Jump to content

King Pellinore

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by King Pellinore

  1. I understand that, as a welshman, it must be frustrating to see a national icon be taken away by the culture that threatened yours for so many centuries. But this game and their players aren't the one to be blamed. From an outsider perspective (some of my players barely get the difference between British and English) the "desaxonization" only helps to make things more confusing for game directors and players trying to access the chivalric sources or learn the geography of the UK. But I think there's some merit to your ideas. I don't think it would be bad in any way to add "it's celtic na
  2. She is a great character and it would be nice to give her some spotlight again but Brastias makes more sense from Arthur's perspective (imho). Maybe they can be married to each other. This would make Brastias a sort of step-grandfather for the little count and I'm sure he's happy to have someone experienced at ruling Salisbury like Ellen by his side. Ellen is probably happy to have such an authority figure protecting her grandson. And since Arthur asked the first ward to marry the mother of the child it's sort of coherent that the new one needs to marry into the family too.
  3. Brastias it is then, he will be perfect because most players already have or will have Loyalty (group) towards him (he was invited to symbolically join their brotherhood during the anarchy). I somehow interpreted his 523 quote as signaling the date for his actual retirement, but you're right that it's just Brastias grousing. In fact the man being preoccupied with Salisbury can provide an explanation to why Arthur sends Griflet and not Brastias against the angles. Brastias it is. Well the nullification process would've started before the execution, of course. I just figured that it's n
  4. The saxon lady was sadly executed already (or at least that's what Arthur said...) along with the rest of hostages. As for the banneret, he won't get land and his wardship will be removed. It will be made clear why this is. I will also mention that he should refrain from going to Carlion or wherever the king is (Camelot doesn't exist yet!) unless it's to ask for forgiveness or to attend the mandatory round table meeting during Pentecost. His substitute will probably be a RTK or one of the princes without land that frequent Arthur’s court. Maybe Galegantis who will at some point rec
  5. Well, Salisbury does have enemies since they were pretty belligerent during the anarchy. Specially Dorset and Silchester have reasons to have grudges. Until now I tried to roleplay them as conciliatory (Arthur likes his vassals to get along) but both duke Ulfius and the roman pretor strike me as the kind of men who would use this opportunity to settle some grievances. I have to say that this isn't exactly the situation. His grip on Salisbury could be easily weakened but is strong now. The majority of powerful knights (both PK and NPK) have a good relationship with the merciful knight s
  6. Thanks Atgxtg and Morien, you bring some useful points. I reckon I haven't explained myself that well in the earlier post (english isn't my first language and I don't even use it much). Let me explain the chronology of events: 516 summer: Colgrim of the continental saxons attacks Malahaut, Arthur suffers an indecisive defeat in the battle of the Humber. This same night Colgrim attacks Arthur's camp, the saxons are defeated but the players are very unlucky today. Young count Robert and several of his knights die ("luckily", all the PK casualties were substitutes with little character devel
  7. I don't know if that's a good idea because some of the knights are a bit too happy to ignore the feudal social pyramid (one in particular is very quick to confuse being clement or just with being modern) and I'm trying to portray the nuances of protecting the weak without considering the peasants as your equals or worthy of the same rights as a knight. I'm sure I can find a different atrocity for Arthur to prevent though. Maybe a cruel baron who wants to kill an adultress damsel? Of course, but what I meant was that I imagine Arthur as being more fair and conciliatory than his father.
  8. I think he's mostly concerned about not getting as much glory in battle as he did before. Since now he's criting almost every turn (75% percentage with most tactics, 100% in any tactic that gives him a +5 like withdraw), he basically has assured that he will always gain double glory in every large scale battle. Which is obviously broken but he doesn't seem to mind, the player enjoys having the same glory as knights who are 15 years older. Maybe I can convince him with this. He's the kind of person who dislikes relying on luck. The kind of guy who will get defensive (if he can't be insp
  9. Alas good young Robert died with his bodyguards in the night battle against Colgrim, after a series of unlucky rolls. Count Roderick II is three years old and not in a position to make any demands. His foster father is a PK who married the boy count's mother (but she died in the winter of 517...). The characters asked for it and the aforementioned PK is a round table knight, chivalrious and religious (and on very friendly terms with the deceased count). I didn't see Arthur rejecting, he just told them that they needed the permission of the knights of Salisbury. The aforementioned knight i
  10. I spoke to my players and they were very receptive and understanding, in regard to only being able to be inspired by on passion at a time. This coming Sunday we're playing the last day of Badon and after that we will start the conquest period using the correct passion rules (plus other changes) mostly with new knights. You guys have all been very helpful. They were also very eager to try this house-rule... except for the remaining player with 30 sword skill (the other three super knights have not survived Badon). We will have to sit down and talk about it as a group.
  11. Thanks for the kind and honest answers. I'll try to explain a few things. As for the amounts of lands they have, it all started with the heiresses which I gave away too easily (apparently it's a common mistake). But since the PK were doing stuff like retrieving Excalibur, capturing Octa, killing Gorlois, etc. it felt kinda egoistic to not give them good rewards. And they certainly felt like they should be rewarded. ¿What would have been a proper reward? Then in St Albans, from four players that are currently playing, three had their characters survive. Two didn't gain enough glory t
  12. We have been playing he GPC for a year from 485 to 518 and we started to use the book of the manor since more or less the start of the Anarchy (and the book of battle but that's not relevant). At the time the book of the estate already existed, probably, but I had manor and used manor. After obtaining the book of the warlord and the book of the estate, I'm entertaining the idea to transition from the old to the new economic system. I have some questions for the most experienced players and gamemasters (this is my first time playing and gming pendragon). 1) How fair is gonna be for the cha
  13. The same could be said about the battle of Donnington under the rain. I'm not British but according to the map Donnington is in fact closer to the fords than to Badon. But despite this you're probably right, of course , since BoA, after day "2" says: And then it becames evident in day 3 that the saxon kings will do a last stand with their wounded, which is what they do in GPC's day 4. Of course GPC has no mention of monsters and dragons (not even giants) but wacky tables are the whole point of BoA. BoA places the kings in day 2 (GPC 3) but I think that might be it's way to simulate, in
  14. I tend to assume that every time britons see a "saxon army" coming from the continent they actually facing a whole migratory band. This is after all the age of migration. Not to mention that people marched to war with wifes and children all the time, historically (even Arthur does travel to war with Guinevere without realizing it's a foolish decision around this time). This My intentions were to present a relatively good intentioned and naive Arthur forced to take a harsh decision. I did expect it to be controversial but not to antagonize the Pendragon. They've been quite loyal to Arthur
  15. Not to mention that there's dragon people, giant hawks and witches that will easily be a threat during the third day (but I think in my campaign it will be 4th, I don't know why book of armies assumes 3 days when the GPC says 4). Even for knights that have 30 in sword and inspire themselves, specially if they waste their inspirations.
  16. The Pendragon main book has the following passage where king Arthur, in imitation to William the Conqueror, abolishes capital punishment (among many other things). Now in William's version what it says is that people can't be executed but they can be mutilated and in fact this is his alternative to killing them. I understand that good king Arthur can't go around promoting castration and that abolishing death penalty sounds great but it presents two problems: 1) Executing anyone is already forbidden before Arthur, at least for everyone but the king (an a very few chosen to act in t
  17. It does make sense. It's just that I was late to realize the actual consequences (it didn't start to be unbearable until they all got 25+ sword) and they seemingly enjoyed their moments of invincibility (as that's the image that an inspired knight evokes). None of them is very familiar with Arthurian lore but they do know about Arthur (or any of his great knights) killing hundreds of enemies in a battle and want to be like Balin, the White Knight or Galegantis who all turn the tide of a battle (or almost) when they get inspired. But I will talk it with them, probably when we finish the B
  18. Thanks for the kind answers and for the useful links, specially that last one with Greg confirming the rule. We do use this and in fact it has proved to be one of the best "nerfs" to passions in battles, even when PK are allowed to use all the passions. In fact I'll say it's harsher in a way if they're allowed to use all the passions because they're likely to waste several of the highest ones. Speaking of this, what happens if a knight has 16+ in at least two unused passions and they're both triggered? Does he get a choose? Do I (the GM) pick the most adequate? That sounds very
  19. The thing is I can't find where it says so in the main book. I could just house rule it but they have made it into their main tactic and will probably get uppity if it comes out of nowhere.
  20. This is the kind of thing that spices up a campaign. A trial for Gorlois like Cornelius suggests can be great if you take into account that the PK are gonna find themselves in a similar situation soon. I would try to paint Uther as enraged but relatively just here, since Gorlois is a traitor and PK should be taking the king's side even if they know the story behind the treason (if only because good Earl Roderick is loyal to Uther). And then in the second trial, their trial, Uther's madness and arbitrary nature become even more obvious than in a regular campaign.
  21. Hello and, first of all, greetings to everybody in the community I consider myself to be a newbie pendragon player and game master and, even after playing the GPC from 485 to 518 (in the middle of Badon right now) I still make mistakes and misunderstand rules. So I'm sorry if the awnser to my questions is obvious. Here is the first one. Can the inspiration bonuses from passions stack? Can I inspire myself because my opponents are saxons (hate saxons), because I'm fighting for the king (loyalty Pendragon) and because I'm fighting with my friends (loyalty brotherhood)? My players lov
  • Create New...