Hi all,

Following scenario might happen in my campaign soon... Two knights (A and B) are sent by their liege lord to apprehend knight C. We are in Chivalric Era, post-530 AD.

If C, seeing that he is outnumbered, challenges his opponents to fight him one at a time, what would be the 'proper' response?

1) Of course they will fight him one at a time! To do otherwise would be dishonorable!

2) Of course they will gang up on him! This ain't a tournament, pal!

My gut feeling is that since this is not an actual war, nor is Knight C an outlaw, the rules of courtesy and honor would apply. Ganging up on C would be smart, but dishonorable, with appropriate penalties (maybe -1 to Honor, for Cowardice). Whereas doing the honorable thing and risk getting mauled in one on one would be worth a Honor check. Naturally, Honor 16+ would insist doing things the honorable way.

Might be also an issue of Proud? C implying that they are cowards if they use their superior numbers. Possibly an opposed resolution between Proud and Prudent, to see which trait dominates.

In any case, your thoughts would be welcome. :)

Ganging up is acceptable practice in a tournament IMG ;D.

For me, the key thing is the knights are acting under orders of their superior. Thus they would not ordinarily lose honour for going about their commission in an effective manner, so:

Option (a) if their honour is 16+, get checks in one or more appropriate traits

Option (b) otherwise, unless they choose to take up the challenge in which case they get some checks as in (a).

Honour would only be penalised if they went about apprehending the knight in an underhand fashion in some way (ambushing him with archers, breaking in to his bed chamber whilst he sleeps, sneaking up and stabbing him in the back etc)

Regards
Luke

I7d be more inclined to believe that the knights would have to face the long knight in single combat if he challenged them, or else loose honor, and thier Civlirary bonus glory that year.
Simpy becuase a knight is acting on orders doesn't adbsove them of activing in a Chivalric manner. Instead it gives them a code of conduct that could conflict with thier feudal duties.

Also, if you allow such behavior, you open the door to bypassing practically every Chivlaric convention and adventure. What to keep PCs from ganging up challenge knights then? All those "none may pass, lest the best me in a test of arms" stuff would vanish under to hooves of charging bands of PKs.

Take a look a YEar 512 in the GPC, for example. Pellinore is supposed to be a great challenge to Arthur's knights. Yet how would the adventure go if a mob of knights just rushed him? So much for the age of chivalry!

Thanks for the replies. The issue didn't come up in play, but this is one of those issues that will probably crop up in the future.

I can see why the two answers I was given are contradictory to an extent. I can see it going either way, which is why I asked in the first place.

Imagine that the knights are in attendance of their lord's court, and he orders them to apprehend 'this knave!'. It would seem a bit silly if they are penalized for doing just that, even if they gang up on the guy. This would then extend to the 'chase after him and bring him back', which was Luke's reasoning.

On the other hand, Atgxtg brings up a good point about roadside challenges and quest challenges. After all, the PKs might be on the quest on the lord's orders, too. Would this give them a license to gang up on the challenging knights? Doesn't really seem right to me.

Hmm. I think I will adopt a stick-and-carrot method:
Carrot: Doing the honorable (yet risky) thing is a check on Honor and maybe even Valorous & Reckless?
Stick: Roadside and Quest Challenges are part of the knightly ethos. To gang up on the challenger is dishonorable and cowardly, earning suitable penalty (-1 Honor, Cowardly check).
Additional Carrot: Word gets out. The tale might merit additional glory when retold at court, and people will remember.
Additional Stick: Word gets out. The tale of how you heroically ganged up on a single knight would probably get you booed out of the court. Also, people will remember. Knights will heal and/or have families/friends, who might wish to give you back some of the treatment.

So when the knights are acting in soldier or police mode (i.e. war or patrol/'stop that man'), they can gang up on people without ill effects, but a decision to duel is a sign of confidence and valor, deserving more praise.

So when the knights are acting in soldier or police mode


aka, "as ordinary knights"
no loss of Honor



(i.e. war or patrol/'stop that man'), they can gang up on people without ill effects, but a decision to duel is a sign of confidence and valor, deserving more praise.


and an (opportunity for) increase in Honor

and an (opportunity for) increase in Honor


Exactly my point.

I would divide the usual roles of the knights into two categories: 'milites' and 'errants' (soldier and questing knight for the lack of better labels). Of course there is some overlap there, but in general, we tend to have a sense of what constitutes as 'fair play'.

Of course, 'fair play' only exists between knights, who a priori are assumed to share the same code of chivalry. I have no problems with the PKs ganging up on some bandits, although usually the reverse is true (bandits are usually not suicidal, after all). Nor would I object them ganging up on a monster/animal or a giant.

Quests and crossroad challenges are about proving yourself. Ganging up on a lone challenger with your mates proves what? That you are afraid and incapable of taking on that man alone?

Things get a bit more confusing when a situation is sprung on the PKs, or if they are doing something for their Lord...

Example 1:
Their Lord tasks them to go to Camelot to get the famous apothecary to make an elixir to save his only son and heir from fever. Clearly, time is of the essence and a life is at stake. However, some idiot is blocking the bridge at Caer Du Plain, claiming that every man wanting to cross the bridge needs to best him, winner take horse and armor. Now, if they lose, they are without horse (presumably they could get spares from Caer Du Plain), and would need to go around, losing precious time. If they joust one by one, they take that chance. If they charge the knight together, they will likely win and remove the obstacle. What is a knight to do? This is one of those situations where I honestly don't know. For argument's sake, assume that the challenging knight is outside the Lord's lands.

Example 2:
The Lord hears that some knight errant is blocking an important crossroads and is now challenging people left and right, disrupting the movements of his vassal knights. He sends a group of his household knights to evict the knight errant. Now the chivalrous route would be to joust one on one with the stipulation that if the crossroads knight loses, he agrees to pack up his stuff and go. But I would also accept the PKs informing the knight errant that he is unwanted and if he sticks around, they will consider him an invader and act accordingly. It is their Lord's land, after all.

Example 3:
'Help!' shrieks a maiden, and as the PKs spur their horses in this unfamiliar land, they come upon a scene where one knight lays on the ground, bleeding, and another knight is just lifting a struggling maiden across his horse. Classical Damsel in Distress! As the knights call the kidnapping knight to explain himself, he replies:
A) that he fancies the girl, killed the other suitor, and will now take her to his castle to 'woo her most vigorously'.
B) that this is a family feud and he intends to exchange the damsel to his own sister, already held captive by the damsel's family.
Now answer A should certainly provoke a desire to save the damsel, while answer B might be a bit more complex. But lets assume that the PKs decide to free the damsel by force of arms. Any penalty for ganging up on the knight in answer A? What about answer B?

I think one of the problems is that most of the stories of the chivalric knights is told from the perspective of a lone knight errant, a hero who smashes through the opposition with nary a sweat. While most campaigns show groups of PKs who are not that much better than an average knight (at least in the beginning). So this issue doesn't really come up in the literature (although I am happy if somebody proves me wrong; Orkney brothers butchering Pellinore comes to mind, but that is pretty much it and portrayed as dishonorable).

Of course, an easy way would be to make it simple and assume using numbers is the norm, and only the chivalric knights (i.e. those seeking to act with conspicuous honor) will insist on dueling. Which pretty much covers most of the heroes in the literature, so it would be consistent with that. The downside being that given Pendragon's combat system and the usual reactions of the players I play with, they will likely opt for a 'sure-win' with half the glory (since they can gang up on the second challenger to rack up another 'sure-win' and half the glory) than risk defeat and one measly Honor check.

Hmm. One way to increase to carrot would be to make sure that they really get socially rewarded for that. Round Table Knights approving their actions at court, King Arthur maybe giving praise at the chivalrous way they handled the challenges (with appropriate Glory bonus for that). And drop some heavy hints to the PKs that if they want to be considered as contenders for the openings in the Round Table, a reputation like that is pretty much a must (or being of Royal Blood, which they are not). I think that would fix it quickly enough.

Best regards,
Morien

yeah , i think as a knight u can get o ill effects from NOT acting chivalric..MOST knights dont! MOST dont...thats why its a big deal when one does and why praise is heaped on him..... cause a knight is NEVER OBLIGATED to FIGHT FAIR..he is a warrior , period...but when he DOES give his oponent the chance to be fought fair that is extraordinary , not expected. Actually in the above scenario i wonder how the PK's LORD will feel if they both fight the 3rd knight FAIRLY , LOSE , and dont get him in the end? i HOPE the pk's Lord is a chivalric lord as well , or he might be very pissed at them for failing? :)

I think the same is said of knights blocking ur Lords road at a crossroads as well! As A side note i mean. I dont think ur Lord LIKES someone posting up an harassing travelers and other knights. So i dont think he cares if u GANG up on that particular OUTLAW!!! LOL... but if u DONT gang up on him then u are awesome!!!! :)