Honor and ambushes

[French Desperate WindChild]

11 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

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.

same for me

and I would add  when a gm consider an action dishonourable (but not listed in the rules) a discussion with the player (or all the players) to define if it is or not and why (from a character perspective) could be nice.

 

11 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

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

for me there are only 3 reasons :

1) they didn't ask with the proper words

2) they are not "people" (is it dishonourable to kill a mouse in your bedroom ?).

3) you are at war and they don't show you some negociation signs /  white flag

So, for example, no you can't (honor speaking) refuse courtesy to your ennemy (from another clan, other country, even other race ;if previously your clan accepted they were "people")

 

[PhilHibbs]

34 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

for me there are only 3 reasons :

1) they didn't ask with the proper words

And that's why so many early missionaries met a sticky end, they didn't know the customs yet...

34 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

2) they are not "people" (is it dishonourable to kill a mouse in your bedroom ?).

Clearly, yes, but also open to abuse!

34 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

3) you are at war and they don't show you some negociation signs /  white flag

Similar to 1) that could be seen as another form of "the proper words".

No exception for known dishonourable people, outlaws, tricksters? That's a tough one. Well, not the tricksters, that's easy. Don't you just hate 'em!

[French Desperate WindChild]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Similar to 1) that could be seen as another form of "the proper words".

yes the point here is you have not to welcome your ennemy (if you are at war) except when Issaries (if we are on sartarite side)

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Clearly, yes, but also open to abuse!

for sure you can be "honorable" and  @!%%%  😛

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

No exception for known dishonourable people, outlaws, tricksters?

I think the point is not who they are but what you do. So if they are dishonourable but respect the proper words... you have to choose between honor and responsability. Too much honor doesn't mean too good leader

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Too much honor doesn't mean too good leader

Especially if it ends up getting your clan killed.

[Darius West]

On 5/15/2022 at 1:55 AM, Jeff said:

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.

Given the rules on RQG p234, how does one lose honor for ambushing?  Ambush isn't specifically mentioned as something you lose honor for doing, and it is hardly cowardice for a small number of Orlanthi to ambush a larger number of Lunars.  You can hardly call Lunars unarmed either, just because their weapons aren't drawn at the start of an ambush.  Nor can the lunars in any way be called guests or call upon hospitality for protection.  In short, there is no honor penalty within the rules as written that applies to ambushing from what I can tell.  Care to elaborate Jeff?  What haven't I understood?

[Rob Darvall]

On 5/16/2022 at 9:54 PM, Shiningbrow said:

Especially if it ends up getting your clan killed.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth examines the fallout very well.

[metcalph]

On 5/17/2022 at 12:05 AM, Darius West said:

Given the rules on RQG p234, how does one lose honor for ambushing?  Ambush isn't specifically mentioned as something you lose honor for doing, and it is hardly cowardice for a small number of Orlanthi to ambush a larger number of Lunars.  You can hardly call Lunars unarmed either, just because their weapons aren't drawn at the start of an ambush.  Nor can the lunars in any way be called guests or call upon hospitality for protection.  In short, there is no honor penalty within the rules as written that applies to ambushing from what I can tell.  Care to elaborate Jeff?  What haven't I understood?

I undersood Jeff to be talking about tactics such as killing prisoners rather than say, raining thunderstones on a lunar patrol that just crossed a river.

[Nick Brooke]

You're at risk of confusing "not honourable" with "dishonourable." That doesn't help.

Ambushing military units won't win you any honour, but it's not strictly speaking dishonourable. Some Humakti won't get involved; they think you're tarnishing their True Death. That's a personal matter.

Murdering non-combatants from ambush is always dishonourable, because it involves murdering non-combatants. You'll lose honour for doing it; honourable people will lose honour if they don't stop their associates from advocating it. Some guerrillas DGAF about honour, and they'll likely have problems integrating into Argrath's Free Army and end up bunking with the Tusk Rider mercenaries, Wolfrunners, Zombie hordes and other horrors at his command.

I hope this helps.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Nick Brooke

[French Desperate WindChild]

10 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

I hope this helps.

yes sir

[Akhôrahil]

2 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

Ambushing military units won't win you any honour, but it's not strictly speaking dishonourable. Some Humakti won't get involved; they think you're tarnishing their True Death. That's a personal matter.

This I feel I can be on board with. Honorable battle can be meritorious (earning you Honor) without ambushes being dishonorable and worthy of condemnation. Humakti try to push their line on how you should do things, but it’s up to you whether you go for it.

A good ambush can still net you plenty glory, as well. But no-one is likely to go on about how honorable it was.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[Shiningbrow]

What about surprise attacks from the rear?

And especially against the baggage or supporters of the column thats out front engaging in battle?

[Akhôrahil]

4 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

What about surprise attacks from the rear?

And especially against the baggage or supporters of the column thats out front engaging in battle?

Under the definition, it seems like you’re allowed to outflank your enemy on the battlefield, but not send a flanking march in secret (as this wouldn’t be deploying openly).

Looting the baggage train has to be fine - it’s probably more about how you treat the staff.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[JRE]

I would say that there is a lot of grey area between Honorable and Dishonorable. Surprise attacks against a declared enemy are not dishonorable, but they are not honorable either, so you will not gain Honor in that battle. Similarly attacking the baggage. Attacking the supporters may be dishonorable, if you are not engaging the main enemy force at the same time. If they are attacked because you are avoiding battle, I would decrease Honor (which only matters to honorable people). But if you attack them because you have achieved local superiority or outmaneuvered the enemy it is neutral, as they are in a battle. 

It is all about doing the right thing (gain Honor), or not doing a wrong thing (keep Honor). 

There should be benefits for a high honor. Better relationship with the former foes. More likely to be ransomed, and possibly a decrease in ransom price, while someone known to be dishonorable may be killed rather than ransomed.

[PhilHibbs]

What do folks think we should do if a character doesn't start with the Honour passion? Start it at 60 when the first penalty or bonus is incurred?

[Akhôrahil]

41 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

What do folks think we should do if a character doesn't start with the Honour passion? Start it at 60 when the first penalty or bonus is incurred?

Not having an Honor passion has got to possible - for instance, a trickster is going to have an empty honor score, as might other characters (Storm Bulls don’t do the honorable combat thing, I believe - Chaos needs to be fought by any means, fair or foul).
 

The question is what the in-game effect would be of running a character that doesn’t do the honor thing. It essentially means not signing on to the social standards.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

27 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

The question is what the in-game effect would be of running a character that doesn’t do the honor thing. It essentially means not signing on to the social standards.

It's entirely possible to run through the character background and simply not end up with an honour passion rating, without explicitly choosing not to "do the honour thing".

[Akhôrahil]

12 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

It's entirely possible to run through the character background and simply not end up with an honour passion rating, without explicitly choosing not to "do the honour thing".

There's definitely a tension in the rules between Honor as a warrior virtue and Honor as something that applies to everyday people, agree.

The RAW would presumably be that if you don't have the Honor passion, then it also doesn't get modified. But it seems really weird if a lot of people wouldn't be bound by the rules of Honor, such hospitality.

(I always allow my players to pick up a free passion or two, so in my house-rules this would always be a deliberate choice.)

Edited May 20, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

7 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

The RAW would presumably be that if you don't have the Honor passion, then it also doesn't get modified. But it seems really weird if a lot of people wouldn't be bound by the rules of Honor, such hospitality.

The rules don't say, and yes it would be weird so I would not start with that assumption. Honour is definitely affected even if you don't start with a rating, the only question is what it starts at, which could be 50 or 60. Usually you gain a passion when something happens to nudge you over the fifty-fifty ambivalence position, hence 60, but if the nudge is downwards then it could immediately go below 50.

[French Desperate WindChild]

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

What do folks think we should do if a character doesn't start with the Honour passion? Start it at 60 when the first penalty or bonus is incurred?

for me, you have the honour passion or  not

 

without honor passion, you cannot lose anything

if player wants her character to get during the play honor passion, then remember what she did before... was she honorable or about "normal" ? yes, start at 60. Was she a dishonorable one ? haha start  at 0 except if there is something, somewhere able to explain a radical change (roleplay speaking).

 

note that I would consider for other passions than it cannot be under 60 -something binary, you are passionate > 60, you are not, = void), but in this particular case, when acts & decision explain honor, it is different

[Rodney Dangerduck]

I really like the @Nick Brooke concept of Honorable, Dishonorable, and "o.k." acts.  Next, he needs to sweet talk Jeff.  🙂

It would be improved with a list of examples of honorable acts, to contrast with the existing list of dishonorable acts.

[General Confusion]

It seems to me that honor is being portrayed as primarily a 'warrior virtue' - something that's primarily (though obviously not entirely) important to dedicated professional fighters and the aristocracy, categories which have a lot of overlap. So I would think that for a lot of people the issue of whether an act is honorable or not is just. . . Secondary. Not very important, compared to the immediate requirements of survival and success.

Having an Honor Passion presumably means that honor is to some degree very important to you; whether a rating is very high or not, just having any rating at all means you can potentially end up with very significant changes to your skills and mental state based on how your honor comes into play. If you don't have Honor as a Passion, you can't do that - and that means honor just isn't a driving force in your life. People criticizing you for 'dishonorable' actions probably doesn't hurt your feelings much, and I would imagine you don't stay up at night worrying about your Honor. Obviously other people might still form their own opinions of you, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me for a lot of people - at least in some cultures - to just not internalize formal Honor as a major part of their day-to-day life.

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, General Confusion said:

Having an Honor Passion presumably means that honor is to some degree very important to you; whether a rating is very high or not, just having any rating at all means you can potentially end up with very significant changes to your skills and mental state based on how your honor comes into play. If you don't have Honor as a Passion, you can't do that - and that means honor just isn't a driving force in your life. People criticizing you for 'dishonorable' actions probably doesn't hurt your feelings much, and I would imagine you don't stay up at night worrying about your Honor.

I think that's just describing someone with a 50% or lower Honour rating. I wouldn't ask anyone to roll honour at below 60, but they can absolutely lose it by unambiguously dishonourable behaviour.

6 hours ago, General Confusion said:

Obviously other people might still form their own opinions of you, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me for a lot of people - at least in some cultures - to just not internalize formal Honor as a major part of their day-to-day life.

I think caring about honour is more widespread in religious tribal societies than it is in our "enlightened" secular modern world.

[Akhôrahil]

10 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think caring about honour is more widespread in religious tribal societies than it is in our "enlightened" secular modern world.

Honor cultures are common even today. Even many European countries have problems with honor killings among immigrant populations. As we see in Glorantha, an honor culture is a way to achieve a modicum of order in a pre-state society, through the credible threat of retribution.

it’s not even particularly about religion.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[Shiningbrow]

I just thought I'd mention that both Gorites in the Starter pack have Honour at 60%.

I still think that what's considered honourable does differ, and is very much relativistic.

For a Babeester Gorite, not killing that oathbreaker who has just surrendered would be dishonourable.

For the Maran Gorite, not sacrificing that child would be dishonourable.

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

I just thought I'd mention that both Gorites in the Starter pack have Honour at 60%.

I still think that what's considered honourable does differ, and is very much relativistic.

For a Babeester Gorite, not killing that oathbreaker who has just surrendered would be dishonourable.

For the Maran Gorite, not sacrificing that child would be dishonourable.

This is a very interesting question - to what extent is Honor a universal system, and to what extent "right action for a person like you". No Babeester Gori should spare a rapist just for being unarmed, but does this mean that they don't do honor, or just that they have a different system? The rules seem to suggest the former.

(There's a great passage near the end of Lone Wolf And Cub where the ninjas actually manage to get the better of Itto Ogami, by having one ninja act as a sword sharpener for him but secretly weakening his sword so that it breaks at a crucial moment. The last of the ninjas makes a dying apology for their dishonorable action, but Itto Ogami praises them, saying that an act like this is a ninja's honor and that they should take pride in their success. Similarly, of course, Itto Ogami himself breaks all rules of Samurai honor to achieve his own proper action by walking the path of Meifumado.)