Originally Posted by willpell
It seems clear to me that slaying someone while giving them no opportunity to defend themselves is an unacceptible action to anything resembling a code of honor. Obedience to an authority figure is rooted in Law but not in Honor, so obeying a dishonorable order is something I would consider to be within the bounds of Lawful Neutral but not Lawful Good, as Lawful Good is not just "Law + Good" but "Law as the definition of Good and vice versa".
Honorable does not necessarily mean lawful good. Lawful good does encompass certain honor codes, notably the chivalric code of the knight. It does not however cover all codes of honor. If honor is predicated on the notion that its highest expression is in unquestioning obedience to one's master, then taking any action to achieve a goal set by said master is an honorable action.
We have objective definitions for good and evil as an axis of alignment, but there is no definition for honor written anywhere in the rules, making it entirely subjective, just like IRL. What you call honorable I may call evil, insane, good, or even trivial. It's all dependent on the cultural moores that your honor code is based in.