I have a bit of a dilemma in my campaign, concerning inheritance.

A player knight (a vassal with a single manor) had originally married a commoner woman out of love, and the poor girl croaked after giving birth to a son. The boy, however, managed to survive into adulthood. The knight later married a wealthy heiress, who had 4 manors as her dowry. This particular lady managed to give him several sons.

Now the player knight is dead - after having his head bashed in for him during the Grail Quest - and I am faced with a problem. Does the knight's first son inherit all of his father's five manors, or do the four manors included in his step-mother's dowry go to his oldest half-brother, leaving him with just his father's original manor?

I have a bit of a dilemma in my campaign, concerning inheritance.

A player knight (a vassal with a single manor) had originally married a commoner woman out of love, and the poor girl croaked after giving birth to a son. The boy, however, managed to survive into adulthood. The knight later married a wealthy heiress, who had 4 manors as her dowry. This particular lady managed to give him several sons.

Now the player knight is dead - after having his head bashed in for him during the Grail Quest - and I am faced with a problem. Does the knight's first son inherit all of his father's five manors, or do the four manors included in his step-mother's dowry go to his oldest half-brother, leaving him with just his father's original manor?


That's a good question. I always felt that the inheritance rules in the core book could have been clearer than they are.

Although I haven't played in ages, I think that the knight's older son would inherit all 5 manors. If there was no son from the previous marriage, than his widow would keep her 4 manors plus one third of her late husband's holding's (I don't know how that would be done in pratice since a single manor can't be chopped like a cake). But in this case there is a rightful heir from her husband, and the 5 manors were his, so his older son inherits them.

At least that's how I see it.

Thank you, Gorgon.

I am probably going to do as you have suggested, and also "reward" the new player knight with a group of embittered half-brothers intent on retaking their "rightful inheritance" from this usurper with commoner blood...

Alas, Gorgon is wrong.

The heiress' manors belong to the children of her blood, i.e. her own children. The (now dead) husband was controlling the manors 'by the right of his wife', they were not HIS. Of course, you can feel free to play it differently in your campaign, but especially in the case of Grail & Twilight, I would expect the noble pedigree matter a lot.

The half-commoner is the oldest son of his father, so he would inherit all the manors his father actually had -by his own right-. This would include the manor of his bloodline, and any manors he would himself have gained as rewards and such, but NOT manors that are actually his wife's.

EDIT:

The heiress-widow would be entitled to a Widow's Portion, 1/3rd of all the manors controlled by the late husband, regardless of inheritance. So that would include a 1/3rd slice of the original manor as well. Plenty of opportunity to be an evil stepmother, if the inheritance will be an acrimonious one.

If the heiress has actually been married once before already and this is her second widowhood, she would be entitled to her own inheritance (those 4 manors) + 1/3rd of her husband's other manors, to be governed under her own right. Of course, often if she'd have adult sons, she would hand those over and 'retire' instead, although this depends on the personality, too. Still, her eldest son would have a better start in life if the dear momsy steps aside, so that is what she would be likely to do, unless she has some special reason to detest her own son and to want to make his life difficult... Or the adult son might be clamoring for his inheritance in that case, although I am not sure about the legalities here. I think the law would be on her side: if the manors are hers and revert to her, they would be inherited when she is good and ready or dead and not before.

EDIT 2:

Just to mention that as a GM, I actually LIKE that it works this way. It means that it will be harder for the PKs to hoard manors, as usually, the heiresses will be married when the PKs are already older and more glorious & skilled, hence likely to have already sons from a previous marriage. It also gives more opportunities for scheming and plotting, for instance if the heiress has already pre-deceased her husband but there are living, underaged heirs of hers. What will the older half-brother do? What will the liege lord do? Especially during the Anarchy...

And thank you, Morien, for your precise answer.

This does also present an interesting scenario for the player, since the step-mother is indeed a bit of a harridan, and her marriage with the late Sir Gwalch was a tempestuous one to say the least. In addition, the new player knight is an interesting case as well: he has Proud 16 and Vengeful 18, and it is especially easy to raise his ire by insulting his less-than-aristocratic roots (I think I'll give him a Directed Trait about that). We have already decided that the new knight's relations with his step-mother and half-brothers are strained, so I think a brutal kin-strife is impending, which suits the Twilight Phase quite well.

Alas, Gorgon is wrong.



Alas, I'm afraid it won't be the last time either ;)

Sorry about that, Helmward. That will teach me (hopefully), to refrain from comenting until I refresh my memory of the rules.

Alas, Gorgon is wrong.



Alas, I'm afraid it won't be the last time either ;)

Sorry about that, Helmward. That will teach me (hopefully), to refrain from comenting until I refresh my memory of the rules.



Never you mind, Gorgon. Thanks for the effort!