I was wondering if PKs might not receive a Passion check in years when they have new children with their wives? Seems like it's reasonable to at least provide a check to Love (Family) and, maybe Love (Spouse) if not award 1 outright. Could be extended to mistresses too, but only where there's a Love Passion involved...


T.

I was wondering if PKs might not receive a Passion check in years when they have new children with their wives? Seems like it's reasonable to at least provide a check to Love (Family) and, maybe Love (Spouse) if not award 1 outright. Could be extended to mistresses too, but only where there's a Love Passion involved...

Great idea!

Why thanks! Do you like the standard check, or increase by GM fiat?


T.

My first inclination:
It seems to me a check would be the best way.
People with low scores will tend to increase, people who love their family already won't increase as often. Plus, knights over the course of their adventuring lives will have many children.

If it applies only to the first child (to cement the relationship), an automatic +1 wouldn't be a bad idea.

My first inclination:
It seems to me a check would be the best way.

of course


If it applies only to the first child (to cement the relationship), an automatic +1 wouldn't be a bad idea.

Prince Geoffrey (to his mother): You always loved him more than me! :)

Thanks, guys!


T.

;) So +1 for the first son, then checks for each consecutive son aaand -1 for every daughter... right??? ;)

Heh, heh. Man, you're a tough-guy! Seriously, I could totally buy in on a negative modifier on the check if it's a girl!


T.

Especially if there aren't any current boy children!

;)
OK, so adjusting for that, what about -1 for each daughter as long as they are in majority? So if you have a couple of sons it doesn't matter...
;)
But, hmm, how about Guinevere situations? Maybe it should be a modifier for each year after you marry that is still childless? Like a directed trait "lustful: childless" that gains a check every year the wife is barren. Maybe with an APP modifier since that is obviously what happened to Arthur...
;)