Tizun Thane

The worst part is: they were right ^^ It's not contradictory... Imagine this french holier-than-thou, winning all the tournaments, and the smiles of the ladies. Then, you realize he is cuckolding the king, your respected uncle. And that is the man who is always talking about honor... What a hypocrite!

In my canon, Aggravain spoke, but it was with Mordred's words. I always thought that Aggravain was genuinely concerned about the shame for his king and uncle, whereas Mordred was scheming for the fall of the kingdom. He was manipulated by his little brother. Poor guy ^^ Otherwise, I think if you move the Roman war toward the end (as an act of hubris), you have to: cancel/minor Lancelot (and all of his kin). It's a massive change for the GPC. Ask yourself the question: What of the Grail Quest? decide if Guenever is scheming with Mordred, or is a victim. The sources are unclear. replace the war with Rome in 526/527 with the war in Norway (for Lot's rights according to the sources). shorten the reign of Arthur. The war with Rome could occur in 540, 550 maybe.

In Historia Regum Britanniae, the war with Rome is the greatest success of Arthur, and his biggest failure as well. Mordred (and Guinever) betrayed him, and usurped the throne. There is no Lancelot in this tale, and Mordred is just the nephew (no hint of incest here). It's a good twist for sure ^^. I am not sure however it's the best story to tell. There is something really powerful about the incest, the adultery, the best knight in the world loving his queen, betraying his vows... In HRB, Arthur was victorious against the Romans. The fall came from the betrayal of Mordred and Guenever, not from Arthur's hubris. In the GPC as written, many allies of Mordred are precisely the victims of the imperial arrogance of the Britons seeking revenge.

I loved the tale of sir Bartrem. It always better when the public and the artist can interract ^^

I like how you linked Uther's shame with his illness. It's a good idea, even if I prefer the idea of a curse myself. And yet, it was strangely one of your best years, IMO ^^. Sometimes, you have to let your campaign breathes, so to speak. Llew? Probably more Ogma/Ogmios, I would say. But the celtic pantheon is such a mess for me anyway

The death of lady Esmee was a beautiful and sad tale. Was she the last of the original knights? I love how things look so grim. Their beautiful alliance for nothing against the might of the Saxons... His official name is duke Corneus. Why the change? In my campaign, Derfel is his grandson (the duke in 531) and Bedivere and Lucan the Butler (Two famous RTK and close companions of Arthur) are youngest sons of Corneus, based of the canon. I was a bit surprised by his bluntness. I was under the impression was the alliance with Wessex was more solid. By the way, king Cerdic could suggest that Robert becomes his ward, to learn both kymric and saxon ways ^^

Congrats! It's a dark but satisfying ending to his tale ^^ I love how you handled the trial. In the GPC, I dislike this railroading-fest, and I am impressed how you manage to create a beautiful tale.

a fitting ending to the life of sir Luc. Well done! Did your players roleplay that part?

I like this year ^^. The wedding especially. Did you combine the little adventures found in Tales of Magic and Miracles (or something like that) ? Anyway, well done. Why did the Picts attack? And what is the deal with sir Luc? How did he manage to be cured? Happy Christmas !

I agree with you (especially the symbolic part, well done!). There is room for this kind of stuff (and I loved some previous creepy adventures before). It's just...this last adventure was too much to my taste, altering the tone if you want. It's a matter of personal taste. In the campaign of Bio Keith, I like Syagrius as the Big Bad. But I always think you have to be especially careful with the dark powers in KAP, in order to be faithful to the genre.

What??? ^^ Considering the events of your campaign, a wedding with the prince Cynric seems the best option ^^ I was very surprised with this change of heart of Hightower. I am unconvinced ^^ Otherwise, I didn't like the adventure with the abbey. It looks out of place with KAP to my taste. I think the Anarchy is the best when you fight against the Saxons. They are the real threat. IMHO, with all your adventures with dark powers, the Saxons are forgotten, I'm afraid.

I loved the appearance of "the Arbiter", and I liked how Syagrius became your main bag guy. The alliance with Wessex is especially interesting. Maybe a wedding between the prince Cynric and the lady Jenna is in the air? ^^

What? You can not end the post like that. You can not!!!

Read your 496 year. Who is Hightower? Otherwise, it was not bad for a first year. I would have put more internal troubles to handle, with many ambitious knights from Salisbury trying to push their claims.

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 villains of the story. I would much prefer the arthurian version. You have a king of Gaul, Pharamon, vassal to the Emperor of Rome. You have king Claudas of the waste land, a regional king, and his sworn ennemies of Benoit and Ganes.