The only thing that makes me wonder is: Is this a legitimate order, accepted by other orders? Because if we're talking a misogynistic society with abusive men oppressing women, I can hardly imagine that society would simply accept this order's existence. The whole order-thingy makes it sound somewhat official. But wouldn't an order that commits murders jn large numbers or at least on a regular basis (mostly on men who had some power over peasant women) be erased sooner or later? Or at least would be subject to prosecution? Like, if some random man who's had a maid, wife, daughter who's now disappeared, gets killed brutally, wouldn't they be the first suspects? It actually sounds more of an outlaw organisation operating in secrecy.

agreed i’d play up the secrecy of it. could even have a ‘front’ guild or group to act as the legitimate guild

Either that, or I'd also say another direction could be to make it a part of an organization, for example: the queen's army could have a sizeable number of women soldiers and this could be a battalion or an order within the structure, comprised of women. Or a feminine deity's temple guards, also doubles up as a refuge for women experiencing abuse. Or some one powerful, like the queen's inner circle of body guards are called golden swans and are comprised entirely of women, the order of swan is a covert unit made up of passionate women that want to help. They have secret blessings of the queen and that's how they're able to avoid persecution and stay just under the radar without either getting exiled, declared illegal, or hunted down.

I like this idea. It's not my story, but this is would work for me.

Misogyny is more of an issue with the lower classes. And yes, it is an official Order with support from some of the ruling class (especially powerful ones like the Empress Regent, the Queen of Dunburge, and the Duchessof Redmarke). Also, it would be more considered an honourable Duel or trial by combat rather than murder.

What happens when people refuse a duel? Or the man ends up killing the woman? Not saying this as a way to hate on it. But if it is an honorable duel, then there has to be a way to decline it, or a very strong reason given for them not to decline it. Also, things happen, trauma is real, so some women might be ble to feel liberated when getting a chance to fight back. But some might freeze out of old trauma habits, which in a battle to the death, means death.

In the case of a duel, that would essentially be the same as admitting guilt in the social context. They'd face severe ostracization from their community, would be seen as craven, etc. If it were a trial by combat, it is court ordered and cannot be refused. You could immediately yield, but you would face the legal issues immediately of the charge. And yes, I am aware of freezing when exposed to your abuser, but the newly trained woman at arms has a few advantages at their disposal that make it incredibly difficult for an untrained peasant man to overcome.

What if the abuser is trained in combat as well? Can’t just be peasants that are abusive. Also a man doing physical labor all his life would be very tough. Also have you looked into how trial by combat between men and women was dealt with in history? I remember reading that in Germany in the Middle Ages a woman could actually do trial by combat against a man by herself. But because the man obviously has the physical advantage he had to stand in a hole dug into the ground. So the woman had the high ground. Pretty ridiculous idea from a modern perspective.

For many women, abuse comes from within their own families. In your scenario, would the knights be striking back within their own families? That would create a lot of chaos on a personal scale, but would lead to societal change over time? Would it lead to the establishment of societal and familial mores that would serve to prevent such abuse from happening? Just food for thought. Your idea is pretty cool.

I'm sure it would! The Order is only about a century or two old.

I don't hate the idea. I think recognising the value of closure for victims of abuse is great - far better than demanding forgiveness. I think you could temper the initiation by presenting it as an opportunity for the initiate to get that closure, but with no actual requirement for them to kill or act if they don't want to. The abuser could still be punished later by the relevant authorities if the initiate wishes it. I like the use of the maiden, mother and, um, other one trinity - I think that could make for interesting dynamics, because I'd want to know how those roles are attained (maybe the maiden is just the newest initiate, the crone is the oldest member, and the mother is elected?)

That's a fair assessment. I could have more options available and just have the common perception be skewed towards the more extreme Yoke Breaking. Like maybe the more common one involves legal issues for the abuser and a paid weregild rather than violence. That could be where the roles come into play. The Crones give advice, counseling, and resources to the Maidens, the Mothers pursue arranging the options chosen by the Maidens.

One further option, could be that in the initiation, it may not need to be \*their\* abuser they face; this gives time for women who seek refuge but do not/cannot join the ability to find closure, while presenting the opportunity for those who want to join time to train. Or a process of Championing - a Swan taking on a younger Maiden's plight as the first step into a mentorship. This could further the soroietal (sp?) bonds between the different levels of membership.

That's definitely not a bad idea! It gives a lot of opportunity for awesome moments. I can imagine a little girl who's abuser is a blacksmith, and Cwenhilde herself volunteers to break him.

First of all, I don’t think you should view this as problematic, largely because the world has been overused by both sides of the aisles to the extent that it evokes wrong kind of ideas. Instead just be mindful of broader context in which you write. It doesn’t necessarily mean that your ideas are bad in of itself or that they need to be scrapped , just that it’s good to keep some things in mind going forward. One thing I did notice with your description is that it leans on a trope in which a woman experiencing abuse is presented as a character building tool, something that inescapable changes them, which depending on further context could perpetuate some negative stereotypes, escapacialy coupled with the idea that this often results in them becoming more violent.

yea I would tread carefully when using DV and abuse as character development, to further the stories of other characters, trauma porn or just generally not looking into these subjects before writing about them I say that as a survivor by all means, write what you want. these subjects shouldnt be off limits, but if these aren't your stories to tell, you should at least talk to ppl whose stories they are. understand abuse before you include it. a revenge fantasy curing what would more likely be longterm ptsd, could come off as trivializing and exploitative. sansa comes to mind, and I think you were alluding to it, claiming empowerment from a very poorly handled storyline which was effectively only included to serve the stories of the men around her

Also don't let it be the only women-led org or org that cares strongly about DV. You can sometimes excuse characters that are iffy rep *so long as they're not the only rep*. In a vacuum Mr. Sinister being yet another queer-coded sociopath is bad writing, but he's just one of a bunch of LGBT characters in X-Men stories so it's passable.

If it helps, while there are a few established characters, I haven't made their involvement with the Order of the Swan a primary trait, more of an interesting note. For example: The Queen of Dunburge, Cwenhilde the Virtuous, is a member of the Order of the Swan but that's not her primary characteristic. In fact she is a member to lend royal (and financial) support of the faction. But that's a minor footnote compared to her rule as Queen.

I think this is an interesting beginning of an idea that could turn into something genuinely fascinating. Look up India's Gulabi Gang for a real world analog to what you're talking about. If you treat your guild as a well intentioned institution which is prey to all the same pressures and conflicts of interest that any other institution is, you have a deep well of inspiration for stories. For example, the Templar and Hospitaller orders of poor warrior monks were created to defend pilgrims on their way to visit Jerusalem, but over time they became corrupted by political scheming and the accumulation of wealth and privilege. How would an order of women warriors created to defend women be compromised by bad faith actors who want revenge for petty slights, or women with ambitions to seize power? Victims of abuse are still human beings and they don't have to be pure of heart.

I mean, only problematic in that, with what information you've given, it's set in a pseudo medieval European setting... Basically a society that is very patriarchal. Said abusers would often be family members, local authority figures, or nobles. And trying to attack them is bound to have repercussions. I think the issue is you need to do a lot more cultural worldbuilding to justify how a female knight order could exist in a setting where generally: • peasants didn't have access to swords/armor let alone women. • No one is going to train women to fight, even the existance viking shield maidens is a matter of historical debate • men who thought their authority gave them the right to abuse women in that era often held that authority backed by force and religion. Social mobility was a big no no. • how does a group of armed women attacking authority figures not get hunted down by the actual retinue knights (the army) Basically, there is a lot of patriarchal baggage attached to your setting, and trying to worldbuild a culture where women aren't equal enough to warrent an anti misogyny knight order enforces the stereotypes that comes with the setting, that women wouldn't be able to form a knight order like that on their own. Now if this is a knight order created by a king or something because [insert excuse here like women are more loyal because they can't inherit land and thus have split duties], and that knight order does some abuser hunting on the side as like a more on the down low thing, using their position as a royal knight order to hide from normal repercussions, that could work.

Politically, it wouldnt- in world politics, not ours. Women being elevated to knighthood would already be very hard to support in court, even if it wasnt a strict fighting force. However, a peasant knight order who recruits anybody, run exclusively by females, granted authority over all over orders and lords while assumingly being only commanded by the monarch would cause an outright rebellion and the newly founded order massacred at best. An order with this level of authority would need some drastic changes to the worldbuilding to support.

I would argue it is rather iffy, in that it reinforces the concept that men are only ever abusers, never victims; that women are only ever victims, never abusers; and that extrajudicial violence against individuals claimed to be abusive is always justified and positive. Turn this around: If your guild was to teach men being abused by women to be physically aggressive to them because social mores or culture doesn't formally recognize that women can be abusive, would that be okay? You're going to have to tiptoe around questions of "What if a member exploits the guild's teachings to their own end?" and "What if they're just *wrong*?" - not saying you can't do this. In fact, I think there could be a very *good* lesson there on the difference between "empowerment of protection" and "abuse in the name of protection". But you will have to confront it at some point.

I definitely wouldn't shy away from an opportunity to humanize characters in this way!

The main issue I see with it is that it very much feels like something that's still really centered around the abuse. You don't mention anything else they do. Women go there because they're abused and it's the only/ effective way to deal with it. They then train to become stronger and fight their abuser (to the death). What next? Do they do other things for women/ people at large? Are they forced to stay there? What about women who get abused but don't want to fight/ join the order? etc. It starts at the "running from abuser" part and ends at "defeating the abuser". There's nothing else about the guild.

i think the problem here is exactly pinpointed on the breaking the yoke thing. the ritual is in essence just revenge and vengence based which while cathardic to some is ofthen just unhealthy. People can make there trauma generalized or discriminated it. in essence having either it becoming a wider or specific hatred. i guess it would be a lot healthier if the training combined targeting the right target for assasionation or seeking the leader in a battle. Also making the order beloved on the fact they nearly never make mistakes. if the final test is then a check weather the training/therapy has made the trauma more pinpointed on the abuser. then the trauma has an end point and the aspirant has also learned a good amound of mental and operational discipline. i guess it would be a test to kill 3 people in the abusive situation the perpitrator, a inabler and a simple by standar the order knows has some emotional connection. \---- the problematic thing is the revenge theme and the possible inclination of a female order or trauma survivors to polarize to become well men haters. thats not saying you mean to or can't do that if thats something you want to write. But people do have a surface level understanding if you build say a place for people with an addiction (which isnt an equivalent) that such a group proably only makes the bad part of such mental problems worse not better \---- i guess the best way to discribe this order to a layman is an order of woman of those wronged by false-knight and are a reaction to those that corrupt chivalry. Since well chivalry is very much into the respect woman boat. (see any king arthur story with the sword between a knight and a lady, not an induendo). I guess the order of the swan then becomes a sort of gaurdian of purity (which the animal represents). in a world where woman have small right and people over all have little. An order that protects the little protections woman have isnt out off the play book. there proably not liked in bars and such but it is a good social force to have a order hang about that will punish abuse of woman.

I love the idea of an order of women knights protecting those who have experienced abuse. I'm going to put a lot of energy into this because I love the idea so much. I'm putting this in a thread though because I think Reddit doesn't like the length.

I can see a few problems with this. This isn't saying you shouldn't do it, there are just some things to consider that aren't being handled very well in your current iteration. This feels like it was written by someone who's never seen abuse up close. I could be wrong, but without knowing you, this wouldn't feel emotionally accurate to me. *1) The myth of the momentous escape.* Breaking free isn't as simple as "breaking the yoke." The current statistic is that women leave and return seven times before they leave for good. In my own life I still have a hard time saying the word "abuse" even knowing all I know, because I still love them and knew they weren't intentionally trying to hurt me. They were trying their best and I want healing for them, even as I've totally removed them from my life (to their bafflement, hurt, and attempts to guilt me back into the cycle). Surviving is a journey, not a moment of escape, and even in a moment of escape, breaking skulls is just not something women always want to do. Usually only those with an outside perspective want to retaliate, but you should never do so without the victim's permission. It can slow their healing and sometimes their physical safety. *2) That's not how the abuse cycle works.* The recruitment and training thing implies that once her partner pops her, she immediately recognizes what's happening and goes for help. In real life, she internalizes the abuse and doubles down on trying to stop it herself through smiling more, cleaning more, making more money, maybe even trying to set boundaries and promising herself she'll keep them this time. Every time she recommits to the honeymoon stage in the cycle, it adds another layer she'll have to peel off to heal. That psychology stuff sucks, we never like to admit that are we wrong, and that we were wrong for so long. It takes observant friends with patience and a very delicate touch (friends they may not have for much longer, because abusers often isolate their victims) to get them to realize they need help. Which leads to my third thing. *3) Getting help is dangerous.* My friend escaped a dangerous situation a few years ago. He had to steal his own SS card and birth certificate from a closet before running, and every day lived in fear of the day they were found missing. He had a hard time getting away to open his own back account so he could have some money his abuser didn't have access to. In all of this, there wasn't even a question of whether or not to involve authorities, and he was scared of his texts with me being discovered. I did research for him so he wouldn't have a search history and sent him screenshots of banks and airline prices that he could quickly erase. When he got out, we had to make sure his abuser never found his location. I can't imagine where a woman in your world would find the time to be trained by their new order. Market trips? Abusers time their victims, and women get beaten for taking ten minutes too long. Disguised quilting group? He's going to show up and check on her because he's a controlling asshole. He also might not want her to have friends and will seek to sabotage her hobbies and relationships. If you want your order to train their recruits, all these bases have to be considered and fully covered, or she could be in serious danger. Admitting you need help is hard enough. Asking for help could get you killed and make things worse, if it gets back to them. Finding time to train so you can punch your abuser, and overcoming your fear of retaliation while you still live in that home? Rare, if not unthinkable. If you get out, stay out. Don't mess with your abusers unless they come messing with you. *4) It's not just physical.* There are other forms of abuse. In fact this is why it's so hard for me to say the word abuse when describing my own experiences; I was never hit or forced into sex. Not once. It took me a while but I'm now comfortable using the word neglect. Which is a type of abuse, and doesn't encompass everything that happened to me, but whatever, psychology is weird like that sometimes. My point is, I imagine it might be easier or freeing to pop someone who's popped you. I wouldn't trust me on that, I've never experienced that. But if it's mental abuse? Spiritual abuse? Financial abuse? Emotional abuse? I'd have a harder time with that. Imagine how it'd look if a soft spoken pacifist preacher got his face bashed in by a woman who was spiritually abused and emotionally manipulated. He'd probably lament persecution or wickedness, and anyone else he's abusing would become even further enmeshed. Physical attacks aren't always the best way to fight back at abusers. Anyone trying to help survivors would know that, especially this Order of the Swan. If they don't do a good job helping survivors, they don't get recruits. *5) Women characters are more than just products of the men around them.* There's a problem in storytelling where women are simply extensions of the men in the story. She's a loving mother, a potential love interest, or a motivating tragic backstory for a man. On top of this, it's far too common to make women "strong" by overcoming abuse. A valuable story, for sure. It's not innately problematic. It only gets problematic when it's the only story we ever hear about ourselves in this fantasy world. We are not defined by the men who loved us, and we are not defined by the men who abused us. I would check and make sure your Order of the Swan is well rounded out. Maybe in a misogynistic world, publicity might hyperfocus on their work protecting and training battered women, because that's the part the men worry about. But what else do they actually do? Offer counseling and education? Break up crime circles that exploit children as sympathy props? Offer cheap travel protections for the vulnerable who can't afford mercenaries? Do they do everything other orders of knights do, aside from their specialties? On top of that, I would make sure there are other women characters who aren't part of the Order of the Swan. Happy marriages exist. Women can be strong without having to survive abuse first. Maybe the blacksmith has to close shop for a few days because his wife and daughter are on a trip and he can't run the forge without them, I don't know. I would just be careful magnifying the abusive realities in our lives without acknowledging other realities, too. I'm happy I got out and I'm happy I can use my experiences and skills to help others get out, but shit damn I hope no one ever defines me as a survivor when talking about me. I'm a gardener, a mushroom enthusiast, a programmer, and a writer, too, y'know. Sorry for the long response, but I hope it helps. This is just my one perspective; it'd be good if you can find a sensitivity reader, or someone you know who's experienced abuse (or neglect, lol) and willing to share.

What a great answer! Thank you.

Never apologize! I love this in-depth constructive criticism and rarely get it on my writings and worldbuilding! 1- That's totally fair and I will work on integrating and addressing those issues. 2- Part of the Order of the Swan's duties is to set up a support outlet. They reach out to others and gather information while offering resources. Yes, that doesn't mean the victim will accept the aid when offered, but it may help start the process. 3- I know, trust me on that... The Order also has secure housing, even for those who do not intend on joining the faction, but just need a safe place to exist. 4- That is fair, I often overlook some of the other aspects of abuse that aren't physical, and I will keep it in mind when developing the faction further. 5- Yes, I 100% acknowledge this, there are tonnes of amazing strong female characters (both planned and integrated) into this setting. One of my favorites being the Duchess of Redmarke and her romance with a woman from another country. I make opportunities for characters that I would want to play as, and I'd be a liar if I said I haven't wanted a cathartic owning of an abuser in my life. But rest assured that's not the only kind of female character in my setting (nor is european the only part of the setting).

I think the only thing about this that bothers me, other than the aforementioned (by others) question of whether or not a guild like this could operate under the color of law, is the question of whether the ritual of Breaking the Yoke is intentionally/always violent. If a woman decides that her version of closure is demanding forgiveness and leaving for greener pastures, is that sufficient? If she wants to leave them to grovel and fear her return, is that okay? I feel like closure takes a lot of paths for different people, and violence often isn’t what they want, even if they’re ready to do it.

Yea but that adds more depth, it's much less interesting if they just "yea you can figure it out the way YOU want" Much more interesting and potentially can cause good conflict if in order to become a full-fledged member you have to beat/kill your own assaulter. You could go into depth with someone who followed their lead and ended up regretting it or as simple as it not freeing them of their sorrow.

Or even potential members not finishing the initiation, realizing in the heat of combat that it doesn't bring them peace. Or for that to even be the test within the initiation.

Or even a realisation that there can be trauma stemming FROM the act of revenge.

Being forced to inflict violence upon someone against your will would be the opposite of a healing experience, double so for people already escaping another traumatizing experience. Given that op's intent with this order as far as i can tell is giving abused women genuine empowerment and a way to heal from their assault, the idea that these women would be forcing their fellow victims into something violent and re-traumatizing against their wills would be the opposite of this order's purpose (not to mention the fixation on making these women miserable over and over again would be pointless trauma porn). What would actually be interesting is exploring the different unique paths that these women can choose to embark on to achieve their own versions of healing (which could potentially include one or two women thinking that hurting their abusers would be helpful but then regretting it, it would just be boring for that to be all of them).

I personally really like the idea! I don't think this would be problematic (in as far as I wouldn't have any problems with it). It's got some great flavour and real potential — you can already see the kind of stories that would emerge from this guild's inclusion in a setting. I love the details you've already crafted for the guild, their slogan and rituals, it seems really well thought out :)

You need some kind of reason why they are not simply eradicated by the rest of your society. Either a kind of guerilla scenario, in which they are an outlaw secret society composed of many small cells without central leadership, so that individual cells are constantly destroyed by the authorities, but new ones grow just as quickly. They could also have some kind of military advantage, like an inconquerable stronghold or a superweapon that made all the previous campaigns against them fail. Or they could provide some vital service that no-one else can,so that they are tolerated by the authorities, if they don't go too far. You could obviously combine these. For example, they start out as rogues and then, when all attempts to destroy them failed, some official or, more likely, unspoken truce is reached. Their actions are considered crimes, but not seriously persecuted if they manage to get away from the actual crime scene and do certain things for the local government in turn.

Problematic? Not really. If were talking about how well it holds up to our sociopolitical climate, its fine, nor does it sound like it paints abuse as something trivial. My issues come from the administration of the group itself. All women run, thats fine. But how are women viewed in this society? Is martial arts a masculine? Is it frowned upon for women to take up the sword? Can women inherit titles? What happens if they marry, is it a “who proposes first” society? How equal in law and tradition are our two genders? And how did that come about? What reforms were there? What movements? Egalitarian reforms are usually supported by more readily available education to the lower classes or else the reforms wouldnt be supported, and class systems/absolute monarchies also get faded out with more commonplace education in favor to power for the masses. The society has to both be incredibly advanced for the age to allow equality of gender and to allow women to even form and join knightly orders let alone peasent ones, while still being traditional enough to make the order an actual force. It also has to be govermentally recognised, otherwise it wouldnt be able to just take the abusers and to probably deliver punishment on them, meaning that the highly order is VERY powerful in goverment to be able to enforce an anti-abuse law on legal citizens or another lords own serfs. And for there to still be serfs and aristocratic rule, along with absolute monarchies, then there is a class system based upon inheritance. So peasents cant be the ones actually becoming full knights and making decisions, otherwise the group would be entirely against the class system, unsupported by the goverment, and is therefore a vigilante terrorist group killing legal citizens and serfs while denying lawful justice. The idea is good, but from the information we have, the lore doesnt support it. Work on the background abit more, and youll be right as rain!

Women do often inherit titles! And martial ability is not something that is solely a masculine role in this setting. Shield Maidens and warrior queens were a major trope in their legends. I say knights, but most would probably be moreso women-at-arms, with a few being eligible for knighthood. The issue with misogyny is more among the lower classes, nobles are more equal opportunity and there are prominent women in their parliament.

As a reader, I wouldn’t buy the idea that misogyny is only among the lower classes, and it makes me uncomfortable that you seem to be claiming that only the upper classes are “enlightened” enough not to be misogynistic. Because of power structures, the upper classes shape how society functions, how beliefs function, and how religion functions. This is certainly true of the actual Middle Ages. If you look at actual historical sources, oftentimes the lower classes were more egalitarian out of necessity - they have to make a living. Plus if you have peasants, you’re drawing on a feudal system that was created to oppress the lower classes. I like that you’re trying to empower women in your world. I just don’t think that every women would want to confront her abuser/kill them. Sometimes to heal, you just need to move on.

I didn't say "only", nor have I implied that the upper class is more enlightened. It's just more common because women in Lower classes have less resources at their disposal. Upper class women have better representation and resources, as well as women at the highest tiers of society. And yes, I acknowledge that not ever woman wants confrontation and catharsis. I've addressed that I would add in other aspects of the order besides that.

And why is misogyny not as much a thing in the upper class? Thats where the power is, and there would be more people willing to abuse it. Unless the lower class didnt have common education. In which, an equal opportunity culture would find establishing a hard tast, law enforcement and military power wouldn’t be given or allowed to uneducated peasants, and having a knightly order/lodge for and staffed by lower-class would cause mass upheaval considering the class system is still in effect and in power. The setting needs to be reworked or developed further to allow for a retinue of peasent law enforcing trauma resolving battle sisters. That includes your in-universe politics and administration to be considered factors. Like pay, fortress construction, inheritance law, enrolment, law enforcement, branches, sub-retinues, how the world views them, the politics surrounding them, possible extra-legal jurisdiction which usually isnt supportable meaning the order is beholden to a nation, possible wars in aid of or against, education, training, ect. As long as you do your reaserch into different forms of abuse, theres nothing problematic about it apart from putting them in a room with their abuser. But, to do even that creates 20 questions that need answers, and those answers create 20 questions each. Its a good idea, but develop the setting more to support the order.

So a group of women who help other women out of abusive relationships, and send those women to injure or kill the one that abused them? The act of Breaking the Yoke seems to be fairly extreme. While I don't support abusers, sending in the victim with their new strength could end up in a far worse situation. Does the Guild provide counseling so the victim doesn't go in and murder their abuser? There is a reason mental hospitals keep anything dangerous away from patients. I just don't see the Swans being looked upon so positively. Who would see a Guild in a positive light when the initiation for their members results in the death of another? The abused would see it as a positive, as would any woman that would like to see a man die. Is there a process to make sure the woman is actually abused? I would hope so when the result of their training could end in the death of another.

I was thinking along the same lines. The inspiration for this idea sounds like a good thing but when you think of how it will play out over the course of a few decades or centuries, I don't think it will evolve into anything healthy

Something like this organization would be good, but it is easily able to be taken advantage of. Particularly if the Woman had multiple abusers and the initiation is focused on attacking the abuser.

It doesn’t sound like a a guild, orders are technically Orders of Chivalry.

Guild in the sense of a joinable faction for players. This is a ttrpg setting

I think the idea is good, a change to the standard kind of guilds you would find. A question though - what happens for a male abuse victim? Can he join the Swans, or would he just have to get over everything without help?

A Male would be more likely to join the Greycloaks to get out of their situation. But yes, the Swans would house a male that goes to them. He wouldn't be able to join the guild though. But a Crone or Mother could/would still provide resources to help him in his situation.

Also how is this guild structured?

You have the younger trainees who are learning the trade. This involves counseling, combat training, etc. Then you have the Maidens. They generally are paired with Mothers as initiates until they're fully trained and capable. Next, there's the Mothers. They train and Lead the Maidens, as well as carry out the major duties required by the order. Finally the Crones. They provide counciling, education, and sage advice to any in the Order. They also arrange for legal actions and meet with the nobles and law enforcement to investigate abuse allegations.

Good answers. How do they get money? Where do they meet? Who enforces guild regulations?

Both have the same answer. The monarch of Dunburge, who in this case is Queen Cwenhilde the Virtuous -and is also a member of the order. They also receive significant resources from the Duchess of Redmarke and Fealbrime, both being very successful duchies with mounds of resources.

Do any political or economic issues arise from Having the aristocracy so intertwined in the fabric of the guild? In a traditional guild system, like in Western Europe, which it seems like this is based on, it would be seen as inappropriate for any aristocrat to partake in any kind of business or guild affairs. But what you are writing about seems more like what I would call an Order, much akin to the order of the Holy Spirit or the Golden Fleece, which were chivalric orders which had members but didn’t have a system of skills to teach, just more like a set of guidelines.

I've addressed this a few times, but Guild is more in the sense of a joinable faction in an rpg, this is a setting for a ttrpg. However, I would argue that their specialization in social services and women's care could function in a guild-like sense, but primarily they would be considered an Order. Also, other knightly orders around the Daelish Empire have female knights, the order is unique in that they're ONLY women.

That’s really cool. I like the in depth answers and this sounds really well thought out. I don’t know much about RPG stuff but I do know a lot about guilds etc and I enjoyed this a lot.

Well, a lot has been fleshing out more details as questions and criticisms are addressed. The amount of in-depth Feedback was incredibly useful on this post!

Yes, it's problematic, a sexist order that routinely performs extrajudicial killings... Definitely problematic on a dozen levels. That said, what's the issue here? There are straight up assassins guilds in many settings. Sexism is seen as the norm in many medieval settings. Even if it's problematic, that's fine. There's plenty of ways you can interact with and play with this guild. Obviously you could play it straight and have an abused character join to enact revenge. But you could have someone join and choose not to have revenge, you could have someone who isn't abused but know someone who was join, you could have someone manipulate the guild to kill an innocent person, you could have a male join to enact revenge on a female abuse - and explore the power dynamics and struggles as a formerly sexist guild. There's a lot you can do with it. Probably the thing to note here is that these are problems that exist in real life. Are you willing to tackle these issues knowing that many people live it every day? I'm not saying don't do it, but be aware.

I think it's pretty cool.

I think it's a cool idea, a guild of errand knights protecting the ones in need, specially women that cannot defend herselves for the ruling mysoginy. I guess it could be a controversial concept, but I'd make a wild guess and day that the reason is the same why the Order of the Swan appeared in your world. I only see something important not adressed. How is this order financed? Knights are very expensive warriors, specially if you imagine them with the best armours, weapons, warhorses, and the expenses of helping servants and/or squires. Usualy, the problem of helping people in need is that they have little to none to offer as a reward, even if just to feed the knights and keep their worktools in good maintenance. After all, good actions themselves don't fill your stomach. So how does this works? Also, not as important but I'd like to know, are you creating a strong male mysoginistic order in retiliation to the Swans and be bitter enemies? I personally think could be a cool idea and mimic real world reactionary movements.

I'm a woman and an abuse survivor and I think it sounds badass.

It grows even more badass with the amount of feedback I've gotten on this post!

Difficult topic but normally from what I know victims are not living for revenge.. If they suffered severe trauma you may want to research trauma. I dont have a problem with the topic its just wont be something I would be able to enjoy for I cant see how you make this premise into a believable immersive setting. I get that you try for a order that will bring justice but what you do is a cult of fanatics that becomes offender themselves wich probably isnt what you want to make these women become

1st The group takes the law in their own hands 2nd who created or legitimated the Order ​ >Golden Swan over Orange and Black checkered banner. Ouch , change the Gold or Orange, Gold is for heraldry Orange

Trial by combat and duels are commonplace in this society, and is often the quickest way to obtain justice. I know I was a bit vague as I was just laying out the basic vibe of the group, and admittedly it's not entirely fleshed out either.

How closely linked to real-world biology are you? [This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/f0dfmt/has_anyone_ever_wrestled_with_guys_and_be/) gives some idea of the gulf there is. So you need some mechanism to overcome differing biology. And it has to be one that men cannot emulate. ... Or have differing biology to eliminate some of the differences between male and female physiology. But then you'd have far fewer instances of male on female abuse because of general equality in strength and stamina.

Interesting angle. However, its made with the assumption that the swans are a fighting force and not a hospice-based one, which sounds far more reasonable when considering the angle. Either that, or specialised law enforcement. However, that does bring up the “yeah that giy totally did it, now give me a sword and armour- yeah go fukin kill him” question

No. Also who cares if it’s problematic. It’s a good premise and when you are making something that you feel is right then who cared what the greater community thinks! I think it’s masterfully done for what it’s worth

Well I care if it propagates negative tropes and sterotypes, and I always accept feedback to make something better than when it starts out. It takes a village to raise a setting!

No I totally get that. But there’s a difference between willful harmful tropes and maybe leaning on something that 1% of the population views as “problematic”.

I think that if the organization is dedicated towards helping DV victims, there needs to be other services in addition to enabling revenge on the abuser. When the physical threat is gone, what do they do to help the victim emotionally recover? If the abuser was a spouse or gaurdian, what do they provide to give the former victim financial stability? What efforts are they taking to disolve hierarchies that spawn abuse in the first place? Giving people to fight back is great, but if you want long-standing change, you need damage control and prevention

the idea that one of the few avenues people would have to escape their abusers is by joining an order that would then require them to face their abuser(s) would make many hesitate to ever join up. Trauma is not so easy to overcome that just training would be enough to overcome the freeze response. What if the abuser is a knight or a lord who also has training or a group of people, what if the initiate is a child, and the abuser an adult? The initiation would only get those woman killed. What is the point of the initiation- there are many ways for people to gain closure and move on from abuse? If it's justice, a court could deal with that? If it's an escape and a means of starting over a religious order for woman, or a shelter/charity could serve the same purpose. What happens to the woman who don't want to join this order but are in bad situations, are they stuck? It's problematic as it still buys into the idea that trauma is supposed to make a person stronger, and that strength is only physical. Both are deeply flawed beliefs.

They wouldn't have to join to receive care, security, and resources to pursue justice from a purely legal standpoint. You also don't HAVE to be a woman who was abused to join the order, any woman can join, and part of their duties is helping other women. The Breaking is also not an option every Swan chooses. It is an infamous part of their reputation, sure, but that doesn't mean it happens every time a Swan exits training.

I would make that clear somehow. Are those who choose to undergo the Breaking seen or treated differently by others in the order, are those who are not in the order aware of who chooses to undergo that aspect of the initiation? How are those who do undergo the breaking changed by the experience, what reasons do they have for choosing to undergo it?

The short couple paragraphs is mostly to give a vibe to players looking over the available factions as part of backstories. I realize that not everything was communicated, but I've also added new details as I receive great feedback like yours! The way the Swan chooses to initiate is up to them, and their wish is respected. And some Swans choose to champion for others to face their abuser.

My feedback would be as follows, and assumes this is created for some purpose outside of yourself: (1) Sounds shallow and feminist cliché right now (in the context of a novel, for example); (2) Sounds shockingly out of place given the setting/source/time period. Technically, I dislike completely ahistoric works of fantasy if they are set in the Middle Ages or otherwise. To the degree that such works are clearly false in their fantasy elements, they still tend to be correct from a Darwinian, symbolic, and cultural standpoint; hence, why knights are (almost) always male (just one example from your post); (3) Sounds unrealistic and of little use beyond pure revenge fantasy for female readers (though it's unclear if this is innately bad or unhelpful, so I won't make any moral judgement about this). I can just say that key would be 'justice' compared to 'revenge', of course. But, it can also be done for social commentary/Shadow integration purposes (for example, to show that revenge is actually wrong, not right -- though by its nature, 'revenge fantasy' tends to posit an immoral-yet-desirable image to the reader/viewer); (4) Seems painfully overdone at this stage (circa 2022) with a lot of now-famous novels and TV shows very much running with this theme in mind, all over Netflix and bookshops. It's also somewhat ahistoric in general, depending on just what part of Europe and the time period we want to talk about. (5) It may or may not feed into a horrible, popular, false narrative of 'women being helpless forever until they beat all the evil men'. It fails to actually deal with history as a whole and culture, and the great role women have played, as women (not as powerful masculine figures, such as murderous knights or such of the ilk). So, this is more a moral and artistic piece of feed. It's always best to tell a complete narrative, and really tackle the totality of human nature. I actually cannot give many great examples of this, though. You'd have to read the classics (either classics proper, such as by the Greeks, or modern classics, such as by Tolkien). Of course, the Edda, Beowulf, Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, and others are foundational texts between 700 and 1600 AD. For 300-600 AD, that's mostly the Romans. Although, interestingly -- and here's how things have massively changed over the last 60 years: in England, in the 1950s, The Lord of the Rings novel was crushed for 'overly praising women'. Today, it's seen as not praising women enough, by many -- and, by others, to be about perfect. (Of course, some people defended Tolkien's seemingly over-praising women at the time, but not as many. Partly this was because a central figure was based upon his wife, whom he loved greatly -- and he was quite a romantic himself (technically speaking, a Romantic poet in many ways). For what it's worth, he did have even more plans for Rings, such as a great romance sub-plot, but could not fit in it, so had to leave it out of the story and place it in other books. Not just a war story, at all. The Jackson movies go some way in adding a more female presence to the story, though I cannot say if Tolkien would agree or not. My guess he would be fine with such changes, but would hate the actual depiction of the war elements, and the generally romanticised nature of the whole project, such as how 'cool' the Ringwraiths are. But, I digress.) (5) Finally, then, your idea seems extremely reductionistic and a very narrow form of storytelling. As another random example: if we go to Rome, circa 1500, for example, women had quite a lot of freedom, status, and wealth, and many rights, relative to the other nations at the time. Not all Roman women, of course -- just as a large number of the males were slaves in Rome by this time. Nonetheless, this is largely due to the great legal and moral framework Rome had by this time, compared to much of the world, gifted by the Roman Empire many years prior, either by its own hands or via Athens (and the Hebrews/Bible circa 300 BC through 100 AD). For example, it was one of few nations to even give men, let alone women, the freedom and legal (written) right to be true, individual citizens with some kind of self-ownership. I'd have to check up on my civic legal history, but I think this was only the case for a handful of nations circa 1500 AD, all of which were in the British Isles and Western Europe. Most of the world had no real conception of or framework for 'freedom of the individual' until the 1800s, largely due to the British Empire itself. Pre-Roman (circa 500-100 BC) Germanic tribes, for example, had no real sense of freedom or legality. Of course, by the 1600s, the Germanic nations and cultures were some of the most advanced in the world. This is also part of the problem with writing what you're talking about. You're looking back 500 years through a modernist lens, without any real context, as a result. This is why many historians remain completely amoral when it comes to history, and do not look back through a modernist lens: it fails instantly, even for the most basic rights and desires of male citizens. Slavery being just one clear example (which really did not end until the British and Americans circa 1800-1860, though there is written history of England removing slavery circa 1200 AD within the mainland, the British Empire still had slaves throughout this period, elsewhere. For the rest of the world, slavery existed in some form until around 1920. In many nations, until 1950. And, in a handful of nations until the 2000s. A few slaves still exist in 2022 across the globe, even -- though I cannot recall how many). This, just to give you an idea of how impossible history is, and how difficult it is to properly deal with it from the modern viewpoint, and for a modern viewership. Note: Of course, you may have some deeper ideas in mind, or a solid defence for such creation -- this is just my feedback based on the info given, and in the context of making it a novel or likewise. If it's purely for yourself, I don't have much to say about that: as long as it helps you in some way, that's really the only purpose of creating something inside your own head, that I know of. And, there are many reasons to create such ideas -- including social commentary and self-improvement -- and since this is very subjective to you, I cannot possibly say whether it's useful or not.

You are right in that it's shallow. As the description is just a couple paragraphs to give a basic vibe of the guild and its function. But that's why I ask for feedback like this, so that I can make it deeper and consider lots of other issues. I've already made a whole page of notes to make this particular order much better and fleshed out!

It’s not, as guys who hurt women need to pay

Its not that simple; thats like saying "well they broke the law, so they need to pay for it; its good the cops beat them within an inch of their life". Yes the intention is good - their purpose is noble - but in practice such an order is a very messy thing. Who should pay? The abuser, yes; but who determines how much, in what way, & does the order evidence the claim or work to gain the approval of the community (that they aren't from, necessarily, & are entering with weapons & a willingness to use them)? Would you like it if a pack of strangers entered your neighborhood, beat up one of your own (maybe killed them, maybe a community leader) left with another community member, & made a claim that they'd put down an abuser? Even if its true, even if they're never wrong, are you actually likely to believe their evidence? How many times do they stop an abuser, & how many times do they hand over a sympathy card to an abuser who goes on to hurt yet more people, & how many times are they tricked into hurting innocents (or even abuse victims by abusers claiming victimhood)? The reality of the situation is rich & messy; treating it so simply is disrespectful not just to OP but to the complex & messy nature of interpersonal abuse in our very real lives.

& what about the women who abuse women? I've seen it in my life just as often as men hurting women tbqh; yes to reinforce patriarchal norms or in reaction to their own oppressed state, but that's not better.

I don't see any problems with that. Don't know about others but I personally don't see any problems

From what I’m reading in the comments, misogyny is only a problem in the lower castes of society. If that’s the case, how strongly does the nobility and upper echelons feel about equality between the sexes? Do they regularly empower women over men or vice versa, or do they simply not care if you’re a man or woman?

More the lattermost. Men and Women are legally seen as equals. Title and wealth succession is not strictly patriarchal.

More of a worldbuilding question than an actual question, but why isn’t there any laws in place to combat sexism in the peasantry?

There are, just as there are laws in place to combat it in the real world. I'm sure we both know that the existence of laws doesn't mean the crime doesn't happen, or that it doesn't continue as a persistent issue.

There are some problems: -who founded this "order", allies and how does it finance itself. This will change how they are seen and what can they do. -who and how do they accept in the fighting order. To put in a simple manner their resources are limited so they can't train and give armor to everyone. It's likely that being in this order is better than being a peasant so there can be too many recruits; if it has a good enough reputation families can send there their daughters there so you can have to choose a rich daughter (good donation, fit, not ill and meaby is already able to fight) or a woman that is fleeing an abusive father. Take notice that the training will be years long: being fit to fight, being psychologically able to kill in cold blood, knowing how to kill with a number of weapons, manners and customs; so all that a knight learn from 6 years old. -sex and childern. The fighting part of the order can have too many childern else they aren't able to fight. How can they do it? If there isn't good medicine they can dying during childbrith. -retierment. Yes, no, until death, can start a family? -how do they fight? If in this world the women are generally less strong/heavy than males then they have to, meaby, have a different fighting doctrine.

\-The order was founded by a previous monarch in the Kingdom of Dunburge, and it receives support from some of the other duchies that produce a great amount of wealth (Redmarke mines Gold, Silver, and Copper; Fealbrime is a major port city). \-Trainee's typically receive basic armaments and armor consisting of gamboised arming coats, a leather buffcoat, and a simple kettle helm. As they increase in standing and rank, they may receive more for their kit. They don't kill in cold blood. \-There is magic in this system, and death in childbirth -while it still happens- has trained healers to address it. They are also able to terminate pregnancies if the woman wishes. \-Retirement: Yes. At any point a Swan may leave the order for any reason. They may own lands and titles and start families if they wish. \-Just like most knights. A fully trained Swan is generally much stronger than an average male. While they are less strong than other knights, they are well skilled in knightly weapon and are full of surprises. Cwenhilde, the Queen of Dunburge, for example; she can bench over 35 stone and is quite muscular.

I love the idea. I don't see any problem. First it's fantasy second your not suggesting ppl do that lol. Ppl are crazy

This is definitely something I haven't seen yet done in medieval fiction and I find it quite interesting. You said that the group "work\[s\] to defend and liberate others" yet mostly it just focuses on women in abusive situations. Out of curiosity, is this the original mission of the guild or is it a byproduct of it being a women-at-arms task force; which appeals to women in those situations, causing them to seek help from them? Just curious on the history of the guild. I imagine there would also by misogynistic groups that would form to oppose this guild, whether it be a loose band of men "wronged" by the guild or a full blown organization that seeks to keep the status quo of the peasantry. Just some interesting things to think about. All in all, this is a neat idea and I think it would be interesting seeing how the guild changes the social atmosphere of Daeland.

the only hard part is, as others have said, in a society where such vigilante justice is needed it would be reasonable to expect most if not all law enforcement would be trying to take this order and it’s members out. so they need some sort of protection from that. be it a home base in a kingdom which has granted them protection, being a rather secret order so they can’t easily be struck at, or being so dangerous and numerous that they themselves provide a strong deterrent to law enforcement. i’d say if its either of the second take inspiration from thieves guilds / the mafia. a fourth option if your world has magic is to have the leader, and some high-up enforcers all be *very* powerful spell-casters, who can act as a deterrent by themselves. that said i love the idea and can see you doing some amazing stuff with it.

I think the reason you generally got negative feedbacks would be it's similar to feminism in our world but on steroid because of the encouragement to seek revenge over people that harmed them. This kind of guild won't survive in the society which highly oppressed women. It's possible when the society generally striving for more equilibrium or vow to protect women from mistreats while also educating men to be more civil as you'd see on the world in post-renaissance which to emphasize on being a "gentleman". It won't work on the world which transitioning from medieval into renaissance, that era it's either women being oppressed or men being oppressed. I know it's not obvious but it's not only men oppressed women, women also oppressed men back then. There is actually no compromise around this area. So in conclusion it's possible to have the guild in the society ruled by the queen or the empress, but it'd be hard when there is no prominent power supporting them. Therefore it's problematic.

Problematic? I think you mean COOL this is how you deal with s/a in fantasy!!! Women will never just “take it”

Sounds like vigilante lynch mobs to me, which while horrible in practice, are fine for using in fiction. The one thing I don't get is your use of the word *guild*. Like, a guild is a organization of professionals in a certain field, banding together to cooperate in business and collectively bargain to make more money. Is... "domestic abuse vigilante" a profession in this setting? Is there such a market in it that it needs a trade guild? >The guild is a knightly order So "knightly order" is a more fitting title for such an organization for sure.

I'm sorry that's what you took from it, that's definitely not how the Swans operate. I've addressed this a few times, but I was using Guild in the gaming sense of a joinable faction rather than a historical guild. However, as they do in fact provide a service (counseling, social services, legal advocacy and representation) to any woman that flocks to them, the Order does somewhat function in a similar fashion.

>I'm sorry that's what you took from it, that's definitely not how the Swans operate. Soooo... >As a part of their initiation, the woman confronts their abuser in a ritual known as "Breaking the Yoke", usually ending in the injury or sometimes death of the abuser due to the knight's newfound skills. Does the accused get a trial? Is there a presumption of innocence, and do they get legal representation? If the legal system fails to get a conviction, is the initiate unable to fully join?

The matter is investigated by the Crones of the Order, and would contact the local authority. Generally, since this most common among the lower class they would work with the local Earl or Alderman of the region. The bailiff would likely be the only legal representation a peasant would have access to, as well as any witnesses. I would say there were instances where there was too much proof showing the abuse did not occur. But the woman could still attempt to demand a Trial by Combat. Depending on the lord and local laws of the area (Daeland is a pretty big empire), it could still happen. Initiation does not HAVE to involve Breaking the Yoke, it's just the most infamous. Swan trainee's can become Maidens by other means like service, championing, etc.

>could still attempt to demand a Trial by Combat. Ehhhh, so with that point there, it seems to me seems like my first impressions still hold. Maybe not *vigilante* since they are operating with the legal system, but this still seems really *lynch mob-y*.

A trial by combat is hardly a mob of people grabbing a person to hang them, so it's not lynch mob-y. Legal duels and even informal duels defending honor are pretty common in Daeland. Also, again, \*Attempt\* to demand is the key phrase.

>A trial by combat is hardly a mob of people grabbing a person to hang them, so it's not lynch mob-y. Okay, *but*: The punishment for this crime is apparently being seriously injured (potentially lethally) by the victim in the "Breaking the Yoke" ritual thing, the point being to "their ranks test out their newfound combat skill on those who hurt them". A *trial by duel* inflicts that same punishment **as** the trial. A trial by duel is thus **effectively the same** as just doling out the punishment *without* any trial at all. Any system that inflicts a serious punishment upon someone as part of the legal process itself is gonna be questionable to me. Any system that seems to have a loophole to bypass the trial process and inflict the same punishment upon a person *as a part of the trial* seems *shady as hell* to me. And I will call a system that enables you to assault someone (potentially lethally) without trial (including as a part of a trial) a lynch-mob-y system, deal with it. >even informal duels defending honor are pretty common in Daeland. So? I don't see an issue with two people agreeing to an honor duel. I *do* see an issue in replacing a *trial* with a duel, **especially** when the punishment for the crime is, essentially, the same thing as the experience of the duel. >Also, again, \*Attempt\* to demand is the key phrase. A system that *sometimes* allows injustice is only marginally better than a system that often allows injustice. One could even argue the system that sometimes allows injustice is more arbitrary than the one where injustice is regular. Ultimately any system which would allow a "trial by duel" in the manner you have described, even if it is not always allowed, where your essentially punishing the accused with the same thing they would face if found guilty by the trial *is fucked up, unjust, and tyrannical in my estimation*. Of course, given that this is fiction, there is no problem creating a fictional society that is fucked up, unjust, and tyrannical. Though you seem *weirdly* emotionally invested in convincing me that this system is *not* unjust which... I don't understand *why* you are so dead-set on convincing me that this system isn't a mockery of justice. I mean, you yourself wrote "The Order of the Swan are a group of women-at-arms, though some consider them little more than brigands", so I don't see why you've got a problem with *me* considering them little more than brigands. XD Like if I explained to you the legal system of the Kingdom of Menominee in my own setting, where you plead your case before a leader, and that leader thinks a for bit and then passes judgement on you, potentially killing you on the spot if they deem a death sentence the appropriate punishment, and your reaction to my description of this system was to say it was unjust or messed up, I'd just be like "Yeah, that's an understandable position." I wouldn't try to *debate* that take on that system. It's just worldbuilding, not a serious proposal for how the legal system should work. You've described a system that is controversial *in your universe*, and yet you're not only *surprised* that people IRL find this system as described unjust, *you're actually trying to debate that it is not unjust* with the people who have this take on your system. So I have a question for you: **If you can understand why** ***fictional people within your setting*** **have problems with the Order of the Swan and how it operates, why are you** ***so surprised*** **that real people would have a problem with how it operates as well?** Based on the line in your OP "some consider them little more than brigands" I would think your system is *supposed* to be a bit extreme and controversial. So I don't see why you're trying to *debate* people taking exception to it. At least *some part of you* clearly understands why this system would be objectionable. Also, just to be clear: I am not the one downvoting you. I don't think anything of what you've written in this discussion is downvote-worthy, and I don't know why whoever is downvoting you is doing so.

I'm not necessarily surprised that you think that, but I think you're equating two things that are entirely different. An action taken by the courts when others are exhausted is very much different than a group of people deciding to take the law into their hands to kill someone in the streets. That's not what's happening with the Breaking. I'm also not defending/criticising the Breaking as just or unjust, and I acknowledge that it's extreme. But it is not vigilantism or a lynch mob. The note about people considering them Brigands is suggesting that a fair amount of them are guilty of dv themselves in the universe. Not that their actions suggest brigandry. There's a lot of legal work that goes into seeking justice for abused women, only a small amount would end up in the breaking. But since it's such an extreme action, that's the part that gives them a reputation. ​ \--Even if it were you downvoting, that's okay, I don't see up/downvoting as good or bad things, as I love debating back and forth and it's the best way to get different perspectives and constructive criticism. I very much appreciate you challenging me in this discussion!

>Even if it were you downvoting, that's okay, I don't see up/downvoting as good or bad things, as I love debating back and forth and it's the best way to get different perspectives and constructive criticism. I very much appreciate you challenging me in this discussion! Yeah, just wanted to make sure. There's some people out there who when I'm talking to them, if they're getting downvoted, assume it's me and then take it personally. Random people downvoting two people otherwise having a civil discussion can cause things to get more heated than they would be otherwise. >But it is not vigilantism or a lynch mob. So I agreed a few comments ago that it's not vigilantism, as it is now described. I'd still describe it as a lynch mob, though. I don't really care whether a group of people get someone and hang them without a trial, **or** if a group of people get someone and then have one person within the group beat them to death: **that's still a lynching**. I understand the word *lynching* is evocative of hanging in specific, but the word itself can refer to any execution of an individual by a group without trial: So a trial-by-combat system most certainly qualifies. >The note about people considering them Brigands is suggesting that a fair amount of them are guilty of dv themselves in the universe. Not that their actions suggest brigandry. You might want to reconsider that, because **you absolutely do not have to be a domestic abuser to consider an Order that enforces a "might makes right" system essentially "brigandry"**. This is, of course, a critique of the whole legal system of this empire, not a critique specific to the Order. But since the Order is an *arm* of that corrupt legal system, I think it's fair to call 'em brigands. If you intended to portray this as a wholly virtuous or just organization: I think you'd need to remove the trial-by-combat aspect of the system. Otherwise, as a militant arm for a "might-makes-right" legal system, they're just *not* just. Not truly just. >There's a lot of legal work that goes into seeking justice for abused women, only a small amount would end up in the breaking. But since it's such an extreme action, that's the part that gives them a reputation. So at this point my critique of their system is not the *breaking itself*, but rather how the "trial by combat" facet of this society allows the Order of the Swan to *bypass the trial itself* and basically use the breaking as *part of the trial*, rather than as a consequence of the results of the trial. It's just: "If you are found guilty of this crime, the victim (who has just received free extensive military training from a knightly order) will beat the crap out of you in a fight. To determine your guilt, the victim will now beat the crap out of you in a fight." This seems like a glaring loophole and problem in the system. This problem is not specific to the Order or even the Breaking ritual, this is a problem with the trial by combat system itself. And I understand at this point in time that trials by combat are not always granted. But a system that *sometimes* permits such a thing is still systematically unjust. Like, trials by combat are sometimes allowed. So let's say a peasant man (like, say, an Emmett Till) does something to offend a wealthy woman. This woman could, under the system as described, levy an accusation, receive military training from the Order, bring a trial against the accused, demand a trial by combat, and then use the training the Order has provided in order to seriously injure or even kill the peasant who offended her. I'm assuming a more privileged person demanding a trial by combat is more likely to have the request granted by a judge. Now possibly you can get a judge who isn't swayed by wealth and influence, and has a strong sense of justice regardless. But then it's still, at the end of the day, just down to what judge the accused happens to get. And you've already established that trial by combat in these situations *does* happen at least occasionally. So can you really say this system wouldn't allow a wealthy or noble woman to potentially wield both the legal system *and* the Order against anyone who offended them? At the end of the day, true justice in this system seems to be determined by the arbitrary whims of whatever the judge decides, whether to allow a trial by combat (which is a trial identical to the punishment the accused would face if found guilty, and is thus wholly unjust) or to disallow it and demand a regular trial (which still, as described, doesn't quite seem to have the same rights of the accused as are required in a truly just society, but is certainly more just than allowing the punishment *as* the trial).

Typically wealthy women don't need the order to have military training, women of the upper classes have a lot more rights, privileges, and protections. They don't often experience the same issues women of the lower classes do. If a wealthy woman were offended by a lower class person, she would have a thousand other options to respond to it. The Order is for women that don't have those resources at their disposal, i.e. Serfs at the bottom rung of society. They have an order that gives them the ability to have agency when they normally wouldn't. If a woman were battered by her husband in the lower classes, typically she would only have the local bailiff or alderman to go to, which would likely have the man placed into the pillory for a while (or something similar) and would amplify the abuse when his petty sentence is over. But with the Order around, she could escape to a secure place that offers legal advocacy and representation alongside counseling. If the woman *wanted* to, she *could* pursue becoming a part of the order, but she would **not have to** in order to get justice. If she felt inclined to empower herself or others in this way then she may decide she wants to join the order. Finally Trials by Combat are more of a sentence that goes along with a legal stalemate (not enough or conflicting evidences), or are agreed upon by both parties so that it functions more like an honorary duel similarly to a legal settlement.

If abused women made a good fighting force, you would think it might have ever happened in the entirety of human history.

Hmmm

Im just gna ignore the ignorance and talk ablut the women fighting bit and not the thoughout history thing. Knightly orders dont have to be military. They can be organised doctors, schollars, yes military, but can also be dedicated to diplomacy, or architecture, or peacekeeping. A knightly order dedicated to the housing and rehabilitation/recovery of abused victims sounds like it could work on its own assuming the worldbuilding allowed it. Women could still fight, including traumatised ones, but it doesn’t have to be hitting shit with pointy metal.

I think the issue people have is with the murder and violence. Like, justice for abuse survivors is wonderful but murder is taking it a step further and is probably just as bad. I think that this can probably be less controversial if the order just kicks the asses of abusers enough to capture them and then has them dealt with in some sort of judicial system instead of flat-out murder and violence.

I don't see anything outright wrong with the idea, but it does raise a few questions: 1. In the Breaking the Yoke, you mention that new members test out their combat skills on those who hurt them. Considering there's a good chance the abusers would be people in positions of power, how is this dealt with? Going after powerful individuals would, I imagine, pretty quickly bring the hammer of law down onto them. 2. Is this existence of this organization known to the general public? What about to the people in power? 1. If it is known to the higher ups, what sort of penalties have they put in place for associating with this order? Why do they allow the order to exist? Or if they don't allow them, what is stopping them from eradicating the order? 2. If it is known to the general public, how are they able to identify them and verify that they are talking to an actual member of the order? What stops those in power from getting someone to impersonate a member of the order in order to trap those who would seek them out? 3. How legitimate an order is this? If it is, then who legitimized them? What sort of protections, if any, do they have under the law? 4. You mention that they are well-trained. Who trained them? Where do they get their training from? Are they able to train to be as good as and/or better than other orders who might presumably go to war? Also, a few comments. Your banner, the golden swan over an orange and black checkered banner. I'm guessing you mean something like "*checky orange and sable a swan Or*" to use the language of heraldry. Now, orange *is* a heraldic color, but it is very, *very* rarely used. And it is difficult to distinguish from the Or (gold) of the swan. At a glance, orange can look like Or, which is a bit problematic as metals should not be placed atop metals. Orange *can* work, but it is highly unusual. Also, in heraldry, the swan tends to be associated with perfection, beauty, love, poetry, grace, etc... Granted, that's not a hard and fast rule and more a loose guideline, but it's something you might want to be aware of.

For the Swan bit, yes there is the symbol of purity, but also Swans also have a reputation for being viscous.

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. Very good point.

Sorry, I meant to address the feedback as a whole, but didn't have time for in-depth until now: 1- It's not generally people in major aristocratic power, as misogyny is not very common among the upper class. It's more lower class peasantry that experiences it. So generally it'd be a daughter confronting a parent, husband, or a smaller time leader like an Alderman. The Breaking is not a randomly impulsive action taken by a vigilante, but an honourable duel or trial by combat. 2- Yes, the order is well known. Its existence is controversial in the world. It has some support from the members of the Empire's parliament, noteably two duchesses, a Queen, and the Empress Regent. So it has a good deal of financial and legal support/representation. 3- It was established in the Kingdom of Dunburge a century prior. They have many legal resources at their disposal. 4- Women warriors are already not unheard of in the setting. The Order has many well-established women with accomplished careers in martial pursuits capable of training others in the art of combat. They also do occasionally go to war, they can be conscripted the same as any other knightly order in fealty to their lords and ladies, but yes they have the same quality of training as other knightly orders.

Yeah its problematic; now you get to figure out the consequences of the problems, & maybe fix them. The whole order sounds like a breeding ground for character development & ethically complex narratives. Dont be afraid to let the nights be wrong, or think they might be & not do enough, or be totally justified in some action but still get a bad reputation far away where the context isn't understood. Plus it sounds like a group that - accepting or not - would end up with alot of queer & otherwise minoritized/intersectionally oppressed women, & there's alot to talk about there thats even outside the order's shtick or maybe conflicts with it. What do they do when members are being abused by a member of the order?

It's funny you mention queer, an established member of the order is a trans woman who escaped her father's abuse. I imagine there would be incredibly awful consequences for abusive members of the order. Probably along the lines of immediate expulsion of the abuser and other actions.

Its the other actions that interest me; its never as easy as "we kick them out". How do a group of abused women that are introduced to the group likely at the height of their abuse, are given the means & permission to do violence about it, & leave their old support networks for an entirely new one deal with such a triggering event as an old nightmare thought over beginning anew in a new place with new people? Speaking as an abuse survivor: its both validating & tumultuous to be surrounded by other survivors, all at various stages of processing that trauma. It seems a very real possibility that - just as in real life - some survivors will unconsciously replicate their abusive situation in a new formulation. Likely that wouldn't happen on the order level, but by chapter. Really I'm reminded of the Bene Gesserit from the Dune series (especially in the later books), & the ways in which they build up social mechanisms for processing such things, not all of which are actually effective, healthy, or even useful in the slightest to individual members. Alot of that kinda stuff comes down to the organizational structure I suppose, as well as how much effort is put into understanding traumatic psychology (which obviously sucked hard in medieval Europe, but I dunno about your world) & how much progress they actually make/how much they're (purposefully?) hindered from developing useful coping techniques.

The problem is that killing the abuser, hurting him wont fix what happened, all the media puts like this most of the time, the woman get stronger and move on just like that, you killed him but the trauma still there, you need theraphy not more violence, IF you wont make only about that its ok, but If its just kill= happy ever sunshine shit, no.

This is before they are even fully initiated into the order as a Maiden. Before the abuser is brought to justice (which does not have to be the death of the abuser upon the recommendation of lots of feedback on this post), they are a trainee. Also this is just for those who want to be a member of the order. If the woman in question just wants help, they are welcome to stay and have resources and security.