The Nature of Honor

[Lord Pendragon]

I wandered into the Archives section last night and happened upon a fascinating thread which got me thinking about Honor and how it pertains to a D&D world, so I thought I'd start at thread to discuss it a bit.

Now, to me, the word "honor" brings to mind the legendary knights of old. Men who kept their vows, who judged others based on their actions, not heresay. They didn't lie or cheat or steal. Honor, at the heart of it, seems to be, IMO, mostly a matter of honesty and trust. When an honorable person gives you their word, that means something.

But in the thread I mentioned earlier, it seemed that many posters favor a more expansive meaning of the word 'honor.' Fighting 'fair' as it were. Never attacking an opponent who is unarmed, or helpless, or weak. A man who strikes down an enemy who has not drawn a weapon is, by this definition, dishonorable. As is the man who strikes down an enemy he knows has no chance of defeating him.

I wonder, though. If this second definition is valid, can there ever be an honorable man in a D&D world? What is "fighting fair" when your enemy may be a monk who needs no weapon, or a spellcaster who, given the chance, can strike you dead with a word? And how does an honorable 20th-level PC deal with, say, an Imp? The Imp is clearly no challenge to the PC. Does that mean the PC is "above" striking down such an evil foe, and must instead wait until the Imp runs off and finds a Pit Fiend? Or are the rules of honor satisfied if the PC merely informs the Imp of his presence, hands him a weapon, and makes sure not to cast Hold Monster on him?

Thoughts?

 

[DragonLancer]

Honour is one of those concepts that is usually taken to extremes for some reason. You can be honourable and not stupid. Bit like LG in a way.

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

Or are the rules of honor satisfied if the PC merely informs the Imp of his presence, hands him a weapon, and makes sure not to cast Hold Monster on him?

Even of the most "honorable" paladins I've seen, I've never seen one do that.

In terms of D&D, there is a line to honor. You can only go so far with it. If you go any further, it totally ruins the RPing experience and makes it near worthless.

As a parallel, lets use the idea of a hermitic cleric PC who just wants to be left alone to study in his hole in the mountain. If he really wants to do this, he could. He'd just wander off when the group was asleep and go back home. If his church is making him do it, he'll wander back afterwards. And if the church makes him do something else, then he'll wander back again. There is only so many times that this can take place before people have enough.

The same applies to honor. I could see some young, nieve, and idealistic knight/paladin doing things similar to the example you stated. Heck, I love playing nieve PC's at the lower levels. However, but about level two or three, some form of realism sets in, else they would not have survived that long or likely won't survive much longer as their enemies get smarter and more devious.

Plus, that old "stick in the mud, none are more honorable then I" can really ruin it for others when he insists on warning the orcish horde parked at the boarder that they can expect an attack from his group just so he can feel like he "did the right thing". While its respectable, there is a point where a player (not the PC) has to make sure his character is not more of a hinderance/pain-in-the-butt to the group then he is an aid.

 

[dreaded_beast]

My definition of honor falls more in line with yours Pendragon.

I believe that honor is more than just "fighting fair" with an opponent. I believe honor deals more with a sense of trustworthiness, loyalty, accountablility, and responsibility. At the most extreme sense, I believe a good example, for all you Dragonlance fans, is embodied by the Knights of Solmania, the Oath and the Measure (excluding all the rules and legalese, but just looking at the heart of the Code).

In my opinion, honor goes much further than the battlefield. Based on your description of the earlier thread, it seemed as if many of the posters held a less broad view of what honor entails.

In my opinion, I think this may stem from the 1st/2nd ed mentality of honor, which can be seen in the Unearthed Arcana book, mainly under the paladin/cavalier heading, which had some very archaic, unreasonable, and backwards (in my opinion of course) standards for paladin/cavaliers to follow.

 

[Hand of Evil]

See Unearthed Acrcana