I have a PK who is doing his best to impress a lady - as most knights do - and in the coming weeks he's been asked by her to win an upcoming hunt to prove his worth. The PK's hunting skill is frankly rubbish (6) and he knows he'll be facing several other knights who are far more skilled (one of 20) and he asked me what he could do to level the playing field. I gave him several options one of which I considered being an amour passion for the lady in question which he could try and inspire himself with.. BUT amour, as a motivational concept, is listed as being a skill "for the future" - The art of love for love’s sake will be inaugurated by Queen Guenever. When this occurs, the following passions — Amor and Love (amor) — may be introduced to the game. KAP 5.1 p.169. I'm in 490, the blood and thunder years of Uther, well before the time of Guinevere etc,.

All well and good, I decided not to let the PK have an Amour and moved on. However, while reading the GPC for this year's play, I saw that when Igraine comes on the scene the PKs can acquire an Amour for her - GPC p.50. Is this just a one off quirk for a very special circumstance or can Amour passions be introduced earlier than suggested?

Just a quirk, to make Igaine stand out. The campaign is really long, and keeping things roughly as written makes the different eras stand out. So I would not recommend to introduce Amor earlier.

Give him a love passion (which should be really unusual too) - or nothing. Possibly a directed trait (Selfish - if he wants her land; Lustful - if he wants her), and allow a trait roll for possible minor inspiration.

THere are occasional exceptions to the rule. Practically everything that shows up during the campaign could appear earlier as a "one-off" event. Men and women did fall in love before the Romance Peroid, but prior to then such was the exception, not the rule.

You can pretty much do this with just about anything in the game, but be sure to emphasis how rare and unsual such a thing is, so as not to spoil things.

I liked the Chivalry bonus so much I went ahead and ruled it active for the Uther Period; and, rue the decision. At the time I'd never even played the game. Frankly, it was a boneheaded maneuver. So when Anarchy came along it was promptly removed. That ended up accentuating Anarchy nicely; but, I fear it will dull the advent of King Arthur.

Also, Anarchy doesn't need anything to accentuate it. ;D

I kept the Chivlary bonus too, since some of the characters in the NPC PDF had it.

What I wished I had done was keep the +3 armor, but just not grant the extra 100 glory a year. IMO whatever agency thaqt grants the +3 protection for chivlariouas behavior would still reward it, but said behavior would not be socially admired enough to be worth the extra annual glory.

Ah well, there is always next time.