I have a PK with a famous Vengeful trait (17). He had it chosen as the PK's Famous trait, and then got another point after a raid.

I'm note really sure what the Forgiving/Vengeful trait means. He was offended by a household knight and I rolled Vengeful. He was upset for I forced his PK to draw his sword, but the fight was prevented by his fellow PKs. He then met this same knight a couple times and did nothing to avenge the insult (he argues that it would be Proud, not vengeful, to be ofended by an insult).


I need some advice here. How to deal with the Vengeful trait? When does it comes into play?

The way I see it, he is actively plotting his revenge schemes, proactively actually, potting even in case no harm was done or intended - even hurting people for harm they are capable to inflict to his PK. Could you please enlighten me here? Could your better define the trait and how will if affect the PK?

It is said it includes spitefulness, but I'm note really sure what it actually means in this context.

Thank you in advance.

The way I do it, Vengeful, means having to get back as in an act of revenge, and something more than just petty words. Simple avenging an insult would not be enough, unless done methodically. I agree with your PK it should be handled by the proud first, if the PK fails proud and gets modest he is modest, if he gets proud then that is ,if roleplayed well for me that might earn a proud check, if not then that proud roll could lead into a vengeful roll, appropriate to do so with a 17 vengeful. If Failed, roll forgiving, and if he doesnt roleplay that give him a check in Forgiving. Though the player or you at a 16+ in a trait may choose to not roll and just be vengeful. Hope that helps ;D

Im curious what was the nature of the offense that the PK might draw his sword, thats a very hostile and rash act and would be appropriate for a crit on vengeful. Your player could have requested a prudent modifier to the vengeful roll from the sounds of how it went down, if it was such a harsh insult.

This is how I probably would have handled it (hard to say how I would have felt within the moment of GMing, of course, always easier to analyze after the fact):

1. Roll Proud/Modest to see if the PK feels that the insult is bad enough to respond to. (Of course, if the insult is objectively bad enough, like questioning the PK's honor, then this step can be bypassed. The sin of Pride is one thing, being a meek, pathetic doormat is quite another, unworthy of a knight.)

2. Assuming he feels insulted, then his high Vengeful makes it pretty much a certainty that he will respond... eventually. He does get a roll, though, but if he succeeds in Vengeful, he will try to get even and then some, badmouthing his rival in court, seek him out in tournament melee to capture the rival, etc... If he does not do that, he is Forgiving. Give checks to Forgiving or order Vengeful to be lowered by a point if this keeps up.

3. Drawing his sword sounds like a crit in Reckless, not Vengeful. Or at least a success in Reckless, if it was outside court. Drawing your sword in court is a huge deal.

I concur with Leodegrance and Morien. Whether or not there's anything to 'avenge' would be based on Proud, or possibly even Honour if the insult were serious enough. That aside, going straight to drawing a sword in a situation like that doesn't leave much room for responses on a critical. If the guy was already a sworn enemy then fine, but not some random guy. For me a first step would be to demand an apology. In general I prefer to have players involved in interpreting their character's behaviour. Pushing someone into having their character behave in an extreme way, against their will, without good justification is going to be very counterproductive.

Good justifications might be things like established patterns of behaviour (last time this happened you did X without even rolling agains the trait), established relationships (but remember, you vowed vengeance against this guy last time), or rolling a crit or fumble.

Even then, the only time I'me prepared strictly enforce the results of trait rolls in the face of player opposition is during adventures when a trait roll is required to succeed at some test. However it's never come to that. So far I think I've managed to maintain a good relationship with my players and signaled well in advance how I intend to run traits and passions. Having said that I've certainly had players in the past where I can image I'd have problems with stuff like this.

I have a PK with a famous Vengeful trait (17). He had it chosen as the PK's Famous trait, and then got another point after a raid.

This value means that he will always act vengefully, no roll is needed
If he wishes NOT to, then he MUST succeed at a forgiving roll


I'm not really sure what the Forgiving/Vengeful trait means. He was offended by a household knight and I rolled Vengeful.

At 17 he will always act vengefully, no roll is needed
If he wishes NOT to, then he MUST succeed at a forgiving roll


He was upset for I forced his PK to draw his sword,

assuming he was offended as you said, he will act vengefully. Period.
That is what revenge is all about--getting back for an offense done


but the fight was prevented by his fellow PKs. He then met this same knight a couple times and did nothing to avenge the insult

Lose a point of Honor


(he argues that it would be Proud, not vengeful, to be offended by an insult).

This bring up the question (as pointed out by others) on the nature of the offense
You state "He was offended..."
That is what I am going on

Otherwise he is right--Pride is required
unless the offense was clearly against his Honor (he was accused of cowardice, of secret murder, of having sex with his sister, of having sex with his liege's lady, etc

Sufficient?

I would go with Morien in this one as the distinction between proud and vengeful.

Pride is for me at the heat of the moment. You counter the 'percieved' insult with words. Vengeful comes after if you lost the boast. It is then that vengeful comes into action. With a 17 I expect the PK to plot some course that he would get even with his openent. That can be at that moment (challenging him) or at a later date. If he challeges him and loses I still expect the PK will try and find something to get even. Vengeful is at best trying to get even.

We should also bear in mind the descriptions of critical and successful rolls on traits. Page 67 makes it clear that on Critical rolls characters must act in accordance with the trait, but on successful rolls the player may choose to have the character act in the opposite way, despite his feelings, at the penalty of a check in the opposite trait.

Even a critical or fumble does not actually dictate exactly how the character acts though. The example is Sir Bors de Blanc, who criticals his lustful, yet only touches the girl's cheek. Yet this is enough to make him feel ashamed. He does have Chaste 19 though.

In most situations I think that interpreting trait roll results should primarily be under the control of the player, guided by the GM. Rather than saying "you draw your sword" I would say "you feel compelled to take retribution, how will you go about it?"

Simon Hibbs.

Just curious, but why on earth did he choose Vengeful as his famous trait?

I think probably the 'best' example of Vengeful in Arthurian tales is the Orkney Brothers killing Pellinore in revenge for Pellinore killing their father, King Lot. And of course, the later killing of Lamorak, too. They act dishonourably in order to get their revenge. I'd tally Gawaine's desire for Lancelot's head more to Critted Love Family than Vengeful per se.

Vengeful is getting at the very least even, and usually adding a bit more. Someone insulted you? You will seek an opportunity to humiliate him in court or in a tournament or in a duel as payback. He is planning an advantageous marriage for himself/his son/daughter? Make sure you'll get there first to spoil his plans. Seriously, if my character would have Famous Vengeful, he would be targetting the other knight in pretty much every tournament (both in joust if possible and definitely in melee, with friends), sending handsome troubadours to seduce the knight's wife/daughter, and all sort of other mischief until the bastard HURTS for what he has done... The Count of Monte Cristo comes to mind as well. And if innocent get hurt along with the guilty, oh well, can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs (or so the commoner cook says, and you don't care about cooking enough to find out, an omelette is an omelette, and it is made to your command!). Merciful/Cruel/Just/Arbitrary might temper your willingness to inflict collateral damage.

Rob brings up an important question: if the player doesn't want to play a Famously Vengeful character, why did he pick that trait for his character?

Oh, Sulla's epitaph comes to mind as well: "No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."

We should also bear in mind the descriptions of critical and successful rolls on traits. Page 67 makes it clear that on Critical rolls characters must act in accordance with the trait, but on successful rolls the player may choose to have the character act in the opposite way, despite his feelings, at the penalty of a check in the opposite trait.

I have to confess I originally put this rule in because I hesitated to compel player character actions
I am not so squeamish now
nonetheless, if a gm does still obey this rule be sure to also knock down the Trait by at least one point!
In fact, I would prefer that they lose all points higher than 15--that is, they do not deserve the bonus for having this high Trait if they do not act accordingly
*harsh!* Yep--this is a game of consequences

Note that in normal rules he must succeed at the opposite trait to not act according to one of his 16+ Traits


Even a critical or fumble does not actually dictate exactly how the character acts though. The example is Sir Bors de Blanc, who criticals his lustful, yet only touches the girl's cheek. Yet this is enough to make him feel ashamed. He does have Chaste 19 though.

This is an example of how Traits may moderate each other
He would also get a check to Prudent
and he loses a point of Chaste for this violation of his principles!


In most situations I think that interpreting trait roll results should primarily be under the control of the player, guided by the GM. Rather than saying "you draw your sword" I would say "you feel compelled to take retribution, how will you go about it?"

or perhaps, "You must now take revenge for this slight! How will you go aboujt it?"

...they do not deserve the bonus for having this high Trait if they do not act accordingly

Hold the phone. Does "bonus" = "Glory" here? I thought you were moving away from Glory for high Traits. I'm sure I'm just mixed up again!



T.

...they do not deserve the bonus for having this high Trait if they do not act accordingly

Hold the phone. Does "bonus" = "Glory" here?

Not directly


I thought you were moving away from Glory for high Traits. I'm sure I'm just mixed up again!

If so, only because I mixed you up

I meant bonuses that he might get for Chivalry, etc which were established by that stat

We should also bear in mind the descriptions of critical and successful rolls on traits. Page 67 makes it clear that on Critical rolls characters must act in accordance with the trait, but on successful rolls the player may choose to have the character act in the opposite way, despite his feelings, at the penalty of a check in the opposite trait.

I have to confess I originally put this rule in because I hesitated to compel player character actions
I am not so squeamish now
nonetheless, if a gm does still obey this rule be sure to also knock down the Trait by at least one point!
In fact, I would prefer that they lose all points higher than 15--that is, they do not deserve the bonus for having this high Trait if they do not act accordingly
*harsh!* Yep--this is a game of consequences

Note that in normal rules he must succeed at the opposite trait to not act according to one of his 16+ Traits


All fair enough, but I think there's a reasonable difference between what you are comfortable with and what we can reasonably expect a beginning Pendragon GM to be comfortable with. Adjudicating trait rolls and such is tricky and especially if your players are new to the game you need to carry them with you. Perhaps a comment in future designers notes on running Hardball Pendragon?





Even a critical or fumble does not actually dictate exactly how the character acts though. The example is Sir Bors de Blanc, who criticals his lustful, yet only touches the girl's cheek. Yet this is enough to make him feel ashamed. He does have Chaste 19 though.

This is an example of how Traits may moderate each other
He would also get a check to Prudent
and he loses a point of Chaste for this violation of his principles!


In most situations I think that interpreting trait roll results should primarily be under the control of the player, guided by the GM. Rather than saying "you draw your sword" I would say "you feel compelled to take retribution, how will you go about it?"

or perhaps, "You must now take revenge for this slight! How will you go aboujt it?"

We should also bear in mind the descriptions of critical and successful rolls on traits. Page 67 makes it clear that on Critical rolls characters must act in accordance with the trait, but on successful rolls the player may choose to have the character act in the opposite way, despite his feelings, at the penalty of a check in the opposite trait.

I have to confess I originally put this rule in because I hesitated to compel player character actions
I am not so squeamish now
nonetheless, if a gm does still obey this rule be sure to also knock down the Trait by at least one point!
In fact, I would prefer that they lose all points higher than 15--that is, they do not deserve the bonus for having this high Trait if they do not act accordingly
*harsh!* Yep--this is a game of consequences


I use the following rule here:
When I ask a player to roll traits and the player decides to act contrary to the roll the trait involves is lowered. So if he has a vengeful 16 and rolls successful or critical and thus should act vengeful, but wants to be forgiving or acts like it, then the vengeful trait will be lowered by 1. This gives the player the control on how the PK acts, but as Greg says it has consequences.

And when I feel a person acts contrary to his normal believes I will ask him to roll for the appropriate traits.

If the knight has chosen Vengeful as a famous trait then he is well known for being exceptionally vengeful. He will not let any slight no matter how small pas without answer. Depending on his other traits and his personality he may subscribe to the adage that "revenge is a dish best served cold", but that simply delays the vengeance.

A Reckless, Proud, Vengeful knight will likely act immediately to redress the wrong. A knight who is Prudent, Modest and Vengeful is more likely to let the slight fester and gnaw at him while he plots revenge. But in both cases the knight will be sure to have his revenge.

The degree of revenge will likely vary depending on the magnitude of the slight. A minor insult might be answered by an insult in return or a blow. An insult grave enough to draw a sword over must have been a pretty big one. I would expect a Vengeful knight receiving such an insult but prevented from attacking. His insulted on the spot to seek the knave out in tournaments and melees as a special target, spread bad talk about him, and generally do what he could to bring about his downfall.

If the PK let's the matter drop after the fight being prevented by his friends he should lose a point of Honour and receive a check in Merciful.

All fair enough, but I think there's a reasonable difference between what you are comfortable with and what we can reasonably expect a beginning Pendragon GM to be comfortable with. Adjudicating trait rolls and such is tricky and especially if your players are new to the game you need to carry them with you. Perhaps a comment in future designers notes on running Hardball Pendragon?

If there is a future version of the rules, I will entirely write out the option for a player to change his actions from what the die roll requires

If there is a future version of the rules, I will entirely write out the option for a player to change his actions from what the die roll requires

OK, as long as that character's actual actions are still under the control of the character player. Not to beat up on the OP but "you draw your sword" is going a bit far. There might be all sorts of legitimate reasons why a character might choose all sorts of different ways to express Vengeful in a case like this.

For example, Sir Vultan the Vengeful is slighted by a household knight. Fortunately Vultan is also Just 16+ so he doesn't immediately draw his sword, but instead gives his opponent a chance to apologise. Alternatively he may be Prudent 16+ so he chooses to bide his time and extract vengeance later, maybe he's Merciful 16+ so he decides to extract only appropriate and not an excessive retribution such as slighting the perpetrator back, perhaps he's Cowardly 16+ so he tries to wreak his vengeance indirectly, or maybe he's Lazy 16+ so he actually just can't be bothered.

Actually Vengeful 16+ and Cowardly 16+ make for an interesting combination for an NPC

Simon Hibbs
.

Sounds like Sir Edmund of Blackadder... ;D

I was thinking exactly the same thing. It helps that I played Squire Baldrick in a 'Home Alone' style Pendragon game at Eternal Con a few weeks ago.

It would also fit Sir Harry Flashman, who we've discussed around here recently. They're very different characters otherwise though. I suppose that goes to show that two characters can have some traits that are very similar, yet how the rest of their traits and passions work out can still lead them to be very distinct personalities.

Simon Hibbs

I was thinking exactly the same thing. It helps that I played Squire Baldrick in a 'Home Alone' style Pendragon game at Eternal Con a few weeks ago.

It would also fit Sir Harry Flashman, who we've discussed around here recently. They're very different characters otherwise though. I suppose that goes to show that two characters can have some traits that are very similar, yet how the rest of their traits and passions work out can still lead them to be very distinct personalities.

Simon Hibbs


I'd see Flashman as having very high Prudent, Lustful and Worldly traits. Not notably Vengeful, but it would be in the low teens. And it's arguable that his Cowardly is not that high, he just uses that as the excuse for his critical success in Prudent when facing a situation. ;)