Okay, here is my take on honour:
Honour is whatever an individual thinks it is. Each person has it, though often to so small a degree that it doesn't seem to exist to an outside point of view. Basically its a code you feel you live by and will stand by even to the point of suffering for it.
Honour is affected by the peer group you belong to as well, as you take on the belief system of the group. So it is feasible for a large number of people to have similar honour but it can never be totally the same because each person is unique in their view of it based on their lifes experiences.
Humakti honour is even harder to quantify. They are not Knights of Chivalry. They are warriors of Death. The Truth Rune is _Secondary_ to the Death Rune for with truth or without truth, Humakt is still Death. However the fact that it is there and the events of Humakts past do have an impact on the Death rune and therefore on his worshippers. Whatever the actual motivation behind an individual Humakti's honour belief, they are peculiar when compared to almost every other part of Orlanthi society.
Onslaughts Honour:
This is an example of a Swords honour IMO. This is how he "rates" it in order
of priority:
(1). Duty to his God. First an foremost is the duty to Death, to excell at bringing it and to deliver death without stinting to those who deserve it (ie everyone) in the name of Humakt.
(2). Duty to himself. Second is his duty to maintain himself as a weapon for the deliverance of death. In addition he has a duty to pursue perfection till he becomes Humakts Sword itself (an ideal never to be reached but one always to chase).
(3). Duty to other Humakti. To obey the Code, to give a good death to his fellows and to aid them in any way to further death amongst others.
(4) Duty to Employee. To obey orders as long as they don't get in the way of 1,2 or 3 unless oathbound in which case duty 3 may be superceeded but he would rather die than break duty 1 or 2.
(5). Duty to the world around him. He sees this duty as being the proselytising part of his faith. Just as Grandfather mortal was given the gift of Death, so to should the ordinary people be exposed to it. Humakt shows that death through battle is the purest form, bereft of the indignity of old age and the impurity of disease. To give a worthy foe Death through battle is a high act of honour and reflects doubly on the weilder of that Death.
David Dunham mentioned how dishonourable Onslaught was for killing the 5 men when he only came to kill 1. This is true in one way but not the other. To an Orlanthi viewing the massacre it would be a great act of dishonour to kill in such a manner when not on a raid or in a formal duel/fued etc. To Onslaught, the men attacked him, therefore he would be showing them a great _dishonour_ by not fighting and killing them. They showed their willingness to seek death, he was duty bound to give them it!
If the young Sword whose father died found him and complained Onslaught would have no hesitation in saying "Your father sought Death with pride and dignity defending his liege lord. You cheapen his name and his Death by cheapening the hand that killed him. If you come to fight, then fight but do not whine at me with your petty stories of woe!" At which point a fight would develope and either Onslaught or the young Sword would win according to their skill at Death.
An additional point to remember when considering the ease with which Onslaught will kill others is the value he places on his own life: None. He only values his ability to bring death. He would not understand or care about anyone elses view on this. He values his own life so little how can he be expected to care about others?
Peter Metcalfe is skeptical over my expressions of scepticism about his feelings of skepticism on his view of the Esrolian military.
All I can say to that is "I'm right and your wrong so there!"
With that telling point of intellect and analysis delivered my arguments on this issue rests.
Martial Arts and Size:
Aden made some good points and I can vouch for his accuracy from fencing Sabre, Foil and Epee with many smaller people. I'm 6'2" and height really does have a tremendous impact on any form of weapon use. This goes for knife fighting too. The amount of times I've scored hits through staying out of an opponents range and then hitting them because they were in mine is incalculable.
The same applies to hand to hand as well. The jab and the cross are definately more effective with a reach advantage. The hook and the uppercut are more effective for the shorter person due to the greater torque they can achieve as they swing in without the loss of accuracy a tall person has with all those arms and legs to get in the way.
BTW Aden was right, the French Foreign Legion was never noted for running, quite the opposite. Remember Camerone!
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail