With honour but whos

Many different societies in this world have different views of what honour is, more specifically what an honourable death for a warrior is. Some such as the Japanese of old believed that ritual suicide was an honourable way to end their life through knife or sword and by ones had. There was usually a second around so that when the first cut was made the warrior did not have time o cry out in pain the second would finish the warrior by decapitation. Some very strong willed warriors would stipulate that the second wait for the second and third cuts so the warrior would show to all present what he was made of (excuse the pun) Most samurai preferred death in battle or duel.

The Norse and some Germanic tribes believed that a warrior had to die in battle for the most honourable death but as long as they died with weapon in had that was good also. A reason for the weapon in hand was to show the warrior was still fighting or at least still free to carry a weapon . As the case was to take weapons away from defeated warriors so they could not fight again.

The rules of honour seem to change by race what would be honourable to a warrior depends on how they have lived their lives. In Buddhism they are taught you must be a warrior at all times one of the teaching is the way of the warrior but not the death it is not touched upon.
SO is it better to face a dragon for final battle or have you name in song about the foes you conquered and killed. Is honour more in what you did not destroy, the times you did not have to raise weapons, should a warrior say his death was a good one by the battles he did not have to fight. Should a Warrior be remember for the skill of his sword or how he saved a butterfly.