In the introductory scenario, the Knight leading the hunt suggested using peasent archers to hunt the bear.

He has 16 in Prudent, and suggested this was a safer course of action, is it fair to also consider this Cowardly?

How would you handle it via the rules. I think I was probably overly harsh.

Not sure if Sir Derfarn (player in question) reads these forms, but he is welcome to chime in.

While it might seem 'prudent', I'd consider it more a case of risking peasants' lives: to hurt a bear with a bow in the forest, you have to be plenty close enough for the bear to catch you. Even if you could take enough archers to guarantee enough hits to incapacitate it before it reached the nearest poor schmo and tore them to pieces. And you probably couldn't get close enough to the bear with that many people, and if you did, they wouldn't all have a shot unless the bear decided to offer battle on some broad, even meadow.

It'd be Cowardly (as well as maybe Cruel) if the knight still said, "Better some peasant dies than I risk it!" The knight's social contract is to put themselves in harm's way first; that's why the peasants put up with the Lord creaming off his income from their hard labour. So, it's Prudent, if the peasants aren't at risk (but they would be).

IMP

Yeah, what womble said. Not to mention that they have been sent here explicitly to take care of the situation, since the locals couldn't.

I would give a Prudent checkmark, though, since to me, Prudent/Reckless is more about personal choice, rather than what would be best overall. Heroic self-sacrifice to buy everyone else time to retreat would be Reckless, not Prudent, to have a counterexample.

As for Cowardly, I would give it, too, in this case, EXCEPT for the fact that these are presumably new players. I would explain womble's reasoning about the social contract as well as point out that this is THEIR job, handed out by the Count, and allow the player to take the suggestion back. Not to mention that the local peasants would likely refuse to go hunting for a bear anyway. If the PK insists on getting some peasants to do the fighting for him, then yeah, hit him with Cowardly, too.

The nuances of trait checks are something I never completely solved in running Pendragon. I would say the best practice is try to make handing out traits checks a conversation rather than a decree. Unless their intent is extremely clear it's worth asking for their reasoning and explaining why you feel an action would result in a check. The checks they get shouldn't really be a surprise.

All of this depends on your player's personality traits of course. Some players are very sensitive about changes to their characters that occur outside their control, some players revel in them.

I would say the best practice is try to make handing out traits checks a conversation rather than a decree. Unless their intent is extremely clear it's worth asking for their reasoning and explaining why you feel an action would result in a check. The checks they get shouldn't really be a surprise.

I think that is a good advice, too.

The nuances of trait checks are something I never completely solved in running Pendragon. I would say the best practice is try to make handing out traits checks a conversation rather than a decree. Unless their intent is extremely clear it's worth asking for their reasoning and explaining why you feel an action would result in a check. The checks they get shouldn't really be a surprise.

All of this depends on your player's personality traits of course. Some players are very sensitive about changes to their characters that occur outside their control, some players revel in them.
This is how I handle it as well. I will explain my reasoning for the check. That should also give the players insight in how I interpret the traits.
As for players sensetivities to their traits. In this case it is not out of their control. It is actually because of their actions that they get the checks.

Also a tip for new players and gm. In our current western society we tend to be a lot more pragmatic. We also look at the cost/benefit different.
In the KAP world knights will step into the muck, well knowing the trouble and risks they are going to be in. In the end its the passions and traits that drive the character. And always actions have consequences.

as for the example. Here is something I would probably do:
Of course it is prudent to try and take the bear down from a distance. Using Peasant bowmen is an option, but they will be at risk. So I would suggest that the PK come up with a plan to protect the peasants and still be able to use them. the cowardly and cruel check would onlty apply when he does not find a way to protect them and will not jump in to do so if things go sour.

Something to consider as well. Knights get status and power through glory. Knights gain glory for doing glorious things. That means he has to do it himself. I would not give much glory if the bear is slain because the peasants helped (and in effect did all the work). On the other hand if the knight goes after the beast with only his spear and shield he would get more glory (and a reckless check if leaves behind his armor).