Ringan

Let's say some PK(s) have put Agravaine or Mordred in their crosshairs. Avoiding skullduggery, they want to honorably duel them to the death. Unlike other RPGs with super-strong "bosses", the PK(s) might be strong enough that they have decent chances. These villainous deaths could seriously mess with the story. What kind of options might a GM take? Starting off with a few of my thoughts: Roll with it: simply plan to adapt the plot without these villains--almost no one but Arthur is essential Forbid Round Table Knight infighting: If the PKs are also RTKs, then their vows forbid them from fighting the villainous RTKs. However, maybe there options like being too rough at a tournament...? Direct Pleas or Edicts from Arthur: Maybe Arthur intervenes directly to demand the conflict is ended? Villain is unavailable: PK is just never able to get access to the villain to make the challenge. We could try to leverage a Kafkaesque bureaucracy of status and etiquette in support of this. However, what if the PK publicly calls out the villain? Post-combat Villainous Escape: PK defeats the villain but is unable to kill him. See relevant TV tropes. Magic?: In the case of the Orkneys, maybe it's some kind of magic from Morgause/Morgan le Fay that helps them dodge the bullet. For other villains, we could contrive analogous allied sorcerers. Really curious to hear how other GMs have approached this.

In David Larkins' Matter of Britain campaign (Esoteric Order RP podcast), Sir Blaines of Silchester raids the Salisbury PK manors during the Uther period, and the players counter-raid his Silchester manor. Greg et al. talk about some of the details of raiding here, and Greg speaks of raiding Britons and raiding in the Uther period as expected things. On raiding during the Anarchy, Greg says: There is some good discussion of raiding (including during Uther period), by Greg, @Morien et al. here. Morien says:

Related discussion from the old forums here.

Thanks for the substantive insights, @creativehumand @Morien!

When does a knight face an honor penalty for running away from a fight? I see the explicit penalty of -1 for "Desertion from battle or military service". But is any running away considered desertion, or only something as egregious as never showing up in the first place? Here are a few possible places one might draw the line; would there be an honor penalty for these situations? Or would the penalty simply be the failure to attain glory? Without even engaging in combat, running away from: A dragon or other monster requiring a Valorous check A horde of enemy knights vastly outnumbering your group A single enemy knight An engagement, after hearing family/lord/etc. in danger Sometime in combat, running away after receiving: A major wound A moderate wound Any wound at all Realizing that you could take a moderate wound in the next round Curious to see how you reconcile these situations with tracked PKs' honor.

You might find this thread from the old boards interesting: Nerfing SIZ

Great point, especially in Arthuriana. There's the prominent example of the knights who swear to immediately do a favor, without even asking what the favor might be.

What kind of meaning do you assign a success on a suspicious roll? Does it simply mean that the character is suspicious? Or does it grant the character actual insight into the reality of a situation/conversation (like the "sense motive" skill from D&D). To what extent does a suspicious success result in, say, a false positive vs. a true positive? Thinking about the inverse, can a character with high trusting recognize someone is probably lying, but incline to trust them anyway?

Might Cornwell's Winter King series be a good inspiration if we went in this general direction, especially as they have a more historical flavor?

Thanks very much for the clarifications, gents! The first person was what tripped me up--I read this as Greg's personal voice, not a knight's voice, and was wondering about his conviction 😄 Excited to see more about public & private honor...

Greg wrote a note: “Gwen is honorable & I’ll kill anyone who disagrees.” I am open to this interpretation, but the case is not immediately clear to me. Can someone argue this based on the game rules? I am looking at 5.2 since the "Great Hunt" preview doesn't substantively speak to honor. In 5.2, the dishonorable acts list includes "Breaking an oath" (-3, marriage?) and "treachery against a member of your family" (-5, infidelity?) Even if her infidelity is of lesser magnitude than what these acts refer to, it seems relevant. Are there some affirmative actions she takes that nullify this?

Right, Page 204 in the paperback for anyone who wants to look it up later.

Without surnames, how do you denote a family in your campaign? Using the "Titles" section of KAP 5.2 as a reference, If we use "of <place of origin>": Is this the character's homeland? How geographically-specific do we get? How does this reconcile with what the character might rule? Especially if the character eventually gains a title like Count of Rydychan? Confounding example: the de Gales family are well-known, but what if a new, semi-prominent family arises in Gales? If we use a patriarch's name, what about related family that do not have the patriarch as their father? Do we use something like cadet branches? Epithets (e.g. "the bold") are nicely unique, but they only describe an individual

This was a good reminder to me that I am viewing the story through a 21st century American lens, thanks. And great clarification on the meaning of "worshipful". Yes, the Grail's implicit acceptance of Garlon's presence was really bugging me! Thank you for this alternate interpretation of the stroke. @Voord 99 I also appreciate your integration of player character adventures into what might otherwise be solely background machinations.