From: gujn@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Jeremy Nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bastard DM from Hell &a matter of Honour
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:59:12 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>> around.  The entire *concept* of honour is artificial.  What is more
>So what is the difference between a glorious fight vs 300 trolls and sepuku? 
>Both give the same result, answer - honour.

No.  Sepuku is the last honourable retreat before dishonour.  Dishonour
such as having been captured, being too old to serve your lord, being
caught in a treasonous act but your lord having enough mercy to let you
commit sepuku instead of hanging you.

Fighting 300 trolls is quite possibly something to be sung about after
your death.  Sepuku is probably not.

>>  Some societies *choose* to make
>> arbitrary decisions like, "You may kill an opponent, but only using
>> the following techniques...".  Rob suggested that everyone knows what
>> honour is, and some groups choose to ignore it.  I disagree, no
>> everyone has a concept of honour at all,
>Everyone knows what honour is.  You may choose not to follow it but you still
>know what it is.

Perhaps everyone from that society, but even that is unlikely.  By way
of example:
The concepts and codes of honour vary widely between the Chivalric code of
Europe and those of Japan.  Yes, there is a large core of common
concepts, but differences in priorities, and many smaller differneces.

Also, peasents would NOT be expected to know the chivalric code, which
is the written form of the code of honour.  What they consider
honourable could vary quite widely with those of the Lords.  For a
start, there's is a damn side more likely to be practical. :)  

Honour is really very dependant on what is fashionable.

>> so applying foreign concepts
>> to them is unreasonable.
>Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It depends on the system of law. :)


>This would not be trial by combat.  The young noble (proably level 1 ftr) would
>be picking on a non combatant, and that is decidedly dishonourable!
I refer you to feudal Japan, where in many conditions such a challenge
may be quite honourable, despite the absurd imbalance... How merciful of
the lord to permit the scholar a final oppurtunity at redemption,
despite his amazing gall at contradicting the Lord. :)

>> Think lawful good.
>I am trying yet I still believe that the thief should be executed as a common
>criminal with little hope of redemption.
Personally, I don't think that is unreasonable.  

Tutting sadly the Paladin says, 'Well common Law dictates you must loose your 
hand.  I'm terribly sorry Lefty.'

>> I have talked to many people, and not one has said that a Paladin can
>> use torture under *any* circumstance.  Sorry dude.

Actually, I think a Paladin should be able to use torture. :)  Only if
he _honestly_ believes it is the right course.  But as a Paladin he is
aware that he is the cutting edge of the Fight Against Evil(tm), and
must make some difficult decisions.  But God IS merciful. :)

As to the arguement of the penalties of a Paladin... well I dunno,
personally I think the Paladin is a little too powerful, and doesn't
have enough disadvantages.balances. :)  But that is typical of all
powerful classes. :)  In the end it comes down to, if you want to play a
Paladin, play a Paladin, if you don't...

Gerbles.
-- 
Jem.  Jeremy Nelson.  gujn@uniwa.uwa.edu.au       :\  =>  :) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd