Trial by combat/The Honor system

[Abkajud]

So I've been tooling around with the idea that medieval European courts had the power to make two people fight to prove which one was in the right, and claimed God would decide the winner.
I was thinking that it'd be neat to have a setting in which people wear their social status, prestige, and renown like a protective aura. Basically, how glorious you are dictates the number of bonus "honor" dice you get. Such dice are added to your standard stat+skill dice pool when you make a roll that puts your character in the limelight, or otherwise strongly reinforces the status quo.
I'm working on the ramifications of the idea, but where I'm getting stuck is how to gain and lose Honor.
Here's what I have so far:
- You get your first Honor die either at character creation or when some highly Honorable character decides you've earned it.
- Being part of a really noteworthy event or conflict, in such a way that reinforces your greatness and/or your value to society, can earn you an Honor die.
- You can lose Honor dice temporarily by violating a cultural taboo (to be determined by the GM before play begins), at the rate of 1 major transgression = 1 lost Honor die for the scene.
- You can lose Honor dice permanently if you are defeated by a more Honorable individual after you have committed a major transgression, all in the same scene or reasonably recent time period.
- Gains and losses to Honor, as well as using Honor dice in a dice pool, can only happen in a scene where the "Honor toggle" is on. Scenes that take place in the heart of the culture, and/or with a large audience of typical citizens, have it "on". Out in the wilderness, deep in the criminal underworld, or off in other cultures entirely, the Honor toggle is "off"; in such places, Honor remains at the same value for PCs, and cannot be added to dice pools.
- Some characters have "Dishonorable" status, either gained through play or from character creation. It prevents them from gaining any Honor points, and thus having any Honor dice to roll, but it also allows them to act as they please without fear of losing anything.
- Certain other characters can have "Aloof" status (not sure of the name yet..), in which, provided they cleave to a special set of taboos that is different from that of the main culture, they cannot gain or lose Honor and can nullify other characters' use of Honor dice.

What I'm going for is a really cutthroat society of elites that's big on making a show of one's actions and having a good reputation. Some people are completely exempt, like a monastic order that exists alongside the dominant culture, and there is a wealth of professions and kinds of people who are considered unclean, untouchable, or otherwise Dishonorable, and are at the mercy of the Honorable ... when somebody's watching.
I'd be really interested in your comments and suggestions, and I can elaborate on the rest of the rules system more as needed. I'd just like to keep this post only as long as it has to be for now
Thanks!
- Abby

[Callan S.]

and there is a wealth of professions and kinds of people who are considered unclean, untouchable, or otherwise Dishonorable, and are at the mercy of the Honorable ... when somebody's watching.

Waiiit, run that past me again, that's really interesting.

Is this really some group conciousness thing - that if someones watching, then even the 'unclean' person judges themself to be at the mercy of the honourable one? But if they are out in the wilderness, just those two, they are free to beat or kill each other? In other words, set up a new conciousness order?

It's just your sentence there is really interesting, as its describing your station by how your related to someone who's neutral to the whole affair (just some onlooker). This is an interesting area, sorry for perhaps just getting over excited and posting!

[Abkajud]

Yes! Exactly, Callan!
Even the most subversive rebel in a society has had that culture imprint itself upon him or her, so yes, even the malefactor's consciousness aligns with the culture to prop up the status quo.
But total outsiders... they don't really know how things work around here, so they don't count.
No need to apologize for being excited! ^_^
I was inspired by Mage: the Ascension's vulgar/coincidental magic system, which acknowledges a difficulty modifier based on witnesses. This is a little similar, I think.
My goal was to sort of push the idea that a culture is a living thing unto itself, and that it defends itself from attack.
I'm very, very curious about which status, be it Honorable, Dishonorable, or Aloof, a player would want to portray. There's a lot of room for backstabbing and self-promoting among the Honorable, but I wanted to make sure there were other ways to interact with the whole Honor mechanic, since it's going to occupy a lot of space in gameplay.
Here's a bit more about the other mechanics:
the idea of the game is that the players portray members of a highly stratified feudal society, a culture that places huge emphasis on knowing one's place, appropriate and inappropriate conduct, and the strict observance of one's social class. It's heavily inspired by the works of Confucius, Lao Tse, and Chinese Buddhism, as well as Japanese bushido and Asian monster myths. The Honor system described above, in its intricacies and potential for cutthroat politics, could fit into a sort of 19th-century European setting, too.
The social classes are reflected in the mechanics as categories of knowledge and skill available to the characters: War (battlefield command and dueling), Court (politics and state-approved religious rituals/knowledge), and Earth (trade skills, craftsmanship, and agriculture).
There are also two categories that are decidedly not part of the regular caste system, and they are: Sorcery (non-state-sanctioned religious practices and animistic mysticism) and Outlaw (skill in all things dishonorable, from lying and stealing to sneaking around stealthily and fighting dirty).
The character stats are Strength, Wisdom, Cunning (more intuition and quick wits, rather than intelligence), and Face (social presence, prestige, and how well you carry yourself).
In a conflict, each character involved will need to roll d6's for each point he or she has in the appropriate stat and the appropriate skill (plus Honor), with the loser (4+ is a success for right now) losing a point from the stat he or she rolled in the test. A character is utterly defeated when the stat being used is reduced to zero, as the character has been beaten bloody, backed into a corner, or something similar by this point. The stat you use in the conflict determines how you use the caste skill, too, so not all War contests are actually sword fights. War+Face could be a boasting match, for example.
There is also a mechanic I have been tinkering with but not quite sure of rules for yet: the "ranged" attack. Since conflict is so focused on two people going at it (though there are rules for one person against a mob, or other uneven matches) in a duel-type fashion, anyone who contributes in some less-direct manner (archers firing into a sword-fight, for instance) will also be less effective, but they are correspondingly less vulnerable. I'm thinking that ranged weaponry (for War), the noise of the crowd (for Court), and some other, third thing for Earth will provide a small penalty to their target, or rather limit a target rather than severely damaging the individual, physically or otherwise.
Oh! One more thing: there are no hit points or any other "realistic" mechanic for describing shame and injury in a direct-correspondence fashion; someone who's lost a few stat points in a conflict isn't necessarily wounded or emotionally scarred, just temporarily inconvenienced and nullified/incapacitated for now. Even a swordsman who's been on the receiving end of a dozen archers' efforts might just be pinned down behind cover, rigid with fear, rather than poked full of arrows.
In actual play, my goal is to put a lot of emphasis on who is in power, and who is not... who is esteemed, and who is shameful. That sort of thing. And then, of course, address that issue *through* play!
- Abby

[MartiniPhilosopher]

Sounds a lot like the Japanese and other Asian royal courts. There are a number of elements, the honor and dishonor dichotomy and the "untouchable" status which comprised much of those society in medieval times.

Have you read James Clavell's Shōgun? If not, that might be a good place to get some ideas.

[Abkajud]

Well, my (relatively limited) understanding and image of Asian royal courts was a pretty big inspiration for this concept. I was thinking that feudal Japan, imperial China, *maybe* early medieval Europe, and certainly Elizabeth - Victorian era England/Europe would be good setting inspiration, too!
As for Shogun , well, I picked it up and gave it a try, but the writing was really super-dense to me, and I put it down pretty quickly. I still have it, though, so I might pick it back up again.
I'm really fixed on this idea that certain people have social license to be very direct, very blunt, instead of observing complicated rules of behavior (or not-so-complicated demands of perpetual politeness), and so far, the Aloof status has come to me in the form of monks.
Actually, the Aloof status would demand a different, less elaborate set of rules to follow, and the upshot is that you can ignore people's Honor bonuses in your culture. What would be interesting is what a monk would have to do to lose his Aloof status, but since it's not necessarily point-based, I'm not sure where to go with that just yet.

[MartiniPhilosopher]

Actually, the Aloof status would demand a different, less elaborate set of rules to follow, and the upshot is that you can ignore people's Honor bonuses in your culture. What would be interesting is what a monk would have to do to lose his Aloof status, but since it's not necessarily point-based, I'm not sure where to go with that just yet.

In my own limited exposure on the subject, monks who were kicked out of their order or monastery were subject to normal laws of the land. If you have those character who want the Aloof quality to have to join a secret society or something to get it, then it can be removed or nullified whenever they get kicked out or censured. You would have to come up with different societies or monasteries but there is a lot of historical material you can grab to make that part easy.

[Callan S.]

Hi Abkajud,

This might not be the process that's happening, but I think it's an interesting hypothesis with some meat for actual play: The question is of abandonment - that third party, the onlooker, the (unclean) one being attacked does not have a beef with him. But his connection with that third party is through the social structure - in order to fight back, he MUST sever those ties in his mind.

The issue is being threatened by some highly honourable person, but while that SEEMS the thing you should be doing something about, what you should be concentrating on is whether you want to sever you connection with this onlooker, which not only represents severing connection with him, but in one horrible moment severing connection with all others who are like him. His whole culture, in other words (after all, if he did this in front of a foreigner, would it be an issue?).

So we have
A. A magician like sleight of hand effect, where your concentrating on the attacking noble, but that's not what you should be paying attention to, and
B. If you actually look past the illusion and clearly percieve the elements of the situation, you find the horrible choice of whether it's better to risk your life than sever your connection with everything that you know as human (your community).

History is repleat with juggling A, using all sorts of social structures, so people cannot even see what the real issue is. And even if they did, B would either be so horrible as to create denial (returning to A state) or be so horrible that the person is numbed by consequences long enough to be physically struck down.

And occasionally C would happen, where the noble would be struck down instead. Then, from what little I know of english history, the king would send in nights to slaughter the peasant uprising. But at the same time, the king would realise his own grander game of A (over a populace) had weakened just a little. And it seems that if the piles of bodies racked up, if enough meat goes cold, A will change enough to...err, well, perhaps it hasn't changed much, but perhaps enough to allow people to see through A enough to think of activities(games) that investigate this.

Okay, a little cynical. But hell, if were talking just game value rather than social comment, I see tons of painful issues to deal with there. I've a strong gamist urge to overcome all the bastards, myself. But a narrativist approach, where the big question is whether you do let your life be risked rather than your connection to community, could say a hell of alot about people, community, connection and the gentle human spirit that just wants to be embraced rather than embracing a life of slaughtering (mostly literally) of wave upon wave of bastards.

Hope I'm not too all over the shop, might be of some use!

[Vulpinoid]

Quick Note:

Have a look at the L5R roleplaying game and it's supplements, especially since you've mentioned some basis on the asian style honour copncept.

Especially consider the Scorpion Clan in this setting as a group who are expected to be dishonourable yet continue to act within the court system.

Or monks, who don't really suffer the effects of honour because they have stepped out of the caste system entirely.

You still have the high classes (warriors, sorcerors and courtiers), low classes (footsoldiers, farmers, merchants and tradesmen), and the low classes (eta and slaves). It might give some good ideas for where your own system could go.

V

[Abkajud]

Vulpinoid - I was doing my Power 19, and I realized that I might want to add "people interested in L5R for the setting, not the rules" to my target audience. That'd be me, for one. I'll definitely check that out, though. Thanks!

Callan - It took me a couple of tries to get what you were saying, since
   "that third party, the onlooker, the (unclean) one being attacked does not have a beef with him. But his connection with that third party is through the social structure - in order to fight back, he MUST sever those ties in his mind."
I couldn't decipher what was said right away. Something about the first phrase there... anyway, NOW I get what you mean. To answer your implied question: actually, even a Dishonorable person would be within his rights to defend himself, on the basis that if the Honorable character couldn't defeat him, then there's something wrong with the Honorable one! It'd be a loss of status for the Honorable character, and a temporary reprieve for the Dishonorable one, perhaps, for a "good show, old bean" kind of sentiment. The people in this culture expect the just, correct, righteous person to win. When the person who apparently fits that role fails to do so, the audience questions the situation a little.
I suppose I'm being a little cynical, too, when I say that the audience doesn't necessarily root for the status quo or assume that it should triumph... they wait to see what'll happen, more interested in a good show than the moral ramifications, and so long as the crummiest little bandit or warlock is able to repel the noble bushi in a way that's fun to watch, they'll probably just watch.

Martini - Sorry, I missed your post in there 'til just now. I think it'd be a really great idea to just have a yes/no value associated with Aloof, and then (as you suggested) just roleplay it out wherein you only lose the status if you get expelled from the order. I figured that somebody who was expelled would immediately revert to Dishonorable status, but I suppose there could be (haha) Honorable discharges that could result in a single point of Honor to send you on your way. Great idea!

[Callan S.]

Really sorry about the sentence structure, I may have a failing in that department. Thanks for rereading it, I don't nessersarily deserve the extra effort, thanks!

But really I liked "and there is a wealth of professions and kinds of people who are considered unclean, untouchable, or otherwise Dishonorable, and are at the mercy of the Honorable ... when somebody's watching."
I liked 'at the mercy' not 'if they can win the fight, then things change' - I liked it really being at their mercy. Unless your willing to give up your social structure/what you perceive as being human.

But perhaps what you just described represents a grander social organism better, though. Because perhaps it describes the organism evading a situation where one of its cells (a person) has to decide whether it gives up being part of that organism (and if enough cells do that, the organism is dead). By the onlooking crowd occasionally giving their blessing to an unclean one fighting back, it grants a (false?) hope to the person that they don't really have to make a choice about giving up all social ties. But at the same time the organism must keep the status quo - its structure is how it lives, just like we have lungs, heart, bowels - it needs to keep them in the right order and can't have the bowel cells overcoming the heart cells too often or again it's death for the greater organism.

Personally my preference is at the individual level and thus really being at the mercy is attractive (it puts all the focus on the individual). But there's a wealth of material either way that deserves to be explored so whatever way you go, it's a good start

[Abkajud]

I'm really torn about sincerely portraying a consistent status quo... to the point where people really WANT it to happen that way, as opposed to THINKING it will happen that way, and not wanting it to.
I think it's the assumption, the sort of passive acceptance of the status quo, that gives it power. But these aren't cells - they are human beings - so resentment and grumbling makes sense to me.
I see this culture actually being very split-minded: being fearful of punishment for stepping out of line, and constantly stressed out by all this structure and self-awareness.
Of course, that's how *I* would react to having so much structure.
My vision is this: the crowd *wants* the Good Guys to win when they have a direct, personal connection to the situation, but other than that, they just assume "of COURSE the bushi will win! It's the way of things." Whether they like things being this way or not is a distinction on the individual level.
I'm thinking of there being a book called the Gilded Scabbard - - it describes what one writer thinks of his culture, as a sort of veneer or surface that conceals the grasping, dangerous beast that's at the core. This isn't necessarily an accurate reflection, although the writer has many loyal readers... but there's definitely supposed to be a tension in the midst of all this order and protocol.
People are in castes: soldier, aristocrat/priest, monk, and farmer/worker. They get very clannish, very fixated on who is like them, and this provokes a lot of distrust and dislike between the castes. They get along reasonably well, but there's a really strong sense of separation, and books like the Gilded Scabbard reflect this discontent.

[Callan S.]

I'm really torn about sincerely portraying a consistent status quo... to the point where people really WANT it to happen that way, as opposed to THINKING it will happen that way, and not wanting it to.
I think it's the assumption, the sort of passive acceptance of the status quo, that gives it power. But these aren't cells - they are human beings - so resentment and grumbling makes sense to me.

I think your saying if someone really wants something (and that's how you want to portray it), then it can't change and be a contentious issue of play.

I might have missunderstood. But to address it, people can dearly want something - but it can still be a contentious issue because suddenly there might be something else revealed, and in that instant they may realise they want that more! And in the wake of that revelation, when the two wants compete the weakest one falls.

Your example of the crowd wanting the good guys to win when they have a personal connection, is easily an example of this. The crowd sincerely wants the bushi to win. But even more than that the revelation of that connection to them makes them want that connection to see justice.

Personally I think were in narrativist territory here, and the unknown quantity is when whever player is playing the crowd, witnesses that connection and something clicks in his mental construct of the crowd, and they want it to see justice. Or maybe it clicks the other way, and its nothing, just nothing to them. The uncertainty of how it'll click is the big surprise of play.

[Abkajud]

Yeah, pretty much the moment I posted this, I realized that I should leave things wide open.
Granted, it was a sort of street-level socialist mentality that, in part, motivated me to devise the setting material, but you're right: there will be all kinds of viewpoints and such going on in this game, and, like I said in my Power 19, I'm curious about what kind of debate or discussion this system will bring out.
I had an image in my head of cruel, oppressive nobles and poor, victimized Untouchables, but, well, I really don't want to make this into Dark Ages: Proletariat or anything.
Yeah, I have no intention of shutting down discourse or anything. I realize that my heart is really with the Aloof (the monks and such) more than anybody else. But I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make one side clearly the "good guys"; it's not really about that. Heck, in large part, I want this game to be about deciding the right way to enact change, whether you're inside or outside the power structure, and how you go about it.
I just don't really like the idea of faceless, mindless Bandits or Rebels getting mowed down by the glorious bushi. I mean, they can get mowed down, and the bushi can be in the right and all, but I suppose what really worries me is making yet another game in which some people Are Just Plain Evil. That's a concept that I want to really play around with in this game, make things ambiguous, and to do that, I definitely can't have the people in power fill that role instead. They're not. Nobody is.
But everybody's a little bit selfish, and I think we can do something with that!

[Vulpinoid]

You can get into a lot of interesting moral dilemmas in this type of setting.

You can simply assume most people want the status quo to remain in place, but why?

How does maintaining the status quo advantage people? We could have plenty of ethical discussion about whether people are inherently selfish, or if there is an inner drive of communal spirits that keeps things in line. And this could even become a theme of the game. My call though is that people are torn between a selfish drive and a fear of the unknown. The average inhabitant of the society can see two pass to progress along if they want to gain power, they can be honourable and maintain the strength of the community while building their own strength; on the other hand they rebel against the society and gain power through illicit means, they will suffer more risks if they do it this way, but the tangible rewards may be greater.

Most people follow the honourable path because it is tried and true, and it has less chance of getting you arrested by the police or imprisoned as a heretic. Most people look at those who have walked the other path as dangerous outsiders. But you raise a good point, if those outsiders start showing that they have strength against the society, then the society shakes to become less reliable as a source of strength. If enough people choose a specific "outside" path to gain power then it will start to become more respectable. Either the status quo will declare war on these heretics, or it will try to absorb their path into the mainmstream.

I'd imagine that if the status quo consideres these people outcasts, the would be considered incredibly dishonourable. But if the status quo absorbs them, they become paragons of virtue for a slightly changed community. This would be a path of growth for communities and civilisations, the kinds of stories that people tell their children, among the other stories about people who have upheld the rules and followed the social order in the more conventional sense.

If people are gaining a direct benefit from having honour (whether this be the favour of the gods, an angelic aura, or something similar), they'll gain a quicker and more guaranteed benefit if they follow the honourable path. They might have to obey more rules, but they'll find it easier to deal with society and they'll have the added bonuses you've decided on.

If people choose to walk outside the path of the society, they'll have to gain power from means other than honour. From this outside path, they might even try to change the rules of society (which will then weaken all of their opponents who rely on the old ways to keep their power base in place).

Societies that remain stagnant die, it's only through these dynamic individuals that societies remain vital. On the other hand, you need an inherent stability in the society, otherwise there is no stability.

Between honour levels and relative power levels, you could also throw in a conflicted scale with selfish desires at one end and communal attitudes on the other. The more selfish a person is, the harder it is for them to work within the confines of a society and act honourably, but they find it easier to do the duirty needs necessary to gain "quick power". The more communal a person is, the more they obey the laws and gain honour, but the slower it is for them to gain "quick power".

Just some ideas to consider...

V

[Vulpinoid]

Sorry, you'd posted some similar thoughts as I was in the middle of my rant.

V