This is my first post. My question is from a strictly cultural perspective, not game rule related.

I am trying to wrap my head around the activity of Courtly Romance in Pendragon being at all honourable.

The text suggests it is, but I have some serious confusions about this.

I am looking at this guy, pursuing a married woman in secret, effectively turning the woman's husband into a cuckold again in secret. This whole thing, particularly the sneaking around and lying part does not appear at all knightly to me whatsoever.

I understand this was done in the middle ages... And maybe a big part of its popularity was just men maintaining a "boys club" mentality. By that I mean as long as it isn't THEIR wife or one of their buddies, then it's all ok.

Is that how this worked? I mean, what is the HONOURABLE way for a knight of the round table to react when one of his fellow knights is discovered to be having an affair with a married woman? Again the Pedragon Manual suggests this is honourable, but I am having serious trouble with this one.. unless this is just boys club in play.

Maybe that is it, as long as the discovering knight don't KNOW the guy, then its all well and good? Even honourable?

1: Part of the idea is that you really aren't supposed to consummate the romance. See, for example, Dante's chaste relationship with Beatrice (recent video game portrayals notwithstanding) or the perception of Lancelot and Guinevere before their adultery was discovered. Flattering a lady (even another man's wife), doing things in her name, and letting it appear that you are using her as a means to spur yourself on to greater, more virtuous things isn't bad. Ideally, I think, if some guy becomes your lady's knight and starts doing deeds in her name, you grin and take satisfaction that your wife is so great that she can inspire these deeds from other men. That's the ideal, but, of course, reality does not necessarily live up to that ideal, thus the rules for going all the way. Lancelot at Guinevere are the most famous example of courtly romance, though more correctly they should be the most famous example of courtly romance gone awry.

2: Today, ~true love~ segues very nicely into marriage in romantic comedies, Jane Austen novels, etc. That's not the way things worked back then. Marie of France, the same woman whose court had in it Chretien de Troyes, the man who put the romance in Arthurian romance, also sponsored a great many poems of the sort known as Breton lais. In these, ~tru luv~ and marriage are often directly at odds. For example, we have the story of the nightingale: one lady lives with her husband in one house, and next door lives another gentleman. These two fall in love, but the only way they can interact with each other is to stand on their balconies and gaze lovingly at each other--which they do, a lot, constantly sighing softly to themselves no doubt. The lady's husband suspects something is up; he asks his wife what she does on the balcony all evening, and she says that she is listening to the song of the nightingales. The husband, no dummy, knows she's lying, buys her a caged nightingale so she won't have to go on the balcony, then strangles it do death in front of her as a warning. The woman, heartbroken, takes the dead bird, sews it up in a fine cloth, and sends it next door to her love, who in turn is also heartbroken because he knows he can no longer see his love. (Or something like that--it's been a while, I'm afraid) The husband, of course, is the villain in this story, and probably in other similar stories. Though these stories are not coming right out and condoning adultery, but the husband is still the villain for standing in the way of true love. He's jealous and cruel, and the fact that had he not taken action he may very well have been cuckolded isn't really an issue in the story. True love is true love, and if it happens to your wife I guess you turn your face and assume that she and her knight will behave virtuously, as explained above, otherwise you look like a petty asshole. Even if things aren't as wonderfully pure as they're supposed to be, there is still some element of tragedy to courtly love interrupted, because ~*~true love~*~ is beautiful and should never be destroyed, even if it does wind up cuckolding someone. To draw a parallel to something more familiar, in Romeo and Juliet, we're clearly meant to sympathize with Romeo, though had the lovers' plans worked out, poor Paris would have gotten shafted by the deal; he was, we are told, a good man, loved Juliet with all his heart, had the better claim according to the conventions of his society, and such was his love for Juliet that his dying wish was to be brought close to her, but he nevertheless was standing in the way of True Love and so we cannot help but cheer for his rival Romeo.

Edit: Ah, here we go: the lay I was trying to retell above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%BCstic , and the lais of Marie of France at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lays_of_Marie_de_France

Edit edit: Here is a verse translation of The Nightingale, along with a far better explanation of "honorable adultery" than I came up with: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/~jshoaf/Marie/laustic.pdf

Thanks DKD.

I don't know if Lancelot and Guenevere are that rare a couple. Greg's lovers solo in the manual pretty much lays this out as the standard pattern where eventually the secret lovers fully consumate. I am aware marriage at the time was more political than romantic, but there are cases in the lovers solo ( Step 5 of the LS on pp 202 -03 ) 2 - 5 where the Cuckold actually forgives the wife or is willing to fight to the death for her... these cases do NOT convey to me that the guy sneaking around with his wife is all that honourable. And given that cosumation is one of the steps of the lovers solo, the lancelot and guenevere arrangement isn't all that rare.

But what I don't get is how any knight would support some other knight doing this to another fellow knight.

I dunno, I don't find this all that romantic at all, nor honourable.

The Romeo and Juliet situation was different because Juliet was actually MARRIED to Romeo. Juliet had no interest in Paris at any point in the play.

When Paris shows up at the end of the play and Romeo whoups his arse Romeo is protecting his wife. Paris is the creepy lover, not Romeo. Romeo is the HUSBAND.

A similar example is in the film Titanic where DiCaprio is the creepy lover sneaking around with Kate Winslet. But in their case Billy Zane was portrayed as quite villainous towoards Winslet. DiCaprio only proved heroic because of how horrible Zane treated Winslet.

But in Greg's Lovers Solo in the manual there really isn't an issue of how honourable the husband is... it really isn't portrayed as an issue at all.

I can understand courtly love being practiced when the husband is clearly portrayed as undesirable a match for the wife, in such a case the knight is rescuring her.. which is quite knightly...

Though I still don't understand why if the knight is so in love with the woman he doen'st OPENLY challenge the HUSBAND to a FIGHT to the DEATH for his wife. THIS seems to be a lot more honourable than sneaking around his back turning him into a cuckold... again not at all knightly.

The romance must be kept secret, but isnt' that a challenge to the player's Honest Personality Trait? If I have knights doing this in my game I have them take a Deceitful, Selfish, and Cowardly check each year. And they lose a point of honour. I dont know if that is culturally accurate, but that's the only way my brain can conceive of this sort of thing.

Knights lying, sneaking around, and having sex with another man's wife just don't appear to me at all to be honourable. The whole activity just seems underhanded... but maybe that's just me... I can't see it any other way for some reason.

My perspective is that in True Love was valued more in the days when people married for wealth and influence rather than for love. Therefore to find True Love was something special.

I don't know if Lancelot and Guenevere are that rare a couple. Greg's lovers solo in the manual pretty much lays this out as the standard pattern where eventually the secret lovers fully consumate. I am aware marriage at the time was more political than romantic, but there are cases in the lovers solo ( Step 5 of the LS on pp 202 -03 ) 2 - 5 where the Cuckold actually forgives the wife or is willing to fight to the death for her... these cases do NOT convey to me that the guy sneaking around with his wife is all that honourable. And given that cosumation is one of the steps of the lovers solo, the lancelot and guenevere arrangement isn't all that rare.

But what I don't get is how any knight would support some other knight doing this to another fellow knight.

(By the way, I wasn't looking at my book earlier, and wasn't aware that you were referring to the point where the actual seduction begins in earnest. Sorry about that)

See, I was under the impression that regardless of the less-than-virtuous reality and how often that might happen, it still exists such that society will not come down on a knight who hasn't made it to the point where things get truly naughty. Just because the rules provide detailed models for what happens if you sleep with another guy's wife and get caught doesn't mean it's the norm/perceived by society as the norm. Expectations are such that by the time you're ready to Go All The Way, the husband is not necessarily already waiting on his porch with a shotgun.

Also, as for Romeo and Juliet, the only people who knew that R and J were married were the Nurse, the Friar, and the lovers. As far as everyone else knew, Juliet was promised to Paris by her father, and Romeo wasn't really connected to Juliet except through the family vendetta; their relationship only comes out when the Friar tearfully explains why everyone is dead. Though the exact roles are switched around, Paris' relationship with Juliet is still socially sanctioned, while Romeo's is not; thus Romeo, by secretly wooing (and marrying) Juliet is roughly analogous to the lover, and Paris, the husband.

I haven't seen Titanic since elementary school, but if I recall correctly, that example is pretty much spot-on in regard to what Romance is reacting against, except I guess we're supposed to extend the same amount of understanding and sympathy towards women whose husbands are merely dull and unloving. And I guess that cuts to the heart of things--the value system is turned on its head such that True Love was more important than pretty much everything, sometimes even more than religion. Thus over the centuries we get a sort of dialogue over how worthy this sort of honorable adultery was; Wolfram von Eschenbach disapproved of it and kept poking fun at Tristram and Isolde for being a pair of sluts, whereas Thomas Mallory praised Guinevere and Lancelot's love as being pure and a stark contrast to the promiscuous lovers of his own time, and had the two ascend to heaven without the stain of adultery on their souls (though they both spent much of their lives cloistered away living religious lives, Mallory didn't exactly focus much on either of them spending a lot of time atoning for their sins). Dante saw in the Second Circle of Hell Francesca da Rimini and her brother-in-law and lover Paolo Malatesta, a couple who took as their model Lancelot and Guinevere, and their carnal love stood in contrast to the chaste affection Dante had for his Beatrice; meanwhile, Marie of France and her pet poet Chretien de Troyes, as seen above, could find it in their hearts to approve of couples who found love outside of holy matrimony. Depending on who you ask, pursuing True Love may very well be a perfectly honorable and praiseworthy pursuit.


Though I still don't understand why if the knight is so in love with the woman he doen'st OPENLY challenge the HUSBAND to a FIGHT to the DEATH for his wife. THIS seems to be a lot more honourable than sneaking around his back turning him into a cuckold... again not at all knightly.
Because then we'd be plunged into eternal war and barbarianism, instead of something pretty that has been ritualized and fits neatly into sympathetic narratives and has a certain degree of social approval. I mean, look at all the hoops a lover has to jump through in that solo, and the relatively paltry payoffs (before circling the bases, our lover must be content with soulful glances, touching the cheek, touching the hem of the dress, etc.). Even if the whole enterprise is just an attempt to have sex with a pretty lady, the surrounding ritual lends it a degree of dignity and romance, such that it could convince its participants and audience (except the husband, of course) that the affair is something more than mere lust, but something better and more beautiful. Whether or not it actually is something more than lust is rather immaterial when it comes to the issue of social validation or honor; both are social constructs, and if honor can condone a thousand bloody bastards rolling around on a muddy field trying to murder each other, then surely it can condone a mating ritual as intricate as Romance.

Fun Fact: Today, I have written over a thousand words in this topic. This is over a thousand words more than I've written today for my paper.

Edit: Damnation, apparently the Marie of France who wrote the lais is a different Marie of France who patronized Chretien de Troyes. My point still stands, I think (?).

Are you familiar with Don Quixote? It was written in an age where chivalry and courtly romance were outdated. It tells the story of an excentric wanting to live the life of a chivalrous knight in an age where people are mean and base. His paramour is 'la bella Dolcinea' who he has dedicated his heart and to whom all his acts are dedicated. Not surprinsingly, people ridicule him and treat him with scorn.

Had he been a a knight in Pendragon, he would have been a good Romance Knight (abilities notwithstanding).

The thing is, the battle scenario is face to face.

There's a good line in the film Gladiator that is worth mentioning. Something about why he won't go into politics. He claims that soldiers have the luxury of seeing their opponents in their eyes.

I am not dismissing that romance is pursued in the lovers solo. I don't doubt this part at all. It's that a knight would get honoured for this I guess.

This goes back to my cultural point. I can't imagine a knight being discovered as having an affair with another knight's wife as being honoured at all. I would expect in that time this knight would be shamed.

The lovers solo bypasses the personality stuff whereas I think it is very important.

For each year a knight is at Step 4 or more this isn't just a courtly exchange anymore. He's kissing another man's wife.

I am thinking he should get checks for

Deceitful
Selfish
Cowardly

And he should lose a point of honour.

I agree the initial stages are just a knight looking for inspiration. That's fine and honourable. But that lovers solo after step 3 just starts to look awful sleazy. I can't think any knight would honour that...

The only thing I can come up with is a Boys Club. In this case the knights have a locker room chat about how beautiful the woman is and want to know the sleazy details. The knights condone the action ONLY if the knight is not in the clique they are...

For example, the different clans in Pendragon. I would think if the affair was happening to a competing clansmen the knights couldn't care less...

That's the only way I can think of this as honourable.

Someone wrote, might be Greg, but I could be wrong, that Courtly Romance is the chick lit element. It was introduced by Chretien de Troyes (?), and aimed at a female audience. I guess women trapped in a loveless marriage would be dreaming to be saved by a knight in, er shining armour. Its become a bit of a cliche.

That and slaying Dragons.

How about the aspect where the Knight is being True to himself and his feelings? He has the courage to follow it up. Where a

This goes back to my cultural point. I can't imagine a knight being discovered as having an affair with another knight's wife as being honoured at all. I would expect in that time this knight would be shamed.

Well, it was honored, to some degree. I don't know how else to put it except that at the time there was a perceived difference between having a lustful fling with another man's wife, and pursuing True Love, and that we know that quite a few contemporary medieval writers were very much sympathetic to this view. You mentioned Titanic earlier; I think that's the sort of situation you'd have to assume for the participants of courtly love, that outside observers would be sympathetic toward the tragic romance of a guy and a married lady. Even when the husband turns out to be a decent guy (like King Arthur), well, tough crap. According to the romantic ideal, True Love really is that important. If the knight and society truly embrace the ideal of romantic courtly love, the checks make as much sense as, say, getting a Cruelty check for killing a man on the battlefield, or Worldly and Selfish checks for accepting his tenants' rent instead of letting them keep it.

How about the aspect where the Knight is being True to himself and his feelings? He has the courage to follow it up. Where a


Being true to feelings yes. I can see a knight openly challenging a woman's husband for her love or something of that sort. I don't deny love is important or respect for the passion in the game.

What I have trouble with his how that knight chooses to be true to his feelings.

If you love someone and they are already committed elsewhere, even if the feelings are returned, sneaking around, lying, and having sex with another man's wife does not look honourable to me. It looks Deceitful, Selfish, and Cowardly.

The courage to follow it up? Is sneaking around in secret, lying to people, and having sex and running out the window before getting caught courageous to you?

I dont' doubt this sort of thing happened, what i doubt is that it was at all honourable.

Look at page 76 of the 5th Edition manual. They have a list of dishonourable acts there including :

Attacking an unarmed knight
Cowardice
Plundering a Holy place of your religion
Lending money at a profit
Breaking an oath
Flagrant cowardice

To my mind mounting another man's wife in secret would certainly fall somewhere on this list. lol

I don't view mounting another man's wife as showing much courage.

Game mechanics wise. There is a Love(amor) at play here. But so what... are we to assume that the husband doesn't have one?

You look at that lovers solo. You read from step 4 onward right to the end and tell me this is an honourable act that a knight would be praised for... i dare you. lol

If the knight and society truly embrace the ideal of romantic courtly love, the checks make as much sense as, say, getting a Cruelty check for killing a man on the battlefield, or Worldly and Selfish checks for accepting his tenants' rent instead of letting them keep it.


Battles aren't fought in SECRET.

Mounting a man's wife in secret looks almost as cowardly as attacking a guy from BEHIND. Would you give a knight a cowardly check for attacking a man from behind without giving him fair warning?

Rent is a fee DUE the knight. Something that was committed to him in the open. He's not stealing the rent. He is attacking a marriage and violating another man's wife.

Its two things :

1. Assuming one is better than the H
2. Dealing with that assumption by secretly mounting the man's wife

I just can't picture these things as knightly... you can?

The only argument here so far seems to be "but its true love"

OK, give the knight a check for Love (amor) and if he's committed a check for Chaste as well.

But I stand by the Deceitful, Selfish, and Cowardly checks too... I really can't see this as a knightly way to handle feelings of "true love"

Myself, not really, but many knights could. It's a mindset that's very foreign to our own modern perceptions of love and romance, but we know that it existed, and was embraced wholeheartedly by a good part of high society.

What you're saying about things being in the open vs. done secretly is undoubtedly something the slighted husband would bring up, but through the rose-colored glasses of courtly romance, it seems that this secret love becomes something intimate, romantic, and perhaps a little tragic. Open fighting would be barbaric and just as sinful, and not enjoy the degree of social approval that courtly love and secret romance did.

I guess the main thing to remember is that, according to this view of the world, True Love is really important and succumbing to it is more tragically romantic than sneaky and dishonorable.

The only argument here so far seems to be "but its true love"
Yes. This is very important. It was not, as it is today, relegated to stupid teenagers; rather, it was a very powerful force that could literally drive men insane.


Game mechanics wise. There is a Love(amor) at play here. But so what... are we to assume that the husband doesn't have one?
Nope.


But I stand by the Deceitful, Selfish, and Cowardly checks too... I really can't see this as a knightly way to handle feelings of "true love"
This is perfectly valid. Just be aware that chivalric society would not have agreed with this (at least, not the majority, as far as we can tell).

P.S. Have you read T.H. White's The Once and Future King? It has a very sympathetic portrayal of Lancelot, Guinevere, and Arthur; while it isn't a perfectly faithful rendering of the chivalric courtly romance, it might help you get in the mindset where this begins to make even a bit of sense.

I don't see it as dishonourable. In my view of personal honour, unless the knight has sworn an oath, he maintains his honour. It might be disloyal, and it may be breaking hospitality if you are a guest of the cuckold. However, as they say. "Its all fair in Love and War".

However, it would be a loss of honour for the wronged husband not too seek satisfaction.

OK, so how about to the cuckold's freinds, fellow knights, to his family?

Would they commonly just say "Oh, its true love" and ignore it?

I view this as an act of war so to speak, where alliances are called into question

Loyalty to the cuckhold vs Loyalty to the offending knight. (or love of family would be an alternative, or Hospitality may be in order)

If there is no Loyalty either way ... hmmm

I guess we can make a Just roll here I dunno.

I would still throw in the checks on the offending knight for cowardly, deceitful, and selfish lol

Once the affair is exposed I guess general onlookers may have varied reactions... the Lovers Solo only covers the random reactions of the cuckhold himself.

I just can't see EVERYONE saying "Oh how romantic"... maybe some of the women friends of the woman involved, but not many else... not even in that period...

It just seems akin to theft to me.. and that is generally frowned upon in public

I don't see it as dishonourable. In my view of personal honour, unless the knight has sworn an oath, he maintains his honour. It might be disloyal, and it may be breaking hospitality if you are a guest of the cuckold. However, as they say. "Its all fair in Love and War".

However, it would be a loss of honour for the wronged husband not too seek satisfaction.


But to a KNIGHT all is not fair... attacking a man in battle from behind, killinig an unarmed man in battle, etc

These are acts of COMMONERS.. Knights are supposed to be ABOVE that sort of thing aren't they?

I still don't think I am explaining myself well here... lol

OK, so how about to the cuckold's freinds, fellow knights, to his family?

Would they commonly just say "Oh, its true love" and ignore it?

I view this as an act of war so to speak, where alliances are called into question

Oh yeah, for sure. They'd probably accuse the lover of rape--that was apparently a fairly common way of both retaining some honor for the husband and wife and casting the lover into disrepute. It may have happened to Thomas Mallory himself--he was accused of raping the same woman twice, but his apologists claim that it was really a romance.

But he's the husband. Of course he'd be indignant.

OK, we seem to be in agreement here that the reaction to the affair would be divided.

Some would be as you say "romantic" about the whole thing
Some would be indifferent
Others would consider it an offense to the cuckold.

When you talked about Mallory it reminds me of Roman Polanski's current situation, or of Errol Flynn. Both have been accused of raping minors, even though to them they claim it was a romance of some sort.

I do get that this happened, I just can't view this as knightly behaviuor at all... I would keep those three checks in play and subtract the honour too...

That's the price you pay for love right? Your honour and respect for the love of a great woman? lol

That's the price you pay for love right? Your honour
Again, probably not. Honor is determined by society, and society in general seemed to have been generally okay with courtly romance, assuming you followed all the rules. We know this to be the case, because in an age when books were hugely expensive, many people were willing to commission copies of the sorts of romances where these shenanigans were portrayed sympathetically; in tournaments and other entertainments the flower of chivalry enthusiastically emulated these romantic heroes, etc.

This is not to say that they were perfectly accepting of all sorts of bedroom shenanigans. For example, see below for an example (three different accounts) of how one man handled the rape of his wife. I suppose one could adapt it to claims of rape made by the husband to save face.
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/trial.htm
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/RELIG3E.HTM
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/chroniqu/texts/ursins.htm#legriseng

I believe that if one were to adapt this to the context of courtly romance, it would be a sort of worst-case scenario, and not necessarily representative of how things generally turned out. Considering how much play this got in the chronicles, it appears that this was something sensational and unusual enough for the tabloids of the day to be all over it.

I would have to check the rules in detail.. but all these "shenanigans" as you put it don't read very kngihtly as I look at step 4+ in the lovers solo.. the FIRST half looks quite romantic, but the latter have looks quite sleazy to me...

You keep referring to the consumation as 'sleazy' but is it really. Two people in love in an impossible situation. Divorce is not possible and if the husband were to find out it would end in the death of a man. How else can the two lovers endure? Sure there is suicide, and it probably happened. Eloping? Elaborate plans to meet in secret?

This is the stuff that inspired Romeo & Juliet, Titanic and a million other books, films and songs we have today. I'm sure that for the two tormented lovers, 'sleaze' is the last thing in their mind.

Probably because we, as modern people, sympathize with the husband more. All I can say is that back then, they would probably have sympathized more with the lovers.

But who are "they?"

The general public?

Maybe, but not the family of the husband, or his fellow knights, his vassals... What about the cuckold's children if they are of age?

I can certainly see a young knight discovering his mother's been mounted by a third party knight as being offensive and challenging him to a duel or something.

I don't doubt some may sympathize with the lovers. But at least from a gaming perspective the knight is being dishonest, selfish, and cowardly.. he is certainly following his Love (Amor) passion to the hilt, but that's not going to get him much sympathy from the offended family to my mind.

I am reading the Lover's Solo here and it does look like this can have drastic consequences. The point of keeping this a secret certainly warrants a Deceitful trait check.

I realize the two lovers dont' view their romance as sleazy, but Glory isn't about how these two lovers feel is it? Honor as well... unless he can justify to himself why he's mounting someone else's wife in secret I would think honour loss would be the case too...

I admit it is my view that is saying this is "sleazy", but from a modern day perspective it is. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that people in that period would generally be happy with what's going on... otherwise... why keep the darn thing a secret?

I would award a deceitful check, if he blatantly lied about the affair.

I would not allow selfish, as this is not the knight getting his jollies. He is meeting with his true love and risking it all for them. Hardly selfish.

Cowardly. Not unless the knight refuses to fight for her if discovered. There is nothing cowardly in not killing the man before bedding his wife.

I would award a Worldly check as this behaviour is hardly pious. Have you seen the Medieval flowchart for having sex?

The affair is certainly sinful and any Christian Knights would have to confess and atone with the church.

I would award a deceitful check, if he blatantly lied about the affair.

I would not allow selfish, as this is not the knight getting his jollies. He is meeting with his true love and risking it all for them. Hardly selfish.

Cowardly. Not unless the knight refuses to fight for her if discovered. There is nothing cowardly in not killing the man before bedding his wife.

I would award a Worldly check as this behaviour is hardly pious. Have you seen the Medieval flowchart for having sex?

The affair is certainly sinful and any Christian Knights would have to confess and atone with the church.




Now we are getting somewhere! :)

On p 169 of the 5Ed manual it also says that a cuckold may kill both the third party knight and his wife if he discovers them. It is frowned upon, but it is legal.

Never seen the flowchart no...

I think it is selfish on the part of the knight.. HE is risking very little.. the WOMAN is risking the bloodline of her children, her husband's wrath, her public enbarassment, etc

Out of the two, the woman risks more than the man.. HE doesn't have to keep lying to the husband, the wife does... HE just HIDES behind the curtain until the Husband leaves the room! lol

The knight is also trained for combat, so if the husband DOES retaliate the third party knight is at least trained to defend himself.

I just keep picturing a knight hiding behind a curtain while in a married woman's bedchamber while the husband asks the wife "what was that noise I just heard" and while humourous, the whole scene just looks cowardly on the part of the guy behind the curtain.

I don't know about the glory etiher. P 169 makes it clear that the chaste affair is the most respected. I would take the glory away if the two consumate. There seems to be no consequence for allowing the courtly affair to fall from the ideal.

double standards, too bad.


There seems to be no consequence for allowing the courtly affair to fall from the ideal.
he may try to freaking kill you, and also either accuse you of rape (in which case your body is hanged after you die which is really bad for your eternal soul) or kill his wife as well. also, you only look good if you were pursuing courtly love and weren't a proven/"proven" rapist.

In any case, again, the reason it doesn't make sense to you is that you are coming at this from a modern perspective in which there really is no such thing as socially-approved adultery. I recommend first accepting that at the time, a Tristram and Isolde-type adulterous romance could be considered very nice and romantic and all, and then go from there.


The flowchart comes from the "sex and dishonor and pagans" thread, courtesy of the blog Got Medieval at http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2007/08/medieval-safe-sex-flowchart.html



Returning to this dusty topic:

Bear in mind that back then, proper and decorous sex looked something like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/doorknobdeity/Brundage_medieval_safe_sex_flowchar.gif

The standards for being "lustful" are not particularly high; it seems to me that a lustful pagan knight could restrict his sexual romps to the marital bed and still be "lustful" by certain standards of the day.

Tremendous discussion, friends.
Please do not end it because I put my oar into these troubled waters.



I am trying to wrap my head around the activity of Courtly Romance in Pendragon being at all honourable.
The text suggests it is, but I have some serious confusions about this.


I confess to some dissatisfaction with how I presented this very complicated subject.
For one thing, there ought to be no way to get more than 100 Glory a year through Romance.
I am working on a way to address it formally, and here will just chat. This is as much my thoughts as a rule.

You are looking at one of the great questions in the legend, whose sources are both in favor of it and not in favor.
I do not think it is up to you and I to settle it. The people of the time questioned it, from many angles; and I think that it is a worth while theme of the game to explore what this is all about?



I am looking at this guy, pursuing a married woman in secret, effectively turning the woman's husband into a cuckold again in secret.



Yes, that is correct. That is what happens when their love is consumated with fleshy climax. The Church condemns it, families condemn it, and it dishonors the lovers, and the cuckold.

Let us look again, though.

First, very broadly: this is a time of intellectual excitement and expansion. A vast library of ancient books has just been revealed, written by the wise man, Aristotle, who has revealed all the secrets of the natural world. It reveals a new way of thinking--rationality--that is a new way of thinking, a new way of acting. It a new secret, and since God put it in us all, it must be good to pursue it.
This is good.

A lot of new actions, customs and thoughts are around. There's new ways to look at God--Marioloty is popular and spreading among commoners; the monks are trying to make a difference inside the institution, and the Cathars have just decided to start all over. Many people are looking at the rigid way that the world works, with its vassals and tenants from top to bottom, and re-evaluating the customary way of doing things. From the prosperity of distant Spain it seems clear that Christians, Jews and Muslims can work together (by the way, thanks for the new library!). They are people too! And once that door of personhood is opened, we always find that women are right behind it too, much to the delight of all men!
This is good.

And a new kind of love has just been discovered too! Yes, just recently, within the few decades. Not love of God like the priests say we have, and not the natural familial love for one's family, and not the disastrous love that makes men and women crazy. It is good love, Love is good, answering to itself as its own Higher Power.

It is a motivation for men to be courageous and inspired, to be artistic and social, and to bathe and trim their nails. Its high standards and ideals urge men to use their highest motivations in pursuit of blissful, meaningful love. Yes--MEANINGFUL, an acknowledgement that it exists and that since God put it in our hearts,
this is good.

The problem begins in interpreting what exactly this mans.

The Pure Love
Pure Love is not supposed to be sexually consumated--the non-physicality is a critical issue to maintain the pure spirituality of the devotion. The raw desire is acknowledged, and the expression of that is what drives the lovers. Consumation is considered to be a failure of the spiritual love quest. The True Love is ephemeral, untouchable, like ghost of inspiring spirit.
This is good.

The hard-tested Love
Love is supposed to be frustrated, because that makes the lover stronger and even more inspired. It gives value to the women who are, for the first time in history, valued for themselves, for their arts and skills, not just as baby- and trouble-makers.
This is good.

The consumated Love
For the first time women may give of themselves voluntarily, and not just be part of politics and property. A woman has, for the first time in history, a reason--a real reason--to willfully join into that greatest of physical sacrament and give, and take, without reserve. Women are breaking out! She is worshiped as Mary everywhere now, can be a priestess among the Cathars, be a knight like Sigelgaeta, and if she wishes, defy all the mortal law for True Love, and she may defy all Church Law too because the entire organization (except for the monks and the cathars) is corrupt. Not easily like a serving girl--he must prove himself. And not to anyone except the right one. Give herself not as a baby machine, not as used goods, but as and for herself, free.
This is good.

(Interject here again for a moment: first time in history. Germanic and Celtic customs are pre-historic, before writing. Post-facto writing of can be questioned and reveal, at best, extraordinary individuals, not the entire society.)

This is bad for...
the cuckolded husband. And his family.
If it ever gets out, that is. if it is kept a secret there is no honor loss--just rumors about why the woman suddenly got all holy and entered a nunnery. Or maybe died of a surfeit of peaches in the back room during an otherwise pleasant, riotous and drunken family dinner.
the knight lover. He is undoubtedly young and landless (why would a landowner risk his stake, status and honor?) and so is probably without much reputation or importance in himself. (A powerful family complicates things.)



This whole thing, particularly the sneaking around and lying part does not appear at all knightly to me whatsoever.

I understand this was done in the middle ages... And maybe a big part of its popularity was just men maintaining a "boys club" mentality. By that I mean as long as it isn't THEIR wife or one of their buddies, then it's all ok.


Yes, that boy's club mentality has a lot to do with it. I think there is a lot of laughing at the other guy. The Middle Ages are full of stories about cuckoldry, and punishments for it.

Also, as mentioned, this is "chick lit" of an enlightened age. It was largely commissioned by them, and Marie de France's Lais written by a very gifted one. It is fantasy for women living a rather boring, comparatively imprisoned life.
(I never understood what Lancelot was REALLY about, until I realized that he's the lady's perfect man--he breaks all taboos for love (ooh, a true love) and then kills anyone who defies him (better than any of those man's men! Says so right here, in the stories commissioned by the ladies).

And, in the realm of reality: there are thousands of entitled ladies who get anything they want, and thousands who are in that age of dawning nubility, idealism, desire and anticipated sexuality; married to old men. Who, in fact, are gone most of the time. Those young poets, with their troubador tales and fancies of love and romance, come by every day to sing for their bread. She has a personal, loyal staff to protect her actions. That big muscular guy will do anything I wants, and for a little gold ring be gone and never return...
If accused, she can whip the servants to an inch of their life, and retire to her own dowry lands because her husband is such a terrible man to even think such a thing!"



Is that how this worked? I mean, what is the HONOURABLE


Uh oh, here we go again: Honor!



way for a knight of the round table to react when one of his fellow knights is discovered to be having an affair with a married woman?

Do nothing. It's none of his business.
Unless there is a kinship connection, or a loyalty question (his liege's daughter? A proper man would inform his lord, veeeeery carefully, after checking around with his fellow about what the lord might say...)
Is he some kind of priest or something, trying to be all rightous for everyone else too? Well then, go ahead and bray.
Is he just some ordinary guy, trying to get along, then shut up.
It is a very volatile situation, because honor is involved and family honor is involved. It is best not to become involved.
If the secret isn't about your family, then your lord will tell you to say out, your family will tell you to stay out, and polite company will tell you to stay out.

**

OK, so how about to the cuckold's friends, fellow knights, to his family?
Would they commonly just say "Oh, its true love" and ignore it?
I view this as an act of war so to speak, where alliances are called into question
Loyalty to the cuckhold vs Loyalty to the offending knight. (or love of family would be an alternative, or Hospitality may be in order)


Come on, the news will destroy someone, at least one person here.

Wait a minnit! Both these guys are one knight's friend?
These are like, three knights in one area (one lord), and one's bonking the wife of another?
And the PC is the third?
OK, nothing medieval here, maybe something primitive, but for me he answer to that is easy--every man knows the law of brotherhood: #3: No bonking each others' wives!
That "lover" might defy lords and their law: honor and glory always have a competitive aspect
and he might defy the church: but so man people now



If there is no Loyalty either way ... hmmm


What obligation does your knight have in this?



I guess we can make a Just roll here I dunno.


Hm, where does Justice enter into this?



I would still throw in the checks on the offending knight for cowardly, deceitful, and selfish lol


Cowardly? At the risk of TMI ;) I will assure you there is nothing cowardly about bonking the wife of a man who will easily maim you if he finds out. ::)



Once the affair is exposed I guess general onlookers may have varied reactions... the Lovers Solo only covers the random reactions of the cuckhold himself.

I just can't see EVERYONE saying "Oh how romantic"... maybe some of the women friends of the woman involved, but not many else... not even in that period...

It just seems akin to theft to me.. and that is generally frowned upon in public


I will refer you back to the beginning: I think that the issue at hand is a tricky one, and it is best to look at it as a long, on-going scenario in which everyone's morality can be explored, tested, tried out, and when necessary, take a stand for it.

Everything I've written are possible attitudes and actions, both individually and by various groups or households. The literature itself, as well us us today, questioned it. It was a game, a dangerous game, that people played because it was just flattery and words that night for a poet's dinner; a great big "what if" for when the men were gone. But not always...

Wow, look at that. Gotta post that as an essay.

Thanks Greg. This does help confirm a lot of my concerns about how this is presented in the 5th Ed Manual.

I do realize this is complex and you had a page limit. I suspect if they gave you another half dozen pages to expand on this you would have been more than happy to oblige

Just reading the section on Romantic Knights and then the Lovers Solo later on... It just left me feeling like things are a bit more complicated than this...

After reading a bit more on marriage in the period it started to dawn on me that I may be having far too romantic a view of marriage at the time... when I think about chastity belts, domestic violence, and women being forced to marry men twice their age, it does put this in a bit more perspective.

The "stay out, its none of your business" approach seems to make sense, its often still practiced today. A guy at my workplace cheats on his wife and everyone at work just turns their head away. I don't think we've grown up much since then.

The non-physical platonic love ya I get that. I have an Hons Degree in Philosophy, believe me I read more Plato than I care to mention... That's why I bring up step 4 in the Lovers solo. The story of Lance and Gwen was described earlier in this thread as a "Courtly Romance gone awry" and I can certainly agree on that.

I think if the romance remains non-physical.. that the woman remains simply an inspiration then its all well and good... but if it DOES get to step 4 then it has "gone awry".. Romance has fallen from the tree at this point. But that's me.

The only point I would quibble with is the Cowardly check.

Yes, the act of sleeping with a man's wife is committing an offense, and there is a risk of him getting caught. But the way I read Valorous its not about raw "guts" as much as it is attitude.

I mean... is a pickpocket from a Knightly view Valorous when he tries to steal from a knight in broad daylight while the knight isn't looking? Yes, in a sense it appears as if the thief has testes of steel, but I think most knights would see an attempt to use subterfuge to gain advantage as the common route.

I would think most knights would see a thief or anyone using subterfuge as base, a man who lacks the knightly courage to face the man in his eyes and challenge him.

This is how I am looking at the bedding of other men's wives here. It's an act of subterfuge, you use this term yourself in the volume. I would think a valorous knight would protest the sneaking around and insist to the wife that he's a knight and above such things.

Once you are at step 4 of the lovers solo and further on, I can certainly see a knight even at that time thinking this isn't knightly.. I have my pride and honour to think about.

I love the fact that you covered this in the manual, its great work... But I think that it needs more work to handle the complexities of the activity.

I was thinking offering glory for each year a night avoids things from getting to step 4 in the lovers solo. Each year he keeps things on the up and up he should get Glory. But once step 4 happens, it seems from a reading of the lovers solo as taking a serious downturn in how glorious or honourable it all is.

Even in films today that portray infidelity, its shown early on as fun, romantic, and even humourous.. but as the romance progresses things turn "awry" as it was put earlier... conscience begins to wear on the lovers, the sneaking around, the lying... all of it just doesn't seem all that romantic anymore. At least that's how I have seen films today handle this sort of activity.

I will have to read more on medieval marriage to get my head more into this. But right now I read the romantic knights section and the lovers solo and the later stages of the romance just don't appear at all knightly.

Thanks for the input... :D

I may toss some of my own suggestions up on how to expand on the lovers solo and the game mechanics of the romance once its turned physical and/or found out.

The only point I would quibble with is the Cowardly check.

Yes, the act of sleeping with a man's wife is committing an offense, and there is a risk of him getting caught. But the way I read Valorous its not about raw "guts" as much as it is attitude.

I mean... is a pickpocket from a Knightly view Valorous when he tries to steal from a knight in broad daylight while the knight isn't looking? Yes, in a sense it appears as if the thief has testes of steel, but I think most knights would see an attempt to use subterfuge to gain advantage as the common route.

I would think most knights would see a thief or anyone using subterfuge as base, a man who lacks the knightly courage to face the man in his eyes and challenge him.

And once again, I can do nothing but say that you're wrong; this attitude simply isn't borne out in the literature. Whatever other faults Lancelot and Tristram had, cowardice was never considered to be among them.


when I think about chastity belts
Fun fact: there is only one extant record of chastity belts from the medieval period--a 1405 drawing--and there is zero evidence that they were actually used at all until the renaissance. They were used far more commonly from, er, 1700-1930.

And once again, I can do nothing but say that you're wrong; this attitude simply isn't borne out in the literature. Whatever other faults Lancelot and Tristram had, cowardice was never considered to be among them.


You can say I am wrong, but that's not a convincing argument I'm afraid.

And you are generalizing quite a bit here.

I am not claiming that Launcelot or Tristram's faults were cowardice. I am claiming that mounting another man's wife in secret is. There's a huge difference there.

Lancelot mounting Gwen in secret, covertly turning his Liege Lord into a cuckold hardly appears the bravest act of his glory days now does it?

This doesn't at all dismiss other acts of sheer bravery on his part... if I were a psychologist I would even go as far as to say both these men were compensating for the cowardice they did display with their courtly romances.

I am discussing an act here, not a character. I am discussing someone DOING something as being a cowardly ACT. I am in no way suggesting Lancelot in general IS a coward, ditto for any other knight.

I am asking you to look at the action itself and ask yourself how knightly is covertly mounting another man's wife and working to keep it a secret as much as possible. It just looks base at the very least, and borderline rogueish in many cases.

I am talking about Knightly valor here, not raw courage that a commoner can show when he commits a daring crime. Theivery, deception, and subterfuge, no matter how risky, is not the act of a valorous knight... Its the act of a common coward.

Your perspective is very male centred in the view of the offended party. Think about it from the Lady's pov.

There she is trapped in a loveless marriage to a man old enough to be her father and whose only interest is for her to bear him sons. He is away for a long time, he is abusive, and has made her a vitual prisoner. Along comes a young galant Knight who asks for nothing but a smile. Who yearns for her and treats her with love and respect. This gallant knight who would rescue her from her predicament. She may speak of this brave gallant knight to her confidants and describe him as all that is good in Knighthood. A true gentleman. When the time comes, she may know that it is wrong, but she would rather have one night in her Knights embrace than spend a lifetime with her husband.

For her, this man is a saviour, a reason to live and enjoy life. Isn't this what Knighthood is all about?

My 2d:
- Courtly love (as in sneaking about, wooing, kissing hems and such) is deceitful (as opposed to honest), but not cruel, cowardly or dishonorable - whoever the knight and lady/damosel are. Not honorable either. Courtly love is a women's thing, and the list of penalties (or bonuses, as in some earlier supplement) to the Honor passion isn't concerned with that kind of stuff.
- Consummated courtly love is just screwing around, and is deceitful and (maybe) cruel, but nothing else. No penalties or bonuses to Honor.
- BUT: If you do something of the above and break a rule of Loyalty (as in bonking your liege's wife), you lose Honor and Loyalty. The same goes if you break rules of Hospitality (as in being invited, and then bonking you host's wife)... and for Honor... and for Love (family).
- I see no reason why a behaviour that is promoted by some wouldn't be comdemned by others. I also see no reason why a certain behaviour wouldn't form you character (as in give you checks to certain traits) just because it is an accepted behaviour among some or most. In my game, my PCs get Cruel checks after every significantly messy battle/fight. They also get Deceitful checks when they lie to an enemy, even though lying is the sane thing to do. They also get Suspicious checks when thay act suspicious, even though being suspicious is the sane thing to be.

// M

Hi William,

I'm just going to pile on here.





And once again, I can do nothing but say that you're wrong; this attitude simply isn't borne out in the literature. Whatever other faults Lancelot and Tristram had, cowardice was never considered to be among them.
You can say I am wrong, but that's not a convincing argument I'm afraid.

And you are generalizing quite a bit here.How can doorknobdeity be "generalizing" when he says that you are not compliant from the perspective of the literature? Also do you want to be "convinced"? As in do you really want us to provide "arguments" that will pursuade you to "our" side? Because from your OP it sounded like you wanted explanations and not arguments, so people have been trying to explain things not argue them.
To me it sounds like you are already convinced by your moral language. Which is fine. You are free to run your pendragon any way you see fit. :P If you will give cowardly checks for adultery when you are GM, then that is fine as long as you and your PKs have fun. So don't let us pedantic old farts stop you. ;)
But that doesn't take away that the literature disagrees with you, or that KAP is rather compliant with the literature over reality.

I am not claiming that Launcelot or Tristram's faults were cowardice. I am claiming that mounting another man's wife in secret is. There's a huge difference there.
I am discussing an act here, not a character. I am discussing someone DOING something as being a cowardly ACT. I am in no way suggesting Lancelot in general IS a coward, ditto for any other knight.I am asking you to look at the action itself and ask yourself how knightly is covertly mounting another man's wife and working to keep it a secret as much as possible. It just looks base at the very least, and borderline rogueish in many cases.In game there is no difference. You are handing out a cowardly check. So you are in effect making the player less valorous. So if your GM world would be consistent then Lancelot would be Valorous until he starts consumenting his relationship with the queen. After that he should act more cowardly and should act as a coward on the field of battle as well. Otherwise you are inconsistent.

Lancelot mounting Gwen in secret, covertly turning his Liege Lord into a cuckold hardly appears the bravest act of his glory days now does it?On the contrary if you are asking me, that it is the single bravest thing he does. Because he stands to lose everything. It might not be the morally right or smart thing to do, but brave, corageous, daring, valiant, bold, daring, rash, fearless, etc all of those things it is. He puts everything at stake for the sake of love.
Exactly like with your example of the pickpocket, if the theif can select between two marks and takes the more daring one, that is valorous regardless if it is morally right or not.

I am talking about Knightly valor here, not raw courage that a commoner can show when he commits a daring crime. Theivery, deception, and subterfuge, no matter how risky, is not the act of a valorous knight... Its the act of a common coward.But if so then your knightly villains are cowards in battle? So Mordred the master of deception and subterfuge would run away from battle? Or when a PK uses his intrigue skill, does he get an automatic cowardly check as well? Or when you lie to people that trust you, then you should not only get a deceitful check but a cowardly check as well?
I don't think so, and if you don't think so either then your not being consistent here.

I simply think that if you confuse the cowardice with lack of morals you must have a different definition of Valorous/Cowardly than the rest of us. ;D
Please read the description in KAP and in a dictionary, then come back and explain why you think that Cowardly implies anything regarding the morality of the action?

Your perspective is very male centred in the view of the offended party. Think about it from the Lady's pov.

There she is trapped in a loveless marriage to a man old enough to be her father and whose only interest is for her to bear him sons. He is away for a long time, he is abusive, and has made her a vitual prisoner. Along comes a young galant Knight who asks for nothing but a smile. Who yearns for her and treats her with love and respect. This gallant knight who would rescue her from her predicament. She may speak of this brave gallant knight to her confidants and describe him as all that is good in Knighthood. A true gentleman. When the time comes, she may know that it is wrong, but she would rather have one night in her Knights embrace than spend a lifetime with her husband.

For her, this man is a saviour, a reason to live and enjoy life. Isn't this what Knighthood is all about?


I agree from the perspective of the two lovers, I am sure they both see it as a romantic fantasy. But I cannot accept people from the outside looking in as seeing this way. I would expect a wide variety of responses.. particuarly offense from anyone with any attachment to the cuckold (leige lord, vasals, family, etc)

Most of the arguments and descriptions come from the lovers perspective here, not the objective onlooker or injured party.

I can certainly understand how people can view this as a silly romance, particularly lonely married women sitting around in thier castles fantasizing themselves... envious it wasn't them.

BUt from the casual onlooker and members of the injured party's camp I suspect it will be a lot of ostriches burying their heads etc

I honestly don't find Greg's characterization of the reactions to be much different than today... a vast mix... with the injured party and supporters taking offense and the knight and his buddies cheering him on...

In short, its a declaration of societal warfare

My 2d:
- Courtly love (as in sneaking about, wooing, kissing hems and such) is deceitful (as opposed to honest), but not cruel, cowardly or dishonorable - whoever the knight and lady/damosel are. Not honorable either. Courtly love is a women's thing, and the list of penalties (or bonuses, as in some earlier supplement) to the Honor passion isn't concerned with that kind of stuff.
- Consummated courtly love is just screwing around, and is deceitful and (maybe) cruel, but nothing else. No penalties or bonuses to Honor.
- BUT: If you do something of the above and break a rule of Loyalty (as in bonking your liege's wife), you lose Honor and Loyalty. The same goes if you break rules of Hospitality (as in being invited, and then bonking you host's wife)... and for Honor... and for Love (family).
- I see no reason why a behaviour that is promoted by some wouldn't be comdemned by others. I also see no reason why a certain behaviour wouldn't form you character (as in give you checks to certain traits) just because it is an accepted behaviour among some or most. In my game, my PCs get Cruel checks after every significantly messy battle/fight. They also get Deceitful checks when they lie to an enemy, even though lying is the sane thing to do. They also get Suspicious checks when thay act suspicious, even though being suspicious is the sane thing to be.

// M


Good call noir... I agree, just because some some women and the offending knight condone the behaviour doens't mean others won't condemn it. And definiatley checks should be divvied out there.

I dunno about Cruel, I still find the whole thing cowardly... the knight is AVOIDING battling the husband face to face and sneaking behind his back to stick it to him instead... not particularly courageous... seems quite rogue-like to me...

Good call noir... I agree, just because some some women and the offending knight condone the behaviour doens't mean others won't condemn it. And definiatley checks should be divvied out there.

I dunno about Cruel, I still find the whole thing cowardly... the knight is AVOIDING battling the husband face to face and sneaking behind his back to stick it to him instead... not particularly courageous... seems quite rogue-like to me...
1. Thx. :)
2. In my group we interpret Valorous/Cowarldly differently - we use it only as a means to determine if a knight is "frozen in fear" or not. For other aspects we use Reckless (if the PC acts without concern for his own safety) or Honest (if the PC is honest and upfront with all of his intentions). In the same manner I award Prudent and Deceitful checks for careful and sneaky behaviour.

Your perspective is very male centred in the view of the offended party. Think about it from the Lady's pov.

There she is trapped in a loveless marriage to a man old enough to be her father and whose only interest is for her to bear him sons. He is away for a long time, he is abusive, and has made her a vitual prisoner. Along comes a young galant Knight who asks for nothing but a smile. Who yearns for her and treats her with love and respect. This gallant knight who would rescue her from her predicament. She may speak of this brave gallant knight to her confidants and describe him as all that is good in Knighthood. A true gentleman. When the time comes, she may know that it is wrong, but she would rather have one night in her Knights embrace than spend a lifetime with her husband.

For her, this man is a saviour, a reason to live and enjoy life. Isn't this what Knighthood is all about?


I agree from the perspective of the two lovers,


as it was written, of course.



I am sure they both see it as a romantic fantasy.


Mmmm,
I would say they are either serious and see it as a romantic reality,
or cynical about it and see it as romantic opportunity.



But I cannot accept people from the outside looking in as seeing this way. I would expect a wide variety of responses.. particuarly offense from anyone with any attachment to the cuckold (leige lord, vasals, family, etc)


Unless everyone was in on it,
which is part of how I imagine Pendragon Aquitaine to be--the Land of Love.
Marriage, as the Churches know it, is the minority opinion--even among the churchmen
Marriage, as the property-laws know it, takes a back seat (as long as 1. heirs have been secured, and 2. the missus uses birth control (widely known and practiced since ancient times, and vinegar is easy to procure), and 3. Public discretion is faultless.
Marriage and all that old ugly baggage of the gross materials world takes care of itself, and everyone from dukes to troubadors practice High Romance. (The commoners, they just f***)
Everyone performs in the required fantasy of court life, propertied luxury and war; but the true reality is of spiritual love (sometimes topped off with mutually inspirational ecstatic communion.)



Most of the arguments and descriptions come from the lovers perspective here, not the objective onlooker or injured party.
I can certainly understand how people can view this as a silly romance, particularly lonely married women sitting around in thier castles fantasizing themselves... envious it wasn't them.
BUt from the casual onlooker and members of the injured party's camp I suspect it will be a lot of ostriches burying their heads etc

I honestly don't find Greg's characterization of the reactions to be much different than today...


Whew. As intended. It is a conflict.
but also, see above, the custom of which is engaging many of the young, the poor knights.
Are the Courts of Love an invasion, or an acknowledgment and attempt to control this passion?



a vast mix... with the injured party and supporters taking offense and the knight and his buddies cheering him on...
In short, its a declaration of societal warfare


As much as you wish for your campaign.
I am unhappy with the material I did for it, and after some more intense gaming in it (pity my group!) will post some suggestions on my site. Or in a book.

How can doorknobdeity be "generalizing" when he says that you are not compliant from the perspective of the literature?


DKD is generalizing when he says "Whatever other faults Lancelot and Tristram had, cowardice was never considered to be among them."

I never accused either of these characters as having a fault of cowardice... never even implied it.

I said and I maintain that the act of taking another man's wife to his bed BEHIND that MAN's BACK is a cowardly ACT. To turn that into a suggestion that Lancelot and Tristram had the fault of cowardice is a generalization.



Also do you want to be "convinced"? As in do you really want us to provide "arguments" that will pursuade you to "our" side? Because from your OP it sounded like you wanted explanations and not arguments, so people have been trying to explain things not argue them.
To me it sounds like you are already convinced by your moral language. Which is fine. You are free to run your pendragon any way you see fit. :P If you will give cowardly checks for adultery when you are GM, then that is fine as long as you and your PKs have fun. So don't let us pedantic old farts stop you. ;)


I view an explanation AS an argument. There's not much difference... The explanation is just a softer tone really... But I alreayd introduced earlier that I found the contradictions between the ideals of Romantic Love and the ideals of Knightly or Chilvalrous behaviour a considerable challenge.

And I still do, but its pretty clear at this point that there is a mix of responses from people pursuing romantic love, save for the lovers themselves who are in the middle of the fantasy.



But that doesn't take away that the literature disagrees with you, or that KAP is rather compliant with the literature over reality.


The literature can disagree all it wants, I welcome it. Its all a matter of who's perspective a passage is written from. Most of it appears to be from the lovers perspective.



In game there is no difference. You are handing out a cowardly check. So you are in effect making the player less valorous. So if your GM world would be consistent then Lancelot would be Valorous until he starts consumenting his relationship with the queen. After that he should act more cowardly and should act as a coward on the field of battle as well. Otherwise you are inconsistent.


No, I don't view handing otu a cowardly check as "making a player less valorous". It is a check indicating he has behaved in a cowardly manner. This is not the same thing as making a character less valorous. He may already (and likley does) have a check in valorous as well...



On the contrary if you are asking me, that it is the single bravest thing he does. Because he stands to lose everything. It might not be the morally right or smart thing to do, but brave, corageous, daring, valiant, bold, daring, rash, fearless, etc all of those things it is. He puts everything at stake for the sake of love.


If he challenged Arthur face to face for her I would agree with you... but he bedded his liege lord's wife - a woman Lancelot KNEW Arthur LOVED and MARRIED for love - behind his BACK... LIED to him passively for how long?

This is NOT an act of bravery. He wasn't putting everything at risk for love. he did it behind his back, which allows him to NOT have to risk ANYTHING and still have Gwen - Selfish check in my view, not at all brave or valorous.

If you do something behind someone's back to avoid the consequences, its cowardly isnt it? Like stealing, or cheating on a test? Its cowardly, not valorous in a knightly way at all.



Exactly like with your example of the pickpocket, if the theif can select between two marks and takes the more daring one, that is valorous regardless if it is morally right or not.


I am not arguing about the morality, I am arguing that there are two different kinds of courage at play here, a Knightly courage - love of battle and warfare, and a raw commoner courage which involves taking risks. Yes, taking another man's wife to your bed certainly fits into the latter but I don't believe it falls into the former at all.. I believe it is actually contrary to the former.



But if so then your knightly villains are cowards in battle? So Mordred the master of deception and subterfuge would run away from battle? Or when a PK uses his intrigue skill, does he get an automatic cowardly check as well? Or when you lie to people that trust you, then you should not only get a deceitful check but a cowardly check as well?
I don't think so, and if you don't think so either then your not being consistent here.


Nope. Its a check for cowardly thats all. If that same knight leaves the man's wife and rushes into battle and charges a dozen knights at once, I would give him a valorous check for that too... it all balances out you see.

You are getting way ahead of things here. A cowardly check does not condemn any one to perpetual cowardly behaviour for the remainder of the entire game... its a check, that's all...

If you lie to people to avoid getting pummelled when you have a pummel coming to you yes I would certainly pass out a cowardly check for that.

If you do acts to aviod open conflict then you are avoiding battle, this is cowardly according to the manual's description of the trait. This would include taking a man's wife to bed in secret instead of challenging the man to a life or death fight to his face... its tantamount to robbing his home while he's off at war... its common looting with a man's back turned.



I simply think that if you confuse the cowardice with lack of morals you must have a different definition of Valorous/Cowardly than the rest of us. ;D
Please read the description in KAP and in a dictionary, then come back and explain why you think that Cowardly implies anything regarding the morality of the action?


Not talking about morals here in this context of the cowardly check no. I am talking about the definition in the manual. And I did read the dictionary description and the description in the manual.

1. Thx. :)
2. In my group we interpret Valorous/Cowarldly differently - we use it only as a means to determine if a knight is "frozen in fear" or not. For other aspects we use Reckless (if the PC acts without concern for his own safety) or Honest (if the PC is honest and upfront with all of his intentions). In the same manner I award Prudent and Deceitful checks for careful and sneaky behaviour.


Thanks noir, I definitely would give a knight having an affair a wreckless check.. hadn't considered that! lol

As much as you wish for your campaign.
I am unhappy with the material I did for it, and after some more intense gaming in it (pity my group!) will post some suggestions on my site. Or in a book.



I am very happy with the work you did too.. the game mechanics make the woman appear to be as much a prize as a medieval hunt ... lol I was quite pleased with how you handled it all.

My issues are with

1. Distributing Glory for knights that fall short of the ideal and take the woman to bed
2. No checks mentioned for each phase of the affair
3. More details on the random responses not just from the cuckold but from other members of both camps
4. Details on how the romantic love ideals may (and in my opinion DO) conflict with Arthur's Knightly ideals - and how in game mechanics this is resolved.

And ya, in my opinion you could put togther a 40 pp book just on Romantic Love in KAP including a more detailed lovers solo. :)

The subject matter does evoke passion does it not?

As far as I can see some people comdeming the lovers, others will be indifferent and others may feel inspired by such an act of love.

Love, as a story, seems to be something that humankind never tires.

Its all a matter of who's perspective a passage is written from. Most of it appears to be from the lovers perspective.

Yes. Because the audience was willing to commission these books in an age when a book was really expensive. Which indicates that among the nobility, there was strong pro-romance sentiment. You keep saying that it's impossible that anyone but the lovers and a small section of society approved of these things, but that's just not true. In literature and art, these romantic-adulterous themes keep popping up; there are a hell of a lot of mirror-backs portraying Tristram and Isolde. There would have been very considerable social approval for romantic adultery, assuming that nobody screwed things up by, e.g., doing the "brave" thing and killing the lady's husband in order to steal his wife.

If you have the time to slog through a dense treatise on the subject, I recommend reading Huizinga's The Autumn of the Middle Ages, especially the chapter "The Forms of Love."

Its all a matter of who's perspective a passage is written from. Most of it appears to be from the lovers perspective.

Yes. Because the audience was willing to commission these books in an age when a book was really expensive. Which indicates that among the nobility, there was strong pro-romance sentiment. You keep saying that it's impossible that anyone but the lovers and a small section of society approved of these things, but that's just not true. In literature and art, these romantic-adulterous themes keep popping up; there are a hell of a lot of mirror-backs portraying Tristram and Isolde. There would have been very considerable social approval for romantic adultery, assuming that nobody screwed things up by, e.g., doing the "brave" thing and killing the lady's husband in order to steal his wife.

If you have the time to slog through a dense treatise on the subject, I recommend reading Huizinga's The Autumn of the Middle Ages, especially the chapter "The Forms of Love."


The fact that people commissioned books celebrating adultery does not prove that the general public or even the general noble public approved of the act itself. There are tons of films today showing adultery, violence, and a variety of other behaviours no one in their right mind would welcomeon their friends or themselves.

People are drawn to drama, but that does NOT mean they want it in their lives. Its a way to live a fantasy life without taking any risks themselves, or doing any damage.

What records are there of nobility actually doing this and being cheered for it? Anything?

Aside from the lasting, persistent, and widespread consumption of the idealized act being performed by people very much like them, you mean? An ideal that was consumed, refined, and admired for centuries?

No specific examples off the top of my head, though I'm pretty sure Froissart, commenting on a feud in which a man was accused of doing this, said that even if the man did commit adultery, it was okay because it would have been virtuous and so on.

If you have the time to slog through a dense treatise on the subject, I recommend reading Huizinga's The Autumn of the Middle Ages, especially the chapter "The Forms of Love."


Yow man!
You might deserve a Cruelty for suggesting this! :D

The "time to slog" for me with this glorious tome of language, insight, wonder and fantasy is, so far, "forever." :D
Maybe I can finish it some day!

And I think we are obliged to tell everyone also
DO NOT GET the translation titled "The Waning of the Middle Ages"

sorry, in joke :D

The way I see it, he can't continue the argument if he's comatose.

The way I see it, he can't continue the argument if he's comatose.


That's never stopped lawyers or politicians!

The fact that people commissioned books celebrating adultery does not prove that the general public or even the general noble public approved of the act itself. There are tons of films today showing adultery, violence, and a variety of other behaviours no one in their right mind would welcomeon their friends or themselves.

People are drawn to drama, but that does NOT mean they want it in their lives. Its a way to live a fantasy life without taking any risks themselves, or doing any damage.

What records are there of nobility actually doing this and being cheered for it? Anything?



Part of what made medieval romance, romance is the risk involved and the understanding that the lovers were risking all for their love. If someone was willing to risk death, disgrace and damnation, then they weren't treuly in love.

By the time you get the the Rennassiance, virtualy every noble had a illicit love affair (including the clergy).

THe whoe

My issues are with

1. Distributing Glory for knights that fall short of the ideal and take the woman to bed



Bear in mind, the glory gained for pursuing a woman before consummation (50 per year, cumulative - so in the 10th year, 500) far, far outweighs the glory gained once consummated (a flat 50 per year).

Personally, I agree with Greg that the glroy gained for romance shouldn't exceed 100, but even then - you get more glory for keeping the romance in the yearning stage, than you do in the, um, physical stage.

My 2d on the subject is as follows:

-Trait-wise, it is not considered Deceitful or Cowardly, by the standards of Camelot, to screw a woman in secret as part of a Romance. Camelot sets the standards for traits once Arthur ascends the throne; therefore, "I am playing by the rules of Romance" transcends everything else, because this is early-Renaissance chick lit. I'll answer cowardly first: you're not sneaking around behind the husband's back because you're afraid of what he will do to you. You're doing so to protect the lady's honor; everything else up to and including your life be damned. This is not cowardice and you don't get a check for Cowardly. Period.

Deceitful is a tougher call. For my personal campaigns, "It is done in Amor" is a free pass to act deceitful and you don't get a check for it. If you don't accept this, then I will suggest that you make it create a directed trait (which almost everyone will have): "Deceitful in the name of Love." But I wouldn't bother.

-A note on Amor and Love: Up until the penis is inserted in the vagina, no crime has been committed (though it's still obligatory to be discreet). If Arthur stumbled in on Lancelot and Guenivere "chastely" kissing, he'd be expected to quietly excuse himself and pretend he never noticed. Oral and anal sex, I'm not so sure about; my guess is that technically one could argue that "you did not have intercourse with that woman," but by that point, or if you're discovered naked together, it's time to man up and face the music regardless of what got shoved where. Being a weasel is cowardly. (Saracen knights may, of course, feel free to lawyer for the lady's sake and back it up by challenge.)

-As Greg said, unless you are personally involved (which basically means "the guy whose horns are growing"), it is not your job to reveal another lover's affair. First off, if you're in an Amor of your own, you're likely to be cast over by your own girl for violating the Laws of Love (and your own Amor Passion will be penalized even if she doesn't). If not, it's still a really dickish thing to do. Mordred revealing Lancelot was a Bad Thing in itself (Cruel check), in no small part because it also shamed Arthur. If you really must choke an affair (because this is your brother's wife we're talking about, or your lord's), the first thing you do is try to quietly dissuade the other knight (which is guaranteed to fail) and if that doesn't work, very quietly tell the man who's being cuckolded and then get the hell out of Dodge (Prudent, not Cowardly!). And this -only- if we're talking brother's wife, lord's, or something similar. Otherwise, shut up, shut up, shut up.

-Speaking of brothers and lords, you do not mess with your other Passions in Amor unless you want to be karmically pimpslapped. Stealing your brother's wife breaks Love (Family), your lord's is disLoyal, screwing your host's wife under his own roof is inHospitable, and a pious Christian knight with Love (God) is obliged to keep his hands off the nuns.
-Subnote: most of these are one-way. If a host boinks his guest's wife, a lord boinks his vassal's or an elder brother boinks his younger brother's, that's far more acceptable.
-Sub-subnote: In the latter two cases, Romance is not the way to go anyway. The senior simply chooses a mistress, the junior thanks his lucky stars and the woman wheedles every favor she can for her husband. If a lord is sneaking around with his vassal's woman, he just looks like a dolt; remember, no guts, no Glory.

Oral and anal sex, I'm not so sure about; my guess is that technically one could argue that "you did not have intercourse with that woman," but by that point, or if you're discovered naked together, it's time to man up and face the music regardless of what got shoved where.

Until rather recently, all "unnatural" sex acts (including not only the acts listed above, but also sometimes normal intercourse in unusual positions) were classified as sodomy. In the medieval period, this would be a very serious crime if somebody decided to pursue the matter. As far as we can tell (and that isn't a whole lot) if you were a lord of sufficiently high rank, you would both be of sufficient rank that nobody would try and get you executed for sodomy and of sufficient notability that accusations of sodomy would be made almost as a matter of course.

And, while I'm on the subject of medieval sodomy: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1395rykener.html

I suppose the most lenient punishment for any lady caught in a compromising position, would be to be sent to a nunnery.

Maybe so, maybe not. Again, it's possible that if few people know about it, the wronged husband could charge the lover with rape, thus publicly preserving his own honor; whether or not the husband's private punishments are worse than life in a convent is up to the husband, I suppose.

On reflection, she'd probably be far better off in the nunnery in any case.



-Trait-wise, it is not considered Deceitful or Cowardly, by the standards of Camelot, to screw a woman in secret as part of a Romance. Camelot sets the standards for traits once Arthur ascends the throne; therefore, "I am playing by the rules of Romance" transcends everything else, because this is early-Renaissance chick lit. I'll answer cowardly first: you're not sneaking around behind the husband's back because you're afraid of what he will do to you. You're doing so to protect the lady's honor; everything else up to and including your life be damned. This is not cowardice and you don't get a check for Cowardly. Period.
This is exactly what I was failing to say. Well said.

Oral and anal sex, I'm not so sure about; my guess is that technically one could argue that "you did not have intercourse with that woman," but by that point, or if you're discovered naked together, it's time to man up and face the music regardless of what got shoved where.

Until rather recently, all "unnatural" sex acts (including not only the acts listed above, but also sometimes normal intercourse in unusual positions) were classified as sodomy. In the medieval period, this would be a very serious crime if somebody decided to pursue the matter. As far as we can tell (and that isn't a whole lot) if you were a lord of sufficiently high rank, you would both be of sufficient rank that nobody would try and get you executed for sodomy and of sufficient notability that accusations of sodomy would be made almost as a matter of course.

And, while I'm on the subject of medieval sodomy: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1395rykener.html


I stand educated! (Anyway, the point stands on "compromising positions.")

As for what the husband does to the wife, that depends on the husband. He could always critical his Forgiving. On the other hand, if he catches them in flagrante delicto, he could kill them both outright.

Although in Pendragon the lover would most likely get inspired by his Love passion and kill the husband. Probably why Arthur went out hunting (Prudent check).

"Catch Lancelot with the Queen? Lancelot!?! Uh, sure Mordred, you do that. Me, I going to take my armor off and go chase after a wild boar."

Pretty sure one of Arthur's passions was Bromance (Lancelot) 20.

Pretty sure one of Arthur's passions was Bromance (Lancelot) 20.


Is that what we ought to call the Admire Lancelot passion?

Apparently, the proper term for strong bonds of same-sex platonic heterosexual affection/hetero life-mates is homosociality (homosocialism?), but "bromance" just captures the feel so perfectly.

Apparently, the proper term for strong bonds of same-sex platonic heterosexual affection/hetero life-mates is homosociality (homosocialism?), but "bromance" just captures the feel so perfectly.


Wouldn't friendship be simpler?

I'm not sure if Admire (Lanceleot) would really ne a passion. Do people wander around Camelot in Melancholoy after hearing of Lance's latest exploits?

Come to think of it, considering how passions do work, I'm surprised Arthur can hold a Round Table meeeting without at least one knight going postal. With that many knights somebody is bound to be introspective.

Those who are introspective probably aren't at the meeting, but got distracted by something on the way. Now we know why the round table meetings are never fully attended.

Those who are introspective probably aren't at the meeting, but got distracted by something on the way. Now we know why the round table meetings are never fully attended.


:D

It just amuses me at times to consider what the world would be like if we applied the game mechanics across the population and did a little statistical analysis.

"The company of flail-men attack, with five percent hitting themselves, ten percent breaking thier flails.."

Maybe that is it, as long as the discovering knight don't KNOW the guy, then its all well and good? Even honourable?

Its not so hard to understand - we still do it today, like we've done for all history.

It is honourable because:

1) You are chasing the hottest tail in the land. Every guy in the history of guys respects the fact that you are taking a shot at the goddess of these parts (exception: unless its "your girl's" tail the other guy is chasing - of course, since the hottest chick in the land is ALWAYS dating the hottest jock in the land (read: most money, most good-looking, most powerful, etc.), ALL other guys secretly want to see Mr. Lucky Butt Jock get the shaft for once. Period. This needs to be explained further to a fellow guy?

Interesting note: Every one of these stories always says this chick is the fairest in the land; no one ever romances the class wall-flower. And if you, a man, try to say you don't get excited dreaming of/getting a shot at chasing the nearest Playboy hottie or most stunningly gorgeous cheerleader in your high school, you are either lying (and we all know it, brotha) or you are currently six feet under. This covers the guy side of the "honour" question.

2) You are doing this to show you care. This, as others here have said, is the culture de jour of the time period. Girls are exerting a modicum of independence for the first time - and they like tall, dark, and handsomes being interested in a relationship rather than pursuing the path of #1 (like all the other men they're not interested in do). All girls know that the man of their dreams is really just interested in her because this #2 is the only way Love is truly expressed, and that's why they are interested in her, right? This covers the girl side of the "honour" question.

3) You are keeping things secret about this whole thing, showing you care about "the other particulars" (family, religious expectactions). This covers everyone else (i.e. the priests, who aren't really really supposed to have "men" or "women" thoughts ...)

WOW, Nicely said!!!
20 Glory and a check!




Maybe that is it, as long as the discovering knight don't KNOW the guy, then its all well and good? Even honourable?

Its not so hard to understand - we still do it today, like we've done for all history.

It is honourable because:

1) You are chasing the hottest tail in the land. Every guy in the history of guys respects the fact that you are taking a shot at the goddess of these parts (exception: unless its "your girl's" tail the other guy is chasing - of course, since the hottest chick in the land is ALWAYS dating the hottest jock in the land (read: most money, most good-looking, most powerful, etc.), ALL other guys secretly want to see Mr. Lucky Butt Jock get the shaft for once. Period. This needs to be explained further to a fellow guy?

Interesting note: Every one of these stories always says this chick is the fairest in the land; no one ever romances the class wall-flower. And if you, a man, try to say you don't get excited dreaming of/getting a shot at chasing the nearest Playboy hottie or most stunningly gorgeous cheerleader in your high school, you are either lying (and we all know it, brotha) or you are currently six feet under. This covers the guy side of the "honour" question.

2) You are doing this to show you care. This, as others here have said, is the culture de jour of the time period. Girls are exerting a modicum of independence for the first time - and they like tall, dark, and handsomes being interested in a relationship rather than pursuing the path of #1 (like all the other men they're not interested in do). All girls know that the man of their dreams is really just interested in her because this #2 is the only way Love is truly expressed, and that's why they are interested in her, right? This covers the girl side of the "honour" question.

3) You are keeping things secret about this whole thing, showing you care about "the other particulars" (family, religious expectactions). This covers everyone else (i.e. the priests, who aren't really really supposed to have "men" or "women" thoughts ...)

Thanks, Greg!

(To the OP: You realize that this idea of "Courtly Romance" was the beginnings of modern feminism, right?)

wait what

modern feminism was a reaction to the same patriarchy that embraced (neo-)chivalric notions and used them to justify their treatment of women as delicate china dolls that couldn't be exposed to the outside world, lest they be kidnapped by dragons or start humping everything in sight

the victorians loved the hell out of chivalry, yet early feminists just couldn't find satisfaction within that social framework

Take all arguments and discussion about modern feminism elsewhere, please.

Finally got around to reading all this, very enlightening.

But one thing got stuck in my mind though. When a knight is romancing a woman, she is usually of higher class than the knight.
So the Romantic knight has a choise: Do I sneak around or do I forget about the woman.

Those are the only available choises.

Those who think they can challenge the husbond to a fight should consider the results of doing this.
1. Husbond accepts - kills knight. Not a desired outcome.
2. Husbond accepts - champion kills knight. Not a desired outcome.
3. Husbond declines (Why would he accept? He has nothing to gain.) - Banishes the knight from his land and sends the woman to a convent. Not a desired outcome.
4. Husbond accepts - knight kills him - Husbonds lord or brother or whatever sends the woman to a convent. Not a desired outcome.

I can't seem to think of any possible way for the two lovers to be together, except for the sneaking around.
And I don't think there is an honourable, just and knightly way fro that to happen.

And I don't think there is an honourable, just and knightly way fro that to happen.

Because you have different definitions for those qualities than knights did.

I feel this whole conversation underscores the reality that -- just as it should be -- Pendragon is rife with anachronism, and that ultimately, there's no good to come out of weaving a story that contradicts your own sense of morality.

Have you ever noticed how many times the stories not just of Arthur and his warriors have been re-imagined, but of Robin Hood? Batman? Superman? Every generation reinvents its heroes to keep them relevant and emotionally satisfying, and a game like Pendragon empowers you to take that phenomenon to an even more personal level: reinventing Arthur for yourself and your friends.

In the end, it doesn't matter WHAT marriage, love, romance, and honour meant in England a millenium ago. The only people that count in this equation are the ones sitting around the table with you while the dice are rolling. If you just can't reconcile Courtly Romance with your own image of Arthurian chivalry, then either villainize Courtly Romance in your game, or excise it from the campaign entirely.

No reasonable treatment of the source material underlying Pendragon could have ignored the tradition of Courtly Love, but the magic of this hobby isn't the source material. It's what happens when you depart from the source material and say, "So that's where we start, but now we're going to tell OUR story OUR way. Let's have fun with this..."

I can't seem to think of any possible way for the two lovers to be together, except for the sneaking around.
And I don't think there is an honourable, just and knightly way fro that to happen.


Probably because you are equating lust to love and visa versa.

This isn't something new; we still do this today; indeed, like we've always have done and always will do - its just not structured like it was "back then in the day". There aren't rules about *it* anymore, because most people think other things are more important than True Love.

Back "in Courtly Love" times, the certain people in authority said:

"Hey - people cheat all the time. They've been doing it since we became multicellular, and we'll keep doing it until armageddon. This is silly the way we keep reacting to it. Lets acknowledge this fact, and make it acceptable for us "law-abiding citizens" so we stop hacking each other's heads off just because joe likes jane, ok?"

And so, everyone else who believed in true love and saw the wisdom in this idea sensible agreed with this authority figure (psst, she's a hottie queen of such and such, so her words actually means something); *plus*, really, it does make a lot of sense. Lets do it!

Courtly Love was born, and there was much rejoicing. Rules for cheating that makes it ok. Because everyone agrees to observe them. Just like taxes.

I'm sorry. Apparently I'm not as good with words as I thought.

What I really was trying to say was that after reading this thread I got the feeling that some people thought there were other options than "Courtly Love" (Call it romantic or sneaky or whatever you want.)
My point was that I don't think there are any other options!
Be that for love or lust or both.

I will gladly continue to speak about the subject, but stop trying to convince me. I already think courtly love is "a good thing".
Sorry for the confusion.

Sex weather in secret or open is neither cowardly nor valorous. Period.
If u are going to give me a cowardly check for cheating then I DEMAND a Valorous check 4 fidelity.

Silly huh? some traits just dont make any sense when applied to certain situations and cowardly being applied to cheating is one. Deceitful seems apropriate, certainly. also, It makes the situation no better by challenging the husband either. Others will now view you not only as an adulterer, but a boor and a jerk, cause you publicly humiliated the husband and made SURE no one could ignore the elephant in the room, and probably even kicked the guys ass. IS this Valourous to challenge the husband? I dont see it. Is it HONEST to confront him? yes. Not valourous.


IT IS NOT COWARDLY to cheat. IT IS also NOT Valorous to not cheat. Neither have ANYTHING to do with the subject. Period! BYE BYE :-*

Funnily enough, aside from the great adulterers like Tristram and Isolde and Lancelot and Guinevere, a lot of chivalric literature was based around fidelity to your wife (such as Chretien de Troyes' Yvain, the Knight of the Lion). Bear in mind that Chretien was also the first one to pair up Lancelot and Guinevere.

I still think the best way to reconcile this is to not focus on marriage, but on <3 ~tru luv~ <3

Funnily enough, aside from the great adulterers like Tristram and Isolde and Lancelot and Guinevere, a lot of chivalric literature was based around fidelity to your wife (such as Chretien de Troyes' Yvain, the Knight of the Lion). Bear in mind that Chretien was also the first one to pair up Lancelot and Guinevere.

I still think the best way to reconcile this is to not focus on marriage, but on <3 ~tru luv~ <3


I think you may be right here. :)

I’ve read this entire thread and I found it a good read. Thanks to all contributors!
Now, the Fin Amor issue is indeed quite complex. I’ll try to be brief.

There are basically two opposing views of society:

[1]
Medieval society was based on male violence. Morality was a combination of clan authority and the paternalistic premises of Christianity (cf. “the man is the head of the woman.”). As to mariage, men litterally owned women: the husband is the lord, the wife is the vassal who has to obey her husband’s orders. This leads to women being routinely raped by her husband (= in the modern sense of the word, since she had to consent to having sex against her will).

A question to “William”: Is this Honorable from your perspective? For me it isn’t, but it was for almost all medieval men (and many women!).

[2]
A completely new idea presents itself: Fin Amor. The basic premise is a rather revolutionary one: True Love = Good. It’s almost as if a Romantic knight has a score in Love (Love). This ideology, also called the Religion of love, operates a reversal of the man-woman relation: in Love, the man is the vassal, the woman is the lord. This idea undermines the very structures of feudal society, since it denies male superiority expressed in [1]. In this view, sex out of Love (even with a married woman) is natural and honorable, despite all the cheating and lying. (Note that deceit was a necessary survival skill for knights, not a dishonorable thing used only by rogues and commoners, as Ariosto writes: ”Deceit is normally held in low esteem, pointing as it does to an evil disposition; there are, nonetheless, countless circumstances when it has reaped obvious benefits and deflected all manner of harm and ill report and mortal perils.”)
Indeed, sex or no sex is only important from the [1] perspective. From the [2] perspective, it’s only Love (so natural and Good). On the other hand, Fin Amor also implies that a truly Romantic knight would never marry or have sex against a woman’s will (= against Love). Note that this includes all women, not just the ladies.

CONCLUSION
Fin Amor is – as William correctly put it – a declaration of sociatal warfare against the established and Unloving order, especially against mariage. This explains the outburst of violence whenever the two visions collide = whenever a Love affair is discovered.

But what if a Romantic knight gets cheated himself, then there is no collision of views. I'll give a Romantic answer to William’s example of the 3rd knight: if a Romantic married knight were convinced that his wife’s lover truly served Love, then he would recognize that Love is stronger than mariage. Thus, he would find an honorable pretext to divorce and let his wife go off with his rival.

So, all conventional NPC’s will fight for [1], Romantic ones for [2]. The literary heroes mostly favored [2]. The idea in Pendragon is to fit the idealistic Romance into a game world based on the historical social structures (patriarchy). Therefore, I think a GM should not penalize players for adhering to either one view of society, so giving out “bad” checks to Romantic knights seems very inappropriate.