is my code of honor too strict or aggresive?

basic summery
you as a warrior of this code your life is considered worthless in comparison to others you fight bleed kill and die so others don't have to if it became a choice between your life and anothers you sacrifice yourself without hesitation
if someone threatens the lives of the innocent you are required to take them down by any means
necessary not required to listen to (unnecessary or illogical) orders long as you follow code rules
you view yourself as not a living being but as weapon to protect the weak and a form of armor to protect the wounded you are to view yourself as less then machine or animal meant to serve and protect.
"born to kill raised to fight made to die"

rules
1. suicide is the highest dishonor
2. killing of innocents is dishonorable and punished by death(very minor exceptions 3 or more will always be punished by death)
3.being unfaithful to a married partner is heavily dishonorable and punishable by death
4.lying is forbidden unless the lie is said to protect someones life
5.rape is a heavy dishonor punishable by death (3 or more will always be punished by death)
6. betrayal of any kind is an extreme dishonor and brands you a coward and weakling (this includes abandonment or selling out friends or allies)

honors
1. if you sacrifice yourself in the protection of others it is not considered suicide but an honor to die for the sake of another.
2.killing of a guilty person(murderers or multiple time rapists) regardless of societys views you are to be honored as a hero
3.to be asked or trusted with personal questions or information from others its not publicly viewed however still considered an honor
4.to be trusted to the extent that you are the first person that comes to a persons mind when they feel scared or want to be protected.

I don't remember all of it but this is the basic summery of it I may post more info if I remember any more or find the full code

I'm a little iffy about 3&4 under dishonor, the rest are fine.

what makes you iffy on 3 and 4 ?

Well... lying can be justified when you trying not to hurt someones feelings, plus their just convenient sometimes. As for cheating... well there's the seven year itch, and women tend to be stingy with sex; so you might have to cheat a little bit. I mean we all have needs.

I think you should relax a bit on it.

Iffy, lying can be good if done so in the right situation. Cheating, I completely agree with you on. There are some rules I'd like to see added as well. And possibly a few honors on the side

explain? theres a lot of info there so what part are you talking about exactly?

Like others have said about 4, it's a bit too extreme.

I think 6 can work out if you are betraying some douchebag.

3 is also extreme, that's why there are divorces.

notice the bold?
that's exactly the reason why
don't cheat, you don't like someone leave don't keep them on the line using them for money or sex or anything else people use others for just leave
divorce is perfectly legal however toying with someones emotions and bank account is not and never will be protected by any government or law regardless of any circumstances or situation

6. if they were a douchbag why would they be your allie or friend?

Nice one about the money and emotions, although making the problem known is at least better than what your code says.

some rules youd like added? like what?

also what else is there that you consider an honor?

This is well-thought, I thought it was just random things, but you are right. Although I have never been through those situations, so I really can't comment on those.

of course its well thought
its passed down from person to person there are some bits that are written but I have only seen it once nonetheless with the training I received I also swore my life to this

I exist to protect and serve others regardless of any cost to me be it life or limb
its one of the reasons why I want to join the police force its just things I already do just with that I can make it more official.

I would be careful around the police force if I were you. Although it is true about it being legal.

I've had my ears to the streets a long time I maybe young(age 19) but I'm not stupid or careless I'm very well aware of corrupt cops and the occasional softy idiot that might do something stupid that could get us both killed I'm willing to do what it takes for the better of society and some might not have the heart to go through with it like I am

You do know what you're doing from what I read, hope everything turns out well for you. I was skeptical at first, but you do sound like the real deal.

Rules...
1.1 - Not holding your life to more value than that of a tool to be used and disposed of when necessary is a suicidal mindset in itself.
1.2 - Seeking out a conclusion that saves someone in exchange for your life is also a suicidal mindset, you could seek out a solution in which both you and the possible victim survives.
1.3 - Seeking out conflicts that can lead to your death is also a suicidal mindset.

2.1 - To me this collides with Honor #2. Not directly but, you bring harm onto those associated with the perpetrator, everyone has a mother and father after all.
2.2 - In cases such as "war" or other kinds of armed conflicts, with nothing more than the words of those involved, how do you determine innocent and guilty?
2.3 - Do mistakes equate to "guilty" and by extension deserve death?

3.1 - How long is faithfulness supposed to last? I don't know which one your using but I'm going with "death do you part". In that case, if the consensus is that the partner is dead (castaway), then is it unfaithful after the fact?
3.2 - If a person can no longer love another but the other does not want to let go, then where does that fall? Does the establishment of a marriage out weigh the feelings and desires of a partner, even if it goes as far as hurting another.
3.3 - The most extreme (I can think of atm) - If a person is in a marriage that became abusive, but lack the will power to do anymore than run away, do they have to give up on love because they are married?

4.1 - Problem of opinion. A lot of people lie because they believe it is within the best interest of others, but is often their own warped perception of "good".
4.2 - Lying to protect others is good as long as it helps at least "one" person right? What if the lie hurts one or more people in exchange for that one?

5.1 - I think rape is really bad so I don't have much to say about this one, the killing of though... Refer to "Honor 2.1".

6.1 - What if those "still friends/allies" plan on hurting others? Betraying their trust in you not to tell or stop them puts you where? Not doing anything is the same as contributing to their deaths, making you one who also hurts the victim (who may be innocent).
6.2 - Lying (4) conflicts with this one, lying can be seen as a betrayal no matter the reason.
6.3 - What if you are asked not to die? By dying you betray that persons expectations and desires of you, no matter the reason.

Honor...
1.1 - If you die attempting to protect someone, how do you know that the danger subsided with your death? By living you may continue to protect till the danger has subsided, but by dying you can no longer protect the victim who may still be in danger, ending up hurt or worst, in the end you would fail to protect them and have killed yourself unnecessarily.
1.2 - Dying for others brings upon them, the ones who hold them dear, and the ones who hold you dear, pain. For the rest of their life they, the "almost victim", will carry the burden of your life, their family will carry the burden of not being able to protect while having someone unassociated die in their place, and your family will carry with it that they lost you when it was not necessary for you to die. In this way, you bring upon other people harm, though I haven't caught your opinion on emotional harm yet so I don't know if this is acceptable for you or not.

2.1 - How do you verify rather the person is "guilty"? If given false information or believing that the amount of information you have is enough you go out and kill a "guilty" to find out they were innocent afterwards... Then what? Is the possibility of error out weighed by the honor of a kill?
2.2 - By living in a society, you agree to live by the laws established by said society, going against them is a type of betrayal.

3.1 - I agree.

4.1 - Agree again.

Personal opinion, I think their is merit in personal codes, mine being "never cause (excessively) unnecessary pain for others" (since I have a belief that by living I take from others, which in turn cause others to have less, which is why I state excessive). But imo a Code has to be "flexible" and "submissive" upon new information, they also have to be "cynical" and "objective" of their value and the determining factors used as basis to act upon them. Open mindedness that tries to take in, not just you and the possible victims mindset but also the perpetrator is ideal, being able to empathize with the possible guilty party and stopping them from committing the act would be better than butchering them afterwards. As long as a person lives they have a possibility of correcting their wrongs, a possibility to change, when they die they die with their misdeeds, even if they have recognized their wrongs and seek atonement. I'd also have to say the code has to have the ability of coexisting within society boundaries to an acceptable extent (acceptable falls into a matter of opinion again...)

Other then that (still not final code) I stated above, my codes are never fixed, and changes upon information gained and emotional state (which is why I never fix them to a single set). Even my own code is subject to my personal opinion of "excessive", if adopted by others.

1. often times most of us(myself included) are suicidal however it doesn't always mean we particularly want to die just that we see little or no value in our own lives

2.it is a minor exception but if someone kills once its looked into to see if they did it on purpose or in self defense if they did it in self defense then it is dropped with no action taken if it was on purpose however we are forced to take them in to police 2nd kill is purely judgemental some may take them in others may end them permanently 3rd kill is always kill on sight
we require definite proof of a killing(with intent to do so) or atleast one of our own to vouch for the witness unless it is one of our own that is a witness

3. cheating is never allowed divorce is always an option even if one does not want to let go either they go by choice or we force it by blade or gun
if it was the case of a partner that was being left not wanting to let go of the leaving partner then it gets complicated some may leave them alone some might consider the partner selfish and "teach" them the error of their ways(non lethally of course) others might execute them both in that choice they make they are not targeted per se but no longer protected from harm by any "rouge actions"
in the case of abuse they are once again "taught" the error of their ways


if the two do not have the money to afford divorce but still consider themselves separate then it is viewed as similar to getting a divorce the rule only applys to the marrages that one partner is still committed to the relationship and the other not mentioning the desire to leave but just going out on there own for personal gain while still taking from the committed partner

4.it doesn't matter of personal feelings (harsh now that I think about it) its blunt honesty and cold logic that runs this and if one lie to save ones live does in fact cause the death of another its merely a judgment call on the individuals choice although they would most likely seek out methods to protect both people even if it involves lying several times or taking further action

5. it can get complicated some women actually protected their rapists others wanted to kill them themselves some were just happy if they just never saw them again it heavily depends on the victims choice even if it makes us bend our code a bit we don't want to put victim at risk (one girl was ready to die protecting her rapist) like I said it can get complicated

6.no true allie or friend would ever break the code once they decide to kill an innocent they are not one of us and will be dealt with in accordance to 2.

and we don't serve society we are not slaves to a government group or faction of any kind your laws mean nothing to us if it gets in the way of the safety or puts people at risk.
we serve people not your rules as such we even bend our own rules to best benefit
the people as a whole.

you know several girls asked me not to die some actually wanted me to promise them I told them "If I promised id be lying I can give you a thousand promises but a promise will never make me bulletproof"

myself and other followers of the code are trained to follow these rules to the best of our ability but its mixed with our judgment or instincts depending on the current situation we adapt its like having a set of guidelines nothing is set in stone everything can be altered or ignored(very rare cases) to better benefit the general public the methods can be both pure or inpure but the goal remains the same "keep as many alive as possible"

Sorry I don't completely understand all of your points so if I misunderstand anything go ahead and tell me.



Those kinds of mindsets lead to suicidal behavior, and if successful leads to a successful suicide. In this way I see a contradiction to the code of being opposed to suicide.



[This is where I was mostly confused in understanding what you were trying to convey]

Different people have different concepts of "danger" and "self defense", for example (the controversial) Florida's stand your ground law, which legalizes assault and premeditated murder on basis of different skin colored people entering another skin colored neighborhood. In example, a man, witnessing a boy of different skin color walking around in his neighborhood (said boy was going to his uncle(I believe it was his uncle) house carrying a bag of candy, soda pop, and talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone). Calls police to notify authorities who tells him to sit back and they'll handle, in what I can only guess "feeling like a cowboy" he ignores the officer, grabs his gun, and chases after the boy. While confronting the boy, who tried to ignore him, the confrontation became physical. In "self defense" the man shot the boy, which lead to the boys death then and there. A law called "stand your ground" in Florida and a few other states found his actions completely legal (ironically did not work for a lady of the same skin color as the boy when she shot at the ground of her husbands feet when he started to become violent, from what I understand.) To a handful of "these people" in support of this law, entering a 3 meter radius of their body and appearing dangerous to them, constitutes self defense. To me, the law and the people in support of it mistake's assault for self defense... So what basis would you be using the judge "self defense" and what makes it anymore valid?

Even with a system with laws, it is not always 100% in it's trialing of perpetrators, people can be falsely accused of crime they did not commit and serve years for it, their are a few cases of people who were put to death for crimes they did not commit (speaking in terms of US law). Admittingly it is proof of the systems faults, but it is a rather well refined system, a system that tries it's best to be impartial and judge based off of evidence. Most of the faults lie in it's human factors. So the idea of a system completely detached and left to personal judgement (to me) is a step back into allowing feeling to dictate righteousness.



So only the establishment of marriage matters, as long as it's properly ended (in court I assume), anyone can sleep/marry with whoever they want how ever many times? This seems like a rule for marriage's sake, as opposed to upholding the integrity of a promise/commitment. Cheating being wrong I can understand but the killing the perpetrator had me thinking that it was the latter, a concept that seemed similar to (what I understand of) the "Bushido" code of commitment.



Were human, no matter what personal feelings and emotions always rules a factor in our judgement. Putting "faith" in another, who you may not know, that they would seek to save everyone is an emotional judgement. It also doesn't address perceptions of "the right answer". To add on to my example, the person they kill, they believed was a killer and concluded that they deserve death, to later find the person was innocent. Through the "justification of murdering a (believed) murder" they've killed an innocent person. Does that person now deserve death, despite their action being made in what is considered a just reason, there by making them innocent?

I'm not trying to hammer you about lying (realized I was), lying is extremely situational, their are always a huge number of factors in any given choice and occasionally, to create the least amount of friction, lying can be a good choice, as bad as I feel for saying this... (The example going on in my head, 2 countries, hostile to each other, trying to make peace, but one guy goes and attack people from the other country, so both governments lie stating the man is from another country so that the peace talks don't break down.)



Stockholm syndrome, I'm aware of it. But my point is about passing judgement without indefinite proof, the difference between "enough proof" between multiple individuals, and ending a life that can redeem itself. Rape is an emotional subject for me, and given the chance, in an emotional outburst I would probably agree with you that they should die. But looking at it logically, as cruel as this may be for a victim, the rapist life can still have value, they can still attempt to atone for what they've done to the victim. (Killing all rapist also means killing the ones tried with stachatory rape.)



(Example) So you and a friend of yours, for as long as you can remember, are always next to each other, helping each other and such. But one day something really bad happens and both of you are needed to act. Having no idea that your friend would, he chooses a different answer than you, one you believe hurts a lot of people. Does that mean he is no longer a friend, as well, does that mean your justified in killing him? Choices are not that easily defined, as well, the way people come to conclusions is not always the same. This is where we probably differ but I believe an enemy can also be a friend.



Rules are established by people through (in most cases) fair systems. Through dialogue and reason we try to establish the best solution, and while it may not always please everyone, we try to find a solution that protects the most. That is governments purpose (US at least, since I have no idea from where your speaking from). It is by the people for the people. Granted governments can become corrupt, no human is above corruption after all, and no system of government perfectly protects against it... That's why the US is going through so much crap. I cannot condone abandoning it for convenience so easily. Then again I don't know what rules your society follows. I also acknowledge there are times in which I think that some laws are unnecessary, counter productive, or just plain destructive, but I can't allow myself to act independently of them, for what I believe may be justice, another may find otherwise, and vise verse.



True, just because you make it doesn't mean you can keep it, but not trying to is the problem I was bringing up. Not that I am insinuating you don't.



You are completely entitled to them, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't have them, it simply seemed like you wanted an opinion, and my opinion was, the ones I gave. My opinion collide in some places with yours, so I was just trying to word it to the best of my ability. My opinion is only opinion after all and I am not trying to force you to change, I was just interested in a bit of dialogue and pondering. I came to a couple of personal conclusions while typing these replies out. I'll understand if you can't agree with my opinions. I had fun. XD

Dishonour
1. Depends on their mental state.
2. Killing of innocents is despicable, not sure why the punishment always has to be death though. Rotting in jail for the rest of their life is more appropriate.
3. Why is the punishment death? For cheating? It's a dick move on their part but it's not deathpenalty-worthy. Besides, humans are polygamists by nature.
4. Everyone lies. If everyone suddenly stopped lying we'd all hate each other.
5. Again with the punishment of death, this time for rape.
6. Being shunned by their society and friends and allies would be punishment enough imo.

Honour
1. I guess I agree with this one. Though if you die you cause more pain to friends and loved ones.
2. Not in today's society. And killing them makes you as bad/worse than they are.
3. That's just being a good friend.
4. Again, being a good friend.