Greetings fellow gamers,

I've been running a household weekly game for 6 players. I had them all start off with character generation from 4th edition. Ran them through the Book of Uther as mercenary calvarymen for Uthers armies. They have been paying their own upkeep through booty won. I'm also having them play politics trying to get in good with one lord or another. One has managed to become esquired to Duke Gorlois. Others to Uthers army. One to Duke Ulfius and one to Duke of the saxon shore. Should bring fireworks later on. But I digress, I have gone over the rules for honor and the difference between it and pride and loyalty lord. While there is a lot of actions that can cause a loss of honor, are there any specific actions that bring about a CHECK to honor? I've poured through all (15+ pendragon books I've found and have yet to find an example).

Please give me some examples that you have used or think is a good idea. One that I have managed to do myself, was a mere calvaryman accepted a duel from a household guardsman. While fighting the PC knocked down the NPC, but rather than following it up with an attack, he let the fellow gain his feet. He also then tied his sword vs the NPC's axe, again letting him re-arm. I think this is worth an honor check and perhaps almost even courtesy as well. Thoughts?

Giving up the advantage like that is worthy of a Honor check in our campaigns, although it could be argued that during Uther's time, it would be seen as something worthy of an eyeroll, instead. :P Showing mercy to according to the dictates of Chivalry later on (once it becomes a thing) might be good for a Honor check, too. In principle, when you act chivalric, you might gain Honor checks.

Other things (off the top of my head) that would bring Honor (check):
- keeping a difficult vow even though it causes hardship
- defending your good name successfully against an (false) accusation
- being acknowledged by your peers as a particularly honorable knight; for example, even though showing exceptional loyalty to the liege (protecting his unconscious body during battle, for instance, at great risk to yourself) is primarily Loyalty (Lord), it shows that you value your vassal's oath highly, and are a valorous man, too. Hence, they deem you to be honorable. Ding!
- succeeding in Honor Passion roll :P

Actually this is a matter I've had some trouble with as well, as the example are as Tempest mentions, thin.

My weak understanding is that honor is gained by acting to ensure it's not lost(!!!). So, defending family members accused of crimes or other transgressions that would lose them honor might count, defending your own honor from such, certainly. Asserting truth through arms (either backing up your lie, or defending from an accusation of such). And etc.

May I digress to a related point?

To what extent is dueling freely accepted, especially in Uther's day? Can anyone essentially challenge anyone else by offending their honor (implying cowardice, at minimum)? I realize that challenging a noble superior is a good way to get a Reckless check and a reputation as a warrior marked for retribution, as well.

In later periods, under Arthur's rules knights were expected to fight each other all the time, "for Love", just to test each other at least if not to settle every odd offense. Uther's might-makes-right environment is more problematic: it implies constant conflict, yet blood feuding or the threat of it would be a serious dampener and a matter the king would want to keep in check lest he lose valuable knights to ambushes and other effective but (later) dishonorable tactics!

Back to the original point, the "model of knighthood" in BoU is presented as Yvo--a man sufficiently steeped in skillful personal violence that he gets to hold the Pendragon banner! He's noted as proud and gregarious, with high Modest (16) and Homage (Uther) of 20! And... Sword 26. Reading between the lines then he would get his accolades by standing up for himself, talking to everyone so they know him, but not boasting unduly and being meticulous in his oaths to superiors even at cost (he limps). And a badass. Especially a badass.

--Khanwulf

I think that preventing anything that would bring dishonor on the dishonor table warrants a check.

I see a lot of the mini-adventures in the back of KAP 4.0 are, there is a damsel/maiden/lady, who has been taken captive/hostage etc. Has not been mistreated but enemy knight is holding her until defeated, if so PC gets lady, if he wins, he gets money, glory, her as a wife etc. There is no real incentive for the PC's to take up her cause, other than for the adventure and glory for it. So I suppose an honor check would be an added incentive.

It should mark you as a "stand up guy" or something who "does the right thing" even at cost to themselves or better, at no cost to themselves if they remain a bystander.

Re: dueling, I had the Duke of the saxon shore march past with his honor guard of danes (from book of battles). Well one of the PC's is a Jute and made a rude gesture to them as they marched past. One of the danes (a very proud one) decided to take offense and marched up and spat at our heroes feet. So I had the PC do a soft passion check on his hate (danes). He critted, so while I didn't give him the skill bump he did get a check for the passion if he acted accordingly. The player decided to punch him. Well that earned him a reckless check in addition to the hate danes check. He took a couple pips of honor loss at that. The dane smiled bloodily at him and stated "I accept".

We had a firefly moment where the PC wasn't sure what that meant until many of the dukes men came for him after court was over to escort him to a duel. It was until surrender. Our player could've surrendered at that point, but did not. At first he soundly was beating the Dane, getting a check for honor for allowing him to get up, to replace his broken spear, then broken axe (a lot of ties) until the Dane decided to use a reckless maneuver and our hero missed. Well that ended up with a crit that sent our hero into unconsciousness. Only the intersession of the other PC's prevented the Dane from following up the attack and killing him as "he never surrendered".

I followed this up with a court scene with the Duke demanding who struck the first blow etc. Our PC confessed and apologized getting his honor points back after his apology was accepted (see greg S. page on honor loss/re-gain). The dane accepted the apology as well, our PC then made an orate roll to say why the whole incident happened and ended up in the Dukes service!

I think that preventing anything that would bring dishonor on the dishonor table warrants a check.

I think that is a good rule of thumb. Personally, I would make the Honor Loss table more Period-dependent, to reflect the more rough Utherian times in comparison to the chivalry blooming in Arthurian times. But yes, if you do the Right ThingTM as far as your culture is concerned, you can gain Honor (checks), and if you do the Wrong ThingTM you can lose Honor, and the Honor Loss table would be a way to quantify which are Right and which are Wrong.

And what is honorable to one culture may not be held in the same category as another. I found that I tweaked what was considered as time moved on from Uther to the Anarchy to Arthur and the various events that happened during his reign. Then the differences between what a Pict would consider dishonorable compared to a noble knight of Arthur to a knight of Aquitaine, and so on.

Just like Hzark10 said. However, it doesn't just matter where the person is coming from but also where he is living. A Pict in King Arthur's service who goes around killing sleeping enemy knights would surely lose honor, because it is the society around him which condemns his actions. This societal aspect mixing with the personal honor is one of the things that makes Honor Passion so complicated.

This societal aspect mixing with the personal honor is one of the things that makes Honor Passion so complicated.

Complicated, but important. Another element that might trigger an honor check would be upholding your rights and privileges and customs. Your daughter eloping with someone? Fix that for your honor check! Squabbling over inheritance isn't just a matter of income, but of upholding the honor (position) of your family (through, usually, yourself).

Back to the dueling for a moment: to what extent did lords reign in their warriors (knights especially) in order to avoid rampant dueling and the considerable risk of injury to their fighting men? To what extent did they have the right to interfere and negate a duel?

I realize this is a tricky line of questioning, since part of the answer is "they have absolute authority" and the converse is "but if they use it they'll honk off their vassals!" The collision of honor dueling and authority remains an issue all the way through Dumas' work, after all.

What I'm getting at is "where can I put the goalposts" to reasonably represent the setting in both the warlord and Arthur periods?

--Khanwulf

Back to the dueling for a moment: to what extent did lords reign in their warriors (knights especially) in order to avoid rampant dueling and the considerable risk of injury to their fighting men? To what extent did they have the right to interfere and negate a duel?

Well, in history, you have Richard II seriously pissing off a couple of his lords, one of whom his cousin and eventual usurper, future Henry IV, by forbidding their duel of honor and exiling them both. Henry the Young King forbid his famous household knight, William Marshal (yes, that William) fighting a duel of honor, which ended up William quitting from the household. So clearly, while the power is there, it should be used with care.

In our campaigns, duels happen over perceived (or deliberate) insults and so on. Lords do not like their own knights fighting each other and would try to minimize the friction there. They definitely don't approve dueling to the death within the ranks, and would be much more likely to push for first blood or surrender/unconsciousness, and would look with disfavor to people who keep challenging their fellow knights of the same Lord or inciting such challenges. In Uther's time, dueling with blunted/practice weapons would be considered cowardly (in our campaign), since it shows that you are afraid of getting hurt. If you are feeling strongly enough about to issue a challenge, then it is worth spilling blood over. Lords who are going to war might impose a moratorium over dueling until the campaign is over, and of course if politics are involved, they might push for an apology rather than risking a duel, although this naturally can backfire if the knight is too stubborn to obey.

In Arthurian times, dueling 'for love' would be much more common. At the same time, since the land is at peace (well, in the heyday of Arthurian romance), Lords have less reason to worry about some knight or another being in the infirmary, so the interference from the Lords would be less; the knights basically can decide when and who to duel. Duels to the death (even with strangers) should be a rare occasion, but if the accusation is dire enough, then blood it shall be. Although given that this is Arthurian chivalry, the defeated knight should be given a chance to recant and receive mercy, if possible.

Not sure if that helps?

Not sure if that helps?

It does, Morien, and thank you. These types of questions point to a possible opportunity in future supplements/editions, of expanded sections on society and culture, perhaps.

Regardless, one last question in this tangle:

If you have a duel triggered from a question of honor or justice, and it is not agreed "for Love", then does the winner keep the loser's horse, arms and armor? This comes up in jousts and impromptu roadside duels and the like, but always struck me as a fast way to fester serious grudges.

"Taking their stuff" materially degrades the other's ability to act in the capacity of their station and office, and thus strikes at the core of knightly duty. Pretty serious to me....

And... if a champion is appointed does said champion risk his mount, arms and armor in the duel? I suppose so: that's why you get the glory of being a champion, right?

Thanks for your patience; and Tempest, for the core thread.

--Khanwulf

If you have a duel triggered from a question of honor or justice, and it is not agreed "for Love", then does the winner keep the loser's horse, arms and armor? This comes up in jousts and impromptu roadside duels and the like, but always struck me as a fast way to fester serious grudges.


I'd say no. The issue is honor or justice, not loot ("for conquest"), which would be a fourth category ("for love", "for honor", "for justice", "for conquest"), although honor and justice are often intertwined.

Now, it can be decided beforehand that yes, this fight will result in the loss of equipment, too, or even in imprisonment of the loser (to be ransomed). For example, I can see a situation where there is a monetary issue at stake, lets say Knight A's actions, say he woke up a giant who rampaged through Knight B's lands, causing damage. Knight B demands recompense and Knight A refuses, claiming it was not his fault and certainly not intentional. So a duel is fought, and the equipment is the compensation for the damages (if Knight B wins) or for the 'false accusation' (if Knight A wins). As a GM, I would not allow lopsided 'stakes', like a PK claiming the right to loot the opponent if he wins, but only having to give an apology if he loses.



And... if a champion is appointed does said champion risk his mount, arms and armor in the duel? I suppose so: that's why you get the glory of being a champion, right?


Only if the equipment has been specified in the challenge, IMHO. However, if the champion loses his stuff, it would be a rather churlish liege lord who would not replace them, assuming that the champion does survive the duel. Such an ingrate liege lord might even appoint another champion, since the old one is clearly unable to do the job (he lost the duel and also his equipment). But I could see Honor and Loyalty hits for such actions, as well as a Selfish and maybe even Cruel checkmarks, for the liege lord, that is. The champion is fighting FOR the liege lord, after all.



Thanks for your patience; and Tempest, for the core thread.


Happy to help! I like chatting about Pendragon, so thanks for a stimulating discussion. :)

Your honor is determined by being a good knight. So be a good knight and you gain honor.

And as others say, it will depend on the period or region you are in what is seen as a good knight that determines what does it mean to gain honor.

Thanks Morien!


Your honor is determined by being a good knight. So be a good knight and you gain honor.

And as others say, it will depend on the period or region you are in what is seen as a good knight that determines what does it mean to gain honor.

So, then should particularly public or notable displays of, say, Mercy merit an honor check as well? I can see this as a way of building honor amidst the many temptations to slip and lose it, but I don't recall the adventures taking it as an approach.... My read isn't complete however.

--Khanwulf

I would say yes. But it should be something remarkable or memorable. For instance you have fought your archenemy several times and each time you have shown him mercy. And now again you meet him in a duel (and maybe even before Arthur's court as well). And again as your enemy gasps for breath as he is defeated and only one more stroke will finish him. And again before the eyes of the court you show the world that a good knight is merciful. That would get a reward for honor as well as mercy. (During Uther's time or the Anarchy this would not gain honor, only merciful)

And honor is like reputation. It islost in a second, but it takes years to build.

- keeping a difficult vow even though it causes hardship
- defending your good name successfully against an (false) accusation
- being acknowledged by your peers as a particularly honorable knight; for example, even though showing exceptional loyalty to the liege (protecting his unconscious body during battle, for instance, at great risk to yourself) is primarily Loyalty (Lord), it shows that you value your vassal's oath highly, and are a valorous man, too. Hence, they deem you to be honorable. Ding!