4

I rewatched the episode "Sons of Mogh" wherein Worf's brother Kurn is driven to ritual suicide by his disgrace amongst the Klingons following Worf's refusal to side with the Klingons in the guerre du jour.

He was stripped of his title and thrown out of the high council. He describes the humiliation as Gowron's men came and seized his land.

But it occurred to me that this was a great opportunity for Kurn to stand, fight and for him and his men to achieve a valiant Klingon death! So why didn't he and his men fight back against Gowron's men when they came? Presumably Gowron would have easily won and killed every one of him and his army, but they would have died as warriors!

EDIT: in light of the answers.

I'm thinking more in terms of he and his men defending his land and house from Gowron's men who came to take it, rather than directly challenging Gowron to a duel. So that he and his men would die properly in battle like Klingons, which we're always told, is the correct way to die.

  • 2
    I can't remember the exact details of the episode, but wouldn't resisting the lawful seizure of his land make him both a criminal and traitor to the council? Neither have honour. Besides, the Klingon honour system is corrupt as hell - it's all in how the council chooses to spin the story. – DavidS Dec 12 '16 at 10:12
3

I believe only honorable warriors can challenge someone to a duel. Perhaps he could have resisted and fought to the death, but that would have been an act of rebellion. Suicide migtht restore their honor, but dying as rebells and traitors probably would only have made it worse.

And Kurn's goal was not to regain his honor in the eyes of Gowron, but to restore his honor for himself. Kurn believes that suicide is a more honorable death than turning against his leader.

3

This is largely addressed in Keith R. A. DeCandido's "The Klingon Art of War" in a parable about two brothers, one a soldier in the Forces of Kahless, the other who'd been refused entry due to his bullying, unpleasant ways. In short, there is no dishonour in refusing a challenge from someone who has little or no honour to bestow by accepting their challenge and where the death of one would harm the standing of both.

Honour comes from equals (or near-equals) fighting to satisfy a matter that can't be decided any other way and where both parties, and the Empire, stand to gain by the victory of either. By challenging Gowron when there was no possible chance of replacing him, Kurn would simply have been denying the Empire a mighty warrior in order to placate his own dishonour. By accepting Kurn's challenge, Gowron would have been risking his own life (and in turn the lives of his own men, deprived of a commander) by answering a challenge from someone who had already been dishonoured.

An honorable challenge should never be turned down. But the younger brother’s challenge was baseless. His desire to do battle with his brother had nothing to do with honor and everything to do with shame. On the field of honor, he had already lost.

The older brother recognized this. By refusing a dishonorable challenge, he preserved not only his own honor, but his brother’s as well. Though angry, the younger brother was spared the stigma of defeating a foe who is incapable of fighting back.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.