Hi all.

In my spare time I'm working on an excel character sheet that automates a lot of the look-up in tables (combining KAP 5.2, boK&L and other sources). I'm slowly getting there, but now I'm bumping on a small problem. Maybe this has been asked before, but forum searches are not my friend.

In BoK&L, page 46, there is a mention of a modifier to Lady's Valorous trait: -1d6+3. I'm interpreting this as only counting for full Lady characters and not female knight characters. But how to read the formula?

Is it A) -(1d6+3) and thus ranging from -4 to -9 or B) -1d6 +3 and thus ranging from -3 to +2 ?

I would read it in the latter format, with a range from -3 to +2. If the opposite was the intention, it would probably be written as -1d6 - 3.

Any chance you could share your excel sheet when it's done?

Strange that there would be such a modifier; it is absent in 4th and 5.x editions. I'd be tempted to just ignore it.

I'd actually read it as -(1d6+3): "penalty 1d6+3". At -4 to -9, average -6.5, it is a bit too much, dropping the lady's Valorous to 6 - 12, average 9. I could see a Lady's Valorous starting at 12 instead of 15, but 9 is a bit too little. After all, she is supposed to be defending the manor/castle when the knight is gone.

If it were -3 to +2, the positive bonus is quite difficult to justify, IMHO. That being said, I admit that it would be better notation to spell it out: deduct 1d6+3 from Lady's Valorous. Or, if it is -3 - +2: add 1d6-3 to Lady's Valorous.

I agree with the others. The idea of it being subtract 1d6, but then add 3 back into it should have been written as -1d3. Now since knights start out with a 15 Valorous, subtracting only a d3 seems to be out of touch with the idea of a "lady". On the other hand, perhaps during the Uther phase and Anarchy phase, women would be more apt to fight. Many warrior cultures allow women to hunt, and fight alongside the men, Picts in particular. So, I am thinking of the non-warrior women being -(1d6+3) for Arthur and beyond, but maybe a modifier for Pre-Uther to Anarchy, or by culture. Irish and Picts being -1d3, Cambrian tribal , and so on.

If I had to choose a overall rule, then -(1d6+3) would be it.

It is indeed the only place where that modifier comes out and I can kinda understand it, but it is written unclearly (in my eyes).

I'll go with the 1d6+3 penalty to Valorous for now. A change can be put in without too much of a hassle.

And yes, I'll put up a version of the Excel generator when I feel it can be played around with. I'm currently seeing it as a pre-alpha stage where I'm still moving things around and trying out ideas. No promises on when things are ready, but the sheet is progressing nicely. :)

The idea of it being subtract 1d6, but then add 3 back into it should have been written as -1d3.

Not quite. 3-1d6 gives +2 to -3, average -0.5, whereas -1d3 gives only -1 to -3, average -2. They are different rolls, even though I would be OK with -1d3 Valorous modifier for the Ladies. (And probably some kind of a bonus elsewhere.)


Now since knights start out with a 15 Valorous, subtracting only a d3 seems to be out of touch with the idea of a "lady".

Not necessarily. After all, Valorous is NOT the same as being able to do heroics on the battlefield. It is courage. A lady pulling out a dagger and attacking a Saxon raider to buy her children a few extra seconds to flee is certainly being Valorous (and desperate). Just because the Ladies would normally avoid situations where they would get harmed doesn't make them inherently less courageous.

That being said, I do admit that the men would get much more expectation and 'social programming' to act Valorous, and a difference ought to be there. But that the majority of the Ladies would be more Cowardly than Valorous doesn't seem right, either.

... Huh. Turns out that at least the ordinary people in the back of the rulebook don't agree with me; the women have Valorous 3 - 8, increasing from Serving Girl to Damosel. So while the chargen doesn't agree with minuses to Valorous, the write-ups certainly do accord with -(1d6+3). I would not impose that to a player character, though.

Of course, the named, famous characters in GPC are quite different:
Ygraine has Valorous 19.
Ellen has Valorous 15.
Nineve has Valorous 16.
Guenever has Valorous 15 (young) or 17 (others), depending on age.
Nimue and Viviane are almost exceptions in this group, having Valorous 10. (Also, they actually should be the same character, IMHO, and are treated as the same character in one of the adventures in GPC...)
Anyway, that at least goes to show that Ladies are incapable of having a high Valorous trait.

It would be odd for Ladies to have a bonus to valorous (that net +2 possible result), although you could make arguments about the prospects of childbirth being enough to put steel in any woman....

Based on the writeups of the ladies my first inclination would be to do several things:
1. Courtly "Ladies" receive -(1d6+3) to Valorous
2. Knightly ladies receive either no penalty or -1d3
3. The special characters have either increased their Valorous through yearly ticks, or have dumped Glory into it.

Now, for random NPCs the BoK&L attribute and trait distribution random system is fine as-is. For players, however, I would become uncomfortable telling the lady-player (knight or not) "you have net -4 in Attributes (especially SIZ and STR, the most important fighting ones) and about -6 in Valorous--have fun!" It's perhaps culturally and physically accurate, but not fun.

A counter? I'd advise lady-character players to smile, roll their negative Valorous, and then promptly assign it as their Trait of 16. It's gamey, but requires no other work-around just for knightly ladies. Ygraine may have done exactly this, plus adding 3 points to bring hers up to 19.

--Khanwulf

Not quite. 3-1d6 gives +2 to -3, average -0.5, whereas -1d3 gives only -1 to -3, average -2. They are different rolls, even though I would be OK with -1d3 Valorous modifier for the Ladies. (And probably some kind of a bonus elsewhere.)


That being said, I do admit that the men would get much more expectation and 'social programming' to act Valorous, and a difference ought to be there. But that the majority of the Ladies would be more Cowardly than Valorous doesn't seem right, either.

... Huh. Turns out that at least the ordinary people in the back of the rulebook don't agree with me; the women have Valorous 3 - 8, increasing from Serving Girl to Damosel. So while the chargen doesn't agree with minuses to Valorous, the write-ups certainly do accord with -(1d6+3). I would not impose that to a player character, though.

Nimue and Viviane are almost exceptions in this group, having Valorous 10. (Also, they actually should be the same character, IMHO, and are treated as the same character in one of the adventures in GPC...)
Anyway, that at least goes to show that Ladies are incapable of having a high Valorous trait.

The general idea is women are supposed to be less "valorous" than men. Thus, the average NPC having lower valorous rolls. Magic users are supposed to have lower valorous as well as they are not supposed to charge into combat. The woman drawing the dagger attacking the Saxon, I would probably have a valorous roll with possible inspiration, which of the "fight or flee" option is stronger.

And these rules apply to NPKs women. If a fully developed wife is written up, then she would go by her character sheet.

That is how I use it in my campaign, but YPMV.