Tizun Thane

I like your 495 session, especially the bit about the suspects. Your Players are bold to even try a passion roll, after so many fumbles ^^ I didn't notice sir Petra before. I suppose she is a "she". You are sweet with your players. I would have kill one player in the infamous feast. You know, make it personal. Otherwise, it's good. How many have lady Esmee in battle?

494. I like the year. I would not have the adventure of the Gryffon played during Uther's reign, but why not after all ^^ It makes the poisoning of king Canan more impredictable. Not Fleur! ^^ Luc is very unlucky by the way. It was unexpected... Love the randomness of KAP, and the knight of the Gryffon will be a good nemesis I never noticed before Esmee was unfaithful to her husband. Did I miss something?

Yes, and the more I am thinking about it, the more I think that the name Edaris is derived from Edar ( the PK, in an inside joke) So, in some way, we are both right ^^ That's the spirit The only certainty is that there is no more duke of the west march (or whatever his title was) during the reign of Arthur. The only dukes came from an older time (Lindsey, Silchester), and in the case of Silchester, the title was not given to his son.

491 I loved the waelwolf. Very creepy. 492. The quest of four holy waters. Love it! Except, your PKs failed miserably, didn't they ? Otherwise, I am less fond of the GPC parts. You follow the script, but do you have fun?

What Morien suggested is a good idea, but Edar, baron of Lambor is an easter egg from the Lindsey's GPC campaign of Greg Stafford. http://satnightpendragon.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-06-07T08:20:00-07:00&max-results=7&start=7&by-date=false Edar managed to become count of Leicester during the Anarchy. He is not related to Edaris at all (despite the names!). We can suppose that Edaris died with his descendance. So basically, you can do whatever you want with Edaris and his children. Whatever is the best for your campaign.

Your houserules are very different from RAW. IMO, it's important as a GM to know what is each virtue. You can be a merry fellow, and still being chaste, and modest, and even pious. The personality traits are essentials to the rules (for exemple, for the bonus of chivalry).

Yeah, and a guy with partial plate armor, armor of courtesy and his shield have 14+3+6=23 points of protection to protect himself. The partial armor is so effective, that I don't want to implement plate armor in my game. I know many people play during Uther's reign today, but the norman chainmail is supposed to be a little weak.

Yes, this choice of Greg Stafford came from Malory, but to be clear, I don't like it either. Traditionnaly, the kingdoms of Ganis and Benoic are smaller, like the old Poitou (or Anjou?) cut in two parts. So, their rival, the kingdom of Claudas can be smaller too. And Clandas can become a vassal of the "king of Gaul" (his capitole is supposed to be Bourges in the Berry region), himself. In my campaign, I kept the Occitan Part, and I realized latter it was a mistake.

I was surprised no one spoke of it before. Clearly, this "feministic" ( (this word is anachronistic for a medieval story) arthurian tale is not well known, even among the more feminist parts of the fandom. It was always my take as a GM. I allow female knights as "special" in a world of men, and of course, as PK as well. It's just not a given.

Just for the record. I am against it. When you double the damages, big monsters and the like (a berserker by example) are really scary. They can kill you in one shot. Players know that and act accordingly. With the +4d6 rule, if you have a good armour, especially in the latter phases, you feel secured. It's really hard to hurt you. The "double damage" rule mitigate this feeling.

I don't know how to handle Ireland myself. Except Tara (530), my players never go adventuring there. I am not a fan of the colonization of the island as portrayed in the GPC. I am not a fan of France either. The GPC tried to mix the arhurian legend (with Claudas), the historical merovingian kingdoms, and the hundred years' war. It's a mess, and not a good one. I especially dislike the fusion of Claudas and the historical Clovis. In each case (Ireland and France), the british knights look like dirty imperialists full of themselves, raiding and conquering. They look like the villa

You're not a fan of the kingdom of Elmete/Roestoc? Kingdom of Powys/Sugales?

It would be awesome^^

By the way, will we have more material to play a lady in KAP in this new edition? To have more options beside killing things ? Because I always felt that playing a female knight was a lazy way to resolve the inherent sexism of the setting. Honest question. I don't want to ignite a new war.

To be honest, it was my first choice as well. But, it is already a virtue for the animist religion, so I didn't want any duplicate. Thank you. I am more and more inclined to change the (home)rules^^