How applicable is Loyalty (Lord) to our king if we swore fealty to our earl? Let's say a vassal knight swear's fealty to Earl Salisbury. His Oath of Knighthood explicitly includes "fealty to Uther Pendragon, to defend and obey him until he depart the throne, or death shall take you?" How do the following situations resolve?


Primary loyalty goes to Earl Salisbury. If the earl were to revolt against his king then the vassal knight's duty is to fight alongside his earl against the king. This is just like Cornish knights fighting against King Uther in 492. No real question here.
At a feast with King Uther, an assassin strikes out against the king. The vassal knight happens to be next to the king. Can the vassal knight use his Loyalty (Lord) passion to become inspired when defending King Uther?
As an honor guard to King Uther, the vassal knight is commanded by Earl Salisbury to protect the king in a specific battle. The battle is disastrous and King Uther's guards are directly attacked. Can the vassal knight become inspired through his Loyalty (Lord) passion?
An eschille companion to the vassal knight speaks blatant treason against King Uther. The vassal knight's Loyalty (Lord) passion score is 17. Is a passion roll necessitated for the vassal to react negatively to the treasonous knight?
The vassal knight performs a blatantly treasonous act or speaks treason, claiming King Uther has no right to be king. Should the vassal knight's Loyalty (Lord) score be lowered?

My take is that Loyalty (Lord) is directed solely towards the person you have sworn fealty to - in this case the Earl of Salisbury and has no bearing on people that Lord may be politically allied with or subordinate to.

If you want a character to have an empassioned relationship to, say, Uther then he needs to acquire a separate passion (something like Loyalty (Uther) or Loyalty (The Pendragons) would do) - however, as a GM I would rule that this is unusual and requires an in game justification (ie an adventure) of some kind. One of Arthur's innovations is to provide a mechanism, via the Companions, for knights to acquire such an alternative loyalty as a relatively routine thing.

Following from that, my answers to your hypotheticals are:

1) Yes, as you say no real question.

2) No.

3) Depends. Is the Earl leading the honour guard? Then yes because the Lord is right there and in the thick of it with you, otherwise no.

4) No.

5) Not until/unless he is censured by his Lord and he persists in flaunting his treasonous utterances.

Regards
Luke

I agree completely with each of Luke's responses.

This is why several loyalty passions exist - it's perfectly possible to have a loyalty to your liege, and a loyalty to the king as well. It's not the norm, but players who want their knights to be patriotic can ask for such a loyalty. Also player-knights might have opportunities to meet with and be rewarded by the king, and be put in situations were developing a loyalty to him would be natural.

That's when the real fun begins, when you can have conflicts of loyalty :)

I think you need to have a different Loyalty passion for every person you are loyal to.

Since, as you point out, you swear fealty to Uther in your original oath of knighthood, I think you should allow your players to have a Loyalty (Uther) passion if they request one.

My answers to your questions are:

1) Yes
2) No, you would need to use a Loyalty (Uther) passion
3) Yes, because you are following your lord's orders. I don't think it matters that he is actually there with you or not: he gave orders, and it's your duty to him to obey him and do well
4) No
5) No, unless by doing that he is also betraying his lord

3) Yes, because you are following your lord's orders. I don't think it matters that he is actually there with you or not: he gave orders, and it's your duty to him to obey him and do well

That's my take as well. If you're doing something I your lord's name, or that will bring glory to him, or that demonstrates your commitment to his commands or cause, using the loyalty (lord) passion seems reasonable. Isn't the use thus passion in a battlefield situation used as an example in the rulebook?

Thanks for the responses. This matches what everyone else in the playing group states.

The main problem I have with the rules as written is that in what is perhaps the single most defining moment in the vassal knight's life explicitly includes swearing fealty to Uther Pendragon (though the Earl is the direct lord.) Not having a powerful passion thus associated with Uther seems to discount the oath. Likewise, the comment under Loyalty (Lord) about "King before God" loses its applicability for all but direct vassals of the king.

For the example above, I'm a player in the group. So I'll gladly abide by whatever the GM rules.

For the group which I am GMing, we went through the Oath of Knighthood during play in a very formal way. It was a ritual played out and explicitly mentioned fealty to Uther. So I'm uneasy having any knight in the group not have a Loyalty (Uther) passion. I guess I'll just have people generate this passion. Now, for the value of the passion I'm thinking Loyalty (Lord) - 1d6 or something like that. Any suggestions out there?

There is Loyalty (Pendragon) trait in the 5th ed rulebook, starting with 3d6 + modifiers. I'd just use that if the player knights are feeling loyalty towards Uther. It should be pretty easy for them to do so, after the Sword Lake for example. I would not tie it to the Loyalty Lord in any way: a knight be loyal unto death to his direct Lord, but care not a fig about the King, and vice versa (which would be BAD for that knight, since loyalty to your direct superior is the glue that holds the feudal society together).

That 'King before God' -quote is easily modified to 'My Lord before The Lord'. :) It was intended to convey a sentiment, not literally meaning that every knight should be sworn to the King.

I've always felt that the Loyalty passions in Pendragon are a bit superfluous and can be handled by Honor. According to G. Duby's works on knighthood, Honor for medieval knights was composed by the following five elements:

- Generosity (as a lord to your vassals and knights)
- Valor (as a warrior)
- Loyalty (as a vassal)
- Courtesy (as a nobleman)
- Glory (as a hero)

Every time a character swears an oath or does homage, his Honor dictates him to remain Loyal to that person or cause. So, in game terms, the Honor passion could replace Loyalties. This still means several Loyalties may conflict, though.

As an example, I take William of Orange from the carolingian legends. He is very Honorable (generous, courteous, valorous and glorious), but strongly dislikes his king, Louis the Pious, presented in the epics as a weak king who should have been a monk (at best). Still, count William endures many sufferings out of loyalty to his king (the position, not the person), because his knightly Honor demands it. Still, at several occasions his Honor conflicts with his Love (family) or Proud and he goes as far as to threaten the king, call the queen (William's own sister) a whore, or desert the king's army!
These last three actions are described by William himself as Honorable, since a vassal wronged by his lord is no longer required to be loyal, a sister who shames her family is no longer a member of that same family, and a Cowardly king does not merit the service of a Valorous vassal!

Great feedback from everyone.

The gameplay that sparked this question is in http://www.russelldeneault.com/gpc/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=1838&topic s_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1"] (http://"[url) this thread[/url] and I am the gamemaster. One player character is sleeping with Uther's wife, Ygraine. The witness kept his discovery a secret for the last few years, but recently another player knight became witness to the couple's activities. Now he's confronting the cheating knight and the other players have been brought into the discussion.

The knights all have Loyalty Lord passions for Roderick. They have only briefly met Uther. I think that these men would claim loyalty to Uther, but mechanically there is no passion there for him. I might force an famously honest (which the cheating knight is not) knight to mechanically confront his indirect loyalty, but in most cases simple denial is enough for a knight to carry on with the King's wife while still believing himself loyal to his liege's liege. If this player had a Loyalty passion for Uther, then mechanics would become immediately significant.

It's 494 in the game and relations between the players are really heating up and threatening to become just as much a crescendo at the end of the Uther phase as the major events in 495 will be. This is the most fun I've ever had at the (virtual) tabletop.

Even as a KAP novice, I know that boffing Uther's wife is a bad thing.

A VERY bad thing indeed. It is my understanding that she is nearly as callow as he.

I hope that there will be unintended consequences for all involved. ;)

3) Yes, because you are following your lord's orders. I don't think it matters that he is actually there with you or not: he gave orders, and it's your duty to him to obey him and do well


Note that you don't get to use a passion just because y7ou are following your lord's orders. You are expected to follow his orders and to risk your life doing so. A passion is probably only really appropriate if you are able to take action to stop the lord suffering some serious harm (harm doesn't necessarily mean physical - could be something that causes damage to his reputation, or safeguarding his realm, or whatever).

3) Yes, because you are following your lord's orders. I don't think it matters that he is actually there with you or not: he gave orders, and it's your duty to him to obey him and do well


Note that you don't get to use a passion just because y7ou are following your lord's orders. You are expected to follow his orders and to risk your life doing so. A passion is probably only really appropriate if you are able to take action to stop the lord suffering some serious harm (harm doesn't necessarily mean physical - could be something that causes damage to his reputation, or safeguarding his realm, or whatever).


I don't have time to browse through the entire GPC to find it again, but I remember at least one instance where Greg suggests the knights can use Loyalty (Lord) simply because their lord gave them the mission.

I guess how important the mission is for the lord is the GM's call.

Friends,








3) Yes, because you are following your lord's orders. I don't think it matters that he is actually there with you or not: he gave orders, and it's your duty to him to obey him and do well


Note that you don't get to use a passion just because y7ou are following your lord's orders. You are expected to follow his orders and to risk your life doing so. A passion is probably only really appropriate if you are able to take action to stop the lord suffering some serious harm (harm doesn't necessarily mean physical - could be something that causes damage to his reputation, or safeguarding his realm, or whatever).


I don't have time to browse through the entire GPC to find it again, but I remember at least one instance where Greg suggests the knights can use Loyalty (Lord) simply because their lord gave them the mission.

I guess how important the mission is for the lord is the GM's call.


I cannot dive in and answer everything individually this late in the chat
Yes, your lord gives you orders, you follow them. Unless it brings shame to you or your lord of course.

In my game Loyalty (Earl Robert the Boy) is not transferable to to the king
You ought to have a separate Loyal (King) passion.
Everyone ought to have one.

And if you have a liege lord who is NOT the king, it is expected to be higher than for the king, by everyone (except the king).

I am still considering playing where all Loyalties added together = 40 points
If you have one, it is perfect.
With two, the perfection is broken and you have (for instance), Liege 39 and Uther 1--well, 39 is still always a critical success, so that's ok.
Uh oh, you own another manor under another liege lord! You must take another Loyalty: Liege 34, other 5, Uther 1.
Marry an heiress, third landlord give us: Liege 29, Other first 5, other second 5, but it's Anarchy now so put that +1 where you want.
And then Tada! The Boy King--surely your player knights witness this--and he asks for your undivided loyalty...

Friends,



I don't have time to browse through the entire GPC to find it again, but I remember at least one instance where Greg suggests the knights can use Loyalty (Lord) simply because their lord gave them the mission.

I guess how important the mission is for the lord is the GM's call.


I cannot dive in and answer everything individually this late in the chat
Yes, your lord gives you orders, you follow them. Unless it brings shame to you or your lord of course.

If the lord has given a player knight a mission, can the PK roll his passion when acting on that mission?

Eric and any other players watching this thread, you may want to avert your eyes if you wish to keep uninformed on the next steps the game may be taking.

For everyone else, soon the issue will come to a head. Morganor's (a player-knight) affair with Ygraine is going to be revealed.

Rhowydd's player writes: "The matter is now in God's hands. After Collwen's baptism Rhowydd must go to Earl Roderick and plead his case to kill or exile Morganor. Brughton must then return to the earl. Justice demands nothing less. Oddly, it is a pagan phrase that comfort's Rhowydd as he thinks on what may happen to him:

Cattle die and kinsmen die,
Thyself too soon must die,
But one thing never, I ween, will die,
Fair fame of one who has earned. (The Hávamál)"

I would love to hear some suggestions on how Roderick might react. Trial at Sarum? Made prisoner and shipped to Uther for trial? Allow immediate trial by combat (the player's are ready and willing to take this direction). Denial?

If the player's don't force a direction too heavily I'm leaning towards a trial where Roderick suggests the matter be cleared up by combat between the accuser and the accused. Quietly, too, so as to maintain Uther's honor as much as possible.

Quietly, too, so as to maintain Uther's honor as much as possible.


Ha ha, as if.
this player can kiss his life and say good by once Uther learns he has been cuckolded the moment this is public news
There are no secrets at court

I'd suggest that Roderick go for justice and turn the rotter in
He's committed a terrible offense against the king, and Roderick is obliged to support the king in every way
If he's got some sympathy, he can tell the knight beforehand and let him flee for his life
I don't think King Uther will care a whit what Roderick might say in the knight's defense, and could well consider ANY defense of the knight to be evidence of conspiracy
But the fact remains: he's committed a horrible offense against the person of the king, the sacred leader of Britain

I'd have Uther send a writ demanding the knight's presence at his court
Oh, too bad that he was ambushed on the way
but doesn't his head look nice up on that pole anyay?

I would love to hear some suggestions on how Roderick might react.

One thing I can say for sure, Roderick is going to be epically pissed off at the knights who have dropped this steaming turd of a dilemma into his lap. Morganor (and also Queen Igraine) are being accused of High Treason. So strictly speaking it's not Roderick's call to make - he should boot the case up the line and get it dealt with by the King. Only prompt and swift notification of the King will protect Roderick from accusations of complicity or collusion, opening him up to prosecution for the ultimate capital crime and forfeiture of his estates.

Of course, it would cause a horrible, horrible stink if he did that and he is unlikely to figure in Uther's good books for being the bearer of these tidings for many a long year (or indeed ever) - but at least his tarred head won't be gracing a pike on London bridge and Salisbury escheated to the crown. Still maybe he should approach Uther sub rosa to give him the option of a cover up? But as Greg says court runs on gossip and keeping this sort of thing quiet is bloody hard to do. Even the fact of requesting a truly private interview with the King is going to be fodder for the rumour mills and if the story does leak then he's back at square one.

Whatever happens, Sir Morganor is toast unless he runs a long way away. You did flag up to Morganor's player that doing the nasty with Igraine wasn't likely to End Well for him, right?

Regards
Luke

OK, so any attempt at quietly handling the matter is out the door. http://russelldeneault.com/gpc/tiki-view_forum.php?forumId=1"]High (http://"[url) drama here we come[/url] ;D
Thanks for the replies, Greg and silburnl. We're probably a day or two away from Roderick hearing the news, so please keep the advice coming.

Here's where I am at the moment: Roderick's primary goal will be to avoid appearing treasonous himself at all costs. I will find something interesting to roll to determine if Roderick offers Morganor (the adulterer) the chance to flee. Morganor will likely decline the offer. Roderick will immediately have Morganor shipped in chains to Uther. Roderick is already extremely unhappy with one player knight, Llywel, for being too brash and loose tongued around his superiors. Now Rhowydd (the accuser) has never had a cause to be notice in an ill light, but this event might cause him to be lumped in with Llywel and they'll both be semi-ignored at court again.

The current year is 494, so Uther is very ill and next year is the huge feast that kills everyone off. Would Roderick be angry enough with the group or just the accuser to restrict him from the big event?

Don't worry about Morganor's player. He knows exactly what he's getting into and has a nice list of reasons to be the mourning knight:
* His wife died giving birth the year they were married
* I don't think he's broke an average 6L on his manor in the 8 or 9 years we've played the extended manor system
* he's pagan and his eldest son is in the care of the Christian church
* Ygraine frequently alternates between hating and loving him, most recently calling for his head when the group was up for trial for helping Merlin steal her baby
* Morgan stole away his daughter
* He's obsessed with finding and killing Merlin
* another player-knight is openly declaring that he will reveal Morganor's treachery to Uther

Morganor's player is doing a fantastic job of transforming a bunch of lemons into a whole lot of fun, for himself and the rest of the group.

Here's where I am at the moment: Roderick's primary goal will be to avoid appearing treasonous himself at all costs. I will find something interesting to roll to determine if Roderick offers Morganor (the adulterer) the chance to flee.


:D How about a Death Wish roll then? :D



Morganor will likely decline the offer. Roderick will immediately have Morganor shipped in chains to Uther. Roderick is already extremely unhappy with one player knight, Llywel, for being too brash and loose tongued around his superiors. Now Rhowydd (the accuser) has never had a cause to be notice in an ill light, but this event might cause him to be lumped in with Llywel and they'll both be semi-ignored at court again.


Sounds like an excuse to send them both along with the prisoner, and say 5 more knights and some others to make sure he gets there, and the earl sends a most trusted confidant, who will tell the king that the two others may be implicated as well.



The current year is 494, so Uther is very ill and next year is the huge feast that kills everyone off. Would Roderick be angry enough with the group or just the accuser to restrict him from the big event?


GM call




Don't worry about Morganor's player. He knows exactly what he's getting into and has a nice list of reasons to be the mourning knight:



Well, have the king throw him in the clink and take all his land and possessions, awaiting trial.
Let the guy give his farewell speech
Tell him, "you're dead," and take character sheet.
Languishes in the prison.

After the king dies, as part of his last wishes, he orders all his prisoners to be released, requesting that they pray for his soul.
Shortly after...
"What, you are alive?"

Yes, but now I am an GM NPC...

It has come down to http://www.russelldeneault.com/gpc/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId= 2081&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc"]trial (http://"[url) by combat[/url] at Uther's court in London.
I was listening to some very energetic music when I saw the second player's check-in and had to switch it to something morose ;D.

It may take a few days to get through the combat as we'll be closely following the ruleset, but I can't wait to see where this is going. Thanks for your advice, guys.

Slightly off topic, but when a PK's lord changes through more normal means (say he dies and is replaced by an heir), how do you handle loyalty to the new lord?

I like Greg's idea for distributing 40 loyalty points amongst all of a characters lords. In your case, Tychus, I would let those points be freed up to be distributed amongst other lords or applied to the heir/replacement. It might be fun to occassionally keep loyalty to a dead lord for extra crazy emotional super-knights.

Slightly off topic, but when a PK's lord changes through more normal means (say he dies and is replaced by an heir), how do you handle loyalty to the new lord?


Normally I have them roll it using the table from the KAP book, with the modfiers for lands and all that. If the new lord is the heir of a previous lord I usuaally let the old passion carry orver, or let the PK generate a new passion based off thier old (Passion/4 D6).

I had a curious thought: in a battle, if a knight personally saves both his liege lord and the king as well, what are the repercussions? and what sort of rewards would be given, if any.

I imagine the liege lord will acknowledge the deed, and reward the knight. If the king then rewards that same knight, would his reward be necessarily larger as befits a kingly reward? If the king is somewhat stingy, would the liege lord then lower his reward so as not to exceed the king? Would this deed be of the sort that a the knight would receive a banneretcy?

If the knight had a loyalty liege of 16 and a loyalty to the king of 12, it seems odd that if the king does indeed bestow a title on the knight, that the only thing that could happen is raising the loyalty by one point.

Thoughts?

Bob

I doubt thatthere would be any "repurcussions" for the knight unless the two lords were fighting on opposite sides.

A nobleman is supposed to be generous, and the king, as the highest noble in the realm is supposed to be the most generous. If he isn7t, then it will reflect pooly on him, not on the knight or the lesser lord.

I doubt few kings would be stingy about being recused on the battlefield, too. Knights who do that are just the sort of knights you to reward, and also the ones you would want to hold more lands. A knight who saves you on the battlefield is one who has proven his loyalty.

Plus he probably just saved you from paying out a king's ransom, literally

As a side question, when the affair becomes public knowledge, what happens to Ygraine?

jolt

As a side question, when the affair becomes public knowledge, what happens to Ygraine?

jolt


Ah, you've given me a good reason to update the status of the game.

It came down to a duel, and Morganor the adulterer was killed by the hand of his friend-in-arms, Rhowydd. We quickly stepped through the winter phase without discussing fallout and then went straight into the first charge for the Battle of St. Albans in 495. Once we finish that battle there will be a whole lot of introspection at the camp about the previous year.

I haven't put much thought to Ygraine, but I'm probably going to have her shuffled off to a nunnery a year early, not divorced but certainly no longer a queen in anything but title. Her name isn't spoken aloud in court ever again.

Side Note: Morganor's player created a new character, Cobrein. This new knight just died in round four of the battle along with another of the player characters. We've barely just began 495 and 2/5 of the group is already dead :D

Wouldn't Ygraine be burnt at the stake, if proven guilty (as she was, since the adulterer was defeated in battle, correct?) ? That's what Arthur had intended for Guenever.

Arthur bound himself to follow the same laws laid down for everyone else, but Uther has the luxury of not being required to do so. I will consider your option though, it is the type of decision that would get made during the Uther era, too. At the very least, Ygraine will be held until after Uther and all of the big hitters die, so she may still avoid death.

Wouldn't Ygraine be burnt at the stake, if proven guilty (as she was, since the adulterer was defeated in battle, correct?) ? That's what Arthur had intended for Guenever.


I think you might be thinking too much of T.H. White and/or Camlelot . In Camelot, Arthur felt that his hands were tied by the law, and that if he intervenved he would undo his new "justice". He was actually pleased when Lancelot rescued Giunevere from the stake as it saved Guinevere without showing bias in the law.

In other versions, that is simply not the case. Arthur is not trying to prove how superior his new courts are to the world, Pelinore, or trying to prove a moral point to his estragned son, Modred.
Arthur sentences Guinevere to be burnt at the stake becuase he is hurt and angry. He could have pardoned here if he wished. Nobody would have held it against him either. A king is expected to show mercy and considering how many times he had shown mercy to his enemies he could have easily shown it to his wife or friends without (many) claims of favortism.

THe whole "Arthur trapped by his own laws" conflict is a modern alternation.

Wouldn't Ygraine be burnt at the stake, if proven guilty (as she was, since the adulterer was defeated in battle, correct?) ? That's what Arthur had intended for Guenever.


I think you might be thinking too much of T.H. White and/or Camlelot .

I actually haven't read/seen either, I was simply thinking of what happens in the GPC.

Wouldn't Ygraine be burnt at the stake, if proven guilty (as she was, since the adulterer was defeated in battle, correct?) ? That's what Arthur had intended for Guenever.


I think you might be thinking too much of T.H. White and/or Camlelot . In Camelot, Arthur felt that his hands were tied by the law, and that if he intervenved he would undo his new "justice". He was actually pleased when Lancelot rescued Giunevere from the stake as it saved Guinevere without showing bias in the law.

In other versions, that is simply not the case. Arthur is not trying to prove how superior his new courts are to the world, Pelinore, or trying to prove a moral point to his estragned son, Modred.
Arthur sentences Guinevere to be burnt at the stake becuase he is hurt and angry. He could have pardoned here if he wished. Nobody would have held it against him either. A king is expected to show mercy and considering how many times he had shown mercy to his enemies he could have easily shown it to his wife or friends without (many) claims of favortism.

THe whole "Arthur trapped by his own laws" conflict is a modern alternation.


As someone looking to be a professor of Arthurian literature, I must point out that Arthur does feel bound to his laws in both the Great Pendragon Campaign and in Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur, where Greg got most of his material for the GPC.

This is taken from page 470 in Le Morte Darthur, translated by Helen Cooper, Oxford World's Classics, pub. 1993:

"For as the French book saith, the King was full loath that such a noise should be upon Sir Lancelot and his queen. For the king had a deeming of it [the affair]; but he would not hear thereof, for Sir Lancelot had done so much for him and for the Queen so many times that, wit you well, the King loved him passingly well."

And later, on page 478:

"'And now it is fallen so', said the King, 'that I may not with my worship but my Queen must suffer death'--and was sore moved."

In other words, he knew about the affair and chose to ignore it, hoping that no one would announce it and force him to put Guinevere to death.

I don't want to seem like a smart-aleck, but I just wanted to set the record straight.

Is there a literary term for the re-telling of a story over and over again like with see with Arthurian lore, especially when aspects of the story are altered to present different messages or subjects? What other stories are so widely re-told like we see here?

I love the "Arthur trapped by his own laws" motivation, but The Once and Future King was a large influence on my love for the King Arthur story. Hell, I can even say the Disney cartoon was and still is part of what draws me in and that's even further from being "pure."

Is there a literary term for the re-telling of a story over and over again like with see with Arthurian lore, especially when aspects of the story are altered to present different messages or subjects? What other stories are so widely re-told like we see here?

I love the "Arthur trapped by his own laws" motivation, but The Once and Future King was a large influence on my love for the King Arthur story. Hell, I can even say the Disney cartoon was and still is part of what draws me in and that's even further from being "pure."


I'll check with my more experienced professors, but for now I would call such retellings "adaptations" or "appropriations," especially if they are done with different messages in mind than what the original text puts forward as its message. The term "twice-told tale" is sometimes applied, but largely has negative connotations. I'll let you know what I find out.

Is there a literary term for the re-telling of a story over and over again like with see with Arthurian lore, especially when aspects of the story are altered to present different messages or subjects? What other stories are so widely re-told like we see here?


Prior to the modern age with copyright and mass produced texts, such retellings incorporating adaptations by the reteller were the norm. They were in fact the most likely way people would come into contact with any story at all, including folklore. So it wouldn't surprise me if there is no special term.

I am still considering playing where all Loyalties added together = 40 points




FWIW I really like this idea. Would you (directed at Greg rather than incorrect use meaning one) allow players to divvy up 40 points amongst their Loyalty Passions during creation? Or do you have another suggestion?

Thinking out loud could all the other passions also sum to 40? So players must decide whether their Honour, Hospitality, Love of Family or Love of God is most important. Mayhap 40 is too low? 60?