When a knight marries he earns glory equal to his new wife's current glory, to a maximum of 1000. Is the 1000 glory a lifetime maximum, or a maximum per marriage?

Maximum per Marriage, I always thought.

On the other hand, I found 1000 Glory way too excessive. The way the Marriage Glory is calculated (both getting the glory of the other, up to the max of 1000), this means that ALL widows of knights have at least 1000 glory. And will bring that to the table when remarrying. I find this is not what I want as a GM. Granted, widows were sought after in the middle ages (possible proof of fertility, dower lands, etc), but I don't want to make them THAT desirable. Also, it prevents any glory difference between a widow of a knight errant and a widow of a baron (although the dowry would be much different).

I can dig up my own 'formula' that I came up with for my campaign and post it later. I don't claim it is great, but it is closer to what I like.

I disagree with Morien, it's a lifetime maximum IMO.

Regards
Luke

I disagree with Morien, it's a lifetime maximum IMO.


I am fine with it being a lifetime maximum. I tend to get a bit skittish if players are getting more than 250 glory per marriage, unless it really is to some very rich and famous heiress, hence why my own formula tends to give marriage glory between 50-200 or so.

That said, I always read the 1000 limit being per marriage, which is too much even as a lifetime limit, because of the widow issue. After all, the Glory 'Categories' have normal knights 1000 - 1999. Now, all he has to do is marry a heiress, and he is instantly in the next category. Given the dangers of childbirth on one hand, and fighting on the other, it is likely that the survivors marry more than once, leading to that sudden 1000 Glory jump that I dislike.

Love the signature, by the way. :)

I believe it is a per marriage award, though a lifetime maximum would solve the problem Morien mentioned.

I've tended to treat marriages the same as inherited glory: both parties get 1/10th the glory of the other. This solves the problem of massive glory, and those ladies with, say, 4,000 glory do give a substantially better award than those with under 1,000.

I've tended to treat marriages the same as inherited glory: both parties get 1/10th the glory of the other. This solves the problem of massive glory, and those ladies with, say, 4,000 glory do give a substantially better award than those with under 1,000.


Yes, my own scribblings started from that point as well. However, I felt that it gave a bit too little glory, since the women would be stuck to about couple of hundred glory per marriage, meaning that the husband would get only between say 10 - 100 for even for a very famous knight's daughter (father 10 000, daughter 1000, husband +100). This felt as a bit too little, in turn.

So what I ended up doing, in essence, was giving women the full glory of the previous husbands (up to that 1000 limit each), as well as their father's, for calculation purposes and then giving the husband 10% of that.

So my calculation goes as this:
Basic Glory for marriage = 10
Beauty of the bride = +5 * (APP-15) * 2 (if APP 20+), so APP16 = +5, APP 21 = +60
Dowry = +libra
Wedding Feast = +10 * libra spent
10% of Woman's Glory = +X
If Heiress of Land = +50 / level of pyramid summing manors

Pyramid sum:
level number of manors
1 1
2 1+2 = 3
3 1+2+3 = 6
4 1+2+3+4 = 10
5 1+2+3+4+5 = 15
etc...

Woman's Glory:
Knight's daughter = 1000 + 1d20*50
Father famous/banneret = +1000 + 1d20*50 (Or actual Glory, if known, ignoring the previous entry too.)
Widow = +1000 + 1d20*50


Example 1:
Lady Sion, the heiress of the Banneretcy of the Bourne (10 manors, when incl. the vassal knights)
APP: 18
Glory: 2000 + 2d20 (6 and 13) * 50 = 2950

Marriage Base = 10
Dowry in Cash: 10 libra = +10
Marriage Feast: 10 libra (dowry spent) = +100
Beauty = +15
Glory = +295
Heiress = +200

Total Glory for the Husband = 630

But she is quite a catch, isn't she? I wouldn't make her easy to woo and win for the players.


Much more common would be Example 2:
Lady Collwen, third daughter of a vassal knight
APP: 16
Glory: 1000+1d20 (7)*5 = 1350

Marriage Base = 10
Dowry in Cash: 5 libra = +5
Marriage Feast: 1 librum = +10
Beauty = +5
Glory = +135
Heiress: no = 0

Total Glory for Husband = 165

Much more reasonable, and still taking some effort to woo and win, unless the PK prefers to marry below his station, at which point you can forget about the woman's Glory and the glory gained is between 10 and 50.

I have played it by the rules so far, but you all do bring up a great point. In my current campaign, one knight has had a bit of trouble of producing an heir. The wife usually dies within 3 years during childbirth and the children have not survived ( I have witnessed the rolls if it matters). Meanwhile his glory has steadily increased over the 9 years so each time it is higher, making him more desireable politically. He is currently on his third wife.

I can see it from both angles. I prefer to keep it simple, rather than a complex formula, but Morien's idea gives us another way to boost daughter's marriage chances rather than just base it on manors.
I think this would be a good time to resolve this issue so that when kap 6 comes out, it will be in place.

Bob

KAP 6? One day maybe. I'm still waiting to get my hands on KAP 5.1 :)

That's a complicated calculation, Morien, but I agree things like the number of manors and beauty of the heiress should count towards the lady glory. The only reason you need a system like that is because the glory of unmarried ladies is usually pretty low. This is what I prefer to change.

As a tangent, I suggested a while back that ladies should get some glory for the things done in their name: if a knight says he is championing a lady, and wins a tournament or kills a beast, the lady should get some award based on the glory he won for her.

Then there may be glory for winning contests of beauty, wit, wisdom, and essentually popularity against other ladies, at the various grand gatherings they attend.

So, Ladies might have glory in the same range as knights, like 1,000-8,000 - but 8,000 glory for a lady is different from 8,000 glory for a knight - it doesn't mean she's famed for killing dragons and whatnot. It means she is famous for the things that make people admire Ladies in Pendragon.

Then if Knight and lady each gain 1/10th the glory of the other, it works out. Most ladies will be worth 50-250; wealth, rich, famous ladies could be worth as much as 1,000.

Then if Knight and lady each gain 1/10th the glory of the other, it works out. Most ladies will be worth 50-250; wealth, rich, famous ladies could be worth as much as 1,000.


Well, if you strip the system to the bone, it is what you suggested: 10% of the lady's glory. All the frills can be neglected at will, and if you have the glory of the lady ready, no need to roll it.

What I originally made that system for was having a systemic way of calculating how much glory the lady would be worth for the husband, based on different criteria. Most of the time, my players have not been able to really woo rich heiresses, contenting themselves with daughters of ordinary knights.

I like the idea that the ladies would get some of the glory of stuff done in their name, since this makes sense and is a good motivation for them to send knights doing heroics for them. However, what is to keep a lady having several suitors doing stuff in her name and gaining extraordinary amounts of glory? Perhaps they should be limited to one 'champion'?

That would go a long way in addressing the 'problem' of low glory of the unwed daughters of knights, and keep all the Glory inheritance at 10%, which I like. Another 'fix' I was thinking is that the women would get 1000 Glory (if marrying a Knight) for walking down the aisle the first time, before the marriage glory is calculated, but it is a bit of a handwave.

EDIT: Oh, I see Greg already suggested the 1000 glory reward for ladies for the first marriage in his website. My suggestion only differs in that I would give the 1000 Glory out first (assuming she marries a knight and not some peasant, of course) and then calculate the 10% of the glory.

Also, he includes 0.5 * Glory of deeds done in her name, when the Knight is inspired by a Passion for her.

I'm nodding to everything you said.

That said, I think I'll give 1,000 glory to each lady upon reaching marriageable age and having it be known that she is available and has a dowry. This is the female equivalent to being knighted - people start talking about their qualities, if they have any, and they start to get known.

Yeah, I was fumbling towards something like that, too... I'd probably stick to my idea of giving that glory out only as she is walking down the aisle, but include it to the marriage calculation. That marks a better transition point for me than simply entering the marriage market. Think that more of a squirehood where you prove yourself worthy of the knighthood. :P

This would also mark a bit of a distinction between the married ladies and those old maids who can't get a man.

Maximum per Marriage, I always thought.

On the other hand, I found 1000 Glory way too excessive. The way the Marriage Glory is calculated (both getting the glory of the other, up to the max of 1000), this means that ALL widows of knights have at least 1000 glory. And will bring that to the table when remarrying. I find this is not what I want as a GM. Granted, widows were sought after in the middle ages (possible proof of fertility, dower lands, etc), but I don't want to make them THAT desirable. Also, it prevents any glory difference between a widow of a knight errant and a widow of a baron (although the dowry would be much different).


I, however, have not thought that it is such a terrible thing.
Marriage to a famous person gets fame.
In KAP, this is Glory

So yes, each marriage to a widow = 1000 Glory to both husband and wife.
(and look to page http://www.gspendragon.com/ladyglory.html to see who else gets it!)

What's so bad about that?

So yes, each marriage to a widow = 1000 Glory to both husband and wife.

What's so bad about that?



Like I said in the bit you quoted, and in other posts to Darren and others, it comes down to these couple of things for me:

1) Your run-off-the-mill widow who was married to Sir I-Got-Knighted-And-Nothing-Else nets you exactly as much Glory as marrying Guinevere. This feels wrong and prevents any difference between truly famous ladies and simply totally ordinary widows.

2) Your nubile young maiden is on average around 150 Marriage Glory. That same maiden a year later, her husband having died in battle, is now worth 1000 Marriage Glory. This, again, feels wrong.

3) Being a knight is dangerous, and many women end up as widows. Similarly, many knights will lose their wives in childbirth. Thus, it is not beyond reason that the surviving knights would be marrying widows, perhaps more than one, during their lifetimes. Especially if they are that desirable as the first brides, too. Widow's holdings, high Glory, experience in Stewardship, potentially proven fertility and the guardianship of another manor? Yes please! This leads to an additional +1000 Glory easily to the starting knights, meaning that the Glory average of the ordinary NPC knights will easily hit something like 2500, maybe even 3500 if they remarry. This skews up the 'ordinary knight' glory values for me (which I admit are numbers to begin with, but...).

4) Finally, 1000 Glory is supposed to be a big deal! Apart from getting knighted, this is something equivalent of being a sexy shoeless god of war in a major battle, cutting a swathe through your enemies. Defeating a dragon single-handed. Heroics that will ensure that your name will live on and on in stories that bards tell/sing. Marrying the widow of a knight no one outside the county has ever heard about? Not so much.


So, that is why I think 1000 Glory / widow regardless of her other fame & attributes is way way too much, and have changed it in my games.

So yes, each marriage to a widow = 1000 Glory to both husband and wife.
What's so bad about that?

Like I said in the bit you quoted, and in other posts to Darren and others, it comes down to these couple of things for me:

1) Your run-off-the-mill widow who was married to Sir I-Got-Knighted-And-Nothing-Else nets you exactly as much Glory as marrying Guinevere. This feels wrong and prevents any difference between truly famous ladies and simply totally ordinary widows.


The Pendragon rules do not claim to cover all eventualities, only the most common, the "everyday" reality.
Extraordinary individuals and events are always outside of the "standard rules," which is mentioned variously throughout, and shown with many examples.
There are, at some moment in KAP history, 1000 women of knightly or better class available for marriage
96 of these are of of baroness quality
4 of countess quality
the number of queens is so tiny is not on tables

add anything you want to noble women
Look at the average knightly wife, those other 900, who bring 1K to their husband



2) Your nubile young maiden is on average around 150 Marriage Glory. That same maiden a year later, her husband having died in battle, is now worth 1000 Marriage Glory. This, again, feels wrong.


Why? What is that feeling? Based on what?
Let's be medieval and crass: proven goods. (Psst, she's got £2 income more, too)




3) Being a knight is dangerous, and many women end up as widows. Similarly, many knights will lose their wives in childbirth. Thus, it is not beyond reason that the surviving knights would be marrying widows, perhaps more than one, during their lifetimes. Especially if they are that desirable as the first brides, too. Widow's holdings, high Glory, experience in Stewardship, potentially proven fertility and the guardianship of another manor? Yes please! This leads to an additional +1000 Glory easily to the starting knights, meaning that the Glory average of the ordinary NPC knights will easily hit something like 2500, maybe even 3500 if they remarry. This skews up the 'ordinary knight' glory values for me (which I admit are numbers to begin with, but...).


But what?
This example is a singular one, a wierd possibility.
How many knights REALLY marry three and four widows in succession?



4) Finally, 1000 Glory is supposed to be a big deal! Apart from getting knighted, this is something equivalent of being a sexy shoeless god of war in a major battle, cutting a swathe through your enemies. Defeating a dragon single-handed. Heroics that will ensure that your name will live on and on in stories that bards tell/sing. Marrying the widow of a knight no one outside the county has ever heard about? Not so much.


This comparison I understand.
It bugged me for a loooong while, too.

In the end, though, here is what I decided.
When Glory is the only measure of noble success
then a successful marriage*
is as glorious as a dragon slaying.

*"Successful marriage" could be open to reinterpretation, too.



So, that is why I think 1000 Glory / widow regardless of her other fame & attributes is way way too much, and have changed it in my games.


Nicely spoken. Thank you.
I'm curious about the above "why" of course. :)

Look at the average knightly wife, those other 900, who bring 1K to their husband


Indeed. 900 in the whole country. I can't recall what was the proportion of knights in Salisbury compared to the whole country, but lets say there are 10 available widows. My PKs would glomp onto those fine ladies like limpets, if they bring 1000 Glory and extra dowry via Widow's Portion.

This also means that there are several ladies available for starting characters (if they can win them, of course), who are already as Glorious Marriage prospects as they can be. I will return to this in below.



Let's be medieval and crass: proven goods. (Psst, she's got £2 income more, too)


Nope, not proven goods if she has not produced a child. And what if she is a hussy, like Lady Elaine is supposed to be, and rotten at Stewardship? No matter, in RAW she still worth 1000 Glory.



This example is a singular one, a wierd possibility.
How many knights REALLY marry three and four widows in succession?


Not so weird, and it only needs one or two widows over the life time of the knight to significantly boost his standing above the others. While I was talking more about normal knights there, it is possible for a PK, with their High Glory and suave PK ways, to land a widow each time he is on the marriage market. If I recall the childbirth table correctly, it had 10% chance of the death of the woman. That comes around as 1 wife per 10 years, on average. So it would be well possible, if the PK survives that long, to see him marrying 3 widows while still in adventuring shape (early 20s, early 30s and early 40s). That is +3000 extra glory right there (well, probably closer to something like +2500, compared to maidens, who still are worth some glory). In my campaigns, 2500 Glory tends to be a big thing, even for a PK. Not game breaking, but aesthetically displeasing: We seldom hear about Sir Marries-a-lot, who earned 4000 glory from his four (consecutive, not contemporary) wives.



This comparison I understand.
It bugged me for a loooong while, too.

In the end, though, here is what I decided.
When Glory is the only measure of noble success
then a successful marriage*
is as glorious as a dragon slaying.

*"Successful marriage" could be open to reinterpretation, too.


I respectfully suggest that better than engage in torturous mental gymnastics like that, the better thing would be to 'fix' the marriage formula so that widows are not the ultimate prices. :)



Nicely spoken. Thank you.
I'm curious about the above "why" of course. :)


Thank you for the compliment. :)

It will not break the system if widows are rated as 1000 Marriage Glory, but it is displeasing. Let me give you this example, rehashing my first objection which you did not, IMHO, answer in full:

Lady Anette (APP 22), 16 years old, the only daughter of Sir Blain the Good, a famous Round Table Knight. Inherited Glory: 850, Dowry: 2 demesne manors, 2 enfeoffed manors.

Lady Gwynn (APP 14), 17 years old, the daughter of Sir Wossisname, the widow of Sir Gotknighted (no children), Inherited Glory: 100+1000 Marriage = 1100. Dowry: 6 libra + 2 libra/year from Widow's Portion.

Now, Lady Anette merits LESS Glory for marrying than Lady Gwynn. Granted, her huge... tracts of land make her much more attractive (ahem) marriage prospect, but I still find it hard to believe that Lady Anette's marriage would not generate a whole lot more buzz. Strip Lady Anette of her extensive dowry and great appearance, and I still think her family connections should make her a more glorious prize than a random widow.

EDIT: Forgot to add this question: Why do you think that the widows should bring 1000 Glory? The successful marriage you quoted won't hold water since many of the more advantageous marriages are already mentioned in the books with women of lesser glory. For that matter, why does marriage need to bring hundreds and hundreds of Glory as a matter of course? So perhaps you could answer 'Why'. :) Why Widows bring 1000 glory, and other maidens, generally, bring 100-300 glory?

Plus, the unmarried daughter of a count or king is usually worth less in marriage than the widow of Sir Nobody who died with 1,200 glory.

Indeed. 900 in the whole country. I can't recall what was the proportion of knights in Salisbury compared to the whole country, but lets say there are 10 available widows. My PKs would glomp onto those fine ladies like limpets, if they bring 1000 Glory and extra dowry via Widow's Portion.


Perhaps that is the intent?



This also means that there are several ladies available for starting characters (if they can win them, of course), who are already as Glorious Marriage prospects as they can be. I will return to this in below.


I do not see this as a problem.





This example is a singular one, a wierd possibility.
How many knights REALLY marry three and four widows in succession?

That is +3000 extra glory right there (well, probably closer to something like +2500, compared to maidens, who still are worth some glory). In my campaigns, 2500 Glory tends to be a big thing, even for a PK. Not game breaking, but aesthetically displeasing: We seldom hear about Sir Marries-a-lot, who earned 4000 glory from his four (consecutive, not contemporary) wives.


Not among the Arthurian literature, to be sure.
Irrelevant
You never hard about Sir Anyone With Land in the same stories.
The entire issue of Glory for marriage and landholdings is from the supportive, historical side.
If we go there, we can find many stories of "Married his way to the top" fellows.





This comparison I understand.
It bugged me for a loooong while, too.

In the end, though, here is what I decided.
When Glory is the only measure of noble success
then a successful marriage*
is as glorious as a dragon slaying.

*"Successful marriage" could be open to reinterpretation, too.


I respectfully suggest that better than engage in torturous mental gymnastics like that, the better thing would be to 'fix' the marriage formula so that widows are not the ultimate prices. :)



It is really a matter of which torture. :)
We differ in our understanding of the value of wives. :)



It will not break the system if widows are rated as 1000 Marriage Glory, but it is displeasing. Let me give you this example, rehashing my first objection which you did not, IMHO, answer in full:

Lady Anette (APP 22), 16 years old, the only daughter of Sir Blain the Good, a famous Round Table Knight. Inherited Glory: 850, Dowry: 2 demesne manors, 2 enfeoffed manors.

Lady Gwynn (APP 14), 17 years old, the daughter of Sir Wossisname, the widow of Sir Gotknighted (no children), Inherited Glory: 100+1000 Marriage = 1100. Dowry: 6 libra + 2 libra/year from Widow's Portion.

Now, Lady Anette merits LESS Glory for marrying than Lady Gwynn. Granted, her huge... tracts of land make her much more attractive (ahem) marriage prospect, but I still find it hard to believe that Lady Anette's marriage would not generate a whole lot more buzz. Strip Lady Anette of her extensive dowry and great appearance, and I still think her family connections should make her a more glorious prize than a random widow.



I attempted to answer this by saying:
You are the gamemaster, so give that cool Lady Annette some more buzz and Glory!!



EDIT: Forgot to add this question: Why do you think that the widows should bring 1000 Glory?


because it was one of the most successful events a woman could do
and I wanted the bonus to be reciprocal
Silly me--in truth, I forgot that, gosh, it's just women after all isn't it! ::)



For that matter, why does marriage need to bring hundreds and hundreds of Glory as a matter of course? So perhaps you could answer 'Why'.


That's the best question
Choosing my own torture, let me try this as clarification.

Marriage Glory
Cumulative of any below, up to 1000 total maximum

250 Glory (minimum) for (noble) Bride and Groom
+100 if mate already had children

250 New spouse is the eldest son or daughter
50 if they are not the eldest

1/10 of the spouse’s current Glory

(Glory for any new title gained)

You never hard about Sir Anyone With Land in the same stories.
The entire issue of Glory for marriage and landholdings is from the supportive, historical side.
If we go there, we can find many stories of "Married his way to the top" fellows.


Game-wise, Land brings glory equal to estate value per year, if I remember correctly. For a basic knight, this is 6. That same knight can marry a widow of another basic knight and get 1000 glory. That is 167 times as much. Of course, once you get to Earls and such, you start getting 100 per year. But a good chunk of the heroes of the Round Table were princes and landowners, were they not? Lancelot, Gawain, etc...

When going to history, I think you will find that the men who married their way to the top did it by marrying rich heiresses and princesses, rather than widows of the ordinary knights. :)



We differ in our understanding of the value of wives. :)


Not at all. We differ in the understanding that a widow of an ordinary knight should be automatically be maxed out, equal to the greatest heiresses and princesses, and more than other heiresses that should be more glorious due to their status, dowry and family background.

Although I will freely admit that I am quite fine with 1000 being the maximum from a marriage, no matter how great a lady.

Here is the thing: widows are plentiful. They will happen. And it doesn't feel right that they should automatically max out the system and jump 900 in Glory simply because they married some unknown knight.



I attempted to answer this by saying:
You are the gamemaster, so give that cool Lady Annette some more buzz and Glory!!


Doesn't help. Lady Anette can still only equal Lady Gwynn, whose only claim to fame is that she has once been married. Doesn't seem right to me.



because it was one of the most successful events a woman could do
and I wanted the bonus to be reciprocal
Silly me--in truth, I forgot that, gosh, it's just women after all isn't it! ::)


Wait a minute... I am talking about the glory the husband gains from the marriage. What are you talking about?

I am totally fine with the bride getting 1000 Glory for her first marriage (comparing that to the achievement of the knighthood).

My beef is with the second husband getting 1000, simply because she is a widow.

As for the glory being reciprocal... It isn't. Only the formula is symmetric.

Example: Sir Miles Gloriousus (Glory 10000) marries Maiden Mary (Glory 100). Sir Miles gets 100. Maiden Mary gets 1000, ten times as much. In fact, she gets 1000 no matter which knight she marries.

Are you rolling your eyes at me, sir? :)



Marriage Glory
Cumulative of any below, up to 1000 total maximum

250 Glory (minimum) for (noble) Bride and Groom
+100 if mate already had children

250 New spouse is the eldest son or daughter
50 if they are not the eldest

1/10 of the spouse’s current Glory

(Glory for any new title gained)


This formula I would have no problem with. The widow might be few tens of glory points more 'valuable', or maybe more than a hundred, if she has proven her 'worth' by having children, but not 900.

Plugging some 'average' numbers in... Husband 1500 Glory, 2nd daughter, etc...
150 starting glory + 250 (marriage base) + 50 (second) + 150 (husband) + 50 (vassal knight/lady) = 650. To Husband, 315.
Widow, no children: To Husband, 365. OK, I can accept that.
Widow, one child: To Husband, 465. +50%. Bit on the high side, but yeah, I can see that, especially since the banneret heiress might be:
To Husband: 250 + 250 + 80 +100 = 680.

I still prefer my own formula, of course. Although I think I should emphasize her Inherited glory a bit more.