Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Because I lost the duel last eve....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I have written an essay called "A Continuation on the Topic of Honor," which I am prepared to present if there are those interested.

    Ser Johnathan can be sought to arrange a time and place if a debate is desired. One of the protocols of the Guild is such debate should not lead to challenges of duels, as this leads to unease in many for expression of candid opinion. It also scares away the gentle audience, and discourages disputation or questioning of the speakers.

    I will withhold responding further now, except to say I agree: Honor is not Popularity. I do not understand why another made this assertion, and then ascribed it unkindly to me, unwanted by me. Dear dear!

    Please, let my own words speak for me. I would think anyone worth a wooden ring would at least have asked a question of clarification first.

    Ser Morte, gramercy for beginning this debate! Tis quite illuminating, eh?

    For Love! For Valor! For Honor! For Glory!
    Through Civility, Courtesy, and Chivalry,

    -Ser Gareth.
    ~ Gareth Beaumains ~

    ~ For Love! For Valour!
    ~ For Honour! For Glory!
    ~ Onwards to Adventure!

    Comment


    • #32
      Dare I ask ser Gareth, how long is this new work? I have yet to see a reasonable summary of your previous definition, and fear that a longer one will simply confuse me the more. I understand that some must feel that words are an importnat coin of honor. That you needs pontificate at such length about it. But I feel that actions are the root of it. At some point, one must stop talking, and start doing.

      So ser Gareth, can we expect something that might be understandable by those whoes head are closer to the ground? Or should we continue the debate at the worldly level, the realistic level?

      And sera Deirdre, your words were well put. I suspect that you and I may differ as to where we draw the line of self sacrafics and such, but that is partially a personal choice to make. Some are more introspective, while others more gregarious and outgoing.

      In defense of an honor that can be understood,

      Martel

      Comment


      • #33

        What is honor, if not common sense? After reading through these postings, it seems readily apparent that there is no One Code of Honor. What is honorable to one may not be honorable to another. Why is that?

        I would say that there is no one right way to live our lives here in this castle. If there was One Code of Honor , we would become static and predictable people. So, many have said they have a personal code of honor that they follow. Furthermore, they have said that they do not expect others to follow or agree upon their personal codes of honor in its entirety. Why formulate a code of honor at all, other than to limit thyself and thy choices ye can make as a free denizen of the castle? Is it not merely common sense to do the things that will eventually cast favor upon ye? I daresay no one sacrifices themselves selfessly, without belief or reason in some result that will eventually boil down to self interest. Is that not the core of honor, self interest? I am sure most would deny it. However when ye put aside the pretty speech and noble attitude, most if not all of the tenets of honor are about self interest and self preservation. Truth and trust? Obviously it is beneficial to ye to have those put their trust in ye. Admiration, favor, and friendship? These seem self explanatory. Justice? By doing justice unto others, ye hope that others will be just unto ye. Modesty, generosity, courage, dilligence.. all of these things, at their core, are done for self interest.

        Who dictates to us what is right and what is wrong? For who knows better than myself what is right or wrong for me? The Queen? Loooong may she reign? Aye, there are a set of laws that we are to follow if we wish to participate in this culture and society we find ourselves in. However these laws of the castle are not my laws. They do not dictate my morals to me. I do not follow these laws unquestionably. That I happen to agree with most of them allows me to live without conflict (for the most part). However, were the laws to change and, for example, murder was deemed lawful, I would not blindly follow such a law simply because it is the law.

        This is where I feel that a code of honor that ye subject thyself to is limiting. Would honor dictate that ye follow the laws no matter what they are? How about common sense?

        Is Honor about control? In encouraging the denizens of the castle to adhere to a strict code of honor, does this not in many ways control their actions and thoughts? Be selfess, be honest, be truthful, be generous, be courageous, be loyal, be modest.. the list goes on. What sort of impossible standard is this? Are we to strive for all these things to better ourselves? To be more like those who are better than us? To what end?

        We can all publish to this board what we feel our personal honor entails. We can all tell each other what we feel is right and wrong. Yet the point is there is no one definition of what right or wrong is. There is no one defiinition of what is honorable and what is not. Even if I do not agree with Ser Morte's actions, I am not going to tell him what is right and wrong for him.

        We all know how to be noble, kind, forgiving, generous, understanding, and just without being told how exactly to be noble, kind, forgiving, generous, understanding and just. We can use common sense and draw upon our own experiences (as well as the experiences of others) to determine what the best course of action is for dynamic situations. Nobody is perfect. Why strive to be with impossible, static standards?
        Kvalhion
        Deputy of the Inquisition
        Thespian of the Unity Arts

        Comment


        • #34

          With no intention to be anonymous, I hereby sign the above post as Ser Kvalhion, Forgetter.
          Kvalhion
          Deputy of the Inquisition
          Thespian of the Unity Arts

          Comment


          • #35
            Well, I must agree with some, and disagree with other portions of your note ser.

            First, I will agree that one should not follow the laws blindly, but because they are her Majesties wishes. But as always, one needs to look at the law for its goals, not its wording. To not murder is a lawfull thing, but tis also honorable. The same with stealing and defacement of property. But if a murderer manages to escape the law, what then? Tis it lawfull to hunt them down? Tis is honorable? hard thoughts.

            But to disagree, not all of honor is based on self interest. Many a ser or sera have sacrificed their life, even unto final death, for thier principals. Mayhaps they sought to do more good for the whole, but their personal interests were obviously left behind if they died in the process.

            And lastly, While we may debate some parts of honor, I continue to strongly believe that there are other parts that are inviolate. That are not open to discussion. When you ignore these fundamental pieces, you call what you follow a code, or a moral compas, but tis not Honor. If the definition is ever changing, how can we discuss it? Can the most vile poisoner claim they are honorable because thier own self says that to murder any who oppose them is allowed? I think not. At some point the line must be drawn.

            Attempting to clarify and refine honor for all,

            Martel

            Comment


            • #36

              It is interesting that ye would bring up the concept of a vile prisoner. I use this example to illustrate the point that no one believes themselves to be in the wrong or vile. It is a point of view and of circumstance; it varies from person to person and place to place. For instance, what if ye had Awakened in a Castle ruled by a King who believed it was justified to arrest and imprisen denizens at will, without cause? Or that the strong rule the weak, that murder is justified and encouraged, that personal assault is one's right? Were ye to speak up against such things in a place such as that, it would be ye who would be thought of as vile. Thankfully, our castle is not such a place, but I feel it is important to keep the frame of mind that what we consider right, just, and honorable may not be universal. Indeed, when ye drill down to a more basic level, ye start to see issues such as the laws of speech, the laws of actions, whether or not it is right or wrong to deceive others, to cheat or steal. On the surface we can scorn such things, but we should also realize that for some, their circumstances and perspective allow them to believe these things to be justified.

              While I agree, ser, in following the laws that agree with our own principals, what about those that would enforce these laws without question? At a Forgetter meeting I brought up this issue to a Watchman in attendance. As we kept a record of the meeting, I shall quote from it. Since I do not have the particular Watchman's permission to quote him, I will leave out his name.

              Kvalhion shrugs, "Sure he can. He must decide if the laws he enforces are his own, or someone elses. Say suddenly the Queen enforced a law that made murder legal. Would Watchman (X) stand by as it happened? I know that is unlikely; it is just for arguments sake."

              Watchman, "Like I said, I swore an Oath to follow the Queen. I will not be an Oathbreaker. Once again, part of who I am.... I weighed those possibilities before I took my Oath. Thankfully Yuen is correct. I do not think a thing like that would happen.... If a law such as that came about, my Oath would demand that I follow it. I may disagree with it, but I would follow it.... If I did not, I would betray myself. "

              What concerns me is why this would be. Aye, I think it is agreed upon that we look up to the Queen (LMSR), but are such laws the final authority? Are they our own moral authority? Honor tells us to obey and enforce the laws. Common sense tells us to think and decide for ourselves what we feel is right or wrong.

              Self sacrifice. In these rare instances I would agree that self interest is no longer a motivation. However, why not examine why a person would go to such a measure in the first place? What could possibly require a sacrifice as great as final death? I freely admit my own self interest and desire for self preservation. I do not believe that is a fault. However, I do not wrap this in a blanket of honor. There are indeed some things I would give my life for. My sera, for instance, if it came down to it. However I would not sacrifice myself for the principle of honor, in that honor dictates I do so.

              Ser, while ye claim there are tenets of honor that are inviolate, I would hope that ye would realize that they are inviolate in our current situation, not universally. While it may materially come down to the same thing, the method of thought should not be dismissed. As a Forgetter I seek to have a free mind, free of rules and regulations I feel I must follow. I wish not to be bound by my past, nor bound by path others compel me to traverse.

              Ser Kvalhion, Forgetter.
              Kvalhion
              Deputy of the Inquisition
              Thespian of the Unity Arts

              Comment


              • #37
                Although I am not a Philosopher, I'll add my view to this debate on Honor.
                Honor is like a lamp that shines forth from ones soul. It may be very bright or dim or even hidden from view. So I say that the Light of Honor that shines forth from those who strive for it to burn bright is seen and recognized by those not afraid of what it reveals. It is not mere popularity. It is a means to see ourselves and others.. and to know them for what they are.
                Judith, Watchwoman and Questor
                "I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings"
                ~ Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers

                Comment


                • #38
                  Well, the first thing I would mention is I said 'poisoner' not 'prisoner'. I think all would agree that poison is a less than honorable way to achieve one's goals.

                  And I would say that the laws are not the final moral authority. Each person needs to act how they feel is right, but also be willing to accept the results of those actions. To give an example, I have in the past done things I am less than proud of. Such as a duel of passion i the west most courtyard. Afterword, I thought perhaps I had committed an illegal action, so I presented myself to a watch person who informed me that what I had done was not illegal. Therein lies part of the problem. Accepting the consaquences of your actions.

                  And again, I know many feel that honor is a situational thing. And that what is honorable here might not be honorable elsewhere. I most strongly disagree with this premise though. There are some absolute rules that should govern how we interact with each other. To break these rules is to be dishonorable. If a corrupt Monarch were to say that it was lawfull to assault women, that would not make it honorable. Ever. Tis good that our just Monarch is such that a law of this type would never be made. That her majesty respects and approves of honorable conduct is a great strength of her majesty's character, and I for one give my deepest thanks to have the chance to live in a realm ruled with such in mind.

                  Glory to Her Majesty,

                  Martel

                  Comment


                  • #39

                    Poisoner, then. My mistake. Yet what I wrote still applies, in my mind.

                    I agree with most of what ye say. We are free to determine what we feel is right or wrong without laws. We can call it honor or common sense.

                    Yet about about tenets of honor that conflict with each other? What about a tenet of honor that says ye should be loyal to the Queen, and another tenet of honor that says ye should not assault others? If such a law came into being that said ye should strike others, what then? What ye would call absolute honor are more likely things that have been tested time and again and have been shown to work. Such things, over time, become instinct and common sense. For isntance, do not kill others, if ye yerself do not wish to be killed. To not steal from others, if ye do not wish to be stolen from.

                    Do not mistake honor as something that tells ye what to do and when to do it. Ye see laws as guidelines, why not honor? There are some tenets of honor that could be encouraged in an effort to control others. To encourage others to be meek, modest, loyal, generous, etc, and to strive to be like those better than them is to set them up against an impossible standard while at the same time occupying them with these persuits. Why must honor be used as a measuring stick against others? It seems rather foolish to me.

                    Ser Kvalhion, Forgetter.
                    Kvalhion
                    Deputy of the Inquisition
                    Thespian of the Unity Arts

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Gareth
                      I have written an essay called "A Continuation on the Topic of Honor," which I am prepared to present if there are those interested.

                      Ser Johnathan can be sought to arrange a time and place if a debate is desired. One of the protocols of the Guild is such debate should not lead to challenges of duels, as this leads to unease in many for expression of candid opinion. It also scares away the gentle audience, and discourages disputation or questioning of the speakers.

                      I will withhold responding further now, except to say I agree: Honor is not Popularity. I do not understand why another made this assertion, and then ascribed it unkindly to me, unwanted by me. Dear dear!

                      Please, let my own words speak for me. I would think anyone worth a wooden ring would at least have asked a question of clarification first.

                      Ser Morte, gramercy for beginning this debate! Tis quite illuminating, eh?

                      For Love! For Valor! For Honor! For Glory!
                      Through Civility, Courtesy, and Chivalry,

                      -Ser Gareth.
                      it is a philosophy group not guild good ser....I have not asked and do not plan to ask for guild status at this time... just to make that clear to all.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I was asked to put forth a list of attributes which in my belief comprise the Virtue of Honor.

                        Honor is the value obtained by behavior which accords to a code of meritorious conduct of self.

                        It is comprised of various acts and beliefs (these lists may seem long to some, but these are exemplars, and not compendia):

                        Communal Honor
                        (Those which can be shared between persons, or which pass the spirit from one to another)
                        • Acceptance, Acknowledgement and Admission of Merit in Others
                        • Behaviour Within Accepted Custom, Decorum, Law and Protocol
                        • Conduct Civil, Courteous or Chivalrous Towards Others
                        • Deeds and Words of Weal
                        • Displays of Generosity, Graciousness, Hospitality and Kindness
                        • Good Credit or Standing in the Eyes of Others
                        • Grants of Favor and Friendship
                        • Investiture of Trustworthiness
                        • Public or Private Esteem and Admiration
                        • Repute and Recognition of Worthiness
                        • Respectfulness
                        • Safeguarding and Protection of Others
                        • Service in Free Will to Others

                        Personal Honor
                        (That which is inherent to a person)
                        • Acceptance, Acknowledgement and Admission of Merit in Self
                        • Accordance with Civility, Courtesy and Chivalry
                        • Adherence to Ethical Conduct
                        • Behaving with Integrity
                        • Committing Deeds of Weal
                        • Defense and Protection of What One Holds Dear
                        • Franchisement (which is to say, Freedom of Will)
                        • Grace of Spirit
                        • Just Conduct
                        • Loyalty
                        • Natural Spirit of Goodness
                        • Noble Selflessness
                        • Proper Bearance of the Entrustment of Others
                        • Rectitudinous Comportment (Rightful Bearing)
                        • Soulful Desire for Betterment and to Pursue Perfection
                        • Submission to Rightful Authority
                        • Superiority of Character
                        • Taming of Baseness
                        • Truthfulness and Forthrightness
                        • Trust and Faithfulness

                        "Superiority of Character," is in the ideal opposed to Baseness of Character. This remains a great point of contention, and central to my prior essay. For I questioned how one might be the best judge of one own's 'superiority,' versus the insight or opinions of others. For if one over-estimates their own Honor. then this is seen as prideful by others. And False Pride is a form of Baseness, thereby inverting the claim of Honor and turning it on its head.

                        Like many other Ideals, many see Honor and know it by perception -- instantaneous, invisible yet palpable, and in some ways, ineffable. Any words I use to characterize it are only impressions of the thing, and not Honor itself.

                        Invariably there shall be those who would add to or strike off items of mine or others lists. Or for each forwarded example, counter it with refutations. I hope not to debate each point ad nauseum, ad absurdum, ad infinitum. And yet, I do enjoy to see the propositions put forward by others.

                        Sera Deirdre, thy words are sage.

                        Strength to thy Quests!

                        -Ser Gareth.

                        Post Scriptum: Ser Johnathan, please forgive my mispeaking of the Philosophers as a Guild. Mea Culpa Maxima.
                        ~ Gareth Beaumains ~

                        ~ For Love! For Valour!
                        ~ For Honour! For Glory!
                        ~ Onwards to Adventure!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Ser Kvalhion,

                          You seem to be under a misapprehension about Honour. Honour is not like law, to be imposed on all. Honour, as has been stated many times, is a personal thing.

                          If you will, the law is a set of rules which all should follow, as they have been deemed appropriate for the greater good of all. Honour is a set of rules that one must follow oneself, and should not be imposed on others, for such imposition itself would be dishonourable. Adherence to Honour must be a personal choice.

                          I will not attempt to define Honour, as I do not believe that the same definition would necessarily hold for all. Suffice it to say that Honour is doing what you feel to be right in your heart, regardless of the cost.

                          Perhaps it is easier to define dishonour. It is dishonourable to avoid doing what you believe to be the right thing, either through self-interest, fear or self-doubt.

                          In all things, be true to your heart.

                          Davog
                          Counsellor and Duelist

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Perhaps it is easier to define dishonour. It is dishonourable to avoid doing what you believe to be the right thing, either through self-interest, fear or self-doubt.
                            Perhaps. However, what about one who would poison another, and believe it to be the right thing to do? Would ye call such a one honorable? Or is there a double standard, such as do what ye feel is right, as long as it does not violate other invariable tenets of honor?

                            Tell me this: How does one know what is honorable to oneself and what is not? Can honor be learned, or is it purely instinctive? While I agree that honor is a personal thing, I believe many feel that there are tenets of honor that all who are honorable would follow. Otherwise, wouldn't honor be a random collection of ideals varying from person to person? These universal traits of honor is what was originally discussed at the beginning of these postings. These are the traits that I feel serve little than to control how others think and what actions they take. It is these traits that people weigh their honor upon others, and delegate themselves superior or inferior to others.

                            Personally, I believe honor should be like the law. As ye said, the laws are a collection of..suggestions, if ye will... meant to serve the people as a whole. They are not absolute authority or morality. They are guidelines that say what ye agree to follow to participate within this society. If ye do choose not to follow a law, then ye owe the society a debt, which can be paid in various ways. Laws are not meant to be followed blindly by those who would follow it at all costs. This is why laws are constantly evaluated and amended as times and situations change.

                            Similarly, honor is something that is tested and adjusted constantly, as experiences and circumstances change. We learn through our experience and the experience of others (through observation) what works and what does not. What is beneficial and what is not. As we each have unique and dynamic experiences and circumstances, honor must remain on a personal level. To evaluate ones honor against another is folly. The list that Ser Gareth gives us regarding honor may indeed be full of good deeds towards others. Yet 'twould be impossible to adhere to such standards in every situation.

                            The final moral authority to follow codes or honor and laws of society is ourselves. The depth in which we choose to adhere and follow such things does not elevate us beyond others. It is merely a choice, one path out of a myriad of paths.

                            Ser Kvalhion, Forgetter.
                            Kvalhion
                            Deputy of the Inquisition
                            Thespian of the Unity Arts

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I think this discussion is getting fairly bizaar. Now we enumerate the tenats of Honor like we would count cows in the fields. And I will admit, I still do not understand your list ser Gareth. Perhaps you would care to orginize something and let us all come and talk over these points? I do not believe honor can be so enumerated, especially in so flowery a toungue that only scholors can understand it.

                              In defense of the common Honor,

                              Martel

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Kvalhion

                                Personally, I believe honor should be like the law. As ye said, the laws are a collection of..suggestions, if ye will... meant to serve the people as a whole. They are not absolute authority or morality. They are guidelines that say what ye agree to follow to participate within this society. If ye do choose not to follow a law, then ye owe the society a debt, which can be paid in various ways. Laws are not meant to be followed blindly by those who would follow it at all costs. This is why laws are constantly evaluated and amended as times and situations change.

                                Ser Kvalhion, Forgetter.
                                I just wonder to those whom actually are loyal to her Majesty the Queen, long may she reign. How long shall this [you can't read the word that is scratched out here] person be allowed to write such treasonist comments as this?

                                To claim she is not the absolute authority here?
                                Laws are not ment to be followed?

                                If the laws are changed, which I have no knowledge of her majesty changing any laws, there is but onw person whom can do such. One person who has that authority.

                                Kvalhion, this is not the first time you have made similar comments. Else where upon this board you did accuse the Queen of stealing your memories. Now in a discussion held by two groups whom are perhaps the most loyal to the queen, do you again spout your tresonist ideals.

                                Ra'Dorcha

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information