The current tourney skill is extremely weak, some thoughts on improving it.

1. Use a tourney skill roll to see if the knight arrives at the tourney at all, each failure adds one day of travel and the knight keeps on rolling until he succeeds. Tourneyers should be gaining a knowledge of camping and travel. They miss the tourney if they're late by a day, unless they start their trip to the tourney days ahead of time.
2. Thieves were a big danger while traveling, roll again, if a failure they steal an item on a a twenty: check each of these: sword; each jewel the character is wearing; his purse; his dagger and for each horse.
3. Use it to evaluate a rival tourneyer's skill level. If successful they know the tourneyers skill, roll for horsemanship; lance and shield. They would gain the ability to not challenge knights too good for them or accept their challenges.
4. Roll to see if they know the tourney is happening at all and can try to go to it.
5. Roll to impress women in general or a particular woman. They succeed, they get to roll their appearance roll, if they succeed in that they get to roll courtesy and flirting win and get a particular lady's favor maybe. Gain +10 glory for each successful roll if they all succeed.
6. Use as a reflection of special training for the tourney +1 to skill check for:horsemanship; lance and sword. The bonus is only for that tourney.
7. If they know their opponent's skill level roll again to see if they spot a weakness. +1 damage and each to for each of Horsemanship; sword and lance for a possible +3 damage against them if they they make all three checks.

In my play group we use the tourney skill as you describe in point 3, which seem to bring good value and some roleplaying to my players.

Other suggestions seem a bit arbitrary for Tourney skill, IMHO most of these are be covered with other skills:

1. We have Hunting/Horsemanship/actual roleplaying the situation
2. We have Awareness for this.
4. You could use Intrigue for this (and only if the tourney is held in outside Logres, these events should be well advertised)
5. We have Romance for this.

In my play group we use the tourney skill as you describe in point 3, which seem to bring good value and some roleplaying to my players.

Other suggestions seem a bit arbitrary for Tourney skill, IMHO most of these are be covered with other skills:

1. We have Hunting/Horsemanship/actual roleplaying the situation
2. We have Awareness for this.
4. You could use Intrigue for this (and only if the tourney is held in outside Logres, these events should be well advertised)
5. We have Romance for this.


1. My reasoning for not using hunting is that hunters tend to travel to the same hunting grounds rather than be travelling in general, horsemanship is about control of ones mount, not travel. Tourneyers who are travelling around not just the kingdom, but the world should be gaining a knowledge of travel, geography and camping.
2. For this that they were actually avoiding dangerous routes. Awareness is about being on guard and looking for foes.
4. Intrigue also seems a local skill, used inside rather than outside a court. My idea was that the tourneyer skill reflected them chatting with travelers to get news about specific places and the exchange of info between other tourneyers.
5. I don't think that granting a favor to be worn is actually about sex, for both the man and the women it would be about getting glory, for one by beating out other men and for the woman by the number of men she had seeking hers and the quality of the contestant she gave it to.

Snaggle,

Hunting is Explicitly defined in the rules as the skill to use for travelling in general. Ditto avoiding danger/unwanted contact during travel.

Granting a favour is not about Sex, Nor Is The Romance Skill.

Go back, read the rules, Have another think.

Snaggle,

Hunting is Explicitly defined in the rules as the skill to use for travelling in general. Ditto avoiding danger/unwanted contact during travel.

Granting a favour is not about Sex, Nor Is The Romance Skill.

Go back, read the rules, Have another think.


TY for the input. The hunting skill that I've read talks about sense of direction in a woodland. Travelling to tourneys in traveling through settled lands, using roads, knowing how to get to places, where to stable ones mounts on the way and knowledge of taverns and inns and their reputations and regions and towns too.. The romance skill involves chasing or playing hard to get, kissing and trysts- dates in our terms, so certainly sexual.

Tourney reflects knowledge gained by attending/learning about tournaments. So while Hunting would determine how quickly you move over roads, a successful Tourney roll would tell you "This tourney is has a reputation for really muddy roads, I'd better leave myself extra time."

Like Lancealot I too use Tourney for #3.

I do also use it for knowledge of what tourneys are coming up -- I agree Intrigue works too, with the difference being Intrigue will tell you "Baron X is going to announce a new tourney" while Tourney would be more like "Baron X hosts a tourney every year, it has a reputation as a good place for up-and-comers to get noticed while the big boys go for the bigger prize tourneys, I think I'll go this year."

As for #6, there really isn't any. Jousting with a coronel is not fundamentally different in skill from jousting with sharps. What I do see though is Tourney-focused knights who work on their Tourney skill and not their Battle skill, and war-focused knights who do just the opposite.

TY for the input. The hunting skill that I've read talks about sense of direction in a woodland. Travelling to tourneys in traveling through settled lands, using roads, knowing how to get to places, where to stable ones mounts on the way and knowledge of taverns and inns and their reputations and regions and towns too.. The romance skill involves chasing or playing hard to get, kissing and trysts- dates in our terms, so certainly sexual.


Its just the way you're interpreting the hunting, it seems a bit deliberate to me. Knight who has good sense of direction in difficult terrain becomes just because hes on his way to tournament? ::) Did you notice that the skill has even bonus modifier for open fields? I know I would have hard time selling that to my players. Besides, the way I like to portray Dark Ages Britain, it is 90% woodlands anyway.

For travel through the country I would use two skills:
1) Hunting te get through the wild country, where you have to rely on your own wits.
2) Folk Lore for dealing with the commoners and get the information about the conditions of roads and possible bandits.

I also would not use tourney to get favors from ladies. To get favors is the game of courtly love and is determined by flirting, sing, dance, orate and romance and more importantly traits and passions.

Its just the way you're interpreting the hunting, it seems a bit deliberate to me. Knight who has good sense of direction in difficult terrain becomes just because hes on his way to tournament? Did you notice that the skill has even bonus modifier for open fields? I know I would have hard time selling that to my players. Besides, the way I like to portray Dark Ages Britain, it is 90% woodlands anyway.

Part of the problem is that the word "woodland" is not clear. It's the English form of boscage, e. i. land that's being worked under the closed field system, where farms are surrounded by ditches, with the dirt thrown up to form a bank, on which a hedge of trees were planted vs the open field system of champion, where land was worked in small acre strips that are scattered all over a common field. some people use "woodland" to mean "woods".

Medieval hunting happened either in private parks owned by knights or barons to which there was little travel involved or in forests. A forest does not mean a "woods" either. England was administratively divided into shires and forests, with a shire reeve (contracted to sheriff) over them and forests with foresters over them. The forests are where hunting happened, there made up of woods, meadows ("grasslands"), marshes, swamps and fens. People hunting in forests were traveling to the same area again and again rather than moving from all around the country and to foreign countries too.

Travel in general needed knowledge of a maze of highways, roads and bridle paths. People who don't have a knowledge of how to move across that maze in which their are not the aids of: road signs; good maps or locals whom have ever been farther than the 10-15 miles to the local market town could easily become lost. Tourneyers, chapmen (wandering merchants), merchant adventurers and wandering priests and monks, such as Robinhood's friar Tuck were the only people whom had a knowledge of the maze, a knowledge gained by actually travelling it before. Tourneyers are the only knightly characters who would of had a knowledge of that maze, even crusaders did not have enough of a knowledge of it to travel quickly.

As for a knowledge of direction only idiot hunters with very low levels of skills can't tell direction. any woodsman can tell the cardinal points without a compass-plants and trees always grow towards sunlight (the south in Europe or North America). Being totally lost and running around in circles is possible only for people with a hunting skill less than 5. In real life my hunting skill is high and I've also studied how they did it in the middle ages ;)

As defined in the rules, Hunting covers navigation. Part of the point is to not have 10,000 skills, so hunting covers, well, hunting -- plus travel. It is a generalized running around outdoors skill.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to use Tourney as a navigation skill. Tourney is really etiquette of a tournament; rules and procedures. I understand your point about experience traveling to the tournaments, but it makes less sense to me to lump travel and navigation with Tourney than with hunting. YMMV, obviously.

How do your knights get around before there are tournaments?

Well im with Snaggle on points 1 and 3. Tourney is vastly underused. I do feel though as far as navigation goes, tourney is only useful on open roads, any off road navigation should be hunting, as well as any form of direction sense if lost and not near a town or village.

My 2 denari

1. Touney roll to know where the tourney is headed and avoid any delay. If it fails perhaps a folklore check to get back on track if that fails, with a samll delay, the knight arrives late or if failed the knight may get lost off road where hunting may come into play to get back to the roads. This would cause delay of a day or more and may mean missing the tournamnet altogether.

As defined in the rules, Hunting covers navigation. Part of the point is to not have 10,000 skills, so hunting covers, well, hunting -- plus travel. It is a generalized running around outdoors skill.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to use Tourney as a navigation skill. Tourney is really etiquette of a tournament; rules and procedures. I understand your point about experience traveling to the tournaments, but it makes less sense to me to lump travel and navigation with Tourney than with hunting. YMMV, obviously.

How do your knights get around before there are tournaments?


OK this is what the rules say (unless 5.1 is radically different than version 5 of KAP)


The hunting skill is also used to test general woodland and wilderness knowledge. A successful roll...is needed to make progress while traveling in wild or uncharted areas...A failed hunting roll made to find one's way in the wilderness means the character is confused and must...delaying the journey for an hour or more...A fumble means the character goes the wrong direction and becomes thoroughly lost.

The hunting skill is used for forests in the medieval sense of the word, thus the adjustments for terrain that's not woods.

Knights don't travel all that much, a typical household or vassal knight is only going to be going to: Arthur's Pentecostal tourney; to see family or traveling in Salisbury or another home county if he's not or following his lord around (in this case he pretty much a passenger, as he's in no way deciding where he's going). Tourney knights, like William Marshal, were really the only ones moving around all that much-the reason why I suggested travel be used as a boost for the tourney skill.

Dont know what kind of a game you run, but normally adventurous PK are anything but typical knights - they tend to travel around a lot.

Given that most larger households were itinerant, household knights would probably travel a reasonable amount. I agree that vassal knights would be more likely to be homebodies.

I'm not really against the idea. Tourney could certainly apply to info about the tourney circuit like the timing of tournaments and distance best routes. I'd leave navigation to hunting, personally. Horsemanship would also be important for traveling at optimum speed while keeping your horses healthy. But you could use Tourney for traveling on known roads etc. Take a short cut, and I'd move back to hunting.

So knowing when to leave...Tourney. Getting there on time on a reasonable set of roads...Horsemanship. Taking a short cut...Hunting.

What's missing is some form of 'world knowledge' (at the expense of adding a skill). At present one could represent travel experience in a number of ways, and a knight could gain travel experience through a plethora of routes. Going around to tourneys would be one (Tourney). Traveling from court to court in your lord's entourage would be another (Courtesy). Actively campaigning in the battles of the Boy King and Conquest period is another (Battle), as is spending a lot of time running around hunting mythical beasts and just plain adventuring in the wilderness (Hunting). Navigating through the Forest Sauvage might require a knowledge of the other side (Faerie Lore). If you were moving lots of supplies for some reason, organizing lots of carts and mules might also be important (Stewardship).

I think Tourney can also be what you make of it during the tournaments. You could get into a lot of trouble by failing a Tourney roll and upsetting people leading to feuds etc.

Knights generally have four horses: a charger; 2 rounceys and a sumpter. Traveling horses need about 14 pounds of oats each, the sumpter can carry about 200 pounds, the knight and squire if not hunting need about 7 pounds of food = 63 pounds of provision are needed each day = they can move for about 3 days without stopping to buy provisions. If they're hunting, they'll only need 56 pounds a day = 3.57 days before needing to buy supplies.

If they run out of oats for their horses, they go from being able to travel without harm to their mounts, to having to stop after 4 hours of travel and graze their horses for the rest of the day. Horses normally can travel for only 8 hours vs 12 hours on foot by humans. Humans are a lot slower per hour than horses, but can still travel on foot for 25 miles a day vs horses 28-30. If forced to graze their horses, they'll be moving only at 14-15 miles a day.

The only alternative to grazing is to do what the Mongols did, ride a horse and have 4 remounts per rider. If one is using heavy draft horses like shires or percherons as one's charger, one's situation is even worse-these horses eat the entire load of a wagon they were pulling all by themselves in 14 days, while if one is traveling with a supply wagon for them one's progress per day is only 20 miles (assuming one has good roads to travel on). The above is based upon reading the logistical literature from the American civil war.

In KAP one either has to be getting supplies by showing up at a manor or castle and saying “feed us please”, risking both a “no” and the fact that some of them will even rob one instead. To move across a country one has to have a knowledge of both roads and inns, something that tourneyers who are traveling often will have. Of course even grazing which one will normally be doing every day, even when not being forced to graze, one will encounter poisonous plants. Characters likely know the dangerous local ones, but what about those 200-600 miles away. Or that if traveling overseas to compete in French, Flemish or Burgundian tourneys one needs both to know where to go to hire passage on a ship that will be actually going near to that tourney location.

Horsemanship is about riding a horse, especially in combat and does not grant one any general ability to travel.

I see you're one of those GMs that really like to go into detail. Which of course is fine if your play group is inclined that way.

In our game we decided to go light with game mechanics and leave some things not covered with skills to common sense and player decisions. My PK are not peasants as a group they have some idea of their surroundings having been served as a page and squire for a decade. Also we feel not having to tinker with every little detail and are more concerned of the big picture, which leads into more epic game.



In KAP one either has to be getting supplies by showing up at a manor or castle and saying “feed us please”, risking both a “no” and the fact that some of them will even rob one instead. .

As a game master I would handle the above with Courtesy & Hospitality and good old roleplaying, if something goes wrong.


Or that if traveling overseas to compete in French, Flemish or Burgundian tourneys one needs both to know where to go to hire passage on a ship that will be actually going near to that tourney location

How about going into port and asking where the ships are going, would that be a good start? :)


Horsemanship is about riding a horse, especially in combat and does not grant one any general ability to travel.


In my opinion the horsemanship ability is the closest thing implying how well one knows how to keep their mounts in best traveling condition. More than any other skill out there.

If your players have created their characters based on their common sense and experiences from other games having their Tourney skill checked for traveling some may feel a bit cheated even, in a way.

I can see you want to make Tourney skill more valuable, but dont do it on the expense of other skills.

What we do we have 10 points of glory for success in the enrolling, helm show and feast each (as well as occasional trait checks) - and skill bonus for successful "scouting" each of their opponent, giving +1 lance & horsemanship. IMO Tourney skill may have little use outside the tournament field, but there it rules, being rolled about 6-7 times depending how far PKs go or have opportunities.

Besides, I believe Greg has said himself the game is not meant to be exactly balanced.

For my part, I'd use Folk Lore for successful traveling. Lacking any maps (the player knights would not have convenient maps such as those found in the game handouts), one has to navigate the road by making enquiries as one goes as to how to get to the next milestone on one's journey. This is described very well in Ian Mortimer' TIME TRAVELER'S GUIDE TO MEDIEVAL ENGLAND. Use Folk Lore to ask that commoner or burgher how to get to next town, how long it takes to get there, how to meet up with larger groups going your way, etc.

A Critical success might reveal a shortcut, or a way to avoid a toll of some danger. Failure might mean you get wrong directions. A Fumble might mean you get lead into a trap, etc.


T.

Horsemanship is about riding a horse, especially in combat and does not grant one any general ability to travel.


Horsemanship doesn't have anything to do with navigation or knowledge of an area, but it is THE skill that will let you optimize speed of travel while not injuring the animals. The specific skill that you roll for travel will depend on the hurdle that the knights have to overcome. In some cases the test might require knowledge of geography, which might be Hunting or Tourney. In others, it might require pushing your animals to the limit but not hurting them, which would clearly be Horsemanship.

How you handle food (for both men and animals) while traveling will depend on how you play the game. If you want to be realistic, then worry about animal feed etc. If you want to be Arthurian, set up your pavilion or stay at a local castle and don't worry about it.

Personally, I like both. Sometimes its fun to run the logistics side of an adventure. Other times, it's not the point. I tend to like logistics for armies, but not knights.

As for carrying food, don't forget that the sumpter has to carry all the knight's other gear too. If you're really into #s, I wouldn't allot the entire 200lbs to food. Half at best. On the other hand, some Byzantine military manuals suggest that each horse would be expected to carry a day's food in addition to any other gear, so you might just go with the 200 lbs for simplicity.

Also, the 3-4 lbs per day per person that you see cited frequently in the professional literature generally (though not always) is based on all the calories coming from grain. Regardless, it is a fairly basic ration. A knight would probably bring better quality food, not mush. You might require a Temperate roll to carry only basic provisions. Otherwise, the PCs will probably bring some wine...bread...meat...etc bumping up the weight.

@snaggle, have you ever played Harnmaster? You might like it given your penchant for detail. I go back and forth. Sometimes it is too much detail. Other times, I feel that the detail really helps to define the setting.

@snaggle, have you ever played Harnmaster? You might like it given your penchant for detail. I go back and forth. Sometimes it is too much detail. Other times, I feel that the detail really helps to define the setting.


+1

Eothar I was giving the max knights could travel before a hay and oats stop for their horses. a pair of wicker baskets were often used with sumpters, reducing saddlery weight, and the US rations usually included pork (or beef) and cheese-about what a knight would have, excluding the wine ;)

As for Harn, it looks like a Runequest wanta be with the same defects Runequest had times 3.
Greg generally did a good job with Pendragon, though with lots of places for improvement. I don't like magic centric campaigns as they destroy role playing and turn the whole game into a game of witches and their guards- no thank you D&D, even too much minor magic like Runequest is bad.

Sure. I'm not really disputing your numbers, just some options.

I don't imagine most travelers would carry hay unless they were traversing really bad territory. (I don't think you included that in your estimate.) The numbers I've seen here and there for horses are 12-14 lbs oats plus a similar quantity of dry hay or much more wet grass.

I'm also not clear on whether all horses would get oats, warhorses certainly. However, manorial records show some variation in what working horses were fed. In some areas, they were fed oats. In others they weren't. I can try to dig out the reference if you care. Point being, one might only carry oats for chargers etc, but not for sumpters. I know that most military manuals for pack animals have mules etc eating oats, but those are often later. As you note, feed horses oats reduces their grazing time and leads to more travel time.

RE rations for me. It is worth remembering that what an officer expects to eat differs from what a common soldiers does. Certainly the knight could survive on 3-4 lbs with no wine or beer. He might expect to eat better however. If one wanted to work that into a game, you could use the Temperate/Indulgent trade off to see if the knight has the self control to NOT pack wine etc.

I like adding in logistics. I do it myself sometimes, especially for armies. I like to avoid too much detail in the actual play however. For example, I might figure out the daily food requirements for a knight and his retinue, and how much a horse can carry on average, but I'm not going to mess around with whether the sumpter has wicker baskets or a full pack saddle...The point is to add logistics as a hurdle, but not make it burdensome. If we were playing Harnmaster, we'd be weighing out each type of grain to the ounce...too much for me.

As for magic, I tend to agree. I don't mind the RQ magic. It isn't that powerful, but I tend to like lower magic...world most of the time.

NT

All traveling horses spent much of their day grazing, except in winter, where hay would be needed. Oats were the normal grain fed, but the more expensive barley as also used as horse feed, the bread grains (rye and wheat) were not as popular with horses compared to barley or the cheaper oats, but of course oats were also the grain that would increase most in price during a famine. The famine price of oats might make our knight not want to travel. Peas and beans were also some times fed to horses during famines, but they hated them and were more likely to become sick and die when fed them.

I like the idea of Tourney allowing one to size up the competition's skills, but would only disclose the exact skill values on a critical. Otherwise I would leave it vague (closely matched, slightly outclassed, majorly outclassed, massively outclassed, totally outclassed). How about Intrigue allowing one to size up the competition's notable traits and passions by listening to the pre-tournament gossip?

I like the idea of Tourney allowing one to size up the competition's skills, but would only disclose the exact skill values on a critical. Otherwise I would leave it vague (closely matched, slightly outclassed, majorly outclassed, massively outclassed, totally outclassed). How about Intrigue allowing one to size up the competition's notable traits and passions by listening to the pre-tournament gossip?


A good idea, but I think using courtesy is a better means - talking to ones rivals or enemies is always a good idea - they'll usually show one their weaknesses, also the reason parley before: battle; seige: defense or war. if one knows ones enemy's weakness they're defeated before works are drawn.

Talking to your fellow competitors and getting them to reveal weaknesses is not a matter for Courtesy. More like a series of opposed trait rolls. Suspicious versus Deceitful, for example. Or you can coax him into boasting about himself, but what traits should be opposition I'm not quite sure. His should likely be Modest or Worldly.

I agree with Undead Trout re Tourney. You don’t size up your foe by talking with him, you size him up by having watched him actually fight in previous tourneys. This can be general skill level (Is he faster or slower than you are? Did he easily beat several Famous knights or did he struggle against a newbie? Does he fight dirty or is he honorable?) or specifics (When he leaves his shield-side leg just barely open, is it a flaw in his stance or a trap? Does he have a “tell” that telegraphs his next blow? Does he usually rush in with an all-out attack or does he fight defensively and wait for his foe to tire/leave an opening?).

A high Tourney skill means you are more likely to have watched a particular foe enough to form conclusions. Intrigue might let you talk with someone else who has done so and is willing to share that information with you.

Talking to your fellow competitors and getting them to reveal weaknesses is not a matter for Courtesy. More like a series of opposed trait rolls. Suspicious versus Deceitful, for example. Or you can coax him into boasting about himself, but what traits should be opposition I'm not quite sure. His should likely be Modest or Worldly.


Since I'm basing my opinion only on real personal experience, I can say that you're certainly wrong on this point. People of low courtesy don't talk to others unless they're already friends. To discover anyone's weaknesses based upon character one merely needs to talk to them intelligently and observe their reactions, deception is not involved and mistrust is not a defense.

Real life example; I saw someone about to attack someone without warning or provocation and intervened to protect them. As my foe changed his target to me I asked him what rules he wanted in our fight. He chuckled and said "rules", I replied "then this is a fight to the death, followed by a long litany of things we could do in a fight without rules, when I got to "and we can gouge each others eyes out" he reacted with shock and fear. He quickly agreed to rules one of which was no gouging out of eyes. During the fight I feigned an eye gouge and he reacted just as I knew he would, with a panicked defense of his eyes, which opened him up to my real attack. One could say this is deception, but only complete idiots don't use deception in a real fight. Anything one fears defeats and enslaves one.

Low courtesy does not have to mean a person is not talking to strangers. That is probably more rules by modesty and valor. A low courtesy could also mean you do not adhere to the proper rules of the court and thus are seen as a barbarian.

I would explain your example as follows in game terms:
You used your courtesy to intervene. You gave the other options for rules.
your intrigue skill made you aware of the fear the person had for gouging out eyes.
You used your deceitful vs his cowardly to get him to lower his guard by using the feint.

Your remark about the fact that everyone uses deception. Of course that is why almost everyone has no deceitful of 0.
Now welcome in the world of KAP. Chivalry and the pursuit of honor is a search to attain the impossible. King Arthur is a story about ideals, and the struggle to reach it. Why is Lancelot's story so more appealing than that of his son Galahad? It is because of his flaws. And thus while it may be seen as ideal to be honest in battle, we all fail and use deception as a means to win a fight.

Low courtesy does not have to mean a person is not talking to strangers. That is probably more rules by modesty and valor. A low courtesy could also mean you do not adhere to the proper rules of the court and thus are seen as a barbarian.

I would explain your example as follows in game terms:
You used your courtesy to intervene. You gave the other options for rules.
your intrigue skill made you aware of the fear the person had for gouging out eyes.
You used your deceitful vs his cowardly to get him to lower his guard by using the feint.

Your remark about the fact that everyone uses deception. Of course that is why almost everyone has no deceitful of 0.

Now welcome in the world of KAP. Chivalry and the pursuit of honor is a search to attain the impossible. King Arthur is a story about ideals, and the struggle to reach it. Why is Lancelot's story so more appealing than that of his son Galahad? It is because of his flaws. And thus while it may be seen as ideal to be honest in battle, we all fail and use deception as a means to win a fight.


I re-read the intrigue skill, you're right that intrigue would be the skill used,oh my, my real intrigue skill is as high as Mordred's then ;) 8)

My interpretation of courtesy is that it's ones ability to fit in and be popular with nobles, or ones social grace and charm for them.

Lancelot appealing? I have always felt that he deserved to be executed as a traitor and that Chrétien de Troyes was right to have him ride in that felon's cart when he first decided to betray Arthur and his fellow knights. Gawaine and Galahad were always my favorite knights ;)

I agree with your interpretation of courtesy. It is the skill that tells you how to behave among your peers and betters. I do not know if it makes you popular, but is a very good first step. As I said it is all about ideals so you will also have to show some of those to become truly popular.

As for the appaeling knigts it was just to set two against each other. I dislike Galahad because he is just perfect. No real flaw. Gawain on the other hand never claims to be chivalrous knight so he has his flaws, and yes that is far more appealing to me.

Gawaine is also a perfect knight, but of the type the third type Greg did not put in the game. Gawaine is the perfect knight of true chivalry vs the courtly chivalry which is in the game. The heroes of chansons de geste rather than romances.