Morien

No. Forget about Elmet, it stays Roestoc. Greg had a habit of playing with different names for the kingdoms, some of them historical, others literary. Bit up to the GM, as 4th edition states outright that Guinevere inherits the kingdom once Leodegrance snuffs it, but some stories do introduce a brother ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinevere#Origins_and_family ). The way I GMed it, Leodegrance did not have a son, and Cameliard was ruled by Queen Guinevere with her King Consort, Arthur. I.e. a personal union via Guinevere, rather than subsuming the kingdom into Logres. Malahaut would no doubt like nothing better, but after Arthur smacks them around during the Boy King, I think he grabbed some lands there, too. For example, Carduel swears allegiance straight to Arthur, not to Malahaut. So making waves there might send the little kings squealing like pigs being slaughtered to the High King: "Help, help, we are being oppressed!" In our old campaign, Malahaut was very eagerly trying to add some of the minor kingdoms (Rheged, for one) to its lands, whenever Arthur was distracted with something else. Yes, although they are more like vassal kingdoms rather than total reconquest like in the south. Leinster, no. Leinster is its own independent, allied and friendly kingdom. The whole Irish war is to help Leinster. The Pale, I think yes. It was incorporated via marriage as part of Galeholt's Kingdom of the Isles (i.e. Dal Riada), in 520s. Galeholt dies in 550s, so in 540s, it would still be part of his realm. Sure, why not. Adds something extra that the current map doesn't have. Whatever gets your fancy. Hantonne and Silchester (because of the proximity to Salisbury & later Camelot) would likely be most useful for people playing the default GPC.

Again, my caveat that I have not GMed Paladin, and I have pretty much only skimmed the book a couple of times. I think I have mentioned this in passing before, but at least on a glance, I do like the Personal Events and Family Events in Paladin, and I am planning on starting to use them in my Pendragon campaign. Naturally, some minor tweaks here and there might be necessary; for example the Family Event 19 includes a potential promotion of a family member to a count, which even at a Baron scale is a bit too much for my campaign. Also, I am going to use the idea of having a table of actual named family members, rather than the generic tables which include grandparents and parents who are most often already dead at campaign start anyway... As for adventures and solos, I think the introduction in Chapter 19 (Adventures) gives nice GMing advice on how to plan quests and scenarios. Granted, the advice is just about 1.5 pages long, but definitely added value for new GMs. For more experienced GMs, it is stuff that they know, but perhaps have not thought to articulate quite in that way. As for scenarios in the book, the longer scenarios are very much entangled into the Carolingian world, and would take some disentangling... You might be better off just taking inspiration and repurposing scenes and encounters for a different thing. Some of the short scenarios look promising, as they are more general, and one thing I quite like about them is that it is not always simply "bash the guy on the head". Although since this is a game about knights, duels of honors and of justice are possible, too. Some of the short scenarios are tied to the Carolingian characters, but you can probably change the names and such. For instance, using one of the major families of the Round Table, for example the high Love Family Orkney brothers, to object to a treatment of their sorcerous kinfolk instead of the House of Clermont in the Guarding Maugis -scenario. So yes, there is some stuff in Paladin that is of interest for a Pendragon GM. As far as equipment goes, not so much. The armor and horses are basically the same, other than the inclusion of the ring mail as an entry level historical armor. Paladin does the same telescoping that GPC does: "To represent the advanced Frankish time, the entire feudal era of our time gets telescoped into the 46 years of Charlemagne’s reign (768–814)." (I actually dislike the inclusion of the technology creep in Paladin, as I said in the old Forums: I would have preferred having it exist in a more historical setting as far as the armor goes, rather than see knights riding around in full plate by the end of the campaign. In Pendragon, I am somewhat more permissive of this, because a) Arthur and Camelot are legendary and not historical, and b) it is what I am used to. For Paladin, while it is seen through a storytelling lens, Charlemagne himself is an actual historic figure and we have pretty decent sources for him, unlike for Arthur. Sure, the stories are just that, and the Paladin does occupy that fantasy realm where Saracens are invading left and right and magic and miracles happen all around, but for some reason, it simply rubs me a bit wrong way to have that arms race. I simply don't feel Paladin needed to have the same telescoping of the whole medieval period into Charlemagne's reign. I would have been perfectly happy to give them 12th century armor and warhorses (i.e. about the time of most of the epics) and leave it at that. Which is pretty much what the starting point for Paladin Phase 1 is.) (Although let me add that if you are running it as a sequel to GPC, then having it have that similar technological arc might work, thematically. Just that if I were to run Paladin myself, I probably wouldn't bother with the technology increase. For example, the GPC is 480/485 - 560s, about 80 years, and for the first 30 years, you don't really have technological increase at all. And my players were fine with that. As soon as better armor became available, of course they bought it instantly, since who wouldn't? But I am not sure it actually added any particular value to the RP, other than make them a bit more invulnerable. It is 46-51 years before they actually get to partial plate, compared to mere 22 years in Paladin (unless you start at Charles Martel, 54 years earlier). I can understand that players love upgrades and better loot, but I am just saying that I might GM it differently. If you imagine starting the GPC at Boy King (as you could do in 4th edition), then yes, it plays pretty much the same, with about half a century of play and upgrades roughly every decade or so.)

Hah! I knew I had answered this before! Here is what I wrote in a Discord chat last August. Note my caveat in the beginning. Q: "Are the Paladin adventures worth picking up for conversion back into the GPC, or are they a bit too heavily rooted in the Matter of France?" My Answer: "Like I said, I have not GMed Paladin, so this is just my impression from quickly glancing through the Adventures... They are heavily connected to the pre-existing stories. However, it is usually possible to file off the serial numbers, change Charlemagne to Arthur, and if you drop off some of the invasions and warfare that would make less sense for Arthur than Charlemagne, it would be possible to adapt them. The Gardens of Fortune you could probably run as a faerie adventure easily enough. The Battle of Roncevaux is obviously very connected to Roland, so probably not worth adapting. The King Thief looked like it might work easily enough with just characters switched around. The Conquest of Orange might work during the Roman War. The Steel Tongues looked like it would work after Badon, the PKs given a task to pacify the newly-conquered Saxons. Father Emo's Voyage has a lot of placenames and politics, so it would be a bit heavy to convert, although possible. The Venom Sword pits the PKs' clan against their liege lord, so that is a bit heavy ask. Also, it requires the King to be too busy to intervene. I could see it happening maybe during the Grail Quest or something, with the Intra-Party Loyalty giving the PKs more cohesion as a clan. I got the impression that in Paladin they are pretty much expected to be from the same extended family, at least based on this adventure. So, possible, but would probably require the PKs to be rather wealthy and well placed, in order to actually wage war on their liege. Normal Pendragon vassal knights wouldn't have enough muscle for this one. Huon's Quest is pretty tied to its titular hero, Paladin geography and Charlemagne himself. It would be possible to modify it, but it would require some work. Given that Paladin Adventures are $19.99, you can get almost three Tales of ... & ... for the same price. Or Blood & Lust ($7.99), Tales of Chivalry & Romance ($5.99) and Tales of Magic & Miracles ($5.99). Or some other combination, and I think you are better off. Of course, if you already have all the Pendragon adventure and regional books..."

I added a couple of old Nocturnal Forum Links to the main (first) post of this thread. Hope they will be useful.

You could, but the problem is that the chargen, especially with skills, is different between 5th edition KAP and Paladin. Since you end up having to do some kind of tinkering anyway, I would be tempted to start from a clean slate, i.e. the Paladin Frankish chargen.

As the intro of the Foreign Cultures states: "Player characters in Paladin are normally Franks, but inspired game masters may allow alternative origins for their player knights. However, the information given here about game related characteristics is not quantified (with the exception of base Statistics), since it does not directly concern the player characters. This leaves game masters free to assign scores of their liking should the need arise."

The default characters are Franks, but the rulebook does have descriptions for: Basque, Breton (as in from Brittany), Briton (as in from Anglo-Saxon England), Byzantines, Danes, Gascons (Aquitaine), Huns, Jews, Lombards (Italians), Moors & Saracens, Persians, Romans (Papal States, particularly Rome itself), Saxons & Frisians, Slavs and Visigoths (Southern France and Hispania). Unfortunately, while the attribute modifiers are there, the trait and skill modifiers are not; 'Character' and 'Skills' are more intended to paint a picture of a stereotypical NPC, rather than a PK. A GM can use those to come up with their own trait and skill modifiers easily enough, though, if they want to. Other than that, it is about the level of detail that BoK&L has in those a-few-pages blurbs to describe a culture. So: Not exactly, but a GM can throw something together if he wants to. As an example, the Character of the Romans is: "The Romans are Proud of their city and its prestigious history. They are always scheming (Deceitful) and forever concerned about food (Indulgent) and money (Selfish)." Clearly, this is a stereotypical idea that the Frankish knights would have of the Romans, rather than a true picture of all the Romans. But a GM could use it to give the Romans, for example, +1d3 to those three Traits, and +1d6 Directed Trait: Proud of Rome.

Doesn't Gareth gain the Duchy of Lancaster, though?

I think Greg mentions in one book that each RTK gets a manor or a stipend to help to support them in appropriate manner. So they are by no means starving nor Poor by KAP standards. Poor compared to the Kings and Princes who actually still hold their own lands, yes. Ah, here, KAP 5.2, p. 198: "Furthermore, King Arthur gives the Round Table knights a grant of land that will ensure their accoutrement as a Rich Knight, and will outfit them with the best armor and horses available when possible, and all other benefits of a leading courtier of the realm." So this would normally be an estate of £40 or more, but I suspect what Arthur is doing is that he is giving like a £13 manor and exempting the knight from additional servitium debitum of the extra £3, treating that as free income, thus granting £6 for the knight and his family and +£4 discretionary funds.

Sure, but many of those can be explained away with recent heroics or marriages or the like. I find it much less useful that Baron Whodis has also a manor in Hartland and another manor in Gentian in addition to his main estate in Lambor. And then multiply this by 70 or so. Especially since most of these guys will be dead before the PKs have any real chance to interact with them. Give me rather a list of the counties, their leaders and their armies, and then maybe 20 or so important, named RTKs from Orkneys, De Galis and De Ganis families and what their landholdings and armies are and when they gain them. The former I more or less get from 4th edition although the numbers are a bit suspect at times, and of course more appropriate for 530s. But so are the three families, too: Orkneys and De Galis get started already in 510s but things don't really heat up until 520s and Lancelot's rise us more in late 520s and during 530s. Orkneys are around and active for 50 years or so and De Galis and De Ganis for close to 40. Much more playtime and interaction there.

Well, if you want to run your campaign based solely on GPC and not on BoU and BotW, you are more than welcome to do so! The Supreme Collegium matters not: Arthur will become the High King, and after that, there shall not be another. Not one that matters, anyway. Speaking of historical research occasionally getting in the way of gameplay... I actually preferred the old territorial nobles of GPC and earlier editions, than the scattered landholdings introduced in BotW. I had some arguments with Greg about why I think that Logres fighting against Saxons on one side and the Irish and the Cornish and the Picts in other flanks might be better served by more concentrated landholdings, and why this would make more sense given the tribal origins of those holdings. Rather than transporting the Norman method of scattered landholdings from the historical post-Norman Conquest England to keep the regional nobles weak and less able to defy the royal power. Needless to say, I lost that argument, but I still feel that the concentrated landholdings (county lords) is much easier for the players to grasp and easier for me to GM! (Not that the scattered holdings can't have some advantages for travel, such as the PKs sent to check up on outliers, but still.) I also have much easier time keeping track of 20 or so counts and dukes than 70 or so Barons of the Sword and Barons of the Robe (although the latter would still be there as bishops, of course). What can I say? I like keeping some things simple!

I could have sworn that we had this discussion not too long ago... Or maybe it was in the Discord server? Anyway, my take is that it depends on the context. If the King tells you to carry his saddle, oh, what a privilege, gladly sire! If your amor asks it, of course you do it, again. If a commoner merchant asks it, you throw the saddle in his face, or you might carry it and lose Honor by lowering yourself to be the commoner's servant. Grabbing a log used as a battering ram against enemy's gate: Honorable and brave. Carrying a similar log to help peasants clear a field: clearly beneath your status and hence dishonorable. In the particular examples mentioned by the OP, I would penalize the knight for lowering himself to just another oar-jockey for the Saxon scum, but I probably would not penalize him for chopping wood to save his liege. Also, surroundings matter. The feeble old wise woman clearly cannot chop wood efficiently and there are no other strapping lads around (or they would get the job while the knight supervises), so it is when needs must. But the Saxon ship is full of sailors while the knight is not that proficient sailor, so clearly here his contribution is not mandatory. Besides, the Saxons are likely just demanding it to make fun of him, anyway, the bastards. Modest and Proud would come into it to see if he is willing to do something 'beneath his station', but it would not influence Honor loss itself. The difference is that the Proud one would be likely to decline to do it and might even get upset by the suggestion, possibly reacting violently.

Yes, although that is not necessarily a problem... The Byzantines and the Sassanids were butting heads over Middle East for centuries. You could easily recast this 'crusade' to going to help the Byzantines against the Sassanids. Besides, the Crusade is pretty much just a sideshow/epilogue, anyway. It is not like in Charlemagne where the Saracens are an ever-present issue. Personally, I would be happier with polytheistic pre-Islamic Berbers and Moors, and Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia. There is not enough Zoroastrian love in the RPGs. (Besides, the Zorastrians have one of the most kickass opening intros in: Yes, I know the inspiration here is Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathrustra, which has very very little to do Zoroastrianism nor its founder, Zarathrustra. Kickass music by Strauss, nevertheless.)

As I mentioned in my earlier answer, in Logres it is the churchmen, bishops and abbot-bishops. In Hampshire/Hantonne it is the Bishop of the White City, i.e. Winchester/Venta Belgarum, and the Bishop of Noviomagus (Chichester). Similarly, in Dorset, it is the Bishop of Durnovaria (Dorchester). See BoU, map p. 122 and list p. 123.

The issue was that in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Hengest lives to 488. Since HRB tells a better story with Hengest dying in 469 and HRB is the basis of KAP history, it was deemed best to go with that. This was already retconned in BoU.

Yep. After it has been reconquered from Wessex, after Badon. There is a bunch of barons there in Uther's time. IIRC, Idres bounces off from Dorchester's walls: he is unable to conquer Dorset. Dryw dies at the Infamous Feast (at the latest), IMHO. This is implied by the fact that it is his heir and widow who are holding Sparrowhawk Castle during Anarchy.

I know. I am just saying that it is doubling the dynamic in Salisbury while it would have been more interesting storytelling wise to have something else there. After all, the PKs will already make a choice whether to support a widow and a child.

It is. Even when we disagree, sometimes vehemently, there is always the feeling of being ultimately on the same side, appreciating and enjoying KAP. As for your particular questions, let me start by mentioning one thing: Greg liked to tinker. A lot. So the Book of... -series changed some of the stuff that was in GPC, in particular the Supreme Collegium and the county lords. Let me start from the latter. County Lords: In GPC, pretty much each county has an Earl or a Duke ruling it, as his personal fiefdom. In Book of the Warlord (and BoUther), this was changed. Earls were pretty much wiped out, with just a couple of Counts remaining (see also the change from the Anglo-Saxon-derived title to the Latin-derived one). But in addition, the Barons (as the higher noblemen were now called, with the Counts and the Dukes being collectively referred to as Great Barons) had their landholdings scattered across many counties, usually (Salisbury is an exception, but even there, the Count holds around 50% of the County which is around 2/3rds of his total holdings, or something like that, we had a recent thread about this...). However, with most of the Barons dying in the Infamous Feast prior to the Anarchy, most of those lands were up for grabs by usurpers and surviving neighbors, etc. So the assumption pretty much is that soon after the Anarchy starts, each local nobleman has tried to consolidate his power around his main landholding, gobbling up lordless estates. That way, you still get something pretty close to how the Anarchy plays out, with Barons (earlier Earls) of Jagent, etc. More about the individuals in a bit. Supreme Collegium: The big change (Book of Uther) here is that in Logres, the legates are no longer the regional leading nobles, but the leading bishops and abbots. Salisbury and Summerland/Somerset are the exceptions again, but otherwise, it is the Bishop of Dorchester who is the legate, not the Baron of Dorset. So none of the guys in your list would be Supreme Collegium legates, save for King Cadwy. Then to the individuals. Like said, almost all of the Barons die during the Infamous Feast, so you are left with their heirs or people usurping them. For most of these people, they are not named, so you can be free to come up with their names and personalities. In addition, since there are no county lords anymore, you can make it as splintered as you like, with each castle having its own petty warlord ruling it, if you wish. That being said... Hampshire: If the sheriff of Hantonne survived, then the likeliest guy holding Hantonne (a county castle) is him, Sir Cynbel. Dorset: Praetor Jonathel works. Jagent: Tegfan works. Marlboro: Renamed Gentian. The likeliest guy here is young Charles (the heir of Marlborough castle) and his mother, Joene, who is a regent to her son. (Unfortunately doubling the dynamic of Salisbury.) Somerset: King Cadwy is alive and well, and in BoU, it is heavily implied that he is a powerful magician with faerie allies. No where near the walkover that he is in GPC, although how you play the Cornish invasion is up to you. Silchester: Duke Ulfius of Silchester is still alive and kicking, yes. Lindsey: Duke Corneus is the Duke of Lindsey (Duke Lindsey for short, same as Count Roderick of Salisbury is called Count Salisbury for short) at least from 480 until he dies in 509, I believe. He is replaced by Duke Derfel, but for the life of me I can't remember if Derfel was Corneus' son or nephew...

Which is why it is 3d6+6 in revised BotEntourage. 3d6+6 is equivalent to 5d6-1, on average.

I hope that the players enjoyed the curious giants!

This change was already in KAP 4: "If the target has a shield, he does not get a roll, but the shield acts as ’cover,’ providing a -5 modifier to the attacker’s skill." Did BoK&L come out before GPC? I admit that I have forgotten what the actual publication dates were.

The discussion on the other thread reminded me of something I really dislike: circumstances & situations lifted from real medieval history and transported to GPC, simply because it happened in history. Examples of this: Genoese (and Milanese) crossbowmen, and, especially, the Lass of France (clear expy of Joan of Arc). I am pretty sure that there were some references to Brabant mercenaries and the best plate armor coming from Germany and Milan (as was the case in Late Middle Ages), but it is possible that I am simply remembering an example I made to Greg whilst arguing about these things. Oh, and don't get me started on the Medieval Machinegun that is Long Bow in GPC: 4d6+10 damage, which is equivalent to being hit by a lance charge with an Andalusian war horse. I think not! I am much happier with the revised Longbow in Book of the Entourage with its 3d6+6 damage. Which also makes the arquebus more of an improvement in Twilight, damage-wise.

GPC is pretty clear that he lands near Hantonne and takes it after a brief battle: "Messengers from Hampshire, panicked and worried, ask for help to resist a new fleet that has landed in the south." & "...there was already a battle and that the knights of Hampshire were destroyed. The enemy king, Cerdic, has taken the city of Hantonne." While it is possible that he could have landed somewhere else on the southern coast of Hantonne, like near Portsmouth, given that his initial conquest is at Hantonne, it makes more sense to me that he lands near Hantonne. See also below. In our campaign, he actually took Hantonne by a ruse, by sending some of his Gewessi knights ahead to gain entry to the city, and then attacking the gates from within, allowing his Saxons to pour into the city. Yeah, but we have what we have. KAP leans heavily on HRB & Anglo-Saxon Chronicles when it comes to the Saxons, and taking the establishing myths of the Saxon Kingdoms more or less at face value. "A.D. 495. This year came two leaders into Britain, Cerdic and Cynric his son, with five ships, at a place that is called Cerdic's-ore. And they fought with the Welsh the same day." As for where Cerdic's-ore or Cerdices-ore/ora was, opinions vary, but there is this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=oRA2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=Cerdices+ore&source=bl&ots=_vKJ8oc-P_&sig=ACfU3U22QjQv9bKyenCQM3XqdYgvRJYTYw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjuyr2iqIDnAhXIK80KHfISDk4Q6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Cerdices ore&f=false which puts it between Southampton Water and Beaulieu river, just southwest of Southampton/Hantonne, perhaps even at Calshot Castle.

One can hope. The best I can point to at the moment is Book of the Warlord, p. 33, which is a map dated 505 (tenth year of the Anarchy). It doesn't distinguish Port as his own, but then again, he and Cerdic are allied by 507, so no biggie. And you can just cut a chunk of the eastern bit of West Seaxe (Wessex) off for Port. Even then, the actual western border of Wessex at this time would surely depend on the PKs, too. And no map is perfect. Both Summerland and Jagent ought to be under Cornish control if we go by GPC. That being said, Greg changed Summerland a LOT from Somerset. Somerset gets invaded by Cornwall twice in GPC, but when Uther does it in BoU, he ends up calling it a victory even though it was much more of a draw, hastening out of there. Naturally, this map is focused on Logres, so it is missing Deira and Nohaut. However, those two are portrayed in Book of Sires, p. 116. There is also Saxons! p. 36 map, which, while rather lacking in details (and covering way too large a timespan; for example Deira and Nohaut are shown at their maximum extent when Colgrim was holding Eburacum for a winter), still manages to give an idea where all the kingdoms are.

Wikipedia actually has a note on the man-day estimates for Mottes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle#Construction_and_maintenance "The largest mottes in England, such as Thetford, are estimated to have required up to 24,000 man-days of work; smaller ones required perhaps as little as 1,000.[28]" So assuming a 1-manor one is closer to the small ones, and you'd have 50 laborers (the able-bodied men who are not busy with a craft or sick or malingering) from the village, it would be just 20 days to construct. Add Sundays and such and you could do it in a month, if the men are not otherwise occupied. So doing it over the year (obviously not in the middle of winter or during the harvest or other such intense periods) ought to be well within the possibility. YPWV, though.