Loss of Loyalty (Uther)?

[Hzark10]

26 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

(Just made it 439 and into the Book of Sires),

Definitely keep me posted on your campaign. Want to see how Book of Sires works as a GPC style campaign, albeit it is missing all court activities, rumors, and scenarios. It does have the year-by-year description of what happens.

[Cornelius]

22 hours ago, Morien said:

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."

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.

I had missed that apparantly. In my mind homage was sworn to your liege, and fealty to other lords you held land for.

In the case of a military leader it could also be that only those swear an oath whom liege lord is not present. So if Earl Roderick is present as a vassal you would not swear fealty, but Earl Roderick would. 

[Morien]

36 minutes ago, Cornelius said:

In the case of a military leader it could also be that only those swear an oath whom liege lord is not present. So if Earl Roderick is present as a vassal you would not swear fealty, but Earl Roderick would. 

I did think about ruling it that way, too, but given the historical analogy of trying to herd cats in a feudal army filled with high nobles, especially when they did not have an unified command figure like ONE King, things often went almost comically wrong. Not only is it more fun to GM when the various barons are bickering about the precedence and ignoring commands because of what that bastard said about our Shawn, but I think it is historically more accurate as well.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Morien

[Atgxtg]

14 minutes ago, Morien said:

I did think about ruling it that way, too, but given the historical analogy of trying to herd cats in a feudal army filled with high nobles, especially when they did not have an unified command figure like ONE King, things often went almost comically wrong. Not only is it more fun to GM when the various barons are bickering about the precedence and ignoring commands because of what that bastard said about our Shawn, but I think it is historically more accurate as well.

Yeah. I think this is partly due to the differences between games and reality. In a game, especially an RPG, we like to have everything clearly defined and explained to us. In reality it just isn't the case. In KAP, on paper, there is always a clearly defined pecking order, based on rank and glory. In real life, it just wasn't as clearly defined or even adhered to when it was. 

[Atgxtg]

23 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Definitely keep me posted on your campaign. Want to see how Book of Sires works as a GPC style campaign, albeit it is missing all court activities, rumors, and scenarios. It does have the year-by-year description of what happens.

Okay. While I'm just getting into 439, I have to assume that SIRES will make things easier for me. From 410-438 I had very little to go on, other than a half dozen or so scripted events (PIct raids, Constatin become high King, Germanus' visits, birth of Constatin's sons) and had to make a lot of stuff up, or use real historical events to flesh out the campaign (Aetius campaigns in Gauyl, the rise of Attila). 

 

So SIRES gives me a more solid foundation to work from. 

[Hzark10]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

So SIRES gives me a more solid foundation to work from. 

Glad to hear of it. 

[Cornelius]

On 6/28/2019 at 4:19 PM, Atgxtg said:

Yeah. I think this is partly due to the differences between games and reality. In a game, especially an RPG, we like to have everything clearly defined and explained to us. In reality it just isn't the case. In KAP, on paper, there is always a clearly defined pecking order, based on rank and glory. In real life, it just wasn't as clearly defined or even adhered to when it was. 

True. But thats the difference between having a fixed number for glory and a more subjective measure in real life. Together with the odd connections between lords makes it almost impossible to determine who should be in front of whom.

Also the fact that Modest is a christian virtue I think a lot of lords are very rpoud and to be honest the only way to distinguish yourself among your peers  and get more glory is to be in the thick of the fighting, making glorious deeds. And sometimes this pays off, but most of the times it did not.

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, Cornelius said:

True. But thats the difference between having a fixed number for glory and a more subjective measure in real life. Together with the odd connections between lords makes it almost impossible to determine who should be in front of whom.

Yup. Plus we are trying to quantify an abstract concept, and a host of modifiers and conditional variables. 

10 hours ago, Cornelius said:

Also the fact that Modest is a christian virtue I think a lot of lords are very rpoud and to be honest the only way to distinguish yourself among your peers  and get more glory is to be in the thick of the fighting, making glorious deeds. And sometimes this pays off, but most of the times it did not.

Yes, plus those traits are relative. A "Modest" knight, let alone a "Modest" Baron is going to be a lot more Proud that a "Modest" Serf. HE would have to be just to prove himself worthy of his title.