The definition of Imperial Honor

[Ben Ryder]

Can anyone define what is imperial honor?

It get mentioned quite often like it's a magical thing.

Where's mummy? Shes became an Imperial slave and got shipped off to work in the happy mines. Why? Because of Honor! And stuff like that.

So really what is Imperial Honor?

That was just a bit of off the cuff guff to tease folk in to a structured response.

What exactly is the definition of Imperial Honor?

 

[Codger]

First I've heard of it. Maybe someone else knows.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

There's one thing you need to know about unwritten rules...

 

[insanephoton]

To quote the American poet and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons".

 

[Vasious]

If Imperial Honour is anything derived from the Roman concept.

Honour is the flipside of shame

Honour is how other perceive you in meeting your obligations to society, vs being Shamed when you fail to live up to societies expectations.

It can be lost though shameful actions, but it can also be regained though action as well.

Those without honour are thus shunned, lose their connections and favour with their Patrons, and see their clients abandon them for another, hence the propensity to take drastic action to regain ones honour.

Being in charge of ones own fate, being the active agent, rather than the passive object, was a key part of Roman honour

As seen in the Patronage system, a client only stay with their patron as it was mutually beneficial, if it was not the relationship would break down, as they were both expected to be free and active agents, just co-aligned in their objectives.
A client too submissive would be considered shameful, just as a too domineering patron would lose face if their clients deserted them for a better option.


To the Key point of all discussions of Imperial honour in ED

Debt is a loss of the ability to be in control of owns onw destiny, to be less of a person, and thus to have lost honour as it is shameful to be at the whim of others.

Selling ones self into slavery to regain ones honour, does so, as you are taking control of your own destiny, by becoming a salve.
That may sound like a contradiction, but it is about being the one who makes the choice, and accepting the consequence, rather than being the [passive agent acted up.

A Modern example might be the common saying "You cannot fire me, I quit"

Both leave you without a job, but rather than being fired by someone else, the passive object, You quit, you are the active agent.

The other option to preserve one's honours and show they until the end you are in charge of your own fate, is not suitable for age rating o this forum, but I am sure it can be inferred by until the very end.

 

[amigacooke]

Honor is all about u. Honour.

 

[Devari]

Can anyone define what is imperial honor?

It's really rather similar to the sense of "honor" for Samurai in feudal Japan. It's a rigid set of "principles" which is not really related to our modern sense of honor because you could be a really terrible person but still be "honorable" by those specific standards. For example, being defeated or failing your liege lord was "dishonor" to a Samurai and yet they could slaughter peasants for disrespecting them without necessarily losing "honor" despite this being something we would certainly not consider honorable by modern standards. Although Samurai are probably not the best example to use here as the Westernized "romatization" of Samurai is quite prevalent (such as in movies like The Last Samurai) which tended to be completely inaccurate historically and often depict Samurai as "enlightended" monks or some similar nonsense. At the same time, there were also Samurai like Miyamoto Musashi who were true masters of their art and also managed to combine a very balanced philosophical viewpoint and those Samurai had a far more developed worldview that went beyond the rigid notion of "honor". The Book of Five Rings by Mushashi is an excellent example of the epitome of what a Samurai could achieve by looking beyond this rigid code of "honor". Musashi really rejected much of the politics and rigid structure that were used to train Samurai at that time because he was literally so good at his art that he could develop his own style and structure. The Book of Family Traditions on the Art of War by Yagyu Munenori is another example of a Samurai who developed a very balanced philosophical view. They were exceptional examples that were not necessary typical of Samurai of that era but were good examples of what could be achieved by looking beyond the rigid notion of "honor".

So if you stop thinking of it the way we currently view "honor" it will make much more sense. To an Imperial citizen the notion of living with an unpaid debt is intolerable, but mostly due to the embarrassment and social consequences. They don't particularly care about the impact of that debt being unpaid, and it may even be a debt to a tremendously wealthy individual who could really care less if the debt is ever even paid off. It's the idea of having a debt that the rest of Imperial society knows that you can't pay that is intolerable to them. Taking steps to address this, such as selling yourself into slavery, is seen as an "honorable" way to deal with your situation. A similar example using the Samurai notion of honor is when Mushashi defeated another samurai using only a wooden sword (he was just that good) and the Samurai was so ashamed that he was defeated in such a manner that he cut off his own topknot to reflect his dishonor (the loss of a Samurai's topknot reflects tremendous dishonor). The Samurai who was defeated had to do something to reflect his "acceptance" of this dishonor and he voluntarily chose to do this, in much the same way an Imperial citizen might sell himself into slavery to publically "accept" the loss of honor associated with an unpaid debt.

 

[the100thmonkey]

The definition is here.

 

[Julio Montega]

If Imperial Honour is anything derived from the Roman concept.

Honour is the flipside of shame

Honour is how other perceive you in meeting your obligations to society, vs being Shamed when you fail to live up to societies expectations.

It can be lost though shameful actions, but it can also be regained though action as well.

Those without honour are thus shunned, lose their connections and favour with their Patrons, and see their clients abandon them for another, hence the propensity to take drastic action to regain ones honour.

Being in charge of ones own fate, being the active agent, rather than the passive object, was a key part of Roman honour

As seen in the Patronage system, a client only stay with their patron as it was mutually beneficial, if it was not the relationship would break down, as they were both expected to be free and active agents, just co-aligned in their objectives.
A client too submissive would be considered shameful, just as a too domineering patron would lose face if their clients deserted them for a better option.


To the Key point of all discussions of Imperial honour in ED

Debt is a loss of the ability to be in control of owns onw destiny, to be less of a person, and thus to have lost honour as it is shameful to be at the whim of others.

Selling ones self into slavery to regain ones honour, does so, as you are taking control of your own destiny, by becoming a salve.
That may sound like a contradiction, but it is about being the one who makes the choice, and accepting the consequence, rather than being the [passive agent acted up.

A Modern example might be the common saying "You cannot fire me, I quit"

Both leave you without a job, but rather than being fired by someone else, the passive object, You quit, you are the active agent.

The other option to preserve one's honours and show they until the end you are in charge of your own fate, is not suitable for age rating o this forum, but I am sure it can be inferred by until the very end.

A very well written explanation.
Let me add that this is theory however,
in practical environments honor is a shifting
idea of humans.

To me honor is an idea that is interesting,
but like honesty, rather limiting your ability
to decide for something else.

 

[Kazacy]

Good question OP, i am really sorry i cannot rep you for this one.
In my humble opinion honor and slavery are totally incompatible. And tell me more about the "honorable" man who sell slaves (mothers, fathers etc). And i don't even want to start about the "honor" of the rulers, after all in an empire they can abolish the slavery anytime, but they choose not to, because of course credits, the holly credits.

 

[edgar]

<snip>

<snip>

Two excellent responses.

Another key concept that helps to inform the setting is "Noblesse oblige"

The Empire is structured as a patronage similar to Rome - having a read about these real world historical concepts will help you understand the basis of the fictional Imperial setting

Of course Elite Dangerous is a dystopian setting, so the value structures of the Empire are readily shown to be essentially just as fallible and disfunctional as the obstensive values of the Federation, the Alliance, independents, etc. etc., are.

 

[Sentenza]

I am quite amused by the fact that the Empire pretends to follow Roman traditions only when they feel like it. Debt slavery, even in the voluntary form, was abolished early in the Roman Republic precisely because they were aware of what was actually happening. They held the principle that a Roman Citizen was sacred and could not be subjected to someone else's will, and slavery no matter how "voluntary" opened a giant hole in that principle. Once citizens can sell themselves into slavery, it's all too easy to push the poor to go broke and force them to become slaves.

 

[edgar]

I am quite amused by the fact that the Empire pretends to follow Roman traditions only when they feel like it. Debt slavery, even in the voluntary form, was abolished early in the Roman Republic precisely because they were aware of what was actually happening. They held the principle that a Roman Citizen was sacred and could not be subjected to someone else's will, and slavery no matter how "voluntary" opened a giant hole in that principle. Once citizens can sell themselves into slavery, it's all too easy to push the poor to go broke and force them to become slaves.

:shrug: it's a irl historical source that is the inspiration for the flavour of the setting... what's the problem? Do you think that fictional universes should only portray sanitised and safe "approved by 21st century westerners" ideologies?

Like, many people seem to think the the Federation is supposed to reflect contemporary USA government and politics.. and yet in the US peonage (involuntary servitude to pay off old debts or to pay taxes) was only abolished in 1966... I find that pretty amusing myself [big grin]

EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't find the actual irl peonage amusing!

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Honor in ED is just a way to make slavery lock nicer and help players to ignore what they are doing by trading slaves.

I remember that Patreus once forced most of the population of a system into the "happy, free will, honorable" imperial slavery after that system wasn't able to pay back debts after Patreus unilaterally increased the rates…

 

[Vasious]

Honor in ED is just a way to make slavery lock nicer and help players to ignore what they are doing by trading slaves.

I remember that Patreus once forced most of the population of a system into the "happy, free will, honorable" imperial slavery after that system wasn't able to pay back debts after Patreus unilaterally increased the rates…

You are right, that was just enslavement in the regular sense, as the citizens of the system were neither Imperial, nor liable to Patreus for the government spending.

I think Patreus' game was to commission Priavteers to hassle small systems, sell them the weapons they then feel they need, over charge them and have serice contracts in their.
force them to default, remove support for the weaposn so they cant maintain them, then invade and enslave the populace to pay for the invasion.

The Profits for which means his Cleints pay no tax, so no one asks

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I am quite amused by the fact that the Empire pretends to follow Roman traditions only when they feel like it. Debt slavery, even in the voluntary form, was abolished early in the Roman Republic precisely because they were aware of what was actually happening. They held the principle that a Roman Citizen was sacred and could not be subjected to someone else's will, and slavery no matter how "voluntary" opened a giant hole in that principle. Once citizens can sell themselves into slavery, it's all too easy to push the poor to go broke and force them to become slaves.

Reforms like that of the Grachii Brother, to get the poor out of the cycle of debt and slavery, was the inspiration for the "Lore" behind the Player Faction I belong to.
Acknowledging that the system is rotten and trying to avoid the need for the debt slavery to begin with.

 

[Sapyx]

It seems to me, from reading the various documents on the political and cultural structure of the Empire, that "honour" has a lot to do with living up to public expectations, and fulfilling your promises. If you, as an Imperial citizen, promise to do something and find yourself unable to do it, you have lost honour - you've let down your family, your patron, your clients (if you have any), the Empire as a whole. Incurring a debt you fail to pay off is just one way of losing honour, though it is the main course of dishonour for which Imperial Slavery is the expected recourse.

I would imagine, for instance, that divorce is dishonourable in the Empire - you've promised to marry and stay married to someone, and you find you have to break that promise. Yet an Imperial divorcee would not feel obliged to sell themselves into slavery - they'd merely have to stay single for the rest of their lives, since no honourable person would willingly choose to marry someone who had already proved themselves dishonourable in marriage.

This whole concept of honour is entirely self-imposed, from the point of view of the citizen declaring themselves dishonourable, rather than a top-down judgement of dishonour from your superiors. But I would imagine that the concept is thoroughly integrated into Imperial cultural propaganda, entertainment and education, so one can debate exactly how "voluntary" the acts taken to alleviate dishonour are, when the citizenry has been bombarded with these concepts of honour from birth.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

As a proud independent, Imperial Honor means payment in full, as promised. Imperial Honor means valid credit vouchers that clear in a timely manner.
Beyond that, I'm sure it has some special meaning among Imperials, but that is not my concern.

 

[Mysturji]

It's a background story thing.
The ancient Romans had a very different concept of "honour" than we do today, as did the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Babylonians.
Japanese "honour" is alien to us.
So is Klingon honour.
So are "honour killings" (seriously: What honour is there in murder?)

ED is fiction, taking concepts from here and there. The Imps seem to think that submitting to slavery (under certain circumstances) is "the honourable thing to do".

 

[Sentenza]

It is the specific slavery thing that does not fit in the concept. Many real cultures had the honour concept, and the answer to losing it is usually the same for all: honourable suicide. There is a reason for that - it is not exploitable. You can push someone into debt if you are rich and they aren't, but then you end up with corpses. And dead people are noticed, if you end up with a lot of dead people due to your actions, it might tarnish your reputation. But slavery creates an easy exploit, just raise rents, people can't pay, free slaves! And it will not be noticed, even if some of your peers with strict moral integrity might privately raise an eyebrow. See the Patreus manoeuver.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

It is the specific slavery thing that does not fit in the concept. Many real cultures had the honour concept, and the answer to losing it is usually the same for all: honourable suicide. There is a reason for that - it is not exploitable. You can push someone into debt if you are rich and they aren't, but then you end up with corpses. And dead people are noticed, if you end up with a lot of dead people due to your actions, it might tarnish your reputation. But slavery creates an easy exploit, just raise rents, people can't pay, free slaves! And it will not be noticed, even if some of your peers with strict moral integrity might privately raise an eyebrow. See the Patreus manoeuver.

I suspect there is quite a bit more involved than just a matter of hiking rents - this very sort of action may itself be considered a dishonorable practice as well.

The question of what defines honor is any given society can vary greatly. The code of honor followed by the ancient Samurai (Bushido) was quite different than that upheld by European Knights (Chivalry), though there were some similarities. Likewise, the code of honor followed by Kingons differs from both of these in many ways - though throughout all of them there are generally some shared concepts - keeping one's word, honoring promises, fealty being the most commonly shared values.

We can surmise that the code of honor practices by The Empire to be likely similar to these in many ways, though likely to include a number of distinct and unique elements as well.