So last night my wife's character, Bran of Winterbourne Stoke, SLEW THE DUKE Of CORNWALL! IN ONE SHOT! Holy smokes! I couldn't believe it myself. I'm pretty sure I went through the melee procedure correctly, adjusting for the Duke's passion —actually a 34 (19 Sword + 5 for mounted + 10 for Passion), not a 33 as suggested in the GPC. I also required Awareness rolls for all combatants, including the Duke, each round (night battle). Here's what happened, in a nutshell:

As per the scenario, the Duke gets his sword stuck in Prince Madoc's breastbone and Bran shows up right on cue, his newly knighted little brother, Bedwyn, on his heels. Bran Recognizes the Duke and goes for the attack, while Gorlois' sword is stuck, and misses! Oh, crap...

Next round, the Duke makes his Awareness roll, as does Bran. Bran declares an Uncontrolled Attack with Bedwyn supporting with a normal attack. The Duke has to split his attack between the two brothers and actually hits Bran, but only does 9 pts of damage, which Bran's mail absorbs. So Bran gets his Uncontrolled Attack (16 Sword - 2 Weariness (he hadn't slept well during the siege) - 5 Darkness - 5 On Foot vs Mounted +10 Uncontrolled = 14) AND ROLLS A 14! CRIT!

Bran's attack does 30 pts of damage, total (yep, he'd dropped his shield to get the a two-handed attack and the extra D6), the Duke's armor absorbs 10. He has 20 HP. No more Duke. The Duke falls back out of his saddle, taking Bran's sword with him!

Next round: Bran picks up his shield and, making the requisite DEX roll for multiple actions, mounts the Duke's horse! He is struck with a guardsman's spear, but again, his armor absorbs the damage. On the next round his squire makes his Squire roll and retrieves Bran's sword from the Duke's breast, placing it into Bran's hands.

So that's it then? Seemed too easy—I was stunned, but it looks like the wife did it, fair and square.

I guess there's only two things I might've done differently:

1.) The Duke's Bodyguard may have intervened BEFORE Bran reached Gorlois. So Bran would've had to fight one or two rounds, or one or two opponents to the death, before even reaching the Duke. But that's not the way GPC scripts it so I didn't think about it until it was too late.

2.) The Duke may have fought Defensively when confronted with two attackers, but I guess it wouldn't have made a difference since he hit Bran anyway prior to Winterbourne's Uncontrolled Attack.

3.) I guess I could've ruled that the Duke was critically impassioned, to make him even tougher. But, again, this is not specified in the scenario so, meh...

So there was a round or two of confusion until the Duke's men start to retreat to Tarrabil.

So here are my questions for this esteemed forum:

1.) Did I miss anything obvious?

2.) Would the Duke's bodyguard give up so easily? Would they just leave Gorlois' body on the field? Or would the impassioned ones fight to the death? I guess it depends on their Valor rolls, huh?

3.) Now what? It was late at night and we were getting tired, so we decided to lower the curtain right after the Duke's death. But it's not too late from someone to suggest that the King's men carry the fight to Tarrabil, right? I could just open the next session in medias res on this attack...

4.) What can Bran expect, besides the Glory (shared with young Bedwyn, of course—if it weren't for the Duke having to split is attack...). I mean, it seems like there are all sorts of implications and consequences for Bran's slaying of the Duke.

a.) How would Uther respond? Surely, Bran would be catapulted to favorite status in the King's eyes. Monetary reward, or another manor perhaps? A battlefield promotion? To what—banneret? (Outside of marrying an heiress or inheriting a bannerety, I'm not sure how PCs come by them. Bran is 31 yrs old, a vassal knight for six years now, and has about 3,000 Glory. At what point—and how—would he win a bannerety?

b.) And what of the Cornish men? They get a Hate (Bran) passion?

c.) Brand has the Duke's body—and his fine horse, armor and sword. Does he get to keep any of it as a trophy of sorts, or would should he offer it to the King? Would Uther have Cornwall's head put on a spike?

d.) What happens to Cornwall's household bodyguard, household knights and vassals now that he's dead? Do they lose all their titles and lands? Become mercenaries? Pledge allegiance to the King?

I'm very interested in the short-term and long-term ramifications of this monumental act on both Bran as a character and the future of Logres,

I know this is long. Thanks for your patience, and indulging me. I look forward to your responses!


T.

Did the Duke get his shield value?

Fighting defensively vs. an all-out attack just changes both to normal attacks.

When at 0 hp, if he gets a successful Chirurgery roll fairly soon, he won't die.

Did the Duke get his shield value?

Fighting defensively vs. an all-out attack just changes both to normal attacks.

When at 0 hp, if he gets a successful Chirurgery roll fairly soon, he won't die.


I didn't give him the shield because I reasoned that Bran, being on foot, ran up and attacked him on the right side. Don't see how the Duke could get the benefit of the shield in that instance.

I didn't give him the benefit of the chiurgery because it was scripted that the Duke must die one way or another. Plus Bran's performance was so spectacular I hated to be a spoiler on a technicality. Finally, I could easily reason that the Duke took another d6 falling damage from the fall.

Thanks!

T.

So here are my questions for this esteemed forum:

1.) Did I miss anything obvious?

2.) Would the Duke's bodyguard give up so easily?

3.) Now what?

4.) What can Bran expect, besides the Glory
a.) How would Uther respond? Surely, Bran would be catapulted to favorite status in the King's eyes. Monetary reward, or another manor perhaps? A battlefield promotion? To what—banneret? (Outside of marrying an heiress or inheriting a bannerety, I'm not sure how PCs come by them. Bran is 31 yrs old, a vassal knight for six years not, and has about 3,000 Glory. At what point—and how—would he win a bannerety?
b.) And what of the Cornish men? They get a Hate (Bran) passion?
c.) Brand has the Duke's body—and his fine horse, armor and sword. Does he get to keep any of it as a trophy of sorts, or would should he offer it to the King? Would Uther have Cornwall's head put on a spike?
d.) What happens to Cornwall's household bodyguard, household knights and vassals now that he's dead?


1. The shield that has been mentioned (I don't think there is a rule that you can cover only one side while on horseback). However, story trumps such minor considerations. Same with First Aid. Gorlois needs to die in that battle, so why not have the PC reap the benefit of a critical.?Much better story that way. So I pretty much agree with the way you handled it.

2. If they are impassioned, probably not. If they are not, then self-preservation might be the stronger force, especially if the rest of the Cornish army is already scrambling back to the safety of the walls.

3. I'd either have a short skirmish in which the bodyguards try to recover the body of their Duke, or simply say that the Cornish forces ponder for the rest of the night and then offer to surrender the next morning. No point in fighting anymore. Especially if they get some assurances that Uther won't be lopping off heads due to Madoc's death...

4.
a) Uther is a bit of a mystery. He should be distraught over Madoc's, his heir's, death. After all, Madoc had proven to be a skilled commander and an able king-to-be. On the other hand, he might be besotted over Isolde. See in below about what I'd do.
b) The bodyguards could get that Passion. Probably not the rank-and-file vassal knights, IMHO. People die in a war, after all.
c) I think he ought to offer it to the King, and the King probably would return some of it to him & Bedwyn to share. I think Uther would be tempted to put Gorlois' head on a spike due to Madoc, but perhaps due to the consideration of Cornish sensibilities & Igraine, he does not do that on the counsel of cooler heads.
d) Vassal knights probably bend the knee to whoever Uther chooses as the next Duke of Cornwall, and keep their lands, except if someone has made a particular enemy. Household knights probably become masterless, although again, if someone has been noteworthy as a guy Uther would want on his side, he might keep that knight on.

OK, now in detail about the consequences... Yes, I think Bran would be very well regarded by Uther, due to killing Gorlois. At least more Glory would come from additional praise. Does Bedwyn have a household knight posting yet? Well, he does now (Uther either asks some of his lords to offer a place, or takes Bedwyn into his own household knights). Bran certainly would get asked to join the King's bodyguards, a high honor and ensures he has the King's ear. Future advancement would seem to be in the offing. Yes, that might include a gift of a banneretcy, with the younger brother getting a manor, too. Maybe.

However... Remember that in 9 months, all of that is likely to come crashing down, due to Merlin's meddling. After that, Uther likely cannot stand the sight of Bran (reminds him of the loss of BOTH of his sons, Gorlois' death quite forgotten already), and what the King giveth, the King can taketh away. So I'd let the knight to bask in the favor of the King, as that makes the subsequent crash all the more stinging.

As for Banneretcy in general, I think 3000 Glory is too little for such an honor. Granted, big heroics call for big rewards, but still. A Banneretcy is like a big 'you won!' sign at the end of one generation, in my campaign. Something for the knights to painstalkingly aspire to, via marriage and heroics, one manor at a time. But I am a bit stingy GM when it comes to such things, and I'd never use the old 'marry within your class, gain a manor!' marriage table.

Morien, thanks so much for your generous answer. I really appreciate having someone to bounce these kinds of ideas around with. It's very helpful as I'm not plugged into a gamer community here and I only have one player (and a novice at that). So it's like playing in a vacuum; you guys are a lifeline for me. Have some Glory, sir!



1. The shield that has been mentioned (I don't think there is a rule that you can cover only one side while on horseback). However, story trumps such minor considerations. Same with First Aid. Gorlois needs to die in that battle, so why not have the PC reap the benefit of a critical.?Much better story that way. So I pretty much agree with the way you handled it.

If there's not such a rule I think maybe there should be. No way the Duke could use his shield if he's mounted and attacked on his sword-arm side. No way to twist in the saddle like that. If you're on foot I don't think a rule is necessary, as I understand it's an abstraction and fighters should always get the benefit of the shield unless, perhaps, they're blindsided. And it also makes sense that the get the benefit of the shield when jousting, of course. But in this instance...


2. If they are impassioned, probably not. If they are not, then self-preservation might be the stronger force, especially if the rest of the Cornish army is already scrambling back to the safety of the walls.

I figured if it came to blows it would depend on the guard's Valor rolls. But here's an interesting question: Do they get the benefit of their Passion when making the Honor roll? IIRC, the Passion only affects one SKILL, right?


3. I'd either have a short skirmish in which the bodyguards try to recover the body of their Duke, or simply say that the Cornish forces ponder for the rest of the night and then offer to surrender the next morning. No point in fighting anymore. Especially if they get some assurances that Uther won't be lopping off heads due to Madoc's death...

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines.


b) The bodyguards could get that Passion. Probably not the rank-and-file vassal knights, IMHO. People die in a war, after all.

Agreed. Interesting thing here is Bran's other brother, Barris, was in the Duke's bodyguard! They're eyes met during this critical confrontation, and Barris actually attacked Bran with a spear, but missed—then he ran back with the rest to the safety of the castle. A very interesting family dynamic continuing to take shape. The last of Bran's brothers, twins, are mercenary knights in the Duke's service. So I see them coming to join Bran's household. Don't know what to do with Barris, Thinking of having him hook up with the Praetor Syagrius for various Anarchy villainy...

I'd like a simple way to randomly determine casualties in a given conflict. Maybe one of these two merc knight twin brothers were slain in the siege... I think it would be somethig like—consult a table on the percentage of casualties for each side in general and then modify the chances of any given NPC's death by the intensity of the action where they were. Guys on the frontline get a +20 boost to "death" chance, or something. Guys in the reserve get a -20—that kind of thing.


c) I think Uther would be tempted to put Gorlois' head on a spike due to Madoc, but perhaps due to the consideration of Cornish sensibilities & Igraine, he does not do that on the counsel of cooler heads.

Interesting. Maybe I'll make a Vengeful roll for the King. Greg provided those stats for a reason, yeah?


d) Vassal knights probably bend the knee to whoever Uther chooses as the next Duke of Cornwall, and keep their lands, except if someone has made a particular enemy. Household knights probably become masterless, although again, if someone has been noteworthy as a guy Uther would want on his side, he might keep that knight on.

I think maybe the office of Duke is never filled again, IIRC, but I may be mistaken.


However... Remember that in 9 months, all of that is likely to come crashing down, due to Merlin's meddling.

Yeah, I was thinking about that, too. I can be as generous as I want for now, because everything's gonna change then and, of course, after St. Alban's. Another thing: this development makes for a completely different dynamic for the treason trial after Arthur's birth in 492. If I follow these suggestions, Bran will now be effectively in the service of Brastias, who later accuses the PK in the GPC of treason for helping Merlin. Not sure what to do with this...maybe some NPC knights, that are friendly to my PCs, are accused instead and instead of being on the defense, and Bran has to come to their defense. Or even fight against them when Merlin needs help escaping with baby Arthur!


After that, Uther likely cannot stand the sight of Bran (reminds him of the loss of BOTH of his sons, Gorlois' death quite forgotten already), and what the King giveth, the King can taketh away. So I'd let the knight to bask in the favor of the King, as that makes the subsequent crash all the more stinging.

Yes, I was thinking in terms of the stinging loss after St. Alban's, but not the birth of Arthur. Very interesting. I like it!


As for Banneretcy in general, I think 3000 Glory is too little for such an honor. Granted, big heroics call for big rewards, but still. A Banneretcy is like a big 'you won!' sign at the end of one generation, in my campaign. Something for the knights to painstalkingly aspire to, via marriage and heroics, one manor at a time. But I am a bit stingy GM when it comes to such things, and I'd never use the old 'marry within your class, gain a manor!' marriage table.


Yeah, I was doubtful of that myself, but lacking clear guidelines on how what might inspire these kinds of battlefield promotions, I wasn't sure what is "reasonable."

Thanks again, Morien. This is very helpful.


T.

Re: this shield thing, I think also part of my not using the shield was the fact that the Duke got the
first attack on Bran's Uncontrolled Attack, so I simply wasn't thinking in terms of "partial success" because this attack is resolved differently from normal attacks.

T.

One question: Two knights attacked the Duke together. Why?
In my gaming group it is customary to fight one on one. I know in a battle things are different, but that is how we play it. It is seen as unknightly or even dishonorable to attack with more. Only if the first failed to take down the Duke another would step in.

How is this situation handled in other groups?

One question: Two knights attacked the Duke together. Why?
In my gaming group it is customary to fight one on one. I know in a battle things are different, but that is how we play it. It is seen as unknightly or even dishonorable to attack with more. Only if the first failed to take down the Duke another would step in.

How is this situation handled in other groups?


The Duke attacks while most of Prince Madoc's army is asleep unarmored. I would have no problems with the knights ganging up on him this way in my game, especially since it is a battle and the Uther period. That said, I would have had the extra knights fighting bodyguards while one knight fought the Duke. Im my game, the knights went with Uther, so I didnt have to figure it out :)

One question: Two knights attacked the Duke together. Why?
In my gaming group it is customary to fight one on one. I know in a battle things are different, but that is how we play it. It is seen as unknightly or even dishonorable to attack with more. Only if the first failed to take down the Duke another would step in.

How is this situation handled in other groups?


Hmm. That's an interesting question. I hadn't even thought about that. I guess I see mass combat as not as formalized as a duel, the lists, or other styles of chivalric combat. In this case it happened to be one younger knight supporting his older brother who was diving in head first. It was also dark, chaotic, and a surprise attack on the Duke's part. The Duke was mounted, the king's men were on foot. Didn't even occur to me to consider knightly honor.

But if knights can never gang up on another knight, like the Duke, I have to wonder why the GPC says you should split the Glory award for all who have a part in defeating/slaying them?

But, I'll tell you what—I'll definitely use this to inform the "buzz" that goes around in the wake of Bran's newfound renown. "Ah, he's not so much—things would've been different if he'd have met the Duke mono-e-mono. The coward needed his brother to accomplish the deed."

Excellent fodder for a drunken comment, overheard at a feast.

T.

I am not sure if it is a rule from the books, its just how it is played in my group.

Splitting the glory: If one knight goes down and another steps up and wins, then both knights get part of the glory. The first knight did soften it up, making it possible for the other to finish it.

I am not sure if it is a rule from the books, its just how it is played in my group.

Splitting the glory: If one knight goes down and another steps up and wins, then both knights get part of the glory. The first knight did soften it up, making it possible for the other to finish it.


I think you're delving down one of those interesting paths between an unobtainable ideal (always follow "fair play") and the reality of combat in that period. And "might makes right" is still ruling in the period of the Battle of Terrabil in any case. I just hope the PKs don't expect equal treatment from foes, especially Saxons.

But if knights can never gang up on another knight, like the Duke, I have to wonder why the GPC says you should split the Glory award for all who have a part in defeating/slaying them?




The section on honor in Chapter 4 (pg 76) of KAP5.0 has a decent list of honorable and dishonorable actions. Nowhere on that list is ganging up on an armed knights listed as a dishonorable act. Interestingly enough, Duke Gorlois broke one of them with his attack that night, by attacking a sleeping camp in the dead of night.

In my games, I look at the intention of the knights and judge the situation accordingly. In the incidence of the OP, I would not call it dishonorable, especially since the Knights just saw King Uthers son killed by the Duke.

In my last game(in the anarchy), the PKs were fighting bandit knights. One of the younger knights, Sir Barwyn, was facing off against the bandit leader. His friend, Sir Theodoric, killed the knight he was facing, and decided to charge the bandit knight leader in the back, stating that outlaw knights are due no honor (plus, Sir Theodoric has a 19 vengeful and the bandit knights were preying on the county). When Sir Barwyn noticed what Sir Theodoric intended, he signaled the bandit knight that sir Theodoric was coming and backed out of the fight so that the 2 knights could face each other.

I awarded Sir Barwyn a check in honor, and did not penalize Sir Theodoric. If the knights had just been rivals of another county, I would have penalized Sir Theodoric as well.

I think you're delving down one of those interesting paths between an unobtainable ideal (always follow "fair play") and the reality of combat in that period. And "might makes right" is still ruling in the period of the Battle of Terrabil in any case. I just hope the PKs don't expect equal treatment from foes, especially Saxons.


They do not expect it from Saxons. That is why they are seen as honorless scum. It is also not used against monsters or bandits, but only between knights. If opponents do it to them then they will help out their friend as well, even if it is only to get back to the one on one fight. But when one knight is fighting another knight they are reluctant to engage. It is of course a game where glory is personal and it is a bit of stealing glory from another.

It is also not something I really enforce, but it is the feeling of the players in this and I go with it.

So, returning to one of my original questions about the implications for Bran.

In addition to the Glory award, I think the King is going to give Bran a new manor. Does that seem reasonable? Should it be from a fallen Salisbury knight or from Cornwall, 'cause I guess Uther's just going to redraw the map, so to speak, putting people loyal to him in charge. In a related question, does it seem reasonable that a knight would have manors in two separate places in the kingdom? Way separate?

I don't want to overstate Bedwyn's roll—he was on Bran's heels and was harrying the Duke, but he never even scratched Gorlois, given Bran's phenomenal CRIT on round 2.

I see the king asking Bran to many hunts and falconry outings, with attendant checks in those skills. I do think both of the knights will be made members of the King's Guard under the command of Brastias. This won't last long, of course.

Does all this sound too generous? Not generous enough? I guess Bran will have to swear an oath to the King. Does the King get a Passion of some kind for Bran? I see him as sort of the King's new best friend. This is a very big, albeit short-lived, deal.


T.

So, returning to one of my original questions about the implications for Bran.

In addition to the Glory award, I think the King is going to give Bran a new manor. Does that seem reasonable? Should it be from a fallen Salisbury knight or from Cornwall, 'cause I guess Uther's just going to redraw the map, so to speak, putting people loyal to him in charge. In a related question, does it seem reasonable that a knight would have manors in two separate places in the kingdom? Way separate?

I don't want to overstate Bedwyn's roll—he was on Bran's heels and was harrying the Duke, but he never even scratched Gorlois, given Bran's phenomenal CRIT on round 2.

I see the king asking Bran to many hunts and falconry outings, with attendant checks in those skills. I do think both of the knights will be made members of the King's Guard under the command of Brastias. This won't last long, of course.

Does all this sound too generous? Not generous enough? I guess Bran will have to swear an oath to the King. Does the King get a Passion of some kind for Bran? I see him as sort of the King's new best friend. This is a very big, albeit short-lived, deal.


T.


Given the expected events in the near future how big of a rollercoaster are you trying to put the knights on?

Unless you think Uther believes this to be a big thing to recognize Bran's actions as special I would presume his Loyalty(vassals) to cover the passion.

Per rewarding a manor, the political thing would be to reward one in Cornwall. That helps cement the loyalty of Bran to Uther (and for which I think he would get a Loyalty(Uther) or Loyalty (Pendragon) - but not as strong as the one he had to his current or original liege) since Bran will probably need Uther's support in order to keep control of it without trouble.

And you get a potential plot hook since Idres will probably overrun the property during the next decade in any case.

Given the expected events in the near future how big of a rollercoaster are you trying to put the knights on?

Well, I only have the one PK. Generally, I place a compelling story above all other considerations. My wife likes the social, courtly and manorial aspects of the game the most, so I'm game for all kinds of intrigue, etc.


Unless you think Uther believes this to be a big thing to recognize Bran's actions as special I would presume his Loyalty(vassals) to cover the passion.

Y'know, that's a good point. Although I might give him a Directed Trait for Bran at 1d6 above the others. It probably will never come into play, and will be short-lived, to boot.


Per rewarding a manor, the political thing would be to reward one in Cornwall. That helps cement the loyalty of Bran to Uther (and for which I think he would get a Loyalty(Uther) or Loyalty (Pendragon) - but not as strong as the one he had to his current or original liege) since Bran will probably need Uther's support in order to keep control of it without trouble.

So how's that work, logistically? Does Bran install one of his brothers as Steward, and then just pay an annual visit?


And you get a potential plot hook since Idres will probably overrun the property during the next decade in any case.

Ah, thanks. I haven't read that far ahead in the GPC, but I'll check it out.

T.

So, returning to one of my original questions about the implications for Bran.

In addition to the Glory award, I think the King is going to give Bran a new manor. Does that seem reasonable? Should it be from a fallen Salisbury knight or from Cornwall, 'cause I guess Uther's just going to redraw the map, so to speak, putting people loyal to him in charge. In a related question, does it seem reasonable that a knight would have manors in two separate places in the kingdom? Way separate?


I did that for other services in my campaign. It led to some dramatic moments when the Anarchy started. I had the manors taken by Knights closer in Cornwall and the PKs were unable to reclaim them. However, the PKs and there sons will have a claim when Arthur unites the land and that will hopefully lead to some good drama and feuds for the later years. God knows the PKs are good at starting feuds so far :)




I don't want to overstate Bedwyn's roll—he was on Bran's heels and was harrying the Duke, but he never even scratched Gorlois, given Bran's phenomenal CRIT on round 2.

I see the king asking Bran to many hunts and falconry outings, with attendant checks in those skills. I do think both of the knights will be made members of the King's Guard under the command of Brastias. This won't last long, of course.

Does all this sound too generous? Not generous enough? I guess Bran will have to swear an oath to the King. Does the King get a Passion of some kind for Bran? I see him as sort of the King's new best friend. This is a very big, albeit short-lived, deal.


T.


I didnt consider making them part of Uthers guard, I didnt see Earl Roderick being too happy at having his vassals being taken from him that way. Plus I didnt want them too close to Brastias because of what happens later in the game with the abduction of Arthur. Also, Uther is grieving his dead son, so he may not be feeling as generous as he would normally be. But, its your game, and it seems reasonable to me.

The section on honor in Chapter 4 (pg 76) of KAP5.0 has a decent list of honorable and dishonorable actions. Nowhere on that list is ganging up on an armed knights listed as a dishonorable act. Interestingly enough, Duke Gorlois broke one of them with his attack that night, by attacking a sleeping camp in the dead of night.



Gorlois probably looked upon Uther's adulterous desire for his wife as far more dishonorable.

Per rewarding a manor, the political thing would be to reward one in Cornwall. That helps cement the loyalty of Bran to Uther (and for which I think he would get a Loyalty(Uther) or Loyalty (Pendragon) - but not as strong as the one he had to his current or original liege) since Bran will probably need Uther's support in order to keep control of it without trouble.

So how's that work, logistically? Does Bran install one of his brothers as Steward, and then just pay an annual visit?



Install a brother or hire one. They cost 1 L per year, possibly a bit more for a highly skilled steward. An annual visit to check up can just be mentioned or is a potential hook for something to happen.

And as mentioned above conflicting claims to the land can always be used to generate !FUN!.

And depending on how your handling manor economics it would have its own separate harvest result calculations.

Gorlois probably looked upon Uther's adulterous desire for his wife as far more dishonorable.


As did most people in Uther's inner circle, but Uther wasn't even there. Like most things it is a matter of perspective :)

Lust seems to bring downmost of the people in power in this game.

So, returning to one of my original questions about the implications for Bran.

In addition to the Glory award, I think the King is going to give Bran a new manor. Does that seem reasonable? Should it be from a fallen Salisbury knight or from Cornwall, 'cause I guess Uther's just going to redraw the map, so to speak, putting people loyal to him in charge. In a related question, does it seem reasonable that a knight would have manors in two separate places in the kingdom? Way separate?

In fact, that is normal


I guess Bran will have to swear an oath to the King.

Yes
Since writing the rules, I have discerrned the difference between Homage and Fealty.
Homage is only allowed to one lord, and it has precedence over all others.
Fealty can be sworn to many lords
There are procedures to release a man from homage so he can swear it to another

So in this case, who holds Bran's homage, Roderick or Uther?


Does the King get a Passion of some kind for Bran? I see him as sort of the King's new best friend. This is a very big, albeit short-lived, deal.

Killing his worst enemy so he can have the man's wife is certainly a possible cause for Bran to be catapulted to be one of Uther's favorites.

So in this case, who holds Bran's homage, Roderick or Uther?

Well, I dunno. I guess given Bran's family's history of 3 or 4 generations of service to the Earl, it would be homage to the Earl and Fealty to the King, but I really don't have a grasp of what this means in practical terms. So if the King asks Bran to go on campaign with him, but Roderick has asked Bran to be an officer in his court (for a hypothetical example), Bran's homage obligation allows him to politely say "no" to the king with no loss of honor? However, the King's displeasure may of course be expressed in other ways (a withdrawal of royal favor, fewer invitations to hunts, etc.) Is that it?

These kinds of internal workings of the feudal system is what I wish i knew more about. I know enough about it on a superficial level, of course. But I'm very interested in these kinds of practical elements on knightly life that can be exploited for much larger plot implications. Does anyone know any good books on such matters? I have the three Gies "Life in a..." books, (Village, City, Castle) as well as numerous books on medieval warfare, castles, arms and armor, swords, etc., but I can't recall that any of them delve into the detailed workings of feudalism, conflicting obligations, how manors are awarded, battlefield promotions, social climbing, etc.

Thanks to all, for engaging in this.


T.

Killing his worst enemy so he can have the man's wife is certainly a possible cause for Bran to be catapulted to be one of Uther's favorites.


Yes, and of course for avenging his son's death as well. However, I see Uther as... hmm... as less constant than Arthur. You do him a good turn, and he might be all smiles and favor you, but as soon as you put a step wrong, he rages and rants about what an ungrateful wretch you are. Shades of Becket and Henry II, perhaps? :) 'Will nobody rid me of this turbulent knight?!'

Helping Merlin to steal Arthur, his new heir away, certainly would count as a 'step in wrong'. No end of grief that poor Uther gets from Igraine as the result. Of course Uther would not blame himself for making the 'devil's deal' with Merlin, oh no, it is Merlin's fault, see? And since he can't lash out at Merlin, and the court exonerates the PK(s) from treason due to Merlin's sorcery, he can't be seen as being unjust. But certainly banishing the PK from his household and similar actions would be within the understanding of his other vassals. The PK would be well advised to keep a very low profile afterwards, and avoid Uther's court, for surely there would be knights eager to gain some royal favor by insulting and fighting with the PK.

Shades of Becket and Henry II, perhaps? :) 'Will nobody rid me of this turbulent knight?!'

Ha! it's funny you invoked them. I was thinking of the exact same thing when I saw the king heaping favors on Bran—until he has a reason not to.

Thanks,


T.

Well, I dunno. I guess given Bran's family's history of 3 or 4 generations of service to the Earl, it would be homage to the Earl and Fealty to the King, but I really don't have a grasp of what this means in practical terms. So if the King asks Bran to go on campaign with him, but Roderick has asked Bran to be an officer in his court (for a hypothetical example), Bran's homage obligation allows I'm to politely say "no" to the king with no loss of honor? However, the King's displeasure may of course be expressed in other ways (a withdrawal of royal favor, fewer invitations to hunts, etc.) Is that it?


I am not really up to the historical part, but this does point to the center of the KAP game: conflicting passions (the biggest reason I like this game al lot. Its the tragedy of the chivalrous knight). It is this conflict I seek to bestow on my PKs as a GM. The example you arise I would have the PK roll for both loyalties and the outcome has effect on his life. Choosing Roderick above Uther is within his rights, but will not sit well with a king like Uther. On the other hand choosing Uther over Roderick is will do the same towards Roderick, and is in fact dishonorable (as I understand it). In this case he may need to come up with some good ideas to satisfy both lords.