Hello all,

I'm new to the King Aruthur Pendragon scene, and have recently started GM'ing for a group of my friends. We are following the GPC, and getting close to the end of Uther's reign.

My question regards the glory from being chivalrous during the time periods prior to Arthur ascending to the throne. I currently have one player knight who has the chivalry bonus. I don't have the KAP 5.1ed right in front of me right now, but I remember it stating that chivalry's virtues don't gain popularity until Arthur is king. The book clearly states however that the bonus magical armor applies in all time periods. This left me as the GM wondering if the said PK should be receiving the 100 glory per year, since being chivalrous isn't popular yet and it seems to me the book hints that PK's shouldn't receive it yet either.

So far, I have not given him any glory for being chivalrous. Should I? Am I misreading the rules? How do you all handle this?

Thank you for any and all help in advance!

Regards,
-TheAnonyru

If you prefer to strictly follow the rules, then Chivalry Bonus should award 100 points of annual Glory.

Nevertheless, it is pretty much a question of GM preferences. If you wish to make Arthur the true founder and fount of Chivalry, then it is indeed justifiable to award Glory (and perhaps even the armour bonus!) only after he is crowned. This would be quite suitable if you wish to make Arthur a larger-than-life, demigoddish symbol of chivalry and kingship.

You could also decide that Chivalry is something that has always existed, having simply been neglected and half-forgotten during the violent and brutal dawn of the Dark Ages. Arthur would therefore merely popularize and codify the ideal, rather than create or "channel" it. If this is the case, then player knights should receive at least the armour bonus, and possibly the Glory bonus as well (even though their behaviour might seem odd and stupidly idealistic during Uther and Anarchy periods, their unusual nobility and honour would also more than likely spark admiration and fame equal to the 100 annual Glory points).

We're currently in 508 and so before Arthur's time and I play it that there is no chivalry bonus. Being chivalrous does not get the knights noticed before Arthur is crowned is how I like to see it.

I ran it where the PK didn't get a "chivalry" bonus in the Uther and Anarchy phases, but rather a "might for right" bonus. They got the full armour bonus, and 40 glory.

After Arthur brings chivalry to the fore, then they received the full 100 glory.

For me Chivalry is more than having the right stats. It is also a fame of mind and a vow that goes with it.
So if they wish to make the vow and truly live according to the chivalry than they are awarded the prices. Even in the Uther and anarchy period. They are of course seen as weird, but get glory none the less.
Glory is after all a measure of how well known is the man either for good or bad and being a rather weird knight counts for that.

Once again, thank you all for replying!

I agree with you Cornelius that Chivalry is about having the right mindset. The PK who has the Chivalry bonus in my group definitely seems and acts that way. And certainly a strange and uncommonly acting knight will receive glory for being such.

Like you, SirUkpyr, I was toying with the idea of only giving out a portion of the glory. I like how Cornelius put it though, so I think I will just give out the full 100 glory since the behavior is odd enough to warrant renown.

Like you, SirUkpyr, I was toying with the idea of only giving out a portion of the glory. I like how Cornelius put it though, so I think I will just give out the full 100 glory since the behavior is odd enough to warrant renown.

Just a note: I use a reduced glory for being chivalrous (or religious). I do not believe you should get extra glory because of stats, but because you should act. So a chivalrous knight probably will get enough glory for being what he is through play. The glory I give as an extra is only 1/10 of the one in the book.
Another reason I have done this is that through play PK get about 200-300 glory per year, so a 100 glory for just being chivalrous feels wrong.

I've always given the full bonus.

Were I to rationalise it, then I tend to see along the lines of "all round good egg" (probably a very British concept), or "Noble Savage" from the days of Imperialism. It is the man or warrior or knight who epitomises what are seen as good/noble values relative to his peers and thus is looked up to.

I realise that this may cause issues when lots of people will feel that a "good Celtic pagan" should be recognised for other values but I personally feel it starts to get player characters into the right mindset of what is expected of them from the game system as written.

Chris

I think that we need to consider two different things. Like others said, we need to decide if Chivalry is something that should always give you a bonus to Armor regardless of the time period. Since this bonus is "magical/holy/whatever", it follows that it can be given because it's "true" even if the ideal doesn't exist as a cultural concept or as part of the moral outlook on life at a certain time period. Or you can rule that Arthur "channels" it, and in that case it's reserved for future periods.

The question of Glory is a different matter. Glory, the way I see it, is related to how other people (society, etc) sees you. If Chivalry is not part of the accepted norms, or even alien and frowned upon, then you can very well give an Armor bonus but NOT a Glory bonus during the first periods.

Or you could make Chivalry Armor bonus part of the 'Enchantment of Britain', starting with Arthur's reign. Suddenly, the good guys do win! I tend to play Uther and Anarchy more in a way of 'might makes right' and NOT giving the Armor bonus does mean that there is no game-mechanical advantage to being a good guy. ;)

I am starting to veer towards the idea of NOT giving ANY Glory for Chivalric, even after it becomes fashionable. Instead, I might model it by:
1) Practically a prerequisite to getting to the Round Table (in addition to Glory and heroics)
2) Better reactions from 'Good Guys' which might manifest in:
2a) Bonuses in Courtesy rolls dealing with them, or even them giving more of their time to a potential RTK-to-be rather than just brushing by
2b) Bonuses in Court situations (we roll whether or not you get a chance to shine at Court, so this would be a bonus for that)
2c) A Bonus to your recovery roll from a Fumbled Tourney when entering a tournament ('Oh, it is Sir Galed, he is a chivalric knight, let him participate.')

I think that we need to consider two different things. Like others said, we need to decide if Chivalry is something that should always give you a bonus to Armor regardless of the time period. Since this bonus is "magical/holy/whatever", it follows that it can be given because it's "true" even if the ideal doesn't exist as a cultural concept or as part of the moral outlook on life at a certain time period. Or you can rule that Arthur "channels" it, and in that case it's reserved for future periods.

Even I have gone back and forth on this.
This week, I would tend to NOT grant the armor for meeting the traits--the new, higher value that is.


The question of Glory is a different matter. Glory, the way I see it, is related to how other people (society, etc) sees you. If Chivalry is not part of the accepted norms, or even alien and frowned upon, then you can very well give an Armor bonus but NOT a Glory bonus during the first periods.

Either it exists or it doesn't, and I think the armor bonus and Glory go together. If one, then the other too.

I have also been playing with a proto-chivalric religious order for the Uther and Anarchy Periods.
Not much more than a few thoughts at this point.
An important part of it would be that they establish the right of knights to be knights, as well as naming the requirements.

The question of Glory is a different matter. Glory, the way I see it, is related to how other people (society, etc) sees you. If Chivalry is not part of the accepted norms, or even alien and frowned upon, then you can very well give an Armor bonus but NOT a Glory bonus during the first periods.

Either it exists or it doesn't, and I think the armor bonus and Glory go together. If one, then the other too.

I agree totally. I like the idea of both the armor bonus and the Glory going together, since either being Chivalrous is a special distinction, or it isn't.

For this time through the Great Pendragon Campaign, I have decided to simply give half the glory amount and the full armor bonus in the earlier phases. Later phases might get full glory, but I have yet to make up my mind about that. Perhaps with another group I'll do something different, but for now I will just stick to that.

The question of Glory is a different matter. Glory, the way I see it, is related to how other people (society, etc) sees you. If Chivalry is not part of the accepted norms, or even alien and frowned upon, then you can very well give an Armor bonus but NOT a Glory bonus during the first periods.

Either it exists or it doesn't, and I think the armor bonus and Glory go together. If one, then the other too.



I disagree (oh my god, I'm disagreeing with the designer himself!).

Jokes aside, you designed the game, so quite obviously you have your personal take on this matter. All I'm saying is that I see a good case, in a YPMV-way, for separating both. E.g. lets assume that the ideals of Chivalry are directly connected with god (it doesn't necessarily need to be, but this is for illustrative purposes). If you uphold to the ideals of Chivalry, god "conceeds" you an Armor bonus, as one of his "messengers" that promotes "the Right Way". However, in the specific time period of a culture Chivalry is frowned upon, because people think it is not what god actually wants. God could still bless you with Armor because you uphold to Chivalry (even though you may not even be a christian yourself. The system permits this for Pagan Knights.) However, you would not receive any Glory for this for the simple reason that Glory is a social benefit of your behaviour. If your peers see Chivalry as something stupid (maybe you're a Pagan), why would you get Glory? Glory makes more sense to me as something that is bestowed upon you by your peers. If they see you as someone misguided and dumb in your behaviour, why would you be "glorious"? But god, even though you're a Pagan, may still bless you with Armor, because you're a "nice" guy, even if "misguided" in your choice of gods.

Just to clarify, I'm not implying that you, the designer, are wrong. I'm just saying that it makes sense to me to separate both. In the end, YPMV and it's a matter of taste.

Agreed with what Gorgon wrote.

Although one of the points that the game makes is that you might get glory also for doing evil or stupid stuff. For instance, if you defy the King at open court, that is good for a Glory Reward, although you might not get a chance to enjoy it for long... And of course, in earlier edition, you could get Glory for being Famously Lazy or Indulgent, neither of which are particularly praiseworthy traits. But it means that people hear and talk about you and hence Glory.

This is just to say that even if the Society thinks that chivalry is stupid idealism that gets you killed, it still -might- be good for Glory. Now, I have said earlier that I am more of a mind to separate Glory from Chivalric altogether, but that is just my own GMing preference.

That's interesting, I don't remember that part of the rulebook, but then again I haven't played in years. Still, like you, I think a case can be made for separating Chivalry from Glory in some cases. Plus, this is one of those things that is quite easy to house-rule, regardless of what the official rules say. Again, a matter of taste.

4th Ed., p. 46, Annual Glory Rewards:
"Find all traits of 16 or more, add them together, and write the total in the Traits entry. Do the same for Passions and write the total on the Passions entry."

4th Ed., p. 115, What Does Glory Measure:
"Glory does not measure the quality of a character’s reputation. Reputation is the purpose of the traits and passions system. A glorious knight may walk about proudly, lording it over other knights, yet be despised for his cowardly or treacherous deeds. King Mark of Cornwall is an excellent example of such a character. It is important for players to understand that, since Glory measures status but not reputation, evil knights who are extremely successful will attain the same Glory as some chivalrous knights. Evil knights lose reputation, not Glory, for their vile deeds. See the “Ideals and Passions” chapter for more information on honor and reputation."

4th Ed., p. 121, Sample Glory Table:
"Any trait or passion of 16+ gains Glory equal to the value every winter."

So negative traits and passions DID give Glory in 4th Ed.

I would say for this cause I play a lot during the time of Uther and the Anarchy period, that the act in being chivalrous and getting the traits to meet the requirement for the bonus that they get both the Armor and Glory bonus. I say the armor because it is the nature of being chivalrous that grant the protection, and as for the Glory, well Glory is is a marker for how well known you are. So if the player knights are acting in a manner in which is different then their peers then its going to be noticed and they would get that bonus Glory for having those set traits.

Plus I've always held the view that Arthur had to have been told tales of what was chivalry before it had a name. That there are player knights who are acting this way when he is growing up would just give credence to his giving it a name and living it as a truly glorious example of chivalry.