A couple of sessions ago in my campaign, my players confronted an old family enemy, Sir Bertelot and his three sons in a dramatic fight atop a tower of brass in an nightly thunderstorm. At the end of the fight, one of the PKs gave Sir Bertelot a major wound that left him unconscious. Passions were raging, and the PK fumbled his merciful roll - and thus killed the villain out of hand (which was of course, Just).

The problem is, that he was chivalric and thus broke the chivalric oath, to spare vanquished adversaries. So he lost three honor (for breaking an oath), lost his armor of chivalry and his 100 Glory per annum.

The player was fine with this, and felt what had happened was cool and dramatically correct. But now, a couple of game years late, he wants to become chivalric again (he still has well over 80 points in his chivalric traits).

Should I:
1) allow this, without qualification
2) refuse it, "once shamed, always shamed" style OR
3) allow it, but force him to go through a grueling set of test of his chivalric virtue before allowing it?

Much depends on whether he has subsequently spared vanquished adversaries (especially publicly, such as in a tourney), or if he confessed it the first chance he had and did some penance. If so, if it were in my game I'd allow it without further qualification.

If this is not the case, then I'd say some form of testing his virtue would be in order.

Unless he gloryed in the fact that had killed the villain out of hand, of course, in which case public opinion would be definitely against redeeming him.

In the canon, it seems to me that you have to mess up pretty badly before losing status as a "good" knight. Chivalry was a martial code for the martial class, by the martial class (despite constant attempts by religious authorities to put their own spin on it). They understood that war is war, and sometimes things happen. Arthur sends off the May Babies to die near the beginning of his reign and lets the blame fall on Merlin, yet this does not ruin his reputation as a good and chivalrous king. Gawain has that incident where he accidentally cuts off a woman's head when she tries to save her husband, and after undergoing some penance and taking an oath to protect ladies, he becomes the chivalric paragon we remember him as today. In history, Henry V slaughtered the French prisoners at Agincourt, yet even French chroniclers do not condemn him for this. It would seem to me that to lose status as a chivalric knight, one would need either a consistent pattern of bad behavior (an accumulation of loss of traits until the total dips below 80) or something terribly irredeemably bad (which apparently is something worse than the actions above). To my mind, the Dark Jedi-esque sudden fall from grace might be better suited for a Religious knight.

tl;dr what Elrick said

e: The Queste del Sainte Graal from the Lancelot-Grail cycle suggests that to truly fall, one must rape and murder his sister, imprison and torture his father, rob churchmen of all sorts, burn down churches and chapels, and subject a priest to "worse indignities than I should have to suffer were I a captive of the Sarracens themselves." However, I'm not sure if this should apply to the Chivalric bonus (these crimes are all in the context of describing villains so wicked that even a saint like Galahad can slaughter them mercilessly).

In the canon, it seems to me that you have to mess up pretty badly before losing status as a "good" knight. Chivalry was a martial code for the martial class, by the martial class (despite constant attempts by religious authorities to put their own spin on it). They understood that war is war, and sometimes things happen. Arthur sends off the May Babies to die near the beginning of his reign and lets the blame fall on Merlin, yet this does not ruin his reputation as a good and chivalrous king. Gawain has that incident where he accidentally cuts off a woman's head when she tries to save her husband, and after undergoing some penance and taking an oath to protect ladies, he becomes the chivalric paragon we remember him as today. In history, Henry V slaughtered the French prisoners at Agincourt, yet even French chroniclers do not condemn him for this. It would seem to me that to lose status as a chivalric knight, one would need either a consistent pattern of bad behavior (an accumulation of loss of traits until the total dips below 80) or something terribly irredeemably bad (which apparently is something worse than the actions above). To my mind, the Dark Jedi-esque sudden fall from grace might be better suited for a Religious knight.

doorknobdiety, thanks for your answer. I think you may have a good point, but I also do think that whatever happens in the literature (or happened in the past), in a game you might have to be stricter. The bonus for chivalric knights are very, very powerful. There has to be a downside. And the rulebook states that an oath i required, and that oath is quite specific. I think that allowing chivalric PKs to get away with murder - so to speak - opens up for all kind of abuses from player. Ie you can get your chivalry score up to 100, and then using yearly training and glory, behave rather evil for decades without going below the 80 points to loose your chivalry. I think the oath is necessary to make chivalry work in-game, though the wording in the rulebook might not be the best.

Also, I think that for both Arthur and Gawaine the actions you mention may rather be seen as defining bad actions that set those two off on the road to chivalry, rather than them loosing it.

Also, I think that for both Arthur and Gawaine the actions you mention may rather be seen as defining bad actions that set those two off on the road to chivalry, rather than them loosing it.
That . . . sounds spot on, never thought of it like that. That said, I'm still waving my flag for a more gradual descent from nobility, even if one doesn't stick strictly to the 80-point rule.

A character in my game, got a bad tick in the introductory bear adventure and lost his chivalry bonus for going down from 80 to 79. He spent the glory point that winter on getting that chivalry bonus back!

Your case is a little different. it sounds like he's still got the necessary points. He is therefore still, in general the exemplar of those behaviours that he needs to be. If you've taken it off him for one big bad deed though I would let him try to redeem himself by carrying out one big good deed. He would need to be given a quest by someone appropriate, say it's in his confessions and the priest sets him this penance (but is really Merlin in disguise perhaps) or maybe he seeks out Arthur or Lancelot as exemplars of Chivalry and they set him the task. You could send him off to fight the [number], [theme] knights of vengeance. They are all nasty fellows who will taunt him and carry out heinous personal attacks to goad him to vengeance and he has to defeat them and then show mercy, bringing them back for justice.
Then he will be acclaimed and recognised for his mercy and get his chivalric bonus back.

Just an idea,

GR

I think with his Traits well above the 80 needed to qualify as Chivalrous, the knight should regain the benefits of Chivalry after doing a penance related to the Trait in which he failed. He might need to show mercy to an even-greater foe than the one he killed, or support his foe's widow and underage children, or otherwise display compassion above and beyond the expectations of society.

Sir Ranker, Sir Trout - excellent answers. I now know what to do.

Glad to have provided some inspiration. :)