What to do with wives?

[jeffjerwin]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

 

Oh, I see. Carrying on with Sir Extraordinary (50K) is more glorious that carrying on with Sir Potato of Couch (1500 glory). I can buy that.

There are quite a few women who have heard many stories about Gawaine. I mean, he has quite the fan club in the literature, even outside of KAP. Lancelot too, but he's also famous for his Chastity, which is a bit of a downer, unless you're Elaine of Astolat and have no sense.

[Atgxtg]

56 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

unless you're Elaine of Astolat and have no sense.

LOL! Pretty much every damosel was after him. No that it's hard to see why. He was the son of a king and heir to a throne; was the most glorious knight in the world, was a paragon of chilvary, and, according to most accounts, wasn't to harsh on the eyes either. 

[jeffjerwin]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

LOL! Pretty much every damosel was after him. No that it's hard to see why. He was the son of a king and heir to a throne; was the most glorious knight in the world, was a paragon of chilvary, and, according to most accounts, wasn't to harsh on the eyes either. 

True, but the ones after Gawaine were better grounded in reality. I find the Lanzelet version of the character an interesting pre-prose Lancelot counterpoint; that one's neither chaste nor faithful...

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

True, but the ones after Gawaine were better grounded in reality

Not surprising as Gawain as a character is more grounded in reality than Lancelot, who is perhaps the original Mary Sue. Lancelot is pretty much courtly love fan-fiction for women, and his behavior is geared towards that. Only Galahad is move over the top but he's fan-fiction for the devout. 

[jeffjerwin]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Not surprising as Gawain as a character is more grounded in reality than Lancelot, who is perhaps the original Mary Sue. Lancelot is pretty much courtly love fan-fiction for women, and his behavior is geared towards that. Only Galahad is move over the top but he's fan-fiction for the devout. 

Yes, as Perceval's holy foolishness is hardly suitable... 

[Atgxtg]

23 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

Yes, as Perceval's holy foolishness is hardly suitable... 

 It's kinda like a mugger being forced to explain what's happening to his victim. It takes a while to get him up to speed, and there is no guarantee that he's got any worth taking.  

Plus, depending on which version of Percival you go by, he might already be taken, and he's too chaste to cheat on his wife.

[TerryTroll]

On 4/2/2019 at 2:40 PM, Sir Mad Munkee said:

Call me a feminist, but I'm considering having tick boxes on the wives' Traits, Passions & Skills, and giving them annual Glory, as if they were actually people. Maybe it'll be a pain in the ass and just stretch out the Winter Phase too long, but I like the idea of wives who might possibly change over time, and not just in that they automatically get better at doing the things their husbands need them to.

Have you dealt with any of this yourself already?

I'm not sure if it is feminist or not, but more down to how much work you want to put into NPCs. After all the Book of Entourage puts no more detail into the Husband for Lady characters than it does for the Wife of Player Knights.

Only one of my PKs has got married so far, I think the Lord will need to put pressure on the others soon. The other players have been holding off because of the system in the KAP, which gives a bonus on the roll for delaying, but I'm switching to the rules in the Book of Entourage, so hopefully that will encourage them.

[Hzark10]

49 minutes ago, TerryTroll said:

The other players have been holding off because of the system in the KAP, which gives a bonus on the roll for delaying, but I'm switching to the rules in the Book of Entourage, so hopefully that will encourage them.

Might want to have one have a brush with death, and then in passing during a court scene, mention about how poor "Sir BadLucky" died without an heir and so the liege is taking back the land. Yes, holding out might mean a better wife and all, but if the knight dies, then it becomes harder for the dynastic aspect to kick in.

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, TerryTroll said:

Only one of my PKs has got married so far, I think the Lord will need to put pressure on the others soon. The other players have been holding off because of the system in the KAP, which gives a bonus on the roll for delaying, but I'm switching to the rules in the Book of Entourage, so hopefully that will encourage them.

How old are they? And how many brothers doe they have? All the PKs in my group got married ASAP, since they wanted to ensure that they would have a son to inherit, and that he would be ready to play by the time their original characters retired or died. Most of my PKs don't like playing backup characters, as they are nearly always second rate compared to the primary characters, or their glory often comes at the expense of the main characters.

[TerryTroll]

20 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

How old are they? And how many brothers doe they have?

Campaign started in 485, we are currently playing Pathfinder, but when I'm back to running it will be the start of 490, so the knights are going to be 26.

The married Knight who got married in 488, has still yet to produce an heir, although he has a bastard son growing up with a farmer's wife (unknown to him or the farmer) in Imber that would now be five. He has two younger brothers, and a much younger half-brother (as his mother remarried after his father died, the step-father has eyes on his manor).

One unmarried knight also has a bastard from a knight celebrating in Imber, although the serving maid died in childbirth, and the boy has since come to live on his manor, and another bastard in Frankland from the last campaign. He also has a younger brother.

The other unmarried knight has insisted on being Chaste and has not even fathered a bastard in all those years. He two has a younger brothers.

So it's not like they couldn't continue the family with a younger brother if they happened to die unexpectedly.

[Atgxtg]

 

1 minute ago, TerryTroll said:

So it's not like they couldn't continue the family with a younger brother if they happened to die unexpectedly.

Yeah but the brother wouldn't get 1/10th of the Glory of the previous character.

The lack of a desire to wed could simply be to lack of experience with Pendragon, or the familiarity with Pathfinder. In most RPGs the passage of time is a lot slower, and someone who writes up a 21 year old knight in those games might expect it to take years of real time before the character is old enough to retire or the son ready to take over. So another 21 years might take 4-5 years of real time in a D&D or Pathfinder game. The players might be expecting something similar in Pendragon, and not realize that 21 years will go by in around 5 months. 

Most of my PKs really didn't get it until after the first campaign, where only a couple of characters managed to get landed and secure a family line early on, and it gave them a huge advantage later on when they could pass down glory, land, and possessions while the other PKS had to basically start over from scratch. By the middle of the campaign, securing an heir became a major concern.

If you want the PKs to focus on getting married, teach them by example, have a non player knight with some land, and maybe a superior horse and armor, die without issue, and watch as the land and cool stuff escheat back to the liege lord, and how some other knight  winds up with the manor. Then show another knight who has an heir and how everything passed down to him.  

[Tizun Thane]

Quote

If you want the PKs to focus on getting married, teach them by example, have a non player knight with some land, and maybe a superior horse and armor, die without issue, and watch as the land and cool stuff escheat back to the liege lord, and how some other knight  winds up with the manor. Then show another knight who has an heir and how everything passed down to him.  

I think the best teaching is to let the PK make their own choices and to live with the consequences. Just the glory you win is sufficient.

If thy're Pathfinder players to the core, you have to remind them the it's a dynastic game. The Character is not that important. The family is. For a GM, you have to show them that women are real and everywhere Not only heiresses, but also the sweet sister of another player, the hostess on the road or his daughter, the damsel in distress, this kind of things.  If you play them, the players will notice them. After that, weddings will be in the air.

[Hzark10]

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah but the brother wouldn't get 1/10th of the Glory of the previous character.

True, but he does get the 1/10th of his father's as well.  And, if by chance the father was not dead when the original character entered play, any further accumulation would pass onto the brother.

 

14 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

If thy're Pathfinder players to the core, you have to remind them the it's a dynastic game. The Character is not that important. The family is.

KAP is one game where players need to take the longer view.  If one is playing out the entire saga, it is a huge undertaking and may involve four or five generations.