Honor and ambushes

[Akhôrahil]

39 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

If you do the dishonourable act, you lose Honour. It doesn't matter if you don't think it was dishonourable; it doesn't matter if there were no witnesses; it doesn't matter if you play semantic games beforehand or afterwards to "rationalise" your dishonourable act. You did it: your Honour takes the hit.

Normally, I would say that Honour is either something internal, in which case you wouldn't take a hit to it if you didn't feel (or even know) that it's dishonourable, or it's what people think about you (as in real-world honour cultures), in which case you would only take a hit to it if people find out.

However, in Glorantha, Honour seems to be almost something of a supernatural force (which is why you can detect it with magic, presumably), so this quoted text works for me.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[Nick Brooke]

“What people think about you” is Reputation.

[Darius West]

52 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

“What people think about you” is Reputation.

True Nick.  And the more famous you become, the more type-cast you become too.  This can be mitigated by trying to change your image, but that will only lead to being typecast as being mercurial.  People like to label people, and Glorantha is in the bronze age.

[svensson]

In re: Ambushes.

Ambushes are currently an accepted tactic, especially against dishonorable foes [tusk riders, bandits, etc.]. This was not always so, but the Lunar Occupation has made Sartarites far more bloodthirsty than they used to be. Nothing quite like a generations long conflict to harden a society.

In re: Honor and Reputation.

"Reputation is what others think they know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself." -- The Havamal

[JRE]

I would add that what the player feels is right is surely wrong for a Glorantha character, so I am happy with Honor being an absolute, as it is the character, not the player who decides. As we cannot ask they, Honor goes down.

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, svensson said:

In re: Ambushes.

Ambushes are currently an accepted tactic, especially against dishonorable foes [tusk riders, bandits, etc.]. This was not always so, but the Lunar Occupation has made Sartarites far more bloodthirsty than they used to be. Nothing quite like a generations long conflict to harden a society.

In re: Honor and Reputation.

"Reputation is what others think they know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself." -- The Havamal

Just because a tactic is "accepted" does not mean it is Honorable. There is a lot of pressure from Orlanth, Humakt, Yelmalio, and Yanafal Tarnils for war to be Honorable. But Honorable is not always practical, and in the end immediate need is more pressing than the demands of Honor. And when that happens, you have a choice - compromise your Honor (and get the Passion reduced) or refuse.

[Lordabdul]

6 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

You did it: your Honour takes the hit. You didn't do it: you're fine and clear.

Makes sense, thanks. I still think I'll ask for a successful Honor roll before taking the hit, because that keeps it consistent with how losses in other Passions and Runes works at our table.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

5 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

“What people think about you” is Reputation.

Minor but important nitpick: Reputation is whether people think (or know) about you.  Not necessarily whether they approve of you.

[Dr. Devici]

13 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I disagree (except for the fanatics).

You give honour and act honourably to honourable folks. Those without honour don't deserve that.

Those tainted with chaos are not precluded from comporting themselves with honor. When dealing with non-intelligent or feral chaos, there is no expectation or demand on your behavior. When dealing with, for example, broo who offer a parley, or a group of scorpion men mercenaries who attempt to surrender, your obligations against chaos and your obligations of honorable conduct are put into conflict.

13 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Similar to CA cultists can Befuddle, and those under their care are protected - unless they're Chaos creatures.

This is from when Chalana Arroy took the name Natyrsa, and unrelated to the honor passion.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Dr. Device

[Jeff]

22 minutes ago, Dr. Device said:

Those tainted with chaos are not precluded from comporting themselves with honor. When dealing with non-intelligent or feral chaos, there is no expectation or demand on your behavior. When dealing with, for example, broo who offer a parley, or a group of scorpion men mercenaries who attempt to surrender, your obligations against chaos and your obligations of honorable conduct are put into conflict.

This is from when Chalana Arroy took the name Natyrsa, and unrelated to the honor passion.

Honor is not dependent on how your foe fights. It is how YOU fight.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Honor is not dependent on how your foe fights. It is how YOU fight.

Strongly agree.

Is Honor "external", i.e., how others view your acts, "internal", how you view your acts acts in accord with your principals of honor, which may differ slightly between PCs, or some mix, or something else?  I've seen this question come up in various discussions.

[Shiningbrow]

4 hours ago, Dr. Device said:

Those tainted with chaos are not precluded from comporting themselves with honor. When dealing with non-intelligent or feral chaos, there is no expectation or demand on your behavior. When dealing with, for example, broo who offer a parley, or a group of scorpion men mercenaries who attempt to surrender, your obligations against chaos and your obligations of honorable conduct are put into conflict.

Again,  Orlanthi will debate this amongst themselves over the dinner table.

Broo who offer to parley are obviously setting a trap, because they're not honourable creatures,  and anyone who thinks so is clearly in league with them. We've all heard of that evil chaotic thing called "illumination " that makes chaos acts look OK.

 

so... how many GMs would hit someone's Honour if someone killed a Befuddled Broo...

4 hours ago, Dr. Device said:

This is from when Chalana Arroy took the name Natyrsa, and unrelated to the honor passion.

I wasn't thinking of the CA's honour, but those they travel with. As per the question above.

 

Does this honour extend to sentient undead? I ask this because Humakti would be a bit torn. Does a creature that should not exist be treated Honourably?

[Shiningbrow]

2 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Strongly agree.

Is Honor "external", i.e., how others view your acts, "internal", how you view your acts acts in accord with your principals of honor, which may differ slightly between PCs, or some mix, or something else?  I've seen this question come up in various discussions.

I'm interpreting it as a gauge to determine how your character will respond, especially when in conflict,  if the player doesn't want to make the decision.

Remember that not having an honour passion isn't a negative, and doesn't force you to act a certain way.

And thus... what happens if someone falls to 60% or lower?

[Rodney Dangerduck]

As for those who think that honor only applies to honorable opponents, to paraphrase Matthew 5:46, "what honor do you gain?  Do not even the Lunars do the same?"

[Nick Brooke]

6 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Is Honor "external", i.e., how others view your acts, "internal", how you view your acts acts in accord with your principals of honor, which may differ slightly between PCs, or some mix, or something else?  I've seen this question come up in various discussions.

It's absolute. An act can be dishonourable even if you don't think you're doing anything wrong and there are no witnesses. Your principles are irrelevant. Your weasel words are irrelevant. Your scrambling around to cover up the crime is irrelevant. You did something dishonourable: you lose Honour.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

32 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

It's absolute. An act can be dishonourable even if you don't think you're doing anything wrong and there are no witnesses. Your principles are irrelevant. Your weasel words are irrelevant. Your scrambling around to cover up the crime is irrelevant. You did something dishonourable: you lose Honour.

I like how that works to limit PC murder hobos.  A good intent and effect.  But brings up some issues:

Who should be this absolute arbiter?  The GM's ruling?  The table in the rules that doesn't mention ambushes?

Given that Glorantha allows, even demands, that multiple conflicting myths are all still "true", I would expect that there would be multiple cultural and mythical interpretations of honor.  For example, our PCs are overall fairly honorable IMO, but with different emphasis.  The Humakti is fairly willing to kill downed enemies, "everybody dies", but dead set against ambushes.  My Vingan, in her "protector of the weak" aspect, is very reluctant to finish off downed enemies, but o.k. with most ambushs.

[Nick Brooke]

The gamemaster, of course. Clue's in the name.

[Akhôrahil]

21 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

“What people think about you” is Reputation.

No, that’s whether they know about you. Glory and infamy both raise Reputation.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Given that Glorantha allows, even demands, that multiple conflicting myths are all still "true", I would expect that there would be multiple cultural and mythical interpretations of honor.  For example, our PCs are overall fairly honorable IMO, but with different emphasis.  The Humakti is fairly willing to kill downed enemies, "everybody dies", but dead set against ambushes.  My Vingan, in her "protector of the weak" aspect, is very reluctant to finish off downed enemies, but o.k. with most ambushs.

Both entirely reasonable IMO. The GM should only overrule that kind of attitude if it's obvious that the player is abusing it.

[French Desperate WindChild]

13 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

, I would expect that there would be multiple cultural and mythical interpretations of honor.  For example, our PCs are overall fairly honorable IMO, but with different emphasis.  The Humakti is fairly willing to kill downed enemies, "everybody dies", but dead set against ambushes.  My Vingan, in her "protector of the weak" aspect, is very reluctant to finish off downed enemies, but o.k. with most ambushs.

see how I'm changing side .... (but with honesty)

Seems to me that what you are describing, in glorantha, is not about honor, but about passion (however I would say both attitudes would respect different "honor styles" in our world)

your humakti has honor + "every body dies", so those who he starts honorably the fight must die (even if killing a downed ennemies is dishonourable, the opponents did know the issue when they accepted the fight against him) when

your vinga has honor  + "protector of the weak", so you can ambush  everyone if strong, (even if it is not honourable it is challenging), but will not kill the weak (no honor and no challenge)

On 5/14/2022 at 5:55 PM, Jeff said:

There is a lot of pressure from Orlanth, Humakt, Yelmalio, and Yanafal Tarnils for war to be Honorable.

that could explain there is only one "honor  system" as there is only one root culture defining "honor"

If we consider Orlanth and Humakt as son of Umath and Umath as a rebellious sky god, honor is only One light/fire "law".

Yanafal Tarnils is both heir of Humakt (personal Cult) and Yelm (local culture) that makes sense too.

In fact the only issue is the word [honor] exists irl.

If it were   is the only one honor system in glorantha, defined in the Emperor court before the gods war, It consists blablablabla, there would be no discussion.

So does that mean that Nelat judgement was the purge of all the dishonorable acts of Orlanth ? or was something deeper  ?

Edited May 15, 2022 by French Desperate WindChild

[Jeff]

29 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

see how I'm changing side .... (but with honesty)

Seems to me that what you are describing, in glorantha, is not about honor, but about passion (however I would say both attitudes would respect different "honor styles" in our world)

your humakti has honor + "every body dies", so those who he starts honorably the fight must die (even if killing a downed ennemies is dishonourable, the opponents did know the issue when they accepted the fight against him) when

your vinga has honor  + "protector of the weak", so you can ambush  everyone if strong, (even if it is not honourable it is challenging), but will not kill the weak (no honor and no challenge)

that could explain there is only one "honor  system" as there is only one root culture defining "honor"

If we consider Orlanth and Humakt as son of Umath and Umath as a rebellious sky god, honor is only One light/fire "law".

Yanafal Tarnils is both heir of Humakt (personal Cult) and Yelm (local culture) that makes sense too.

In fact the only issue is the word [honor] exists irl.

If it were   is the only one honor system in glorantha, defined in the Emperor court before the gods war, It consists blablablabla, there would be no discussion.

So does that mean that Nelat judgement was the purge of all the dishonorable acts of Orlanth ? or was something deeper  ?

I don't think Honor is so much a Fire/Sky thing as a How Do You Use Death thing. Orlanth, Humakt - both are concerned about the proper wielding of Death. Yelmalio as a surviving part of Yelm has that from the same event. And Yanafal Tarnils inherits his attitudes from Humakt.

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

I don't think Honor is so much a Fire/Sky thing as a How Do You Use Death thing. Orlanth, Humakt - both are concerned about the proper wielding of Death. Yelmalio as a surviving part of Yelm has that from the same event. And Yanafal Tarnils inherits his attitudes from Humakt.

Ate you suggesting that honour is only relevant in life & death situations ?

[Jeff]

6 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Ate you suggesting that honour is only relevant in life & death situations ?

No but it is a warrior's code - and primarily deals with issues of war and warriors. Which means mythologically it is about how Death should be used and how its user should be treated.

[Scorus]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

No but it is a warrior's code - and primarily deals with issues of war and warriors. Which means mythologically it is about how Death should be used and how its user should be treated.

Obviously you can't list every possible scenario that would merit an honor reduction, but it would be great to expand the list in RQG via errata to include more war examples that you have mentioned in other posts such as setting an ambush, ganging up on someone, refusing a surrender, etc.

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, Scorus said:

Obviously you can't list every possible scenario that would merit an honor reduction, but it would be great to expand the list in RQG via errata to include more war examples that you have mentioned in other posts such as setting an ambush, ganging up on someone, refusing a surrender, etc.

I don't think we want to be too prescriptive, and list as "unequivocally dishonourable" things that are open to interpretation. That table lists the things that everyone in Dragon Pass agrees on, there will be additional things on the list depending on where and who you are.

"Look at that poor bat, being ganged up on by all those flying and teleporting rune lords! How dishonourable!"

Having said that, clearly I hope largely in jest, I think there is a case to be made for the other two things that you list.

On the other hand, I'd question the absolute dishonour of "refusing hearth courtesy" if there is a good reason to refuse it.

And as we see in the solo, refusing a duel and just charging with bison and lance can be deemed dishonourable. As with all thing in RuneQuest and Glorantha, YGWV.

Edited May 16, 2022 by PhilHibbs