Hi all. Recently, our female player shifted from her female knight to a female lady, and this naturally has caused some changes in the social dynamics of the in-game adventuring group.

I, as the GM, have started demanding that if the players wish to claim the +100 yearly bonus to their glory for being Chivalric, they damn well can start acting chivalrously towards the damsel traveling with them, as well as other ladies they happen to cross paths with.

Now, this has caused some questions especially concerning Honor, and since I find myself to be uncertain which way to rule, I am seeking council from my fellows here in the forum.

Example 1: A lady is getting accused of witchcraft and she swears her innocence that she is being falsely accused, asking one of the Chivalrous PKs to act as her champion in a duel to clear her name. One PK steps forward. Can he use Honor to be inspired in the duel? (My original thought was no, since his honor is not in question, but then I started reconsidering. It is said in the rulebook that a high Honor character can get offended almost by anything, and surely a chivalrous knight would see defending damsels as an integral part of what being a knight is about.)

Example 2: For some reason, none of the knights steps forward! The lady accuses them to be false knights and cowards, as she is left to fend on her own. Which might involve burning her as a witch (I do have a question about High Justice, but that can wait its own thread in the Gameplay). Any hits that the knights would get here to their Honor? How about traits?

Example 3: Later, once the knights are back in Camelot, an NPC knight coming from the same direction tells this tale to Arthur and Guinevere. He claims that the PK(s) ignored the lady's plea (he himself arrived on the scene too late to save the woman, who was already condemned/being burned). Now, if he is lying (as in, one of the PKs did help the lady), then there is no question that Honor would be triggered. However, if he is telling the truth, what then? The accusation clearly diminishes the PK in front of his peers and his King and Queen, so that clearly would qualify, but the PK knows he is in the wrong. Can he get inspired by honor to defend his (dishonorable) action? (My gut feeling is no.) If he is proven (either by default or by duel) to have deserted the lady, and he is unable to offer a good cause, would he lose Honor? (I am tempted to say yes, but then, in interest of fairness, he should also gain checks to Honor when defending ladies and be allowed to use his Honor to be inspired.) I would probably cut his +100 Chivalric Glory bonus until he does something to regain his reputation, or at least diminish it to like +50.

What about Armor of Honor? I would be more hesitant to touch it, but if the knight doesn't act like a Chivalrous Knight, I don't think he should gain any benefit of it, even if he would qualify with his traits.

"they damn well can start acting chivalrously towards the damsel traveling with them, as well as other ladies they happen to cross paths with." Does this mean they aren't doing so already?

Questions about honour are always tricky, and conditional, more than any other area of the system.

Question 1: I'd say no, the knight couldn't use Honour in that contest. Unless he was able to link his own honour to that of the accused woman. Say, by provoking people to say anyone who defends the lady is as dishonourable as she is, and then defying that. In which case, if he loses, his dishonour is also proven, and and he'll lose a few points.

Question 2: If none of the knights step forth (prior to this, btw, you should ask players for their knights reasons as to why they step forth, or not, and award appropriate trait checks), and the lady insults them, they might have reason to invoke their honour against her. But if the lady is being burnt as a witch according to the local legal custom, there's no reason player-knights should lose honour or suffer unduly. The only trait checks they should suffer really are based on roleplay: did a knight let her burn because he felt it wasn't his part to interfere in local, legal matters: Just check. Did another choose not to interfere, because she rebuffed his advances earlier: Cruel and Lust checks (at the very least). Did someone choose to rescue her because she flirted with him earlier, or promised him money: Lust or Selfish checks. It's all very contextual.

I'm reading a hidden assumption in your question, that heroic knights should always try to rescue women in distress, and player-knights who don't should be punished. I'd try to avoid that thought process, and remember to look at the context - find out why player knights do the things they do, by asking the players, and then it's easy to know which checks to award.

Question 3: regarding whether the player gets honour after letting the lady be burnt. The answer would be no, BUT, again, context. This question arises out of an assumption that the right thing to do was rescue the lady. A knight who, say, let her burn out of a sense of Justice can point that out, and if the high court declares he may have been wrong, I would certainly let him call on honour to press his claim in the following challenge. The same would be true for a myriad of other traits too, even some on the vice side.

Armour of Honour: plenty of Arthurian round table knights don't act like chivalrous knights either, a lot of the time. But individual actions don't count, except that they contribute over time towards the changing trait scores. For extreme situations, as with passions, as GM you do have the right to alter traits directly, without imposing experience checks. You can say, "reduce your mercy by 2". It shouldn't happen often, but some situations do warrant it. But even without doing that, if your player-knights are acting very unlike chivalrous knights, be diligent about giving them checks on the negative side of the chivalrous traits - selfish, pride, cruel, and arbitrary are easy to get for villainous types - and in a few years they'll lose it, or start to act less villainous.

I have found by far the easiest way to get players to act chivalrous, is to simply ask a few times a session when they do something, "Why are you doing that," and then - without judging them - award a trait check. Possibly discuss it if I think it's a check the player will regard as a penalty, like say, "that sounds pretty cruel to me - you realise if you keep that up you'll get known for cruelty?" The trait check isn't a punishment, because players will get 'good' trait checks too (plus, having a few vice-side traits is fun and should be celebrated! Pure good knights are boring). Even if you don't award checks, it gets players to start thinking in terms of the personality traits, and then chivalrous behaviour comes out naturally. With this approach, it doesn't take very long for players new to pendragon to start acting like pendragon players.

"they damn well can start acting chivalrously towards the damsel traveling with them, as well as other ladies they happen to cross paths with." Does this mean they aren't doing so already?


They should, and some of them do. It is more like clarifying that now that they have a damsel riding with them instead of a lady knight, I will expect that their interaction with the damsel reflects the chivalrous behavior rather than treating her like a sack of flour. The other point is that I have been pretty lax about Chivalrous Bonus, and everyone has it now for its Glory and Armor of Honor benefits. I want to make the PKs to live up to it, rather than take it for granted. It is more like a warning to the players that I might be including more situations where chivalrous behavior will be an issue, rather than the usual 'I bash that knight onna noggin' type of things.



I'm reading a hidden assumption in your question, that heroic knights should always try to rescue women in distress, and player-knights who don't should be punished. I'd try to avoid that thought process, and remember to look at the context - find out why player knights do the things they do, by asking the players, and then it's easy to know which checks to award.

My view point is this:
Chivalrous knights should act chivalrous, if they want to get that +100 yearly Glory bonus for being a Chivalrous Knight. The quintessential act of a chivalrous knight is to rescue damsels (i.e. noblewomen). Now, it does not mean rescuing witches, so I would be totally fine with a PK saying that he will be at the trial and hear the evidence and makes up his own mind if she is a witch or not. If she is, then he is under no obligation to help. However, if she is innocent, or he just says that he can't be bothered to answer a damsel's plea for help, then I would diminish his Glory reward from Chivalrous for not BEING chivalrous. I agree with you that the knight's reasoning why to help / not help should be the main driver for the trait checks.

It seems you want to keep Honor and Chivalrous separate, and I agree that would make things much cleaner. Thus, if acting Chivalrous (i.e. rescue a damsel) is not getting you honor checks, then not acting chivalrous (not rescuing a damsel) is not going to cost you honor, either. Acting dishonorably (harming a damsel) is another thing, but that has already been covered in the honor penalty chart. Hmm. I think I would be inclined to give a Honor check if a knight is making a point to strive to be chivalrous (helping damsels, letting opponents get up, rearm, that sort of stuff). In my opinion, it fits. The honor penalties are harsh enough that I am a bit worried about imposing a penalty for a neutral stance, unless Honor is already at 16+.

A check to Just for ignoring a matter of High Justice? I think not. Capital crimes (anything where the punishment is death) are King Arthur's prerogative, and any knight loyal to him should step in to make certain the locals aren't committing an abuse of the law. To ignore it would invite a check to Arbitrary, in my opinion. Companions of Arthur and Round Tables knights would be remiss in their oaths.

I wholeheartedly concur that asking the players to explain the reasons for their actions is the best way to enforce chivalrous behavior. Players will always attempt to game the numbers without playing the role. Should their actions fail to adhere to the ideals to which their knights allegedly subscribe, in time those knights' Traits will decrease and they'll cease being exemplars of those ideals.

As for whether a knight can inspire himself in defense of a lady using Honor, I would ask his reason for defending her and have him roll an appropriate Trait to determine whether his conviction, whatever that may be, is sufficient to the matter. Should he succeed, he can then roll Honor in the hopes of becoming inspired. So if he invokes justice, he must succeed at a Just roll. If he hopes she'll bed him in gratitude, let him roll Lustful. If he thinks the locals are being overly superstitious, let him roll Worldly. Honor is a very personal thing, and thus requires some personal reflection (modeled via the Trait roll) to "activate".