[Sca-cooks] RE: Chivalry and Supporting your Local Monarch

[Michael Gunter]

>I disagree.  "there are times when a Man of Honor can not blindly follow 
>orders".
>
>the hand that gives the orders is guilty of the thought<still a sin>, the 
>hand that committed,carries more guilt, for not only did he knowingly 
>commit the act, but He was aware of the Sin of the act<so the do-er is 
>twice guilty>.
>
>my opinion.

Actually, the correct term would be a Man of Principle, not of honor.
I know, it's weird when you start getting into all the niceties. The
best way to explain it would be that the man of honor would be
bound by his oath of fealty to carry out the commands. Now,
his principles could override his honor and have him break his oath.
But oathbreaking was a serious offence. He may have personal honor
which overrides his fealty but it is still an oathbreaking and he would
be considered to have sacrificed his honor.  It may be somewhat
similar to the concept that a traitor is never fully trusted, even if
that traitor turns away from a tyrant.

A principled man who broke his fealty would have to do a lot
of making up in order to regain his honor in the eyes of the
society in which this person exists. As I said, chivalry were basically
laws. To follow these laws was to be considered "honorable",
which was a good thing. To go against them was dishonorable.

Sometimes principles had to go against the code but that was
a personal choice.  Just as sometimes someone might have to
break the law for a personal principle, you still have broken the
law.

Gunthar
I prefer to be a principled person myself.