Hi all.

As some of you may know, I very much like the local politics and inheritance crises and so forth in the Pendragon world. Also, there is a rich tradition of usurping robber knights and such in the literature. However, often these are farther away from Camelot, needing long journeys.

I am planning a sort of civil war in Salisbury. The background for it is that the not-wholly-trusted eldest son is presumed dead before he could inherit, and his younger brother of proven loyalty to the new Earl Roderick has been given the family lands in the eldest's absence. Now the eldest son returns, and if he is anything like his father, swords will come out pretty soon when the younger brother refuses to relinquish what he considers rightfully his, after the couple of years of possession. Most of the lands under the dispute are from Earl Roderick, but they do include a couple of mansions in Hampshire, held from King Arthur.

However, this is only a couple of days from Camelot. While I could see Arthur ignoring small skirmishes, figuring that is for the Earl to decide, what happens when the Earl becomes involved, too, and the fighting escalates? Again, my Arthur could adopt a laizzes faire doctrine and figure that as long as the fighting is internal to Salisbury, he is not interfering. Even if Levcomagus joins to make good with some old territorial disputes... But wouldn't this be a rather eyesore, so close to Camelot, the plumes of the burning villages easily seen? Hardly the golden age of chivalry, anymore!

Arbitration by Arthur would be a pretty sure way to bring the fighting to a halt, given the high Loyalty scores on all sides, but also impose a bit of a GM fiat, in a way.

So what I am looking for are excuses why Arthur wouldn't interfere, or reasons why he would stamp down as quick as he could. Here are some of my thoughts, but feel free to contribute:

1. Reasons for not interfering
- it is the Earl of Salisbury's responsibility, a local matter, not Arthur's problem
- no one has (yet) asked him to arbitrate, so it would be a slight against the Earl to interfere

2. Reasons for interfering
- threat to Camelot's visitors who might pass through Salisbury
- "King's Peace" or whatever you want to call it... desire to have disputes between his vassals and knights to be arbitrated peacefully rather than in bloody conflict
- some of the disputed lands are held from Arthur, not from the Earl

Also, I'd be quite keen on hearing on the medieval legalities in these cases. It is assumed that the younger brother would have sworn allegiance to both the Earl and the King for the lands he is holding.

Any suggestions/insights would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Just a couple thoughts.
Salisbury is the richest, or one of the richest counties. If the tribute stops flowing you better believe King Arthur is going to step in.

Also, Earl Robert is one of the "True Knights" (I believe thats the term, anyways he stood up for Arthur first along with just a few others), I would find it hard to see Arthur not aiding one of his most loyal and stauch vassels.

On the flip side, everything is timing. If Arthur is away on the continent, say battling the Romans, what Knights would he have to send?

The usurper could always start with courtly diplomacy,proof/fake how Robert stole his birthright, Arthur can be fooled by his own sense of justice, especially when he lacks the wisdom of Merlin after he disappears.

I would say that your best bet of pulling that off would be for Arthur to be "away" from Camelot. If he is not around, then it would take time for a message to be sent to him, time for him to decide what to do, and time for him to return. That time would be lengthened if Arthur was on the continent or at least off of Britain. Waiting for good weather and the proper tide can take time.

Of course this would also be assuming that the message got to him. What better way for a usurper to help his cause than to keep any messages from being sent to the King. Bribery, promises of lands, and promises of jobs can all be tempting. Your PC's could even be tempted to aid in keeping messengers from making it very far, especialy if they did not warm up to the idea of swearing to Countess Ellen very quickly.

I should know by now that context is everything. :)

This isn't about usurping the Earl of Salisbury (although it might lead to that, if correct people get killed). This is a fight between two brothers, both who think they have a good claim on their father's extensive lands (Banneret). The time is in 530s, after the Roman and the Irish Wars, so Arthur should be in Camelot, or the very least, in Logres. Sure, I could delay his involvement by sending him to punish some pictsies in Caledonia... But in that case, it might be that the younger brother is there too due to the manors in Hampshire. So in short, for this thing to happen, it is much likelier that Arthur is in Camelot and the younger son is in Salisbury.

Background:
The brothers' father was a founding Round Table Knight. Fought pretty much in every battle during Arthur's reign. Instrumental in winning the Battle of Badon Hill (killed one Saxon king, if I recall) even though was found on the battlefield slain the following morning. Awarded posthumously a manor in Hampshire, and another manor in Hampshire due to his wife. In Salisbury, three manors of which one is demesne (no knight service), and 6 vassal knights with their own manors (two of which are to be inherited by two other PKs).

The eldest brother vanished from Salisbury in his 15th Samhain (Halloween), with witnesses claiming that it was his father who came to get him. He returned like three years later, having aged six years in that time, already a grown man. He showed a distinct dislike of the Christians, punching the village priest down when the man refused to stop the Easter festivities. Due to that and some suspicion that he might be a changeling, Earl Robert refused to knight him and to give him his inheritance until he'd prove himself. The Roman War started that year, and the eldest brother went to war. He was knighted during the war, but managed to get badly wounded and missed the Battle of Autun where Earl Robert died (in our campaign). Despite of this, by the time they got to Rome, he had accumulated obscene amounts of Glory, around 3000, during the two years of campaigning, and was one of the handful singled out for praise by Arthur in the victory celebrations because of it. On the return from Rome, he disappeared with the rest of his party. Some rumors are that the ship captain slit the knights' throats and tossed the bodies overboard. That was a some years ago.

The younger brother was being groomed to take over the Banneretcy by Earl Robert after the disappearance of the eldest, living as a ward of the Earl from pageboy age onwards. At 15, he became the squire of Sir Roderick, Earl Robert's son named after the Earl's dead father. (Since this campaign started with 4th Edition, we already had Earl Robert as a grown man by 503, and Sir Roderick was born on that year.) Since the younger brother is an NPC, he hasn't been developed nearly to the extent the PK eldest son has. But with the dearth of knights (many of the Salisbury knights fell at Autun), I could see the younger son being knighted early, to provide the new, also young (25 or so) Earl a supporter amongst the Bannerets of Salisbury. The younger brother has participated in the wars against Prince Galehaut and the Irish, winning some glory there (albeit not to the extent of the eldest), and he would have sworn fealty to Arthur for the Manors in Hampshire, too. He would be a moderate pagan, live and let live, clinging to the old faith mostly out of respect for his parents, who were pagan. He'd pretty well versed in courtly etiquette and would certainly be much more in favor with the Christian village priests (and by extension, the overwhelmingly Christian, if not totally orthodox, peasantry) than his big brother. He'd be quite friendly with Earl Roderick of Salisbury, and have a strong loyalty for the Earl. Probably vice versa as well, given that Roderick was in charge of his squire years, and of the wardhood. For the last few years, he would have ruled the Banneretcy ably and wisely.

Both brothers have a high Loyalty to Arthur, as does Earl Roderick, too. None of the three is likely to resort to any underhanded tricks to assassinate/bribe messengers to Arthur.

The other PK's are likely to split in the middle (if judging their IC personalities), or might coalescence around the eldest son PK (OOC player loyalty or IC sense of loyalty, after all, they made it through the Roman War together). In latter case, they would bring quite a large amount of war heroism to the scales. Both brothers share the same father and the same mother, so kinship ties are the same. The other PKs would face some inheritance problems of their own, but these would be much more minor in comparison. I think one has no siblings from his father's side (the father having been the owner of the fief), so the land would revert to the Banneret? I think both contestants would be eager to promise the fief back to the PK, to keep/bring him on their side of the legal conflict. Another PK has sisters so his situation might be more confused and mirror the situation of the eldest son (since he vanished for some years on the Samhain, too). The last PK is just a household knight, but might easily stand to gain a manor of her own from this, in exchange for her support.

Potential arguments:
Eldest: I am the eldest son, the eldest son inherits, so gimme!
Younger: You might be a changeling, you were presumed dead, you'd make a mess of things anyway, I have taken the oaths and fulfilled my obligations as a loyal vassal, so there.

So, onwards to legalities, then!

1. Can the liege lord mess with the inheritance? I'd be inclined to say no... If the deceased specified his eldest son ought to inherit, then the eldest ought to inherit. Unless he is found guilty of treason or something, which would justify the Earl's confiscation of the lands and giving them to someone else. Otherwise, I'd expect many of the vassal knights to sit up and take notice, wondering if their own estates are safe from such meddling... Note that in this case, the eldest was presumed dead, and the inheritance went to the second son.

2. Once the oath of allegiance is given and accepted, can the liege lord go back on it without just cause from the vassal, without losing face? In this case, the eldest son never inherited the Banneretcy nor took the oath for it, whereas the younger son did and has done his duty faithfully. Given the personal history of the two brothers, I'd see the Earl backing his favorite (the younger son) and using this as his excuse. 'Sorry, I am bound by my oath to assist my liegeman. Hands tied. So sorry.' Arthur's case (for the two manors in Hampshire) is much more problematic, since he probably would have more of a fondness for the eldest son, due to the latter's heroics in the Roman War. But at the same time, would it be Just to go back on his word to protect his liegeman's rights, who after all fought for him in Ireland?

3. Not so much legalities but the meddling of the church... The Church surely would prefer this conciliatory private pagan (younger son) to the militant pagan (the eldest son, militant in the sense that he was trying to suppress Christian public worship in 'his' lands). However, since both are still pagan, it is unlikely that the Church could make any pronouncement to disqualify the eldest based on religion (apart from demanding that the lords will take an oath to safeguard and protect the Church's property and rights, which might be a bitter pill for the eldest son), and this might cause some upset in the North, where pagans still have a foothold. But certainly, they could lean on the Earl and perhaps Arthur himself. One of the PKs is Christian, so this might sway his 'vote'. On the other hand, it might cause the three pagan PKs to close ranks, if the Church gets too heavyhanded. Yes, I know that Canonical Pendragon de-emphasizes the conflict between religions, but how much clout might the Church wield in cases such as this?

Whew. Lots of text. I am hoping that the forum members will be able to advise me in the finer points of this intrigue! :)

I am by all means an expret, I have found many people within this forum that know a great deal more, I will offer my take on this (Mainly because I feel like trial and error is a good way to learn things.)


1. Can the liege lord mess with the inheritance? I'd be inclined to say no... If the deceased specified his eldest son ought to inherit, then the eldest ought to inherit. Unless he is found guilty of treason or something, which would justify the Earl's confiscation of the lands and giving them to someone else. Otherwise, I'd expect many of the vassal knights to sit up and take notice, wondering if their own estates are safe from such meddling... Note that in this case, the eldest was presumed dead, and the inheritance went to the second son.


I would have to mostly agree with you on this, but it would depend on whether the land was gifted or granted. I don't have the books with me and can't remember which is which, but I know that one stay's with the family as long as there are heirs (gifted I think) while the other reverts back to the leige lord upon the death of the individual holding the manor (granted, hope I got those right). So in a sense, the leige lord could at the very least take back the granted lands.


2. Once the oath of allegiance is given and accepted, can the liege lord go back on it without just cause from the vassal, without losing face? In this case, the eldest son never inherited the Banneretcy nor took the oath for it, whereas the younger son did and has done his duty faithfully. Given the personal history of the two brothers, I'd see the Earl backing his favorite (the younger son) and using this as his excuse. 'Sorry, I am bound by my oath to assist my liegeman. Hands tied. So sorry.' Arthur's case (for the two manors in Hampshire) is much more problematic, since he probably would have more of a fondness for the eldest son, due to the latter's heroics in the Roman War. But at the same time, would it be Just to go back on his word to protect his liegeman's rights, who after all fought for him in Ireland?


To me it seems that this would depend on who was named as the heir by the father, and goes back to gifted and granted lands. Can the lord deny the heir right to what has been given to his family to hold for all their generations? I'm sure that he can but in a steward to hold the land until the child came of age, but if the heir is already of age, I don't think the ownership could be denied.


3. Not so much legalities but the meddling of the church... The Church surely would prefer this conciliatory private pagan (younger son) to the militant pagan (the eldest son, militant in the sense that he was trying to suppress Christian public worship in 'his' lands). However, since both are still pagan, it is unlikely that the Church could make any pronouncement to disqualify the eldest based on religion (apart from demanding that the lords will take an oath to safeguard and protect the Church's property and rights, which might be a bitter pill for the eldest son), and this might cause some upset in the North, where pagans still have a foothold. But certainly, they could lean on the Earl and perhaps Arthur himself. One of the PKs is Christian, so this might sway his 'vote'. On the other hand, it might cause the three pagan PKs to close ranks, if the Church gets too heavyhanded. Yes, I know that Canonical Pendragon de-emphasizes the conflict between religions, but how much clout might the Church wield in cases such as this?


My understand is that unless your PK's have Religion of 16+ or 4-, then they are not really fanatical for or against the church/their religion. Of course Pious/Worldly traits could come into this as well as any passions (could help you to divide up PK's if you wanted to). THe churches involvement could always allow you to introduce some npc knights that have sworn fealty to the church itself. the church could always send a knight to make sure it's lands and followers are protected.

If I understand correctly, you are trying to start a family feud that could erupt into a civil war. The oldest never got his inheritance, was presumed dead, and the younger has inherited. The simplest solution to this would be for the oldest to challenge the younger to a joust or duel, whoever wins is the rightful owner. But that is not what you want for it is dull, boring, and doesn't stir up the PK's like any good GM wants. ;D

The loyalty of the leige lords is to their vassels, and the higher up the ranks you are, the more the leige lord is going to look out for you. A "landless" knight versus a bannerett, the lords are most likely to side with the bannerett, assuming there are no family ties to the landless knight.

Might I suggest a way to get around the involvement of Arthur would be to have the "civil war" occur during a local tournament. The melee protion could always be fought without rebated weapons, brothers on opposite sides, PK's picking thier side (or being divided up by the Earl). I know, I know, this sounds similar to the duel I mentioned earlier, except that things can always escalate out of hand during the heat of battle (or tournament in this case). Does anyone close by stand to gain by helping to instigate this problem, Levcomagnus maybe, or an enemy of one of the brothers. A small battle breaking out during a tournament would be through before Arthur could get involved.

I hope this helps and I hope that I got something right somewhere in there.

Gfited vs. Granted: The lands are gifted. Otherwise it would be totally up to the Earl and this issue wouldn't come up! :)

Inheritance vs. Oath: The eldest son was the named heir of their father. However, he never was recognized as the Banneret by Earl Robert, and he was presumed dead due to the disappearance after the Roman War. So Earl Roderick (inheriting his father Earl Robert) chooses to give the Banneretcy to the next eldest son, who takes the appropriate oaths to the Earl and to King Arthur for the lands in Hampshire. All well and good so far, no? But now the eldest son shows up and demands his inheritance back. And here lies the dilemma: becoming someone's vassal is a two-way arrangement. The vassal promises to be the liege's man, while the liege promises to protect his vassal. The vassal, the younger son, has upheld his part of the bargain. Can the Earl and King Arthur do anything less? But on the other hand, the eldest son has a legitimate claim on the lands, too, since he was the named heir and he is still alive, despite the rumors. Lieges after all do have the right to arbitrate between their vassals in legal disputes, and the King is of course the fountainhead of justice in the land in general, too.

Duel vs. Feud: Yeah, a quick duel would be a very boring way to solve this. Not nearly enough drama. Furthermore, the eldest brother is a famous war hero. Surely he'd be able to flatten his younger brother in a 'fair' fight? The younger bruther knows this, but he also knows that he has better connections with the Earl, so he'd be more inclined to push for a day in court with the Earl presiding. This same logic applies to a battle on the tournament field, where the odds are very much stacked against the younger brother, especially if the PKs unite. Of course, if the Church and the Earl throw their support behind the younger brother... And like you said, there might be people who'd stand to benefit from turmoil in Salisbury. Levcomagus comes to mind straight away. There might be other powerful lords in Salisbury who think they would make a much better Earl if young Roderick is out of the way. The problem here becomes that... Hmm. Might not be a problem at all, but an opportunity.

Imagine this. There is a grand melee. The Earl fights on the side of the younger brother, and oops, he is killed. The Earl's younger sister becomes the Heiress, with King Arthur as her guardian. Naturally, she becomes the most eligable heiress in Britain at that time. Lots of powerful men want to marry her, as well as many of the Salisbury's old noble families who think that finally it is their time to ascend up the ladder. Some suitors try the courtly route in Camelot, while others revert back to Anarchy days and try to eliminate the competition literally with raids and ambushes (and blaming it on Levcomagus or bandits when Arthur's knights come calling)... Even if Arthur finally gives her hand away to some knight (of proven heroism or other considerations), the man might easily be a foreigner, and we know how much the Cymri like to have a de Ganis knight lording it over them, now don't we? ;)

Sounds to me like you just came up with a very intriguing plot line that will last you for many a session.

I have to admit, I love the fluidity and openness of it. gives the PK's a lot of options and many ways to put their mark on what occurs.

Thank you. You deserve a part of the credit for suggesting the tournament melee. ;)

I like focusing on smaller scales over the grandious wars and such, because the PKs have a lot more opportunities to meddle when it is close to home and small scale. That has been my 'problem' with GPC (Sorry, Greg!): it has on occasion felt more like a restriction rather than an opportunity. I can't just go and knife King Arthur out of the way without 'betraying' the genre.

I might do something about Sir Lancelot, though. The 'perfect knight' Frenchie grates on me. :P