I was preparing some information concerning "why Traits do not get Glory"
when I did a piece of quick math that I've not looked at since...
...oh, First Edition KAP
:-[ How embarrassed can I possible be :-[
to see only now
and say
Chivalry Bonus is supposed to require 96 points, not 80
Which of course, will drive people to have extreme
Chivalry is supposed to compare with Religious Bonus in that both require extreme Traits
but that Chivalry is more flexible

Having an average of 13-14 for the biggest honor in the game is, well, lame
For an average of all 13's I would not even grant the hypothetical Warrior Bonus that I am theoretically testing out in our new campaign
all 13's is the mark of ORDINARY PLAIN BLAH

By the Pope's beard, I am "sore astonied" :o

I always believed that chivalry bonus was set at 80 specifically to make it easier to get than religious: more people would be chivalrous, because after all, that's the way it is in the fiction.

Also, in first edition, chivalry was less beneficial than religious (IIRC all you got for it was the glory, whereas the religious chaps got an extra bonus, for 16+ traits).

An average of 13 in all stats can be tricky to get if you are using random rolls - some people will breeze it and get it easily, and some knights will require 10-20 points of improvement (10 isn't that far away spread over 6 traits - 20 is a little trickier!)

Needing an average of 16 (total 96) in all chivalric traits will make it extremely hard to play a pagan chivalric knight, due to the Proud vs Modest.

(96 - 4 Modest) / 5 other traits = ~18 - 19 in other traits. While not impossible, I don't think I have yet seen a player character with 5 traits in the high-teens. The closest are a couple of Religious knights with 6 traits at 16, but it is much much easier to get a trait to 16 than to 18 or let alone 19.

Mind you, it depends what kind of game you want to have. If Chivalric is pretty much something exclusive to Round Table Knights, and becoming a Chivalric Knight means you are on a very very short list to become one, then sure, make it hard. But if Chivalric is something to be expected from a goodly number of PKs, too, then 96 is way too hard.

At least it would make my players less of the tanks that they are now thanks to the +3 Armor of Honor. :P (Not that I would implement this mid-game, anyway.)

Chivalry is supposed to compare with Religious Bonus in that both require extreme Traits
but that Chivalry is more flexible

Interesting. Was this design intent there from the start, when achieving Chivalrous granted prestige only? Or is it something that evolved as part of the tweaks introduced for the 3rd edition, when being a Chivalrous knight became more like being Religious knight in terms of game mechanics?

Like Morien, I'm concerned that a target of 96 sets the bar too high for pagan knights. Then again, perhaps it should be extremely hard for a religiously virtuous pagan to also achieve Chivalry. Chivalry isn't explicitly a christian ideal, but the two ethical systems do march closely together in the source texts after all so, perhaps only true paragons can reconcile a non-christian religious vocation with the demands of chivalry.

Also like Morien, I'm not going to change this for my in-flight campaign however...

Regards
Luke

This ruling interacts with previous discussions on Glory and Traits, http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php? in a logical way.This very high requirements to become Chivalric (which I don't think is unreasonable when compared to the literary canon) would drive many players to give their characters 16+ in many Traits, even if they don't get any Annual Glory for them anymore. I like it.

Chivalry Bonus is supposed to require 96 points, not 80
Which of course, will drive people to have extreme
Chivalry is supposed to compare with Religious Bonus in that both require extreme Traits
but that Chivalry is more flexible
I agree with another comment made here which pointed out that in the literature it is far easier to be "chivalrous" than it was to be "religious". I also agree that a score of 96 would make being a religious pagan knight and a chivalrous knight nigh-on impossible.

BUT - I also agree that perhaps 80 points was a tad too low.

How about requiring 85-90 points?
OR BETTER
Require 90 points AND 3 of the traits must be at 16+.

You might also modify the required traits for a Pagan Chivalric Knight vs a Christian Chivalric Knight.

Still make it quite difficult to achieve, but not so much so that a religious pagan knight will find it impossible.

MrUkpyr
Mauris capit perfectionem excellentia

Also, in first edition, chivalry was less beneficial than religious (IIRC all you got for it was the glory, whereas the religious chaps got an extra bonus, for 16+ traits).

Only because I couldn't figure out what benefit to give it at first.
KAP is always a work in progress, for me


An average of 13 in all stats can be tricky to get if you are using random rolls - some people will breeze it and get it easily, and some knights will require 10-20 points of improvement (10 isn't that far away spread over 6 traits - 20 is a little trickier!)

I am not moved by this argument
Nobody should use random stat generation unless they are prepared to play a very difficult character
Randomly generated characters can also be the most fun
but not for minimaxing

Needing an average of 16 (total 96) in all chivalric traits will make it extremely hard to play a pagan chivalric knight, due to the Proud vs Modest.

Yes, that is right
Consider the base of the game: a medieval reality
Pagans having difficulty being chivalrous is not a bug, it's a feature


At least it would make my players less of the tanks that they are now thanks to the +3 Armor of Honor.

Yes, so now I am uncertain whether you like it or not


(Not that I would implement this mid-game, anyway.)

Absolutely correct

I agree with another comment made here which pointed out that in the literature it is far easier to be "chivalrous" than it was to be "religious".

Of course.
1. It is chivalrous literature
2. Do not think that everyone in the literature who calls himself chivalrous is in fact chivalrous, especially by KAP standards
3. There's nothing in the lit that sets the standards of a religious knight
Percival is not an example. When the monks determine virtue it is impossible to fit--the PURPOSE of their perfect knight was to show that chivalry is an inferior system of belief
such is what a peacenik, misogynistic Papist would have you believe, but Sir Galahad is all 18's and more on virtue
Such is the origin of the rigidity of the Religious Bonus


I also agree that a score of 96 would make being a religious pagan knight and a chivalrous knight nigh-on impossible.

is that really bad?


BUT - I also agree that perhaps 80 points was a tad too low.
How about requiring 85-90 points?
OR BETTER
Require 90 points AND 3 of the traits must be at 16+.

Yes, something like that
I am tinkering with the whole bonus thing anyway
I AM working on some non-chivalrous bonuses


You might also modify the required traits for a Pagan Chivalric Knight vs a Christian Chivalric Knight.
Still make it quite difficult to achieve, but not so much so that a religious pagan knight will find it impossible.

Why?

I also agree that a score of 96 would make being a religious pagan knight and a chivalrous knight nigh-on impossible.

is that really bad?


I think it is. I have a preference for Christian knights, several of my players have a preference for Pagan Knights. One of the great things about Pendragon is its inclusiveness - you can play pagans and christians, and still achieve all the benefits the system has to offer. If chivalry becomes nigh-impossible for one religion but not another, it spoils that inclusiveness.

My bigger concern though - is how increased requirements for chivalry undermines some important facets of the game.
In the fiction, chivalrous knights (all of them except Galahad) are flawed. Raising the trait requirements requires players to play less flawed characters, more perfect characters. That's a bit boring, frankly. But, Pendragon has this rule where if your trait is 16+, you are often forced to act in certain ways. So those tales of fiction where Gawaine, etc., are presented with challenges of their chivalrous virtues become almost a fait accompli. To be chivalrous, you are saying you must become a character who you'll have little control of, in the areas where you want to have control.

My preference would be not to increase the requirements, but to reduce the benefit. This change seems driven more by the need to make the requirements match the benefit gained (a game balance requirement, something in the past, Greg, you've said you aren't that keen on). But if its important to make the benefit match the requirements, then make the benefit weaker so you dont need such hefty requirements.

As I suggested in the earlier discussion, you can have it both ways by having several tiers of chivalry. How about something like: if you have 80 points, you get +1 armour; at 85 +2, and 90, +3. (or for more extreme, 80/90/100 - I have actually seen player knights with over 100 chivalry total).

Hahaha, my players will not like this. :P

Seriously, though, I have five players in my campaign, and only one of them has the chivalry bonus. We used the random method for traits (the one in which you roll 3d6 and them can assign 6 points as you see fit; I think it is from 4th ed.). At least with this method, it is not very easy to reach the 80-point threshold...

On the other hand, it is a very strong benefit.

I also agree that a score of 96 would make being a religious pagan knight and a chivalrous knight nigh-on impossible.

is that really bad?

I think it is. I have a preference for Christian knights, several of my players have a preference for Pagan Knights. One of the great things about Pendragon is its inclusiveness - you can play pagans and christians, and still achieve all the benefits the system has to offer. If chivalry becomes nigh-impossible for one religion but not another, it spoils that inclusiveness.

I am not so cranky today, so I confess that I agree.
In my current tinkering it will be more easily possible to become a Pagan chivalrous knight


My bigger concern though - is how increased requirements for chivalry undermines some important facets of the game.
In the fiction, chivalrous knights (all of them except Galahad) are flawed. Raising the trait requirements requires players to play less flawed characters, more perfect characters. That's a bit boring, frankly.

I think you are overstating the facts here. "more perfect" implies more than the game requires.
16/20 = only 80%, a failure 1 out of five times when unopposed


But, Pendragon has this rule where if your trait is 16+, you are often forced to act in certain ways. So those tales of fiction where Gawaine, etc., are presented with challenges of their chivalrous virtues

I'm not sure of which examples you mean here--can you offer a couple of them?
My first reaction is to say the literature isn't going to list all the challenges that are easily overcome, except in the Prose Tristram.) It relates the cool and interesting stories, where the knight had a problem, or potential problem.


become almost a fait accompli.

Are you assuming these challenges are unopposed?
For KAP it is important that Traits be challenged, including the player's own challenge to himself.
I speak here of when he wishes to act contrary to his training--to run away for instance.


To be chivalrous, you are saying you must become a character who you'll have little control of, in the areas where you want to have control.

?
Characters are obliged to act at extremes, yes, because that is what chivalry is about


As I suggested in the earlier discussion, you can have it both ways by having several tiers of chivalry. How about something like: if you have 80 points, you get +1 armour; at 85 +2, and 90, +3. (or for more extreme, 80/90/100 - I have actually seen player knights with over 100 chivalry total).

Yes, that is the idea that I am working on.
However, these minor bonuses are NOT called chivalry
because they are not chivalrous behavior
warrior/soldierbehavior, yep
but there is no such thing as semi-chivalrous, lesser chivalry

MUCH SNIPPAGE

As I suggested in the earlier discussion, you can have it both ways by having several tiers of chivalry. How about something like: if you have 80 points, you get +1 armour; at 85 +2, and 90, +3. (or for more extreme, 80/90/100 - I have actually seen player knights with over 100 chivalry total).

Yes, that is the idea that I am working on.
However, these minor bonuses are NOT called chivalry
because they are not chivalrous behavior
warrior/soldierbehavior, yep
but there is no such thing as semi-chivalrous, lesser chivalry
If I might disagree, I believe that the literature does display "levels of chivalry". There are uber-chivalric knights (Lancelot, Gawaine, Galahad, Percival) but there are also those who are simply chivalric knights (Bors, Tristan).

Let the bonus be for being a Chivalric Knight, and if there is going to be a tiered system (for example 85/90/95) then let the bonus reflect the fact that at the higher level you are seen as being even more chivalric than the usual chivalric knight.

As a thought:
Chivalry Traits = 85+ AND 3 traits at 16+ = Chivalry Bonus of 75 glory per year & +1 armor
Chivalry Traits = 90+ AND 4 traits at 16+ = Chivalry Bonus of 100 glory per year & +1 armor
Chivalry Traits = 95+ AND 5 traits at 16+ = Chivalry Bonus of 100 glory per year & +3 armor


This allows for a Pagan Knight to be considered a chivalric knight, even if he is not seen as the epitome of chivalry as some of the christian chivalric knights might be.

MUCH SNIPPAGE

As I suggested in the earlier discussion, you can have it both ways by having several tiers of chivalry. How about something like: if you have 80 points, you get +1 armour; at 85 +2, and 90, +3. (or for more extreme, 80/90/100 - I have actually seen player knights with over 100 chivalry total).

Yes, that is the idea that I am working on.
However, these minor bonuses are NOT called chivalry
because they are not chivalrous behavior
warrior/soldierbehavior, yep
but there is no such thing as semi-chivalrous, lesser chivalry
If I might disagree, I believe that the literature does display "levels of chivalry". There are uber-chivalric knights (Lancelot, Gawaine, Galahad, Percival) but there are also those who are simply chivalric knights (Bors, Tristan).

I'll agree to disagree
first, Bors and Tristram are first class knights
But watering down chivalry dilutes its importance
Chivalry is Way Up there
It is not something that most player knights will attain
But don't worry, I am working on some steps along the way
When I have something coherent and workable, I'll make it public
Meantime, discussion is welcome
Patience is too :)

Chivalry is a trait that has meaning. It should be a goal of all knights, whether Pagan, Christian, or other. During Arthur's high time, it is not only desirable, it is expected that every knight act that way. It is the aspect that separates a noble knight from a commoner/man from beasts.

One aspect that I am trying to include in my campaign is how this changes man during the GPC, from Uther and dark age mentality and reality to Arthur's high water mark (so to speak). Currently, I am in the Anarchy phase, so it's dog eat dog. But with the easing of the borders between the sides (fey and ours) and magic running through both realms, being Chivalrous is a state of mind. And those who follow it, find little things are going their way.

Bob

Perhaps the threshold could change in the presence of the Sword of Victory (80+ when led by Arthur / Uther in battle, 96+ when alone).

One thing I have been wrestling with is the overall direction of the campaign regarding Chivalry. Part of the allure of King Arthur is the rise of Chivalry, the almost spiritual perfection of Camelot, and the victory of Christianity over Paganism. The "one" driving out the "many," so to speak.

Chivalry perhaps is a condition that can be achieved by all, but Christians have an inside track to it, based upon their religious aligned traits. Paganism (and other religions) can achieve it, but it is harder. I see they may be two benefits. The first being social. The second being the armor or similar benefit.

Although I like the levels of armor for having partial/lower values, for Chivalry to be the ultimate goal, then a big benefit is required. Maybe not enough that everyone would seek it, but for those who do, it has its own reward. Most of the round table knights were flawed. At the end, perhaps all of them. Yet, to achieve 96+ points is, as Greg points out, you have a more "perfect" character.

Maybe we have been looking at when the gamemaster/trait takes over the character due to these rolls in the wrong light. If a knight is Chivalrous, then maybe that fight with the villein who has been a thorn in the side for years, would require the defeat (but NOT death) of him/her even though all of the other knights (players) have been salivating for it. This would also be a big difference between Pendragon and other fantasy rpgs as you might be required to let the villein live.

Is there a precedence for this? Yes, look at how many times Arthur forgives Morgana for her repeated tries to murder him. (You could argue he has a HUGE "Love Family" trait, but it could also be Arthur being Chivalrous).

Bob Schroeder

Why should Chivalry be so very rare and transcendentally virtuous? You couldn't throw a rock without hitting a chivalric knight in Arthurian England, and yet there is a huge range of variation between these knights; I don't think anyone would claim that Gawain wasn't chivalrous, and yet his behavior during the Grail Quest was, compared to the also-presumably-chivalric achievers of the Grail, bestial and barbaric. Are we going to claim that Gawain was chivalric but not truly Chivalric? That seems like a very narrow, useless definition when applied to the literature, because if Gawain isn't truly chivalrous, then who is? Are we going to claim that true chivalry allowed for all the violent behavior Gawain indulged in? I can hardly see how we could do otherwise, especially since some of those shameful acts include things like "kill seven knights by yourself," which would be a very good deed in just about any other place in the canon. Why should we use (literally) transcendental figures like Galahad as a reasonable model for what would constitute "true" chivalry, especially when it excludes poster boys like Gawain?

This is doubly puzzling since Malory's source text for the Grail Quest was almost certainly written by a Cistercian--a monk, not a knight. Why favor that interpretation of chivalry over texts that were written for (possibly by) the knightly class itself, like the Prose Lancelot, which has a much lower bar for chivalrous behavior? Let the best of the best have Religion plus Chivalry to represent their superlative virtue; it certainly seems like extraordinary chivalry required some (Christian) religiosity anyway.

e: If we're going to take the Grail Knights as models of what constitutes chivalry, then that would disqualify knights who partake in love affairs (Lancelot not chivalrous?), and those who kill people who aren't really really evil, like incestuous rapists, parricides, and those who burn churches and torture clergy. The portrayal of Bors, Gawain, and Ywain constituted only one voice in the ongoing conversation about what a good knight was; it was not the authority on it.

While I do think that 96+ points might be a bit excessive, I am very positive toward making it harder for PKs to qualify as Chivalric. 80 points is far to easy. But I want to address to other issues here, ie 1) that the 96+ requirement makes Pagan-Chivalric knights impossible and 2) means that Chivalric knights would all be angels.

1) As for the difficulties of being Pagan and Chivalric, yes, it would be hard if it requires 96 points, but not impossible. You could have a knight, for example, with Energetic 18, Generous 18, Just 18, Merciful 18, Modest 2 and Valorous 22. This is a knight that would fails some unopposed Chivalric trait test 10% of the time. Sure, it would take a long time to build such a character, but it is far from impossible.

2a) Even if we assume that a Chivalric knight has 16 in all six traits, does this make him a paragon of virtue. When tested on a Chivalric trait, he will fail one time in five - that is hardly flawless. Furthermore, he could have 20 in all his chivalric traits - and be lecherous, petty, lying, worldly, gluttonous and paranoid to extremes. Even perfect chivalric knight can be very flawed.

2b) Lancelot is the perfect chivalric knight. He also commits a number of heinous crimes and minor sins: adultery (with his lieges wife, By the Holy Face of St Lucca!), treachery (against his own liege), slaying of friends and innocents (Gareth, Gaheris); he lies, indeed, most of his life is one great whopping lie; he treats the mother of his child like dirt, and so forth. Is this an angel? No. Why? Passions! His love of Guienver makes him do most of this, and possibly some kind of twisted sense of honor.

I simply do not agree that a knight with 96+ in all Chivalric traits must be angelic or anywhere near a Galahad style "perfection".

Chivalry is a trait that has meaning. It should be a goal of all knights, whether Pagan, Christian, or other.

Please see new thread "Pagan Chivalry"


During Arthur's high time, it is not only desirable, it is expected that every knight act that way. It is the aspect that separates a noble knight from a commoner/man from beasts.

I think that's a pretty broad brush to paint it with
I would say
Chivalry sets superior knights apart from other knights.
Knighthood is what sets superior men apart from the mass of humankind.

Please see new thread "Pagan Chivalry"
Where is the thread under? I can't seem to find it.

Much thanks.

Further ponderings in regards to Chivalry requiring 96 points...

Would the same principle apply to the Gentlewoman's Bonus? - i.e. currently 6 traits sum of 80.

How about for qualifying as 'love's champion' as per Blood & Lust & The Heart Blade quest? Again, 6 traits sum of 80 required...

I have always thought especially for Chivalry that the level is too low, and in a previous campaign ran the Chivalry bonus as requiring 90 points in the 6 traits, so it is justification in a way for my 'hard GM-ing', and this note from Greg is well-received :)

-Ved

I always ruled that the traits are only part of it. Being Chivalrous means you are a paragon and you must act like one. You must swear the oaths and live your life according to the ethos. It is not only that you act chivalrous, but you must strive to be chivalrous. This means that if you fail, there will be hard repurcusions.

As with the mentioned examples: Gawain is not chivalrous, although he has a lot of the traits to be a chivalrous knight, while Lancelot is striving to be chivalrous and thus for at least a while but in the end fails.

I want Chivalrous knights to be more common than Religious ones, therefore I shan't EVER use any rule which makes Chivalry more difficult to attain.

Also, in first edition, chivalry was less beneficial than religious (IIRC all you got for it was the glory, whereas the religious chaps got an extra bonus, for 16+ traits).

Only because I couldn't figure out what benefit to give it at first.
KAP is always a work in progress, for me


An average of 13 in all stats can be tricky to get if you are using random rolls - some people will breeze it and get it easily, and some knights will require 10-20 points of improvement (10 isn't that far away spread over 6 traits - 20 is a little trickier!)

I am not moved by this argument
Nobody should use random stat generation unless they are prepared to play a very difficult character
Randomly generated characters can also be the most fun
but not for minimaxing


Well this explains why I still play 1st edition, and I am sorry to see the game designer espouse this line. Each edition gets more and more codified and stilted, which seems in parallel to tournaments in the various KAP phases :) I use random stats in my 1e, 3e and 5e campaigns, and nobody has complained yet. If I want to minimax I'll play D&D

I've been thinking about this thread and the more I think about it the more I like the opposite idea, wherefore the religious bonus would only require 80+ in the appropriate virtues.

In my campaign a knight would have to make becoming religious his primary goal in order to get the religious bonuses. One point in one virtue during the winter phase for perhaps twenty game years before he's acquired the status. While he's done that other PKs may have acquired a weapon skill of 25+ or a full repertoire of courtly skills in the 12-15 range.

I realize Greg's reasoning for wanting to make chivalry and religious bonuses hard to get, but I think there are two philosophies competing here.

The first, which Greg espouses, is that Pendragon is a game about the journey to become chivalrous. It's not about the destination so much as the journey. He's done a much better job of articulating that than I ever can so I won't muck it up by trying to do a better job.

I understand and respect that idea, and I think it suits some styles of gaming, just not my own.

The second style, which I favor, is that Pendragon is a game about being chivalrous and maintaining chivalry. It's not about the journey so much as about maintaining perfection.

There are two themes that are competing and at the heart of Arthurian Round Table myth. The one Greg emphasizes is about creating perfection, building Camelot, uniting the realm, subduing the Saxons, and the journey toward perfection as exemplified in the Grail Quest. It's hopeful and upbeat in it's own way, but sad in another way, because, as all Pendragon players know, many will perish along the way and never see the glory that is, or was, Camelot.

The one I'm emphasizing I think is also at the heat of Arthur, the Round Table, and Camelot: the inevitable downfall of it all. Guenevere will betray Arthur. Lancelot will fall from perfection. Mordred will kill Arthur. Ultimately the evil Saxons will rule Britain. We as players, or readers, all know these things. Indeed, many of us played the GPC (or the earlier PC) before. We know the story and how it comes out, but we still struggle to preserve Camelot, knowing we're doomed to fail. Even more tragic is that the downfall comes from within, not without. It is those most beloved of Arthur that undue him.

There's an epic tragedy to it, and making the PCs more perfect before they die fighting for a lost cause only adds to that in my opinion.

I think both elements of the Arthurian journey are important to emphasize in a given campaign. Still it will be a very rare campaign that can balance both aspects . Ultimately we have to choose which aspect to emphasize most in our own campaigns. This is just my take on it.

I agree that the vision of Camelot is perfection, and that it in the end fails. But that is just the reason that perfection should be hard to achieve and even harder to maintain. Lancelot was seen as the perfect chivalrous knight, but in the end chose his love for Guenevere above his love for Athur, and thus in the end was imperfect. I see that as the the drama of Arthur and the round table. To try and seek perfection but not to obtain it. And once you have achieved this it is even harder to maintain it.

And it is just this fact, that it is hard to achieve or maintain perfection that should make the pointvalue 96 instead of 80.

I agree that the vision of Camelot is perfection, and that it in the end fails. But that is just the reason that perfection should be hard to achieve and even harder to maintain.
And it is just this fact, that it is hard to achieve or maintain perfection that should make the pointvalue 96 instead of 80.


Right, I agree with what you're saying to anextent. What I am suggesting is that it's nearly impossible to actually get both the tragic fall AND the epic struggle perfectly balanced in the same campaign. Ultimately, a choice has to be made as to which is more emphasized.

It also occurs to me a compromise solution is to have the chivalry and religious bonuses as variable, with different bonuses for 80, 88, and 96 points in the respective virtues.

It also occurs to me a compromise solution is to have the chivalry and religious bonuses as variable, with different bonuses for 80, 88, and 96 points in the respective virtues.


I have been working on something like that
but with different labels

I have been working on something like that
but with different labels


Something you might share with us?

Levels of rewards for 80/88/96 are appealing to me.

I don't see a problem with Chivalry being harder to achieve for Pagan knights, or to put it differently being easier to achieve for Christian knights. I think there are ideological ties between Chivalry and Christianity.

Non-Christian players (and players of non-Christian characters) may not like it but I think there is a pro-Christian bias both in much of the source material and in the game. The bias in the game is proper to reflect the source material.

KAP is a game about a very particular genre of stories. It is not an historical medieval game, nor is it a purely fantastic medieval game. It is an Arthurian Medieval game. As such it follows the conventions of Arthurian literature, folklore and myth, as well as history.

Some aspects of that may be troubling for Modern players, the role of women, a rigid social class structure, xenophobia, racism, sexism, religious conflict, heterosexism, a might makes right attitude etc. the ideals of Camelot often push these in a more Modern and progressive direction, but the world in general is not the world of today.

To me these are features, not bugs. I could easily write a game of knights in shining Armour riding around righting wrongs and doing all the things knights do while in the service and pursuit of modern social mores, it would not be KAP and I'm not sure how Arthurian it would feel.

But please, Greg, share more of your thoughts on the revised bonus structure with us.

I don't see a problem with Chivalry being harder to achieve for Pagan knights, or to put it differently being easier to achieve for Christian knights. I think there are ideological ties between Chivalry and Christianity.


This is already the case. Lets take even starting characters, with just their religious boni in traits and Valorous at 15:
Christian: Energetic 10, Generous 10, Just 10, Merciful 13, Modest 13, Valorous 15 = 71
Pagan: Energetic 13, Generous 13, Just 10, Merciful 10, Modest 7, Valorous 15 = 68

A difference of 3 might not seem so much, but it can be a difference of 3 stat points if the Pagan knight uses yearly trainings or glory points.

But even the bigger issue that people have been arguing is this: A Pagan Paragon will have hell of a time to be Chivalric, since his Proud 16 is directly opposed by the Modest. Whereas a Christian Paragon has no such conflicts and has the same amount (2) of synergic Traits (marked with * in below) as the Pagan.

The end result (assuming both characters have Religious traits at 16 and need 96 points to full Chivalric):
Christian: Energetic 16, Generous 16, Just 16, Merciful 16*, Modest 16*, Valorous 16 = 96
Pagan: Energetic 19*, Generous 19*, Just 18, Merciful 18, Modest 4, Valorous 18 = 96

In the course of a normal yearly experience check rolling, it will be very unlikely that the Pagan knight will get his traits up to that level. Lets calculate it quickly, to get from 16 to 19 in 3 years, you need 17+, 18+ and 19+ rolls. The likelihood of that is 0.2*0.15*0.1 = 0.3%. And he needs to do that in two, and three more from 16 to 18. Most likely, he'd end up using yearly training and Glory, and that is a HUGE disadvantage for a Pagan knight's player, much bigger than it is when the limit is lower at 80.

Just sayin'.

I propose (or propose again, as it was proposed here before) some other virtue-like packs.
Chivalrous bonuses are out-of-game incentives to PKs to try to be more like source-knights, and a in-game reward for them to mantain such status. The same for Religious bonuses. Those rewards are very restrictive (they dictate the way you play your character), and yet they are an amazing tool to keep true to the source for those who want it.

Maybe it is possible to still have the same feeling of reward for other Chivalrous-like virtues. There are chivalrous characters in the literature of many non-christian (even non-western) cultures. Those cultures are close to nonexistant in arthurian sources, but we to have examples of it all over.

In KAP it's said that Alexander the Great and Caesar were both knights, even though knighthood being a late advent. Maybe they are knights, but not really Chivalrous Knights. And yet, they are famous for their virtues and flaws. byzantine Emperor Justinian I lived during the Arthurian Era and (also) conquered Rome, sharing some traits with Caesar and Alexander. They all have a somewhat similar culture, similar skills, virtues and flaws. I can't help but suggest there is a "Generalissimus" Virtue pack (including traits such as Selfish and Suspicious) that would help them in Battle/Siege rolls, instead of extra Armor. We have characters like those in the game world, Romans and Byzantines are just over the corner.

You also have Chivalrous-like characters in late muslins' tales, except for their most valued traits seems to be a little different (and yes, U know the game is way before that).

Also in the literature you have spanish, french, italian, scandinave and germanic knights (or knight-like institutions) being very similar in some aspects to arthurian knights, but not totally. They have a somewhat different cultural backgrounds, but you can actually tell there is a "superior" class of men, with superior morals and posture.

And for something completely different and unrelated to the game, there are tales dating back to the 15th century (just like Malory) praising very Chivalrous-like virtues for Samurai and Saints, and yet they had a pagan religion with a multitude of gods and nature spirits. You have similar texts in early Korea and throughout most of Chinese history.

I do believe there are more than just One Chivalrous-like virtue set in the arthurian era, and that those should not break the game. I just don't think you should be able to easily meet the requirements for more than one religious plus one Chivalrous virtue-set.


Again sorry for the bad english, not my 1st language. If it's confuse assume I just messed it up.

I get that a Pagan Paragon will have a harder time being Civalric than a Christian Paragon. What I am saying is that I support this.

I do think thee are other cultural ideals that could be used to grant rewards of similar level to Chivalry if achieved by characters from those cultures.

Any pairing of Religious plus Cultural Ideal rewards should be very difficult to achieve. These represent the supreme paragons after all.

The argument for including non-Chivalry rewards is really a meta-game argument. It makes KAP more inclusive and better balanced. Neither of these are a priori necessary to the way the game world works. Both are concerns that we as players bring to the table, just like people wanting to be able to play enjoyable and fulfilling female characters.

I get that a Pagan Paragon will have a harder time being Civalric than a Christian Paragon. What I am saying is that I support this.

As do I
It is not an accident or an oversight


I do think thee are other cultural ideals that could be used to grant rewards of similar level to Chivalry if achieved by characters from those cultures.

As I am proposing, but none of them will be as good as being a chivalric knight


Any pairing of Religious plus Cultural Ideal rewards should be very difficult to achieve. These represent the supreme paragons after all.

The argument for including non-Chivalry rewards is really a meta-game argument. It makes KAP more inclusive and better balanced. Neither of these are a priori necessary to the way the game world works. Both are concerns that we as players bring to the table, just like people wanting to be able to play enjoyable and fulfilling female characters.

exactly

Coming late to the discourse, but I agree that KAP is a story of Chivalry. Those who follow it, should reap the largest benefits. Others can also get there, but it should be harder, both because they are going against the norm stereotype of their culture/religion and the actual fact that they will need more points put into the traits that are necessary.

I also like the various levels proposed as it will differentiate those who are chivalry in name to the actual true paragons of chivalry.

Robert Schroeder
Hzark10@aol.com

Feeling a bit silly answering a thread that is over two years old, but since the issue came up in another thread and I was rereading this...

What about having chivalry as 80+ in the best 5 out of 6 current traits? Meaning that a Pagan knight could drop off Modest, and soldier on with Energetic, Honest, Merciful, Just and Valorous, which would need 80+ so on average 16. And a Christian knight could drop some other trait and keep Modest. This would make Chivalry harder to attain, as you need 5 * 16+ traits instead of 5*13 + Valorous 15+, but it would be in no ways impossible for PKs, Christian and Pagan, to get. Furthermore, if you still allow British Christianity, they start with an inside track due to Energetic, Generous and Modest, making it still the 'superior choice' for a Chivalric knight.

Oh, and link it finally with Honor. Honor seems to me to be one of the best indicators of Chivalry: a chivalrous knight acts with honor. So:
1) Honor 16+ AND the sum of 5 out of 6 chivalric traits >= 80
OR
2) the sum of 5 out of 6 Chivalric Traits + Honor >= 96

What do you think? An elegant compromise or a rotten idea?

Oh, and link it finally with Honor. Honor seems to me to be one of the best indicators of Chivalry: a chivalrous knight acts with honor. So:
1) Honor 16+ AND the sum of 5 out of 6 chivalric traits >= 80
OR
2) the sum of 5 out of 6 Chivalric Traits + Honor >= 96

What do you think? An elegant compromise or a rotten idea?
By Merlin's Beard - this is the perfect solution to the confusion that the Chivalry bonus stats have been causing in my campaign.

By Merlin's Beard - this is the perfect solution to the confusion that the Chivalry bonus stats have been causing in my campaign.


Glad to hear you like it. :) What confusion are you referring to, if you don't mind me asking?

By Merlin's Beard - this is the perfect solution to the confusion that the Chivalry bonus stats have been causing in my campaign.
Glad to hear you like it. :) What confusion are you referring to, if you don't mind me asking?
Which number to use - 80 or 96 or something in between (like 90). I really like requiring notable Honor and then having 5 of the 6 Chivalry traits being notable - it's a good middle ground.

Feeling a bit silly answering a thread that is over two years old, but since the issue came up in another thread and I was rereading this...

What about having chivalry as 80+ in the best 5 out of 6 current traits? Meaning that a Pagan knight could drop off Modest, and soldier on with Energetic, Honest, Merciful, Just and Valorous, which would need 80+ so on average 16. And a Christian knight could drop some other trait and keep Modest. This would make Chivalry harder to attain, as you need 5 * 16+ traits instead of 5*13 + Valorous 15+, but it would be in no ways impossible for PKs, Christian and Pagan, to get. Furthermore, if you still allow British Christianity, they start with an inside track due to Energetic, Generous and Modest, making it still the 'superior choice' for a Chivalric knight.

Oh, and link it finally with Honor. Honor seems to me to be one of the best indicators of Chivalry: a chivalrous knight acts with honor. So:
1) Honor 16+ AND the sum of 5 out of 6 chivalric traits >= 80
OR
2) the sum of 5 out of 6 Chivalric Traits + Honor >= 96

What do you think? An elegant compromise or a rotten idea?


Honor is always a difficult one...
I would go for option 2... [you could hide a lower honor by virtuous behaviour]
A dishonored knight can still be chivalrous, right?

fg,
Thijs

What do you think? An elegant compromise or a rotten idea?


Something in between!

I did make me think of the write up for pugnacious knight:


The pugnacious knight is brave (Valorous), even foolhardy (Reckless). He knows there is nothing more important than his good name (Proud), avenging slights against it (Vengeful). Pugnacious knights uphold the practice of largesse (Generosity) and expect others to keep their word (Trusting), while knowing that above all else, might makes right (Arbitrary).

A knight requires 80 points from Vengeful, Generous, Proud, Reckless, Trusting and Valorous. Since a pugnacious knight is capable of dictating his own rules, he can use his Arbitrary score in place the lowest of these traits

Benefit: +1d6 points of damage.
Glory: 100 glory per year.

(Soruce: https://a-matter-of-britain.obsidianportal.com/wikis/pugnacious-knights).

One could do the same with Chiv, i.e. say that Valorous can substitute for Proud or Vengeful.


As for Honor, I have been think of house-ruling all ideals to include one mandatory Passion at 16+ according to this:

Chivalry: Honor
Romantic: Amor
Pugnacious: Honor or any Hate Enemy
Christian: Love God or Love Holy Grail
Pagan: Love Goddess or Love Cauldron
Wotanic: Love Wotan

So, yes, I like that idea a lot.

One could do the same with Chiv, i.e. say that Valorous can substitute for Proud or Vengeful.


Except that Valorous is already one of the Chivalric traits?

One could do the same with Chiv, i.e. say that Valorous can substitute for Proud or Vengeful.


Except that Valorous is already one of the Chivalric traits?



Yes, of course, but I guess you would have to add one Trait to the list, so that you have six plus the substitute, along the lines of the Pugnacious knights list.

Yes, of course, but I guess you would have to add one Trait to the list, so that you have six plus the substitute, along the lines of the Pugnacious knights list.


Hmm. Not sure what Trait that would be, though... I am more tempted to do what Thijs was voting for and allowing, in effect, Honor replace one of the Chivalric traits. Of course, you are already demanding Honor 16+ as well, but I think if the bar is set at 96, this is stringent enough a limit by itself. Almost certainly needing Honor 16.

Forgiving I guess.

In my current game I use the 96+ threshold for Chivalry (and Pugnacious, which I allow), and I think it is way better than 80+, which is too kind.

I have not added compulsory Passions yet, but I may well do. (My campaign has reached 499 and no PK is currently qualified for any Ideal, so I could probably get away with it).

I have not added compulsory Passions yet, but I may well do. (My campaign has reached 499 and no PK is currently qualified for any Ideal, so I could probably get away with it).
If no one qualifies yet then NOW is the time to do it. Once someone qualifies at one level, others will feel they are getting the shaft if it changes after that.

Hello,

I stumbled across this earlier today. I'm wondering if Greg's ruling on this matter from the first post, which makes all sorts of sense to me, is the ruling we're sticking with.

I'm asking since KAP 5.2 still has the 80 point rule. Since Chaosium will start distributing the game at the start of 2019, is this something that should be addressed before the next batch of this game goes to the printer?

I'm asking since KAP 5.2 still has the 80 point rule. Since Chaosium will start distributing the game at the start of 2019, is this something that should be addressed before the next batch of this game goes to the printer?

I can't speak for the publishers (neither Nocturnal nor Chaosium), but 5.2 had very few rule edits (I have not done a detailed comparison). It was basically just a layout upgrade (albeit a gorgeous one), and fixed some typo issues and such like that. There are some other things that I'd like to see fixed in KAP 5.2, too - childbirth being my bete noire, although at least they fixed the marriage table - that I suspect will have to wait until KAP 6.