I don't know if this has been discussed before in the forums, but it is a long-standing dilemma in my Pendragon games, and I finally decided to inquire about it. So, here goes...

Is Honor more of a Passion which can inspire a knight, more connected to his integrity and personal perception of himself, or a summary of everyone else's opinion of him? It presents problems in regards to getting impassioned, since being inspired is certainly connected to a knight's opinion of himself (or herself, as may sometimes be the case). I present two cases to clarify my confusion:

1) A knight of fairly average Honor, let's say 13, does an utterly dastardly deed, which would send his Honor down the drain and cause him to be stripped of knighthood or even hanged (breaks an oath of honour, murders his liege, commits treason, you name it). However, he manages to completely and utterly conceal his misdeed. Does he get a Honor penalty, which would cause him to be de-knighted? If not, can he then actually use his Honor of 13 for inspiration rolls, since he himself is completely aware of his horrible crime and dishonour?

2) A knight of reknown Honor of 16 is condemned for a similar crime, his Honor is decreased to 1, and he is stripped of knighthood and exiled. The thing is, he is innocent and well aware of it, yet incapable of proving it. Thus, he certainly does consider himself to be a knight of Honor 16. Does he use his new, unrightfully degraded Honor of 1 for possible inspiration rolls, or his "rightful" Honor of 16?

http://www.gspendragon.com/honor1.html

It would seem that Honor is reputation. And perhaps passion to protect that reputation?

It would be interesting to know how other people play it. I expected my players to have some difficulty with the somewhat alien (to modern sensibilities) passion of hospitality. But I think honor the raised the most questions.

I would also see it as aform of reputation. But for apassion it is a difficult one. Getti g insipred is a sort of pride. It is keeping your reputation that is important.

Looking at your examples I would rule them tnus.
1. The knight still has his high honor, But probably has one or more checks on selfish, cruel or other negative trait. It all depends on his motivation for the foul act. Of course such secrets tend to get to the surface. Thus there is good cause that his honor will drop in the years to come. As GM I would feel obliged to let things surface and good materiel for future quests.
2. Yes his high honor is screwed. Being demoted as aknight will usually be the end of PK. If you wish to continu it would mean the PK needs to proof his innocence or proof that his honor was righteous. So showing his valor when he was deemed a coward. Another method would probably be to accept the punishment and ask for mercy. Depending on the opponent who was offended, it is either granted or not.

IMO neither scenario results in a substantial loss to the honor passion.

To lose honor requires BOTH a dishonourable act and that the act be known ( as stated in Greg's essay refereed to by SirKnightly) . The examples you give contain one but not the other.

So in the first example the knight would still be able to impassion themselves with their honor stat essentially using false outrage etc. in the second they would use righteous indignation.

In the first example the knight would be at risk of his dastardly deed being found out - and his bubble of false outrage being shown to be a front ( thus no longer allowing him to impassion himself as he would both know he had done wrong and be known to have done wrong)

In the second case they may be treated by others as having low honor, not treated as a true knight etc but this wouldn't effect the stat. Great roleplaying potential as the exiled knight chases the one armed man etc.

To lose honor requires BOTH a dishonourable act and that the act be known ( as stated in Greg's essay refereed to by SirKnightly) . The examples you give contain one but not the other.

I need to clarify one thing.
You are right insofar as this part: "Strictly speaking, deeds that are unknown do not fulfill the requirement to lose Honor. Strictly speaking, a knight has his public Honor and a secret cache of sins ready to burst into open."

However, it goes on: "His personal Honor, empowered by guilt over doing bad things, would be Public Honor minus Secret Guilt."
This means, in essence, that if he tries to use his Honor as a Passion, he uses the diminished value, as if everyone knows.

Hmmh, how on earth have I managed to miss that essay completely? It clarified matters immensely for me. Thanks, everyone!

I'm still a little confused. How can a knight be known to be exceptionally honorable (and therefore be famous for it) if that knight doesn't have the ability to gain it? It has a max of 15 forever?

I'm still a little confused. How can a knight be known to be exceptionally honorable (and therefore be famous for it) if that knight doesn't have the ability to gain it?
It has a max of 15 forever?

Forgive me
I do not understand these questions

I'm still a little confused. How can a knight be known to be exceptionally honorable (and therefore be famous for it) if that knight doesn't have the ability to gain it? It has a max of 15 forever?


An Honor score of 15 is not the max, just a starting value for knights. It can fall - but also rise to 16 and above without any problem.

For instance you get an experience check after a successful standard passion roll - an thus a chance to increase a passion like Honor during the Winter Phase. If it is critical success you additionally gain a direct point in the passion. If that doesn't happen you might get an experience check anytime the Gamemaster thinks the player knight has - in a significant way - acted according to the passion. (See KAP 5.1 pages 73 "STANDARD PASSION ROLL RESULTS" and 96-97 "TRAITS AND PASSIONS".)

At one point in the Passions rule in core 5.1 it says something to the effect of "passions can only decrease". I believe this is erroneous and may be the cause of Kaderis' confusion.

At one point in the Passions rule in core 5.1 it says something to the effect of "passions can only decrease". I believe this is erroneous and may be the cause of Kaderis' confusion.


p. 75:


Lowering a Passion
Once gained, a passion can only be lowered or replaced
(see the “Amor” passion).


However, that needs to be taken IN CONTEXT. What it is saying is that you can't just decide not to have that passion any more. You'll need to lower it to 0 or have it replaced by a stronger Passion.

Personally, I feel that is a bit too harsh to require the PKs to spend their Yearly Training on lowering a Passion. I'd probably allow them to do that automatically by a point, and in the case where the passion is not valid any more (for example, a Hate towards a person who has now been killed), I'd probably tell them to take it off the character sheet, if they feel that the Hate has died with the death of the principal target. If they want to widen the hate for that whole family line, I might allow that instead.

Personally, I feel that is a bit too harsh to require the PKs to spend their Yearly Training on lowering a Passion.

I simply made it the same cost to diminish it that it was to raise it
Seemed sensible
Otherwise there'd be minimaxers diddling around on 15 and raising and lowering it


I'd probably allow them to do that automatically by a point, and in the case where the passion is not valid any more (for example, a Hate towards a person who has now been killed), I'd probably tell them to take it off the character sheet, if they feel that the Hate has died with the death of the principal target. If they want to widen the hate for that whole family line, I might allow that instead.

Although I would insist that either
1. someone in the family do something to inflame/transfer the passion
2. he have a Hate (so and so Family) to begin with
which makes sense when considering the way that families work in the "all for one" way