Chivalry by the numbers

[Grey Goblin]

In an attempt to create a fully-defined chivalrous knight, I'm using the Code of Chivalry from the Song of Roland, copied below, as a set of Disadvantages for the character. What I'd like to know is... What point values would you assign to each of the items on this list as a Disadvantage? Although some of the items have obviously already been approximated in GURPS, others haven't...at least not in the Basic Set. I'd appreciate your suggestions. For those items which are somewhat vague, please expand on what you believe they should entail based on the point value you assign. Thanks for your time!

Code of Chivalry - The Song of Roland
A Code of Chivalry was documented in an epic poem called 'The Song of Roland'. The 'Song of Roland' describes the 8th century Knights of the Dark Ages and the battles fought by the Emperor Charlemagne. The code has since been described as Charlemagne's Code of Chivalry. The Song of Roland was written between 1098-1100 and described the betrayal of Count Roland at the hand of Ganelon. Roland was a loyal defender of his liege Lord Charlemagne and his code of conduct became understood as a code of chivalry. The Code of Chivalry described in the Song of Roland and an excellent representation of the Knights Codes of Chivalry are as follows:

• To fear God and maintain His Church
• To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
• To protect the weak and defenceless
• To give succour to widows and orphans
• To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
• To live by honour and for glory
• To despise pecuniary reward
• To fight for the welfare of all
• To obey those placed in authority
• To guard the honour of fellow knights
• To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
• To keep faith
• At all times to speak the truth
• To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
• To respect the honour of women
• Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
• Never to turn the back upon a foe

[Kelly Pedersen]

I think most of this is already covered by Code of Honor (Chivalry). The only thing it might not cover is "To despise pecuniary reward", and that's only if you're interpreting that as avoiding all sorts of material reward, i.e., the character should have low Wealth. If, on the other hand, it's fine that a knight has inherited or been given land that happens to provide a decent standard of living, and just refuses things like direct cash rewards, then I think it's still just part of the Code of Honor.

[Bruno]

If you have a look over the disadvantages in the Basic Set, you'll notice that collecting many similar things isn't priced linearly, so itemizing the individual parts of the code isn't useful, unless you're seriously looking at only a vow "To fear God and maintain His Church" (a quirk at most) for example.

Having a complicated set of things you can't do isn't six -5 point COHs, it's one -15 point COH.

BTW: These are pretty much all vague. "Tithe 10% of your income to the church" is specific. "maintain His Church" is vague.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by Bruno

If you have a look over the disadvantages in the Basic Set, you'll notice that collecting many similar things isn't priced linearly, so itemizing the individual parts of the code isn't useful, unless you're seriously looking at only a vow "To fear God and maintain His Church" (a quirk at most) for example.

Having a complicated set of things you can't do isn't six -5 point COHs, it's one -15 point COH.

BTW: These are pretty much all vague. "Tithe 10% of your income to the church" is specific. "maintain His Church" is vague.

Some aren't so vague. I think this should definitely be worth more than -15. Yes, the game frowns on multiple CoHs, but some allowance should be had. This code includes most, if not all of:

Sense of Duty to King and Country; Church; the weak and helpless
Honesty
Truthfulness
Charitable

I could have a character take most of these without me as GM batting an eye and have them come up regularly for at least -30 points. Lumping these all together as a -15 CoH seems somewhat unfair.

Altogether, I wouldn't necessarily be against just grouping in under Extreme Fanaticism - it's less suicidal, but very broad in the group you are fanatical about.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by corwyn

I could have a character take most of these without me as GM batting an eye and have them come up regularly for at least -30 points. Lumping these all together as a -15 CoH seems somewhat unfair.

If you're enforcing the Self Control rolls and other mechanics of the full disadvantages, that would work. Codes of Honor are "softer", and of course have the escape clause that they're a self-inflicted disadvantage that you can just stop doing, if you don't mind paying the GM back the CP you owe.

[Friendpmcii]

I did this for a religious character: Honest [-15] (some traits to make it the law of Natural rights, basically a good reason gives reason. But it also includes truthfulness as a background peace. ) Sense of duty [-15] all that is good with the world (evil can go in hand basket.) and Code of honer (Christian) [-10] (because a bunch of minor flaws this small is a pain, and the cap of 5 minor flaws makes it hard.)

Then I added a few of my own like always sings... That reminds me (I need to update a post.)

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by corwyn

Some aren't so vague. I think this should definitely be worth more than -15. Yes, the game frowns on multiple CoHs, but some allowance should be had. This code includes most, if not all of:

Sense of Duty to King and Country; Church; the weak and helpless
Honesty
Truthfulness
Charitable

I could have a character take most of these without me as GM batting an eye and have them come up regularly for at least -30 points. Lumping these all together as a -15 CoH seems somewhat unfair.

Altogether, I wouldn't necessarily be against just grouping in under Extreme Fanaticism - it's less suicidal, but very broad in the group you are fanatical about.

To "at all times speak the truth" and/or "Obey those placed in authority" aren't Gurps Honesty nor Truthfulness either. In plainer English those are Compulsive Behavior; Obey all Laws and Incompetence; Lying. What you've got instead is a big multi-part Vow and I would treat it as a maximum value Now rather than a lot of little ones.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Grey Goblin

In an attempt to create a fully-defined chivalrous knight, I'm using the Code of Chivalry from the Song of Roland, copied below, as a set of Disadvantages for the character. What I'd like to know is... What point values would you assign to each of the items on this list as a Disadvantage? Although some of the items have obviously already been approximated in GURPS, others haven't...at least not in the Basic Set. I'd appreciate your suggestions. For those items which are somewhat vague, please expand on what you believe they should entail based on the point value you assign. Thanks for your time!

Code of Chivalry - The Song of Roland
A Code of Chivalry was documented in an epic poem called 'The Song of Roland'. The 'Song of Roland' describes the 8th century Knights of the Dark Ages and the battles fought by the Emperor Charlemagne. The code has since been described as Charlemagne's Code of Chivalry. The Song of Roland was written between 1098-1100 and described the betrayal of Count Roland at the hand of Ganelon. Roland was a loyal defender of his liege Lord Charlemagne and his code of conduct became understood as a code of chivalry. The Code of Chivalry described in the Song of Roland and an excellent representation of the Knights Codes of Chivalry are as follows:

• To fear God and maintain His Church
• To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
• To protect the weak and defenceless
• To give succour to widows and orphans
• To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
• To live by honour and for glory
• To despise pecuniary reward
• To fight for the welfare of all
• To obey those placed in authority
• To guard the honour of fellow knights
• To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
• To keep faith
• At all times to speak the truth
• To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
• To respect the honour of women
• Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
• Never to turn the back upon a foe

I would put in priority

To live by honor and glory
To serve the leige lord in valour and faith
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn back upon a foe
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To Guard the honor of fellow knights
To obey those placed in authority
To despise pecuniary reward
To fear God and maintain his Church
To respect the honor of women
To eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit
To give succor to widows and orphans
To protect the weak and defenseless
To fight for the welfare of all

As you see I am rather cynical about all this. Which is as may be. In fact though I am sure there were at least some knights that made some approximation of living up to the standard. That said, when the original Rolland was written, the idea of Courtly Love had not been introduced and loyalty towards one's liege was more important. At that time a Carolingian knight would have an outlook that is really not dissimilar to a Saxon carl. More to the point, I would think at the time of the Chansons the values would not be recognizably chivalric even in poetry. Fierceness in the field would be more sung then meekness in the hall.

Most knights do not really "obey those in authority" and more to the point don't seem to have much in the way of an ideal of doing so. They are remarkably undisciplined on campaign. If you compare them for instance with a contemporary cataphract or an early modern Uhlan you will see what I mean. However a knightly-monk would probably show up pretty good.

Fighting for the welfare of all is contradictory and I doubt that knights would dream of doing so.

Knights did not "defend the weak" obviously. And of course if they did it would be hard for them to collect rent or go on chevauchees. However a knight is supposed to and probably at least some tried so it has a reasonable place.

Certainly they had an ideal of fearing God and defending his Church. In practice they had a rather-odd-interpretation of that. But that's as may be. A good way to think of it is that they thought of God as another overlord. Naturally condemning someone's piety just because they are brutal is presumptuous and stupid too as King David was too. On the other hand a lot of knights did not even pretend to be pious by any standard. But having a pious knight is reasonable whether a cinematic or a realistic one. He will have a medieval interpretation of piety though.

Living for honor and glory, never refusing a challenge, and serving the liege lord would naturally be dear to their hearts. It comes closer to the atavistic sympathies of warriordom.

Despising pecuniary reward would be complicated and would often look hypocritical to us. What they would really despise is being seen to take a salary. They do need a material reward to survive and at least some of it has to be fungible. Furthermore, in practice a number took mercenary service so at least they could overcome their prejucices. Gifts, ransom, and plunder are certainly fine, and when a knight's major domo liquidates the grain he usuriously grabs from his oppressed peasants to convert into silver, the process is the major domo's business. The knight just gets the silver. Perhaps the best way to say it is they didn't despise pecuniary reward so much as they despised looking like a tradesman.

In point of fact though, your emphasis should be on whether your knight is someone who is expected to live by the actual values of the 800s or someone like living in the days of the romances. Some of the ideal is in theory if not in practice more tender. For instance Courtly Love does soften the picture a little by comparison to the newly-postpagan knighthood that existed in the real 800s.

Think of chivalry as an attempt to make wolves into sheepdogs. The ones we see in history are really still wolves. It is the books that show what they were intended to be and as it happens that was what was read in King's halls as an inspiration and in a way the CoH has much to be praised for spending centuries to make a partial success at it.