Trial by combat/The Honor system

[Abkajud]

Something else to consider: people in power are the ones who decide who gets Honor. At least your first point. And society (ruled by those in power, naturally) maintains and establishes how you get the rest, not to mention how you lose it, and *who* will lose it.
This sort of thing makes the game a little scary to me. And I'm totally digging that.

[Vulpinoid]

A few questions to consider?

• Does anyone possess honour purely by virtue of their birth?
  Are there inherited lineages of honour bound individuals?
  Does someone only gain their first point of honour by being admitted into "Society"?
• Are there castes of honour?
  Do certain levels of people gain honour for certain types of actions?
  Could a lowly farmer be considered virtuous amongst other famers for performing specific farming actions, while among nobles these actions don't count for squat??
  This would sort of work in a Hindu caste type system.
  
• How corrupt is this society?
  How honour bound are the people in charge?
  Can they simply award (or deduct) honour on a whim, or do they need the honour change to reflect some physical action?
  How accountable are the people in charge to the general populace? (Consider the French revolution, as compared to the English movement away from a traditional aristocracy, then compare both of these to the end of Japanese feudalism...)
  
• How does the concept of honour tie in with the religion of the society?
  Is honour considered a gift of the gods, passed downward through the aristocrats and honourably virtuous?
  Is honour a purely earthbound phenomenon, reflecting only mundane concerns?
  Is there a chance that an honour change will not occur? Do the "Keepers of Honour" have to perform a ritual that has to be successful for a change to happen?
  Can lesser members of society combine their honour to topple those with more honour?

I've played plenty of live role-playing campaigns that have incorporated complex mechanics for gaining and losing status. In such campaigns, the status has usually only had a specific impact on social situations (eg. I get to add my number of status traits to my relevant social skill and it becomes easier to do things in court where status is valued, if I try to use my status on the streets where people don't care about these things then it doesn't do anything...)

If you look at the old Mind's Eye Theatre rules for Vampire, you mind get some ideas of how a dynamic social game can be established along lines of status, prestige and upholding community virtues.

V

[Abkajud]

Ok! I figure I'll just answer alla these questions as you've put the m out here.

    * Does anyone possess honour purely by virtue of their birth? Um, not by birth, but if you're raised as a bushi or courtesan and don't screw around too much, you'll have accrued one point of Honor just for being there.
      Are there inherited lineages of honour bound individuals? Since Honor is most readily available to "noble" professions, yes.
      Does someone only gain their first point of honour by being admitted into "Society"? Yes! Good idea. It's like a noblewoman's coming out.
    * Are there castes of honour? Meh, not really. I'm assuming you mean different sorts of Honor.
      Do certain levels of people gain honour for certain types of actions?Well, it's more likely that a lower-caste person would gain Honor for community service rather than glorious battle, but no: being of great service to the state or performing grand and noble deeds merits Honor for anyone!
      Could a lowly farmer be considered virtuous amongst other famers for performing specific farming actions, while among nobles these actions don't count for squat?? Hm. The farmer could certainly have a reputation for being trustworthy or skillful, but unless it's a really remote, isolated farming province, they wouldn't have a separate Honor score for themselves.
      This would sort of work in a Hindu caste type system.
    * How corrupt is this society? That is something I leave entirely up to the play group. The default answer is "moderately so", as a feudal system has some inherent flaws and power imbalances that crooked politicos could easily exploit.
      How honour bound are the people in charge? Quite! Honor is seen as the favor of the gods, and there are certain activities that are just *not* okay for an honorable person to engage in. But in a very corrupt society, Honor is more a matter of appeasing the gov't, and less about being honorable in a definitive sense.
      Can they simply award (or deduct) honour on a whim, or do they need the honour change to reflect some physical action? It needs to tie back into something tangible, but it'd be simple enough to "build a case" either for or against someone's Honor, based on events.
      How accountable are the people in charge to the general populace? (Consider the French revolution, as compared to the English movement away from a traditional aristocracy, then compare both of these to the end of Japanese feudalism...) Well, there's always a general uprising, and if an unlucky aristocrat finds him/herself in a remote location where everyone hates the nobility, there might not even be Honor dice to protect him/her from the mob...
    * How does the concept of honour tie in with the religion of the society? Honor is seen as the favor of the gods. No question.
      Is honour considered a gift of the gods, passed downward through the aristocrats and honourably virtuous? Yes.
      Is honour a purely earthbound phenomenon, reflecting only mundane concerns? Mostly. It's all related back to tangible actions.
      Is there a chance that an honour change will not occur? Do the "Keepers of Honour" have to perform a ritual that has to be successful for a change to happen? It's based on consensus. While it is a semi-mystical event, in that the will of society/the gods is being made manifest, there is no dice roll or anything that must occur. What would happen instead is that somebody would unfairly or incorrectly grant a character Honor (or take it away), and society just goes "No way", and the effect is canceled out through play.
      Can lesser members of society combine their honour to topple those with more honour? So far, I'm thinking no. Group conflict favors the most powerful and the person who's been singled out.

I was also thinking that the default setting has it so that only nobles can carry weapons. In remote provinces, this would change, of course, to fit survival needs, but generally, being a noble means both much more ready access to Honor as well as legal access to weapons and armor in-game.

[Vulpinoid]

Sounds like you've got this pretty well thought through.

I'll be looking forward to seeing future developments.

V