I've looked this up, because I got a bit confused myself: for the GM, Agenda = goals to strive for at all times, Principles = guidelines the GM moves should follow, Moves = what the GM actually does in-game (directed by principles to achieve agenda).
I think glorious death may be more of a principle.
So, with some added Rokugan flavour, how about this:
Agenda1. Portray the World according to the Celestial Order
2. Fill the characters lives with conflicts over the Tenets of Bushido
3. Don't play God
2. is merely a broadening of your honor idea,
D.T. Pints, the wording is a bit awkward maybe. The intention is to have the characters constantly wrestle with the tenets: which is more important to them in ~this~ specific situation, what is the right thing to do if they want to follow tenet x, and so on. I believe DitV is a great model in this regard, we can probably lift some GMing advice right out of that game. Specifically the idea that the GM must not judge the PCs is interesting in this regard, because it allows the players to explore these ancient ideas ~and~ make up solutions that are acceptable to us modern players within that framework. They still live with the consequences of course, but those must not be judgment. DitV sums this up with the Gming advice "Don't play God". This, by the way, is particularly interesting if Rokugan is portrayed as not gender-neutral.
I'm probably not making a lot of sense, so here's a quick example: in DitV, if Ebenezer wants to marry Patience and has a right to, but she doesn't want to, because she dislikes him, we have a conflict. Maybe Ebenezer has Mountainpeople ancestors and Patience's father is a racist and also the steward of the branch, so he can tell Ebenezer he's not being a good believer and refuse him on these official grounds. Now the Dogs are needed to solve the situation.
- If the players decide to marry the couple, because it is right by the rules of the King of Life, as a GM I'm judging if I tell them Ebenezer started beating Patience when the characters check in on this town the next time. I'm telling them I as Gm believe their solution sucked balls and how could they? Next time, the players will stick to what they perceive as MY version of right and wrong instead of exploring their own as a group.
- I'm not judging if I portrayed Ebenezer to have a violent streak during play and before the players decided on marriage, so the players were able to see where this might lead. This requires the GM to be open about the situation and open to the solutions the players come up with.
- If the players decide that rules are rules, but the King of Life requires some sort of sympathy, if not love, between two people before they are married, that's what should stand.
- NPCs can like or dislike this decision based on what they wanted, but again, their behavior and the consequences of the decision the must not be judgment. They must be consequential.
So 2. and 3. are linked, although 3. is only necessary if we want our hack to play that way. 3. is also another, more radical way to say "Play to find out what happens".
Principles- Fill rituals and etiquette with life and life with rituals and etiquette.
- Play every Rokugani according to their station
- Don't name non-samurai unless asked to
[This one I'm not sure about... Effects on play would be fairly massive, what do you think?]
- Make the conflicts over the tenets of Bushido concrete and palpable
[meaning create an actual situation with actual people and actual problems instead of asking abstract questions, another DitV inspired point. "Is love more important than rules?" is a boring question and easily answered. "Does Patience have to marry Ebenezer?" is not.]
- Be consequential, not judgmental
- Make the world deadly and death poetic
Now I'm afraid this turned into a wall of text, but especially the DitV ideas need explanation I think.