Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stryker99

Angles/Jutes vs Saxons (minor spoiler alert for The Specter King)

Recommended Posts

Thanks to a lot of great replies asking about adventure support in another thread I am planning on running the Adventure of the Horned Boar from The Specter King, moving it to around 490 when the PKs are gallivanting across the north as emissaries of Uther.

In this adventure the antagonists are Angles. Thus far the GPC has portrayed the Saxons as bogey men, anytime they show up there is blood. The core book indicates "Saxons" are to include the Angles and the Jutes. However, the Angles in this adventure are treated more in the "grey" zone as outsiders that you may dislike but sort of belong because it assumes Arthur has subdued the area.

So I am having trouble figuring out how to portray the antagonists in this story at this time frame. One PK has a Hate (Saxons) at 20 (his new wife was captured at a certain ambush a few years back and raped, so he has been ramping up his Hate passion based on this incident). I am worried if the PKs go all "Saxons!!!!  Chaaaarrrrgggee!" this adventure will loose a lot of nuance and possibly result in the PKs quickly getting in over their heads (liberal use of Prudent calls from the GM will likely be the best way to save them).

Any suggestions on how to treat Angles vs Jutes vs Saxons in general, especially in light of Hate (Saxons) passion, and/or ideas on Angles as antagonists in the Malahaut region around 490 in GPC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Welsh (Cymric) word for all Anglo-Saxons (and Jutes) is Saesneg, which should explain things a bit.

A wouldn't run an adventure requiring nuance with them without more gently suggesting some alternate approaches than killing everyone via some sort of smaller encounters. In my experience, Hate (Saxon) is best countered by opposing it with some of the virtues such as Merciful, Trusting, or Forgiving, which may outstrip that passion for some characters. But with a Hate (Saxons) that high you might have PCs coming to blows over the situation.

Consider having a sympathetic, not-dangerous Saxon appear in the story beforehand, such as a woman, child, or Christian convert. Their influence could lead to a decrease in the passion, which will rapidly become counterproductive once Arthur starts making peace with them. There are 'Danes' (i.e., Jutes) among Arthur's followers in some stories: Meliant of Denmark appears as a Grail knight; Ariohan the Dane is a chivalrous hero; and Escil of Denmark submits to Arthur and fights against Mordred in Geoffrey of Monmouth. (Indeed, with the Jutes being in proximity to Camelot at the Isle of Wight they make a good choice for 'less-fearsome Saxons'). There's also the heroic Amleth (Hamlet) who visits Britain in Saxo Grammaticus (and in Shakespeare) in this very period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the general view of most Brits is that Alges, Jutes, and even Danes are all just variations of "Saxons". At least unitl they get a reason to believe otherwise, as with the Berroc Saxons.

Like jerrjerwin suggested, if you want the players to have any sort of reaction other than "Saxons!!!!  Chaaaarrrrgggee!" then you need to establish somehow that these people a aren't typical Saxons, and again, as he also pointed out, that's hard when someone has a high Hate passion.  

What you need to do to do is somehow introduce some "good" Saxons/Angles that show qualities that the PKs can admire and win their respect. You have to give the players a reason to want to like these Saxons and not just lump them in with all the other, "bad" Saxons. But 490 is a bad year for this since in 490 about the only Saxons that people like are the Berroc Saxons, and St. Albans and the Anarchy Peroid won't help. Your best best is to have the Angles do something noble and honorable that wins the PKs respect.

In my own campaign I had a "Saxons" show up and help out a knight who had saved his father's life. As a result the PKs felt that this Saxon was an honorable standup guy whom they could trust and it eventually lead to a friendship forming. But you  need to give the PKS a reason to like the Angles, at least enough for the PKs to not consider them as Saxons. I'd suggest throwing in a couple of encounters, to reinforce that new image, and do it before you run the adventure. In essence you are humanizing the Angles so that the players will view them as people and not cardboard bad guys to cut down.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roleplaying is about choices. In my opinion, the adventure is  better with hate (saxons), especially when conflicted with hospitality. A hate (saxons) 20 is a death wish anyway.

But, if you want to be gentle with your players, turn the invaders into Danes, so hate (saxons) don't apply. Or, rule that hate (saxons) don't apply to Angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you correctly point out, the Horned Boar is set in the post-Roman War era, when the Saxons (incl. Angles and Jutes) have been subjugated for half a generation if not longer. As such, they are not by default enemies, but just belligerent neighbors to others in the area. Besides, most of the high Hate Saxons crowd has probably died at Badon or retired in the intervening years. The situation is somewhat different in the 490s, especially given that the Nohaut Saxons, who these guys are*, have just invaded Logres. I assume you intend to run it with the Mission to Malahaut, since you mentioned the PKs as emissaries? That works pretty well, since there is a bit of a lull in the fighting (as far as Logres is concerned). That works better than 490, at least.

To bring this back to the actual PKs, high Passions come with a cost. This is the main thing that balances the huge benefits that a high Passion gives in combat via Impassioned bonus: you are ruled by your emotions even when the smarter course would be not to fight. I would not recommend weaselling out of the downsides of high Hate. It cheapens the impact of the Passion, and allows the PK to have his cake and eat it, too. Consequences. Always consequences.

However, since apparently only ONE of the PKs has such a high Passion, he need not derail the whole adventure. I mean, if I am planning a diplomatic mission to an enemy stronghold, I am not bringing the guy who starts frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of the enemy. No, I am sitting his ass down at home (i.e. the closest friendly place) and telling him to cool his heels for the duration. The other PKs can easily do this. Sure, it means that the player of the high Hate Saxons PK will miss out on some of the fun, but hey, he should know there are consequences. He will get his spotlight in any combat against the Saxons, as well as the rest of the adventure that doesn't include talking to the Saxons. And the other PKs can try to constrain his Hate, although with Hate 20, it will be a tall order... Did I already mention consequences? :P

 

* Historically, both Bernicia (Nohaut) and Deira were Anglish. However, in GPC, Angles don't show up until later, and Nohaut and Deira are both referred to as Saxon, which is an umbrella term for all of them, even if Kentish was historically more Jutish (again, this distinction is not made in GPC nor in Book of Sires). Martin Bourne (the author of the adventure) has clearly followed a more historical take as he refers to Nohaut as 'tribe of Angles', but I would simply make them Saxons as per GPC and Book of Sires.

 

 

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you *do* need to humanize the Angles, keep in mind that Duke Lindsey keeps a tribe of "pet Angles" to the east and uses them in his military. They are essentially a variation of the Berroc Saxons.

Note as well that the Angles didn't join Hengest's little march north in 469. That helps distinguish them from the Saxons (and Jutes) who make up most of Octa and Eossa's horde. 

But as Morien points out, you don't send someone with a famous Hate to negotiate with his enemies without trying to manage that first. If the PK's lord wants the mission to succeed (and there could always be the twist that he doesn't), then either removing the PK to other duties or working to disarm his ceaseless rage are reasonable steps.

 

--Khanwulf 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

But as Morien points out, you don't send someone with a famous Hate to negotiate with his enemies without trying to manage that first.

Unless you don't want the  negotiations to be successful. If the lord just wanted to provoke a war and was looking for an excuse, a PK with a high hate would be ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

If you *do* need to humanize the Angles, keep in mind that Duke Lindsey keeps a tribe of "pet Angles" to the east and uses them in his military. They are essentially a variation of the Berroc Saxons.

Same thing as with Nohaut and Deira, they are historically Anglish, but labelled as Saxon in KAP. The only people explicitly Anglish in GPC are the invaders who form Anglia later.

Also, just because they sit Hengist's march out, doesn't label them as good guys necessarily. After all, Octa and Eosa stay put in Eburacum, too. Sorestan Saxons' relationship with Lindsey has soured by 490 and they fight against Arthur later on.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of the campaigns I played in, the Angles were allied with the Iceni and fought as allies up to 500 or so.  When the British got their rear end handed to them after 500, the Angles saw their chance and took over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Morien said:

Consequences. Always consequences.

Want to talk consequences? The player of the 20 Hate (Saxons) passion is my wife!  Yikes!

Great stuff here as usual here! One thing I am trying to wrap my head around is Malahaut itself. I may be a little crippled because I skimped on Book of Uther/Warlord, but there is not a lot of clear information on Malahaut considering how much activity of the GPC takes place there. I take it that Malahaut is basically a Cymric kingdom, but considering it's size and location I am guessing that it is quite diverse in the cultures of the Centurion King's subjects? Would there be Angles/Saxons/Brigantes as subjects of Malahaut? Would it be possible to replace the Angles in question with Brigantes (which would not trigger Hate Saxons right)? Or I could just make them some unsavory Cymric subjects of the Centurion King? There is precedent for some tension between Malahaut's subjects and the knights from Logres that I set up a few years back. Some better understanding of Malahaut could help in preparing for our upcoming sessions in general, and lead me to a way to solve my concerns with this adventure. I really want to make this adventure work in our current situation as it will be a nice change of pace from the brutal series of conflicts that dominates the Uther period and the story is really cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uther and Warlord have almost nothing in Malahaut. Book of Sires has more. Perilous Forest has some, too.

If you have GPC, you can read pages 124-128, which gives a lot of geographical information, even though it is a bit later in the campaign. Close enough.

6 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

Want to talk consequences? The player of the 20 Hate (Saxons) passion is my wife!  Yikes!

So? :PMy wife is now on her 6th character, I think, all from different families due to them dying like flies during Anarchy. We started in 485 and are now in 525. So average lifespan about 7 years. And I just killed her expensive large charger in a battle. :P (Well, not me personally, obviously, but for some reason, I seem to get the blame when NPCs do something dastardly like use missile weapons...)

Anyway, while you could turn the Angles in the adventure into Cymric settlers from elsewhere, it cheapens the story. High Passions, especially Hate Passions, are supposed to have downsides. If you always avoid putting the PKs into situations where those downsides become evident, it is the same as having no downsides at all. And that is boring. Let her play her high Hate Passion and chew some scenery and take what lumps there may be. I skimmed the adventure just now, and I think it will actually work even better when the other PKs need to restrain (or not) their comrade before he goes on a murderous rampage through the filthy Saxons. If the enemies are just other Cymri, then it is more 'meh', lacking that same emotional impact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Morien said:

Anyway, while you could turn the Angles in the adventure into Cymric settlers from elsewhere, it cheapens the story. High Passions, especially Hate Passions, are supposed to have downsides.

Yup. Players should be aware that passions are double edged swords. They can inspire you to greatness but they can also force you into actions that you'd rather not do. Good passions are just a troublesome as Hates, too. Several of the PKS in my current campaign have formed their own knightly order and has a Loyalty passion to it, and  that passion has often caused them trouble by forcing them to do things they didn't want to, such as sticking around in a bad fight to try and rescue another member of the order when they would have preferred to withdraw, or saving a downed member of the order in battle instead of the Count!

22 minutes ago, Morien said:

If you always avoid putting the PKs into situations where those downsides become evident, it is the same as having no downsides at all. And that is boring.

I'll also point out that a GM who always puts the PKs into situations where those downsides becomes evident is just as bad. If someone has Hate (Frisian Tailors) and every Tailor he runs into happens to be a Frisian, that's not right either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all that, it's just that I was looking for a change of pace from "kill Saxons" which dominates this period. I saw this adventure as something that would require some more subtlety, I hate to see it devolve to just more of the same because of some dice rolls. Everybody has SOME Hate (Saxons), if they all roll a success they could be facing a party wipe, and seeing that happen because of some passion die rolls makes for a bad game.

I hear what you all are saying about passions having a downside. But even a successful passion roll doesn't make a knight a maniacal killer. I won't force a combat just because of a passion roll, but a passion plus reckless? Heck yeah. I am a very experienced GM, I think I can manage the situation such that I can demonstrate the downside to high passions while still avoiding a party wipe by unbalanced combats forced on a die roll. Actually, it's a situation that will challenge my GM skills, require me to do some quick thinking and react based on where the story takes us. Thanks for the discussion.

However, my questions on Malahaut still stand: Are the Centurion King's subjects a culturally diverse lot? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

However, my questions on Malahaut still stand: Are the Centurion King's subjects a culturally diverse lot? 

Yes. Angles/Saxons, Cymry, 'Romans' and possibly even a few Picts and Jewish people... (if we mix up the historical Welsh kingdom of Ebrauc with medieval Yorkshire).

 

Edit: it's thought that the Deiran Angles may have been foederati, and thus fairly integrated into 'Malehaut's' culture, making for an easy takeover after King Peredur fell in battle in the late 6th century - sort of like how the Angles and Iceni are described in Hzark10's post.

Edited by jeffjerwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stryker99 said:

I understand all that, it's just that I was looking for a change of pace from "kill Saxons" which dominates this period.

Well, that's fine, but that sort of adventure is going to be difficult to pull off in this period, at least as long as "Saxons" are than antagonists. Basically the PKS have no reason not to just :"kill Saxons" as that fits the established narrative, and thier passions feed into that.

3 hours ago, stryker99 said:

I saw this adventure as something that would require some more subtlety, I hate to see it devolve to just more of the same because of some dice rolls. Everybody has SOME Hate (Saxons), if they all roll a success they could be facing a party wipe, and seeing that happen because of some passion die rolls makes for a bad game.

Then maybe you are running the wrong game. Part of what makes Pendragon Pendragon is that character actions are at times driven by their passions. If Hate (Saxons) 20 isn't enough then what is? And conversely why is Hate (Saxons) then enough for inspiration? I really think you have to accept the bad with the good here. 

 

3 hours ago, stryker99 said:

I hear what you all are saying about passions having a downside. But even a successful passion roll doesn't make a knight a maniacal killer. I won't force a combat just because of a passion roll

I would. At least I would depending on the events taking place. Otherwise, what are passions for? Now that doesn't mean that PKs might not have reasons to act differently and have abilities they can use to counter their Hatreds, but you have to accept that a Hate can force things to take a dark turn. Honestly, considering the year, and that virtually everybody has a Hate (Saxons) passion I think this  adventure is highly likely to turn sour-and it should be.

So good luck, but don't be surprised if things get ugly. What you got is a situation with a lot of underlying tension that could easily get very very bad if something starts to go wrong. The Hates probably won't start the trouble, but they will probably escalate any trouble that occurs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I'll also point out that a GM who always puts the PKs into situations where those downsides becomes evident is just as bad. If someone has Hate (Frisian Tailors) and every Tailor he runs into happens to be a Frisian, that's not right either. 

Oh, I agree with that too. The point is that for most of the time in Uther Period, there are really very few downsides for having high Hate Saxons, and it helps you a lot in the battles. (BoB2 does make it bite you a bit by forcing you to use it right away, rather than saving it for later.)

So taking the one adventure where it actually might be useful to be able to negotiate with Saxons and deliberately taking the Saxons out to avoid the downside seems... inadvisable to me.

12 hours ago, stryker99 said:

Everybody has SOME Hate (Saxons), if they all roll a success they could be facing a party wipe,

Remember that you don't HAVE to roll a passion if it is less than 16. That is part of the 'deal'. If you have a high Passion, you get Glory for it, you are very likely to get Inspired, but on the downside, it controls your actions.

There is just one situation in the adventure where the characters would be faced with a potential party wipe due to pushing the conflict too far. And if you have taken a high Hate PK into that situation, well, you kinda deserve what you get. While I wouldn't make the PK to start shanking Saxons right off in a social setting unless it was a critical Hate, I would expect that the high Hate PK would be expressing his hatred in some concrete way. Spitting on the Saxons, challenging them to a duel, insulting them in some other way, etc. So they would not make the best diplomats. The PKs ought to know this. Then again, a Hate 20 PK should not be favoring negotiations with the Saxons in the first place, so it is possible that if the party consists of several high Hate PKs, they opt to not negotiate and that is how the adventure goes. The adventure will still work just fine.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Then maybe you are running the wrong game. Part of what makes Pendragon Pendragon is that character actions are at times driven by their passions. If Hate (Saxons) 20 isn't enough then what is? And conversely why is Hate (Saxons) then enough for inspiration? I really think you have to accept the bad with the good here. 

Wow, this one went totally off the rails. How do we go from "I want to run an adventure that isn't just all combat to give my players some variety, I really like the themes of this adventure, any suggestions how to adapt it to 490" to "You shouldn't be playing this game"?

I am going to run it as-is, the high Hate PK will cause a lot of trouble, the < 16 hate PKs (thanks Morien for reminding me that < 16 means it isn't forced) will have a challenge dealing with the situation.

I am not going to require a Hate roll to force the PK to try and murder every Saxon he comes across, that's childish. As long as there is some serious downsides to the Hate demonstrated in game, I am satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morien said:

So taking the one adventure where it actually might be useful to be able to negotiate with Saxons and deliberately taking the Saxons out to avoid the downside seems... inadvisable to me.

Yeah. This just looks like the wrong group of knights at the wrong time. It's like sending some sort of bigot to a negtionations with the people he is bigtoed against. In fact that is exactly what it is.It's possible for the PKsto succeed, especially if they have some other reason/passion to help ofset the hate, but overall this looks like a challenging adventure where they will probably fail.

2 hours ago, Morien said:

Remember that you don't HAVE to roll a passion if it is less than 16. That is part of the 'deal'. If you have a high Passion, you get Glory for it, you are very likely to get Inspired, but on the downside, it controls your actions.

Yes and no. While Greg certainly wrote that into the rule book, actual examples and gameplay from the various adventures don't work that way. Usually if Greg wrote in a passion roll it was a roll regardless of the value. So that part of it is up to the GM here. And that's fine. Still, to run this adventure without someone Hate (Saxons) every coming up would be odd, and he does have at hleast one PK with a hate over 15.

 

2 hours ago, Morien said:

There is just one situation in the adventure where the characters would be faced with a potential party wipe due to pushing the conflict too far. And if you have taken a high Hate PK into that situation, well, you kinda deserve what you get.

That would be true if it were the player's choice, but it's not. The PK gets the hate in chargen, and the GM, as their liege lord, assigns the mission to them. 

2 hours ago, Morien said:

While I wouldn't make the PK to start shanking Saxons right off in a social setting unless it was a critical Hate, I would expect that the high Hate PK would be expressing his hatred in some concrete way. Spitting on the Saxons, challenging them to a duel, insulting them in some other way, etc. So they would not make the best diplomats.

Exactly. While how he exprresses it could vary, - this could be that guy who doesn't say much but just gives the Saxons the cold stare throughout the meeting, the general point is that they would not be the best diplomats for this, and that whoever sent them would know that.

2 hours ago, Morien said:

The PKs ought to know this. Then again, a Hate 20 PK should not be favoring negotiations with the Saxons in the first place, so it is possible that if the party consists of several high Hate PKs, they opt to not negotiate and that is how the adventure goes. The adventure will still work just fine.

Yes they should, but just who goes and who doesn't is something that is  beyond their control. The whole thing smacks of a liege lord trying to provoke an incident that he can use to justify going to war. Why else would he send someone with Hate (Saxons) 20 on this mission? The Liege lord obviously knows that this guy really hates Saxons, so why send him, of all people, on the mission? Ultimately the PKS are being set up to fail here, and it's not their fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

Wow, this one went totally off the rails. How do we go from "I want to run an adventure that isn't just all combat to give my players some variety, I really like the themes of this adventure, any suggestions how to adapt it to 490" to "You shouldn't be playing this game"?

No, I think Atgxtg was responding to illustrate that a high Passion might force the character to act in a self-destructive way. It is pretty central to the theme that knights act stupid at times, because of their Honor, their Loyalty, their Love Family, their Hate... That is one of the central core tenets of Pendragon.

31 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

I am not going to require a Hate roll to force the PK to try and murder every Saxon he comes across, that's childish. As long as there is some serious downsides to the Hate demonstrated in game, I am satisfied.

I think I would make the Players roll any Hate Saxons 16+, when they witness the kidnapping, though. Frankly, especially the Hate 20 PK ought to get triggered given what happened to his wife, and with the Hate so strong, leaping to conclusions and going for the violent response is what it is all about. 

It would be different if they would be just riding across the fields tended by Saxon farmers who are not offering a threat or have not done anything wrong other than be Saxons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

Wow, this one went totally off the rails. How do we go from "I want to run an adventure that isn't just all combat to give my players some variety, I really like the themes of this adventure, any suggestions how to adapt it to 490" to "You shouldn't be playing this game"?

It didn't. It came from " I won't force a combat just because of a passion roll"

That's sort of comes with the territory with Pendragon, especially with high Passions. THat is part of the point of high passions. If a GM isn't willing to run the bad side of passions and allow something bad to happen because of a passion roll, then they are short circuiting the way the game is meant to be played.

 

12 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

I am going to run it as-is, the high Hate PK will cause a lot of trouble, the < 16 hate PKs (thanks Morien for reminding me that < 16 means it isn't forced) will have a challenge dealing with the situation.

The high hates might cause trouble, they will certainly put the players on edge, and might derail the negotiations. Or not. It depen ds a lot on the PKS Loyalty, orders, and just how these Saxons behave. 

12 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

I am not going to require a Hate roll to force the PK to try and murder every Saxon he comes across, that's childish. As long as there is some serious downsides to the Hate demonstrated in game, I am satisfied.

No murder would be something else. But keep in mind that a knight who is offended challenging a Saxon to a duel or some such isn't murder. At least not to knights. These Saxons are (mostly) commoners, and it's rare for a noble to suffer insults from a commoner, or repercussions for dealing harshly with one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That would be true if it were the player's choice, but it's not. The PK gets the hate in chargen, and the GM, as their liege lord, assigns the mission to them. 

The Adventure of the Horned Boar is not a diplomatic mission to the Saxons. Talking to the Saxons is totally optional, up to the PKs. And they can easily preselect their representatives so that they don't take the 'kill all of them and let their pagan gods sort them out' types with them if they want to negotiate.

Now, I don't know what kind of framing device the GM is going to use to get the players to Weardale, but I presume it isn't to negotiate with the Saxons. The Embassy to Malahaut is just to get the players from Salisbury to Malahaut, and then some other excuse sends them up to Weardale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Morien said:

No, I think Atgxtg was responding to illustrate that a high Passion might force the character to act in a self-destructive way. It is pretty central to the theme that knights act stupid at times, because of their Honor, their Loyalty, their Love Family, their Hate... That is one of the central core tenets of Pendragon.

Yeah. Such situations are par for the course, especially if you read the source books. Knights tend to react in exaggerated, larger than life ways to situations, in part because the authors were kinda new to the whole idea of character motivations. It's like watching amateur actors on stage or in a cheap film. If a passion comes up, it really comes up. It's not like the knights will just short sheet the beds of those they hate.

5 minutes ago, Morien said:

I think I would make the Players roll any Hate Saxons 16+, when they witness the kidnapping, though. Frankly, especially the Hate 20 PK ought to get triggered given what happened to his wife, and with the Hate so strong, leaping to conclusions and going for the violent response is what it is all about. 

Yeah, it's almost the prefect set up. The PKs see someone they hate doing something that looks wrong. The PKs would probably assume they know the situation and act from that. And part of the difficulty here is that if the players are trying to role play their characters properly, they will probably play a little biased against the Saxons to begin with. So this is really preaching to the choir.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Morien said:

The Adventure of the Horned Boar is not a diplomatic mission to the Saxons. Talking to the Saxons is totally optional, up to the PKs. And they can easily preselect their representatives so that they don't take the 'kill all of them and let their pagan gods sort them out' types with them if they want to negotiate.

Oh, okay. That's different. I haven't read that adventure in years. But if it is optional, then I don't see a group of PKs with Hate (Saxons) bothering to go down that rabbit hole. That would be like expect people to try to work things out with the Manson family. They already k now how bad and treacherous Saxons are, and Long Knives and all that.

For this to have any chance of working I think the GM needs to plant the idea that these Saxons aren't Saxons and show them doing good and honorable things first.

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

For this to have any chance of working I think the GM needs to plant the idea that these Saxons aren't Saxons and show them doing good and honorable things first.

Except that in the adventure, the introduction is a group of Saxons beating up a hermit, followed by another group of Saxons kidnapping a lady. So it is a hard 'no' on them doing good stuff, even without the passions. Still, I would not limit Hate Saxons 15 or less PKs from choosing to try to negotiate with the Saxons. The Hate 16+ crowd ought to be objecting, though, but if it is just like one PK out of 4+, he can be outvoted.

Hmm... Actually, I just reread the adventure with a bit more care, and it is actually not a choice but a scripted event. Yeah... so in that case, things are somewhat more different for the PKs. Even so, like I said, I would not make even the high Hate PKs to escalate things to a suicidal fight, as long as there are other options, and there is the point that he should be able to try and resist his high Hate with Hospitality (i.e. just do an opposed contest, if Hate wins, he will show his anger and probably provoke a duel challenge during the evening). Still, given that high Hate, the PK would likely do very well in any duel. So yeah, I still think that this adventure would work and be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Morien said:

Except that in the adventure, the introduction is a group of Saxons beating up a hermit, followed by another group of Saxons kidnapping a lady. So it is a hard 'no' on them doing good stuff, even without the passions. Still, I would not limit Hate Saxons 15 or less PKs from choosing to try to negotiate with the Saxons. The Hate 16+ crowd ought to be objecting, though, but if it is just like one PK out of 4+, he can be outvoted.

Hmm... Actually, I just reread the adventure with a bit more care, and it is actually not a choice but a scripted event. Yeah... so in that case, things are somewhat more different for the PKs. Even so, like I said, I would not make even the high Hate PKs to escalate things to a suicidal fight, as long as there are other options, and there is the point that he should be able to try and resist his high Hate with Hospitality (i.e. just do an opposed contest, if Hate wins, he will show his anger and probably provoke a duel challenge during the evening). Still, given that high Hate, the PK would likely do very well in any duel. So yeah, I still think that this adventure would work and be interesting.

Okay. And I agree it doesn't have to be a suicidal fight, but I think there isn't much hope of things turning out well. Negotiations seem unlikely. To the PKS the Saxons here seem like a bunch of raiding bandits and I don't see much incentive for the PKS to want to try and talk with them. I think it's far more likely for the PKS to try and help whoever the Saxons are fighting against.

If the OP wants much more than "Saxons! Chaaarrge!" this probably isn't the time, place, and situation for it.

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...