acceptable grounds for issuing a challenge? Does killing anyone for any reason start you on this hierarchical progression whether you like it or not? Which would imply that, once you become a murderer, you are now fair game for anyone in the rank above you who wants to advance. Which would be quite a disincentive to commit murder (the people above you are better than you are- it's practically a death sentence).

This is a story I would tell from a law enforcement point of view, as the whole situation seems like a public safety nightmare. Overall it kinda reminds me of what the Grongi were doing in Kamen Rider Kuuga (and what the G3 Unit was assembled to prevent in Kamen Rider Agito).

Due to how the system works now, anyone who has participated in a battle (I'm thinking of the US Civil War here) is fair game to a young up-and-coming warrior. You'd end up with a very well-honed corps of surviving soldiers (like, Abnormal Survivor-class good), while the lesser ones get killed off after they go home. It's not very sustainable, I think, to get your veterans killed off before they can fight again.

But most importantly - how necessary is it that people wear their armbands, and how easy is it to find Armbanders otherwise?

Demarquis:

Acceptable grounds are pretty much anything that both parties can agree as significant enough to lead to a duel. I read a book on the history of fencing a couple weeks back, and it seems that pretty much everything could fall into that criteria, from the suspicion of someone looking inappropriately at your wife, to disagreements in a discussion about literature, poetry or philosophy. My idea is that the whole continent is quite picky in matters of face and honor (on the literary side, I am thinking on Literature/Alatriste) . You only get into the hierarchy if you kill someone in a duel with at least some formalities, even a tavern brawl might count if neither has a significant advantage (like weapons or other people helping) and there's no doubt who killed who. Which means that you gotta check your temper really well, unless you're willing to put your life on the line for the rest of your days.

Deus Denuo:

It is considered bad manners for someone who is at least an initiate to go out without their respective sash, but there is no law prohibiting it. This gets more and more pointed at the higher levels, where it might even lead to their general ridicule. This is a system based more in face and recognition rather than privileges, though there are privileges as well.

As for how easy it is to find them, I would say quite, especially at the lower echelons. The noblemen might see it as a rite of passage (I still haven't decided whether or not soundly defeating someone counts; it would help keep the mortality rate down, at least on the dueling side), and it's not considered proper for a nobleman to inherit positions of great responsibility (especially in the army) without having earned their initiation ranks in both sides.

Is the 'killing in battle makes you an initiate' thing still on? I'm still foreseeing a thing where young noblemen duel (read: hunt) old peasant footsoldiers with a kill to their name, to bring their numbers up.

The kills count regarding the circumstances that you're killing them on. In the case of the nobles going for the peasant that killed other people on the war, if they kill them on duel it would just count as killing a non-initiate. It would be different if the peasant is an initiate both on duels and battles.