I decided to open a new thread about this to get some clear answers about this specific topic. Here's the situation:

1) It's the Anarchy period.
2) Knight decides to conquer some land. He chooses manor A in Ambrius since that isn't ruled by Lady Ellen.
3) Manor A is an outlier. As I understand outliers can be manors from a much larger estate (estate B) in a different county. Estate B is in a county whose lord is not in the best terms with Lady Ellen (or Salisbury). So, in my campaign, this is an outlier of a
Huntland estate, which - just now - fell to the angles. So there's a lot of confusion.
4) Said knight takes Manor A but kills the noblewoman and her small children in a rash act (loss of Honor, Cruel, Reckless, etc.)
5) Knight returns and tells what happened, that he conquered the manor in Lady Ellen's name, blablabla.

Since none of us knows the intricacies of the feudal system, and this is a game after all not a history lesson, I want the character to have consequences, short of killing him or imprisoning him outright. Lady Ellen is obviously angry. Morien rightly suggested that being a widow herself with underage children, this hit a little close to home. Besides the knight killed a noblewoman.

What I specifically need are suggestions on how to proceed. The PK is a protagonist after all, who acted rashly. He should go unpunished but I also don't want the player to feel he is being punished for not knowing what feudal society was really like other than what the rulebook tells him.

Tell me stuff as if you were preparing your next session of Pendragon. Go wild. What I need are ideas to brainstorm. :)

I decided to open a new thread about this to get some clear answers about this specific topic. Here's the situation:

1) It's the Anarchy period.
2) Knight decides to conquer some land. He chooses manor A in Ambrius since that isn't ruled by Lady Ellen.
3) Manor A is an outlier. As I understand outliers can be manors from a much larger estate (estate B) in a different county. Estate B is in a county whose lord is not in the best terms with Lady Ellen (or Salisbury). So, in my campaign, this is an outlier of a
Huntland estate, which - just now - fell to the angles. So there's a lot of confusion.
4) Said knight takes Manor A but kills the noblewoman and her small children in a rash act (loss of Honor, Cruel, Reckless, etc.)
5) Knight returns and tells what happened, that he conquered the manor in Lady Ellen's name, blablabla.

Since none of us knows the intricacies of the feudal system, and this is a game after all not a history lesson, I want the character to have consequences, short of killing him or imprisoning him outright. Lady Ellen is obviously angry. Morien rightly suggested that being a widow herself with underage children, this hit a little close to home. Besides the knight killed a noblewoman.

What I specifically need are suggestions on how to proceed. The PK is a protagonist after all, who acted rashly. He should go unpunished but I also don't want the player to feel he is being punished for not knowing what feudal society was really like other than what the rulebook tells him.

I presume there's a "not" missing in that bit :)

The rulebook tells the player pretty hard that killing noblewomen is against the societal rules. The background, even in the rough-and-tumble of the Anarchy phase, tells him that sort of action is the kind of thing honourless saxon scum do, not knights. Your knight didn't act "rashly", he acted like a murderer. He definitely needs to be taught a lesson. Does he have a son? A brother?


Tell me stuff as if you were preparing your next session of Pendragon. Go wild. What I need are ideas to brainstorm. :)


It's quite clear that our antihero hasn't acted directly against Ellen. That outlier needed taking control of, with the loss of its Lord and the knight who's supposed to be consuming its render. If Huntland has an heir, Arthur will sort it out (not that the characters know this for sure) but until then, that render is better supporting a knight who can beat up Saxon raiders than fattening the Manor's villeins/steward/widow.

The problem is the murder. As you recognise, it hits pretty close to Ellen's state, and she simply can't condone it. You're looking at exile or execution. The former if the player simply can't bear to lose his PK, the latter if there's an heir for his existing lands; that's half the point of the "dynastic roleplay" feature of the game: to allow the player to continue after a mishap or mistake without having to start from scratch. He doesn't get Manor A added to his lands if he stays Ellen's man.

Exile could lead to lots of interesting non-Salisbury shenanigans. I'm not sure "a year and a day" is enough for murdering a widow; maybe seven years? You could time his return to coinicide with some momentous battle or crisis where his intervention changes the course of events. Or you could have the player take the part of whoever is assigned to his manor to look after it while he's away, with some abstracted progression for the exiled knight.

An alternative is rebellion. There will be Salisbury knights who are unhappy to be ruled by a woman, perhaps your PK could join with them to unseat Ellen as Robert's guardian and restore "the proper order of things" as they see it. This way, he might actually get Manor A, but Salisbury would be a very different place than canonically, and might not be as favoured by Arthur. If the coup was successful, the "punishment" for the PK's crime might be very delayed (long enough for his heir to reach majority), and might be as simple (but perhaps unexpected) as not having the relief payable upon succeeding his father (executed for murder) waived by Arthur's assessors. All this would have significant effects on future relations between the PK (and his heirs) and authority.

Exactly! My problem isn't conquering the manor per se but the murder of the widow and the children. The player might have acted in haste when someone mentioned the rightful heirs might return to claim the manor. Alas, this is a roleplaying game and short of retconning the bit (which I'm loathe to do, only in the most extreme cases of campaign derailing), he has to live with the consequences. Exile might be a good way to go since no one is opposing Lady Ellen right now and the only knight (an NPC) who could be a threat to her power (perceived or not) is now a loyal knight whose ambition is to marry her (NPCs have their own agendas and the world doesn't stop). :-)

In any case, if the knight is exiled for some reason (and there are more players around the table whose characters won't be exiled), what would happen to the original manor he received when the character was created (Cholderton)? Would this PK's heirs be eligible to receive it when reaching adult age? At this point, the offending PK would have to be taken out of the game because he's the only one exiled so a new PK would have to be created. However, will his family be punished for his actions?

I agree that the big point here is the murder of the noblewoman and her children, rather than the conquest of the manor itself. The PK would have been better served by claiming the guardianship of the widow and the children, since obviously, by this act of conquest, he is a better guardian than the absent abbot. Then he could have enjoyed the manor's income (minus the support for the widow and the children), until the heir becomes an adult. The Abbot might have objected to this, but everyone else would probably have been fine with it during the Anarchy.

Secondly, sounds like there is little in the way of a preceding massacre to justify the murders as an eye for an eye; it is simply the greed of the PK, so that there won't be any rival claimants. But legally, this just means that the manor escheats to its liege lord, the Abbot, one would assume.

Thirdly, Ellen's own position is very analogous to the murdered widow's. I can't see her condoning this, since it cuts to the very basis of her own rule in Salisbury.

Given that the PK in question has been a loyal vassal in the past (as you said in the other thread), this might be enough to save his head and his original manor. However, I could very easily see him exiled for life. His heir would inherit Cholderton (when the heir is of age, until then he would be the Countess' ward). The PK probably would vanish from the campaign as the result, with a new character brought in (brother, cousin?) for the interrim at least, since I don't see the other PKs following him to exile for more adventuring together, with all the threats to Salisbury that are happening during the Anarchy. There would also be all the relatives of the murdered widow and the children looking for revenge; even if the male side would be wiped out (which it might not be, the uncles and cousins of the heirs might still be around), there is the widow's family as well, who might not have a claim on the manor, but certainly would be pissed off by the killing of their sister/nephews/nieces (assuming brothers of the widow).

Personally, I would have warned the PK of the consequences when he decided to murder the widow and the children (so more than one... we are racking up those Honor penalties here, aren't we?). But it doesn't take too much empathy/brains to realize that killing widows and children is WRONG, despite it being the Anarchy, especially when you are serving a widow with children! Given the bloodstained conquest of the manor, I think Ellen would probably return it as soon as possible to the Abbot, to ensure that she doesn't get splashed by that blood-guilt by association. There is no way that she would allow the PK to profit by the murder by letting him or his heirs keep the manor.

In any case, if the knight is exiled for some reason (and there are more players around the table whose characters won't be exiled), what would happen to the original manor he received when the character was created (Cholderton)?
Ellen could attaint it for the duration of the exile, taking it off the family and using its render to support a household knight. If there is a wife, and heirs, she could appoint a keeper of the heir as a ward in the absence of his father, who'd be effectively the knight of the manor, and collect all the render and dispose of excess at his will. If exile is the choice, it might be too much to take his manor off his family; I'd only see that happening if the crime was considered serious enough for an execution; it wasn't treachery, after all.


Would this PK's heirs be eligible to receive it when reaching adult age? At this point, the offending PK would have to be taken out of the game because he's the only one exiled so a new PK would have to be created. However, will his family be punished for his actions?

Generally, yes the heir would still inherit. If it was going to be taken off the family, the PK would probably have been shortened by a head, first. His family's reputation would be tainted, but that might be cured by exemplary behaviour and great deeds in the future. Until Arthur shows up. Then there's the possibility any enemies would bring the dirty secret out to the King which might not reflect well on anyone involved.

To expand on what Morien was saying about how to try and nip this sort of thing in the bud, I'd recommend considering the Traits and Passions: it'd take a successful Cruel/Arbitrary/?Indulgent? roll (possibly all three) for the character to even want to kill an innocent, and a failed (including a -1 to the Passion) Honour roll to actually go through with the deed, I reckon, if the Passion was notable. I'd give a Reckless check because of all the negative consequences which the character would have known about, even if the player didn't. But mostly the rolls are there to give the player time to reconsider his decision for what the character would do, in the light of the character's personality, and to some extent (i.e. the very existence of the Traits in the first place) in the light of the setting being portrayed.

To expand on what Morien was saying about how to try and nip this sort of thing in the bud, I'd recommend considering the Traits and Passions: it'd take a successful Cruel/Arbitrary/?Indulgent? roll (possibly all three) for the character to even want to kill an innocent, and a failed (including a -1 to the Passion) Honour roll to actually go through with the deed, I reckon, if the Passion was notable. I'd give a Reckless check because of all the negative consequences which the character would have known about, even if the player didn't. But mostly the rolls are there to give the player time to reconsider his decision for what the character would do, in the light of the character's personality, and to some extent (i.e. the very existence of the Traits in the first place) in the light of the setting being portrayed.


Womble, that was all done an accounted for. Check in Cruelty and Arbitray, loss of Honor, etc. The player did the deed anyway.

As a GM I have to weigh all the options and which should me for fun for the player without detracting from the setting. I'm seriously considering exile with the confiscation of all the lands (except the original rolled manor). As a step further, to avoid exile, could the knight be involved in a heroic act (such as saving young Robert's life or Lady Ellen's life or whatever) and that would reduce the sentence to just confiscation of all the lands or at least reduce his exile for 1 year and a day or 3 days (the point being not take the PK out of the game if avoidable)?

I mean, even Balin beheaded the Lady of the Lake (granted, no noblewoman, but a severe action in any case, and Arthur was "wonderly wroth" and told the knight not to come back to the court which did not preclude him from further adventures).

I know I'll have to sit the player down and have a talk with him in either case. Yes, I agree, Lady Ellen is infuriated by his actions. But this must be handled with care as the player must not feel his being unduly unpunished for actions. :)

To expand on what Morien was saying about how to try and nip this sort of thing in the bud, I'd recommend considering the Traits and Passions: it'd take a successful Cruel/Arbitrary/?Indulgent? roll (possibly all three) for the character to even want to kill an innocent, and a failed (including a -1 to the Passion) Honour roll to actually go through with the deed, I reckon, if the Passion was notable. I'd give a Reckless check because of all the negative consequences which the character would have known about, even if the player didn't. But mostly the rolls are there to give the player time to reconsider his decision for what the character would do, in the light of the character's personality, and to some extent (i.e. the very existence of the Traits in the first place) in the light of the setting being portrayed.

Womble, that was all done an accounted for. Check in Cruelty and Arbitray, loss of Honor, etc. The player did the deed anyway.

Then I'd throw the book at him
This isn't D&D
Things have consequences--that is one of the main tenets of KAP
If the player is so upset that he won't continue to play, then good riddance. He would be nothing but a constant thorn in the GM's side if he is allowed to get away with something this serious without consequences


As a GM I have to weigh all the options and which should me for fun for the player without detracting from the setting. I'm seriously considering exile with the confiscation of all the lands (except the original rolled manor).
As a step further, to avoid exile, could the knight be involved in a heroic act (such as saving young Robert's life or Lady Ellen's life or whatever) and that would reduce the sentence to just confiscation of all the lands or at least reduce his exile for 1 year and a day or 3 days (the point being not take the PK out of the game if avoidable)?

Yes, certainly
This is fairly typical of the hero fixing his errors


I mean, even Balin beheaded the Lady of the Lake (granted, no noblewoman, but a severe action in any case, and Arthur was "wonderly wroth" and told the knight not to come back to the court which did not preclude him from further adventures).

And the PK can stay in Britain and ignore the countess' commands
But outlawry means he has no legal protection from anyone
He is fair game for everyone to kill without consequences
He has proved himself to be contrary to law by disobeying his liege, and thus he is also outside the protection of the law


I know I'll have to sit the player down and have a talk with him in either case. Yes, I agree, Lady Ellen is infuriated by his actions. But this must be handled with care as the player must not feel his being unduly unpunished for actions. :)

You have said up top of this comment that you explained things to him

NOW, that being said
It is the Anarchy
This doesn't excuse his actions, but he might be outlawed and just go next door and be accepted as a household knight by someone who hates Saxons as much as he does
Eventually this crime will be brought before higher authorities
He might have a chance to make up for his misdeeds
But I'd still take him out of play
Sometime in the future if all goes south for the PKs this guy might stumble upon the scene and have a chance at redemption
But don't let him off the hook

ONE OTHER THING
The king has the right to take a life
Lacking a king, the countess could say the right devolves to her
(note that "say")
She might excuse the guy and even honor him, then make up a story of how the murdered lady was plotting with the Saxons and so on
This would, of course, infuriate the abbot, which is a different kettle of fish

Womble, that was all done an accounted for. Check in Cruelty and Arbitray, loss of Honor, etc. The player did the deed anyway.


Then you have done your due diligence, as far as I am concerned. The Player knew this was an Arbitrary, Cruel, Dishonorable thing to do and did it anyway. He should not expect to get away scot-free.



As a GM I have to weigh all the options and which should me for fun for the player without detracting from the setting. I'm seriously considering exile with the confiscation of all the lands (except the original rolled manor). As a step further, to avoid exile, could the knight be involved in a heroic act (such as saving young Robert's life or Lady Ellen's life or whatever) and that would reduce the sentence to just confiscation of all the lands or at least reduce his exile for 1 year and a day or 3 days (the point being not take the PK out of the game if avoidable)?


He is still a child-killer. That is a stigma that is very difficult to erase, especially in such a short timescale. What year is this happening? You could have something in the future that would allow the exile to return to help Salisbury at her hour of need (Saxon invasion, taking service with Nanteleod and returning in mid-500s to fight Wessex), but I would be saving that as a potential twist IF the new character dies in between.



I mean, even Balin beheaded the Lady of the Lake (granted, no noblewoman, but a severe action in any case, and Arthur was "wonderly wroth" and told the knight not to come back to the court which did not preclude him from further adventures).


The only reason Balin wasn't captured and executed for that was that he was in armor and the rest of the knights were not, if I recall correctly, and he had the excuse of 'she killed my mother', i.e. a blood debt needed to be paid. Sir Balin was outlawed, in essence; Sir Lanceor, who was in armor, chased after Sir Balin with the King's blessing, but was killed by that knight.

In this case, the PK straight out murdered a woman and her children out of greed. The exiled PK is also free to have adventures. The only problem is that probably the other PKs are not willing to go into exile with him, so it would be difficult to keep him in the campaign.



I know I'll have to sit the player down and have a talk with him in either case. Yes, I agree, Lady Ellen is infuriated by his actions. But this must be handled with care as the player must not feel his being unduly unpunished for actions. :)


Always good to talk with the Player, although I feel that in this case, he already did have a fair warning, like Greg said.

I don't mean "checks awarded after the fact", I mean he had to succeed on his Cruel (or whatever). At which point he should realise he's heading deep in the societal dreck and should be prepared for his character to receive full level of punishment, both for his character and for the player. As the GM, you're also responsible for the tone of your game. If you want it to be D'n'D free-for-all sans consequence, that's dandy.

Balin had at least some "blood feud" mitigation of his crime; he wasn't killing the Lady for her son's lands.

You know your table best. You know what they want out of the game. You know what you want out of the game. A character is always going to die. If it dies because of the player's bloodthirstiness, at least it can teach a lesson to all about the world their characters are living in. The point of having succession as an integral part of the game is so that a character death isn't the end. Character death in this case includes exile away from his homies. They should be equally appalled at his actions, and frankly shouldn't want anything to do with him. But it sounds like a character dying as a consequence of something the player did is "undue punishment", when it could be a memorable drama. You wouldn't let a knight get away with being eaten by bears while being "lost in the woods" (a player choice, assuming you told them there were risks), would you? This isn't any different.

I don't mean "checks awarded after the fact", I mean he had to succeed on his Cruel (or whatever). At which point he should realise he's heading deep in the societal dreck and should be prepared for his character to receive full level of punishment, both for his character and for the player. As the GM, you're also responsible for the tone of your game. If you want it to be D'n'D free-for-all sans consequence, that's dandy.


At the time, when the scene was evolving, I did ask the player several times if he was sure he wanted to kill the noblewoman and her children. I did not ask him to roll Cruel or Merciful for two reasons: A) None of those traits were famous, B) I wanted the player to decide for himself. True, I warned him that this was a dishonorable act, a cruel one (Cruel check). Heck, the widow was even pleading for her life UNARMED (as I stressed) and the children were crying. At that point, I could even see that look in the player's eyes of not knowing what to do and walking to the abyss and jumping. This was not a player making his knight kill for his pleasure. I think he was seriously conflicted as a PLAYER.

Anyway, this occurred between the PK and the people at the manor. No one else knew about this. But then, the knight decided to stake his claim, present the manor to Lady Ellen and confess the crime (again, advised several times on potential consequences). Even when I asked him to roll Honest / Deceitful, he said no, he want to confess his crime (except the widow pleading and all, but that is irrelevant). So, it's not like the player wasn't aware something bad was about to happen. :-)

My aim with this discussion is just how to handle these consequences. Most of the answers lean toward exile. I will go as far as to confiscate all his lands, except the original Cholderton manor, which will pass to his heirs (who have to live in infamy as the heirs of Sir Emrys the child killer). I don't mind consequences. Consequences are part of the game, yes. I'm just toying with all the potential solutions.

This seems a good example of passions. I would speak with the plzyer and ask how his PK feels about his actions. Maybe the PK is stricken with guilt and this in the end push him of the edfe and actually go insane. Maybe the exile is a good way for the PK so even he feels glad there is a way to redeem himself.
This will end the PK in the campaign at this moment. As others said you could renenter the PK at a later stage. Either as NPK or PK.
As for the player he can play the successor and this is either a knight who feels his predecessor was wronged or wants to redeem his family name.
There is alot of potential drama, whichI feel is the core of the game. A great storytelling arc. And something I would welcome as a player.

Of course it is all about the style of play you prefer.

Trait rolls, it seems to me, from reading in the core rule book, exist at least in part, to assist a player who is conflicted, whether the trait is notable or not. Indeed, if an applicable Trait was notable, it would tell the player that the character would tend to act according to that Trait without needing to roll. In this, IMO, Traits and Passions are a little bit different. Traits can and maybe even should, be rolled relatively often to determine what a knight might do: not very many people arrive at the "Squire's Hunt" with a 4k definition picture of their character's character in their head, and discovering the knight's true leanings is part of the process of character development. Passions, however, only "need" to be rolled if the player wants to do something contrary to a notable Passion.

I know I've used Trait rolls voluntarily to decide my knight's course of action when it touched on some aspect of the character's character I hadn't already fleshed out, and those are almost always, given the choices available at chargen, going to be middling-average Traits, because the "salient" traits will have been pushed away from average in chargen.

Given that the player knew it was going to be bad, why deny him his character's infamy? :) If exile is the same mechanical outcome (family land passes to heirs; other grants and gifts attainted; character never played again), as death, it's worth deciding whether the character's execution gives you more opportunity for drama and future plot hooks than his exile. If he's exiled, he could return and save the day, or be encountered as a road knight, or you could run solos (logistics permitting; perhaps he and you can get together half an hour early) for the player charting the knight's descent into total infamy, as he faces challenge after challenge to his ever-decreasing Honour. If the player would enjoy such a thing (there are a few masochist-RPers I know who'd relish chewing the scenery on the way down to Honour 4...) Execution might shake up the other PKs, maybe stirring up sentiment against Ellen, or just be an angst-ridden last scene as the miscreant repents his sins, and begs forgiveness from the scaffold. The consequences to family reputation are "ongoing fun"...

My aim with this discussion is just how to handle these consequences. Most of the answers lean toward exile. I will go as far as to confiscate all his lands, except the original Cholderton manor, which will pass to his heirs (who have to live in infamy as the heirs of Sir Emrys the child killer). I don't mind consequences. Consequences are part of the game, yes. I'm just toying with all the potential solutions.


Given how you described the situation, the player was extremely well-informed of the heinous nature of his act. Heck, were I the Player, especially a conflicted one like that, I would welcome a HEAP of punishment on the character. It would show to me that Ellen is not a heartless monster, and that I am not playing in a crapsack world (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrapsackWorld) where good guys always finish last and the more ruthless the better.

You might even offer the Sir Emrys an 'out' by renouncing his knighthood and becoming a monk, devoting rest of his life in prayer for the souls of those he murdered. I think that would go a long way towards mitigating the stain on the family honor.

Trait rolls, it seems to me, from reading in the core rule book, exist at least in part, to assist a player who is conflicted, whether the trait is notable or not. Indeed, if an applicable Trait was notable, it would tell the player that the character would tend to act according to that Trait without needing to roll.

Yes, this is so, but you have to be careful. I have met some folks whose GM insisted they roll every time they had to act. They do not exist to cripple the players, who ought to have a choice in most things. But if they are getting a benefit from something, i.e.-a stat over 15, then they lose some of their freedom.
Thus stats of 16 or more determine actions, unless they can fail a roll at it.


In this, IMO, Traits and Passions are a little bit different. Traits can and maybe even should, be rolled relatively often to determine what a knight might do: not very many people arrive at the "Squire's Hunt" with a 4k definition picture of their character's character in their head, and discovering the knight's true leanings is part of the process of character development. Passions, however, only "need" to be rolled if the player wants to do something contrary to a notable Passion.

I also compel activities based on Passions over 15. The player gets a HUGE advantage with it. Therefore, their freedom is diminished.


I know I've used Trait rolls voluntarily to decide my knight's course of action when it touched on some aspect of the character's character I hadn't already fleshed out, and those are almost always, given the choices available at chargen, going to be middling-average Traits, because the "salient" traits will have been pushed away from average in chargen.

Yes, that is a good way to do it.
Your character wouldn't necessarily get a check in it, but it is good to ask the GM if you can get one. Usually in a important actions, with consequences, the check follows the action. If you are just deciding whether to have a second drink of wine, probably not.
t get a


Given that the player knew it was going to be bad, why deny him his character's infamy? :) If exile is the same mechanical outcome (family land passes to heirs; other grants and gifts attainted; character never played again), as death, it's worth deciding whether the character's execution gives you more opportunity for drama and future plot hooks than his exile. If he's exiled, he could return and save the day, or be encountered as a road knight, or you could run solos (logistics permitting; perhaps he and you can get together half an hour early) for the player charting the knight's descent into total infamy, as he faces challenge after challenge to his ever-decreasing Honour. If the player would enjoy such a thing (there are a few masochist-RPers I know who'd relish chewing the scenery on the way down to Honour 4...) Execution might shake up the other PKs, maybe stirring up sentiment against Ellen, or just be an angst-ridden last scene as the miscreant repents his sins, and begs forgiveness from the scaffold. The consequences to family reputation are "ongoing fun"...

But if they are getting a benefit from something, i.e.-a stat over 15, then they lose some of their freedom.

Is there another benefit that I'm forgetting, besides the Glory award, which was dropped? I want to make sure I'm not missing something. A score of 16 is not necessarily a benefit, in and of itself. Excepting, I guess, that they can get you Chivalry or Religious bonuses if you have enough of the right kind...


M.

But if they are getting a benefit from something, i.e.-a stat over 15, then they lose some of their freedom.
Is there another benefit that I forgetting, besides the Glory award, which was dropped? I want to make sure I'm not missing something. A score of 16 is not necessarily a benefit, in and of itself.
[Excepting, I guess, that they can get you Chivalry or Religious bonuses if you have enough of the right kind...

Yes, that is the primary one
Oh, and you don't have to make decisions for your character any more :)

That and you get to be more and more sure of your Inspirations... Not really a threshold thing, but high Passions, and plenty of them, make you a much tougher opponent; putting a bit of a downside in as well makes it less of a no-brainer advantage. Your notable traits get you Glory because they are widely known; the schemers that can't stand up to you in an impassioned Combat can instead use your known predelictions as weaknesses, whether that be pricking your notable Honour to get you into fights you should really brush off, or tempting the Indulgent Knight with more wine than they should take... For my money, the annual Glory for notable Traits and Passions is compensation for when the GM characters screw you over using them as levers/chinks in your armour, and the extra Glory points accrued can buy back/mitigate lost attribute points for sustaining major wounds or the shock from failing to complete the task the Passion got you into in the first place.

For my money, the annual Glory for notable Traits and Passions is compensation for when the GM characters screw you over using them as levers/chinks in your armour, and the extra Glory points accrued can buy back/mitigate lost attribute points for sustaining major wounds or the shock from failing to complete the task the Passion got you into in the first place.


I agree, except that Annual Glory does no longer accrue from high Traits and Passions, by the Word of Greg.

Unfortunately, 5.1 is still riddled with errors as this change was not consistently applied. There are mentions in Winter Phase of getting Glory from Passions and Traits, for instance...

For my money, the annual Glory for notable Traits and Passions is compensation for when the GM characters screw you over using them as levers/chinks in your armour, and the extra Glory points accrued can buy back/mitigate lost attribute points for sustaining major wounds or the shock from failing to complete the task the Passion got you into in the first place.

I agree, except that Annual Glory does no longer accrue from high Traits and Passions, by the Word of Greg.

A little overstated there
you still get Glory and Chivalry bonus from high Traits
And there is no reason to double dip a Trait with Glory for the same thing twice


Unfortunately, 5.1 is still riddled with errors as this change was not consistently applied. There are mentions in Winter Phase of getting Glory from Passions and Traits, for instance...

That damned editor! Off with his head!

I agree, except that Annual Glory does no longer accrue from high Traits and Passions, by the Word of Greg.

A little overstated there
you still get Glory and Chivalry bonus from high Traits


Let me rephrase that a bit...

You can get Chivalric Bonus from High Traits.
You can get Annual (passive) Glory for having Chivalric Bonus.
Individual Traits or Passions, no matter how high, no longer give any Annual (passive) Glory.

In this, my Pendragon varies :) I appreciate that Glorflation is potentially a thing, but prefer to retain some bonus Annual Glory for high personality factors.

And just so that I am clear

Six traits needed for 100 points of Chivalry = 96
If a character gets, let's say as in the outmoded rules, points equal to Traits over 15, then that is
6x15=90 Glory
So the system badly oversteps the "rule" that no glory more than 100 points per type*
because a Chivalrous knight would be getting 190 points per year
Since Chivalry is an objective in KAP
and high Traits are not
then points for high Traits goes

What, you say that the knights who are not chivalrous deserve Glory for high Traits anyway?
Well, YPWV

*except for a few unique exceptions that grant the 1000 points

In the interests of full disclosure :) I also don't really like the hiking of the threshold for Chivalric knights. To my mind (and I'm sure this is influenced by historic biases - it's the way I remember it being since the first version of Pendragon I picked up...), Religious bonuses should be harder to get than the Chivalry one. Also, my personal interpretation of the background literature has many more "Chivalric" knights than "Religious". Indeed, to a large extent, the noble class were expected to be Chivalric before/in preference to being Religious. Religion was mostly for the praying class, and knights that managed to be "proper" (i.e. Chivalric) knights while still remaining notably Religious were certainly the more scarce.

If I was thinking about limiting Glorflationary inputs in this field, I'd probably rather junk or reduce the bonuses for Religious or Chivalric. They are already a pretty much unalloyed good, and don't come with any downsides other than those the "extreme" Traits inherently impose. The extra Glory really is gravy.

If I was thinking about limiting Glorflationary inputs in this field, I'd probably rather junk or reduce the bonuses for Religious or Chivalric. They are already a pretty much unalloyed good, and don't come with any downsides other than those the "extreme" Traits inherently impose. The extra Glory really is gravy.


Also my preference and that +100 / year really drives up the Glorflationary (nice term, by the way).

But, as I think there are already numerous other threads about Traits, Chivalric Bonus and Glory, shall we stop diverting this particular thread? :)

Like, taking the discussion to this one, for example:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1437.0