jeffjerwin Posted January 4, 2019 Report Share Posted January 4, 2019 2 hours ago, Atgxtg said: I agree. And one of the nice things about the "Book of" approach to things is that GMs who don't want it don't have to buy or use it. As far as female knights go, I think the book would need to spell out just how that would work. As a GM I'm less concerned about letting women fight like the men (the Cymri, Saxons etc. all had warrior women as part of their cultures) than I am about the social repercussions of female knights on the feudal structure. Stuff like: Who inherits land from a female knight? The eldest son, the eldest daughter, or just the eldest child? What happens, land wise when a female knight marries a male knight? Does the husband get control of both estates? The one with the most glory? Are they kept separate? If the wife dies does the husband keep her land or get 1/3rd of it value to maintain himself? And, again, just how does that all impact inheritance? So if the Book of Ladies allowed female knights, it would open up a big can of worms that would need to be sorted out- and it a way that didn't ruin the feel of the game. My suggestion would be to treat female knights either as one offs (so everything defualts to the norm, except for the handful of female knights), or along family and county lines (so that in the family of Boudicea in the lands of the Iceni, the women always were the warriors and so they are Knights and can hold land in that area). In France, inheritances from the mother were often assigned to younger sons or elder daughters. A female knight (and there were some similar roles - a 'chevaleresse' or 'chevalière' in France was a woman who either was married to someone with a knight's fee or held one in her own right. A woman possessing a noble title or fief in her own right in 12th century England or France would transmit them to her heirs of her body, not any stepchildren or a widower (though if she has minor children, the widower would be the guardian of these lands). A female knight would have the same inheritance rights and privileges as man. This is a major plot point in the romance of Silence, which is semi-Arthurian, and features a woman disguised as a man who becomes a knight. Glory would impact the partner to a limited degree, like a wife bestows Glory for her marriage to her new husband. In my view, female knights ought to be rare and singular (and maybe there is a PC plus a woman knight who acts as a mentor...) and/or a small and exclusive order linked to specific cultures, but they definite have a niche in Arthurian romance: Grisandole, Silence, and Britomart are very memorable characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.