Code of Honor: what does "circumstances must be equal" mean?

[Michael Thayne]

Code of Honor (Gentleman's)—which Code of Honor (Bushido) and Code of Honor (Chivalry) include—says "weapons and circumstances must be equal". "Weapons must be equal" is clear enough, but what does "circumstances" mean in this context? Does it include the number of people on each side, such that if a group of 20 knights has a run-in with a group of 10 knights from an enemy kingdom, half of the larger force has to hang back? Does it prevent using terrain to your advantage? What?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Code of Honor (Gentleman's)—which Code of Honor (Bushido) and Code of Honor (Chivalry) include—says "weapons and circumstances must be equal". "Weapons must be equal" is clear enough, but what does "circumstances" mean in this context? Does it include the number of people on each side, such that if a group of 20 knights has a run-in with a group of 10 knights from an enemy kingdom, half of the larger force has to hang back? Does it prevent using terrain to your advantage? What?

Generally, yes - numbers would normally have to be equal and setting up on different terrain than the op force without their permission is clearly unfair. In cases where there's some unavoidable difference you should probably ask the honorable foes which position they would like. Announce you are here for an honorable fight, and negotiate - any conditions you both freely choose to accept as an honorable match would be fine. Note that historic honor codes normally only applied between your social equals who also accepted them. The GURPS versions that apply more broadly are worth a lot of points because they do force you to throw away obvious tactical advantages, even against opponents that won't return the favor. Don't take one of these disadvantages if you want to play a tactically smart warrior.

[Black Leviathan]

It's based on your perception of the idea of a fair fight. Maybe you value magic above swords so any foe that can't wield magic isn't your equal in combat. Maybe it means equal numbers. Maybe you have an expectation of yourself to ask about their training to ensure you are peers in ability. It would probably almost certainly not allow an ambush or underhanded tactics. What it ultimately mean is that you won't tolerate a situation where you have an obvious advantage and would try to negotiate a more fair fight if it was present. While you will fight someone who has an unfair advantage you'd object, and if they lived you'd likely consider them beneath your honor.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Generally, yes - numbers would normally have to be equal and setting up on different terrain than the op force without their permission is clearly unfair. In cases where there's some unavoidable difference you should probably ask the honorable foes which position they would like. Announce you are here for an honorable fight, and negotiate - any conditions you both freely choose to accept as an honorable match would be fine. Note that historic honor codes normally only applied between your social equals who also accepted them. The GURPS versions that apply more broadly are worth a lot of points because they do force you to throw away obvious tactical advantages, even against opponents that won't return the favor. Don't take one of these disadvantages if you want to play a tactically smart warrior.

All this seems like a plausible reading of the text, but man it's awfully restrictive, indeed more restrictive than any Code of Honor in mainline GURPS. The "fairness clause" of the original CoH (Gentleman's) doesn't apply in open war, and even CoH (Chivalry) only applies it "if the foe is also noble and chivalrous". But in DF even the -10 point version applies among all "civilized folk". I guess in DFRPG the default assumption is that the vast majority of your enemies aren't "civilized" in the relevant sense. But it raises a lot of questions about what war in the DFRPG universe looks like—sure real medieval knights sometimes settled disputes by single combat (or even 15 vs. 15 combat), but the practice was hardly used to resolve every dispute.

[Rolando]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

All this seems like a plausible reading of the text, but man it's awfully restrictive, indeed more restrictive than any Code of Honor in mainline GURPS. The "fairness clause" of the original CoH (Gentleman's) doesn't apply in open war, and even CoH (Chivalry) only applies it "if the foe is also noble and chivalrous". But in DF even the -10 point version applies among all "civilized folk". I guess in DFRPG the default assumption is that the vast majority of your enemies aren't "civilized" in the relevant sense. But it raises a lot of questions about what war in the DFRPG universe looks like—sure real medieval knights sometimes settled disputes by single combat (or even 15 vs. 15 combat), but the practice was hardly used to resolve every dispute.

You may assume in your Dungeon Fantasy campaign all civilized folks are honorable and wars are mostly fought between honorable commanders and allow for lulls to recover the wounded and don't pursue on an enemy retreat, treat prisoners with dignity and some compassion, etc.

if the key is "civilized", then "civilized" means honorable for game world purposes.

Then you get the actual characters, in most RPG's and fantasy worlds not all knights are honorable, same with the nobles and not all civilized people act civilized all the time, that is why the CoH is a disadvantage, because some people, even civilized ones, will take advantage of it.

[SQRadio]

I would say the rival must be as free of restrictions as you are.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by SQRadio

I would say the rival must be as free of restrictions as you are.

Honor codes historically vary a lot, but it often helps to remember what they exist for. The basic point is to prevent fights, and if you do have them to confine the damage to the participants(hence all the talk about protecting bystanders/civilians/the innocent), minimize the damage to them (hence rules about surrendering and treatment of prisoners), and limit the cycle of revenge (hence rules against unforgivable atrocities).

That "prevent fights" part is quite important. Codes of Honor mostly limit the attacker - if you're on the tactical defensive, it's generally honorable enough to stand behind a wall and not to drop your superior weapons, as long as you don't keep them should you choose to change roles and chase the foe when they run away in defeat. They're really limiting to DF characters mostly because they are usually doing the attacking.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Code of Honor (Gentleman's)—which Code of Honor (Bushido) and Code of Honor (Chivalry) include—says "weapons and circumstances must be equal".

There's a long tradition of playing games with definitions of honorable, so come up with something restrictive enough to be worth the listed points.