Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BioKeith

Campaign Summaries

Recommended Posts

As I'm mining for ideas for my own campaign(s), I've enjoyed scanning the various summaries of other campagins I've come across.

Of course, @sirlarkins own campaign is a must listen, and the only one I've seen that actually completed the whole thing.

https://a-matter-of-britain.obsidianportal.com/

 

Does anyone have some others to suggest?

https://pendragonthehuntingtoncampaign.obsidianportal.com/

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is also a very long campaign here:

https://discussions.shutupandsitdown.com/t/the-great-pendragon-campaign/4390

 

A bit messy to follow along but the GM includes a lot of self-written adventures, maps and stuff - highly recommended

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also Steven Lumpkin's The Great Pendragon Campaign - The Fall of Uther on YouTube:

I highly recommend this, Steven is a great GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've uploaded my session reports on my blog.  We got through the Uther period, took a break, and are now picking up with the Anarchy.

The first session report is here for 485.

Generally I talk about the meta stuff surrounding the game as much as the content of the game itself.  493 is probably my favorite session from the first phase, but  Year 491 was the most memorable.

Edited by Willow
fixed links
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 3:32 PM, Willow said:

I've uploaded my session reports on my blog.  We got through the Uther period, took a break, and are now picking up with the Anarchy.

The first session report is here for 485.

Generally I talk about the meta stuff surrounding the game as much as the content of the game itself.  493 is probably my favorite session from the first phase, but  Year 491 was the most memorable.

Thank you for alerting on this, and for making it a blog and not a podcast or video. I'm old-fashioned and like to read these. Completely.

It will be done.

--Khanwulf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 10:32 PM, Willow said:

I've uploaded my session reports on my blog.  We got through the Uther period, took a break, and are now picking up with the Anarchy.

I am reading through the blog now, thanks for posting them.

I did notice a few, hmm, deviations from RAW in your blog. Your Pendragon May Vary, of course, but just in case these were genuine misunderstandings, I am highlighting them. I am currently in https://willowrants.wordpress.com/2019/05/16/the-great-pendragon-campaign-486/

1. "There is a d20 roll to see if you had a child, which in most circumstances is not optional."

I only ever roll if the PK is already married (for legitimate children), or if he is Famously Lustful or has had an encounter, whether random or initiated by the player, in play (for bastards). It actually says under Family Rolls, in KAP5.2, p. 130: "If your character is unmarried and wishes to remain so this winter, you may skip the marriage and childbirth portions of this step. (If you wish to roll on the Childbirth table but not the Random Marriage table, you may do that as well.)" So clearly, the player can choose to roll for bastards if they want, but they don't have to.

2. "Sir Gracian invoked one of his Traits (I think Just, but maybe Vengeful), which gives +20 to your skill," and later "They both invoked their Hate passions for each other, both getting +20 to their skills."

Normally, you don't get Inspired from Traits, just from Passions, and the bonus is +10, not +20 (except on a critical, it is +20 or double the skill, whichever is more). +10 is still more than enough to be usually an autowin. KAP 5.2, p.85: "At the Gamemaster’s option, minor Inspiration may be gained from a critical success with a Trait, gaining the character a +5 modifier to one Skill selected by the player, lasting for the duration of the situation that provoked the roll. Such Inspiration should be gained only in rare instances, for it is usually the domain of Passions, not Traits."

EDIT 3: (I noticed that later, the correct +10 bonus is used, and +20 is saved for critical Passions.)

3. "a powerful critical hit which reduced him far below 0 hit points"

Just noting in passing that it depends if the critical hit was the only hit and dropped him to -6 or below. Anything less than that is still potentially recoverable by a critical First Aid. Also, if he has taken other wounds during the fight and then takes one wound dropping him to negative hit points, he might still bounce back with several successful First Aids (one try per new wound). In my experience, 8d6 is rarely enough to kill an armored knight outright, especially if they get the shield.

4. "The knight that killed Sir Gracian would be executed for killing one of his knights, and Sir Alver would be hung as a thief."

It is debatable that Count Roderick would have High Justice to sentence knights to death. The knight fighting against Sir Gracian would have had a very solid defense of it being in fair combat, not a murder, and Sir Alver could point out to his liege lord (The Steward of Levcomagus) owning those lands and having been ordered to collect tribute, so he is no thief, either. In any case, in my campaign, this would pretty much ensure a fight to the knife in future encounters. No mercy for Salisbury knights, who are 'murdering' surrendered/defeated knights.

5. "Typical yearly income, after expenses, is 4 gold."

This is, I presume, a mistaken reading of the £10 manor and £6 spent on standard of living of a married knight with a family. The £10 pays also for the 3 footmen, a lady's maid and a chaplain, leaving only £1 in excess. In the absence of a wife, you need to pay for a steward, so no saving there, but if there are no children (nor mistresses) to support, either, then the unmarried, childless knight has only £4 maintenance (+£1 for the steward), so they save additional £1 (which would support a commoner mistress and her bastards).

EDIT:

In Year 486, part II, just to mention in passing that the Heiresses are not meant to be default 1st wives. This is not very well explained in the book, admittedly, and many GMs let the PKs marry the Heiresses soon off the bat, some even right after the knighting. This leads to the some PKs owning much more land, leading to differences between the PKs simply because there is a limited number of heiresses. It also devalues the value of manors, since if you get into the habit that you can triple or more your lands simply by marrying, what is the big whoop about being granted an extra manor? In 486, you do get the extra excuse of Excalibur, so the Count might be more inclined to look favorably on marriages, and Indeg in particular is allowed to make up her own mind, so a handsome, charming young knight might be exactly what the merry widow wants.

I totally agree with you about dropping the giant from the sword lake, by the way, since otherwise those three knights would have died. Although I admit that I would have run something else for the three players, and tried to get as full a group as possible for the Sword Lake, since it is such a big deal.

In Year 487:

6. "Note that I couldn’t really find Duke Lindsey’s given name, so everyone just calls him Duke Lindsey."

GPC, p. 84: "Duke Corneus of Lindsey". It is buried in the text, but it is there. I admit, it would have been better to have it when he is first mentioned, rather than in Year 502...

EDIT 2:

Various places: "Nantlerod". The correct spelling is Nanteleod.

The Green and Red Bannerets of Glevum have been changed a bit in BotW, as they are no longer twins, but grandson (Heli) and great-grandson (Chaleins) of the Old Duke (Eldol) of Glevum. They will split the dukedom in 494 after Eldol's death, become Duke Heli of Glevum and Duke Chaleins of Clarence, and begin(rekindle) the Gloucester-Clarence feud (which, admittedly, has its true origins in Vortigern's era, as Book of Sires reveals).

"King Ossa" seems to be amalgam of the two Saxon kings: Octa of Nohaut and Eosa of Deira.

EDIT 3: Year 495

I would not have sent the PKs into the ambush (495), since this potentially takes them out of the main battle & events afterwards, as indeed did happen to two knights who died.

I agree that Temperate-10 is probably more fair for the Players than needing a Temperate critical, which is a flat chance for everyone.

Very nice and appropriate ending for Sir Bersules!

Quick comment in the end as you are moving to Anarchy... Countess Ellen's son with Morganor has no claim to Salisbury, as it is Roderick's bloodline which counts. So Robert is the heir, and if Robert dies childless, then whoever marries Jenna, followed by her children from the marriage.  Morganor's & Ellen's son would only have a (very tenuous) claim if all the legitimate claimants are dead, and Ellen & PKs really push for her second son. Technically, Arthur could just declare the bloodline dead and the honour defaulted back to the Crown, once he gets around to it, or confirm whoever he pleases if Roderick's bloodline is extinct.

EDIT 4: Year 496.

Glad you enjoyed Book of Sires! Yes, it is a pretty dense tome, and doing the family history can take quite a long time, especially if you start all the way from 439. I had actually thought about including 'fast histories' which are basically 1d20 tables with events per region. However, I only had those ready for a couple of regions and we decided against including them in the end.

The Family Knights have been a thorn in KAP for the longest while. Greg's advice was to drop them altogether: the PK is the only knight in the family in the beginning. This makes the PKs more important, and also makes it a bigger deal when/if they sponsor another family member into knighthood. In my campaigns, I ensure that each new player family starts with a couple of younger brothers to be used as spares. Also, since the peasants pay the Aid to knight the eldest son, I usually let the second eldest to be knighted with the father's equipment, as the father is usually dead by then.

At least KAP 5.2 fixes the younger brother loophole in family knights (p. 67): "If you took the Previous Experience option during character creation and are thus older than the standard starting age, you might have younger brothers or paternal cousins who are already knights. However, if your character is only 21 and has just been knighted, then roll again until you get a result without an asterisk — none of your younger brothers or younger male cousins would be knighted before you."

Edited by Morien
Added stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to chime in and agree with what Morien said. basically:

Quote

1. "There is a d20 roll to see if you had a child, which in most circumstances is not optional."

If you read the second paragraph where it says "up to one roll per" the impression is that the roll is somewhat optional. Generally speaking if men and women act like men and women, especially husbands and wives, then a childbirth roll is in order. But, under certain circumstances, I've let players avoid making that roll. I have a couple of PKs in the campaign with sons who  who re-married to women with land. As a second son would have a stronger claim to the land that the eldest (since the land came from the wife), both have deiced to avoid childbirth to ensure that their eldest sons (both of which are now squires) inherent the land.   

So if you got a PK who doesn't want to roll on the childbirth table, in most cases I'd say it would be optional. Of course there might be repercussions from that, or even circumstances where they might be forced to make a roll. 

Quote

2. "Sir Gracian invoked one of his Traits (I think Just, but maybe Vengeful), which gives +20 to your skill," and later "They both invoked their Hate passions for each other, both getting +20 to their skills."

Two points. First as Morien mentioned, by the rules you can only use Passions for inspiration (although there are a few who allow Traits to be used as a houserule). Secondly the normal bonus for inspiration is +10, not +20. A critical inspiration roll does not give +20, but instead doubles the value of the skill be inspired. The only way to get +20 from inspiration would be if a character made a critical inspiration roll, which doubles a skill, and had a 20 skill. 

Quote

3. "a powerful critical hit which reduced him far below 0 hit points"

Is probably a death sentence depending on how far below zero the character was, how many wounds they suffered, and if any magical healing was possible. I've seen two characters come back from -11 (in the same game session) thanks to great First Aid rolls. I've even had a character come back from around -25, but it was a major NPC to the stroyline, and involved a Grail appearance -but it was definitely a deus ex machina.

Quote

4. "The knight that killed Sir Gracian would be executed for killing one of his knights, and Sir Alver would be hung as a thief."

As Morien pointed out, the Count probably doesn't have the authority of High Justice- namely the ability to try and execute people, especially nobles. That power is usually reserved for Kings. Now hanging a peasant or some such might slip under the radar, and killing bandits, especially along the kings road,  on the spot is generally allowed, but executing a  knight out of hand would be a big problem. 

Also, killing is not a crime. Murder is. Knights are expected to fight and kill people. That's basically their job. This situation would not be murder as the knights were clearly fighting in combat, which isn't a crime. Killing the defeated knight is the most questionable act as it is the closest to simple murder,  if the defeated knight had surrendered. If not it is more of a fortunes of war thing. The same would hold true to a duel, although occasionally the king could be influenced to rule such as a murder. 

Sir Alver shouldn't be hung as a thief, as he didn't steal anything. Knights killing and robbing peasants is all part of raiding and plundering. It's common stuff that all knights engage in - or nearly all, some of the really ultra chivalrous types might abstain from it.  Now raiding a nobles lands and killing his peasants is a totally honorable and acceptable thing for knights to do. It might be cruel, but acceptable. It's also an offense and  act of war against the landholder, the peasants are technically his property.. So none of the Levocmagus knights should be hung as thieves, but they might have been acceptably killed during the fighting, without any fallout for the defending landholder. Even including finishing off a downed foe or two. 

Basically the big offense here is to the landholder and his leige-not to the poor peasants who suffered the brunt of the violence. It's not fair but it's certainly feudal.

But generally the survivors would probably be hauled off to Sarum and then left to rot for a bit and probably ransomed off to Levcomagus. Probably the Count, with his feud, would order a counter raid, and the PKs could go into Levocmagus territory and kill and rob their serfs. That's what knight do. Maybe some character pick up a Hate passion here and there as relatives are killed and things become personal. 

Quote

5. "Typical yearly income, after expenses, is 4 gold."

Okay this time the rules are a bit confusing. Once again Morien is correct. What happened is that the original income from a manor was £6, the same as the upkeep for a knight and his family, but in latter supplements it was increased to £10 (actually it much. much higher than that, but  £10 is what the knight "sees"), but that covered additional expenses, such as a some foot soldiers and servants. In the end, typical yearly income, after expenses, is only  £1. The book of the estate gives a breakdown of the expenses. Roughly:

  •  £5.5 goes to maintaining the knight, his squire, their mounts, two footmen for the knight (and his liege) and an additional footman for the King. 
  • £2.5 goes to maintaining the wife, her handmaiden, and the chaplain (who also doubles as the court clerk and scribe, as he is literate)
  • £1 goes to maintaining the children
  • £1 is left over as discretionary funds, which can be spent on conspicuous consumption, additional purchases, improvements to the manor, furniture and other "treasure" or,  if they are really crazy, converted to coin at 2:1 (so £1 becomes £ ½ in coin) and saved

The manor mostly just maintains the knight and his family, which most of his wealth coming from ransoms, battle plunder (armor and horses, in particular), rewards from their liege lords, adventuring, and raiding (like the Levcomagus knights were doing in your adventure). Now if a knight has some money he can build some improvements which can provide a modest increase to his income, but most knights will get the bulk of their wealth by fighting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morien & Atgtxg, thanks!  My first few sessions were definitely spent feeling out the rules, and I made quite a few errors- Traits vs. Passions were a huge area of confusion for me.  Income rules were really hard for me to find in KAP 5.2, and I think I got the 10lb figure off the old Pendragon forums, but kept the 6lb expenses.  ( (Which is why Bersules was able to come up with 107 for the best feast ever.) I've updated my income rules in the Anarchy phase to be closer to BotE, but slightly more generous.

Interesting regarding the Levcomagus stuff.  I didn't realize that raids within the realm were considered legal.  Anyway, it's 497 now, and Alver's son(s) is problbly all grown up by this point.

Edited by Willow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willow, your off to a good start. Some "teething problems" are to be expected with a new system. No GM get's it perfect all the time, at least none that I've seen. I know I goof up at least one thing each session, and suspect a few others that I fail to spot. 

To help a little, the £6 amount was the official amount from KAP3 through to KAP 5.1 or so. The 10 came in latter supplements where they went into a bit more of a detailed breakdown of the economics  of a manor. Now a knight sees a little more income, but has higher expenses so it's mostly a wash. He just ends up with £1 to spend during the year on additional stuff, which is actually the equivalent of a typicality income of a peasant family. 

 

Raids, seiges, battles and other aspects of war are generally beyond the scope of what is considered legal. It's how nobles expand thier holdings and get more wealth. THat said, if things go "too far" a liege lord, such as the king, could step in and put a stop to it, at least for a time. It depends a lot of the relative power of the feuding lords, the king, how intense the fued is, and what else is going on. 

It's kinda part of the whole feudal structure. If the nobles didn't fight among themselves then they wouldn't need as many soldiers or knights, and the whole thing would start to change. Historically, once people started to realize and consider peace to be more profitable, kings switched to smaller professional armies and mercenaries with better equipment do the fighting while the commoners were left flourish and really make money.

 

As for Alver's son, he would be a good choice to show up someday and want to clear his father's name or seek vengeance. It's classic adventure stuff, as you already laid all the groundwork for his actions, so the players will understand why he is acting the way he does. 

 

 

Share this post


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

I have a couple of PKs in the campaign with sons who  who re-married to women with land. As a second son would have a stronger claim to the land that the eldest (since the land came from the wife), both have deiced to avoid childbirth to ensure that their eldest sons (both of which are now squires) inherent the land.   

... except that the eldest sons wouldn't inherit the lady's land.

If Lady X is an heiress, married to Lord Y, only Lady X's children will inherit. It doesn't matter if Lord Y has a son from a previous marriage, that son is not of Lady X's blood and hence has no claim on the land. If Lady X dies childless, her family line (i.e. the family that the manor was granted to) is extinct and the land escheats back to the liege who granted it. Now the liege might re-grant it again to Lord Y's children, but that is FAR from guaranteed.

Not to mention that robbing Lady X of her chance to have children of her own is incredibly cruel.

YPMV, of course.

 

Just to give an example:

Lord Y has manor A he has inherited, and has a son Z from a previous marriage.

Lady X has manor B she has inherited, and has a daughter Q from a previous marriage.

Y and X marry.

1. If there are no children from the marriage, son Z inherits manor A, since he is Y's eldest living son. Daughter Q inherits manor B, since Lady X has no living sons, and only one Daughter. If either X or Y dies childless (Z or Q die before their parent), their own manor escheats to the liege.

2. If Y and X have a son W together, then son W will bump Q out of inheritance of manor B, since W is Lady X's eldest son, and hence inherits before daughters (Q). Z is still Y's eldest son and inherits manor A. If son Z predeceases Lord Y, then son W is the eldest living son of both X and Y, and inherits both manors.

3. If Y and X have a daughter V together, then Q and V split manor B, since they are both daughters of Lady Y, and daughters split inheritance equally.

It is really not that complicated, you simply have to look at the BLOODLINES separately.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


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

... except that the eldest sons wouldn't inherit the lady's land.

If Lady X is an heiress, married to Lord Y, only Lady X's children will inherit. It doesn't matter if Lord Y has a son from a previous marriage, that son is not of Lady X's blood and hence has no claim on the land. If Lady X dies childless, her family line (i.e. the family that the manor was granted to) is extinct and the land escheats back to the liege who granted it. Now the liege might re-grant it again to Lord Y's children, but that is FAR from guaranteed.

Not to mention that robbing Lady X of her chance to have children of her own is incredibly cruel.

YPMV, of course.

Slight miscommunication. 

  1.  If Lady X was an heiress and had no previous children and then married Lord Y, her first child would be her heir.
  2.  If Lady X isn't an heiress, but a widow, then her children would not inherent the land, her previous husband's children would. Normally those are one and the same, but if she remarries I don't believe she gets to pass on the land.
  3.  In both of the cases I mentioned the Knights are older knights who are remarrying older widows who do not have any living heirs. 
  4. In the first case, an arrangement was made prior to marriage to make it easier for the knight's son to take over the land. 
  5. In the second case the knight just remarried and his actions will cause some difficulties with his wife. 
  6. In both cases the PKs actions will probably be moot as they are both on very good terms with the Count who can and will simply grant them both the land and smooth everything over. This was actually in the works for both knights but neither player has figured that out yet due to other concerns. It's what happens when the PKS spend several years away on campaign and don't get to tidy things up at court. 

 

8 minutes ago, Morien said:

 

Just to give an example:

Lord Y has manor A he has inherited, and has a son Z from a previous marriage.

Lady X has manor B she has inherited, and has a daughter Q from a previous marriage.

Y and X marry.

1. If there are no children from the marriage, son Z inherits manor A, since he is Y's eldest living son. Daughter Q inherits manor B, since Lady X has no living sons, and only one Daughter. If either X or Y dies childless (Z or Q die before their parent), their own manor escheats to the liege.

2. If Y and X have a son W together, then son W will bump Q out of inheritance of manor B, since W is Lady X's eldest son, and hence inherits before daughters (Q). Z is still Y's eldest son and inherits manor A. If son Z predeceases Lord Y, then son W is the eldest living son of both X and Y, and inherits both manors.

3. If Y and X have a daughter V together, then Q and V split manor B, since they are both daughters of Lady Y, and daughters split inheritance equally.

It is really not that complicated, you simply have to look at the BLOODLINES separately.

Yup, except for the bit I mentioned about widows. 

Share this post


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

 If Lady X isn't an heiress, but a widow, then her children would not inherent the land, her previous husband's children would. Normally those are one and the same, but if she remarries I don't believe she gets to pass on the land.

Correct. In fact, other than the Widow's Portion (1/3rd), she has no claim on the previous husband's land even during her own lifetime, and even the WP is controlled by her warden/guardian/new husband, unless she has been widowed... thrice already, I believe the limit was. In any case, she would never pass on any of her husband's land by her own blood, since it is all about the bloodline. Any heir of the husband should be of husband's kin.

20 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

In the first case, an arrangement was made prior to marriage to make it easier for the knight's son to take over the land. 

Just to point out that this should be a tripartite discussion, involving the knight, the widow (and her guardian, looking our for her) and the liege of the land (often the guardian of the widow, too). Since the children are the ladies' best way for Glory and immortality, it takes a rather special lady to toss that all aside for children not of her own. Of course, if she is already past the childbearing age, that is less of an issue.

23 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

In the second case the knight just remarried and his actions will cause some difficulties with his wife. 

In principle, non-consummation would be grounds for an annulment, too.

Share this post


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

Correct. In fact, other than the Widow's Portion (1/3rd), she has no claim on the previous husband's land even during her own lifetime, and even the WP is controlled by her warden/guardian/new husband, unless she has been widowed... thrice already, I believe the limit was. In any case, she would never pass on any of her husband's land by her own blood, since it is all about the bloodline. Any heir of the husband should be of husband's kin.

Yup, the whole reason why the Knight went after her was because there was no one else to speak of with a claim, so he figured he had a better chance of getting the land.

1 minute ago, Morien said:

Just to point out that this should be a tripartite discussion, involving the knight, the widow (and her guardian, looking our for her) and the liege of the land (often the guardian of the widow, too). Since the children are the ladies' best way for Glory and immortality, it takes a rather special lady to toss that all aside for children not of her own. Of course, if she is already past the childbearing age, that is less of an issue.

I agree. This was partly due to the player misunderstanding some things early on and not fixing them later due to other distractions. In reality the wife worked that all out with the count a decade ago, when the PK followed through on taking on squire of the widows previous husband as a squire and getting him knighted, but the player missed it. The Count is planning of granting  the land (Broughton) to the PKs son when he gets knighted in a year or two. As the PK in question is also Castellan of DuPlain, and has a enough to support himself, this shouldn't be a burden on the elder knight, who will be able to live on in semi-retirement as a Castellan.

1 minute ago, Morien said:

In principle, non-consummation would be grounds for an annulment, too.

Yup. The only reason why the woman didn't do so was because the PK was a big hero in battle and helped to save the Count's life last year and was promoted to Deputy Marshal. . So right now she's wondering what's wrong.Maybe he has a battle injury that impairs his ability to do his husbandly duties?

The reason why the PK acted the way he did was because of bad advice from the first player. Often my players try to help each other, and that's where they usually mess things up. In this participial case the first PK mis-advised the second, overlooking the differences in their relative situations. 

So both players should be in for some surprises next year! But, as per my first reply, I'd certainly let them avoid rolling on the childbirth table if that's what they want.  

Share this post


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

I'd certainly let them avoid rolling on the childbirth table if that's what they want. 

Yup, and let a NPK lose his land because he does not have a son, and see how long that will last...

Share this post


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

But, as per my first reply, I'd certainly let them avoid rolling on the childbirth table if that's what they want.  

I might be tempted to have them roll Chaste. On a Chaste failure, roll Lustful, and if that succeeds, then have a quick liaison with a pretty peasant wench during the year. Unless they have Chaste 16+, in which case they automatically act according to the Trait without a need to roll. Famously Lustful knights have to FAIL in their Lustful first in order to be fully celibate all year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Yup, and let a NPK lose his land because he does not have a son, and see how long that will last...

Yeah, but in this case there are going to be a few rumors going around. It will probably be a topic of gossip at the next feast. He had a bad year  a few sessions back and and took two major wounds so people will probably assume he received a ghastly injury below the belt. 

 

2 hours ago, Morien said:

I might be tempted to have them roll Chaste. On a Chaste failure, roll Lustful, and if that succeeds, then have a quick liaison with a pretty peasant wench during the year. Unless they have Chaste 16+, in which case they automatically act according to the Trait without a need to roll. Famously Lustful knights have to FAIL in their Lustful first in order to be fully celibate all year.

I'm on board with that, but the PK does have a high Chaste score. 

The whole situation should play out in a entertaining enough fashion. One of the PKs is marring off his eldest daughter to a neighboring knight, so there will be a feast and the "reluctant knight" will be quite the topic. Then the PKs are going off on campaign with General Aetius  (I'm running very early in the timeline) and he will be away from home for a year or two. So his wife will buy a new dress and some perfume, use the fashion skill to boost her APP, see the local witch to buy a love philter,  and all that upon his return. 

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...