Questions Regarding The Great Pendragon Campaign

[Morien]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

As for the nature of Uther I'll be leaning the other way from you in my game. That's the story my intuition says to follow.

Certainly a valid choice and arguably closer to the spirit of GPC than my alteration. I think GPC makes it pretty clear that Uther and Madoc are more machiavellian here. I vaguely recall that part of my motivation to change it was that I most likely would have lost some PKs to Syagrius' side if I hadn't! And I wanted to avoid that headache.

The other issue I have with it is that it is needlessly machiavellian of the two. Syagrius doesn't actually accomplish anything in the Bayeux campaign. They could have come straight out and said: "Look, we know you want to reclaim your lands, but we are simply not strong enough yet. How about we do some raiding and plundering? You get your cut, and you can use that money to keep your entourage in shape and continue to foment rebellion in your former lands. When the time is right, we will help you." If Syagrius disagree, no loss, just land near Bayeux anyway and plunder the city. If Syagrius agrees, great, one pawn to be used later on, too.

Alright, I can think of another option, which is even more machiavellian: they are serving Syagrius up to Clovis. The Frankish king obviously doesn't like the idea that the ex-King of Soissons is plotting against him from the comfort of the Logres Court. Historically, Clovis did issue an ultimatum to the Visigothic Kingdom of Toulouse to hand Syagrius over, and once they did, Clovis executed Syagrius. Now, Uther is not about to do that [handing Syagrius to Clovis like a prisoner], rules of hospitality and all that. But he has read Syagrius correctly... give him enough rope, and Syagrius will risk it all on a long-shot. So there is this fiasco of an invasion, Syagrius is left to face the Franks by himself, and even if he survives and flees, he is certainly not going to darken Uther's doorstep ever again; good riddance! And Clovis, a canny politician that he is, will just tip his crown in respect for a fellow monarch, playing the game of thrones.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Morien

[Tizun Thane]

The Syagrius mess... In the GPC, it's heavily implied that Syagrius was deceived. He thought it was a war of (re)conquest, and it was just heavily raiding for loot from Uther's part. I like the dilemna between honor and loyalty to the lord.

I also like the suggestion there is some kind of agreement between Uther/Madoc and Syagrius, when they "give" him to Claudas to meet his fate.

By the way, there is two stories told in the GPC, confused in one:

• In the Vulgate, king Uther (with the help of king Ban of Benoic and his brother king Bors the Eldest) ravaged the whole kingdom of Claudas, which became "the lande déserte"  or "Land Laid Waste" after that .
• the historical Syagrius "the last roman", who was conquerred by the historical Clovis, a famous Frank king, and the first "french" king.

The mess came, IMHO, from the confusion beetween the mythical Claudas, and the historical Clovis. I dislike this choice, but it deserves its own thread.

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Tizun Thane said:

I also like the suggestion there is some kind of agreement between Uther/Madoc and Syagrius, when they "give" him to Claudas to meet his fate.

To clarify, in my above suggestion, Syagrius is very much betrayed. Uther is encouraging him to raise an army and fight for his kingdom, and then Madoc goes 'nope, we are going home' (as Uther had told Madoc to do). The nice thing about this is that it matches the betrayal already in GPC, and at the same time, the politics behind the scene make sense, too. You could even include a Frankish embassy to Uther protesting and demanding Syagrius' head in 487 or something like that, to foreshadow this betrayal.

[Tizun Thane]

32 minutes ago, Morien said:

You could even include a Frankish embassy to Uther protesting and demanding Syagrius' head in 487 or something like that, to foreshadow this betrayal.

Yeah, or even an embassy just before the battle of Bayeux.

[Morien]

4 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

Yeah, or even an embassy just before the battle of Bayeux.

I think you need it to be in 487, since the decision has been made by the Spring Court of 488. At the very very least you'd need to have the Franks at the Spring Court 488 making their demand, and Uther deciding to launch the invasion during the Spring Court, since it is being talked about then, but this would be rather haphazard of him (then again, Uther has high Reckless...). This option also has the problem of this plan getting rumored openly already, with the ambassadors around. Granted, you could have Uther reply 'no' to the ambassadors, who leave the court and the kingdom right away, and then have the rumors spreading AFTERWARDS, perhaps portrayed as the appropriate response to the Frankish arrogance.

But just before the battle itself would be too late. First of all, Uther is not there, so he cannot be party to this plan, and it would require Madoc to make the decision on his own to hang Syagrius out to dry. I don't think it works.

I think it works better in 487, giving Uther and Madoc time to think about it. I admit that drama is probably heightened if during the 488 Spring Court the PKs witness the arrogant Franks addressing the King ("Hand over this felon to us!") and the King's response ("He is a guest under my roof; you may not have him. Go back to your king, for you are not welcome here."), followed by the declaration a day or two later that the army will gather to sail to Frankland to teach these barbarous Franks a lesson. But I think I prefer the slow-boil, having the above scene in 487 Spring Court, and having Uther come to the decision during 487 that Syagrius is starting to be a liability rather than an asset.

I guess it comes down if you want to keep this thing tightly confined to 488, or stretch it out. I am obviously more in favor of stretching it out, letting the PKs potentially witness Syagrius' arrival to Uther's court in late 486, followed by the Frankish Embassy in 487 demanding his head, and perhaps allowing the PKs to interact with him through 487. I could very well see Uther dragging Syagrius with him to Lindsey and Malahaut Embassies: a foreign king, even in exile, makes Uther's entourage more magnificent. The court gossip in 487 has Syagrius visit Malahaut and Cornwall on his own, but these would be better pushed to 487 Christmas gossip or 488 Spring (and 486 Syagrius gossip moved to 487 Spring). (We made a note of this Syagrius date change in the GPC Expansion in the Book of Uther.)

 

[Username]

10 hours ago, Morien said:

more machiavellian: they are serving Syagrius up to Clovis. The Frankish king obviously doesn't like the idea that the ex-King of Soissons is plotting against him from the comfort of the Logres Court. Historically, Clovis did issue an ultimatum to the Visigothic Kingdom of Toulouse to hand Syagrius over, and once they did, Clovis executed Syagrius. Now, Uther is not about to do that [handing Syagrius to Clovis like a prisoner], rules of hospitality and all that. But he has read Syagrius correctly... give him enough rope, and Syagrius will risk it all on a long-shot. So there is this fiasco of an invasion, Syagrius is left to face the Franks by himself, and even if he survives and flees, he is certainly not going to darken Uther's doorstep ever again; good riddance! And Clovis, a canny politician that he is, will just tip his crown in respect for a fellow monarch, playing the game of thrones.

This is really good. I played this straight the first time, my Uther was an excellent dark ages warlord. He was a good commander and treated his people well  though he held petty grudges, was unscrupulous in methods for victory, and had a habit of sleeping around. My players had conflicted feelings for him which were ultimately determined by their dedication to the ideals of loyalty. Still this scenario resulted in some questioning and moaning. They even went as far as to complain to Earl Roderick. Which got them a talking down, but they debated helping Sygarius themselves. I like the idea that Uther was serving Sygarius up though I'd almost rather it be one where Clovis and Uther were plotting together. Clovis was willing to sacrifice a city and a token force to get him while Uther gets the plunder and maybe some discount Frankish mercenaries in his next campaign. It's very fitting to their attitudes. It would make for a great set of intrigue too.

[Tizun Thane]

1 hour ago, Username said:

Clovis was willing to sacrifice a city and a token force to get him while Uther gets the plunder and maybe some discount Frankish mercenaries in his next campaign.

Maybe Bayeux was not loyal to Claudas in the first place

[Morien]

8 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

Maybe Bayeux was not loyal to Claudas in the first place

Well it is clearly a recent conquest... So it might be good to have Syagrius' new Briton allies to sack the town and hence allow the Franks to be the protectors of the rest of Normandy. On the other hand Bayeux is not just opening its gates to Britons so clearly they are not overwhelmingly for Syagrius either.

[creativehum]

.As a note: Everything proposed above can, in one way or another, be accomplished without Uther and Madoc scheming directly with Clovis. Clovis knows Syagrius has gone to Uther for help. Madoc leads forces across the English Sea. Loots one town, walks away, and leaves Syagrius hanging high and dry. 

I think the messages to Clovis are quite clear without any words needing to be spoken:

1. We were asked by your enemy to wage war against you. We didn't.
2. If we want to come and mess up your lands, we can.
3. Stay out of our business, and we'lll stay out of yours. Here's your enemy. Good luck.

A second note: Username's summary of his Player's/Player Knight's reaction to the adventure (questions about Madoc's choices, bringing the matter up with Earl Roderick, thinking of going to help Syagrius) are all talked about in the text of the GPC. The scenario is designed to provoke this sort of reaction from the Players and their knights. The question of "What sort of behavior do we want from our leaders?" is being hammered here. And that question matters a lot depending on what sort of ideas and themes one wants in one's GPC. 

Ultimately Uther is the kind of man who would use his authority to imprison a man and wife in order to sleep with the man's wife. (And, notably for the culture, who are a Duke and Duchess.) In my campaign the Duke of Cornwall doesn't support Uther for several years because he doesn't trust Uther. He knows of Uther's ambitions to be High King. He also believes a High King needs to serve the interests of all Britain and not himself first. But he suspects that Uther is all about himself -- a fact proven when he imprisons himself and his wife. (I think the Duke also suspects Uther murdered his brother in my setting. Whether this is true or not, the Duke believes it is possible, and that says a lot about how he views Uther!)

I bring this up because the adventure we are discussing is exactly the point where the PKs get to start seeing and interacting directly with how the Duke sees Uther and having similar doubts about Uther and his son. The theme and tensions will be exploding soon. But the seeds are planted now.

Thus, while it "makes sense" for Uther to do what he has done to Syagrius I, as the GM, don't want to shine to bright a light on that cleverness. I don't want a lot of justications that ease or excuse the behavior. 

The act of betrayal, and how that hits the PKs, is what the adventure is about and I want to make sure to stay focused on that. If the PKs sort out the justifications and reasoning that's on them. And if they decide the wrong thing was done that's on them. But I want to leave those choices for them and not make either road too smooth.

Edited January 27, 2020 by creativehum

[Username]

Another big complication for my group, who were actually really into Uther's knighthood was their loyalty to Madoc. They really took to him for some reason. I think it was because they had the comradrie of having fought with him in battles before and he had been a notable presence who treated them somewhat hospitably unlike the cold distance between them and Uther. So, they really took a step back and said, "Woah, who are we working for? Are we the bad guys?"

Also, it does work well if he's using it to make a point too, I just like the idea of the Uther scheming in that manner. It's really something Arthur wouldn't approve of. Even more so then Uther leaving Sygarius out to to dry which players remember.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Username

[creativehum]

1 hour ago, Username said:

Also, it does work well if he's using it to make a point too, I just like the idea of the Uther scheming in that manner.

Without doubt! Uther is a sharpshooter when it comes to Intrigue after all!

I am grateful to everyone who gave me a broader context for the political situation on the Continent. There is a lot of info in the GPC... but there is a lot that is unspoken or implied as well! Having folks unpack some of this is why I started this thread!)

I'll definitely be keeping the notion that Uther and Madoc are signaling to Clovis with their actions. I love that. But as @Atgxtg said above about not dumping lots of info on the Players about Excalibur's backstory, I want to keep the backstory about this political maneuver light as well. 

The Player Knights might talk to Earl Roderick about it, or make Intrigue rolls, or whatever to get more information or infer what they can. That's on them to dig deeper. 

The key thing for me -- that the GPC sets up -- is that the Players/Player Knights think they are doing one thing and then have the rug pulled out from under them while making them active participants in an act of betrayal. This puts them on the spot and, as I stated above, sets up the seeds of Uther's further revelations of selfishness and betrayal in the years to come. It is all a piece, as far as I can tell, of putting a sharp light on the game's central question: "What sort of knight are you going to be?"

I love the fact that your PKs were loyal to Madoc and backing him, only to have to ask, "Are we the baddies?" I think that is so much of what the game is about!

Edited January 27, 2020 by creativehum

[Username]

15 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I love the fact that your PKs were loyal to Madoc and backing him, only to have to ask, "Are we the baddies?" I think that is so much of what the game is about!

The best part is they ultimately grimaced and said our loyalty ultimately matter more. But, I remember well a good 15-20 minutes of discussing running off with Sygarius and sighing and looking at their pretty high loyalty scores 

[creativehum]

2 hours ago, Username said:

The best part is they ultimately grimaced and said our loyalty ultimately matter more. But, I remember well a good 15-20 minutes of discussing running off with Sygarius and sighing and looking at their pretty high loyalty scores 

It's as if King Arthur Pendragon is a well-designed game built to produce certain effects and challenges for the players!

[Morien]

49 minutes ago, creativehum said:

It's as if King Arthur Pendragon is a well-designed game built to produce certain effects and challenges for the players!

One of my favorite Pendragon story moments came when one Roman PK decided to stick with Syagrius (he had APP 20 and had become a bit too chummy with the Countess for Roderick's liking, so this seemed a fine way for the Count to get rid of him; the player wanted a change, too). Lo and behold, the player's second character happens to disappear (got ensnared by a faerie maiden and the player decided that was a nice end for the character and just went with it) just before St. Albans, and who might be riding in but the exiled Roman knight? And not only that, but return to favor by helping the other PKs to save the life of the Count himself?

But little did the other players know that the Roman PK was in cahoots with Syagrius, who had survived the Battle of Soissons and was looking to avenge himself on Uther and all the traitorous Britons. Syagrius had returned to Britain in the guise of a mercenary captain and led a force of bitter, angry, desperate Soissons knights. The PK ended up advising the use of poison (Syagrius had a poisoner in his entourage, so that worked out) and even recommended sending assassins to kill Ulfius and Brastias in their sickbeds (thwarted by the other PKs). And naturally Syagrius would need a new powerbase for himself and his Roman mercenary knights for the Anarchy that was sure to follow... And the PK had just the thing in mind: Sarum Castle.

Helped by the 'turncoat', Syagrius' knights managed to gain entry into the castle and then turned on the skeleton garrison, butchering them. However, they were stymied momentarily by Sir Jaradan, the best blade of the county, who had been appointed by the Count as his only son and heir's bodyguard. The Roman PK's response at Jaradan challenging him to a duel? "Crossbows, shoot!" And thus passed Sir Jaradan, pierced by a dozen quarrels.

Syagrius forced his way into the Countess' bedchamber, followed by the PK and another knight. There, the Countess pushed her children behind her as if to protect them with her own body if need be. When she saw the PK, there was a momentary hope in her eyes, only to shift to despair when she realized that the PK was working for Syagrius...

"Argh, I can't do this!" the player exclaimed.

"I can't do this." the PK murmured and stepped between the Countess and Syagrius.

"Have you lost your mind?!" Syagrius demanded.

"More like regained it." the PK replied, and the fight was on.

The PK killed Syagrius and drove the other knights out of the room, defending the doorway long enough for the other PKs to arrive to the scene (miraculously healed by Merlin and advised to hasten to Sarum, for their presence was needed), despite the ambushes set to slow them down (on the advice of the turncoat PK again...).

With the attackers dead, the question turned to the Roman PK's fate. Naturally, the true extent of his crimes were unknown, but it was clear that he had advised Syagrius on how to gain entry to Sarum Castle. And for that his life would be forfeit. But for saving the Countess and her children, the execution would be stayed indefinitely. He would wear only black, to show his status as a dead man walking, but he would be forbidden to die until the Countess would give him leave to do so.

And that was the Tale of the Black Knight of Salisbury.

 

(Alas, the campaign imploded a session or two later, when the PKs fractured over supporting the Countess or seizing power for themselves, and some of the players took it personally OOC that other players had chosen to back an NPC over fellow players. Still, I thought that was a damned epic arc for the character.)

[creativehum]

4 hours ago, Morien said:

Alas, the campaign imploded a session or two later, when the PKs fractured over supporting the Countess or seizing power for themselves,

Question:

The quote above brings up an issue I've been wondering about.

Give the choices and possibilities of shifting loyalties the PKs will face through the campaign have people found any problems with the games fracturing as PKs split apart. I'm not concerned with OOC arguments... but simply PKs splitting up or becoming enemies. My assumption is that the game will run smoother and easier if the PKs are working as a band of knights or as a fellowship. (King Arthur Pendragon materials through the decades that suggest such "Fellowships" seem to support this!)

I'll be doing myself some favors on this front by working from the core KAP rules: all the PKs will be from Salisbury, each with a manor in Salisbury they inherited (though I'm going to stretch ownership back to the time of the PK's great-grandfather or grandfather), everyone will be swearing fealty to Sir Roderick, everyone will have trained together with Sir Elad. So there will be many bonds between them.

But even with all that, which way to go in the matter of Uther vs. the Duke of Cornwall; whether to back Dame Ellen after Roderick dies, and so on there will be opportunities for the PKs to fall away from each other.

My own instinct is to say bluntly: "Folks, for the sake of the game, know that you must find a way to work together as a fellowship, because that's the kind of tale we're in..."  After all, it is the tearing apart of the Fellowship of the Round Table the ends Arthur's rule, the lives of the Knights, and the story! The notion that knights must be in a fellowship for the story to continue is baked into the myth!

But I'm curious how this issues has affected other games and how people have dealt with it... or how it might have torn games apart.

Edited January 28, 2020 by creativehum

[Morien]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

But I'm curious how this issues has affected other games and how people have dealt with it... or how it might have torn games apart.

Well, I already gave the result of one of the campaigns. I did have another 'break-up' which stayed IC due to the characters having to decide between their loyalty to Prince Mark (regent of Salisbury for 10+ years) and Robert (who had just switched sides and sworn allegiance to Arthur). End result, one PK defected (and managed to survive the aftermath), and another tried to defect later due to the way that the pro-Robert loyalists were being slaughtered on the castle yard after the meeting. Alas, he happened to tell another PK of his plans to evacuate the rest of the family, who told a couple of other ones who had Loyalty (Prince Mark) in the upper teens, so what was supposed to become a 'talk some sense into the guy to convince him to stay' -chat became a 'halt, traitor, and answer for your treason to the Prince!' -arrest.

Generally speaking, we do try to run with Group Loyalties and common lieges and all that jazz. So it is not common that the PKs end up on different sides (save by magic, as has happened a couple of times). Well, there was another case when a famously lustful pagan was paying too much attention to another PK's famously flirty wife, leading to a duel challenge and a beatdown to get the pagan to keep his distance in the future.

While I have a very limited sample size, obviously, I would say that it matters a lot how well the players know one another. For instance, the campaign that fell apart was with basically a new group with various levels of RP experience. It is probably not surprising that the Black Knight was an experienced RPer, while the guy unable to maintain IC/OOC separation was a newer player. While it is not always the case, experience tends to often give one some more perspective. By contrast, the other group was composed of friends, so it was easier to shrug and move on. Things happen and high passions are high passions.

I very much could see the breaking of the Round Table being something that breaks the PKs apart, too, making for a particularly poignant endgame. In my first playthrough, the characters were very much in the Orkney camp due to various reasons, so there wasn't much of a chance of the group splintering over that. But I could see it happening with other groups.

I did end up running the Defector PK and the other PKs practically in two separate stories for a couple of years. This was made easier by the fact that there were some scheduling issues, and the fact that it was during the Boy King, meaning that oftentimes they were in the same battle, just on separate sides, which was no biggie. They ended up facing at the Battle of Terrabil, but again, that was easy to play, in principle. But I would not want to do that full time. It is much much easier when the PKs are joined together in a team of some sort.

At the moment, I have 4 PKs in Cornwall and two in Salisbury, which is making some things a bit complicated. Fortunately, they all have Loyalty (Group) towards each other, and they were all in the Roman War, so that wasn't too bad. As long as they travel and adventure together, that is easy enough, and so far, they have been happy to extend an invitation to the PKs who have not been told explicitly to go on the adventure. Or they might choose to go monster-hunting by their own volition, and then it doesn't matter so much who is the liege of whom.

[Call Me Deacon Blues]

I don't really have an answer to your questions, as I'm currently playing the only non-solo Pendragon campaign I've ever ran (by which I meant me as the GM and one player, not just me, though with certain tools I think that would be workable), and we're not quite to the Anarchy yet. That, and the war with Lancelot, and possibly the crowning of Arthur, are the only big points that I think could really lead to major disagreements, though I am likely forgetting at least some of them.

I will ask if by Dame Elaine, you mean Countess Ellen? As far as I remember, the only Elaine mentioned in the GPC is the middle daughter of Ygraine and Gorlois, and anyway neither one of them are knights. I think the core book might waffle on whether or not female knights are referred to be "dame" or not (I think it had some other meaning at some point? Don't rightly remember), but I don't think that would be the appropriate terminology. I could be wrong on this, though.

[Morien]

20 minutes ago, Call Me Deacon Blues said:

we're not quite to the Anarchy yet.

As you correctly state, the Anarchy has probably the greatest chance of going sideways, due to its very nature of putting the PKs into a position to influence the fate of the County. Do they support the Countess or do they try to seize power (for themselves or for the whole group?)? Do they pursue different foreign policy, advocating alliance to Saxons/Cornwall/Silchester/Nanteleod?

Even Arthur's crowning pales in comparison, as they will probably just go along with what their own liege decides. And unless the GM does some serious work, the Downfall is probably also going to get decided by their high Loyalty Pendragon or some other liege. It is much rarer that a PK has Loyalty (Lancelot). However, they might very well have Amor (Guenever), and this might be a very good story reason for the GM to be generous with giving that passion out to PKs who wants it.

[creativehum]

25 minutes ago, Call Me Deacon Blues said:

I will ask if by Dame Elaine, you mean Countess Ellen

Yes. Sorry about that. I meant Ellen. Thank you for catching that.

In the King Arthur Pendragon core rules Common Terms and Abbreviations section "Dame" is defined as "Title for a woman that is equivalent to 'lord' used when the woman is the head of her own household." Since at the time in the campaign I was referencing Countless Ellen is now the head of the household I used Dame as a marker for her specific situation in the campaign. 

[Call Me Deacon Blues]

Ah, I see. Sorry for the confusion there, I guess that would be appropriate by that definition, but the GPC never refers to her as such. I typically reserve Dame for female knights only, and I might be wrong but that's the only way I can remember the term being used in supplements.

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

Question:

The quote above brings up an issue I've been wondering about.

and possibilities of shifting loyalties the PKs will face through the campaign have people found any problems with the games fracturing as PKs split apart.

Kind of. As you probably know by now, I pushed my start date back quite a bit, so in one of the adventure the PKs had a hand in helping move Aurelius and Uther to Brittany in 443. Becuase of the way it played out some of the main PKs were injured earlier trying to protect Constans, and half of the group consisted of back up PKs - namely younger brothers.

Once the group got to Brittany, Budec offered them positions at his court as bodyguards to the princes (after all, if they weren't loyal they could have sold the kids out to Vortigern rather than take them to Brittany). I had expected the PKs to return home to Salisbury, or possibly see a good thing, and stay with the princes, but they surprised me. THey passed the buck to Count Salisbury. Thinking as the Count I decided that he'd want the landed PKs back as he had too much vested in them and thier loyalty to lose them, but as for the second sons went, the Count considered that the contacts he would get with Budec and the princes would certinaly be worth loosing two household knights, and probably earn him the gratitude of those knights should they ever advance.

So I ended up splitting the group. THe Salsibury knights were still the main PKs but the knights in Briitany formed the core of the backup characters. This did complicate things somewhat, as it made it harder to just use one backup character. But, since Aurelius and Uther were so important o the storyline,the split made it easier to come up with excuses to send the main PKs over to Brittany. The split alos allowed me to run a sperate adventure for the backups when real life cricmstances would leave us short a (key) player at just the wrong time. I ended up using the book of Sires and some quick rolling to help ensure the back up characters had enough "screen time" glory and skill checks to remain relevant and to present bits of story that happen overseas. 

Eventually the main PKs made a name for themselves during Vortimer's first rebellion and they decided to go into exile in 458 after hearing rumours that Vortigern was going to make them the scapegoats for the rebellion, and that put the group back together again.

 

 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

29 minutes ago, Call Me Deacon Blues said:

Ah, I see. Sorry for the confusion there, I guess that would be appropriate by that definition, but the GPC never refers to her as such. I typically reserve Dame for female knights only, and I might be wrong but that's the only way I can remember the term being used in supplements.

You are remembering wrong, in fact the game specfically states the opposite. Dame for Female Knight sounds like something from GURPS Harkwood. Pendragon never gave female knights a sepcfic title, and no female knights exist in any of the supplements. The closes we ever get to that are the guidelines for female characters and non-tradtional roles. In KAP5.2 page 33 we get the following (bold italics are mine for emphasis):

Quote

The final consideration for the Gamemaster is how to entitle a female knight. “Sir” is traditional, but “Sir Ellen” or “Sir Alice” may sound strange enough to make some people grind their teeth. On the other hand, “Lady Ellen” and “Dame Ellen” both mean other things entirely, and could be misleading in context.
In the end, “Sir,” which is the proper title of a knight, is the most appropriate title.

Dame for a female knight is a more of a modern thing, to facilitate the modern practice of knighting people who have done some sort of humanitarian service or advanced culture in some way. SO now that authors, musicians and actors can earn knighthoods, they wanted a title to give to women who distinguish themselves in those fields.  Traditionally Dame usually was another way to address a baroness. 

For Pendragon it would probably be "Sir". It's certainly very clear in it's meaning. 

[creativehum]

3 hours ago, Morien said:

As you correctly state, the Anarchy has probably the greatest chance of going sideways, due to its very nature of putting the PKs into a position to influence the fate of the County. Do they support the Countess or do they try to seize power (for themselves or for the whole group?)? Do they pursue different foreign policy, advocating alliance to Saxons/Cornwall/Silchester/Nanteleod?

Even Arthur's crowning pales in comparison, as they will probably just go along with what their own liege decides. And unless the GM does some serious work, the Downfall is probably also going to get decided by their high Loyalty Pendragon or some other liege. It is much rarer that a PK has Loyalty (Lancelot). However, they might very well have Amor (Guenever), and this might be a very good story reason for the GM to be generous with giving that passion out to PKs who wants it.

If we make it to the Downfall phase I'll take whatever happens!

As for Anarchy, that's where I expect things will get janky for the players and their choices for all the reasons you describe.

This is why I think utilizing and leaning on a Fellowship for the PKs makes the most sense.

Speaking of which:

Quote

Loyalty (Group)

Knights may join or even form fellowships. (The name of the fel- lowship replaces the word “group” in the name of the Passion.) The typical Loyalty (Group) value for a new group is 3d6.

Members are all kinsmen or from the same kingdom: +6

Members are all of same general culture: +1d6

Members knew each other previously: Varies (as appropriate)

If I am reading this right a bunch of Cymric knights from th Kingdom of Logres will have a starting Passion of 4d6+6... and maybe a little more if they already know each other. So my PKs would have a Fellowship Passion ranging from 10-30, with an average of 20! With the third bonus the starting values will average even higher.

Does this seem excessive to anyone? There is a 50% chance a starting Loyalty (Fellowship) will never fail. And since the PKs will often be in circumstances to help members of their Fellowship out of danger, it seems like the Players will end up leaning on it a lot.

Does anyone have experience with this?

Edited January 28, 2020 by creativehum

[Morien]

7 hours ago, creativehum said:

Does this seem excessive to anyone?

Yes. I don't use either modifier.

Instead, I use 3d6 base, +1 for each year the group has been together before they roll Loyalty, +1 per adventure during which they fight side by side.

Since oftentimes there are new inductees to the group (due to a previous PK having perished), we reroll the Loyalty and take the average between the old and the new one. That seems to work well enough, although I could see an argument of not rerolling it unless most of the fellowship changes at once. It is a bit of a Ship of Theseus -problem.

[Atgxtg]

8 hours ago, creativehum said:

 

Does this seem excessive to anyone? 

Yes it does. Just go with 3d6 or so. Something like having you father murdered by Saxons at Long Knives is only worth 3d6+6, so +6 for being kinsmen seems a bit much, and also somewhat reducndant, since Love (family) would already cover that.

I'd say go with a flat 3d6, maybe 2d6+6 or 4d6 if there is some sort of reason for the group forming together besides mutual self interest.

 

I'd advise against raising it automatically each year or after adventures as it will quickly get to very high levles and be passed on downthrought he generations. When Loyaty (Group) is the highest passion of the PKS it has major ramifications. 

8 hours ago, creativehum said:

Does anyone have experience with this?

Yes. In my campaign very early on the players formed the Order of the Knights of the Griffon, after an adventure where they had to fight two griffins. The passion started at 3d6, and over time the PKS all worked on increasing it. SOme of the things I've noticed about it:

1.  The players will put the effort into raising it if they plan on trying to use it for inspiration. So any automatic increase just turns them into fanatics.
2. With sons inheriting passions, either direction or at the 1d6 per 4 points, you can pretty much expect that once a PK has Loyalty (Group) at a high rating, so with all that character's descendants. You could easily wind up with all new PKs coming into the game with Loyalty (Group) 22 thanks to the glory bonus.
3. The passion and group are very helpful in protecting the other members, as the passion can inspire knights, and the group does try to look after its own.
4. Because the players are all part of the same gaming group, chances to roll the passion will come up fairly frequently. You can just about count on the players getting it up to 20 (to avoid madness) and then looking to use it every session. They won't be able to (some uses are a stretch- my advise to to ask them what they are trying to accomplish and how it helps the order), but they will try.
5. The passion and group can also work against the PKs interests at times, either forcing them to stay and try to recuse a fellow member in a situation where they should move on, or lead to conflicting loyalties especially against Loyalty (Lord). In one instance a PKs liege was unhorsed but passion forced the PK to go assist a fellow KotG instead. Such actions can build suspicion and mistrust against the order.
6. The passion/group has also resulted in other knights in Salisbury banding together  in groups to both do the same thing the PKs are doing and to have a force powerful enough to be able to stop the PKs from running roughshod over them. Sop now the order has rivals.
7. The order has at times been recognized by a king and rewarded (so now members get 25 glory for joining), and has even been granted a manor and an old hill fort castle (ruins inhabited by a redcap), some statues and other treasure over the years. Count Salisbury granted the Order a manor in part to give him actual influence over the order.
8. The Order has also manged to escalate some situations as it is in some ways, it's own political entity. At times  the Count has forbidden the PKS from using the order or it's banner in battle so that he can remain neutral. 
9. The Order is also a great way to bleed excess wealth from the PKs. For example, after one adventure  the King rewarded them with statues. Over time the PKs have had to spend a good amount of libra to get to statues transported from one manor to another, and eventually to the Order's own Hall (post redcap). In the end of the day they are paying good money to move around rocks.