Jump to content

Voord 99

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

91 Excellent

About Voord 99

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • Location
    An undisclosed location not too far from Marinus.
  • Blurb
    Hapless interstellar conqueror. I’m really not very good at it.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Of course, historically, part of what was at stake in Arthur as “King of England” was England’s claims to dominance over the rest of the island. I’ve mentioned before one of my favorite bits of Arthuriana, which is the Scottish authors who argued that, as Gawain was Anna’s son, he was the rightful heir to the throne, so in fact it was the “Scotsman” who should have been king, and Arthur was a usurper (whose achievements had been greatly exaggerated by the English). One thing to note about this is that the “of Britain” part in “High King of Britain” is also a subtle modern shift (assuming
  2. My own interpretation would be that, since a knight is normally knighted by another knight, it’s not odd that Ellen isn’t doing it. What is odd is that Robert wants to be knighted by someone of lesser rank than himself, and his own vassal on top of that. In the absence of the king, you’d expect him to be shopping around for a still greater noble, or perhaps the king of another kingdom. Historically, there was a lot of competition between prospective knghts to be knighted by someone important. This comes up in the romances — for instance, in the Vulgate, Gawain is very insistent that he
  3. Not in the game, in reality. The idea that Arthur was “High King of Britain” is very widespread. (Google it.) And obviously, the idea that Arthur was a king, but that there were other lesser kings who owed allegiance to him is a very old one. But that’s a little different from describing that by using “High King” as a title. The “High King of Ireland” was a thing; so was the “High King of Scotland.” But in English, from what I can tell, while it’s perfectly normal to describe someone as a “high king” (it goes back at least to Beowulf), that’s not a title denoting a king who i
  4. Deleted my earlier thoughts after consulting the GPC and seeing exactly when Robert is knighted. Robert is knighted in 509. If you’re sticking with that, the answer to whom they would owe that status would naturally be to him, as he would presumably knight any new knights in that year. I’d probably play up that this bond is unquestionable, even if their homage and fealty to him is not. As a knight, Robert can knight, whether or not he is really the count, and the relationship between a knight and the knight who knighted him is special. Especially if one of the father PKs knights
  5. So, Gawain. (Gawaine, if you prefer.) Pendragon Gawain comes across to me as a bit of an uneasy compromise. Everyone knows that Gawain is one of world literature’s biggest victims of the Worf Effect, both in terms of how formidable he’s portrayed as being, and more strikingly still, in how moral his character is supposed to be. He goes from being top knight — and there is a lot of material in which that’s what he is — to being downgraded to show how amazing Lancelot is. By the time you’re in the Post-Vulgate, Gawain is a complete bastard. Morally, Malory dials it back a lIttle, to th
  6. Honestly, aside from the practical consequences, I’d also think about a 1-point Honour loss (and Selfish checks, obviously). In the later middle ages, there were elaborate written contracts specifying in detail how spoils would be divided. In this period, it would be less formal, but breaking faith with an informal but fundamental understanding is still breaking faith in a way that will bother people. One fun detail that is early medieval is that people might draw lots for the division, because there was no mathematically exact way of dividing up by value what was, after all, a bunch o
  7. The rules mostly seem to be interested in what happens when a knight swears fealty to additional lords, not succession. But I personally would have them generate a new Passion. It is very possible that one might not be as loyal to the heir as to the previous lord, for instance, or maybe even more loyal. (Gorlois might not have as high an Homage (Uther) as his Homage (Aurelius Ambrosius) had been.) RAW a new lord is 3d6, but that’s framed in terms of fealty to additional lords, and seems too low, even if the relationship with the person who knighted you should be special. Perhaps one
  8. Trading items is covered on p.183 of the core 6e book. Basically, the lord will pay full “standard” price for anything except armour, for which he sends them to the blacksmith, who gives them half price. Trading with a merchant is half price for everything, so the lord is the way to go. If it’s coming up a lot, though, I’d think about complicating what the rules there say a bit. For a start, their lord is, I believe, entitled to some of their plunder. I think the amount varied, but 1/3 is probably a good default. Second, this is dependent on being in good odour with their lord — if t
  9. When one talks about default Pendragon only having one type of character, that’s true in a sense, but I think sometimes people perhaps look at it from the perspective of other games, and treat knight as a sort of character class, or template, or playbook, or whatever the game calls it. That’s not quite right — knight is a secular social position, not just a set of competencies. It’s a position that (especially early on) is filled by heavily-armoured cavalry warriors, but not all people who are heavily-armoured cavalry warriors are knights, even those who are of noble birth. (In the l
  10. For battles, there are default amounts in the Book of Battle — I don’t think that there are amounts given in the core 5e book, but I may have missed it. The Book of Uther and GPC have scripted battles with set amounts of plunder for each (if the battle results in plunder). Only Decisive Victories give plunder, and those are quite hard to achieve with the BoB against any equivalent enemy, so it might not come up that much outside the scripted BoU/GPC battles. Skirmish is a vague category that basically just means a combat with too many combatants to track individually, but not a large en
  11. Not an area I know an enormous amount about but some meagre thoughts: There were no clear rules on this. Or more accurately, there were rules, more than one of them, and they contradicted each other, because chivalry developed over time and was contested. Initially, knights developed gradually out of mounted warriors attached to a nobleman — it’s more a matter of a certain kind of aristocratic warrior becoming identified as being in a special category, and it’s really fuzzy. At what point does a leader giving arms formally to a follower — a ceremony that may have Germanic origins that
  12. The nice thing about medieval literature is that a lot of it consists of the same motifs repeated. So you could save the parts you didn’t use for a future adventure, and when your players say, “Hang on, didn’t we already have a story about three brothers and three castles?” you can reply, “Yes. That’s the point.” 🙂
  13. It was a bit more complicated than that. There is plenty of buying and selling land in England in the later middle ages. Technically, it’s not buying and selling the land itself, which in England (the continent is different) belongs to the crown — it’s buying and selling estates in the land. But in practice, it’s pretty much the same thing. It’s land held by fee simple, though, not the kind of land held by knight service with which PKs are typically concerned. That being said, I believe that people by the 13th century could conceive of even land held per baronium as something
  14. Early on, that might be true — ransom was a distinct mark of noble status, and is in some ways a method by which the noble martial class rigged the game so that they were less at risk in war than their inferiors, and then proceeded to call this rigging of the game chivalry and honour. This changes over time, though — by the time of the Hundred Years War, commoners were quite often ransomed. This makes sense, when one bears in mind that an awful lot of ransoms happened due to the negotiated surrender of garrisons, and there is little point in a garrison commander trying to negotiate a sur
  15. I must admit, my eye went straight to “under mysterious circumstances.” Obviously, you don’t want to spoil the mystery for your players by saying what those were here. But whatever entity is responsible — do they have a next move?
  • Create New...