Jump to content

Morien

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Morien

  1. Plenty of more rough-and -ready tribal kings around, both in Ireland, as well as in Cambria and in the North (Tribal Picts, especially). Leinster is amongst the most feudal and 'civilized' kingdoms in Ireland.
  2. Yep. Ruler: Gunnhild, Queen of the East I had a vague recollection that the queen had been mentioned, but since I was sure that Nohaut was ruled by a Saxon queen/lady ( Ruler: Ethfrida, Lady of Nohaut ), I figured I must have conflated the two.
  3. Yep. It is the coast of Lindsey. Roughly from Skegness to Humber. I don't recall the Queen appearing in any adventure though...
  4. Welcome! A very nice first post, too.
  5. I don't have that timeline for you, but wrt to Merlin... He has a quote in 516. He is rumored to be dead in 517. He is rumored to just be ill and taken care of by the Lady of the Lake (Nimue) in 518. He is rumored to be sleeping in 521 and in 522, with a knight of Malahaut hearing his voice from a pool. Allegedly. He is rumored to have been at court in 523, in disguise, to say farewell to Arthur. The Intrigue box seems to confirm this. And while Arthur sends knights to look for him, he is really gone. So taking GPC as written, 523 seems to be the date. However, given how much it is rumored from 516 onwards and that he doesn't make an appearance during the Battle of Badon, I am coming around to the idea (suggested by other people, I didn't originate it) that he is gone by 517, and 523 is just a vision/spell sent by Merlin to Arthur.
  6. I look forward to hearing how it went!
  7. Well, if they go on a fishing expedition, it means that their last card is the one they have to play. Which means that it can be any card, even one of the bad ones for them, which leads to a more varied and fun game play. Whereas if they always get to choose between 2-3 cards, the chance of a bad card getting played goes down dramatically. But the chance of a really good card would stay exactly the same, or even go down: If you have 3 cards capacity and draw them all together, you get the killer card and play it or you don't get it. The chance of not getting it is the same if you take one card at a time. However, if your 1st or 2nd card was good enough (especially the 2nd one), you might end up playing that rather than risk drawing the third card, which might have been the killer card. It adds more choice and excitement, IMHO. I'd be quite keen in hearing how the playtesting bears out my assumption!
  8. Yes, but that is part of the intent of this 'one card at a time design': there is an actual risk. If you get all your 3 cards at once, there is no risk and no choice: there card is either there or isn't. But if you draw them one by one, you might actually end up with a bad card that you have to play, something that almost never happens if you draw multiple cards at once. So that adds an additional element of choice and risk. Yes, I think we discussed that earlier.
  9. So there is a 'draw and play' order in Book of Feasts? That is easy enough to accomplish. You'll just have the players draw the cards at the same time (assuming that they choose to draw a card rather than some other choice if they have such a choice), and a moment for everyone to read and discard and redraw as necessary, before the first one in the play order plays his/her card. In your example of being given a card, normal rules allow you still to choose between your cards what you wish to play, right? So that should still be valid: the second player gets a choice between the cards. If the second player refuses to accept the gifted card, it can be discarded but the first player still gets the geniality. I am assuming that is how the rules would normally work there: the second player cannot refuse the card, but he doesn't have to play it, so it is effectively 'discarded' while the first player gets the geniality? I really ought to go ahead and get the Book of Feasts and read through it. It would make it so much easier to contribute to these discussions.
  10. Is there any reason that this should not be the default? Every player drawing a card (if that is what they choose to do) at the same time, so that they can all be reading and making decisions whether to discard or play it at the same time?
  11. No, but to paraphrase creativehum's words, packing three different versions of Arthur into one 128 page book was a bit too much. I can understand why they did it, but it felt very much like being handed the summary and told to go and do more research on my own. Logres is almost totally Christian, and that is where most of the PKs are from, as are most of the NPKs. Besides, Greg deliberately steered away from religion as a source of conflict, so while I agree that those Pagans would have very hot time in actual Middle Ages, the society and the culture is still very much a Christian Medieval one. If a Pagan lady sleeps around, she still loses Honor and so forth for adultery, etc. Anyway. Not really a topic of this thread, merely pointing out that Uther Period is clearly not Migratory Era Britain.
  12. There is very much an acknowledgement of the Welsh roots. Arthur's people are the Cymri. Arthur himself is a Cymri, too. Most of the PKs will be Cymric and have Cymric names, as do most of the NPCs they interact with. It is only when you get up to the RTK and other famous people when you start getting names from literature. While you could turn some of those names back to their Celtic roots, there are many, such as Lancelot, who do not have a Celtic counterpart as he was made up later. Same is true for many other RTKs.
  13. Pretty close, props for digging it up. I would prefer a different ordering, though, with the modern name first since that is what most of the KAP books are using. That way, I can easily find its Roman or Briton equivalent, whereas now I pretty much have to scan everything in search for the name (or, since I prefer to cheat, use Find "name").
  14. Yeah, the default KAP is explicitly anachronistic, and the society is clearly medieval rather than Dark Ages. That doesn't mean that it can't be used to a Dark Ages campaign, as said by: It would take some tweaking, but it would be possible to reimagine most of it, as in above. One would probably have to do away with tournaments, though, by and large, and landholdings would probably be family clan holdings rather than individual ones. It still wouldn't be historical (well, Arthur himself probably wasn't historical, either). If one wants to do that, then one would pretty much have small kingdoms with a couple of hundred spearmen struggling against one another, rather than tens of thousands of soldiers and thousands of heavily armored cavalry (knights). That being said, I know that some people have at least planned on running Bernard Cornwell's The Warlord Chronicles using KAP. I admit, I have not even read Age of Arthur, so I don't know how full a world they give, and if it would be easy to just grab that world and use KAP to run it. I don't think it should be too difficult; the setting is usually quite separate from the rule mechanics. Especially if one drops out most fantastical elements like magic and monsters, which would not have a place in a more historical campaign anyway. You are correct about that as far as the GPC is concerned, but the 'Dark Ages' in GPC is strictly visual: clothing styles and such. The society in KAP 5.2 is medieval, and BoUther (and Warlord before it) makes it even more plain by lifting the society and the laws pretty much straight from the Norman England. With a nod towards British Christianity (which I don't think should be a thing, but that is another discussion).
  15. I think this is a good idea. And it wouldn't be so difficult to do, especially if we are looking at mainly the biggest towns and such, not every village and a manor, many of which didn't even exist in 500s. You could have a column each for Modern, Roman and Cymric/Welsh, as applicable. However, the issue is that even for some of the biggest towns, the etymology isn't always straightforward; even London's etymology is still being debated. Or one could just select an etymology that sounds good enough or just lift it from the legends, like Caer Lud. It should be easy enough to dig out Arthur's companions in Welsh sources and give their names as well as the more commonly used ones. Like Bedevire = Bedwyr. Gawaine = Gwalchmei. My own annoyance with names was the use of French, especially in the older editions. I know why it is in there (since a lot of Arthuriana from Middle Ages was written and read in French), but it is especially jarring when 5e is using Cymric names and then you run into Damosel Jeanne Sans Pitie or something like that. Even De Gales ("Of Wales") and De Ganis ("Of Ganis") are a constant reminder of these anachronistic names. A lot of the round table knights have names that have little to do with Cymric, I know, but usually they are mangled enough that they sound fantasy-like.
  16. Does someone here own Karr's The King Arthur Companion? Does it have the alternative Celtic names for some of the Round Table Knights? It is not very difficult to find out alternative Celtic names for various towns and cities with a bit of googling (same is true for the most well-known RTKs, too, if they have Celtic roots), if one wishes to do that in their campaign. I have been quite vocal in the past about preferring the modern names that I am much more familiar with and can use google maps for distances or even localize the place if it is more obscure one. Much easier for me to GM, especially given that most of the adventures are from 3e and 4e, which use the modern names. (Funnily enough, I got a different cultural shock one day when one writer was using Finnish words and placenames in a fantasy novel written in English. I simply couldn't read it. The Kingdom of Tasavalta (= Democracy in Finnish) was simply too much of a cognitive dissonance for me to carry on.) I know that we used to have one poster who was really into the Celtic placenames. I might try to contact him to find out if he has a list that he has already compiled and if he wishes to share that...
  17. Sounds like a great political match. It also makes Brastias even more palatable for the Salisbury knights.
  18. Oh. Then why the excitement about nullification and all that, if the woman is already dead? True, true. Takes some years before Camelot starts to get built, even. Says who? He is active at Badon, and continues to be active until 531, although he starts grousing about retiring in 523. He is fit enough to ride hard in 529, and he is briefly the Justiciar of Ireland 530-531, before he finally retires from the public life into a hermitage. He is around in GPC until 560, at least... A cushy 'desk job' as the Guardian of Salisbury seems right down his alley. I think Brastias would be a fine choice.
  19. Plenty of other war heroes from Badon, like Arthur himself. The PK is not unique in that regard. He lied to Arthur. He is no longer Famously Loyal. He has alienated at least some of the Salisbury knights, and apparently has been handing out manors and castles out like candy, rather than safe-guarding them for the heir. (I really hope those have been Gifts rather than Grants, too, and that majority of the knights who got gifts are now dead and the lands returned to the correct heir, especially since you said that in your campaign the Count already had a much smaller slice of the pie to begin with. If they were grants, I would see Arthur basically declaring the PK's actions null and void, and review all the grants, at the very least turning them to gifts if not revoke them altogether. Frankly, giving grants is not something I think is even in the guardian's power, since otherwise they could just grant all the ward's lands to their own heir.) These all are good reasons to remove him from command. I don't think it is enough to seize his lands or to send him into exile, though. After all, he did fight for Arthur & Britain. As to why Arthur would wait until after Badon, clearly Arthur didn't want to upset the chain of command on the eve of the major Battle, especially since apparently lots of the big names in Salisbury (other PKs) supported him still. But yeah, I don't see Arthur handing him any rewards like extra lands given that he is already deciding to punish the PK. Now, though, once the Battle is done, it is time to clean house. I don't see Arthur giving Silchester nor Dorset a chance to abuse Salisbury; part of the whole thing of taking little Robert as his personal ward is that Arthur himself becomes the new guardian. He simply appoints someone else to see to the everyday tasks. As for the PK, this means that he will keep his own lands, which are quite extensive if he is a banneret. The other PKs probably still rally to him, as you noted due to the personal ties to him. And he would remain a glorious knight and probably retain the RTK status as well. A redemption story would be quite possible. Get that Loyalty up again, do a dangerous quest or two to get back to Arthur's good graces. He would not get the guardianship back, but at least he would be welcome in Camelot again. Asking for pardon, preceded by confessing and admitting fault, basically throwing yourself in Arthur's mercy and being contrite would be the best ways to deflect the majority of long-term effects (still losing the wardship). Arguing with the High King, or worse, insulting him to his face or threatening a rebellion, would not be smart. Finally, there is still the issue of the Saxon lady, who apparently is not that keen on marrying him. On the other hand, what other options does she have? Her family is probably destitute and the menfolk dead. Which might actually lead to some fun RP if she does agree to marry the PK and then brings in her mother and all the sisters and underaged brothers and cousins... Invasion of the In-Laws.
  20. Quite the opposite. Sir Merciful is going to experience Royal Displeasure. He was entrusted Salisbury on the condition that he marries the widowed Countess, who just happens to die the next winter. He pretty much straightaway marries his Saxon hostage (his own words at Easter condemn him), without checking with his liege lord, Arthur. Even if that is a lie, it doesn't really help: he has publicly said that he did it. He argues against Arthur and apparently holds himself in such high esteem that he holds a grudge towards Arthur, his King and Liege. Were this my campaign, there would be High Hate Salisbury knights whispering 'poison', 'Rowena' and 'Saxon witch'. Frankly, they would be begging Arthur to replace Sir Merciful as the current ruler of Salisbury, rather than see what Sir Merciful will do next to please his Saxon Sorceress. My Arthur would forthwith remove the wardship from Sir Merciful and bring little Robert to Camelot, assigning some suitable, trusted and loyal knight to oversee Salisbury (possibly another PK, or at least in consultation with them). Clearly Sir Merciful is not a man whose Loyalty and Judgement the King can trust any longer, and it seems obvious ("he doesn't trust the other knights, who have hate saxons 16+ and associate young Eadlin with the murder of count Robert." & "none of his allies in Salisbury is willing to help him with this lie") that he has lost the trust of his fellow Salisbury knights, too. Arthur is the High King. This knight is a Banneret Who Would Be Emperor. Arthur has just defeated the greatest army that Saxons have ever fielded, and is now reconquering Saxon lands that were lost to the Britons over three generations. Arthur is riding high in approval, the generous giver of lands and honours. Sir Merciful is in disgrace, isolated from his peers by his own actions, a Saxon-lover. (Granted, Arthur does encourage for his knights who settle in reconquered lands to marry Saxon widows and heiresses, which might also endear him a bit to Guinever. But I doubt many of those knights were Guardians of Salisbury who got enthralled by his Saxon hostage, with his lawful wife suddenly dying...)
  21. Yep, that would be pretty much what I would be inclining to do, as well. Make the lie into the truth by telling the knight to really marry the woman, although as far as everyone knows, they are already married by the knight's public admission! Like Atgxtg already pointed out, the Church might not even be involved: if both the knight and the woman say that they are married, then they are married. All the more so if the knight is a Pagan, of course (I assume not, since annulment is mentioned). Normally the marriages are public for obvious reasons, but there have been exceptions, even at rather high level. Edward IV comes to mind; even if you don't believe Bishop Stillington (the marriage to Lady Eleanor Talbot), his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was kept secret at first. Also, if the Saxon Lady and the knight had even be discussing about marriage 'once the war is over', this would have created a valid engagement between them, too. Anyway, my point is that there is really no reason for Kay to go digging for marriage records. The knight has stated that he is married, there is no reason to doubt his word on this. Nor do I see why Arthur would like to have it annulled in the first place: not only is annulment a royal pain in the butt to arrange, there is no reason for it. As to a more general point, lying to your liege lord is generally a very bad idea. In this particular case, the knight has several strong defenses, though. Defending women for one (Honor, due to the oath), Merciful for another. There might be an actual Amor, too. Like Atgxtg said, there would be support from Guinever in this case, definitely. It is the prerogative of the medieval queen to be the voice of Mercy; it is expected that she pleads for mercy for those deserving of it, so that the king has an excuse to be merciful without looking weak. Of course, if the knight is smart, he would ask for an audience with Arthur and Guinever in private, and confess his lie and reasoning in private. This allows Arthur to save face: it is not made public that he has been lied to his face by one of his Round Table Knights. Also, from what I understand, Arthur is not happy about killing those women and children, so he probably doesn't want to refight that argument, either, and just be happy that at least one woman was saved from death by this well-meaning lie. Now there would be more problems if the Saxon woman in question is not willing to marry the knight, or agreed to do so only under the duress of death. Then the marriage would be invalid from the onset, even if there is an agreement by both parties. I still do not see the King executing her after the fact, especially since this is after the Battle of Badon; what would be the point? But in this case, the lie is made public, and that puts Arthur in a bit of a bind. "Thou shalt not embarrass your liege lord." ought to be a commandment. If the knight has already confessed to Arthur, this helps a bit, as it does not come out of the left field as far as Arthur is concerned. But it still depends a lot on Arthur: after all, Gawaine quits the court due to Arthur's unjust exile of Ywaine, and he is not punished for it, and both of them are welcomed back to court. So Arthur is not incapable of admitting that he was at fault. So if you want Arthur really show off how different he is from Uther, you could have him state that he was wrong in executing those hostages (i.e. it was legitimate to do so, but it was morally unjust), and since the lie was made for a noble cause (to save the life of a lady), the knight will not be punished for it. Sure, it might create a bit of an unfortunate precedent as far as lying to Arthur is concerned, but I could see Arthur deciding that he can deal with any future lies as they crop up: it might be more important to him that his knights do what is right, rather than obey him in all things. Sounds more like a player issue; i.e. the players are not clear on how the medieval society works. This is something an discussion around the table would help, to bring everyone up to speed. Especially since you mention that there is at least one player who has not grasped the nuances. Anyway, the point is that the PKs can object to the hanging, on merciful or other grounds. But it would highlight the problem of having death penalty option in the hands of local lords, i.e. the main point Arthur wants to fix. Heck, you could even have the PKs report to Arthur and that is the final straw that leads Arthur into formulating this new law. It will give the players a feeling that they have influenced the way that the world works, and that is generally a good thing.
  22. Kinda funny, since it actually works to the benefit of the higher skill character. Consider this: Skill 29 vs. Skill 30. Normal KAP gives them 50% and 55% chance of a critical, almost the same, and on a non-critical, Skill 30 has a +1 edge on the die roll (if both roll 8, Skill 30 gets 8+10 = 18 and Skill 29 gets 8+9 = 17). Under our house rule, the skills become 20 and 21. The more skilled knight still has that +1 edge, and even the 5% edge in criticals, BUT that extra 5% in criticals now means that he has double the chance of critting (10%, on 19 and 20) compared to the lesser skilled knight (modified skill 20 -> crit chance 5%). In normal KAP, the fight is over in a couple of rounds, with a critical beheading of the non-critting knight, and it is practically a coin toss which one it is. Now it is a longer fight, but skewed a bit more to the more skilled knight, as he is much likelier to get a critical in first.
  23. Here you go. 12000 random knights, in different age and culture categories. (Original post about my knight generator is here: https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-1035.html This is the second version as you can see by the addition of some skills and so forth.) 1000_middleaged_cymric_knights_v2.txt 1000_middleaged_french_knights_v2.txt 1000_middleaged_roman_knights_v2.txt 1000_middleaged_saxon_knights_v2.txt 1000_old_cymric_knights_v2.txt 1000_old_french_knights_v2.txt 1000_old_middleaged_knights_v2.txt 1000_old_roman_knights_v2.txt 1000_old_saxon_knights_v2.txt 1000_young_cymric_knights_v2.txt 1000_young_french_knights_v2.txt 1000_young_roman_knights_v2.txt 1000_young_saxon_knights_v2.txt
  24. Somewhat more mundane: 1) The wife has a request to make. Maybe she is soft-hearted and wants you to give something back to the peasants, especially if it is a bad harvest and you have loot from a recent battle to tide you over. Maybe she is anxious to see the glories of the big cities (mainly Camelot if it already exists, but London might work, too, especially if this is pre-Anarchy or post-Boy King), and do some shopping (or a more religious variant, a pilgrimage to a religious site, perhaps to pray for a healthy child if the marriage has been unfruitful for the first couple of years). Maybe she wants you to take her nephew as a new squire or convince one of your adventuring buddies to do so. Maybe she gets bit by this new fashion of Amor, and wants you to woo her even though you are already happily married. Get that harp out and start strumming! 2) Speaking of Amor (or just a seduction), maybe another knight is casting his gaze towards the wife. Depending on your Suspicious, maybe you spot this first, or maybe the wife comes to you with a complaint that this knight is hounding her. A good opportunity for a duel inspired by Love (Wife) and getting that other knight to leave her alone.
  25. Yeah, I have a whole thread about them, linked here: But that particular rule is dead simple: Just reduce both skills by the same amount so that the lower skill becomes 20. So skills 30 and 28 square off. 28 -8=20, and 30-8=22, so it is resolved as 22 vs 20. If there is skill splitting/modifiers involved, it does not matter, you are only looking at the effective skills. So if in the above, 30 is on foot and 28 is on horseback, it would become 25 vs. 33, and hence 20 vs. 28.
×
×
  • Create New...