Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
creativehum

Questions Regarding The Great Pendragon Campaign

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Username said:

I understood it to be a square wall around the perimeter. 1 wall=1 side. And the summer was the building season with Spring planting, fall harvest, and winter is too cold. So, 1 summer = 1 year.

I thought that as well.

but Sarum is a circle.

i'll assume they mean a quarter of it and move on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, creativehum said:

Question:

In 496 we find this:

Can anyone help me with the math/logic here?

One wall is a summer, so the whole city is four years? I am either missing something (likely!) or perhaps there is a typo. But I'm not getting it.

Thanks!

Yeah Username has it right. Building is done mostly in the summer and the serfs are too busy with planting and harvesting to do a lot of work in the Spring or Fall, and it's too difficult to do much during the winter.

In general the idea was that a landholder could only do a certain amount of work per year before needing outside help (which was/is more expensive as you have to actually pay outsider laborers). That used to be set at around the holding normal income, but that was awhile back in the Book of the Manor. I think what Greg was doing in the GPC was basing the wall on the income of the city, as per BoM. So the city of  Sarum might have produced £25 or so, and thus it would take four years to build a £100 wall, or one building season/year to build one wall (£25) or enclose the castle at £20. This might not match up exactly with the newer rules in the Book of the Estate (or the ones in the forthcoming Book of Castles), but it's probably still in the right ballpark. 

Another thing that is somewhat different is that the DV 7 stone walls usually can't be built during the anarchy due to the lack of skilled engineers during that time (it was a Roman technology that was lost for part of the middle ages). . This coincides with the era of wooden castles. But you could just assume that the Countess has connections and access to skilled personnel that player knight lack. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, creativehum said:

I thought that as well.

but Sarum is a circle.

Wel,l the ability to build round fortifications was an improvement and  came later, so perhaps it is a square at this point in time. 

Quote

i'll assume they mean a quarter of it and move on!

Makes sense. For the most part this is stuff that the players probably won't worry too much about. 

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


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

Wel,l the ability to build round fortifications was an improvement and  came later, so perhaps it is a square at this point in time. 

That was a limit on towers in Lordly Domains. BotE allows round walls no problem. This is implied by some of the example wall lengths are based on circumference of a circle rather than a square.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

That was a limit on towers in Lordly Domains. BotE allows round walls no problem. This is implied by some of the example wall lengths are based on circumference of a circle rather than a square.

Round yes, stone ,no. We have to wait for the Book of Castles to see when those come out and at what cost. I guess we can assume that the Countess could get some engineers to do the masonry. THe problem is with the keep. Sarum historically, is a Shell Keep, basically a form of round tower, but those don't come until a little later in the campaign., so anything above a M&B would probably deviate from the round form- at least in 496.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

In the year 496 we find this passage under Events:

Quote

Wife Seeking? 

War makes many widows, and many Salisbury noblewomen are now without husbands.

I'm curious if there are guidelines for what sorts of lands and dowries might be appropriate for such ladies.

I know many people here think the "eligible ladies" found in KAP core rules are too wealthy. But are the concerns loosened in the Anarchy Phase?

I'm looking for any sources of tables or concrete lists, and less a discussion on these matters. 

Thanks!

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I sit here thinking about building an spread sheet to track the NPCs that get soft introductions in The Uther Phase that become much more important in The Anarchy Phase it occurs to me that running The Great Pendragon Campaign is kind of a lot of work!

Share this post


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

I'm curious if there are guidelines for what sorts of lands and dowries might be amiable with such ladies.I know many people here think the "eligible ladies" found in KAP core rules are too wealthy. But are the concerns loosened in the Anarchy Phase?

Alas, I am unaware of any lists (save for the Baronial Replacement Table on p. 98 of BotW), and while you said you are less interested in a discussion, that is all I can offer...

Most of the widows from wars would be widows of vassal knights, without lands of their own. So you would be looking at the Widow's Portion, which normally would come up to £2 spent for the upkeep of the Widow and her children by her guardian (ignoring the money spent on SD here). So you could rule that if a PK marries a widow, he could have £2 extra spending money. 

However, during the Infamous Feast, the death toll is catastrophic amongst the attending barons and perhaps even estate holders. So you might see more of those widows around, with more extensive Widow's Portions, and in the case of underaged heirs, you might even seize the whole property and rule it as a regent. Some of those widows would be heiresses in their own right as well, and/or the children might be heiresses in the absence of male heirs. You might have to contend with the surviving brothers of the barons, though.

Sir Duach, Baron of Wereside appears to die without a clear replacement, given that one of his vassals, Sir Tathal, appeals to the Countess for aid (BotW, p. 100). So Sir Duach's widow or underaged heirs might be up for grabs.

Sir Staterius, Baron of Thornbush, who also holds Swans Hundred in Salisbury, has a son to take over (Sir Salados*, p. 104), while his 'former vassal' (Sir Marleigh, p. 101) builds Restwell Castle and pretty much takes over Swans Hundred, assuming I am reading the 'former vassal' right. This also would explain why SIr Salados goes to Greatstone in Clarence rather than Swans once Thornbush is overrun by Cerdic (who does not land in 491 but in 496). Sir Salados probably dies in 508 at Netley Marsh, so will in all possibility leave behind a widow and underaged children.

(* Note, by the way, that we again have a bit of an issue with ages. Sir Staterius is said to be born in 460, which means that he probably wouldn't have children until in 480s... which means that Sir Salados cannot be an adult by 495; lucky if he is even old enough to be a squire. Easiest way to cope with this would be to make Staterius a bit older, even 455 would help (although late 480s - early 450s would be better) in which case you could handwave and say that Sir Salados gets knighted in a hurry to take over when his father dies. Or the other option is to make Sir Salados the younger brother rather than the son of Staterius, in which case the 460 birth year for Staterius is a-OK.)

Edited by Morien
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, thank you for the discussion! And yes, I'm addressing specifically this: "However, during the Infamous Feast, the death toll is catastrophic amongst the attending barons and perhaps even estate holders."

A thought I've had is to use the table on p. 19 of Book of the Entourage but move over one column for the Knight's Rank to reflect the greater odds of ending up with someone with more land or money. So a Vassal Knight would reference the Rich Vassal Knight column, and a Rich Vassal Knight would use the Estate Holder column.

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2020 at 5:35 AM, Atgxtg said:

Sarum historically, is a Shell Keep, basically a form of round tower, but those don't come until a little later in the campaign., so anything above a M&B would probably deviate from the round form- at least in 496.

While you can certainly draw such an inference from the fact that round towers don't appear until later, there is nothing said in Lordly Domains that the walls cannot be round rather than straight sections.

The earliest shell keeps would match the mid-12th century of the historical Anarchy (comparable to KAP's Anarchy Period in GPC, with some of them (Lewes) even suggested to having been built in late-11th century (i.e. Uther Period, based on Book of Uther's clear post-Norman Conquest society). So based on that, shell keeps could show up well before the round keeps and towers. Indeed, arguably it does show up before square keeps become popular.

However, assuming Lordly Domains is still valid, we'd still have a bit of an issue of Curtain Walls not becoming available until Boy King period, as you pointed out, requiring the handwaving of the engineers.

EDIT: Reference for Lewes Castle: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1013268

"The mottes were surmounted by timber palisades which were replaced by stone `shell keeps' around AD1100."

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, creativehum said:

A thought I've had is to use the table on p. 19 of Book of the Entourage but move over one column for the Knight's Rank to reflect the greater odds of ending up with someone with more land or money.

You could do that. However, I think I would rather apply GM fiat in such cases. After all, most of the knightly ranks are unaffected by the Infamous Feast. So there wouldn't be this huge surge of available widows and heiresses around knightly ranks. The Rich Knights are still there, and their daughters would be looking for Rich Knight husbands, primarily. And so forth. So instead I would likely just make a couple of NPC widows of higher rank, and dangle them in front of the PKs. As for the barons and estate holders, they would be divided amongst whole of Logres: you already have one such widow in Ellen, and there is another in Marlborough Castle, and a third in Rydychan.

Share this post


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

The earliest shell keeps would match the mid-12th century of the historical Anarchy (comparable to KAP's Anarchy Period in GPC, with some of them (Lewes) even suggested to having been built in late-11th century (i.e. Uther Period, based on Book of Uther's clear post-Norman Conquest society). So based on that, shell keeps could show up well before the round keeps and towers. Indeed, arguably it does show up before square keeps become popular.

Yah, by RAW no round keeps until he Romance Period, but if I have my history right, Shell keeps were really an extion of the Motte & Baiely, so they might make more sense as thier own entry. 

52 minutes ago, Morien said:

However, assuming Lordly Domains is still valid, we'd still have a bit of an issue of Curtain Walls not becoming available until Boy King period, as you pointed out, requiring the handwaving of the engineers.

Yeah, I think that's the sensible solution. In my own campaaign one of the PKs has an old Roman villain near his manor and we ran an adventure where he found an engineer to do work fixing the curtian wall and such. I had the engineer change double the unkeept from Book of Entourage (£4 total) and the player was glad tobe able to pay it. He knew it was highway robbery, but it was the only way he was going to get the villa repaired. He had awhole list of projects for the enginner too, but they guy was an old Roman and died a half dozne years later.

 

52 minutes ago, Morien said:

EDIT: Reference for Lewes Castle: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1013268

"The mottes were surmounted by timber palisades which were replaced by stone `shell keeps' around AD1100."

Works for me. But there really isn't a shell keep in KAP, unless we want to consider the shell keep to be a round tower (DV7). Mayber we should add the shell keep as an upgrade for the M&B? Assume that the new Book of Castles hasn't already done so. 

Share this post


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

But there really isn't a shell keep in KAP, unless we want to consider the shell keep to be a round tower (DV7).

Shell keep is simply, IMHO, a curtain wall built on top of a motte, usually. But I would pretty much call any small (circular or not) stone enclosure a shell keep, honestly. So it is simply an upgrade on the old fortified motte. This is different from the round tower, although sometimes the shell keeps were roofed in, too.

Anyway, I am sure that Nick has it covered in his Book of Castles, or whatever that gets named as. :)

Share this post


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

Shell keep is simply, IMHO, a curtain wall built on top of a motte, usually. But I would pretty much call any small (circular or not) stone enclosure a shell keep, honestly. So it is simply an upgrade on the old fortified motte. This is different from the round tower, although sometimes the shell keeps were roofed in, too.

Most of the one's I've seen, such as Restormel,  are more that just a curtain wall, but essentially two walls with a building sandwiched in between, encircling a courtyard.. Basically a round tower built around a courtyard.

Quote

Anyway, I am sure that Nick has it covered in his Book of Castles, or whatever that gets named as. :)

Yes, I expect so. If not, it shouldn't be too hard to adapt something. So basically a M&B where the shell keep replaces the Palisade and Keep, but has some sort of gatehouse built in. Since KAP reduces defenses down to DV, it's not too hard to take something and fiddle with DVs until it looks right.

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

One of the smart things about the structure of the GPC -- as far as I can tell so far -- is that Greg keeps expanding the geography of the PKs concerns. In the Uther Phase the Players get a handle on their own little world in Salisbury with a few trips a afield. There is time spent in Cornwall for instance. Then, in the Anarchy Phase, he offers up deeper information about Rydychan and Cambria. This keeps the campagin both novel (new things!) and manageable (new things introduced over time!). These elements also serve as models for the GM to follow: "Here is an example of how to build conflict and rivalries in a neighboring county."

The Anarchy Phase chapter has information about the county of Rydychan and introduces several NPCs for the PKs to interact with.

The Countess of Rydychan, widowed, is now facing off against three foul knights who are brothers. (My plan is to introduce the characters in this section during the Uther Phase -- most likely at Madoc's funeral at Stonehenge or Uther's wedding. It could be simple or complicated: seeing the Countess with her (still alive at the time) husband, dealing with the three brothers being jerks, and so on.)

Here is the introduction of the Countess:

Quote

Countess of Rydychan

The Countess of Rydychan is very attractive, a desirable heiress (though she is worth no Glory or income if she does not have her lands). She is a middle-aged woman, still quite pretty after all the years and children and sorrows. She has been married twice, and borne a daughter by the rst and a son by the second, but both husbands have fallen in battle. 

I searched, but have not found any information about the Countess' recently deceased husband. Clearly I can make up a name and such, but wanted to know if was missing anything.

More significantly she has a son. I can't find anything about him either. Of course, his age matters, whether he already a knight matters.

The Countess is "middle-aged" so I'm thinking she had to have had the son 10-15 years ago. So he is still a boy. Is there any information in the book I might have missed?

Thanks!

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, creativehum said:

I searched, but have not found any information about the Countess' recently deceased husband. Clearly I can make up a name and such, but wanted to know if was missing anything.

EDIT: Duh, you said husband, not father. And as I was saying below, it doesn't make sense for Bledri to be the husband. So yes, you can make the two husbands anything you wish. As an heiress, she would have been a hot catch for anyone.

 

On the very same page:

"Because the king was busy elsewhere, the
countess’s lands were seized by usurpers, three brothers,
disloyal men who were once her vassals. They seized con-
trol of Rydychan after Earl Bledri died years ago. They re-
fuse to acknowledge the countess’s rights to the holding,
claiming that only men have such rights and that since
no men of Bledri’s family live, it is theirs now."

Now the problem with that is that the Countess is said to be the heiress, and she has a son. So if she is the daughter of Bledri, then her son is the grandson of Bledri, and this paragraph is wrong. I guess you could handwave it and say that since the son is not yet a man (i.e. an adult), this is what the Brothers are referring to. If Bledri is the first husband and Earl by the right of his wife, then this is a total red herring: Bledri's lineage matters not a jot, only the Countess'.

Since BotW trampled all over the territorial nobility, there is not too much help there: the Baron of Oxenford is Sir Gwythyr, not Earl Bledri, not that it matters since we don't really get to know more of him anyway. However, we do know that the Usurpation happened before Uther died, so most likely Bledri died at the Battle of Lindsey or at the night-time attack by Duke Gorlois. This would give a couple of years while the king is busy with something else, but not like a decade. Especially if her second husband died around the same time, she might have fallen a bit in the cracks, so to speak, which is even more believable since she would be ruling in her own name and picking her own husband so there wouldn't be a guardian to look after her interests and push for something to be done. (Yes, I know Greg amended it in Entourage to 3 previous marriages, but I am going with the intent.)

As for the son's age, KAP defines Middle-Aged as 35-55. So she could easily be just barely middle-aged, which means that her son could be pretty much anything from 0 to 20. I think it is much easier if the son is reasonably young, but at the same time, I would make her old enough that she is past childbirth. That way, if one of the PKs ends up wooing her and marrying her, then while they might gain some power for a while, they do not permanently derail the campaign by becoming one of the leading nobles of Britain. I believe this is why Greg added two previous children and a reference to her being middle-aged, whereas in Lordly Domain, she was explicitly wooable and winnable, with no children in sight.

So saying that her father and the second husband would have died in 490, her son born at the same year, would work rather nicely. The son would still be just 20 by the end of Anarchy, and most likely the adventure would have been run in late 490s or early 500s anyway.

 

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Question:

One of the smart things about the structure of the GPC -- as far as I can tell so far -- is that Greg keeps expanding the geography of the PKs concerns.

Yes, it generally a god idea when starting up a new game world to start the PCs small in one area and then gradually expand to intorduce new areas so that they do not get overwhelmed. I think the GPC does so partly by design but also partly becuase of the underlying timeline. I mean the PKs kinda have to go to Cornwall if the GM wants to cover the Uther-Igraine situation and how it leads to Arthur.

 

41 minutes ago, creativehum said:

 

In the Uther Phase the Players get a handle on their own little world in Salisbury with a few trips a afield. There is time spent in Cornwall for instance. Then, in the Anarchy Phase, he offers up deeper information about Rydychan and Cambria. This keeps the campagin both novel (new things!) and manageable (new things introduced over time!). These elements also serve as models for the GM to follow: "Here is an example of how to build conflict and rivalries in a neighboring county."

The Anarchy Phase chapter has information about the county of Rydychan and introduces several NPCs for the PKs to interact with.

The Countess of Rydychan, widowed, is now facing off against three foul knights who are brothers. (My plan is to introduce the characters in this section during the Uther Phase -- most likely at Madoc's funeral at Stonehenge or Uther's wedding. It could be simple or complicated: seeing the Countess with her (still alive at the time) husband, dealing with the three brothers being jerks, and so on.)

Here is the introduction of the Countess:

I searched, but have not found any information about the Countess' recently deceased husband. Clearly I can make up a name and such, but wanted to know if was missing anything.

First off, do you have Lordly Domaians from KAP4? It has a longer version of the adventure which provides more details. Looking over it and the GPC 

The Countess husband was Earl Bledri (GPC p.96 under the OXFORD USURPERS) who died years ago in battle. In Lordly Domains (LD) he was the brother to Duke Ulfius who "passed away last winter from wounds received fighting the Saxons". In LD Saxon troubles force Ulfius to abadon his attempt to take back the lands himself, which leads to the PKs doing it, while their Liege and Ulfius fight the Saxons.

But the adventure has quite a few differences from the shorter version in the GPC, so you might want to pick and choose bits to flesh things out.

 

41 minutes ago, creativehum said:

More significantly she has a son. I can't find anything about him either. Of course, his age matters, whether he already a knight matters.

The Countess is "middle-aged" so I'm thinking she had to have had the son 10-15 years ago. So he is still a boy. Is there any information in the book I might have missed?

Thanks!

In LD there is no mention of the countess having children, and the death of her husband was more recent. In fact the adventure is desigend to help set up a PK as a possible suitor.

 

In the GPC, the Countess married twice, and both husbands have died in battle. With big battles going back for decades, her first husband could have died anytime during Uther'a reign, or even earlier. So he son could be any age you want. I'd probably assume her husband died either at St. Albans or fighting Gorlois and so the son would probably be younger than 10-15, but that;'s just my thinking.

Share this post


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

Now the problem with that is that the Countess is said to be the heiress, and she has a son. So if she is the daughter of Bledri, then her son is the grandson of Bledri, and this paragraph is wrong. I guess you could handwave it and say that since the son is not yet a man (i.e. an adult), this is what the Brothers are referring to. If Bledri is the first husband and Earl by the right of his wife, then this is a total red herring: Bledri's lineage matters not a jot, only the Countess'.

I think Beldri is supposed to be the Countesses'' second husband, but based upon what in the GPC he could have been her first husband or father. 

Lordly Domains, specifies that she is the wife of the Earl, but differs from the version presented in the GPC enough to have me question if Greg meant for the situation to be the same. 

But yeah the son could be just about any age, or even be deceased. THe GPC says that she gave birth to two children but not what their fates were. 

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, thanks for pointing me to the name of the husband. Greatly appreciated.

Second, I have Lordly Domains, and I will definitely look at it. But I'm not going to try to assume I need to square the element in one supplement with the elements of another.

Third, my inclination is to build the situation along the lines of what @Atgxtg proposes: That the Countess' husband died at the feast of St. Albans. I like how it echoes the situation in Sarum; I like how it nails down how the loss of the nobility of Britain is causing havoc. (It is what I assumed had happened before I read the passage @Morien quoted.)

As for the claims the brothers make about title being ridiculous.... well, the text of the GPC makes it clear the brothers make ridiculous claims. Note that their claims are not objective reality. That the brothers, in the wake of Uther's death and lack of order in Britain make claims that would not otherwise be supported is great in my view. There are rules. And then there are the people who follow them or break them.

I think the Countess has a son, and he should be heir. He is young, must be protected, but also must become a knight. There is plenty of Adventure material there. 

The brothers are saying they don't care. "Men are what matters, not boys. "Aagain, and echo of Sarum, and later Arthur. This flaunting or tradition and law is exactly what would want. They might be knights, but they are bad knights. They are perfect foils for the PKS. If the knights decided to take this problem on it will provide Adventures for several years worth of play in the Anarchy Phase.

Thank you for all the help.

Share this post


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

That the Countess' husband died at the feast of St. Albans. I like how it echoes the situation in Sarum; I like how it nails down how the loss of the nobility of Britain is causing havoc. (It is what I assumed had happened before I read the passage @Morien quoted.)

Yeah, plus it is revcent. I don't see a situation like that happening if Uther were around to act. THe whole thing seems perfect to happen at the start of the Anaerchy Peroid.

10 hours ago, creativehum said:

As for the claims the brothers make about title being ridiculous.... well, the text of the GPC makes it clear the brothers make ridiculous claims. Note that their claims are not objective reality. That the brothers, in the wake of Uther's death and lack of order in Britain make claims that would not otherwise be supported is great in my view. There are rules. And then there are the people who follow them or break them.

That's pretty much the way nobles act whent hey want something. In war they would actually go out of thier way to complise a list of greivevances to justify why they were attacking. Kinda showing that God was on thier side.

 

10 hours ago, creativehum said:

I think the Countess has a son, and he should be heir. He is young, must be protected, but also must become a knight. There is plenty of Adventure material there. 

The brothers are saying they don't care. "Men are what matters, not boys. "Aagain, and echo of Sarum, and later Arthur. This flaunting or tradition and law is exactly what would want. They might be knights, but they are bad knights. They are perfect foils for the PKS. If the knights decided to take this problem on it will provide Adventures for several years worth of play in the Anarchy Phase.

It's not actually flaunting of tradtion or law yet though. Part of the problem here is that feudalism is so new that it hasn't had time to become a tradition yet, and there is some logic tot he "men rather than boys" view later expressed by the Ten Kings against Arthur. The fact is, the boy Count cannot manage or defend his lands, which is a failure to fulfill his own feudal obligation and leaves the door open for what happened. Now I'm not saying that they guys are virtuous, loyal knights for usurping the castles, but they aren't quite villainous in their actions.  

The whole situation is just ambiguous enough that it could happen and be left uncorrected in a fedual society. Of course in Pendragon, Arthur will probably right the situation after Badon, if the PKs don't handle it before then. The adventure is a golden opportunity for the PKs to make friends in high places and earn a future favor, or even a castellancy or some such.

 

10 hours ago, creativehum said:

Thank you for all the help.

Happy gaming. 

Share this post


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

The whole situation is just ambiguous enough...

Which, like Cerdic and countless other examples from the GPC, is exactly as it should be. The Players (and by extension the PKs), need at some point to make their own choices about who to back, how to act, what is right, what is knight, what is a good king, how to use their authority and power, how to interact with those without power, and so on.

There are assumptions of law and custom... and then there are interpretations and application of those laws and customs... and then there is rejection of those laws and customs. All of this is possible by various NPCs -- and by the PKs as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Which, like Cerdic and countless other examples from the GPC, is exactly as it should be. The Players (and by extension the PKs), need at some point to make their own choices about who to back, how to act, what is right, what is knight, what is a good king, how to use their authority and power, how to interact with those without power, and so on.

Yup. Although in some cases, despite the situation being presented as ambiguous, what is actually going on is pretty simple to work out. 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

There are assumptions of law and custom... and then there are interpretations and application of those laws and customs... and then there is rejection of those laws and customs. All of this is possible by various NPCs -- and by the PKs as well. 

Indeed. That is why situations in Pendragon don't always hit players over the head with clear cut choices. There is rarely a "right solution"  to something, and the players must deice on a solution that is the "most wright" or "least wrong" to them. Ironically, when there is a "right solution" to a problem, it is usually something that might not seem right to the players, as modern ethics and morality differs from medieval ethics and morality.

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...