It was mentioned by myself in the topic of poisioning that Sir Marhaus of Ireland used poisoned lance when he fought Trystan. If he had lived, what in Game terms would have happened do u think. I also think that there are sooooo many other examples of dishonourable behavior in the various tales that I wonder how these knights could still be considered among the greatest in the realm, and I wonder how the various points would be translated to the game rules. I have told u of Marhaus, but other knights do crazy stuff to Things that if my players did they would never live down, and yet these knights seem to bounce back just fine and still be the chiefest knights of the realm. Examples: Sir Garlon the invisible smites people with impunity while the y cant see him, but somehow Balin is the vile one for styriking him because of his hospitality breech. Brues sans pitie, and his woman abduction, all these knights are still knights( so they are not below 5 honour). Also there is Balin cutting off Viviens head( ouch) but he is among the greatest heroes out there! Gawaine Is full of examples yet he remains a great knight. Helps kill pellinore, kills a lady at arthurs wedding feast, betrays Sir Pelleas' ( or Pellams) trust with a lady after he swore to help pelleas woo her, he screws everything, he is vengeful as hell, and he fights with magic strength. Lancelot also fights with magic items and thats cool? I dont know, but can anyone see some of these examples and translate them to game terms, or think of any other Arthurian stories that bother them because the hero is sooooo dishounorable that u arent sure how he gets past it and moves on still held in high regard? Let me know. We canm work through the sillyness together. :D

In your examples, you describe two types of knights.

First there are knights who are out and out evil. Villainous knights, like Breuse Sans Pitie (and probably Garlon too). These are knights who, if they had lieges, would have definitely been stripped of their knighthood, but they exist outside the law - they are outlaws. They call themselves knights.

Then there are knights like Marhaus and Gawaine, who are not villainous knights, but who occasionally do things which are immoral. And that is good. The reason we have a personality trait system, is because knights should have flaws - sometimes players will have their knights do something which is unjust. or cruel, or vengeful, and even things which cost them a point or more of honour loss. Most great knights have done that sort of thing at one point or another, because they aren't perfect. Perfect is boring. Moments where a character does something immoral because a passion has driven him to it, or because it seems the right thing to do at that time, are good moments - they make for great stories.

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with using magical weapons or the magical advantages you might have in a fight - that isn't dishonourable. You're using the abilities you have, and if your cause is unjust, God(s) will make sure you lose anyway.

I feel most of what you are saying and u are correct. it adds depth to the stories. But This poison thing with Marhaus would simply be too much. I think Im going to go with other NON malory versions which say that the surgeons just missed a piece of spear and it festerd, because I would hate to think of a Round table knight using poison in that situation espacially. Where u dont even know who ur opponent is, and then u find it to be a young 18 year old whos first combat is against u. Not for me.
Also what I thought was strange about Garlon, was that for his obvious Villiany, he was the Fisher Kings brother!!!! WTF!!! WOW... Anyways. I guess that the magic item thing is no big deal most of the time, but I still think if the knight is aware that he has one, At least a weapon ,He should not use it in FRIENDLY combat or in tourney. Warfare is one thing... u are there to win and it is life and death and all people understand the consequences. But when it's combat for Love I think your Honour should suffer for it perhaps, or at least get a decietful check or something. There is nothing noble about beating a foe because u have superior weapon. A lesson Arthur himself found out when he nearly slew Pellinore. I just think that lancelot realistically would be penalized in some way for using his magic weapons etc in tourney or LOVE combat. At least less glory for a victory or something. But maybe im thinking on the subject too hard........... :-\

You may be seeing things with a very modern sense of fair play.
No-one thought less of Arthur for using a magic weapon to nearly kill Pellinore - in fact, that made the story worth more glory, not less.
It was a tragedy that a great knight might die, but no-one thought either of Arthur or Pellinore was in the wrong - they were great warriors, who should be allies, and one had nearly killed the other. If Excalibur hadn't been part of the story, and Arthur had beaten him without it, the enotions inspired by the story would have been exactly the same.

A knight might choose not to use a magic weapon in a tournament or whatever, and that would be exceptiuonal behaviour worthy of checks to Honour or Just or whatever. Whereas using them would be the normal behaviour and wouldn't be worth checks either way.

Marhaus and his poisoned spear is a grey area, I'll grant you, but IIRC the way it is represented in Pendragon makes it a perfectly usable weapon. I think I've seen it represented in two ways: one is just a set damage increase, no different to an axe or a mace, and another works like this: if you are injured by this weapon, then on every anniversary of the wound, the injury reappears in full. That's a nice flavourful effect, and would give anyone pause as they are about to face Marhaus once they know about it, but doesn't give him an undue advantage in the fight. (Certainly not as much as Excalibur gives Arthur!)

Garlon on the other hand - definitely villainous and cowardly to use invisibility against another knight, no question.
So if you get killed by it, you are dead, obviously, but if you don't get killed by it,