[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

If following the code her society her actions are as constrained as man's, just in other ways.

But her code isn’t going to get her killed the way that a Gentleman’s Code quite easily can. That’s easily enough to distinguish between a 5 and a 10 point CoH.

[Phil Masters]

Incidentally, there’s a minor contradiction in the Basic Set discussion of the disadvantage. The preliminary note says that a Code of Honor must require “dangerous — if not reckless — behaviour” — but the examples include a Professional code such as the Hippicratic Oath, which isn’t generally dangerous to obey.

Frankly, I think that the prefatory note needs a rewrite; it’s quite hard to relate it to many of the Codes that have been published, or their values.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

But her code isn’t going to get her killed the way that a Gentleman’s Code quite easily can. That’s easily enough to distinguish between a 5 and a 10 point CoH.

Unlike a Gentleman's Code, however, it also precludes almost all typical PC shenanigans, rather than just a subset of dishonourable, but practical actions.

I'd say that the much more limited scope of action which would be permissable under the Gentlewoman's Code is easily enough to justify the same price as the more dangerous, but also more permissive of proactive action, Gentleman's Code.

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

“Gentlewoman’s” isn’t defined at all, actually; it’s merely listed on Elizabeth Bennet’s character sheet. As it’s valued at -10 points, I assume that the idea is that it’s the Gentleman’s Code, but as Lizzie is a lady, not a gentleman, it would be impolite not to correct the semantic gender.

However, I think this raises an issue. Of course Lizzie shares the values of her class, the Georgian gentry, and as she presents as a good person by that class’s standards, she’s as “honourable” as her male counterparts. But, this being a very gendered society and class, her Honour isn’t likely to get her into any duels or other armed conflicts; at most, she’ll carefully hand serious issues off to her male relatives to resolve by all honourable means. So I’d dispute that she has a -10 point Code. At most, it’s a -5 pointer; “Keep your word and treat all issues of honour seriously”.

Not being able to handle her own issues herself IS the constraint.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

Not being able to handle her own issues herself IS the constraint.

We can even split that down the middle.

"You may not legally own property" is part of the Social Stigma.

"If you are insulted, a male relative must act for you" is part of the Code of Honor. She can pick up a pistol and fight a duel; it would just be social suicide to do so.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Unlike a Gentleman's Code, however, it also precludes almost all typical PC shenanigans, rather than just a subset of dishonourable, but practical actions.

"Cannot be a PC" [in certain types of game; in others, of course, she'd be a great PC] is either a disadvantage of infinite value or a 0-point feature.

Originally Posted by RogerBW

"You may not legally own property" is part of the Social Stigma.

Yep. Lizzie is severely practically disadvantaged, but pretty much all of it comes under Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen). The honor code which she obeys (partly because she'd suffer a massive negative Reputation if she didn't at least pay it lip service) imposes behavioural constraints on her ("pay your debts, keep your word, bring major issues of honour to the attention of male relatives"), but at the -5 point CoH level, not the duels-and-fair-fighting level associated with a -10 point CoH.

[AlexanderHowl]

The social obligation to have children is much more dangerous for a woman than dueling is for a man. I think that maternal mortality was 25:1000 before the modern era, which meant that the average woman had a 12% to 22% chance of dying (assuming 5-10 pregnancies that made it to term).

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The social obligation to have children is much more dangerous for a woman than dueling is for a man. I think that maternal mortality was 25:1000 before the modern era, which meant that the average woman had a 12% to 22% chance of dying (assuming 5-10 pregnancies that made it to term).

Not necessarily part of a gentlewoman's CoH, though; that applies to every woman who isn't celibate, which in itself is probably a disad.

[Ashtagon]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Incidentally, there’s a minor contradiction in the Basic Set discussion of the disadvantage. The preliminary note says that a Code of Honor must require “dangerous — if not reckless — behaviour” — but the examples include a Professional code such as the Hippicratic Oath, which isn’t generally dangerous to obey.

Frankly, I think that the prefatory note needs a rewrite; it’s quite hard to relate it to many of the Codes that have been published, or their values.

Before the Geneva convention it was quite dangerous for a medic to offer aid to enemy soldiers. A court martial would havery been the least they could expect in many areas.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

"Cannot be a PC" [in certain types of game; in others, of course, she'd be a great PC] is either a disadvantage of infinite value or a 0-point feature.

Yet Honesty and the higher grades of Pacifism have point values, despite effectively functioning as 'Cannot be a PC' for games featuring outlaws or people who deliver violence for a living. Their point value is primarily dictated by how much they constrain PCs from what may be practical options, but run against the code of behaviour implicit in the Disadvantages.

I think Codes of Honour ought to be priced by how much they constrain a PC's freedom of action. Whether or not they require dangerous behaviour is really a secondary issue, despite the wording in the Basic Set.