In my campaign one of my players plan to challenge one of his uncles on a duel to the death over the right to rule the family.

The player-knight is the blood-heir of the family, but his uncle has usurped the "throne" and taken the titles. The player has long fought to regain his right, but it has been difficult during the Anarchy age, as it should be.

My questions:
* If the player-knight challenges his uncle, can his uncle simply deny the duel? (he is known for his cowardice) and take some sort of hit to Honor?
* What happens if a challenge is declared during the rules of hospitality in another knights house? Is it simply postponed until they leave his manor or until he sees it fit.
* His uncle has sworn fealty to a Baron as a Vavasour, can the player-knight even CHALLENGE the other knight for his title? Or does he have to challenge the baron?

1) yes, no books in front of me but i GUESS -3 Honor. remember if honor drops below a certain point the guy loses his status (i want to say 4...?) however i believe he has the right to choose a champion to fight in his stead as he was the one challenged. i smell a "boss fight"!

2)you can challenge someone under hospitality in the presence of the Host you are bound under hospitality both before and after the duel. you most likely have to take anything more than to first blood outside and you may upset you host. who may impose his own rules on the duel or forbid it if they want i would argue that if the host makes conditions the challenger (but not the challenged) may rescind the duel without honor loss although a sneaky rival may just turn the tables and issue the challenge back at the first if they knows he doesn't like the terms.

3) yes, if he wins he would then have to go to the Baron and tell him what happen and be judged. regardless of the outcome of the the Baron doesn't have to accept the victor as a vassal/ new owner. especially if the land is a Gift. EVEN as a gift he may seize the land simply because the new owner didn't check with the Baron first to see if he honor the result of the duel before killing the uncle

In Our Campaign:

The smart man would go to the Baron first to argue for his case, and ask for a trial by combat against the uncle. Thus, if the Baron says OK, the uncle is stuck: either accept the challenge to a duel or forfeit his status (and probably a hefty dose of honor). Also, this way, if the challenger wins, he is ensured also the Baron's acceptance of him as the new vavasour.

What if the Baron says no? That would suck. The Baron has obviously already accepted the uncle as the rightful heir, and the argument wasn't enough to sway him. In this case, even if one does kill the uncle in a duel, first of all, the uncle would have no incentive to agree (especially if it is still Anarchy) to the duel, and secondly, the Baron would likely get pissed that the PK killed a vassal of his and would be quite unlikely to give the lands to the PK after the fact. After all, he is a kinslayer, right...

You can challenge someone in front of a host. No problem there. However, if you draw your sword, that is an insult against your host and by the rules of hospitality, he would have to intervene on the side of the defender. So yeah, don't do that. Instead, get the host's agreement to a honorable duel.

I am not sure I would ding the honor of a knight for refusing a deadly duel without a good reason to accept. Would accusing the uncle for stealing the lands be a good enough reason to shame him in front of his peers if he says no? Maybe, maybe not; after all, his position has been confirmed by the Baron. Depends also on the exact circumstances how he 'stole' the lands. Was the PK too young and a strong hand was needed to keep the lands in the family? This is all for the benefit of the family, you know, don't be so Selfish... If the uncle's peers do consider the accusation valid enough (the PK's own reputation and status would be in play here too) to demand an answer, then yes, he would lose Honor if he avoided the challenge, but he might be entitled to a champion as Sir Cripple points out. Especially if he himself is already an old knight, and could not be expected to fight against a man in his prime.

Definitely challenging a random land-holding knight to a duel for his lands would be laughable, and if anything, harm the Honor of the challenging knight rather than the land-owning knight who refuses a challenge on those terms.

How about something that may call for an orate, compose and lore check. The PK asks leave of the baron to tell the tale of Sir Aerwyn, a legendary knight with a similar situation to the PK. As the knight is telling the tale, the uncle may start to feel nervous as he recognizes what the PK is doing. The baron and other attending knights may shout out their support of Sir Aerwyn, the wronged knight, if the PK gets good rolls. They may jeer at Sir Aerwyn for not taking back what was his or being in this situation if the pk gets bad rolls. Depending on how well the story goes, maybe the baron`s steward whispers to the baron that the story may not just be a tale. He may tell the court that he knows the story of Sir Aerwyn and add to the tale with how the good lord Darien came to Sir Aerwyn`s aid....

Or does the baron have a daughter that gets caught up in the chivalrous tale....

I would definitely play it a lot more subtle than just walking in with accusations.

I would definitely play it a lot more subtle than just walking in with accusations.


That would definitely be a good idea on the PK's part, I think. After all, a good yarn would get the other knights fired up and maybe push the Baron into the right 'let justice be done!' frame of mind. Whereas walking in and announcing an intent to kill one of his vassals is much more likely to go poorly.

The Uncle is 'known for cowardice' which would surely weigh against him. Then again, he might be a trusted advisor of the Baron. Really depends on the details of the setup.

We had a parallel case in our campaign, where an uncle absconded with the family horse and armor (he was supposed to use them while the heir was growing up to age). Turned out that he was using them to fight in a re-conquest of the lost family lands post-Badon, and hence was rather solidly in the new Duke's confidence. The PK decided not to make an issue out of it, even if he would have had a better blood-claim than the uncle, let alone the heir (NPC cousin).

Oh, perhaps even more pertinent case was when the eldest brother (PK) was presumed dead at sea, when he vanished for three years. The younger brother inherited their father's banneretcy and when the eldest returned, he decided not to make a fight over it (quite counter to what the GM was expecting), and agreed to quit his claim for the whole of banneretcy if he was given one manor instead.

Thank you for all the great insight, I certainly have a lot to go by know. I want the player knights to know the culture and the right's and wrong's without influencing them on how to make the decision.

I could add that the situation with the Baron is a bit more complicated than first apparent. I'll try to explain, pardon my lacking English-skills.

The Heir:
The PK and blood-heir to the family lands. Wants to return the old family lands to it's former glory. (He is currently a household knight)

The Baron:
During the anarchy age, his father's lands fell apart through infighting and the titles were lost. He reclaimed the land by force, and swore fealty to King Idres (instead of Salisbury) for the promise of making his lands a Barony under the future High King.

The Uncle:
Usurped the family lands by swearing fealty to the Baron, betraying the fealty of his old lord by claiming: "I was rightfully conquered, what is a man to do with a sword on his neck..."

All-in-all:
The family lands is now ruled by his uncle, but under the fealty of the Baron, who in his turn is a Baron under King Idres. It's all a bit of an anarchy mess really. The player knights want to return the old family lands to the rightful family heir, and then bring the old lands back under their current lord.

They PK CAN go to the baron to prepare the challenge, but he could then be considered betraying his current lord since she would not wish him to swear fealty under another lord.

The player has a Hate (uncle) passion, and has given me hints that he might challenge him at first chance.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

In this case, as far as the Baron is concerned, he conquered the lands and thus they are his to dispose as he wills. He gave the lands to the uncle fair and square. There is no usurpation here, legally, from his perspective.

Furthermore, as you say, the PK might be unwilling to swear to the Baron in any case. Although it was not uncommon for a man to hold lands from different lords in the Middle Ages. The PK ought to get his current liege's approval for this, though, before offering another oath of allegiance. And of course, such tangled webs of loyalty are easily messed up and challenged, especially if the two might go to war. In any case, there is either absolutely NO incentive for the Baron to allow the challenge if the PK is not going to swear allegiance to him and likely not that much incentive if the PK's loyalty is questionable even if he does swear.

Killing the uncle would not return the lands to the family, but they would revert to the Baron who would select someone else to rule them in his name. The only way to get the lands back would be to conquer them back from the Baron, who might get the backing of his liege lord, King Idres, in that case...

In this case, as far as the Baron is concerned, he conquered the lands and thus they are his to dispose as he wills. He gave the lands to the uncle fair and square. There is no usurpation here, legally, from his perspective.You have point there! Although, the usurpation actually started earlier, since the uncle was considered the "head" of the family even before he "switched" lords. But that is only a usurpation within the family. And he actually DID have something to do with the PK's father being lost in a hunting accident when the PK was too young to take command. But that is another story.


Furthermore, as you say, the PK might be unwilling to swear to the Baron in any case. Although it was not uncommon for a man to hold lands from different lords in the Middle Ages. The PK ought to get his current liege's approval for this, though, before offering another oath of allegiance. And of course, such tangled webs of loyalty are easily messed up and challenged, especially if the two might go to war. In any case, there is either absolutely NO incentive for the Baron to allow the challenge if the PK is not going to swear allegiance to him and likely not that much incentive if the PK's loyalty is questionable even if he does swear.Exactly my point, it may be very interesting to see the PK reaction when the challenge is denied and the uncle simply gives of a villainous grin.


Killing the uncle would not return the lands to the family, but they would revert to the Baron who would select someone else to rule them in his name. The only way to get the lands back would be to conquer them back from the Baron, who might get the backing of his liege lord, King Idres, in that case...
The uncle actually has a son that would inherit, splitting the family even further.

Also, another question while I am at it.

What would be an appropriate loss of Love (family) or Honor for killing your own kin in a duel of honor?

The big question for me would be if the uncle is 'known' by the PK for having organized a 'hunting accident'? If so, I would accept a claim that the uncle by that action has already split himself from the rest of the family and I would not ding Love Family at all, most likely. Especially if the motive is to avenge the PK's father's murder (itself invoking Love Family).

The Dishonor Table has 'killing a kinsman' at -6. I would argue, however, that 'killing' here implies a murder, not a judicial duel to the death, or an encounter on the battlefield. Again, I would let the circumstances matter. If the PK's peers feel that the uncle had it coming, they would react less badly. However, if the PK ambushes his uncle and hacks him down like a bandit, then I could see penalties to Honor.

As far as the uncle 'usurping' the acting head of the family... well, if all the other members of the family accepted his claim to be the head, then that is hardly usurpation, now is it? Especially if the PK heir was still underaged. Frankly, in our campaign, the uncles are expected to step up if the heir is underaged, to manage the family affairs until the heir is old enough to do it himself. Of course, in your campaign, the lands were lost and the uncle saw an opportunity to regain the lands by switching his allegiance. Is that really so bad? Many knights would argue that is simply smart politics, because otherwise the lands would have been given to someone totally unrelated. Such a pity that the young man has such a hatred towards his uncle, all those unfounded accusations of usurpation and murder... :P

The big question for me would be if the uncle is 'known' by the PK for having organized a 'hunting accident'? If so, I would accept a claim that the uncle by that action has already split himself from the rest of the family and I would not ding Love Family at all, most likely. Especially if the motive is to avenge the PK's father's murder (itself invoking Love Family).

The Dishonor Table has 'killing a kinsman' at -6. I would argue, however, that 'killing' here implies a murder, not a judicial duel to the death, or an encounter on the battlefield. Again, I would let the circumstances matter. If the PK's peers feel that the uncle had it coming, they would react less badly. However, if the PK ambushes his uncle and hacks him down like a bandit, then I could see penalties to Honor.I'll think I will do just as you say here, depending on how it happens. If he is killed in an honorable duel, I will keep the loss in Love (family) to 0-2 and the Honor to 0-4.


As far as the uncle 'usurping' the acting head of the family... well, if all the other members of the family accepted his claim to be the head, then that is hardly usurpation, now is it? Especially if the PK heir was still underaged. Frankly, in our campaign, the uncles are expected to step up if the heir is underaged, to manage the family affairs until the heir is old enough to do it himself. Of course, in your campaign, the lands were lost and the uncle saw an opportunity to regain the lands by switching his allegiance. Is that really so bad? Many knights would argue that is simply smart politics, because otherwise the lands would have been given to someone totally unrelated. Such a pity that the young man has such a hatred towards his uncle, all those unfounded accusations of usurpation and murder... :PWell, no one questioned the uncle for controlling the family while the PK was young. However, keeping/taking control after the player was old enough and forcing the PK's father to "reliquish" his sons claims as family head makes most kinsmen question his integrity. The uncle is after all the standard "bad-guy-uncle", the PK really hates him by now. He is known for cowardice, indulgence, arbitrary and selfish.

But he is a smooth talker, and I'd love to get the PK to make a move on his uncle. Only to see the uncle sway the family against him, forcing the PK's hand to violence.
[/quote]