Higher then heiress....

[Uhtred]

I have a PK that wishes to begin courting Lady Sulwyn - Baroness of the Hidden Vale. Obviously she is unattainable despite his rising star status - he has been part of Earl Rodericks retinue during  several negotiations, he just helped retrieve Excalibur - while almost single handedly slaying both foes - and he’s a foreigner who brings an air of mystery. While Uther would never see fit to marry such a low tier knight to a Baroness, the feast cards allowed him a tryst with a Lady and he’s angling for the Baroness based on his devotion - and my dice say there should be an offspring on the way. I haven’t ruled one way or another formally, and I intend for the Baroness to introduce the Order of Boudicca’s Daughters I have seen mentioned on the Nocturnal Forum (further cementing her intent to be her own power, not simply a trophy to be wed), so I see several paths forward allowing a myriad of rp options - but I lack historical perspective that I’m hoping some of the more experienced members might share with me. 

In the long story arc, I intend for the Baroness to survive in to Anarchy and her relationship with the PK might be the bedrock for an alliance between Clarence and Salisbury that will unfortunately make a bad situation worse for the PK’s as his amor might interfere with his duty. 

Thoughts and suggestions are greatly appreciated 

[Morien]

Well I guess it is too late to cry over spilt milk, but... Chastity was a huge deal for unmarried noble women. Having a bastard (unless it was with a king or a king's son) was a huge no-no, and would probably land the woman in a nunnery for the rest of her life. It is not as in the modern world with plentiful and safe contraceptives and less of a stigma for sex outside marriage.

Amor tended to be directed towards married women for a reason. No virginity to spoil, and if there was a baby, hey, who could tell exactly who the father was? Which is another thing why the noble women were kept under such a close surveillance, to ensure that they would stay faithful to their husbands. Not that courtly amor existed under Uther anyway.

I'd interpret the 'tryst' as much less than 'and then they had sex'. Making out, heavy petting, but not the final step. That is way too risky for a noble woman. Granted, a lower-ranking woman might take a promise of a marriage as gospel (since it was as good as), but the man could disavow it later if there were no witnesses.

The PK's best chance would be right after the Anarchy. Marry the Baroness and kill anyone who says otherwise. Have some babies with her (if she is not too old*), bend a knee to Nanteleod, and by the time Arthur comes along, it is already an established fact. Can't wait for a royal permission when there is no king, after all. This might even work if the Baroness is against the idea, although then you probably need a bigger army.

 

* Easiest way to handle this as a GM, IMHO: Have her a widow with already a couple/a few kids, including at least one son. Make her old enough that by 495, she is unlikely to have any more. Then, she and the PK can potentially (if he earns it) marry, the PK can lord it over the rest of his life (but with great power comes great responsibility, and with Clarence and Glevum at odds, Hidden Vale will be in danger of getting smacked around, too). This way, there is no Baron PK to throw off your campaign due to the power level imbalance.

[The God Learner]

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

I'd interpret the 'tryst' as much less than 'and then they had sex'. Making out, heavy petting, but not the final step.

Didn't one of the old Pendragon books have a 20-step progression (yes, it might actually have been 20 steps) of romantically overcoming the Reluctance of a Lady? It could have been in the Boy King but my memory fails me.

[Atgxtg]

36 minutes ago, The God Learner said:

Didn't one of the old Pendragon books have a 20-step progression (yes, it might actually have been 20 steps) of romantically overcoming the Reluctance of a Lady? It could have been in the Boy King but my memory fails me.

Yes, it was part of the Lover's Solo rules for Courtly Love and has been around since KAP 3-4. It probably wouldn't apply in this case though, since this is happening in the time of Uther, and Courtly Love hasn't been introduced yet.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Well I guess it is too late to cry over spilt milk, but... Chastity was a huge deal for unmarried noble women. Having a bastard (unless it was with a king or a king's son) was a huge no-no, and would probably land the woman in a nunnery for the rest of her life. It is not as in the modern world with plentiful and safe contraceptives and less of a stigma for sex outside marriage.

That depends quite a bit on time and place. In the Middle Ages in a primarily Christian world that was true, but in the dark ages in a partially Pagan land, it's not quite so cut and dried. So a lot of this would depend on how feudal and how Christian the campaign has become the campaign has become.

 

BTW, Welcome to the "new" Pendragon forums, nice to see you here.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Morien]

14 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

That depends quite a bit on time and place. In the Middle Ages in a primarily Christian world that was true, but in the dark ages in a partially Pagan land, it's not quite so cut and dried. So a lot of this would depend on how feudal and how Christian the campaign has become the campaign has become.

Given that we are talking of Baroness Sulien in Book of the Warlord, we are pretty solidly in the high medieval worldview. Also, see Greg's webpage about ladies and chastity. Now YPMV, of course, and Uther being the horndog that he is, I could see a GM running the setting differently. But from what I can tell, Chastity is supposed to be a big deal.

14 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

BTW, Welcome to the "new" Pendragon forums, nice to see you here.

Thanks. I have been lurking around a couple of weeks when the Nocturnal Forum was locked down, but didn't have much to say before.

[Uhtred]

16 hours ago, Morien said:

Well I guess it is too late to cry over spilt milk, but... Chastity was a huge deal for unmarried noble women. Having a bastard (unless it was with a king or a king's son) was a huge no-no, and would probably land the woman in a nunnery for the rest of her life. It is not as in the modern world with plentiful and safe contraceptives and less of a stigma for sex outside marriage.

Amor tended to be directed towards married women for a reason. No virginity to spoil, and if there was a baby, hey, who could tell exactly who the father was? Which is another thing why the noble women were kept under such a close surveillance, to ensure that they would stay faithful to their husbands. Not that courtly amor existed under Uther anyway.

Nothing is spilt as of yet, I merely rolled the dice early to consider implications and possibilities. As I said, he has 0 chance of wedding her but thru the solo charts I found on another site he has developed a devotion (not amor) to her and expressed that his multiple crits preclude wandering off with random strumpet at the feast. My mind is wandering far down this path though because she is a Baroness, not just a Lady and not a female knight. She has power and I want to build upon her ambitions to retain that power. Uther has not forced her to be married her off for some reason - maybe historically age or widowed, but I am writing her up as late 20’s with no (surviving?) children - even though she would be a good political match for many, so how is she staving off being shelved?

In the PK she sees a foreigner that her people would be less than enthusiastic to have as their Lord, so flirting with and being courted by him allows her to claim she is doing her duty and looking toward the future while not actually acting on it, while allowing the PK to continue his pursuit. He is a young player though that relies on dice rolls as opposed to role playing so I intend to honor those rolls, while stymieing his endeavor. In the end, should the PK’s elect to try to build a coalition around Clarence and Salisbury to fight the Anarchy I expect to break his heart as she will be married to a higher power - or she will be dispossessed by Nanteleod’s invasion and he will wed a landless noble intent on reclaiming what is rightfully hers. 

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

That depends quite a bit on time and place. In the Middle Ages in a primarily Christian world that was true, but in the dark ages in a partially Pagan land, it's not quite so cut and dried. So a lot of this would depend on how feudal and how Christian the campaign has become the campaign has become.

 

BTW, Welcome to the "new" Pendragon forums, nice to see you here.

Christian or Pagan, some people want power at whatever costs and I’m playing her that way. Unfortunately, the time and place dictates she must have heirs to carry forth her lineage but getting said heirs means being married off and subsumed by her husband (historically), so how does she keep what’s hers while avoiding Uther’s dominion?

 

As a quick aside, will you be continuing your work on the armor values in the near future? 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Uhtred
Misread previous post

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Given that we are talking of Baroness Sulien in Book of the Warlord, we are pretty solidly in the high medieval worldview. Also, see Greg's webpage about ladies and chastity. Now YPMV, of course, and Uther being the horndog that he is, I could see a GM running the setting differently. But from what I can tell, Chastity is supposed to be a big deal.

Since Sulien was a Northern lord recently defeated by Uther, and that he rules Jagent, which is populated by Pict Pagans, the fact that the could be Pagan is a distinct possibility.  As could be the Baroness. And considering that we are talking Uther reign we are hardly at at the high middle ages yet in the game. 

So how solid can that worldview  be? Pendragon does have Pagans roaming all over the place with Lustful as one of their religious traits. By solid high medieval worldview all those pagans would have been converted or killed. Everyone in High Medieval Britain would have had to have been Christian or face severe consequences. Yet Pendragon has the Ladies of the Lake and other Pagans practicing freely.

The problem here is really the fact that high Medieval feudalism was an entirely Christian institution, but the lands of  Pendragon are far from being entirely Christian. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Thanks. I have been lurking around a couple of weeks when the Nocturnal Forum was locked down, but didn't have much to say before.

Neither did anyone else who wasn't spamming a porn site, sadly.  It's a shame what happened to the site. I only hope that whatever custodians exist manage to sift through and save posts from before the deluge of spam. There is  some useful stuff on the site, buried under all that trash. 

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

3 hours ago, Morien said:

Given that we are talking of Baroness Sulien in Book of the Warlord,

Since Sulien was a Northern lord recently defeated by Uther, and that he rules Jagent, which is populated by Pict Pagans, the fact that the could be Pagan is a distinct possibility.  As could be the Baroness. And considering that we are talking Uther reign we are hardly at at the high middle ages yet in the game. 

Sorry, my typo. Baroness SULWYN. No relation of Sulien of BEDEGRAINE. I am not sure where you got Jagent? In any case, Hidden Vale is in Clarence, which is solidly Christian.

Book of the Warlord and Book of Uther make it very clear that the historical parallel is the Norman kings of England (1066 -1154), as far as the society and the administration of the realm goes. That is High Middle Ages (about 1000 - 1250). Personally, the parallel I'd draw with Uther is:

- Martial prowess of William I (the Conqueror)

- (Lack of) Piety of William II (Rufus)

- Amorous appetites of Henry I

[Morien]

3 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Nothing is spilt as of yet, I merely rolled the dice early to consider implications and possibilities. As I said, he has 0 chance of wedding her but thru the solo charts I found on another site he has developed a devotion (not amor) to her and expressed that his multiple crits preclude wandering off with random strumpet at the feast. My mind is wandering far down this path though because she is a Baroness, not just a Lady and not a female knight. She has power and I want to build upon her ambitions to retain that power. Uther has not forced her to be married her off for some reason - maybe historically age or widowed, but I am writing her up as late 20’s with no (surviving?) children - even though she would be a good political match for many, so how is she staving off being shelved?

Multiple crits? In the feast while flirting with her or something? Or multiple crits during his whole career, referring to the Glory he has gained? The latter has naught to do with it. The former is a different matter; I managed to get a player who rolled two crits while dancing and flirting with a princess, so I went with it, but that was explicitly a higher powered game and stretched over a longer timespan, meaning that once we'd pick up the family, it would be a couple of generations down the line already. Long story. My point is that while HE might think he is too good for wenches, why should SHE think he is good enough for HER? In any case, your campaign, your call.

I do wonder a bit, though. Since if you go by the rules for the heiresses, there should be just two ways that she can be a ruling Baroness:

1) She has already married & widowed 2-3 times (I forget which one Greg finally settled on, I think 3) and hence she is free to do what she wants and pick her own husband. But she has absolutely no need for one, save for gaining an heir, which is a pretty darn good reason. In this case, I could very well see her being quite flirty with knights, trying to find one who would be a suitable husband for her, one who would not try to reduced her to a mere broodmare. Still, having a child out of wedlock would be very bad form, and Uther would be under no legal obligation to acknowledge the bastard as a legitimate heir, so it would be useless from that standpoint, too.

2) She is confirmed as a Baroness by Uther for his own reasons, and given what we know about Uther, she might even be his ex-mistress. Or she was confirmed by Aurelius (father having been a good buddy or something) and Uther is unable to compel her to marry, since she is no longer a ward.

Personally, I would have added some kids to make it less likely that the player's next PK will be a Baron (assuming he succeeds in his intentions, rather than her being married to someone else, especially since it sounds like he has a high chance of dying at St. Albans, being so heroic, too), but then again, he could always play the Spare instead. I simply dislike having such a big gap of wealth amongst the PKs, not to mention that it would move the Baron PK out of the orbit of Salisbury, hence having much less reason to hang around with other PKs. Of course, the Spare could be given the lands in Salisbury, which would take care of that. While she could be dispossessed/usurped by whoever, there would be a high chance of Arthur restoring her or her children to their claim.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Morien

[Atgxtg]

45 minutes ago, Morien said:

Sorry, my typo. Baroness SULWYN. No relation of Sulien of BEDEGRAINE. I am not sure where you got Jagent? In any case, Hidden Vale is in Clarence, which is solidly Christian.

Oh, okay. I got Jagent from The Book of the Warlord, page 19

37 Sir Sulien, Count Bedegraine, and Baron of the Field of Doves (Bedegraine), Castle on the Shining
Stream C (Jagent). Sulien is a northern lord, newly defeated, now loyal to his conqueror Uther.

And Book of Knights & Ladies made Jagent Pict/Pagan

45 minutes ago, Morien said:

Book of the Warlord and Book of Uther make it very clear that the historical parallel is the Norman kings of England (1066 -1154), as far as the society and the administration of the realm goes. That is High Middle Ages (about 1000 - 1250).

Not even considering the armor. But even if it were ture, the rest of Pendragon draws quite heavily from Celtic sources. The problem I see is that a sizable proportion of people, including nobles and noblewomen are not Christian. Pagan Noblewomen will have Lusftul as a religious virtual and social custom. I can't see holding them to the Christian values.

This all stems from the fact the over the years Pendragon has drawn more and more from Mallory and later romances and less from Celtic sources. In KAP1 Gawain was Pagan (in part due to his Celtic Orgins as Gwalchmei), now he's Chrsitian. Same with Merlin. 

I think if Pagans are going to have as much of a influence over things as they do in Pendragon, then we need to allow for differences in culture. 

[Morien]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, okay. I got Jagent from The Book of the Warlord, page 19

37 Sir Sulien, Count Bedegraine, and Baron of the Field of Doves (Bedegraine), Castle on the Shining
Stream C (Jagent). Sulien is a northern lord, newly defeated, now loyal to his conqueror Uther.

And Book of Knights & Ladies made Jagent Pict/Pagan 

As I stated, Sulien was a typo on my part. Baroness Sulwyn, who is being discussed here, has no relationship with Sulien. Even if she did, Sulien is from Bedegraine (which is Cymric/British Christian) and is the Count of Bedegraine, not Jagent. He simply holds a castle in Jagent (no doubt given to him by Uther to tie him more to Logres). 

(Also, Picts are British Christian or Heathen, not Pagans, at least in my version of BoK&L.)

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The problem I see is that a sizable proportion of people, including nobles and noblewomen are not Christian. Pagan Noblewomen will have Lusftul as a religious virtual and social custom. I can't see holding them to the Christian values.

There was a nice discussion in Nocturnal Forums whether the Pagans should have Lustful in the first place. In any case, Lustful should not mean that the Pagan Ladies cheat on their husbands at every opportunity and their husbands would be fine being cuckolded (although I would make an exception perhaps for Beltaine celebrations... what happens in Beltaine stays in Beltaine). Unmarried ladies having bastards would be a no-no. The King would not have any obligation to give the bastards the same rights as the legitimate children. Greg's dishonor rules didn't have any provision for Pagan Ladies.

If you look at the religious make-up of Logres, it is OVERWHELMINGLY Christian. You get a sprinkling of Cymric/Pagan around Savage Forest (Lonazep, Brun, Lambor, Wuerensis) and only in Brun are they the majority. You have Pagans in Salisbury so that the starting PKs can be pagan, but clearly even there, Christianity is the religion of the majority.

Now once you go outside of Logres, especially to Cambria and Caledonia, you are on a much better footing. I could more easily accept that in those, majority pagan kingdoms, acknowledged bastards from concubines would be as good as legitimate children. Although I would still expect that the kings would be pretty jealous over their queens, since any lovers that the queen would have might plant a cuckoo in the royal nest...

[Atgxtg]

3 minutes ago, Morien said:

As I stated, Sulien was a typo on my part. Baroness Sulwyn, who is being discussed here, has no relationship with Sulien. Even if she did, Sulien is from Bedegraine (which is Cymric/British Christian) and is the Count of Bedegraine, not Jagent. He simply holds a castle in Jagent (no doubt given to him by Uther to tie him more to Logres). 

I'm not bothered so much by as a case by case, but am by how KAP has kept Paganism yet it doesn;t work in the increasinly Chrisitain setting. 

3 minutes ago, Morien said:

(Also, Picts are British Christian or Heathen, not Pagans, at least in my version of BoK&L.)

Mine too. 

3 minutes ago, Morien said:

There was a nice discussion in Nocturnal Forums whether the Pagans should have Lustful in the first place.

There susally is. But it doesn't change the rules. 

3 minutes ago, Morien said:

 

 

In any case, Lustful should not mean that the Pagan Ladies cheat on their husbands at every opportunity and their husbands would be fine being cuckolded (although I would make an exception perhaps for Beltaine celebrations... what happens in Beltaine stays in Beltaine). Unmarried ladies having bastards would be a no-no.

Which flies right in the face of thier Relgious beliefs. If the setting was that close to the Middle Ages then the Pagans wouldn't exist-at least not openly. And everyboy who had a high worldy score would have the Chruch cracking down on them. 

3 minutes ago, Morien said:

The King would not have any obligation to give the bastards the same rights as the legitimate children. Greg's dishonor rules didn't have any provision for Pagan Ladies.

No problem there. I didn't claim that the bastards would have and rights under a feudal system- just that there shouldn't be the same sor tof scoial stigma in a Pagan Culture as in a Medieval Christian one. 

3 minutes ago, Morien said:

If you look at the religious make-up of Logres, it is OVERWHELMINGLY Christian. You get a sprinkling of Cymric/Pagan around Savage Forest (Lonazep, Brun, Lambor, Wuerensis) and only in Brun are they the majority. You have Pagans in Salisbury so that the starting PKs can be pagan, but clearly even there, Christianity is the religion of the majority.

Yes, but in order for the two to coexist people have to be able to follow those beliefs. 

3 minutes ago, Morien said:

Now once you go outside of Logres, especially to Cambria and Caledonia, you are on a much better footing. I could more easily accept that in those, majority pagan kingdoms, acknowledged bastards from concubines would be as good as legitimate children. Although I would still expect that the kings would be pretty jealous over their queens, since any lovers that the queen would have might plant a cuckoo in the royal nest...

I'm not saying that illigetimate children would have any special rights. Just that I don';t see how they can be good pagans and not be lustful. 

As I mentioned eariler, this is mostly a case of Pendragon moving further away from the Celtic sources to more Christian ones. Even Merlin has changed from a Pagan Archdruid to Christian over the editions.

[Uhtred]

9 hours ago, Morien said:

Multiple crits? In the feast while flirting with her or something? Or multiple crits during his whole career, referring to the Glory he has gained? The latter has naught to do with it. The former is a different matter; I managed to get a player who rolled two crits while dancing and flirting with a princess, so I went with it, but that was explicitly a higher powered game and stretched over a longer timespan, meaning that once we'd pick up the family, it would be a couple of generations down the line already. Long story. My point is that while HE might think he is too good for wenches, why should SHE think he is good enough for HER? In any case, your campaign, your call.

I do wonder a bit, though. Since if you go by the rules for the heiresses, there should be just two ways that she can be a ruling Baroness:

1) She has already married & widowed 2-3 times (I forget which one Greg finally settled on, I think 3) and hence she is free to do what she wants and pick her own husband. But she has absolutely no need for one, save for gaining an heir, which is a pretty darn good reason. In this case, I could very well see her being quite flirty with knights, trying to find one who would be a suitable husband for her, one who would not try to reduced her to a mere broodmare. Still, having a child out of wedlock would be very bad form, and Uther would be under no legal obligation to acknowledge the bastard as a legitimate heir, so it would be useless from that standpoint, too.

2) She is confirmed as a Baroness by Uther for his own reasons, and given what we know about Uther, she might even be his ex-mistress. Or she was confirmed by Aurelius (father having been a good buddy or something) and Uther is unable to compel her to marry, since she is no longer a ward.

Personally, I would have added some kids to make it less likely that the player's next PK will be a Baron (assuming he succeeds in his intentions, rather than her being married to someone else, especially since it sounds like he has a high chance of dying at St. Albans, being so heroic, too), but then again, he could always play the Spare instead. I simply dislike having such a big gap of wealth amongst the PKs, not to mention that it would move the Baron PK out of the orbit of Salisbury, hence having much less reason to hang around with other PKs. Of course, the Spare could be given the lands in Salisbury, which would take care of that. While she could be dispossessed/usurped by whoever, there would be a high chance of Arthur restoring her or her children to their claim.

Yes the Crits in question are all related to a single Feast - after having caught her attention during a previous Courtly encounter do to an Orate Crit by one of the other PK's lauding his knightly virtues.  What I was pursuing lies in your point 1 and 2 though - I knew she would be empowered to pursue her own marriage having been widowed multiple times already, and I did not particularly feel that route.  Having been confirmed by Uther or Aurelius was the option I was groping in the dark for.  Seeing that, I lean automatically to Aurelius and actually having Uther chafe at her presence - she is capable, self-assured, and completely disinterested in visiting his bed chamber to meet her personal ambitions.  Book of the Warlord includes 3 women of power - Lady Pomponia, Lady Blodeyn, and Lady Sulwyn - and I've slotted one in to each age bracket for interest and game play.  Lady Blodeyn is the aged dowager style matriarch shepherding her dynasty, Lady Pomponia is the mature power gamer looking to gain more, and Lady Sulwyn is the (relatively) young woman looking to secure her future as her own.  

So how does Lady Sulwyn secure an heir while not becoming lost in the shuffle of simply being a wife?  If she marries someone of equal standing she loses her place on the Council of Barons correct?  If she has children out of wedlock they are bastards and aren't given standing, and if she marries beneath her status, then.... ? 

Just to reiterate, the party balance will not be disrupted by the PK marrying into an estate because his only chance at marrying her is if she looses her lands during the Anarchy.  If the PK's can negotiate a successful alliance that benefits Clarence and Salisbury, one of the costs will be a wedding between the good Lady and an appropriate Lord in Salisbury who can cement the union - creating a very well known moment of lament for the PK as he sees his beloved married off to bring peace.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Uhtred said:

So how does Lady Sulwyn secure an heir while not becoming lost in the shuffle of simply being a wife? 

It's tough to pull off. Historically such a woman had to be very strong willed and have a strong following of her own. Often becuase there was no stone male up to the job.

Quote

If she marries someone of equal standing she loses her place on the Council of Barons correct?  If she has children out of wedlock they are bastards and aren't given standing, and if she marries beneath her status, then.... ? 

The latter might be the best way for her to keep her power. If she marries someone who is a little below her station then she would be the more powerful of the two and might still retain influence. It would work out to her having more knights loyal to her (or her deceased husband) than her would be husband does. 

The trick to this though is that Uther probably won't like it and could take action to put a stop to it. The knight she marries would, from a prictcal standpoint, have the power and forces that go with her lands, even if he might not have the pretgue and such that goes with it. Uther would certainly want to be sure of such a man's loyalty and abilities.

Quote

Just to reiterate, the party balance will not be disrupted by the PK marrying into an estate because his only chance at marrying her is if she looses her lands during the Anarchy.

One thing to watch out for is that Arthur later restores lands lost during the Anarchy. So if you want the lasts to be lost permanently, you probably need to come up with someone with a stronger claim. Maybe a lost relative or child who was presumed dead resurfaces? Either that or somehow discredit Sulwyn's  claim.

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Uhtred]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

One thing to watch out for is that Arthur later restores lands lost during the Anarchy. So if you want the lasts to be lost permanently, you probably need to come up with someone with a stronger claim. Maybe a lost relative or child who was presumed dead resurfaces? Either that or somehow discredit Sulwyn's  claim.

 

It’s 486 and she’s in her late 20’s, the start of Anarchy will see her in her late 30’s, and if they fail in their endeavors and she looses her lands and becomes eligible to wed she will be in her 40’s so the PK will be unable to have children with her. By the time Arthur arrives to reinstate her claims the PK’s will be retiring original characters for heirs, and he will have to watch his “spare” come to the fore as his original retires to his Barony.  Will he have a friend and ally in high places? Sure. But there will be no Baron PK. 

[Hzark10]

At least until the parents die off. Also, I know of those who had children later than 40 without help. Rare, but possible. Just keep an open mind and see how the story develops. Maybe by the time this all has come to pass in 510 or so, the campaign may have taken a different tone where a player Baron might be desireable. After all, there will be lands to rule once the Saxons are defeated.

[JonL]

If she's already reigning as a Baroness in her own right, who's going to send her off to an abbey?  If she's already sufficiently popular, strong-willed, and politically adroit to have retained the support of the former baron's vassals and avoided annexation by a neighbor or usurpation by some distanc cousin, she's probably already disposed of any hard-core chauvinists among her vassals who might otherwise be looking for an excuse to rebel. She's probably got champions lined up 5-deep itching to beat the crap out of any knave who would call her unfit to rule. Imagine someone walking up to Hen's Castle and saying that Grace O'Malley should be deposed and cloistered for taking lovers after her first husband died. He'd be lucky to avoid being from the battlements.

[Atgxtg]

21 hours ago, JonL said:

If she's already reigning as a Baroness in her own right, who's going to send her off to an abbey?

The King, probably at the request of her enemies. If it happens.

21 hours ago, JonL said:

 If she's already sufficiently popular, strong-willed, and politically adroit to have retained the support of the former baron's vassals and avoided annexation by a neighbor or usurpation by some distanc cousin, she's probably already disposed of any hard-core chauvinists among her vassals who might otherwise be looking for an excuse to rebel. She's probably got champions lined up 5-deep itching to beat the crap out of any knave who would call her unfit to rule. Imagine someone walking up to Hen's Castle and saying that Grace O'Malley should be deposed and cloistered for taking lovers after her first husband died. He'd be lucky to avoid being from the battlements.

If such were to occur, then it would be because some powerful rival or enemy has the ability to make this stick. Basically the event would be seen as an opportunity. 

Now assuming for the moment that somebody with a claim and the connections to get the King to act on this, then it turns into a case of does she step down quietly and her supporters swear fealty to a new liege to safeguard their own interests, or does she defy Uther and risk the consequences?But if such a thing were to happen would depend a lot on just what the scandal/charge is, just who the rival claimant is, their connections, how well he is viewed by the other knights of the barony, and then what Uther decides, and if he wishes to act upon that. 

But almost anything could happen, depending on the other details.