Unearthed Arcana: Honor

[Ryujin]

I must admit that I would prefer a somewhat different application, of Honour. My preference would be for something that is tracked by the DM, behind the scenes, perhaps with benefits given upon attaining certain numeric plateaus. This would do away with the sort of arguments, over what is honourable or dishonourable, that I had to deal with when running a 1e Oriental Adventures campaign. I haven't done so, in more recent editions, precisely because of this.

Rather than tying Feats and Powers directly to the concept "when performing an honourable act or avoiding a dishonourable one", I'd likely use something like the system of Boons in DMG2. Upon attaining a certain 'level' of honour, you would acquire a Boon and the attendant power(s). Increase your honour to a certain point and you attain the next level of that Boon. Be dishonourable and the Boon is gone, or levels down. This, without resulting in arguments over each and every action, would provide a concrete indication of honour.

In fact I've been doing something like this, though without tracking it numerically, in my current campaign, basing it on achieving goals that the party's god, Kord, has set out for them. I haven't told them what these goals are, of course, because they would then be acting to obtain the prize, rather than following the dictates of their god

 

[SkidAce]

Pretend your Honor is an intangible artifact...with better skills and powers as your concordance goes up.

If you concordance goes down....you lose your "Honor".

I was dabbling with this idea for a while...no application or field testing yet.

 

[Klaus]

I must admit that I would prefer a somewhat different application, of Honour. My preference would be for something that is tracked by the DM, behind the scenes, perhaps with benefits given upon attaining certain numeric plateaus. This would do away with the sort of arguments, over what is honourable or dishonourable, that I had to deal with when running a 1e Oriental Adventures campaign. I haven't done so, in more recent editions, precisely because of this.

Rather than tying Feats and Powers directly to the concept "when performing an honourable act or avoiding a dishonourable one", I'd likely use something like the system of Boons in DMG2. Upon attaining a certain 'level' of honour, you would acquire a Boon and the attendant power(s). Increase your honour to a certain point and you attain the next level of that Boon. Be dishonourable and the Boon is gone, or levels down. This, without resulting in arguments over each and every action, would provide a concrete indication of honour.

In fact I've been doing something like this, though without tracking it numerically, in my current campaign, basing it on achieving goals that the party's god, Kord, has set out for them. I haven't told them what these goals are, of course, because they would then be acting to obtain the prize, rather than following the dictates of their god

I was thinking of Boons from DMG2 this weekend with regards to Honour. Instead of being rewards for Honour benchmarks, I'd reward a PC that... let's say "hindered"... himself by following his code of Honour with a Boon.

Say, a chivalrous knight that not only helps an innocent for free, but also donates part of his wealth to alleviate their plight. I'd give him a boon worth a bit more than the monetary reward he gave up + the money he donated. He'd essentially be "purchasing" his boon with his actions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So why are you playing using a system that uses exception-based design?

By your logic, if every class was the same, that would be a well-designed system.

Well, I'll just say that your concept of good game design is very different from mine. Exception based design is good because it does exactly what I'm talking about. There is a simple general rule that everyone uses. When necessary or convenient an exception can exist for one narrow application of that rule. This is an elegant use of parsimony.

But hey, let's say you're right and there's nothing wrong with being unoriginal when introducing a new concept to the system. There is still one inherently problematic aspect of the design and shows that the R&D guys seem to have either lost their way or just don't care anymore because one of the precepts of 4e was based on something Monte once said back in 3e; that you should never design a system mechanic that has roleplaying requirements.

This was why paladins no longer have a code of honour in 4e and why alignments have no mechanical effect, just to name two examples.

Originality doesn't come from game mechanics. That is you CAN (at least in theory) have original game mechanics, but that isn't what mechanics are about. Mechanics are about making a game that functions well, is as simple as practical to attain its ends, and supports the important attributes of the game, which are the ones where the fun comes from.

The thing with 'no RP in my mechanics' is that yes, it is an ideal, but it is also too limiting a concept. There are simply things you can't do without some degree of judgment being involved, and something like Honor is exactly one of those things. Notice how this whole subsystem is not only just an option for the DM to use in the first place, but is also optional for the player to participate in as well. Don't want to mess with this kind of thing, don't use it.

If you can suggest some kind of mechanics which would be objective and workable and still accomplish the goal of making honor a significant aspect of the character, then by all means suggest away, I'm listening. IMHO there is no way to do that, but I would honestly be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Originality" is an overrated conceit of the romantic idea of a single inspired author. Everything is a remix.

This one ain't too bad for my purposes. Boon mechanics get a little wonky because it feels like an aspect of your character you don't have control over -- its not your decision what to do with your honor, it's the DM's. The way it works now, its your decision, and the DM gets veto power. That, to me, is a more comfortable arrangement of something as core to your character concept (but still to be negotiated with regards to the game world) is.

[MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION] 's idea of an honor "artifact" also seems pretty interesting to me!

1 - Yes, the Honour system depends heavily on the DM and the players. And it is okay for it to do so.

As usually anti-DM-judgement-call as I am, I agree with WotC and Klaus as well in this case. If the DM and player aren't on the same page for what a particular code of honor means, it's a problem, since it's a very shared element of both the character and the world. I think any similar mechanic would be pretty dependent on DM interpretation. As a DM, I'm cool with saying Yes or No to the idea of "Does this action uphold my code?" and handing out honor points as rewards, linking a character mechanically to how they are played, is a great reinforcement method.

2 - *If* the DM and players decide to include Honour, they need to work out a *clear* and *concise* set of rules for the honourable character to follow. Stuff like "any insult must be met with death!!!!" has to be right out, to avoid forcing the PCs into causing their own deaths or killing each other.

Yeah, this isn't the system for our 13-year-old godslaying fantasies. The article could use some DM advice for what to have in a new code of honor, but the examples are pretty good, and anything that looks something like them should pass the litmus test. And, hell, problematic codes of honor can be hilarious fun for players who don't get too hung up on character development (though I would question why those players use honor!).

3 - The Honour mechanics are based off roleplaying. *Anything* based off roleplaying can have unforeseen consequences, and that's the beauty of RPGs. Otherwise we'd be talking about Space Invaders.

If I didn't <3 a bit of chaos, I wouldn't play D&D.

 

[Ryujin]

I was thinking of Boons from DMG2 this weekend with regards to Honour. Instead of being rewards for Honour benchmarks, I'd reward a PC that... let's say "hindered"... himself by following his code of Honour with a Boon.

Say, a chivalrous knight that not only helps an innocent for free, but also donates part of his wealth to alleviate their plight. I'd give him a boon worth a bit more than the monetary reward he gave up + the money he donated. He'd essentially be "purchasing" his boon with his actions.

That's the sort of thing, that I would assign 'honour' for. It's a 'benchmark' as in it would be the sort of thing that I would assign, as the sort of thing that a deity would reward. I provide the opportunities for the players to take advantage of for role play, or combat where appropriate. If they do, following the precepts of their god or philosophy (as I perceive it), then they possibly obtain advantages. They might be a Boon or a role playing advantage like a HQ, or a favour owed them by a NPC.

 

[pemerton]

Say, a chivalrous knight that not only helps an innocent for free, but also donates part of his wealth to alleviate their plight. I'd give him a boon worth a bit more than the monetary reward he gave up + the money he donated. He'd essentially be "purchasing" his boon with his actions.

My inclination would be to equate the boon to the money foregone. Because of the role that boons, items etc play in PC building, I'm hesitatant to link them to RP in the way you describe here - as in, give more for playing the character a certain way. I feel that this is a bit at odds with the orientation of 4e (eg with Minor Quests, the whole group gets the benefit of one particular player playing his/her PC).

If they do, following the precepts of their god or philosophy (as I perceive it), then they possibly obtain advantages. They might be a Boon or a role playing advantage like a HQ, or a favour owed them by a NPC.

Roleplaying advantages, on the other hand, I think are not only desirable but a must! If the way a player plays his/her PC has no effect upon the situation, then what is the point of playing?

I think this is an especially important thing for the GM to do in D&D, because unlike many other RPGs players don't get their own meta-resources (Fate Points, Story Points, whatever) out of their roleplaying.

It also makes choices like eg deity, Paragon Path, etc matter at more than a merely mechanical level - which I also think is a big part of D&D as a RPG rather than a skirmish game.