My players encountered a raid by Knights from Levcomagus and gave chase on horseback. One of them knocked a raider off of his horse and then stood ready to spear him.

The raiding Knight challenged the Salisbury Knight to a fair fight with either the pair of them on horse back or on foot. The Salisbury Knight has a high honour so he allowed this. Another flurry of blows saw the raider knocked to the ground and once again appealing for a fair challenge, he was allowed to get back on his feet.

The raider struck a mighty blow and sent and sent the Salisbury Knight to the floor. The raider carried on his attack and when challenged said something along the lines of "you might live by that code of honour but I don't".

So I know that Chivalry isn't in force during those years, but is there anything about the notion of a fair fight between two Knights of Logres and if so would it revolve around honour?

I think you have hit the nail on the head when you refer to the term "fair". In the Anarchy period this is going to have many different meanings to many different people. But in an age when such fights are going to be the basis of heroic tales, then I imagine some rough, agreed "rules"- which as you say may be tied around the honour stat.

In an age of personal champions though then I think it is going to depend upon what the starting conditions are. There may be a fight between two champions for control of a town etc, that is going to end only in the death of one of them. That is going to be an anything goes - as will be the case in later trials by combat I would have thought.

Altearnatively, if its a trial of strength - that my end with unconsciousness rather than death - then I can see the sort of conundrum you have posted. For me personally, I would award greater glory for the fight to the knight who lets his opponents gets up - as he will get greater prestige as the tales of the fight are told (assuming he wins of course).

Chris

The players who let the knight get back up were certainly being chivalrous, but that is not the same as being honourable. A high honour knight could easily refuse to let his opponent stand - it's a one-on-one fight, a fair fight, and his opponent was knocked to the ground fair and square, and if he wants to avoid beheading, he can always yield.

I agree with Avalon Lad and Darren. The Honor requirement is already being met (especially at Uther's time!), by making it a one-on-one contest. But a knight who conspicuously avoids taking advantage of his opponent would certainly merit a higher glory reward, and the tales would circulate. If I were to have a player whose PK makes a habit of pressing every advantage, his opponents would likely know this and give him no chance to get up in return. While a PK famous of this would likely find opponents more willing to 'return the favor', if for nothing else then to paint themselves in similar, flattering light. Especially once Arthur takes over and Chivalric culture really blossoms.

Might makes right.

What is honorable for us is not necessarily the same as for them.\
The Cymri live by certain rules. What needs to be determined is 'what is the norm' for this time period. If you knock someone down, and you then can demand yield or simply kill will vary depending on certain factors, chiefly what the players bring to the table. But once that norm is established, then bonuses and consequences will apply. If a knight in liege to a lord acts dishonorably, then he also brings suspicion to that lord. (might not matter to the dead knight, but future events will be altered - perhaps a directed trait of suspicious (Levcomagus' knights) because of their dishonourable acts.

Unfortunately, even knowing the normal codes might not be safe as there are always dishonorable knights.

Bob