History Main / HonorIsFairPlay

The latest iteration of "honor" in Western countries is a weird hybrid system, which got influenced first by Christianity and later by Humanist values. In the classic sense of "honor", pity and mercy were synonymous with weakness. Butchering enemy women and children wasn't considered dishonorable. On the contrary, since at the time it was considered self-evident that women and children had no independent existence outside of their relationship to a man, their suffering (indeed their whole being) was considered important only in so far as it reflected on the ''man's'' honor. In wars between Native American tribes in North America, for example, killing a woman or child from an enemy tribe and taking their scalp was especially honored, as it showed one's bravery in having entered the very heart of enemy territory (where their families were kept). Raping a girl or woman was considered wrong not because of the trauma it inflicted on the actual victim, but because it dishonored the ''man'' who was supposed to have exclusive custodianship over her body (her husband, father, etc.) Killing or enslaving a man's family showed how weak he was and therefore how much stronger and better you were than him. If leniency was ever shown, it was never out of compassion but rather was either a gesture of respect towards the defeated man (if you felt he had acted honorably), or an indicator that you considered them so far beneath you that they weren't worth killing.

The origins of "Honor" probably come from nomadic or tribal societies, where there is no system that can be relied on to protect one's life or property, which are constantly at risk. There are no police, no courts of justice, and no written law. The only thing governing people's behavior was "custom", and therefore one's reputation in the wider community was paramount, and the surest safeguard for oneself and family was having a fearsome reputation.

The latest iteration of "honor" in Western countries is a weird hybrid system, which got influenced first by Christianity and later by Humanist values. In the classic sense of "honor", pity and mercy were synonymous with weakness. Butchering enemy women and children wasn't considered dishonorable. On the contrary, since at the time it was considered self-evident that women and children had no independent existence outside of their relationship with a man, their suffering (indeed their whole being) was considered important only in so far as it reflected on the ''man's'' honor. In wars between Native American tribes in North America, for example, killing a woman or child from an enemy tribe and taking their scalp was especially honored, as it showed one's bravery in having entered the very heart of enemy territory (where their families were kept). Raping a girl or woman was considered wrong not because of the trauma it inflicted on the actual victim, but because it dishonored the ''man'' who was supposed to have exclusive custodianship over her body (her husband, father, etc.) Killing or enslaving a man's family showed how weak he was and therefore how much stronger and better you were than him. If leniency was ever shown, it was never out of compassion but rather was either a gesture of respect towards the defeated man (if you felt he had acted honorably), or an indicator that you considered them so far beneath you that they weren't worth killing.

** Khorne zigzags this: on the one hand, any blood spilled in battle is his, be it from enemies, allies, yourself, or defenseless civilians. On the other hand, his throne sits upon a MountainOfSkulls taken from warriors- again, yours or your enemies, but ''not'' defenseless enemies. Decapitating an entire orphanage or hospital ward and claiming their skulls as trophies is a surefire way to get his hellhounds after you.

While this can be true in fiction, this isn't actually true in our world. Actual RealLife Honor, as it was understood in antiquity and heading into the Middle Ages, was more like what we'd now call "street cred." Honor and dishonor wasn't the difference between "fair" and "unfair" - it was the difference between "strong" and "weak." It was much less about chivalry and honesty and a whole lot about reputation and face. The point wasn't that you played fair; the point was that if anyone dared cross you, you'd kick their face in.

There was a very strong component of MightMakesRight; if someone called you a liar, you challenged them to a duel, and if they died, it meant that you were right, even if everyone ''knew'' that you were a liar. The DoubleStandard and MoralMyopia were stark and unashamed; a CycleOfRevenge was considered the natural and normal state of affairs. As the idea of "nobility" developed, honor became more exclusive, and noblemen were considered the only ones who could truly have "honor," and only between such men could questions of honor exist. If a nobleman felt a peasant or slave had impinged his honor, he'd simply kill him on the spot, and probably have him tortured first (including the rest of his family).

The origins of "Honor" probably come from nomadic or tribal societies, where there is no system that can be relied on to protect one's life or property, and both are constantly at risk. There are no police, no courts of justice, and no written law. The only thing governing people's behavior was "custom", and therefore one's reputation in the wider community was paramount, and the surest safeguard for oneself and family was having a fearsome reputation.

The latest iteration of "honor" in Western countries is a weird hybrid system, which got influenced first by Christianity and later by Humanist values. In the classic sense of "honor", pity and mercy were synonymous with weakness. Butchering enemy women and children wasn't considered dishonorable. On the contrary, since at the time it was considered self-evident that women and children had no independent existence outside of their relationship with a man, their suffering (indeed their whole being) was considered important only in so far as it reflected on the ''man's'' honor. Raping a girl or woman was considered wrong not because of the trauma it inflicted on the actual victim, but because it dishonored the ''man'' who was supposed to have exclusive custodianship over her body (her husband, father, etc.) Killing or enslaving a man's family showed how weak he was and therefore how much stronger and better you were than him. If leniency was ever shown, it was never out of compassion but rather was either a gesture of respect towards the defeated man (if you felt he had acted honorably), or an indicator that you considered them so far beneath you that they weren't worth killing. In wars between Native American tribes in North America, for example, killing a woman or child from an enemy tribe and taking their scalp was especially honored, as it showed one's bravery in having entered the very heart of enemy territory (where their families were kept).

The origins of "Honor" probably come from nomadic or tribal societies, where there is no system that can be relied on to protect one's life or property, which are both constantly at risk. There are no police, no courts of justice, and no written law. The only thing governing people's behavior was "custom", and therefore one's reputation in the wider community was paramount, and the surest safeguard for oneself and family was having a fearsome reputation.