I am toying with an idea about confronting a PK with a legal dilemma, but I am somewhat uncertain about the proper procedures.

A vassal knight (sworn to a PK banneret) has been beaten and battered nigh to death by his own peasants, after trying to have his way with a local farmer's daughter. The manhandlers are serfs, not freeborn yeomen, so technically they should not be even allowed to carry weapons (they used clubs, quarterstaffs and other thingamajigs to batter the knight, but weapons nonetheless). Both the attempted rape and the following beating are pretty much proven and confessed. Are the peasants within their rights to defend their kin against their lord?

This event takes place during Arthur's reign, which makes it a bit more complicated. In Uther/Anarchy phase, the knight could probably hang, draw and quarter the poor lads with abandon, but I am trying very hard to distance the Age of Camelot from the rough-and-tumble early years.

EDIT: The peasants are Post-Badon Angles, so their understanding of kinship obligations versus lordly rights are somewhat different from Cymric serfs.

Good question.

I'd say it depends very much on your vision of Arthurian knighthood. You say you try very hard to separate the Age of Camelot from the rough and tumble Uther/Anarchy, so I'd rule more according to the normal sensibilities. Besides, Arthurian knights are supposed to be protectors of women and stuff like that, although most of the source material is about protecting NOBLEwomen, not peasants. Still, I'd think that an attempted rape of a peasant maiden would go under the 'things that Arthur frowns upon' -category.

Who is the PK banneret's liege lord? If Arthur, I would expect mercy to temper the punishment of the peasants. If it is Duke Hervis of Anglia, those Angles are going to get strung high as soon as the Duke can get there, as an example to other Angles. And might even have their womanfolk raped, just so that the Angles understand that the shoe is on the other foot now! (Our Duke Hervis might be a nice guy with other Cymri, but he hates hates hates Angles with a passion.)

With Arthur, I'd expect the thought process to go more like this:
1) The vassal knight was in the wrong when he tried to rape the girl.
2) The peasants overreacted and were in the wrong for raising arms against their lawful liege lord, but they had a good excuse for doing so. Had they simply prevented the knight from getting to the girl, they would have been OK.
3) Hence, both parties will be punished. Maybe fines (weregild, the Angles should be able to understand the term) payable to the knight for the assault, another fine to be paid by the knight to the girl in question (not too much, as it was just an attempt), and a fine paid by the knight to the King for causing trouble and by extension making Arthur look bad (i.e. 'don't do this again, stupid' -fine).

Going by some published adventures/sourcebooks...
1) Perilous Forest: Peasants subdued an unruly drunk knight (not their own lord) and put him in stocks when he insulted their Lady. Being in stocks was an affront to knightly honor and required the knight to be freed. However, the Lady's honor needed to be defended by knightly means, too. Peasants did not merit punishment in this case, as they were acting to protect their Lady's honor, albeit not in the correct manner.
2) Holy Sword: the lord of Bourton has unruly peasants whipped when they refuse to work on his fields, including a 50-year old peasant who is clearly not fit for a day's work anymore. This is considered Cruel, but not Unjust.
3) Rosebriar Knight: The Rosebriar knight is sacrificing a young girl every May Day. This is considered to be something the good PKs would object to and try to end. So clearly, killing peasants, even your own, is frowned upon.
4) Book of the Manor: The BotM states that if a knight abuses his peasants, including thrusting his attentions to their womanfolk, the peasants will engender more Hate towards him. However, there is little implication in the text itself to say that other knights would mind unduly, although I think the GM would be in his rights to start awarding Cruel, Arbitrary and Lustful checks or outright raises.
5) 5th Ed. Rulebook, p. 23, The Laws of Arthur: "I also forbid that anyone shall be slain or hanged for any fault," So the PK banneret would not be within his rights to start hanging people. (In our campaign, we have loosened these restrictions a bit: for instance, bandits who are caught can be strung up with a perfunctory trial, same for rebels.)

This might be of interest:
http://www.academia.edu/1466827/The_Price_of_Maidenhead_and_Similar_Issues_Rape_in _Laws_of_Medieval_England_and_Wales

It is not directly applicable to this case, but still. These might be of interest (same link as above):

Quotations from sources pertaining to 13th – 14th century England

Statutes:

1. “If he is convicted … [this] punishment follows: the loss of members, that is member for member, for when virgin is defiled she loses her member and therefore let her defiler be punished in the parts in which he offended. Let him lose his eyes which gave him sight of maiden’s beauty for which he coveted her. And let him lose his testicles which exited his hot lust.” (Bracton, 414-415)

2. “And the king forbids anyone to rape or take by force a damsel under age, either with her consent or without or a married woman or a damsel of age or any other woman against her will and if anyone does so, the king will, at the suite of him who will sue within forty days, do common justice therein; and if no one begins his suite within forty days the king will sue in the matter; and those whom he will find guilty shall have 2 years imprisonment and a fine at the will of the king and if they do not have means from which to be fined at the kings pleasure, they are to be punished by longer imprisonment, according to what offence demands.” (Westminster I, 400)

3. “It is provided, if a man ravishes a married woman, a maiden or other woman without her consent before or afterwards, he shall have judgment of life and limb, and likewise where a man ravishes a woman – married woman, a maiden or other woman – by force even though she consents afterwards, he shall have the judgment before stated if he is convicted at the kings suite, there king shall have his suite.” (Westminster II, 450)

I couldn't find by a quick search anything pertaining to a lord raping his peasant women, but I would assume that Arthur looks upon that quite unfavorably.

Thank you for the answers!

The PK - a 23 years old Arthur fanboy with Forgiving 16, who decided not to inherit his father's outrageously high Hate (Saxons) passion - is a Companion of Arthur, but he owns his lands via the much beloved Duke Hervis. And yes, the Hervis in my campaign tends to behave pretty much the same way you described him (ah, the good old Saxons! Hervis). Thus Arthur is technically the PK's liege lord, but I imagine the good duke would fall over himself for a chance to rain down some old-fashioned justice on the pesky Angles.

EDIT: modified a bit for the sake of clarity.

Alright. So the banneret PK with no Hate (Saxons) and Forgiving 16. I'd expect him to react in a manner I described Arthur... although perhaps even more weighing on the side 'lets bygones be bygones'. Which might not be the best way to handle the situation. I assume that the Angles have only just been conquered? Well, it might work, it might not. Depends a bit if the Angles take such a reaction to be Just or simply Weakness. After all, Vengeance is a Wotanist trait, isn't it? And even if they would not think badly of the banneret, this might be a really dangerous precedent that they are allowed to beat up their own lord with impunity when they think he is out of line (well, he was this time, but it is the principle of the thing).

Another question is what the NPC Vassal Knight's famous traits are? After all, there is always the possibility of appealing to a higher authority, in this case Duke Hervis, if he is displeased by the banneret's leniency against those murderous Angles. I mean, were I to play the offending knight, I probably would be upset that my liege lord is letting me get beaten when all I was doing was copping a feel on that buxom Saxon wench, who obviously wanted it (my version of the story)! And beaten by dirty Angle peasants, at that! Oh, the stain on my honor! Of course, two can play that game, and the PK could appeal to Arthur if Duke Hervis comes down hard on the Angles. But that would certainly poison his relationship with the Duke, and probably would be too late in protecting those Angles.

Were I the PK, I'd start with talking to the vassal knight, get his side of the story, and try to see if he understands that he was in error. Then point out that if the Duke gets involved, there is a big chance that his manor will experience a drastic drop in working men and an increase in banditry. So better to come up with a compromise solution. I'd probably try for something that I attributed to Arthur and have both side admit blame. Hoping to reassure the Angles that their women will stay unmolested while at the same time giving them a slap on the wrist for assaulting their lawful lord. Show that it is not going to be allowed, either. Maybe even note that without the extenuating circumstances, they would all be hanging from a noose as rebels.

The year is 523, so tempers are still running pretty hot after the uprising and razing of Guinnon (Yes, razing, not pillaging. Duke Hervis clamped down hard. In my campaign, Guinnon remained a distinctly Anglish place even after Badon). I think a possible result from PK leniency might be increased dissatisfaction among his vassal knights. This would lead to pleas of vengeance directed at Duke Hervis. If I feel evil enough, I might even make the PK's vassals - perhaps aided by Hervis' knights - start a bloodthirsty Angle-killing spree. On the other hand, allowing the vassal go unpunished might inspire the Angles to head for another source of justice (The Hooded Man, my version of Hereward the Wake/Robin Hood).

The way the PK decides will probably also sway public opinion quite heavily. If he goes pro-Angle, the local knights will more than likely at least insult and ridicule him, and the duke could react quite strongly. The opposite decision may cause frowns in the court of Camelot (especially Guinevere, who is bit of a proto-feminist in my campaign!), which may be a social suicide for would-be Round Table Knights. We shall see.

The resolution may give birth to interesting scenarios, since the Roman Wars are looming in the near future, which means less knights in Britain to fight the Anglish rebels and outlaws.

Other suggestions, critique, possible plot roots? I think this rather small-seeming scenario might have a surprisingly large effect on my campaign ;D

EDIT: Grammar-corrections, once again (sigh).

I am not sure that Camelot would get all that upset about an attempted rape of a Anglish girl, especially as the knight already got beaten to a pulp. Now, if the PK decides to 'cleanse' his lands with sword and fire, then that would raise some significant eyebrows. :P

I think it is a very interesting political situation. We did similar stuff in our campaign, as one of the players married a Saxon Lady, and thanks to helping Arthur against Camille, they got rewarded with lands in Anglia. Suffice it to say, Duke Hervis was not amused by having this 'brigand base' near his lands.

I am not sure that Camelot would get all that upset about an attempted rape of a Anglish girl, especially as the knight already got beaten to a pulp. Now, if the PK decides to 'cleanse' his lands with sword and fire, then that would raise some significant eyebrows. :P

I think it is a very interesting political situation. We did similar stuff in our campaign, as one of the players married a Saxon Lady, and thanks to helping Arthur against Camille, they got rewarded with lands in Anglia. Suffice it to say, Duke Hervis was not amused by having this 'brigand base' near his lands.


Hmm, you got me there. I guess it is the wrath of the Hooded Man that the PK then only needs to worry about, should he decide to spite the Angles. It is unlikely, but you never know with my gaming group.

From what I've read about other campaign blogs, it is an almost universal phenomenon that Duke Hervis is not amused by player knights :D. It seems that my campaign is slowly veering into that direction as well.

From what I've read about other campaign blogs, it is an almost universal phenomenon that Duke Hervis is not amused by player knights :D. It seems that my campaign is slowly veering into that direction as well.


It is because Duke Hervis' Wrath is a terrible thing to behold, and most PK's do not share in that intense hatred and are instead trying to follow a more Merciful, Chivalrous path. Not to mention that most players, luckily, prefer not to commit ethnic cleansing even in play. (Although I do have one player, who starts to mutter darkly whenever he hears 'Italian crossbowmen'. :P And I think I managed to put the fear of the Berserkers into the players in our last session, too. 'Big guy, frothing at the mouth, carrying a huge axe.' *groans around the table* Ah, music to my GM ears. :) I think I will have to post about that...)

Well, we did happen to have one PK with Hate Saxons 17, who, while impassioned, proceeded to kick a fallen Saxon youth to death. In her defense, her mace had broken and the youth had been trying to clobber her with an oar, and it was a critical attack, snapping his neck / breaking his skull with one kick. Hilarity ensued ('Gooooaaallll!'), especially since another PK had rolled a critical Merciful ('Nooooo! That beautiful golden-haired boy!') just the previous round and was trying to prevent 'unnecessary' slaughter of the Saxons trying to flee the shipburnings (Naval Raids, 487).

Well, we did happen to have one PK with Hate Saxons 17, who, while impassioned, proceeded to kick a fallen Saxon youth to death.

Actions like this are expected by me when a character has had a successful Hate (Saxons) roll
It is the consequence of Hating

To have another character stop this merciless mayhem, they can engage in an opposed resolution of Mercy against the ongoing Hate.