| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 15 Nov 2010 : 21:56:13
I wonder what would be typical concepts of a persons honor in most parts of the Realms. Historically medieval people equated honor of ones family name as crucial, or even vital part of their being in a society. Men could be killed in name of tarnishing someones honor. How much do you see this being part of the Realms?
In the rather violent parts of Fearun I can see lots of reasons for people to adhere to a social code. Honor is likely to encompass their own view of societal duties such as the care for their possesions and holdings, the status of their wives and family, and their connection to the divine.
With the rather loose sexual mores a womans honor is likely to be a very different thing than that of a medieval womans honor is, which usually equated to their chastity and their marital behaviour. Are there any obvious novels that touch upon this subject to a greater degrewe than normal?
Any thoughts on how to codify or recognize the regional differences of this concept across the Realms? Any examples of socially unacceptable behavior we modern humans would consider perfectly normal in our lives, that would risk being challenged into a duel in the Realms? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 15:59:21
Bah! I'd rather play a PrC shackled by chains of honour than a Computer Programmer any day. As rigid and unnecessary (and perhaps pixie-lated) as the Code of Honour might be, it makes infinitely more sense than the arcane Code of Java. Plus at least a paladin gets a nice horse and a little respect. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 05:09:02
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Edit: keep getting the script time error message. did I somehow end up on Sage Time?
My power is growing! 
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
quote:
Edit: keep getting the script time error message. did I somehow end up on Sage Time?
I notice that the flow of Sage Time is mysteriously correlated with Sage's direct proximity. Though it seems that his gremlin constructs have somehow escaped their cages again ... they can be seen lurking on all the shelves, the flurry of their mechanical wings scattering scrolls into disarray. They have apparently seized control of most of Candlekeep's hidden portals and cast their baleful temperament towards denying entry to worthy scribes. Their leader is named "ASP 0113" and they will surely become quite tame once he is defeated. No doubt Sage is already quite busy amending this situation through the use of Detho's Debugging, Beltyn's Burning Backups, and Ioulaum's Installation.
Consider those spells officially nabbed for the code-books of my Computer Programmer PrC. They'll have to be written in Assembly, though... since they're "core" spells.  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 02:10:46
I should wonder how many chaotic pixie pranks have been scribbled into the wordy passages of the Measure? Already I can imagine groups of Knights solemnly patrolling the deserts and forests of Krynn, ever vigilant against the dire threat of whale poaching. It is what their honour demands they do.
quote:
Alystra Illianniis
I never really saw Sturm as heroically sacrificing himself. He fought Kitiara- whom he had previously traveled with and KNEW had gone toward evil- which in itself was noble and honorable, but he fell because SHE was NOT honorable. He died on the end of the woman's spear, for pity's sake.
But the important thing is that Sturm saw it as heroically sacrificing himself. I agree, Sturm made a nobly suicidal and utterly pointless decision and should not have been at all surprised by Kitiara's dirty fighting treachery, epic fail. It was an honourable death.
quote:
Edit: keep getting the script time error message. did I somehow end up on Sage Time?
I notice that the flow of Sage Time is mysteriously correlated with Sage's direct proximity. Though it seems that his gremlin constructs have somehow escaped their cages again ... they can be seen lurking on all the shelves, the flurry of their mechanical wings scattering scrolls into disarray. They have apparently seized control of most of Candlekeep's hidden portals and cast their baleful temperament towards denying entry to worthy scribes. Their leader is named "ASP 0113" and they will surely become quite tame once he is defeated. No doubt Sage is already quite busy amending this situation through the use of Detho's Debugging, Beltyn's Burning Backups, and Ioulaum's Installation. |
| Tren of Twilight Tower |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 01:27:26
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Laws are written and enforced most often to manipulate them into serving selfish or corrupt purposes, especially by those who possess greatest power within the society. Laws written for the betterment of society in general are only incidental and poorly enforced.
Quoted for truth.
Also I agree with Arik's other statement as it goes along with my personal belief - there is basically three main "highways" that will influence development of honour in person: personal, situational and cultural.
Personal being the one that is "logically" developed, situational being imposed by circumstances/experiences, and cultural being enforced by society that person lives within.
Tren |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 01:07:43
Arik, I see you're from Canada-so I won't make judgment on your country's government. But here in the states, although there are miles of red tape at every level, the basic laws are there to loosely enforce a certain code of rights and responsibilities- mostly based on morality- that society agrees on as being honorable. There are dozens of laws describing what is the right thing to do in just about any situation- such as whether to move an injured person from a burning or smoking vehicle, to name a recent example- which are there to protect people from prosecution or litigation for doing what they believe is right. But this does not mean that the laws in general are evil, rather that even the best intentioned rules can be bent to evil purposes by dishonorable and unprincipled people.
I called th US CN mainly because while it is founded on principles of honor and morality, there are numerous laws which just seem silly- like one for Oklahoma (a land-bound state) which prohibits harpooning whales in any body of water there. Really?! Someone actually TRIED this?! This is what I meant by CN. It serves no purpose what-so-ever, and makes no sense, but it is there all the same. Neither good nor bad, just silly. And there are literally HUNDREDS of useless and incomprehensible little laws like this, most of which are never even enforced. They have nothing to do with a belief in honor, even though that is supposed to be one of the basic tenets of the nation. It's like a pixie sneaked into the law books when no one was looking and scribbled a bunch of stuff in as a joke.
Sage, that is just too funny- I've never played that game, and now I want to! In regards to the Solamnic Knights, I never really saw Sturm as heroically sacrificing himself. He fought Kitiara- whom he had previously traveled with and KNEW had gone toward evil- which in itself was noble and honorable, but he fell because SHE was NOT honorable. He died on the end of the woman's spear, for pity's sake.
Edit: keep getting the script time error message. did I somehow end up on Sage Time? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 00:48:04
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Let me shift my footing on this argument:
A rigidly codified system of honour is demonstrated in the (very Lawful, very Good) Solamnic Knights of Krynn. They deeply revere the Oath and the Measure - the Oath is straightforward (Est Sularus Oth Mithas, My Honour Is My Life) whereas the Measure is a complicated lengthy codex of strictly defined examples, judgements, histories, tales, and passages that explicitly describe (in a stuffy dead pseudo-latin language) the exact details of what their "honour" really demands from them on a very specific case-by-case basis. Various factions and orders within the Knights have conflicted in something of a civil war over differing interpretations and versions of the Measure. Only the most learned Knights are seen as worthy of deciding which course is honourable when new situations are encountered (and add their new dictates to the endless Measure).
The hero Sturm Brightblade, predictably enough, ultimately chose to sacrifice himself in an epic battle against evil, leading to much consternation among his companions (who generally felt that it was a tragic waste and perhaps not even really necessary). It was an honourable death.
This richly detailed material is readily imported (with some historical revision) into any order of knights/paladins located almost anywhere within the Realms, or pretty much any other setting which uses such characters.
And there's an opportunity for creative DM's to drop something like this into the Realms -- though not entirely FR canon, there is a side-quest in Baldur's Gate II: The Shadows of Amn which involves the party helping a stranded group of Solamnic Knights return to Krynn. Perhaps a Realms knight among the adventuring party spoke [and learned] about the Solamnic Order from the Krynnish travellers, and was influenced by their dictates, to the point where he/she begun re-imagining this knowledge within a Realms context. |
| althen artren |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 00:22:06
And this is why I have two concepts of honor, because no 25 people can
exactly agree with another about this topic. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 23:02:00
The society you describe, Alystra, seems almost Lawful Evil to me. Laws are written and enforced most often to manipulate them into serving selfish or corrupt purposes, especially by those who possess greatest power within the society. Laws written for the betterment of society in general are only incidental and poorly enforced.
My own homeland is seemingly ruled by firmly entrenched layers of incomprehensible modron-like bureaucracy and bureaucrats, while the politicians and leaders function more as figureheads and (disposable, but easily recycled) scapegoats. It's worse than the left and right hands not knowing what the other is doing, they distribute their offices on opposite coasts which speak and write in two official languages - I've often said that you need two of these guys to make a single half-wit.
Let me shift my footing on this argument:
A rigidly codified system of honour is demonstrated in the (very Lawful, very Good) Solamnic Knights of Krynn. They deeply revere the Oath and the Measure - the Oath is straightforward (Est Sularus Oth Mithas, My Honour Is My Life) whereas the Measure is a complicated lengthy codex of strictly defined examples, judgements, histories, tales, and passages that explicitly describe (in a stuffy dead pseudo-latin language) the exact details of what their "honour" really demands from them on a very specific case-by-case basis. Various factions and orders within the Knights have conflicted in something of a civil war over differing interpretations and versions of the Measure. Only the most learned Knights are seen as worthy of deciding which course is honourable when new situations are encountered (and add their new dictates to the endless Measure).
The hero Sturm Brightblade, predictably enough, ultimately chose to sacrifice himself in an epic battle against evil, leading to much consternation among his companions (who generally felt that it was a tragic waste and perhaps not even really necessary). It was an honourable death.
This richly detailed material is readily imported (with some historical revision) into any order of knights/paladins located almost anywhere within the Realms, or pretty much any other setting which uses such characters.
But my question here is - outside of establishing some campaign background for the PC's Honourable Brotherhood, does the presence of this code really do anything to actually improve the character or the game? Is it really needed? Those who want to play honour-bound characters will have the initiative to consistently act with honour; the rules seem to just become extra paperwork and a way for the DM to "penalize" the players (or will at least be seen as such). To my mind the Oath and an alignment are all you really need and the Measure is just a needless weighty burden which is best left in your outhouse. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 21:34:21
Lawful Neutral? Funny, I've always considered it Chaotic Neutral. Some laws are just ridiculous, and are only sporadically enforced in any case. The difference is that laws dealing with "honor" are pretty much universal, whereas other laws are largely dependent on the society that makes them, and their own specific needs and views. A Samurai's lord telling him to fight an enemy would be honor-bound to do so, whether he personally believed it was warranted or not. To use dennis's point, it is not his own desire, but it is a part of his code of honor. That's not being stupid, it's just doing what is right by his society's code of honor. In the case of the firefighter, the chances are that if he went to the girl, he would not even be able to talk her down in any event, since she is already at the point of killing herself over a guy who probably would not show up. His being there might even make the situation worse, in which case, how would HE live with knowing that he could save neither her nor the people he could have saved by staying with his team?
There are too many variables to consider, and honor generally boils things down to choosing the lesser of two evils. And who is to say that the knight remaining in the battle does not also want to be there with his allies? The funny thing about honor is that it is more than just a set of rules dictating who we act, but it is a part of our very being- it is part of our deepest personal beliefs and ideals. It's oversimplifying things to say that doing what is right means ignoring what we truly want, for if we did not truly WANT to do what is right, then no one would ever choose to act according to a code of honor in the first place! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 18:31:16
I could have been more diplomatic, but I chose trollish wording (and a one-sided position) in presenting arguments that would provoke a response. Yes, there are some specific flaws in the arguments I presented.
I personally don't understand the requirement for a strictly regimented code, unless there is a tacit understanding that there are always those (within and without the order) who will need to be policed or punished for violating the tenets.
In RL, for example, I have no real idea about how the specific "laws of the land" are written. Yet I know that things like theft, assault, murder, and rape are wrong; I won't even commit crimes of trespass or piracy, even though I'm not always entirely certain that in fact a "crime" even exists. This all being done without any need to hammer a strict legal codex into my thought and deed. I think it's reasonably fair to generalize my example to the population at large. Criminals, too, know the law (probably better than I do) yet clearly feel unrestricted by the rules.
Clearly we have written laws, indeed, rather convoluted and arcanely intricate ones. We also have champions who are often presented as honourbound to enforce the law for everybody. (I understand that Law and Honour are not the same thing, but I think they can be interchangeably served well enough within this example. Maybe we just live in a Lawful Neutral society, where legal consistency takes precedence and justice is an afterthought. Heavy topic in itself, better discussed outside the hallowed halls of Candlekeep.) |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 17:26:31
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
In addition, what really vexes me is when a character refuses to do what he really, honestly wants just because what he needs, as directed by his order, should come above everything else. For instance, in the thick of the battle, a knight is informed by his fellow knight that his daughter is in grave danger as their city is attacked by rampaging dragons, with hardly no one to defend the city nor its inhabitants as most of the knights rally against the massive forces of a demented necromancer in the neighboring city. His order compels him to remain and fight, as all of them have to stop the necromancer in order to make the dragons sane again and cease besieging their city. He loves his daughter more than anyone or anything else, but he can't ignore his order's needs. So leave her to be torn, munched, and swallowed by insane dragons he does. Hah! Preposterous! Every time I read something like this, my 'tolerance dam' bursts, and I forthwith throw the book. The Real World is already fraught with absurdity. Why on earth would I want to see it in fiction, too?!
The example knight here has a conflict with his personal code and values opposed to his orders codified values. A wise order recognizes such, and would respect ANY decision a knight made to a degree. Of course the Order would have to follow through with any punishments they have devised for transgression of the code of honor, but would value their member and his decision nonetheless.
I think even chaotic societies abide by codes of honor. They'll likely have less severe repercussion for those decisions that are made on personal levels, and atonement is often a more swift and easy proces than a lawful order or society would have. I'll try to categorize a elven Bladesingers code below to give an example.
A Bladesinger of the Black Cat lodge shall above all things (in order of importance):
* Spend at least one hour each day in meditation
* Spend at least one hour each day in training of the seven forms
* Be as brave as a lion
* Be as cunning as a fox
* Be as wise as an owl
* Never strike the defenseless
* Seek, by deed, to spread the word of the Seldarine – on arrival at any new settlement, the bladesinger must spread the word of his elflord if he has one and inform of any threats to the People by telling a tale of his heroic deeds against them
* Offer succor and tending to all the People who suffer any ill
* Pay homage at any temple, shrine, or altar to the Seldarine before all things. At any image, temple, or place of worship, from the humblest roadside shrine to the greatest portals to fey-realm palaces, they must spend at least some minutes in meditation or hours in training.
The following conducts can be upheld as the bladesinger deems himself worthy of the tasks:
* Offer service to any elflord who owns a stronghold who worships the Seldarine. The service is but done, if it is in keeping with the lodge's beliefs, but can be from the humblest and most menial task to the most glorious and demanding.
* Teach others the way of the bladesinger by seeking worthy successors spreading his image – Once the bladesinger has mastered the Seven Forms (usually after two centuries), the bladesinger must create a lodge. This lodge from then on acts as a center of wisdom of the Seldarine, academy of warfare, and school of the Arts for as long as the bladesingers students need be taught. The bladesinger must seek to instill the lodge's totem with the aspect of the Black Cat and gain the blessing of a Black Cat spirit or animal lord. He than creates this lodge and its totem with his own toil and sweat. The resulting lodge gains the effect of an alterable Mirage spell at the bladesingers CL.
|
| idilippy |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 09:06:18
Yeah occasionally I do and then it will go away, it led to a triple post earlier tonight but then suddenly went away and everything was fine. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 08:45:23
off topic:
Do you guys keep on getting the script error? I do. Seems like Sage hasn't yet caught and quarantined all the gremlins. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 08:34:18
In the first example the honor is not burdening your family with your debts but sacrificing what you want so they aren't stuck supporting you. As to the second, you're firefighter example is a little over the top, but let's run with it. First, the firefighter would have to abandon his team in the midst of a horrible situation, possibly condemning them all to die, or someone to die in his place, then he is condemning anyone he would have saved to die, since he won't be there to do it. And finally, how does he know his daughter is in trouble or that he can do anything to help anyways? Are you making a parallel between a situation in a book because if so maybe you should just say what the example is so I can see what you're trying to get across.
If there's ever a situation where, as you said, the firefighter could leave and know that his leaving won't cause any harm then of course his daughter is more important, and most honor codes would allow for you to go where you can do the greatest good. If, say, the firefighter was on his way to the site and had 5 backups that were just sitting around and are as good or better than him, but he was the only one in the entire world who could help his daughter and he knew without a doubt she would die unless he, and no one else, went to her, then it might be stupid to stay. But, if the firefighter was the best around, or the leader of his team, or his team would be undermanned without him than it would not be stupid to stay. It would be hard, very, very, very hard, and maybe he can't live with holding his beliefs and doing his duty at the cost of his daughter's life, but honor isn't about easy and if he made the decision to stay where he was needed and obligated to be it wouldn't be stupid. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 08:09:38
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
It happens all the time, albeit on a lesser scale, how many people from your high school didn't pursue the college degree they wanted because their family couldn't afford the loans required to support them in their educational pursuits?
I don't see how you will insert an argument on 'honor' in that example.
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
Or for a more recent example, every firefighter who died in the World Trade Center rushing in to try and save strangers when they knew how dangerous and unstable the building was.
Sacrificing one's life for the sake of others because that's what his job or the situation demands of him is fine only IF that's what he truly and honestly wants. Now, if, say, that same firefighter while rescuing the victims is informed that his daughter, recently heartbroken, is standing right at the top of a 60-story building and threatening to commit suicide if her boyfriend doesn't show up and promise to leave his current lover for her, but, even though he knows there are other firefighters who can save those poor victims and there's only him who can (and honestly wants to) talk sense to his daughter whom he values more than anyone and anything else in the world, he still abandons her to the cold clutch of death just because he's 'honor-bound' to stay where he is. Now tell me that's not stupid. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 07:50:08
It happens all the time, albeit on a lesser scale, how many people from your high school didn't pursue the college degree they wanted because their family couldn't afford the loans required to support them in their educational pursuits? Or the marine(or maybe it was army) private in World War two who joined a new company and the first day jumped on a dud grenade believing it was real to save the lives of a foxhole full of strangers he just meant. Or for a more recent example, every firefighter who died in the World Trade Center rushing in to try and save strangers when they knew how dangerous and unstable the building was. Or that professional (american) football player for the Arizona cardinals who left his family and career to join the army because that's what he felt was the right thing to do. I'm sure there's hundreds or thousands of other examples of this kind of thing just in the real world, people sacrifice what they want for what they believe is right, or honorable, all the time and it is definitely not preposterous. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 07:40:38
It's a plain, immutable preposterousness. He sacrifices his heart's true desire just because what his selfless order dictates is contrary to it. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 07:26:08
It's not absurd, dennis. People are forced to make such choices all the time, even IRL. It's like the old cunundrum of the burning building. There's a cat and the Mona Lisa inside, and you only have time to save one. Which do you choose? Save the cat, or the priceless work of art? In the case you described, while it may seem absurd to you, the knight would likely choose to stay and fight in any case, whether he knew what happened to his daughter or not. Why? Because, to quote Spock from Star Trek: Wrath of Khan, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few- or the one." That is the knight's honor. He may not like it, but saving the entire city is more important than his own selfish desire. Honor is putting your selfish wishes aside for a higher cause or need. It may suck sometimes to stick to it, but if one is true to his sense of honor, he can do no less. Even when it requires tremendous personal sacrifice. That does not mean he would simply pretend it doesn't matter, however. Most likely, he would finish the battle, in hopes that she will be safe once the dragons are sane again. If not, then he might very well be justified in going after the dragon that kills her- and his fellow knights might see nothing wrong with that.
BTW, I'm in agreement with you, idilippy.... |
| idilippy |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 07:25:42
Ok perpetuating a code of honor isn't the same thing as programming someone or replacing casualties, but I'll leave that aside and focus on the rest. I'm having trouble with your arguments here:
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
So if everybody always acted honourably you wouldn't need the rules. If nobody ever acted dishonourably you would not only not need the rules, but you also wouldn't need the champions to enforce them. If everybody acted dishonourably then the rules are obviously flawed; or the people are flawed, in which case the rules don't do anything except require honourable people to subjugate them. Hmmm, round circle ... the rules serve no real purpose beyond "honourably" enforcing a self-rewarding tyranny of elitist status quo.
Here are the problems I have with this reasoning:
-You propose that if everyone acted honorably you would need no rules, and if nobody acted dishonorably you would need neither rules nor enforcers. Ok, theoretically yes if everyone had the exact same views and never strayed from them you would not need rules, but rules are not the same thing as honor.
-Next you argue that if nobody follows the rules than either the rule or people are flawed. I can kinda see where you're going with this until you say, "in which case the rules don't do anything except require honourable people to subjugate them." Where does a code of honor require you to subjugate those who disagree with that code? Unless you're talking about laws, which are a completely different subject matter than honor, a code of honor isn't required to be followed by anyone who doesn't choose to follow that code of honor. Both your arguments so far are arguments against laws, not honor.
-Finally, even if we turned the discussion to rules instead of leaving it at honor, your argument only is valid for two impossible extremes, either for rules that everyone will always follow without exception, or for rules that nobody has or will ever follow, neither of which are applicable to the real world. Statistically you're basing your argument on the very far right and left portions of a normal curve, and ignoring the middle, namely rules that people occasionally follow and occasionally do not, such as not stealing from, raping, or murdering an innocent. These rules are necessary because people occasionally do not follow them, and enforcing them does not ""honourably" [enforce] a self-rewarding tyranny of elitist status quo.", and even if they did it has nothing to do with honor and everything to do with laws. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 06:53:08
Very well said, Arik.
In addition, what really vexes me is when a character refuses to do what he really, honestly wants just because what he needs, as directed by his order, should come above everything else. For instance, in the thick of the battle, a knight is informed by his fellow knight that his daughter is in grave danger as their city is attacked by rampaging dragons, with hardly no one to defend the city nor its inhabitants as most of the knights rally against the massive forces of a demented necromancer in the neighboring city. His order compels him to remain and fight, as all of them have to stop the necromancer in order to make the dragons sane again and cease besieging their city. He loves his daughter more than anyone or anything else, but he can't ignore his order's needs. So leave her to be torn, munched, and swallowed by insane dragons he does. Hah! Preposterous! Every time I read something like this, my 'tolerance dam' bursts, and I forthwith throw the book. The Real World is already fraught with absurdity. Why on earth would I want to see it in fiction, too?! |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 06:28:17
Well, Arik, the problem with that is that NOT everyone behaves "honorably", which is why societies have rules of honorable behavior in the first place. And those rules are not always written or spelled out, either. Much of it is learned by children from their parents and others around them, and later passed on to their own offspring. It's one reason I think this world of ours is going downhill- parents don't tech kids about common courtesy and acting with respect and honor anymore, like they did in previous generations. Rules for codes of conduct are there to teach people to act in ways that their society as a whole deems to be right. Laws are not just elitist or exclusive tools of tyrannical status quo, as you put it- they are there because that society has decided they are necessary.
Honor is never self-serving, which is part of the point. It exists as a concept to teach people to think of others, to consider the consequences of their actions, and to make choices that are in the best interest of the community rather than themselves. The honor of the clan, family, country, or even personal honor are all based on the individual's need to be perceived favorably by one's peers. In this respect, even and "evil" person's sense of honor is unselfish... |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 05:43:36
So,
At best they perpetuate the code simply to reinforce programming and replace casualties. At worst they gain social recognition and exclusivity; ie, another way of saying they are a self-rewarding tyranny of elitist status quo. The King's watchdogs. Seems perversely dishonourable when viewed in this skeptical manner, even though it is not false.
Otherwise it doesn't really answer the question, I think. What's the point of having complex rules which are expected only to agree with what you'd decide to do anyways without them? At best they waste time and tax dollars, at worst they cause you problems when you act "dishonourably". So if everybody always acted honourably you wouldn't need the rules. If nobody ever acted dishonourably you would not only not need the rules, but you also wouldn't need the champions to enforce them. If everybody acted dishonourably then the rules are obviously flawed; or the people are flawed, in which case the rules don't do anything except require honourable people to subjugate them. Hmmm, round circle ... the rules serve no real purpose beyond "honourably" enforcing a self-rewarding tyranny of elitist status quo. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 05:13:55
As a way of passing that code onto others or as a way of uniting like-minded individuals who follow similar codes under a broader code? Or else maybe to have a list of virtues to aspire to that pushes the person following the code to better themselves. Those are a couple worthwhile reasons I can think of, less worthwhile ones might be for the sake of recognition or to exclude those who don't meet the "standards" of your view on honor. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 04:51:20
Ah, but if the individual's goals are completely and always aligned with those his code of honour requires of him, then what's the point of even having that code? Just a bunch of redundant bureaucratic pageantry, no? |
| idilippy |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 04:44:36
While your point on honor being an individual thing to some people is completely valid dennis, there is value in codifying what specific segments of the population believe to be honorable. Now if anyone is trying to make an objective definition of honor I would agree that would be completely impossible to codify, but laying out what honor is to different people is certainly possible.
Also, I don't understand your hatred of characters who follow a code of honor laid down by an organization, order, family, or society. Just because someone follows a code of honor doesn't mean that their reaction to a situation doesn't stem from their individual views, it simply means that their individual views coincide with the code of honor they are following. For example, a Morninglord of Lathander comes upon a village that is being preyed upon by a group of vampires and drops everything to help them, as the faith he follows demands that he stamp out the undead. Does this mean he wouldn't have stopped on his own if those rules weren't there, or is it because he would stop anyways that he became a cleric of Lathander in the first place?
Or maybe, for a non-FR example, we can take an example from the Knights of the Cross from the Dresden Files series. Without spoiling anything on the off chance anyone hasn't read the books these holy knights regularly come up against backstabbing evil demons who predictably break all promises and constantly use underhanded measures to deal with the knights, yet the knights themselves stick firm to their sense of honor, keeping any word they give to the evil demons and going so far as to unconditionally accept the surrender of these fiends when it is offered, showing them mercy and kindness even when they are 100% certain they will receive none in turn. Is this foolish? Maybe, Dresden himself thinks so on more than one occasion, but keeping their word and giving mercy when asked is part of their system of honor, and I admire them for it. For them there is no give in their honor system, no wiggling around for what is more convenient, even if the path their honor leads them to is much harder than the easy path would be they stick to their beliefs.
Also, I would argue your point that there is no such thing as right or wrong. There may be no arbitrary, absolute right and wrong but there are actions that are almost always right or wrong, as well as situations that have right or wrong responses to them. Still, I think your point was about absolute right and wrong which I mostly agree with, most actions are just actions, with their morality being dependent on the situation, only a few actions I can think of could be considered absolutely wrong.
Edit: Heh, look at that, I said the same thing Wooly did only his answer was short, to the point, and easy to understand while mine was convoluted and took up a paragraph as an example before reaching the point... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 04:38:56
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
I hate characters thinking they did the right thing because that's what their order, organization, family, or fellow denizens believe he had to do. I want their reaction to be stemmed from personal level. There's no such thing as right or wrong, in the same way as there's no good or bad people, just people, as Elminster said in EMD.
But characters that are members of knightly orders don't make a distinction between what they feel is right, and what their order tells them is right -- those two things are often one in the same. They share those beliefs with others of their group, and that's why they form orders. Are we do devalue the beliefs of a member of an order, simply because he or she belongs to a group of like-minded individuals? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 04:36:14
Some people require ordered codexes to simplify their priorities. Structure is instilled after a lifetime of following, striving, and becoming the elite champions of the land. Social programming.
The King, the Law, the Order, and the Church. Unit, Core, God, and Country. No real difference.
Other people prefer the freedom to decide for themselves. Structure is good, but imposing arbitrary hierarchies onto common sense is a waste of time. Also the product of social programming.
One problem people in this second group cannot abide is that the first group are invariably the ones in power. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 03:40:49
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
And of course this is all entirely based on human conceptions - honour among chaotic elven bladesingers is a very real thing which humans can understand at the individual level more intuitively than the social one. The Githyanki fight honourably, even though others view them as inhumanly vicious and savage. Honour among orcs is based on strength and ferocity, and nothing else. Honour among dwarves is based on deeply instilled respect for dwarven traditions and solid craftsmanship (plus a fair amount of orc-bashing). Honour among halflings is beyond my ability to speculate.
I don't want honor to be 'codified' or defined, because almost every situation calls for a different type of action or response. What is honorable in one might not be honorable in another. Why waste time defining what honor truly is, when, simply put, it's but a mere 'reaction' to a situation?!
I hate characters thinking they did the right thing because that's what their order, organization, family, or fellow denizens believe he had to do. I want their reaction to be stemmed from personal level. There's no such thing as right or wrong, in the same way as there's no good or bad people, just people, as Elminster said in EMD. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Nov 2010 : 23:28:43
Every D&D book which publishes paladin, knight, cavalier, or crusader classes or kits describes some codified honour system similar to those mentioned above (1E PHB, DMG, UA, FR0; 2E PHB, DMG, PHBR1, FRA all come to mind).
Honour is ingrained by the laws, traditions, and culture of a society (or groups within the society) but is primarily of course a deeply personal thing. As such, every person is going to have a different perception of how to define it, what particular thought or deed is considered honourable or dishonourable. As dennis' above post indicates, the personal context is often as important as the group context; dying for a worthy cause or vowing to dedicate yourself to improving so you may return to finish the fight are both honourable paths, and either is just as viable when ambiguously defined within the codified expectations of your society, brotherhood, order, or whatever. A big part of most medieval honour systems (as we perceive it today, at least) is that the honourbound templar/knight/samurai was considered capable of governing his own actions and always choosing the honourable path for himself.
Although our romantic notions tend to view knightly codes as just and fair, there's no real reason why this actually was or should be the case. The noble paradigm of pure goodness is an appealing notion but probably glamourized and possibly not very accurate in any event.
Honourable champions in a lawful society seek to follow and enforce the rules and order of the lord, the land, and society. Moral intent is not weighed as heavily as the letter of codified laws, few exceptions are allowed. A hungry thief caught stealing bread has his hand chopped off (usually on the spot, to prevent anybody so caught from escaping the law) and that's the end of it. The champion upholds the law but his word is law as well, challenging him (outside of the legally recognized forms) is itself considered a disruptive and punishable crime.
Honourable champions in a good society seek to exemplify high moral values and punish only those who have proven they cannot be redeemed. Moral imperatives are the whole purpose of honour and held above all other considerations; the spirit of the law doesn't matter as much as doing the right thing. A hungry thief caught stealing bread would mercifully be given the chance to repay his debt, amend his wrongful ways, and be strongly encouraged to reform himself into a contributing member of society. If the thief then continued to steal, especially if for no reason beyond serving his selfishness or greed, he would be punished accordingly for the good of all society. The champion of good is expected to be righteous and respectful, unfailingly offer his blade to fight evil or defend the weak, but always tempers his blade with kindness, compassion, and respect.
Honourable champions in an evil society use the privileges of their station to take what is rightfully theirs away from those too feeble to oppose them, and bully those of lesser status into serving whatever purpose they declare is demanded by honour. Morality is entirely irrelevant, except where it affects the honour of the champion or his order or those whom he serves. A thief caught stealing for whatever reason is summarily punished as tradition requires (or involuntarily obligated to put his skills to some use which better serves the champion). Challenging the honour, words, or deeds of such a champion is cause for immediate execution at his hands, and he never needs to justify his actions to anyone of lesser station.
Many societies are both lawful and good, or lawful and evil, and combine these basic tenets accordingly (sometimes causing problematic issues with honour). Chaotic societies view honour as incomprehensible or stupid and, even when they have honourable champions, these can basically arbitrarily declare any rules they see fit. They are too individualistic to be constricted by the dictates of their (or somebody else's) imposed honour system.
(even though I despise ninja-worshipping, they serve as a fine example here)
A lawful evil ninja follows strictly codified rules and his honour demands that he serves his hierarchy unfailingly. How he acts outside of the rules is of no consequence, provided it doesn't interfere with his codified rules or affect others within his group. He can engage in private vendettas or missions all he likes, provided he doesn't get caught and his actions don't conflict with or draw attention to his order or his superiors. Ninjas who are perceived as acting dishonourably (or are dishonourable incompetents) are hunted down and executed at the hands of their brothers.
Of course there are quirks in culture and tradition which might change or define aspects of honour beyond these examples. Ancestor worship is important in many cultures. Obedience to a particular god (or gods) is important in others. Various aspects of religious or spiritual significance may be required by honour, though not always related to the worship of any gods. Sworn obedience or loyalty to some sort of lord, king, emperor, khan, or warlock is usually an important requirement. Chivalry (or Chauvinism) is often important in societies where genders have unequal status. Most medieval societies are based on a feudal system, in which honourable champions fit in a very specific niche within the hierarchy; typically below that of all but the lowest of nobility, yet elevated above the highest of the common people. Often, commoners can be promoted to honourable champion status (and thus enter the nobility) by demonstrating great deeds, prowess, or loyalty. Just as often, higher nobility (even the king himself) are expected to function as honourable champions of highest reknown.
And of course this is all entirely based on human conceptions - honour among chaotic elven bladesingers is a very real thing which humans can understand at the individual level more intuitively than the social one. The Githyanki fight honourably, even though others view them as inhumanly vicious and savage. Honour among orcs is based on strength and ferocity, and nothing else. Honour among dwarves is based on deeply instilled respect for dwarven traditions and solid craftsmanship (plus a fair amount of orc-bashing). Honour among halflings is beyond my ability to speculate. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 18 Nov 2010 : 15:53:21
Childish eh? The matter of what a community or a group of people values in people is a quite mature theme IMHO. Actions of fantasy people might seem 'senseless' to our modern minds, but a single 'craven' decision can stick to a family name and effect considerable numbers of lives of those in the family in the future.
Most adventurers are quite courageous, a value that's also an excellent motivator for them when facing terrible monsters and vicious humanoids. Got much more to add later. |
|
|
