I decided to start a new thread instead of resurrecting the old one.

According to the Book of Estate, he earns a check in some negative traits whenever he squeezes the manor. A PK has a lot of Famous traits:

1) Does he have to roll his Famous traits, fail them and then be successful in the oposite trait to be able to squeeze a manor? Example, squeeze calls for Lazy check. Character has Energetic 17 / Lazy 3. MUst he roll above 17 and lower than 3?

2) The corebook states that when rolling a trait successfully, a player can alway decide to act the opposite and get a check. So far so good, but...

3) What if he fails the Famous trait and then fails the opposite? What if he fails Energetic 17 and fails Lazy 3. The rules state that he can do as he likes he just doesn't get a check.

4) By the way, this player is both Chivalrous and Religious and will loose both status if he earns checks in those negative traits, so have him suffer any consequences is a moot point as far as I can see.

This is how I would do it:
1) I would probably let him roll the traits against each other. The higher succesful result wins and he would act accordingly.
2) I always give a p;ayer the option to have his PK act opposite his traits (even famous traits) and when he does he gets a check for the opposite trait. So if He is Energetic and he acts lazy, he gets a check for the Lazy trait. I do it even after rolling.
3) If he fails in both he can choose. In the case of famous traits I usually give a check to the opposite trait if the player decides to act opposite. So in this case if both fail and the PK still acts Lazy he gets a check for his Lazy trait.
4) Being chivalrous and religious is a hard thing to keep up. It should be hard to maintain such status and loosing it should always be a danger. As a GM I always want to challenge the PKs if they have reached this level. But in this case there could be other consequences as well.
If the PK acts against his nature more than once this could reflect on his reputation. People may begin to question his status as a chivalrous knight if he begins to squeeze his peasants. Even if he did not loose the status in game terms, in game people may question his sincerity. (Which should lead to more challenges to his status as a chivalrous knight.)

This is how I would do it:
1) I would probably let him roll the traits against each other. The higher succesful result wins and he would act accordingly.

Rolling Energetic against Lazy? Or Famous Traits against each other?


2) I always give a p;ayer the option to have his PK act opposite his traits (even famous traits) and when he does he gets a check for the opposite trait. So if He is Energetic and he acts lazy, he gets a check for the Lazy trait. I do it even after rolling.

This is how I understand the Trait rules. If a PK is successful in a Trait, he can choose to act the opposite and earn a check.


3) If he fails in both he can choose. In the case of famous traits I usually give a check to the opposite trait if the player decides to act opposite. So in this case if both fail and the PK still acts Lazy he gets a check for his Lazy trait.

This is not my understanding of the rules. Each GM has his own interpretation of the rules, but then again, I'm just clarifying the rules as written: if a PK fails to roll a famous trait (or any othe trait for that matter), he must roll on the opposite. If he fails the opposite, he choose to act either way. He just doesn't earn a check.


4) Being chivalrous and religious is a hard thing to keep up. It should be hard to maintain such status and loosing it should always be a danger. As a GM I always want to challenge the PKs if they have reached this level. But in this case there could be other consequences as well.

Agreed. He may loose his Chilvarous / Religious status, properties are going to be permanently damaged (according to the Book of Estate), peasants won't be happy and may revolt, some may turn to banditry, the Lord may question the PK about his actions, etc. As much as I'm aware of the consequences, my problem is that - I believe - the squeeze rules don't take into account famous traits.

If, as you say above, even if he fails both rolls, he still gets the check on Lazy, why bother rolling in the first place? I might as well let the player choose his own course. In this case, why bother with 16+ traits if the player is free to choose. Mind you, I'm not saying limit every choice, I'm just talking about failing BOTH opposite traits (say, Energetic/Lazy).

Cornelius already gave a good answer.

How I'd (likely) do it:

1) & 3) It's enough for him to fail his Famous Trait. He doesn't need to succeed in the opposite trait in order to squeeze, since the failure in Famous Trait is enough to allow him to act against it. That being said, I would likely let him use Loyalty or Love or even Honor to make it an opposed roll, if the circumstances warrant it (he has to ransom his liege, family member, or himself). If that Passion wins, check the Passion and the opposite trait, since he is squeezing.

2) I would ALWAYS give a check to the opposite trait if the character acts against the Famous Trait. If the Player chooses to act against the Famous Trait even when he succeeds in the trait, I would likely let him do it, but automatically adjust the trait down by 1 AND grant a check to the opposite one. This is to really enforce the implicit contract that if you have a Famous Trait, you are supposed to play the character like it.

4) The above consequences ought to be enough, combined with the consequences from the squeezing itself in BotE. If he is still eligible for Chivalric and Religious, good for him.

This is how I understand the Trait rules. If a PK is successful in a Trait, he can choose to act the opposite and earn a check.


I have to say that I HATE this rule, and don't use it in my games.

Being seduced by a succubus? No thanks, I decide to ignore the successful Lustful and take a Chaste check instead, thank you very much.
Being scared by a successful Cowardly? No thanks, I decide to be Valorous and get a check in that.
Feeling Lazy in guard duty? Not me; I take Energetic check instead!

It is a very bad rule in my opinion, making a total mockery of the bad traits and consequences.



As much as I'm aware of the consequences, my problem is that - I believe - the squeeze rules don't take into account famous traits.


Well, yes and no. There is no extended explanation of Squeezing and Famous Traits, so it is up to you:
1) You can either ignore the famous traits and just give checks as is when squeezing happens.
2) You can follow the rules for Famous Traits, which is pretty much what Cornelius or I suggest. Or come up with your own twist. It is your game. I doubt that there is a single group out there that hasn't houseruled something about KAP, and Greg hasn't descended upon them to confiscate their rulebooks.

Since the squeeze is a form of "desperation income", I would assume that the knight receives checks directly to the traits in question, without having to roll the traits at all.

However, in this specific case, the PK has something to loose by squeezing, namely his Chivalrous and Religious status, which begs the question why he would attempt to squeeze his populace in the first place. Assuming this is to cover some cost for his Lord (a tribute, perhaps), I would let him roll merciful vs. loyality (lord), and use the results to determine if he would rather face loss of honor than to harm his commoners.

In other words, I would suggest to make only one roll, and to make this one roll count towards his decision to squeeze at all.

I have to say that I HATE this rule, and don't use it in my games.

Yes, it does encourage players to ignore the "bad" trait if you follow the rule as stated. Quoting from the book (my emphasis):

"Success in a Trait roll indicates that the knight felt, and was moved by, the feelings expressed by that Trait. Thus, if he made a Merciful roll, he feels that he should grant mercy in this instance. However, the player "may" choose to have the character act in the opposite manner: The penalty for disobeying the roll result is a check in the opposite Trait."

Unless he rolls a critical or a fumble, the player is going to ignore "bad" trait in favor of the "good" trait. ALWAYS. It's the nature of players to play it safe. I would add this to the rule: "Unless you have a FAMOUS trait in which case, if you roll the FAMOUS trait successfully, you HAVE to roleplay it."

Either that, or ignore the part where the player may choose the opposite.

Rolling Energetic against Lazy? Or Famous Traits against each other?

yes. Energetic vs Lazy.


This is not my understanding of the rules. Each GM has his own interpretation of the rules, but then again, I'm just clarifying the rules as written: if a PK fails to roll a famous trait (or any othe trait for that matter), he must roll on the opposite. If he fails the opposite, he choose to act either way. He just doesn't earn a check.
As Morien also said. Having a famous trait means you have to act accordingly. You get glory for it after all. So punishing a PK for failing to act accordingly is ok in my book. But als always YPMV



Agreed. He may loose his Chilvarous / Religious status, properties are going to be permanently damaged (according to the Book of Estate), peasants won't be happy and may revolt, some may turn to banditry, the Lord may question the PK about his actions, etc. As much as I'm aware of the consequences, my problem is that - I believe - the squeeze rules don't take into account famous traits.

If, as you say above, even if he fails both rolls, he still gets the check on Lazy, why bother rolling in the first place? I might as well let the player choose his own course. In this case, why bother with 16+ traits if the player is free to choose. Mind you, I'm not saying limit every choice, I'm just talking about failing BOTH opposite traits (say, Energetic/Lazy).
He only gets a Lazy check if he chooses to act that way (in this case squeeze his peasants). If he chosses energetic there is no effect (an no check) as this is how he should behave. The option to always choose is there for the fact that if he rolls badly and his Lazy wins and the dice say he has to squeeze his peasants, but the player does not want to do that he can choose the opposite and still act in the way his character thinks he should.

Of course if other factors are in place (like Morien says) other passions or traits could be called to toll against. If you need the money to save a family member or your lord you may still squeeze your peasants. In such cases I would still give checks to the bad traits, but also to the trait you acted accordingly. So a if a familymember is in trouble and you squeeze your peasants to set him free I would give a check to both lazy and Love (family).

Why bother rolling in the first place?
Using the dice gives the small chance that he fails his energetic and succeeds in his lazy. There is a small chance, but it is still there and the player has to choose to go with the dice or not.
But the chance change quickly when other traits or passions come into play. It is the drama of the knights that in the crucial moment he has to choose between his family and his honor or status.
For me: At the core KAP is a game of conflicting passions and traits. And your choices have concequences. So you change with them. A PK can go from a chivalrous knight to a knight who is vengeful and goes onto a killing spree to avenge his family. But it can also be a story where the PK remains loyal to his believes, even against all odds. And thus he will charge into the horde of Saxon barbarians to save his friends or family, even if he knows it will kill him.

However, in this specific case, the PK has something to loose by squeezing, namely his Chivalrous and Religious status, which begs the question why he would attempt to squeeze his populace in the first place. Assuming this is to cover some cost for his Lord (a tribute, perhaps), I would let him roll merciful vs. loyality (lord), and use the results to determine if he would rather face loss of honor than to harm his commoners.

The player wants to knight someone as household knight, so he needs the cash quickly, which is around £35. This new HHK is an extra (not part of the Servitium Debitum), but it's a NPC the player is invested in and there are lots of potential stories to play out. I know he still has to ask his Lord for permission, but I'm assuming he rolls successfully - the PK has 12K Glory and is a Knight of the Round Table. There are potential consequences already as I said above (peasants, other people not too happy with it, etc.) in addition to potentially loose his Chilvary / Religious status.

Why bother rolling in the first place?
Using the dice gives the small chance that he fails his energetic and succeeds in his lazy. There is a small chance, but it is still there and the player has to choose to go with the dice or not.

I'm sorry but this still doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the dice give him a small chance to fail the Energetic 17 and succeed on a Lazy 3. However, you also say the chance is still there and the player has to choose to go with the dice OR NOT. If he does not, and he almost always will not (because who want to be lazy, right?), why bother rolling? You already know the player is going to choose the "good" trait no matter what he rolls, so why roll at all?

Yes, it does encourage players to ignore the "bad" trait if you follow the rule as stated. Quoting from the book (my emphasis):

"Success in a Trait roll indicates that the knight felt, and was moved by, the feelings expressed by that Trait. Thus, if he made a Merciful roll, he feels that he should grant mercy in this instance. However, the player "may" choose to have the character act in the opposite manner: The penalty for disobeying the roll result is a check in the opposite Trait."

Unless he rolls a critical or a fumble, the player is going to ignore "bad" trait in favor of the "good" trait. ALWAYS. It's the nature of players to play it safe. I would add this to the rule: "Unless you have a FAMOUS trait in which case, if you roll the FAMOUS trait successfully, you HAVE to roleplay it."

Either that, or ignore the part where the player may choose the opposite.

This is true when one option is favourable above the other. But htis is not true when both options are both equally bad or good.

Example:
Are you going to be merciful and let the enemy knight live even if you know he will exact his revenge not on you, but your family or lord?
My brother is able to marry a princes, but my lord has set his eyes on her as well. Do I choose between my brother or my lord?
Do you really charge that horde of barbarians if you know that it will kill you?

As for your addition I do not understand it. If I have a famous trait I would want to act accordingly. It is when the opposite comes up that I would like to refuse to act that way and loose my famous trait (as I get a check on the opposite)
For example: If I am famous for my energetic I would not act lazy, even if the dice say I would have to.

Also as a GM I award my players if they are willing to go with the dice and accept the consequences. So if a PK looses his chivalry bonus due to his need to squeeze his peasants and he does so, I will think of ways for him to act chivalrous again and redeem himself. (Of course in the case of Chivalry this will never be easy)

The player wants to knight someone as household knight, so he needs the cash quickly, which is around £35. [...] There are potential consequences already as I said above (peasants, other people not too happy with it, etc.) in addition to potentially loose his Chilvary / Religious status.

In think that your answer is right here in the context. The squeeze would be a selfish and cruel act (but not lazy, cowardly, etc). Simply tell the player that squeezing the population will result in a check in both selfish and cruel (no roll required according to BoE). If he persists in doing it, this knight full well deserves to loose his chivalric/religious status.

You could also give him a passion "love(protege)" or "friendship(npc knight)", and then let him roll that one against merciful, and let the dice decide.

In any case, I would not ask the player to roll more than one single trait, as doing it would water down the importance of trait rolls, and make them less special.

In think that your answer is right here in the context. The squeeze would be a selfish and cruel act (but not lazy, cowardly, etc). Simply tell the player that squeezing the population will result in a check in both selfish and cruel (no roll required according to BoE). If he persists in doing it, this knight full well deserves to loose his chivalric/religious status.

That's why I think the BoE rule doesn't take the Famous virtue traits into account.

A) You don't roll (according to the BoE) and just get a check those negative traits. Why have Famous Virtue Traits?
B) You roll the Famous Virtue trait, say Energetic, you succeed. You ignore the roll and choose Lazy, get a check and can Squeeze. Why have Famous Virtue Traits?
C) You fail the Famous Virtue Trait, you fail the opposite, you act any way you want (Lazy) but don't get a check.

My problem isn't with traits in the 5-15 range. Those I can choose to act any way I want. Problem is when you get those 16+, you're earning Glory but you can ignore those anytime it's convenient for you. Let's put aside the loss of any status, etc.

Morien may have it right. Just ignore the bit about "you may choose to act opposite even if you roll successfully on the virtue".

That's why I think the BoE rule doesn't take the Famous virtue traits into account.

Yes, correct, the BoE squeeze rules do not take 16+ traits into account, and in my opinion, they shouldn't. Squeezing your estate is a nasty move, borderline evil, and this reflects in the check you get on some traits.

No rolls required, you get straight checks.




Problem is when you get those 16+, you're earning Glory but you can ignore those anytime it's convenient for you.

Just because in this specific case famous traits have no impact during a management game phase, does not mean that they can be ignored in the actual role playing game.

On p.66 of my 5th edition book, the rules state that "only famous traits and passions (i.e., those with a value of 16 or higher) are noteworthy, and such traits or passions must be tested with a die roll whenever character behavior is challenged in a crisis.". And yes, you are allowed to fail a 16+ trait roll on purpose if you wish, but this means getting a checked in the opposite trait, and therefore losing your famous trait.

Maybe I just don't understand the issue here, but I think that 16+ traits have a massive impact on the game, just not in this case.

Maybe I just don't understand the issue here, but I think that 16+ traits have a massive impact on the game, just not in this case.

Why not in this particular case? If it's something important to the character, if it has serious consequences and if involves a 16+ Trait shouldn't it be rolled?

Edit: This is not to say each GM is not free to interpret things, obviously, so I don't want to come off as snarky. :-)

Why not in this particular case? If it's something important to the character, if it has serious consequences and if involves a 16+ Trait shouldn't it be rolled?
Edit: This is not to say each GM is not free to interpret things, obviously, so I don't want to come off as snarky. :-)

First, because the BoE squeeze rules are a management sub-game, and not the role playing game proper. Second, because arguably the character's behavior is *not* challenged in a crisis (see definition of Famous Traits in the rules). The check in the negative traits is the consequence of a decision, not the decision itself.

Again, I would suggest you let the PK roll on a special combination instead, like mercyful (help the peasants!) vs. selfish (help the NPK!), and let this die decide if he will squeeze or not.

Again, I would suggest you let the PK roll on a special combination instead, like mercyful (help the peasants!) vs. selfish (help the NPK!), and let this die decide if he will squeeze or not.

Selfish would be helping himself, surely? Wanting more funds to hold a tournament or a feast or some such?

EDIT: Never mind, I missed the part where the squeezing was in order to knight a (apparently Saxon) guy to become his household knight. I'd quickly point out that it need not cost him a whopping £35. You can knight someone for much less than that, by cutting down on the quality of the horse and the armor.

First, because the BoE squeeze rules are a management sub-game, and not the role playing game proper. Second, because arguably the character's behavior is *not* challenged in a crisis (see definition of Famous Traits in the rules). The check in the negative traits is the consequence of a decision, not the decision itself.

That's my problem right there. Every mechanic should be a tool to support fiction. If it doesn't do that, I don't care for it. Even a squeeze should have consequences, besides change in numbers in the character sheet. Not all squeezes, of course, but this is not an ordinary squeeze.

And, yes, his behavior is being challenged: a lot of of family and friends, including his wife, are not overly fond of this saxon becoming a knight, Earl Robert may or may not approve (he hates saxons too) and even the PK himself must consider what will happen to his manor if he squeezes too much (peasants turning into bandits, going back for revenge, etc). I'd say, with so much pressure on him, it's a moment of crisis, but your campaign may vary.

EDIT: To be clear, the PK wants to make a 100% squeeze which meants checks in 6 Traits (or 6 tests, as the case may be).

Selfish would be helping himself, surely? Wanting more funds to hold a tournament or a feast or some such?

That's the point, this PK would like to squeeze more taxes to finance a new household knight, if I read it correctly.

Which is why I would suggest a roll on merciful, just or love(commoners) on one side vs. a trait representing his motivation for knighting his friend on the other side (selfish, but could also be a friendship passion of some sort).

Why not in this particular case? If it's something important to the character, if it has serious consequences and if involves a 16+ Trait shouldn't it be rolled?

Edit: This is not to say each GM is not free to interpret things, obviously, so I don't want to come off as snarky. :-)

Not all require a dice roll in my opinion. I had (even during the roleplay part) a PK behave out of character. I asked the player if he was sure he would act that way, and that it was against the character of the PK. The player opted that this was how his PK would react. So I gave him the checks and moved on in the game. No dice were rolled. I could have made him roll the dice and that may have resulted in a different outcome, but both the player and myself were satisfied with the result.
Of course his out of character reaction was noticed by his friends, and the rest of the court and so it had some roleplay consequences as well.

For me rolling the dice is a way to help along the game, but I feel that most of the time the player must make a choice what his character will do. There are no right or wrong choices. Each just have a consequence in the game.

Not all require a dice roll in my opinion. I had (even during the roleplay part) a PK behave out of character. I asked the player if he was sure he would act that way, and that it was against the character of the PK. The player opted that this was how his PK would react. So I gave him the checks and moved on in the game. No dice were rolled. I could have made him roll the dice and that may have resulted in a different outcome, but both the player and myself were satisfied with the result.
Of course his out of character reaction was noticed by his friends, and the rest of the court and so it had some roleplay consequences as well.

For me rolling the dice is a way to help along the game, but I feel that most of the time the player must make a choice what his character will do. There are no right or wrong choices. Each just have a consequence in the game.

Bear in mind that this situation is still unfolding. For this particular PK, the immediate consequence is not only mechanical (he will loose his Chivalrous AND Religious status) but also social, most of his family does not agree with his decision since some his the older knights still have Hate passions against saxons. Also, given that, at this point in game, the upper nobility is already clinging to their prerogative of knighting new nobles, either the PK persuades his Earl to let him do that (which he stands a good chance to do) or knight the saxon without asking or, worse yet, against the Earl's orders. So, you see, there's plenty of consequences.

The positive side if the PK goes through with this: the saxon knight is a very loyal retainer and becomes someone important in the PK's life, impressed as he is with the PK's defiance of everyone's expectations. It depends on how much the player is invested in this situation. I'll probably let the PK get checks in the "negative" traits and be done with it.