I am trying to get a better grip on the line between tactics that are expected and those that are dishonorable in the Arthurian genre.

Say a PK party is riding patrol on their lord's lands and the "scout" spots a more numerous incoming group of raiding Saxons. The PK leader has a high Battle skill but is also Famously Honorable.

If the leader has the PKs move to good terrain along the Saxon line of march, set up an ambush, and surprise the invaders, is that considered smart tactics or being dishonorable?

Is the answer the same if the invaders are raiding knights?

Thank you very much.

Until Arthur comes to power and enacts the code of chivalry, ambushing a superior force of enemies would not be considered dishonorable. It may not be dishonorable -after- the code comes into play, in my opinion, unless the knight in question is also chivalrous. And even if the knight is chivalrous, he must weigh whether his own honor is more important than his loyalty to his liege and/or vassals. Getting all his men killed and failing to warn his liege of the attacking force would be, again in my opinion, a worse dishonor.

Ambushing knights is definitely dishonorable.

In the literature, chivalrous knights properly challenge their opponents, let them get back on their horse when unhorsed, get back a dropped sword, etc. That's what chivalry is about: being a knight-gentleman, not just a run-of-the-mill warrior.

Even if chivalry may get you killed.

Ambushing knights is definitely dishonorable.


Well, yes and no.

I totally agree with you that a famously honorable knight should follow all the dictates you mentioned in duels, and as much as he can in a war. Unless he wants his Honor Passion to drop by one.

- Attacking the enemy camp when they are asleep / unarmed / having dinner = dishonorable
- Attacking the armed enemy column by surprise = not honorable, but neither strictly dishonorable

In the former case, I would give Honor penalties to all chars. In the latter case, I would only consider that with the famously honorable one, not with the others. And of course, if the famously honorable knight sends out a challenge and waits for the enemy to array their ranks for a counter-charge, I'd definitely give a check in Honor.

I am trying to get a better grip on the line between tactics that are expected and those that are dishonorable in the Arthurian genre.

I'd like to insert my two pence on this


Say a PK party is riding patrol on their lord's lands and the "scout" spots a more numerous incoming group of raiding Saxons. The PK leader has a high Battle skill but is also Famously Honorable.
If the leader has the PKs move to good terrain along the Saxon line of march, set up an ambush, and surprise the invaders, is that considered smart tactics or being dishonorable?

Smart tactics, and honor has nothing to do with it.
Honor is something that is special, and not everyone has it. In fact, no one has it except us, whoever "us" is. Honor is something that is granted by us, and there is no other way to have Honor. We define what Honor is, and we expect it from each other, and we give it to each other. (It is only lost when an action causes others to withdraw their good opinion.)
Nobles have honor. Priests do not, commonors do not either.
Foreigners do not.
Enemies absolutely do not, and any trick, device and subterfuge that helps to destroy them and save us is good.

Use your google fu and find the Battle of Maldon, a Saxon poem where the leader allows a Danish army to cross over a difficult ford because it is honorable. Then the army is crushed by the Danes.
Then find JRRTolkein's poem of it, from the perspective of a Saxon grunt who is wondering about the sense of this...


Is the answer the same if the invaders are raiding knights?

Yes, unless we know them to be honorable. If we know that they are we must treat them with honor. If we think they are, then stop and ask first.
A historical result of this was the international unity of knighthood, wherein the nobility of Europe shared more in common with each other than with their subjects.

Enemies absolutely do not, and any trick, device and subterfuge that helps to destroy them and save us is good.

In both Geoffrey of Monmouth and Malory, during the Roman war with Lucius, Gawain loses his temper during a parley after a Roman nobleman insults the Britons and cuts off his head, violating the parley and provoking a fight. But none of the other characters seem to consider Gawain's action dishonorable or rebuke him for it; even the Romans seem more intent on avenging a fallen comrade than on punishing a truce-breaker. (Compare this with the scene in Gawain's first quest where he beheads a lady - where it is treated by everyone in the story as an unknightly deed.)


Use your google fu and find the Battle of Maldon, a Saxon poem where the leader allows a Danish army to cross over a difficult ford because it is honorable. Then the army is crushed by the Danes.
Then find JRRTolkein's poem of it, from the perspective of a Saxon grunt who is wondering about the sense of this...

Tolkien's poem - actually, it's a playscript, but meant to be read rather than performed - is called "The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son", and was reprinted in "The Tolkien Reader" (along with a few of Tolkien's other shorter works, like "Farmer Giles of Ham" and "Tree and Leaf"). I don't know if it's still in print, though.

Enemies absolutely do not, and any trick, device and subterfuge that helps to destroy them and save us is good.
In both Geoffrey of Monmouth and Malory, during the Roman war with Lucius, Gawain loses his temper during a parley after a Roman nobleman insults the Britons and cuts off his head, violating the parley and provoking a fight. But none of the other characters seem to consider Gawain's action dishonorable or rebuke him for it;
even the Romans seem more intent on avenging a fallen comrade than on punishing a truce-breaker. (Compare this with the scene in Gawain's first quest where he beheads a lady - where it is treated by everyone in the story as an unknightly deed.)

Good compariosn.
However, I think that the Roman Court scene has much unsaid that the listeners would nonetheless think about. It's one of those borderline actions that make listenes think hard, if they are the thinking type.
The scene is a conflict of Gawaine's noble Hospitality, since enemies being peaceful in the court of one under a truce is the essence of hospitality; and his Hate Romans Passion.
In KAP terms, I think he lost or fumbled his Hospitality roll, and critted his Hate. After all, that courtier aid very insulting things and broke the rules first so it was OK for Gawaine to break them too, right?
Well, don't think too hard because next is a big fight scene. Gawaine kicks butt, and that proves that he was OK because God only grants victory to the Just, right?

Use your google fu and find the Battle of Maldon, a Saxon poem where the leader allows a Danish army to cross over a difficult ford because it is honorable. Then the army is crushed by the Danes.
Then find JRRTolkein's poem of it, from the perspective of a Saxon grunt who is wondering about the sense of this...
Tolkien's poem - actually, it's a playscript, but meant to be read rather than performed - is called "The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son", and was reprinted in "The Tolkien Reader" (along with a few of Tolkien's other shorter works, like "Farmer Giles of Ham" and "Tree and Leaf"). I don't know if it's still in print, though.
[/quote]
Thank you so much! It's gotta be 40 years since I read it.