First of all, I would not have lowered honor and given a check on Cowardice for not helping some smelly peasant. Especially not pre-Arthurian days. Unless of course the knight accepted the 'quest' to help the peasant and then ran away seeing the size of the giant; then it would be justified IMHO.
This is taken from another thread, as it's a new subject

Morien said:


Undead Trout brings up one thing that irks me about the Honor system. It is that the less Honorable knights (low Honor) will have to ACT more honorable in order to avoid losing honor they can ill afford to lose. For instance, we had a situation in our campaign where the knights went against their sworn oath (-3 Honor), and the Honor 9 knight was agonizing way more about it than the Honor 14 knight. This feels wrong to me.

Before going on a rules revision, see if this is really a problem.
One play test with creative players does not a standard make

Your two players sound like they were doing exactly the appropriate thing.
Why in the world are you irked by players having to ACT in a certain way?

My problem with that, Greg, is that it feels wrong to me that the more Honorable knight is less concerned about Honor, while the less Honorable knight needs to act MORE honorable than the first knight. So if I didn't know what their values were and went simply by their actions, I'd say that the first knight has less honor (nonchalance about losing honor since he can afford it), and the second knight more (agonizing whether to break his word of honor or not).

But isn't that how it should be? ie if you are already low on honor then YES you are borderline dishonorable and thus un-knightly.
See it as being on probation for good behavior - unless you really make the effort you'll go straight to the dungeons of morgana...
;D

My problem with that, Greg, is that it feels wrong to me


That's because it IS wrong, not because the game system is broken.

But isn't that how it should be? ie if you are already low on honor then YES you are borderline dishonorable and thus un-knightly.
See it as being on probation for good behavior - unless you really make the effort you'll go straight to the dungeons of morgana...
;D


Yes, I can see that argument to encourage players not to be backstabbing sneaks like in another game I could mention. It still causes me some verisimilitude problems when Sir Rat-Bastard (Honor 5) is actually the most trustworthy, scrupulous (when it comes to Honor) knight of the bunch (since the player doesn't want to lose the character due to Honor loss), while Sir Shining-Armor (Honor 20) can, if he so chooses (although I would make the player roll against Honor and if he succeeds, tough luck, your character is honorable and doesn't do it), betray his word of honor and still be considered a beacon of honorable behavior. And Sir About-Average (Honor 11) can and will take a hit in his Honor, if the upside is high enough (my players basically never roll Inspiration on passions that are lower than 13 or so, due to the odds, so a passion of 11 is 'worthless' and 8 is still only 'worthless' in their book).

Like said, I can understand that a high-Honor character can have some 'buffer' (Did you hear what Sir Shining-Armor did? No, he couldn't have! Well, perhaps he had a very good reason...) while a low-Honor character has already used his 'get-out-of-jail-free' -cards and this is the last straw (He broke his word again?! That's it, he is no longer a knight of mine!).



That's because it IS wrong, not because the game system is broken.


Sorry, Greg, I am not sure I get your meaning, here. Are you saying that my players are roleplaying their characters 'wrong' by having the more Honorable character be more nonchalant about Honor loss (since game mechanically he can afford it) than the less Honorable character (whose player is agonizing the choice as he drifts closer to the loss of Knighthood status)?

Depends on you GM style. In my games I expect the players to play their characters by the value they have now, not what they wish they had. But I think that is another discussion which we had over a year ago.
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=312.0
In your case I'd argue with the player going from 9 to 6 that this puts a real taint on his reputation and thus his peers will watch him more closely as a result. While the 14 going to 11 still have a reputation to fall back upon.
with some extra stuff regarding their own integrety etc etc.

I do think that, in this case, you and/or your players expect the system to be munchkin safe. Something which it isn't. Unless you as a GM bring soft in-game values as well to balance the hardcore numbers game.

But in the case you gave, Sir Rat-Bastard if he feels the need to play trustworthy and does so consistently, should get an honor increase and thus be Sir Not Such a Rat-Bastard. If he keeps it up he'd be Sir No-Longer-a-Bastard.
While if you have a really high 16+ honor and you behave really bad, I'd deduct extra honor because your fall is so great (roll for it or get a double loss in my rulings).
Now the only case where it is strange is Sir About-Average since he could be honorable one day and dishonorable the next, but that is how it is.

If it had been up to me I'd give them negative stuff in related traits as well. So an equal loss in valor/just/whatever depending on situation.

Then its not just about the hard values but the effect it has on play henceforth. I'd make a note and take it up in every such situation thereafter, so that people around them would no longer require their oath only but always have them guarantee it somehow. Like their liege expecting their family to move to the central keep under his roof, etc. In this I'd treat Sir Bigger-Rodent-Maybe-Bastard and Sir No-Longer-Average the same, this since they are both oathbreakers.
This teaches my players that their actions count and have meaning waaay beyond any meager numbers on their character's sheet.

Most of my characters still get ribbings in-game by NPCs for stuff their grandfathers did. And they love me for it, because that is the medieval feel that we are looking for.
...but I'm a bastard in both senses...and they know it....
One of them had a father who poisoned someone, so when sir Hugo gets poisoned in ireland (30s something) he's the one to get falsely accused and thrown into the dungeon until he can clear his name. Because he comes from a family of poisoners.

That's because it IS wrong, not because the game system is broken.

Sorry, Greg, I am not sure I get your meaning, here. Are you saying that my players are roleplaying their characters 'wrong'

No, no. Players do wrong only if they are deliberately trying to break it for the sake of making other people miserable
Pendragon is all about doing anything you want, and suffering the consequences

I mean that the knight character is doing wrong because he is taking advantage of his good reputation to do bad
That is wrong behavior, not a good way to act
It is done all the time in real life
And then suffer the consequences--a loss of Honor
because people see he is not acting right, and soon he, too,
will have lost the benefit of the doubt form observers and seen for what he is"
unworthy of respect
and soon the character will will be skating and sweating it