Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Reasoning by sylogism:
> 1) Chivalry is a statement of self-interest (I am refering to the parts
> regarding a warrior's conmduct in war, not the courtship of unattainable
> women.)

Actually, this is part of my problem with the concept of chivalry in both the BR
setting and AD&D in general. Chivalry was not just a warrior's code based upon
self-interest used on the battlefield. It was a philosophy and lifestyle
adopted by the upper classes, and comprised a culture more than just a code of
conduct. I could argue how much chivalry was actually utilized in the medieval
ages, when history was written by the victorious and the sequestered far more
than it is today (though the sequestered still write an inordinate amount of
history...) but the problem is even more basic than that. There are other
role-playing games and campaign settings that emphasize chivalry in them. There
are some very good ones. Arthurian games exist, as do ones based upon the
period of knights in shining armor. There are whole settings dedicated to that
type of high adventure.

Now, we all take things from our own interests and experiences, and add them to
our role-playing sessions. That's part of the pleasure of gaming. It's a hobby
that one can incorporate other hobbies into, and a diverse group of people can
all bring something of interest to the table in a format that everyone can
enjoy. If you want to make chivalry an emphasis in your own gaming sessions it
is absolutely your right to do so. Your presentation of it, however, as the
only logical and reasonable possibility that could occur and something that must
exist in ALL our campaigns is something I simply cannot and do not agree with.
I wouldn't agree with it, even if I thought you were right about chivalry and
thought it was a good means of controlling characters' behavior.

Aside from the fact that I just don't see chivalry being the only logical code
of battlefield behavior that could be arrived at (which doesn't exactly explain
why it isn't still being used) I already see it being employed much more
effectively in other settings, so I have no need to rehash it in Cerilia. The
word is rarely used in the published materials, and I have read very little to
make me think Cerilian cultures ever endorsed such a code, so it is clear to me
that the game designers never intended for it to be an emphasis of the campaign
setting. The BR setting already has a great backstory with the battle of the
gods and the dispersion of divine essence that resulted in it. Thematically
speaking, I think emphasizing chivalry could only be a distraction from the
major thematic emphasis of the campaign setting.

I think this is further emphasized by the fact that only you and I seem to be
engaged in this debate. For my own part, this is the last post I will make on
the subject of chivalry because I have already stated my position, and I don't
see any need to repeat myself on a subject that A> has little or no gaming
effect, and B> I see as a obscuring the actual issue--which if I recall was that
a regent who took a unit of common soldiers as prisoners could ask for quite a
lot in ransom based upon his ability to threaten to treat them badly and the
loyalty effects that would have on the remaining, uncaptured soldiers. You
think the Code of Chivalry would prevent this from happening. I think the Code
of Chivalry was a medieval cultural invention on earth that may exist in
Cerilia, but probably does not. If it does, it is likely different from the
code in medieval times because Cerilia is definitively different from medieval

The Vos don't endorse chivalry, the Rjurik have their own nature oriented moral
beliefs, the Khinasi have sayim which is quite a different concept and the
Brecht would rather make a profit. If a Code of Chivalry exists, it exists only
in Anuire. That alone seems pretty good evidence that such a Code need not be
the absolute certainty that you suggest.