I've got a player who has a high Lustful Trait (17), however he's also incredibly Prudent (I think it's about 19). How much can his Prudence act as a protection against the worst extremes of his Lust?

As an example I've played it such that when he's at another Lord's House while he might be lustful he has always been prudent enough to hold back from going after the Lord's immediate family, he will however go for someone.

Is that a sensible use of Prudence or is it allowing the player too much protection from his Lust?

I've got a player who has a high Lustful Trait (17), however he's also incredibly Prudent (I think it's about 19). How much can his Prudence act as a protection against the worst extremes of his Lust?

As an example I've played it such that when he's at another Lord's House while he might be lustful he has always been prudent enough to hold back from going after the Lord's immediate family, he will however go for someone.

Is that a sensible use of Prudence or is it allowing the player too much protection from his Lust?


what I have done in the past is to use a trait vs. trait roll, winning trait taking precedence over the losing. Thus, in your character's situation, he will more than likely be prudent, but there will be times where his lustful nature will overcome good judgement. Modifiers might affect the roll (e.g., in the grand hall, +5 to prudent) or fellow players (oh, oh, Sir Lance is eyeing the daughter of the host, I'll cause a serving wench to fall onto him...)

Bob

I've got a player who has a high Lustful Trait (17), however he's also incredibly Prudent (I think it's about 19). How much can his Prudence act as a protection against the worst extremes of his Lust?


what I have done in the past is to use a trait vs. trait roll, winning trait taking precedence over the losing.


I agree with Bob here.

Thus, in your character's situation, he will more than likely be prudent, but there will be times where his lustful nature will overcome good judgement. Modifiers might affect the roll (e.g., in the grand hall, +5 to prudent) or fellow players (oh, oh, Sir Lance is eyeing the daughter of the host, I'll cause a serving wench to fall onto him...)

A good suggestion, but if you have Prudent and Lustful both being equal then with a straight trait vs. trait roll the character is only going to be prudent about 50% of the time.

But that said with such a high Lust maybe that's the point :)

The idea of modifiers to Prudent is a great one which I will certainly take and I love the idea of the other Knights having to occasionally step in to save the Knight from himself and his urges.

Thanks for the responses.

Thus, in your character's situation, he will more than likely be prudent, but there will be times where his lustful nature will overcome good judgement. Modifiers might affect the roll (e.g., in the grand hall, +5 to prudent) or fellow players (oh, oh, Sir Lance is eyeing the daughter of the host, I'll cause a serving wench to fall onto him...)

A good suggestion, but if you have Prudent and Lustful both being equal then with a straight trait vs. trait roll the character is only going to be prudent about 50% of the time.

But that said with such a high Lust maybe that's the point :)


The trait scores aren't absolute. Since they are often compared against another rating (either of the same character or another character), they are relative. Having a high score does not guarantee success if its opposed against something equally high, or even higher. If a character has a Lustful of 19 and a Prudent of 19, they are equally strong, so you would expect each to win out 50% of the time.


The idea of modifiers to Prudent is a great one which I will certainly take and I love the idea of the other Knights having to occasionally step in to save the Knight from himself and his urges.


The rulebook does give two concrete ways to modify the trait:
* If the player argues that one trait should reasonably succeed in this case, he can get a +5 bonus.
* If the player anticipates a future trait or passion roll, and takes steps in the game to prepare against it, he might get a bonus equal to a supporting passion's value.

The second example is trickier to understand so here's an example.
Sir Ambrut is given shelter in the tower of a lady he suspects to be a sorceress. When he retires for the night, he half-suspects that she will come and try to seduce him, so the player tells the GM he pulls out the locket his lover gave him, and goes to sleep thinking only of her. Then, when the enchantress makes her move, the player points out he is thinking already of his lover, and can he add his amour passion to his prudent...
Had the player not said anything, the enchantress turned up, made her move, and then Ambrut's player asked to call on his passion of his lover, it would fail. In the heat of the moment he doesn't have time to think of her, he follows his natural impulses.


[/quote]

If a character has a Lustful of 19 and a Prudent of 19, they are equally strong, so you would expect each to win out 50% of the time.

Well it's doesn't have to be the case that one would beat the other one, I can see the Player Knight being Lustful but never the less Prudent as to with who.

So Fail Lustful = Up to the player
Pass Lustful, Pass Prudent = The Knight is still subject to his lust but a prudent choice of lady is made.
Pass Lustful, Fail Prudent = "Ygraine's looking very lovely this evening..."



The second example is trickier to understand so here's an example.
Sir Ambrut is given shelter in the tower of a lady he suspects to be a sorceress. When he retires for the night, he half-suspects that she will come and try to seduce him, so the player tells the GM he pulls out the locket his lover gave him, and goes to sleep thinking only of her. Then, when the enchantress makes her move, the player points out he is thinking already of his lover, and can he add his amour passion to his prudent...
Had the player not said anything, the enchantress turned up, made her move, and then Ambrut's player asked to call on his passion of his lover, it would fail. In the heat of the moment he doesn't have time to think of her, he follows his natural impulses.


A very good example with clear role playing potential, thanks for the response.

If a character has a Lustful of 19 and a Prudent of 19, they are equally strong, so you would expect each to win out 50% of the time.

Well it's doesn't have to be the case that one would beat the other one, I can see the Player Knight being Lustful but never the less Prudent as to with who.
I would regard that as being Prudent.
Player rolls 5 on Lustful, and succeeds.
He rolls 11 on Prudent, and succeeds with a better score. So, he can be be prudent, and decides not to make a pass at the King's wife, and instead deals with his urges by finding himself a willing serving wench.

Remember these are opposed rolls, so the one that rolls higher wins, but a success is still a success. Succeed lust = feels lust. Succeeds Prudent = realises what he is about to do is not wise.
If his lust is higher than prudent, he knows he is going to get into trouble, but can't help himself.
If prudent is higher than lust, he wisely avoids trouble, but still feels a little... needy :)

<snip>


A very good example with clear role playing potential, thanks for the response.

I can't take credit or the example - it's straight from the rulebook.

I've found this happening more often in my campaign of late. My players are regularly calling for Prudent checks vs Other Traits. The circumstances are not always extreme, and the outcomes not necessarily plot breakers but still I wonder if this is how it's meant to be. Several of my PKs have high (16+) in multiple traits, often getting themselves into trouble (especially the high Proud and Honest ones), so they use this tactic often.

Quick examples I've faced of late;
PK is challenged by a superior knight. Calls for Prudent to oppose Valourous in accepting challenge.
PK is at foreign court and does not wish to offend host. Calls for Prudent to oppose Indulgent so as not to get drunk.
PK is faced with bad outcome if he is overly honest in what he says. Calls for Prudent to oppose Honest.

so on and so forth....

While there is nothing mechanically wrong here - the opposed roll resolution being crystal clear to me - what's the consensus on this? BTW I do allow the modifier examples mentioned by Darren (anticipation of events etc).

Of course, on the flip side, should this also mean using Reckless to force the reverse action?

EDIT - As an afterthought would it be wise to only allow knights of strong Prudency (16+) to use such a tactic? With all others being neither Prudent nor Reckless enough to make a difference.

The main thing to consider: is it really Prudent?
If a knight challenges you a duel, it is not Prudent to oppose valour to accept that challenge unless there is some reason you need to postpone it (like you are on a quest, and won't don't want to take any injuries). In such a case, you could postpone it till you have returned from the qest and healed. That would be a good way to use Prudent. If the knight is attempting to use prudent to avoid the duel all together, that is simply cowardice.
Also, it would be prudent to try to lessen the stakes of a duel. Say the opposing knight says, "I want a duel to the death." You could get a reckless mark simply for accepting that IMO, and the prudent course would be to suggest lesser stakes, like "I accept your duel, but it is not my wish to kill you. Why not maike it to first blood, or value of a horse?"

The other two seem reasonable as isolated incidents, again, if the player can describe specific reason why it's prudent in this specific situation - as opposed to all the other situations they act honest or indulgent.
If the knight is asked to make an Honest roll, and you feel they are using Prudent too much, help them find a different trait other than Prudent to use. It's not usually hard to find an opposed trait roll (I often found it hard to narrow down to just two!).

(Note: some games I've played in have players using Prudent a lot, because they feel they are presented with situations where they don't have enough choice, and are trying to avoid a sense of helplessness. I'm not saying that's what's happening in your game, but just in case, it's worth looking to see if they have a good reason for acting this way. Assuming that's not the case...)

Now, bear in mind you are at liberty to award checks or alter trait scores as you feel is warranted, AND that is it is possible to be, say, both Prudent and Deceitful.
If a player makes a habit of evading his 16+ traits, you are perfectly within your right to give a check on the opposite side, and in fact, probably should in many case. You gave checks to player sbased on what their characters actually do, so for instance:

If a player makes a Prudent vs Honest roll to avoid telling the truth in a tricky situation, and Prudent wins, then he is almost certainly telling a lie. In that case, even if the honest roll succeeded (but rolled lower) he should get a deceitful check. Regardless of the roll, he is being deceitfiul, and that's what checks are for - to record behaviour as it actually happens in the game.

In the canon, it seems that what we would think of as Prudent, they would think of as Cowardly: not immediately jumping into a fight to help the loser, even if he's outnumbered 20 to 1; not waiting until the afternoon to fight a night, even though he's at his strongest at midday; not pausing in your quest to help out a maiden in need. Chivalry of the idealized sort found in Malory (which I'm taking these examples from) is heavily based on acts of conspicuous bravery, and prudence of the sort given in other examples in this thread would seem to go against that.

It might be interesting to instead use Cowardly as a protection against Traits (maybe even Passions); as it is, Cowardly is currently the only truly negative trait to have, except maybe Lazy. This way, it actually have some gameplay benefit (in that it lets knights act like a sane modern man instead of the thoughtless maniacs they seem to have been thought to be).

This does, of course, run against real-life examples of chivalric knights taking prudent actions and avoiding suicidal odds, like Henry V at Agincourt, who was not looked down upon by the French for his defensive tactics, or Bertrand du Guescelin, who avoided fights. I don't really know how to reconcile that.

Darren and Doorknobdeity - great advice. That's helped me view the situation from a different viewpoint. Thanks.




(Note: some games I've played in have players using Prudent a lot, because they feel they are presented with situations where they don't have enough choice, and are trying to avoid a sense of helplessness. I'm not saying that's what's happening in your game, but just in case, it's worth looking to see if they have a good reason for acting this way. Assuming that's not the case...)


I'll elaborate on two recent examples and you can judge.

My Pks are currently in Cornwall, at the court of King Idris, having spent many sessions traveling there from Sarum (its been a very unusual year).

example 1
One of my PKs, as part of a random family event some years ago, had his brother and his brother's wife run off to Cornwall. He returned but she did not. During a walk around the town of Oakland - a fictitious town Ive placed near Castle Dore - at the height of the summer festival, my PK wondered if he might find her. I let him roll Recognise every day he spent in town and sure enough, on the 6th day, he criticalled the roll and spotted her face among the crowds.

I'd already decided she had remarried another knight but he did not know this. He ran up to her and showed his surprise at seeing her, rapidly questioning her about what had happened. She was overcome, not knowing what to do or say. My PK pressed the point, just as her husband showed up. He demanded to know why the PK had distressed his wife in such a fashion. Now at this point my player's first thought was to lie outright - he was making up some story about how he got lost and the woman was offering to help him out - when I reminded him of his 19 Honest and Love (Family) 17. I said if he was going to lie he would have to roll. He went ahead and I let him roll vs his Deceit of 1 (as he was purposely trying to be Deceitful) - which he promptly failed then succeeded vs Honest.

OK so far so good. Now, he had also been warned by the Countess of Salisbury - who had traveled with them - that they were here on a diplomatic mission to improve relations with the King of Cornwall and that no one should do anything to jeopardize this. With that in mind I said he could use his Loyalty (Lord) to oppose his Love (family) to modify his response. Well, he critted his Love (Family) and having already failed at being Deceitful said something like "this is my brothers wife, stay out of it." to which the other knight flipped out at hearing and said "How dare you. This is my wife. I, Sir Conuur of Withiel demand that you retract those lies or prove yourself under the eyes of the Goddess."

My PK (with his Proud 16, Honesty 19, and critted Love Family) refused to back down and insisted it was true causing Sir Conuur to challenge him.

Now the PK in question does also have a Prudent of 16 - which adds a real curveball into his character considering his other Traits etc - but in this instance I chose other Passions to oppose against as I felt they were more relevant to the situation. Also the event was prior to my posting on the forum so I did not have the benefit of the advice given.

example 2 - same knight later in the week
The Countess was due to meet the King of Cornwall to formally introduce herself and her retinue, which included the PKs. Everyone was up early making sure they looked their finest. The Countess spoke to everyone beforehand and stressed how important this meeting was, how formal it would be and how no one should do *anything* to upset the king. Fast forward to the meeting. The Countess traded pleasantries with the king then everyone mingled for several hours exchanging small talk. During this, it became apparent that the courtiers considered themselves far superior to their guests and acted in a snobbish way dropping little snide comments here and there.

Most of my PKs did not react, just smiling politely, but the same PK with his Proud 16 was having a nightmare holding his tongue. After several digs I had him roll Courtesy - which he failed - then Proud, - modified by the previous warnings - which succeeded. He started to argue back, and the situation elevated into an unseemly argument. Soon after it became apparent the hall had gone quiet and the King was looking on. The Countess flashed a look of daggers at the PK and motioned for him to leave. This he did. While doing so he noticed a couple of Cornish knights pointing at him, exchanging whispers, to which he said "if you're whispering 'those Salisbury knights sure don't take any shit' by the Goddess you'd be right". Then he was gone. Conversation slowly returned and the gathering continued. The Countess chastised him heavily later in private.

Now in this instance his Prudent should have been put to use - that was my error, but even if it had, the outcome could have been similar. The Cornish were trying to goad the PKs so would have become annoyed with anyone rising to the bait.

I'm going to point out that under most circumstances my PKs simply say what they are going to do then do it. I don't have people rolling vs their Traits for every action they perform. However, in stressful situations or when a PK is actively trying to act against high traits I do.

This particular PK, with his high Proud and super high Honest (and super high Lustful for what its worth) is often getting himself into dicey situations which have lead me to wonder just how far a Trait should force action. For instance, this same year the PKs unexpectedly met Merlin in the forest and he rescued the Proud/Honest guy from almost certain death. This year King Uther has declared Merlin a traitor for taking his son and has decreed that anyone found conversing, hiding or helping him in any way shall be considered a traitor too (note some of my PKs did try and subdue Merlin to bring him to the King but he quickly dealt with them and left).

When my PKs return from Cornwall they must speak with King Uther and report on how things went with King Idris. Uther could well ask "do you have news of that traitor Merlin". If they say yes and my Proud, Honest PK answers truthfully he's effectively signing his own death warrant.