I think you're use a more "eastern" definition of honor; the traditionally "western" concept of honor is separate to what the public perceives. I'm not saying one's right and the other isn't, or that one definition is more correct than the other; there's definitely space for both. I only point it out because someone's definition of "an honorable barbarian" might involve internal ("western") honor, while someone else's might be external ("eastern") honor. A knight who's been publicly shamed for a horrendous crime he didn't commit, who is reviled by all his country, denounced by his king, and living in squalor would still be considered "honorable" if he keeps to his code, while one who managed to get away with regicide without getting caught has certainly dishonored himself. What you're describing as "honor" is usually called "face" (as in "saving face"), and is definitely an external thing, based on public perception. A wealthy family might hide their illegal business not out of fear of punishment, but because it would be seen as "dishonorable", so they launder their money through legal businesses to save face. Even if everybody knows what they're really up to, as long as they can keep up appearances and have a reasonable justification for their income, they'll maintain their "honor" in society. They're really two different concepts, one more tied to alignment than the other ("western" honor is often associated with LG alignments, although certainly not exclusive to them, while "eastern" honor would be more like a separate "stat" to track), but neither actually defined by any alignment.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing or correcting you, just digging deeper into the concepts you bring up. (Also, "western"/"eastern" might be offensive to some... if so, my apologies; I'm drawing more on classic stereotypes than any actual knowledge of world cultures and history!)
Guilty as charged - I'm thinking of some of the fictional Western stereotypes of Eastern cultures - so I might be guilty of cultural bias or glib and facile summations of complex social aspects. I apologize if that's the case ( and I'd love to hear more complete explanations! ).
I think you're correct, that in Western cultures morality and honor get conflated: someone can believe they are honorable, or believe their moral - and I suspect they mean much the same thing. One can be a rugged individualist ( Chaotic, believing the moral authority is internal ) and moral/honorably by their own beliefs, or Lawfully accept the societal norms and adhere them morally/honorably.
I think that "saving face" is a related but separate facet of morality and society. It's the adaptation of a "polite fiction" by others which has some level of plausibility ( although it doesn't have to be much ) in order to avoid a moral confrontation. I don't think this is unique to any culture - as you see this being rather aggressively pushed in modern Western democratic politics ( by all sorts of people! Not picking one any one facet or political ideology in the West ). Personally, I think it smacks of moral cowardice, adhering to a convenient fiction, rather than acting on the moral code - but that's my opinion.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Convoluted, yes. But it does bring up some valid points for the OP to consider. How exactly does the character define honor? What does the character consider dishonorable? Is it something that hinges more on inward or outward perception? I don't think that either perception would really limit the type of alignment the character could be. An outward perceiving honor abiding character could be someone who is very proficient with deception in an effort to maintain appearances but be very chaotic evil. The twin could be someone who adheres to the laws of the land and tries to help everyone out to avoid the need for deception. Someone with an inward perception just requires some kind of code that they live by, whether that code comes from society or from within, and that code could be something that benefits society in general or only themselves. It sounds like honor might be better presented in the personality choices (a bond or ideal, perhaps a flaw) than worrying about the specific alignment.
And it gets even more interesting when you realize that nothing we're discussion here about morality or honor, is specific to RPGs - it's just as applicable to real life.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think you're use a more "eastern" definition of honor; the traditionally "western" concept of honor is separate to what the public perceives. I'm not saying one's right and the other isn't, or that one definition is more correct than the other; there's definitely space for both. I only point it out because someone's definition of "an honorable barbarian" might involve internal ("western") honor, while someone else's might be external ("eastern") honor. A knight who's been publicly shamed for a horrendous crime he didn't commit, who is reviled by all his country, denounced by his king, and living in squalor would still be considered "honorable" if he keeps to his code, while one who managed to get away with regicide without getting caught has certainly dishonored himself. What you're describing as "honor" is usually called "face" (as in "saving face"), and is definitely an external thing, based on public perception. A wealthy family might hide their illegal business not out of fear of punishment, but because it would be seen as "dishonorable", so they launder their money through legal businesses to save face. Even if everybody knows what they're really up to, as long as they can keep up appearances and have a reasonable justification for their income, they'll maintain their "honor" in society. They're really two different concepts, one more tied to alignment than the other ("western" honor is often associated with LG alignments, although certainly not exclusive to them, while "eastern" honor would be more like a separate "stat" to track), but neither actually defined by any alignment.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing or correcting you, just digging deeper into the concepts you bring up. (Also, "western"/"eastern" might be offensive to some... if so, my apologies; I'm drawing more on classic stereotypes than any actual knowledge of world cultures and history!)
Guilty as charged - I'm thinking of some of the fictional Western stereotypes of Eastern cultures - so I might be guilty of cultural bias or glib and facile summations of complex social aspects. I apologize if that's the case ( and I'd love to hear more complete explanations! ).
I think you're correct, that in Western cultures morality and honor get conflated: someone can believe they are honorable, or believe their moral - and I suspect they mean much the same thing. One can be a rugged individualist ( Chaotic, believing the moral authority is internal ) and moral/honorably by their own beliefs, or Lawfully accept the societal norms and adhere them morally/honorably.
I think that "saving face" is a related but separate facet of morality and society. It's the adaptation of a "polite fiction" by others which has some level of plausibility ( although it doesn't have to be much ) in order to avoid a moral confrontation. I don't think this is unique to any culture - as you see this being rather aggressively pushed in modern Western democratic politics ( by all sorts of people! Not picking one any one facet or political ideology in the West ). Personally, I think it smacks of moral cowardice, adhering to a convenient fiction, rather than acting on the moral code - but that's my opinion.
This is getting convoluted!
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Convoluted, yes. But it does bring up some valid points for the OP to consider. How exactly does the character define honor? What does the character consider dishonorable? Is it something that hinges more on inward or outward perception? I don't think that either perception would really limit the type of alignment the character could be. An outward perceiving honor abiding character could be someone who is very proficient with deception in an effort to maintain appearances but be very chaotic evil. The twin could be someone who adheres to the laws of the land and tries to help everyone out to avoid the need for deception. Someone with an inward perception just requires some kind of code that they live by, whether that code comes from society or from within, and that code could be something that benefits society in general or only themselves. It sounds like honor might be better presented in the personality choices (a bond or ideal, perhaps a flaw) than worrying about the specific alignment.
And it gets even more interesting when you realize that nothing we're discussion here about morality or honor, is specific to RPGs - it's just as applicable to real life.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
As is so often the case- Art imitates Life, Life imitates Art.