Okay, so with all the discussion reguarding Honor that went on in my last post, I figure it could make an enlightening topic on it's own. Sombody asked my own views on it so I'll ty and articulate my viewson honor as best I can though it is a complicate subject. I'll also throw in some very brief historical context aswell.

Honor in primitive forms is older than memory. Man has probably always had an idea of what he should do, can't do and can do but shouldn't do anyways. Some of the earliest beginnings of a true code of honor are found in some early Saxon literature among many other things. This primitive form of honor put great emphasis on personal courage and above all loyalty to one's lord and also greatly resembles codes of Bushido that would begin appearing in Japan.

The start of the crusades saw a great jump in the evolution of the idea of Honor in europe. The idea that a warrior could and should fight for somthing greater than himself or even his lord began a new direction of thinking for the moral warrior. Knighthood quickly found itself becoming more and more the focus of moral codes as both the church and secular rulers tried to be the ones that looked to for fealty. "Honor" began to gain new attributes as it's followers began to actively flesh out it's tenets. secular moral ideas such as defending the weak, telling the truth and fighting to the death mingled with religious ideals such as obey god, defend the church and kill the saracen. This incarnation of honor is exemplified by the 14th century poem in which a knight riding along the road passes a peasant laboring in the field and steps forward to help him:

"by Christ" said a knight then "he tells us what is best,

but truely I was never taught to handle a team." (oxen)

"But teach me," said the knight, "and by christ I will try."

"By St. Paul," said Perkyn, (the peasant) "You make such a fair offer,

that I will swink, and sweat and sow for us both,

and labour all my lifetime for your love,

in covenant that you keep Holy Church and myself

from wasters and from wicked men that destroy this wold..."

Courteously the knight then uttered these words:

"By my power, Piers, I plight you my troth

to ulfill this agreement, even if I have to fight;

As long as I live, I shall maintain you."

This was believed at the time to be the ideal relationship between Knight and peasant. Perhaps Knights and peasants rarely worked so well in concert but the fact remains that this was the ideal they were encouraged to aim for.

As the crusades came to a close much knightly effort was turned towards Jousting which had evolved from simple realistic mock battles to elaborate contests that less and less resembled actual warfare. About this time a new section is added to the idea of honor. Chivalry. New tenets were added such as fairplay and never backing out of a fair challenge. Courtly romance was also on the rise. With it came rules governing the ways in which an honorable person must treat women. It was said that an honorable person's duty was to defend and never to harm a woman and to always step up in defense of her honor aswell. At this time romance and honor sort of came together in a strange combination of the two. Glory is also highly sought as always.

Here's a part of a poem by Ulrich Von Lichtenstein. Sort of an eccentric Knight-poet.

Knght who seek for honor, you should make sure

Of serving when you're armed ladies of worth.

If you wish to use your time

in knight's ways, with honor,

pay court to fairest women.

Your courage must be high as you bear shield.

You should be polished, bold, blithe and gentle.

Serve knighthood with all your skill

And be glad, set love high,

Thus shall you win praises.

In later times the knight went into decline and with him honor aswell.

Some guy by the name of Leon Gautier wrote out his own "Ten commandments of chivalry" in the1800s long after knighthood's decline. The religious aspects don't really apply to a non-christian such as myself but the secular aspects he includes are pretty close.

Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Church.
Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
Thou shalt not recoil before the enemy.
Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.
Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.
Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

It's influence remains in our culture but only on a subtle level I'd say. I give the historical context in hopes of pointing out that honor was never a single focused concept. It can change drastically from one culture or century to another.In any case here's my own idea of the concept of honor:

First and foremost we must keep in mind that honor is not and ends in of itself but a means to the ends. The purpose of honor has always been to protect and nurture the idea of good. "Good" is generally the health and happinss of the greatest number of people. The goals of honor are as follows in order of priority.

Basic mission

Protect the health of the people.

Protect the happiness of the people

Protect the health of one's liege

Protect the happiness of one's liege

Protect the one's own life

Protect one's own happiness.

Life takes priority over happiness in nearly every case. Therefore for example a lige lord's life may come before the happiness of the people in some cases. People take priority over liege, liege take priority over the Honorable person. Therefore the happiness of the general public takes priority over the happiness of the liege or the honorable person.

The purpose of the Honorable person is to rienforce and protect the liege, the purpose of the liege and honorable person is to rienforce and protect the people.

If the liege betrays his purpose, he is discarded as liege because his value is determined by his contribution to the health and happiness of the people.

It is worth note that all these apply only to a reasonable extent. Extreme cases may change priority.

For clarification, people = general public, Liege = Superior officer or person of authority and so on.

The honorable person's health and happiness is also listed because an honorable person is most usefull alive . His or her own happiness should be considered on an equal level with a member of the general public.

Methods and virtues

Honorable methods are the most complicated aspect of honor but very important. I'll list each method and give a brief explanation of it's purpose and importance. The more devoted a person is to following ideal the greater his or her honor. however , these ideals should not be considered higher priority than one of the primary goals. Your desire to tell the truth should never lead to the direct harm of innocent people. To forsake one of these methods under extreme circumstances is not always cause for dishonor. However they should be adhered to as often as possible.

Honesty: In all things an honorable person should strive to tell the truth. The reason behind this is that a world where people can trust eachother is one where people can live in greater happiness. As a protector of the people, it is imperatve that the honorable person can be trusted by those he or she protects.

Courage : An honorable person must be ready to put his or herself in harm's way for the sake others. This takes courage. Fight bravely, die if you must. Do not abandon those you protect.

Protection : Defense is the most justifiable reason for combat known to man. Humans achieve their highest moral point when they are risking themselves to defend the welfare of many others.

Fairplay : It is generally honorable to fight an emeny on even terms. The purpose of this is because even an enemy is a living being and if you are going to take that person's life, they deserve a fair chance to take yours aswell. This mostly applies to duels of honor, sports and games. In real warfare the primary concern is to preserve the strength of one's army and so rules of fairplay may in many cases be honorably put aside in open warfare.

Respect of Women : The execution of this method has become somewhat greyed in modern time as women have attained mostly equal status as their male counterparts. Generally an honorale man must avoid harming or disrespecting a woman. However, if a woman challenges an honorable man to a contest including a martial contest such as a fencing match or mock physical combat, I would consider it unchivalrous to refuse her. In mortal combat, a female combatant should be taken alive if it can be done without unreasonable danger to the honorable man. If non-lethal force is not an option, it is honorable to kill a female combatant. I'm actually sort of hazy on how this rule applies to honorable women. There's no definitive historical context for the conduct of honorable women with their fellow woman. I suppose it is up to the individual wheather she believes she must give other women special consideration or reguard them in the same manner an honorable man would reguard his fellow men.

Compassion: Compassion is the baisis for all good things and so it is also an important aspect in honor. An honorable person should give mercy whenever reasonably possible. Mercy for an enemy who surrenders. A quick, clean end for other enemies. Help innocent living things and protect them from suffering. Kind words, kind actions and so on.

Avoid using ranged weapons : Whenever possible an honorable person should seek to fight his enemy face to face. An enemy is not being given an honorabe fight if he is shot down before he never got close enough to put up a fight. In modern times where warefare is waged entirely at range, this rule is largely obsolete. However a modern person truey devoted to honor should still carry a melee weapon in the event an enemy requests a fight blade to blade.

Loyalty : An honorable person can have many people to who depend on them. It is of the utmost importance that those people's trust is not betrayed. It is worth noting and repeating that a person who asks for and/or commits dishonorable actons is not worthy of loyalty and this rule does not apply to them.

Never resort to chemical, biological or nuclear warfare or other methods of combat that result in extreme suffering :

Such things as poision, or the spreading of disease or sickness should never be the tools of an honorale person. Period. The same goes for other methods intended to cause excessive pain to a victim.

Torture : An honorable person should not engage in the torture of another living thing. The reasoning behind this is that the desire to inflict pain is not an honorable cause.

A Clean Death : It is honorable to offer any dying enemy or a person beyond redemption a clean death. Never draw out a person's dying needlessly.

Okay I think that's my baisic view on Honor. If you have anything you think I forgot, feel free to throw it in. Same goes for compliments and disagreements. Also have fun applying my views of honor to characters of a Song of Ice an Fire if it seems fun to you.

As the anti-christ to honor, my views on the matter are pretty well laid out But, I must say, I like what you've done here. A very thorough view on the topic. Almost makes me appreciate honor. Almost, lol

One point that came to mind when reading about your updated view on honor (an improvement I must say, which kind of exemplifies my position against set codes in that it evolved to be better and more applicable. As we both realize, the old system is simply flawed) is your point on fair play. It reminds me of something mentioned at the Wall. When Jon Snow was fighting all of the rabble in training, he was unstoppable. It was then said, by Tyrion or Thorne, that it's obvious that they can't beat you. Few have used a sword before. Jon, being of royalty, was very adept at straight forward, honorable combat, and when fighting so, he will win. Consider then, in a non-training scenario, with honor being upheld, that those with the money and training win, as the rules favor such. In the mean time, locking the rabble in a condemned position of 'dishonorable' if they try more creative means to defeat an enemy.

Now consider that on any scale. It all seems, very clearly to me, a way to keep a kind of caste system enforced.

A counter point I would like to consider is a world without notions of honor. Morality, as it's been discussed on many forums and mediums, exists without a ruling code. We all (save the select few to be discussed soon) function, on a very evolutionary scale, as moral beings. So, what purpose does honor serve? Is it to keep those without a moral compass in line? I'd say not. People without a moral compass will continue to act against the wishes of others, no matter what codes are in place. Now, if we consider situations where code replaces a natural developement of morality, (cults/exclusive religions/fascist dictatorships etc.) you find yourself with a generally immoral population; A population on a high horse that tend to ride directly into the lives of "lesser" foreign populations.

Consider this as well. Honor harbors a predictable foe. If your foe holds to a code. You know, more or less, the limits and thoughts of that foe. So, by my conclusion, honor weakens those who hold it in both conflict and moral development, as well as any notion of a fair society. Those who form rules and codes tend to take an impossible goal that EVERYONE will eventually adopt the code as their own. In that scenario, they all make good sense (for the most part). but, that will NEVER, and I promise, NEVER be the case.

Now, it may seem I've gone off the deep end a bit on this one, lol. Frankly, I'm rushing and clumping, but if there is anything worth challenging in here I'd be happy to elaborate as well. I think I've summed up the antithesis point of view.

anavasoothed said:

And what was Jon's ultimate response?

To help train his fellow brothers in combat. Which could be considered the honourable thing to do. Perhaps Tyrion did shame him into doing so but Jon quickly learned it was the best course of action.

"Do you even know what honor is?" - Brynden Tully to Jaime Lannister

A horse - Jaime Lannister (to himself)

anavasoothed said:

Well the beauty of honor is that the warrior elite cast who practices honor would be sworn to protect the peasant caste. So yes, honorable combat favors the person with the most skill, experience and training which was most often the person born into the warrior elite cast who could afford such things, however this is still a benefit to the peasant caste as the person recieving such training is also sworn to use it in their defense.

Though I'd also add that skill and training and experience aren't everything in warfare. You ever hear about Akechi Mitsuhide? He was a samurai known to be a great duelist. His death came at the end of a spear made of sharpened bamboo wielded by an unnnamed peasant. Or so the story goes.

anavasoothed said:

As i've said before, I consider honor not to be a replacement for morality by any means. It's a set of rules and guidlines intended to show the best method for encouraging a culture based in morality.

As for people without a moral compass, in a culture rooted heavily in beliefs of honor, they'd need to still act honorably or risk shame in the eyes of their peers and potentially their wrath aswell if this person should begin acting in evil ways.
anavasoothed said:

Aside from the part I've already answer about honor not being a replacement for morality, The purpose of honor is not to raise oneself above your fellow man. It's to raise your fellow man above oneself. I would say any code that leads people to do otherwise is a short-sighted failure.

And really I don't recall any recent fascist dictatorships who ruled by a code of honor. Most of those don't seem to believe in principles. They just do whatever they have to to preserve their base of power.

anavasoothed said:

It's true, honor creates a vulnerability in that an opponent who knows his enemie's code of honor has a good idea of the limits his opponent will stop at. This is a disadvantage. However I would start by saying it's not as big of one as it initially sounds.

Take for example the battle of Mogadishu in the 1990s. There were cases of Somali combatants knowing that American soldiers would avoid harming civilians, so they would often use human shields. There was one part in which the rangers encountered a guy laying on his belly with childeren sitting on his back and a woman sitting on his shoulders. His face and gun barrel visible between her legs. Did the rangers just give up and say "****, he's got us there!". Not a chance. They threw flashbang grenades which sent the woman and childeren running, leaving the gunman suddenly just laying in the middle of the street with zero cover of any kind.

People without honor fighting an honorable foe always go into the fight thinking they brought along their enemy's kryptonite. Once you get around their ploy however, they are just laying in the street waiting to be shot. An honorable person tends to always come expecting a real fight. If he's able to push his tricky enemy into one, victory is assured.

My second answer is that honor is itself a strength that brings it's own advantages. Sound corny? Well, hear me out. For example, enemy soldiers who are aware that their enemy shows mercy, refrains from torture and treats prisoners honorably will surrender much more readily. As opposed to soldiers fighting an enemy who is known for torturing and executing hostages who may be more inclined to fight to the death.

A quick enemy surrender saves lives of your soldiers. And who knows, maybe some of those surrendering soldiers will come to rspect you. Might even find yourself in a Robert Baratheon/Barristan Selmy situation.

I'd also point out that the local peasants will respect a person who treats them honorably. Turn the peasants to your side and you find yourself with thousands of spies to watch your enemie's moves, new recruits for your army, good treatment for your soldiers by the locals and a stable, appreciatve land once the fighting is done.

Honor also brings much more stable alliances. When your allies know they can trust you, they will come to your aid much more readily. They don't have to wonder "is he just putting my people in the dangerous spot to preserve his own strength while weakening me so he can just make war on me when we finish up here?" Yes, a strong alliance leads to devoted allies willing to fight harder and risk much more.

playgroundpsychotic said:

Bingo. We have an example of the strength of honor.

Mathias Fricot said:

Hah! That was a good scene. But again an example of a point where Jaime's dishonorable reputation nearly cost him a good portion of his army. Jaime's just lucky he managed to think up an alternative to seige.

All wonderful examples of how honor works well. But frankly, I still don't see how it is any different than a moral code. It's a code that should dictate one's behavior, am I right? Morality/Code of behavior/ethics seems to be arguing fine line semantics. So, saying "Take your own judgement and replace it with this code.", sets off red flags for me. Granted, Honor just puts to terms behaviors that were already being performed by the respected anyway. And as I'll say a million times, Honor is made to keep the structure. It's blatantly written.

The only reason Jon would teach them the way to fight is because he was granted the time and they were his allies. On the wall, they are all brothers, thus nobility holds no rank. It doesn't do a thing against the point that Jon would have the advantage in any fair fight against his lessers. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Jaime is a perfect example of a good case on honor. The debate reverberates through the book series. Many of you believe that killing the Mad King was the right choice. I think so as well, given the time and circumstance. By doing so, Jaime saved many from senseless battles. Yet, he surely stepped outside the bounds of honor. He suffers for it constantly. He's been thrust into the villain position by his peers for, frankly, saving the realm. I remember the tension was palpable between Jaime and Eddard when Eddard insulted Jaime for making the obviously wise decision, but forsaking code and vow (In the TV series anyway. Don't remember if that scene was in the books.)

anavasoothed said:

Who did he make the choice for? He claims the realm, many others would claim for the Lannister's. Even if killing Aerys was the right choice, was it the right choice for him to stand aside whilst the remainder of the Targeryen's were slaughtered? Seems to me he made the selfish choice and this action was confirmed by planting 3 bastards in the royal family.

anavasoothed said:

The problem with "your own judgement" is that everybody's jdgement differs in some way. Some people do the most evil of deeds thinking it's the approapriate course of action when all who are out looking in can plainly see it's wrong. Rules dictating the best way to further good take out much of the confusion. And ensure fair judgements for everyone. What's wrong with keeping a structure? There's fairness in structure. Security and peace.

anavasoothed said:

A few points to make there. Honor like all other complicated subjects takes wisdom and contemplation. It's easy to misplace a priority. Such as when it comes to the kingsguard. In their short-sightedness they forget that the king's purpose is to protect the realm. A king who fails in that is no king at all as I believe Ser Davos put it. A more wise knight might also point out that they were knights sworn to defend the weak and helpless before they were kingsguard sworn to defend the king. Therefore their oath as knights superceeds their oath as kingsguard. Jaime obviously did the right thing by Aerys. Thousand of people live because of him. Eddard and most other people were wholly unaware of that. They made the best judgement of the situation with the knowledge they had. Therefore the problem there is not honor but the lack of knowledge they were given forcing them to make incorrect judgements.