Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TerryTroll

Loss of Loyalty (Uther)?

Recommended Posts

My player knights aided the Cornwall court to flee London, then heard King Uther declare Duke Gorlois, a traitor, a thief and murder (killing guards and stealing treasure) when they knew this wasn't true.

They then went to Tintagel and witness Merlin's magic pressing him for an explanation as to how Duke Gorlois could be in two places at once.

They rightly asked considering the events they had witness, would their Loyalty (Uther) drop, some of them would lose out on Glory as their current Loyal is over 16.

If it would (and I think it should) how much do you think it should drop, is there any guide for this?

Edited by TerryTroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An opposed roll between their Just and Loyalty (Uther), with if Just wins, Loyalty dropping by 1d6, perhaps? Their Just and Suspicious might get checks, and thus rise to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need a little more info here:

First off how are the PKs connected to Uther and/or Gorlois?

 

Are they just typical knights, or are they actually direct vassals of Uther in some way?

Do they know/saw that Merlin transformed Uther into the likeness of Gorlois of just suspect some magical skullduggery?

These things make a difference. Part of the problem here is that a liege lord acting like a jerk or doing some shifty stuff doesn't negate a knights oaths of fealty and homage. It literally is that you are supposed to follow your liege whether he is in the right or wrong. 

 

In most cases I would expect much if any drop in Loyalty among the PKs (basically, suspecting or even knowing that Uther might be acting unfairly doesn't justify a knight behaving disloyalty, especially if Uther has been fair in his dealings with the PKs and their liege lord). I would think a directed trait (Suspicious Uther, Merlin, or MAgic) might be more appropriate. 

The knights would really have to know a lot more of what is going on behind the scenes, basically that has all been trumped up so that Uther can bed Igraine before there  could be a loyalty loss - in part because Gorlois is also in the wrong here, according to medieval standards, as he left the kings court without permission. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I think we need a little more info here:

First off how are the PKs connected to Uther and/or Gorlois?

The PCs are Vassals of Earl Roderick, and have fought in the army of King Uther and Price Madoc on various occasions, but they are vassals of Earl Roderick.He has rewarded them on several occasions, but they have not been given land by him, so not direct vassals.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

 

Are they just typical knights, or are they actually direct vassals of Uther in some way?

So indirectly via Earl Roderick. So should they not really have any Loyalty to start with?

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Do they know/saw that Merlin transformed Uther into the likeness of Gorlois of just suspect some magical skullduggery?

These things make a difference. Part of the problem here is that a liege lord acting like a jerk or doing some shifty stuff doesn't negate a knights oaths of fealty and homage. It literally is that you are supposed to follow your liege whether he is in the right or wrong. 

They didn't see the transformation itself but were at Tintagel that night spotted some weird goings on and directly confronted Merlin.

The main kicker however was earlier two of the PKs were in the process of courting Handmaids to Duchess Ygraine and one was approached to aid in their leaving London, they were made aware of the King's actions towards Ygraine (who half of the knights had some feelings for one way or another). The group ended up on watch at one of the gates and as Duke Gorlois' party approached they questioned them. "Does the King know your are leaving?" Duke Gorlois was very careful with his answer. "The King has made it plain, my presence is no longer desired here." he did not say that it was by his actions rather than his words. So they knew the Duke left without bloodshed and could see that he left with very little so they could travel faster.

Later when King Uther states "The Duke of Cornwall has broken his word and violated our hospitality. His sudden flight from our court proves he is guilty; no other information need be sought. Worse, though, his people slew some servants in their escape, and they stole treasure when they fled." They knew the accusations to be false, and the King's motivation (two of them only helped Ygraine escape for a similar motivation).

 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

In most cases I would expect much if any drop in Loyalty among the PKs (basically, suspecting or even knowing that Uther might be acting unfairly doesn't justify a knight behaving disloyalty, especially if Uther has been fair in his dealings with the PKs and their liege lord). I would think a directed trait (Suspicious Uther, Merlin, or MAgic) might be more appropriate. 

The knights would really have to know a lot more of what is going on behind the scenes, basically that has all been trumped up so that Uther can bed Igraine before there  could be a loyalty loss - in part because Gorlois is also in the wrong here, according to medieval standards, as he left the kings court without permission. 

Yeah they were aware of a lot of it because of their position and relationships with Duchess Ygraine's handmaids, I suspect I made an error granting them Loyalty without an official oath in the first place (first time running), but it set up a nice conflict of interest with his desire for the lady he was courting so.

Would it be easiest to just admit it was an error and cancel it as they are not direct vassals? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like it was a good session overall, so I would be reluctant to cancel it out.  By all means talk to your players, explain the problem, and so on. See what they think would be fair. I have found many players to be really good sports about such things and will give you points that you did not think of. One of the best things I learned is to ask the players what their characters think about the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope so, I like presenting players with difficult decisions. Although I'm not sure how the players feel when Pendragon as a system can take sometimes take certain decisions away from them due to passions, or traits. I kind like when the system forces you into a position you might not really want to be in but, if your the sort of player use to playing Chaotic Good/Neutral in D&D it can be a bit of a paradigm shift, and hard to adjust to.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as your traits are in the range 5-15, and no passion is 16 or more, you can usually* stay in control of your character. That is the bargain you make for Traits/Passions 16 and over, that you lose some of that control in order to gain Annual Glory and Religious bonuses and the like.

* Apart from mandatory trait/passion tests, usually in response to some magic or other supernatural source, or an instinctive reaction.

As for the original Loyalty (Uther), yeah, I would not have given them that loyalty without some formal oaths. That is what makes Arthur and the Companions of King Arthur stand out so much, as they sidestep the usual liege-vassal structure and makes all companions take an oath to Arthur directly.

Just to point out, my PK would be plenty pissed at Duke Gorlois for weasel-wording his way out of the gate, too. I could have lost my head thanks to him! Also, who knows what they did BEFORE they got to the gate? They could have accosted some servants who might have raised an alarm otherwise, and treasure is such a wide category that it could, in principle, include the food that they took with them. Food that technically belonged to the King!

That being said, I would let those PKs who wish to relinquish the loyalty, and those who wish to keep it to keep it. I am thinking once the next year rolls around, they will all lose it anyway...

Just to sidetrack to Merlin... My players tend to hate him, scheming and getting them into trouble. Many a PK has lost their lives getting involved with Merlin, or gotten into a troublesome spot thanks to the wizard's meddling. All good fun for the GM, of course. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple (more) comments: People with Loyalty ... (16) may self-rationalize their continued loyalty. This is a pretty realistic psychological reaction. Complex and contradictory passions and loyalties are excellent for stories. Lancelot has a Loyalty (Arthur) and a Love (Guinevere). Eventually Ygraine will consent to marry her husband's killer and personal loyalty to her will not be in contradiction to loyalty to the High King. You could rationalize it as Loyalty (High King) and leave it unchanged. If so, the characters will feel compelled to confront Uther out of loyalty and honesty rather than keep their misgivings secret.

However, Uther's behavior did alienate people in the romances, and this alienation from the high kingship (and from his lineage) had observable effects on later history, particularly the Anarchy and the Boy King periods. Uther's behavior could be argued to be part of the necessary groundwork for the reaction against his attitude towards women that caused 'Romance' to take hold.

I ran my Cornwall game with the characters actually on the opposite side. They did gain a (Hate) Uther passion and definitely mistrusted Merlin (a fully justified tendency among PCs and NPCs). This made things complicated when Arthur appears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 9:45 AM, TerryTroll said:

The PCs are Vassals of Earl Roderick, and have fought in the army of King Uther and Price Madoc on various occasions, but they are vassals of Earl Roderick.He has rewarded them on several occasions, but they have not been given land by him, so not direct vassals.

So indirectly via Earl Roderick. So should they not really have any Loyalty to start with?

To Uther, probably not. In most cases taking Loyalty (Pendragon)< Loyalty (Arthur) or, in this case Loyalty (Uther) is optional to most PKs. If the PKs were household knights or held land from Uther then it would be required. They could have such a passion if they wanted it, but wouldn't have to have it. Part of the problem is that Loyatly (Uther) would typically imply that a character swore Homage to Uther, making him their liege lord over Roderick. That would put them under some severe restrictions regarding their oath and duty. 

But with typical PKs their loyalty should be to Earl/Count Roderick. 

On 6/24/2019 at 9:45 AM, TerryTroll said:

They didn't see the transformation itself but were at Tintagel that night spotted some weird goings on

Such as? In most versions of the story the only weird goings on were Igraine's claims of her husband appearing during the night, when he was away getting killed in battle. 

On 6/24/2019 at 9:45 AM, TerryTroll said:

and directly confronted Merlin.

Brave, if a bit risky. I'm not sure what they could have confronted him with though, or what he could have said to make the PKs more supicious>

"Merlin, did you use your magic at the siege?"

"Yes, Sir Knight, to serve my king. Did you not use your sword for the same purpose?"

 

 

On 6/24/2019 at 9:45 AM, TerryTroll said:

The main kicker however was earlier two of the PKs were in the process of courting Handmaids to Duchess Ygraine and one was approached to aid in their leaving London, they were made aware of the King's actions towards Ygraine (who half of the knights had some feelings for one way or another). The group ended up on watch at one of the gates and as Duke Gorlois' party approached they questioned them. "Does the King know your are leaving?" Duke Gorlois was very careful with his answer. "The King has made it plain, my presence is no longer desired here." he did not say that it was by his actions rather than his words. So they knew the Duke left without bloodshed and could see that he left with very little so they could travel faster.

Later when King Uther states "The Duke of Cornwall has broken his word and violated our hospitality. His sudden flight from our court proves he is guilty; no other information need be sought. Worse, though, his people slew some servants in their escape, and they stole treasure when they fled." They knew the accusations to be false, and the King's motivation (two of them only helped Ygraine escape for a similar motivation).

Ah, so they have a good reason to suspect/believe that Uther is dressing up events and the real motivation behind things. I'd say that would be a good reason for adirected trait (Suspious Uther. 

 

PArt of the problem with this situation is that the obligations of medevial service generally do not have an "out" clause for when a liege is behaving badly. Probably a few of Uther's men and lords know the real reasons behind the siege, but as Uther's men they are still bound by thier oaths to service him. 

On 6/24/2019 at 9:45 AM, TerryTroll said:

Yeah they were aware of a lot of it because of their position and relationships with Duchess Ygraine's handmaids, I suspect I made an error granting them Loyalty without an official oath in the first place (first time running), but it set up a nice conflict of interest with his desire for the lady he was courting so.

Would it be easiest to just admit it was an error and cancel it as they are not direct vassals? 

It would depend on how the got the Loyalty (Uther) Passion in the first place and how important it is to the players, and how high the scores are. If the players didn't really care much about the passion, and have low to moderate scores then you could probably let them drop the passion if they wish (I'd leave it up to them). If they are really into the passion, are very loyal to Uther and have high scores, I'd let them keep it and also let them use their Loyalty (Uther) Passion to oppose believing the worst about Uther, or somehow justifying it. 

A main difference here between medieval rulers and modern  ones in free societies is that the right to rule for a medieval king comes from God (or, for pagans, his tie to the land/sovereignty), while for modern ones it comes from the people. This combined with medieval oaths of fealty and homage means that a king behaving badly or unjustly does not remove from him his rights as a king, nor do they absolve his vassals from their oaths of obedience. Something like a #MeToo scandal isn't going to bring down Uther they way it brought down a lot of big shots in Hollywood. 

 

But If I were running and my PKs had Loyalty (Uther)  Passions, I'd ask them if the events shook their loyalty to the king and let then\m reduce or drop the passion if they wished, provided it was below 16). But a directed trait MIstrust: Uther +1d6 or so would certainly make sense.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the advice, it seems I was in error to give them the Loyalty in the first place.

I suspect I gave it when it was technically as oath of Fealty on a campaign under Uther, would that only last for the duration of the military campaign?

It hasn't come up much until recently, and I think Loyalty (Roderick) would have been enough to make them consider informing on Cornwall's escape plans anyway. As he is a vassal of Uther and they would know it would make him look bad if it happened on his knight's night watch. So things would have played out the same anyway. On top of that I'll give them all a directed trait of Mistrust Uther as well for what they have witness or know first hand. Also checking his character sheet he had Hospitality 18, so would have attempted to inform anyway.

I've recently got the Book of the Estate, which breaks Loyalty down into Homage and Fealty, so I think I will make clearly that they have a oath of Homage (Roderick), they may well have one of Fealty during campaigning to Uther.

I'm then planning to keep Loyalty but use that only between fellow knights, no land or even a significant social penalty for breaking it, but it gives an idea of how much trust and friendship or debt there is between them. 

Edited by TerryTroll

Share this post


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

I suspect I gave it when it was technically as oath of Fealty on a campaign under Uther, would that only last for the duration of the military campaign?

If they were part of Count of Salisbury's retinue/force, then they would not get Fealty to Uther in the first place. If they were moonlighting as mercenaries, then yes, the Fealty would apply as long as they are on Uther's payroll, and not a moment longer. (Although I would, admittedly, be willing to change a long-serving mercenary into a de facto household knight, especially if he is close to the King. Mercardier comes to mind.)

Share this post


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

If they were part of Count of Salisbury's retinue/force, then they would not get Fealty to Uther in the first place. If they were moonlighting as mercenaries, then yes, the Fealty would apply as long as they are on Uther's payroll, and not a moment longer. (Although I would, admittedly, be willing to change a long-serving mercenary into a de facto household knight, especially if he is close to the King. Mercardier comes to mind.)

What if they were assigned to Prince Madoc say for raiding, but the Earl himself didn't go? Would they swear an oath to Prince Madoc at that point, which would last for the time they were on the military campaign, even though they still vassals for the Earl?

Share this post


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

What if they were assigned to Prince Madoc say for raiding, but the Earl himself didn't go? Would they swear an oath to Prince Madoc at that point, which would last for the time they were on the military campaign, even though they still vassals for the Earl?

No usually they wouldn't have to swear any additional oaths. The idea is that their actions would reflect upon the Count (Earl). Swearing another oath would undermine their Loyalty to Salisbury, too. Basically a knight only owes homage to one lord at a time, and generally a higher ranking one will tend to override a lower ranking one. So if the PKs swore fealty and homage to Uther that would normally be expected to override their loyalty to Salisbury. But...

Thew knights got their land and livelihood from Salisbury, so they have strong reasons to back the Count (Earl) over the King should a dispute break out between the two (as with Gorlois and Uther). 

 

So it is usually much better for everyone if the PKs are kept as Salibury's men, and then rely on Salibury's Loyalty to the King. 

 

 

If I were you I'd just let the Players decide if they want to keep the Loyalty (Uther) Passion or not, after seeing the things they saw. That was those who want it will still have it (which they could always have chosen to take if they wanted to), and those who do want it (or don't feel loyalty to Uther after seeing what he's up to) can drop it. Just let your players know that you are doing this because you might have forced the passion on them in the first place, so they know they can't always discard a passion when it suits them. 

 

Overall you're in good shape. It's a minor issue and one that will correct itself, one way or another, in a half dozen years.  

Share this post


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

What if they were assigned to Prince Madoc say for raiding, but the Earl himself didn't go? Would they swear an oath to Prince Madoc at that point, which would last for the time they were on the military campaign, even though they still vassals for the Earl?

As Atgxtg already said, no they would not. They are not on Madoc's payroll, but fulfilling their duty to the Count of Salisbury, even if the Count is not physically there.

If the Count had nothing to do about it and the PKs were acting as mercenaries, there for just the payment Madoc would give them, then they would take an oath of Fealty for the duration of the campaign (as long as they are getting paid; not getting paid is grounds for ditching the oath, as Madoc would have broken his part of the deal by not paying; although often enough the mercenary pay was in arrears). As soon as the campaign is over and the mercs are released back home, the Fealty would vanish as there is no longer an employment bond between Madoc and the PKs.

Share this post


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

As Atgxtg already said, no they would not. They are not on Madoc's payroll, but fulfilling their duty to the Count of Salisbury, even if the Count is not physically there.

If the Count had nothing to do about it and the PKs were acting as mercenaries, there for just the payment Madoc would give them, then they would take an oath of Fealty for the duration of the campaign (as long as they are getting paid; not getting paid is grounds for ditching the oath, as Madoc would have broken his part of the deal by not paying; although often enough the mercenary pay was in arrears). As soon as the campaign is over and the mercs are released back home, the Fealty would vanish as there is no longer an employment bond between Madoc and the PKs.

Not sure if I would give them a Fealty passion for this. I think it is covered by their Honor. For me passions are more permanent than for a single season. So they may develop a loyalty towards Uther or Mafoc while serving with him over the years. Especially if Uther or Madoc does something like saving their lives.

Reducing passions is not so easy. A lot depends on the actuions of the PKs. I would only reduce their loyalty when the lord acts against them personally. Witnessing him lying to others does not necessarily make you less loyal. So you can have conflicting passions or traits. So you could have a directed trait distrust( Uther) and a loyalty. Its kind a like: Yeah sure he is a lying a**hole, but he is our lying a**hole. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Its kind a like: Yeah sure he is a lying a**hole, but he is our lying a**hole. 

Taking a Passion is a two-edged sword.  Yes, in the cause of Loyalty to a specific person, if the person then goes on to be a dishonorable, lying, sack of you-know-what, you cannot just throw it away. You have to reduce it until you can renounce it.  A directed trait against your passion might be the first step towards this, public denouncing, introspective periods, and so on might be called by the gm, and the like.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cornelius said:

Not sure if I would give them a Fealty passion for this. I think it is covered by their Honor. For me passions are more permanent than for a single season. So they may develop a loyalty towards Uther or Mafoc while serving with him over the years. Especially if Uther or Madoc does something like saving their lives.

I agree, but apparently it is a fait accompli, so now it is more of an issue of how to deal with the situation as it exists. Personally I'd give the players the option to backtrack out of the passion, especially if it had been forced upon them or taken due to a misunderstanding. 

2 hours ago, Cornelius said:

Reducing passions is not so easy. A lot depends on the actions of the PKs. I would only reduce their loyalty when the lord acts against them personally. Witnessing him lying to others does not necessarily make you less loyal. So you can have conflicting passions or traits. So you could have a directed trait distrust( Uther) and a loyalty. Its kind a like: Yeah sure he is a lying a**hole, but he is our lying a**hole. 

Yes, plus part of the whole feudal oath thing is in the "my country right or wrong" mold. That is, you are expected to back him even when he is acting up., as you pointed out with your " but he is our..." statement. It is also why Gorlois can't just get out of dodge by revealing that the reason why he left court was because Uther kept hitting on his wife. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hzark10 said:

A directed trait against your passion

That's a new one one me. I though directed traits were directed traits, not passions. Could you elaborate a bit? I'm not sure how to implment a directed passion. Loyalty (Uther)* 16, *-5 if he is acting like a rutting pig? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my wording caused confusion here. I meant, take a directed trait, such as Suspicious (Uther) that could/would work against your Passion. The gm could ask you to make a suspicious roll when Uther does something. This could set up the situation where you are forced to roll against your Loyalty.

does this make more sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me widen the topic only slightly by asking a few related questions that have niggled at me:

1. The PKs may receive [vast tracts of] lands for their heroics at Tintagel. Enough to constitute and estate and jump them to baron. If so, my assumption is that they would in fact receive an homage/loyalty passion toward Uther, who granted those lands directly. This then would create obligations to Uther as well as Roderick that could be used to complicate their lives further.

2. Presumably a mercenary would exist with loyalty to their family (noble or otherwise), then fealty to their employer, which could be upgraded to loyalty passion on essentially achieving the status of a household knight. Am I correct in this sequence?

 

--Khanwulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Khanwulf said:

Let me widen the topic only slightly by asking a few related questions that have niggled at me:

1. The PKs may receive [vast tracts of] lands for their heroics at Tintagel. Enough to constitute and estate and jump them to baron. If so, my assumption is that they would in fact receive an homage/loyalty passion toward Uther, who granted those lands directly. This then would create obligations to Uther as well as Roderick that could be used to complicate their lives further.

Unless they want to serve King Idres or his son Mark that barony won't last. I'd be reluctant to do that to players unless you are willing to compensate them in other ways during the Anarchy.

Share this post


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

my wording caused confusion here. I meant, take a directed trait, such as Suspicious (Uther) that could/would work against your Passion. The gm could ask you to make a suspicious roll when Uther does something. This could set up the situation where you are forced to roll against your Loyalty.

does this make more sense?

Oh, yes, very much so. 

Share this post


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

1. The PKs may receive [vast tracts of] lands for their heroics at Tintagel. Enough to constitute and estate and jump them to baron. If so, my assumption is that they would in fact receive an homage/loyalty passion toward Uther, who granted those lands directly. This then would create obligations to Uther as well as Roderick that could be used to complicate their lives further. 

A PK may receive AN Estate, which would make HIM an estate holder, not a baron.

It was clarified in the old forums that the intent was not that all 6 or so PKs would be granted an estate EACH for having a hand in taking Gorlois down.

Secondly, that estate would be in rather dire straits after the events of the following year anyway. It would probably be easier for the GM and the players to have Uther hint at rich rewards but be distracted by his marriage (and other) plans for Ygraine, and then have Roderick use that 'favor chip' to get the PKs off the hook later.

But yes, if the PKs get rewarded with land directly from the King, what probably ends up happening is that they get Homage (Uther) and their previous Homage (Roderick) downgrades to Fealty (Roderick), since higher noble usually trumps the lower noble and insists on Homage from his vassals. Roderick doesn't have a good reason to put himself in Uther's ire by saying no to the king, so he would release the PKs from the homage and accept their fealty instead.

12 hours ago, Khanwulf said:

2. Presumably a mercenary would exist with loyalty to their family (noble or otherwise), then fealty to their employer, which could be upgraded to loyalty passion on essentially achieving the status of a household knight. Am I correct in this sequence?

Love (Family) towards the Family & Kin.

Fealty (Employer). Potentially Loyalty (my company or my captain), if part of an established merc group.

Homage (lord) if they actually swear homage to the lord as a household knight. It is a formal oath. I was referring more to a situation where the mercenary captain had been in the service of the same lord for a couple of decades already, and clearly a trusted confidant/favorite.

20 hours ago, Cornelius said:

Not sure if I would give them a Fealty passion for this. I think it is covered by their Honor.

I don't have the books before me, so I can't check it if it has been made explicit in the publications, but I know Greg told me that the mercs had Fealty during their contract.

That being said, I would be fine leaving it for Honor, though, and frequently do in our games, especially if the PKs are taking short (a couple of months) merc contracts. I don't bother rolling Fealty for those.

Share this post


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

But yes, if the PKs get rewarded with land directly from the King, what probably ends up happening is that they get Homage (Uther) and their previous Homage (Roderick) downgrades to Fealty (Roderick), since higher noble usually trumps the lower noble and insists on Homage from his vassals. Roderick doesn't have a good reason to put himself in Uther's ire by saying no to the king, so he would release the PKs from the homage and accept their fealty instead.

Although I'm playing in an erlier period (Just made it 439 and into the Book of Sires), I have had King Constatin give one PK a manor as a reward for excellent military service abroad, after the PK captured the army commander at a battle (lots of luck and good die rolls).   I did have the PK generate a Loyalty (Constantin) Passion, but I didn't have any of the other PKs generatew a passion. 

4 hours ago, Morien said:

That being said, I would be fine leaving it for Honor, though, and frequently do in our games, especially if the PKs are taking short (a couple of months) merc contracts. I don't bother rolling Fealty for those.

I could see that too. There is a good deal of overlap between traits and passions, especially with Honor. The Honor passion can pretty much cover just about anything a PK wants or thinks it should. Honesty, Justice, Loyalty, Love (Family) Pride, could all overlap with Honor. 

Share this post


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

I don't have the books before me, so I can't check it if it has been made explicit in the publications, but I know Greg told me that the mercs had Fealty during their contract.

ESTATE, p. 18: "An oath of Fealty is sworn to other lords from whom a knight gets land, and also to lords who are temporary, such as leaders in a military campaign."

ESTATE, p. 21: "If the knight is held only by fealty, then he may dissolve his own commitment. Once again, the willing support of his current lord is very helpful. A knight bound by an oath of fealty may just wait until the term of his employment has expired."

I admit that I had forgotten that apparently the leaders in a military campaign do get Fealty sworn to them. I would only apply this to the mercenaries. The medieval history is RIFE with internecine bickering amongst nobility, which each baron jealous for glory and prickly about their own honor, which often resulted in very big mistakes on the battlefield.

 

WARLORD, p. 26: "Fealty is a different, less exclusive kind of loyalty. It is sometimes (but not always) a temporary arrangement with a predetermined and agreed-to term limit, as found in mercenary contracts, for example. It is dissolved without rancor upon expiration of the time period, if it has one."

WARLORD also makes clear that one-sided dissolving of Fealty is not without its costs, p. 26: "Breaking either vow is dishonorable. Breaking Homage costs the oathbreaker 10 points of Honor; breaking Fealty results in a loss of 5 Honor."

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...