I'm trying to get my head around a few things with the switch from Loyalty to Fealty and Homage.

A few questions:

1. What happens if a knight have loyalty to a person that is not his lord? Is this not considered a passion? What happens to all the "loyalty Arthurs" on character-sheets?

2. What if a knight is loyal to his own lord and to say, King Arthur? Does he simply receive two fealty? Or does his loyalty to Arthur become his Homage? Or the other way around? Does not ALL knight swear to the king upon their knighting?

3. A household knight. Does he swear only Fealty to his master or Homage?

4. A landed lord with one manor gift. Does he swear only Fealty to his master or Homage? Is the oath not PERMANENT? Or do you swear to serve "as long as the gift is given"?

5. A landed lord with one manor grant. Does he swear only Fealty to his master or Homage? Is this oath permanent as the grant? Or is the grant simply optional on the oath being kept?

6. A landed lord with several manors under different lords. Does he swear Fealty for each of his masters, and homage to one? Does this mean he has TWO passions for his liege lord? Fealty AND Homage?

7. Do you have to own land to have a Homage?

A situation I just can't get my head around now:

* A player in my campaign has just become a minor lord knight. He owns an estate for three knights service. Does this mean he swears fealty to his lord Earl Robert, or does he swear Homage? This player is very loyal to Arthur... does he have a FEALTY to Arthur and a HOMAGE to Robert? Or the other way around? He does not own land from the king himself. Does the knights serving the player lord have to swear to Robert too, or do they simply swear to the player lord and that's it? Again... enter Arthur. What happens if a household knight in the players service suddenly wants to serve arthur?

Bonus questions: Can the player lord show up just about any knights at war-time? Could he, for example, keep no knights at all during the year. And just hire three knights if war comes? Or does he HAVE to have them ready at all times? Also? Is it expected that he presents his army to his Earl? Or can he just keep who he "Hires" to himself?

Well, since no one else has taken up the glove and since things are pretty slow at the forum right now ... I'm no expert in this field, but this is how interpret things.

3-5. They all swear Fealty AND Homage to the Lord that is directly above them; to the one whose the household knight serve in his daily life or the one who has gifted or granted the vassal's land. The oath stands for life, unless 1) the household knight is given land by another lord or 2) the vassal knight is given land from a Lord with higher status, in which case the Fealty remains and the Homage is transfered to the higher ranked noble.

6. He swears Fealty to all the Lords that provides him with land. He swears Fealty AND Homage to one of them. Basically you could just call all these passions Loyalty (Lord); one of them is a Homage, and all of them is a Fealty. If I ever use this system I would continue to call the passions Loyalty (Lord) and just make my players make an asterix or something on the character sheet for the one that is also a Homage. Easy peasy, really.

7. No. All knights have a Homage, all but the King. (Thats in theory, of course. Plenty of knights and lords from Cambria, Cumbria and the North do not acknowledge Uther or later Arthur, nor does Idres/Mark (for a long time), nor is there a King at all during Anarchy).

1. All other Loyalties should be Fealties, and thus be considered Passions. Loyalty (Arthur) would generally be a Fealty (Arthur) unless a knight or a lord holds his lands directly from the King. (So all dukes, counts and barons have a Homage (Uther/Arthur)

2. He would have a Fealty (Arthur) or that other lord And a [Homage AND Fealty] to the lord that provides for him or has given him his land. As for the wording of the oath of knighting in the rules, I have never really understood the reference to the king, but this system clarifies that. I would say that all knights get a Fealty (Uther) or (Arthur) (if their lord is a vassal to either of these at the moment of the knighting, that is). They still have a Homage to their closest lord, and will follow him in case of a conflict.

*. He swears Homage AND Fealty to Robert. He has only a Fealty to Arthur. His knights do not ever ever swear to Robert; that would undercut the whole fuedal pyramid!

Bonus: He has to keep them at all times, until scutage is introduced. Apart from war, remeber that knights generally do three months of garison duty and often are required to show up at court, participate in hunts, etc, etc.

Short answer for now.

You'll have Homage towards your primary liegelord. Usually this is the one you hold most lands from or the one you swore first or the highest ranking one. Depends on the situation.

Examples
All knights in Logres have Fealty Arthur.
Household and vassal knights have Homage to their liegelords (masters as you called them). They wouldn't have Fealty too.
If a knight has several liegelords (multiple manors under different lords) he'd swear Homage to one (highest rank usually) and fealty to the rest.

A knight holding a manor from a Banneret in Salisbury would have Homage Banneret and Fealty Arthur, since he doesn't actually hold land from Arthur.

Homage and Fealty are still close to old Loyalty but Homage takes priority.

Thank you Skarpskytten and Morian, it's obvious I am no historian! [Checks Humble]

This clears up a lot. I think I get it now, I guess I got confused by the wording or my own preconceived ideas of loyalty.

What about the fealty for ladies? Do ladies even have fealty or homage?
* Do a lady swear fealty or homage to her husband?
* Do a lady swear fealty or homage to her husbands lord?
* If a player knight in Salisbury gets married to a woman, does she swear fealty to his lord or does she "keep" a fealty from her old lord?
* Does a squire have Homage to his knight? Is he released from this "homage" when he gets knighted and swears to a lord?

OK, and now a bit more detailed answer to the points you raise. Skarpskytten answered many of them already and my main difference would be that you wouldn't ever have BOTH Homage and Fealty to the same lord. They are the same Passion (old Loyalty) but Homage takes precedence. So if you have sworn Homage to one lord and Fealty to the other, and both call you to their Christmas Court, you technically should always attend the one you have sworn Homage to. (However, the personality of the lords may play into this, too, if the homage lord is more jovial and understanding than the fealty lord... might be a good time to ask for permission to be absent.)



I'm trying to get my head around a few things with the switch from Loyalty to Fealty and Homage.

A few questions:

1. What happens if a knight have loyalty to a person that is not his lord? Is this not considered a passion? What happens to all the "loyalty Arthurs" on character-sheets?


They become Fealty (Person), ASSUMING that the knight has sworn to obey the Person. Otherwise, they remain Loyalty, like Loyalty (Group), which implies a more egalitarian relationship. So if you have a loyalty passion towards a friendly knight, your equal, then it is likely to remain as Loyalty.



2. What if a knight is loyal to his own lord and to say, King Arthur? Does he simply receive two fealty? Or does his loyalty to Arthur become his Homage? Or the other way around? Does not ALL knight swear to the king upon their knighting?


Homage (His own Lord) and Fealty (Arthur), normally. If Arthur is the primary liege lord (i.e. the knight holds land directly from Arthur), then Arthur would be 'his own lord' and the other, smaller lord would just get Fealty. There are ceremonies to release a knight from Homage so that he can swear Homage to the higher ranking lord, at the previous lord's consent. In our campaign, Arthur rarely if ever insists on the transfer of Homage: if he feels you are brave and honorable enough to be awarded with a manor from the High King, he figures you can be trusted with mere Fealty. This also allows me to keep the focus more on Salisbury rather than Camelot in our campaign (although to be honest, we have not switched over to Fealty/Homage as we haven't felt the need).

Knights do not automatically swear Fealty to the King at the knighting, no. However, I think Arthur did have all knights swear at some point in GPC, and of course, many young knights join the Companion Knights of King Arthur, who do swear Fealty to him.



3. A household knight. Does he swear only Fealty to his master or Homage?


Homage. It is, in principle, a life-long oath.



4. A landed lord with one manor gift. Does he swear only Fealty to his master or Homage? Is the oath not PERMANENT? Or do you swear to serve "as long as the gift is given"?


Normally, Homage. Gift is normally until the person holding the gift dies, so it makes no sense to limit it to the duration of the gift: you'll already be dead anyway. However, gifts, at least in our campaign, are more commonly gained as secondary or tertiary manors from lords other than the primary liege lord. Thus, they merit Fealty, instead.

Should the Gift not be until the death of the knight but some other limited time, then yes, it would be Fealty, limited by the duration of the Gift. And if the liege lord reclaims the Gift before the time limit is up, why then he is breaking his part of the feudal bargain, gets Honor penalties and automatically absolves the vassal knight from breaking his own Fealty/Homage, in turn. Some fanatically loyal knights might not do that, and often gain the admiration of their peers. One good example of this is Tristan (who, alas, does have the 'stain' of cuckolding his king and liege for those who think that is wrong).



5. A landed lord with one manor grant. Does he swear only Fealty to his master or Homage? Is this oath permanent as the grant? Or is the grant simply optional on the oath being kept?


Homage. Yes, it is permanent. If the grant-holder breaks his Homage, then he breaks the feudal contract, and the liege lord is fully within his rights to repossess the grant.



6. A landed lord with several manors under different lords. Does he swear Fealty for each of his masters, and homage to one? Does this mean he has TWO passions for his liege lord? Fealty AND Homage?


Homage to his primary liege lord, Fealty to the others.



7. Do you have to own land to have a Homage?


No. Household knights would have Homage, too. Granted, that is a bit of a technical difference, as they are unlikely to swear to anyone else. Should they get land from someone else (King, most likely), then their old lord would (likely) release them from Homage, and they'd swear Homage to the new lord (King). At that point, they wouldn't swear fealty to the old lord anymore, as they are no longer in his service. At GM's choice, they might retain a Loyalty, though, to reflect the fact that they feel gratitude and such towards their old lord.



A situation I just can't get my head around now:

* A player in my campaign has just become a minor lord knight. He owns an estate for three knights service. Does this mean he swears fealty to his lord Earl Robert, or does he swear Homage? This player is very loyal to Arthur... does he have a FEALTY to Arthur and a HOMAGE to Robert? Or the other way around? He does not own land from the king himself. Does the knights serving the player lord have to swear to Robert too, or do they simply swear to the player lord and that's it? Again... enter Arthur. What happens if a household knight in the players service suddenly wants to serve arthur?


Player Knight: Homage (Earl Robert) and Fealty (Arthur).
Household Knights in PK's service: Homage (PK). (Fealty (Arthur) if all knights in your campaign swear fealty to Arthur at the knighting or the HHK is a Companion Knight (quite common).)

If a household knight wishes to serve Arthur instead, he can ask the PK to release him from Homage. The Pk can say no, at which point the household knight has the option of breaking his oath, but that costs a lot of Honor and brands the man as an oathbreaker: would Arthur even want such a dishonorable cur in his service? On the other hand, the PK might not even wish to keep such a knight in his service who is longing for another master. To be honest, if I were the PK, I would be quite upset with the HHK: "Have I not been a good lord to you? Have I not clothed you, fed you, sheltered you? Have I not praised you when you did something praiseworthy, treated you with honor, rewarded you with loot? And this is how you repay me!?"



Bonus questions: Can the player lord show up just about any knights at war-time? Could he, for example, keep no knights at all during the year. And just hire three knights if war comes? Or does he HAVE to have them ready at all times? Also? Is it expected that he presents his army to his Earl? Or can he just keep who he "Hires" to himself?


Technically, he doesn't -have to-. It is not the Earl's worry what the PK's knights are doing outside the vassal service demanded from them. However, like Skarpskytten points out, there are many other demands for the knights' time than just the service in war. Furthermore, what if Salisbury is under attack (more common in early periods, I grant you)? The Earl might call for his knights to present themselves at Sarum in full force, in two days. Where will you find mercenary knights? Also, even if you did find those mercenary knights, they'd know they have you over the barrel (i.e. that it is a seller's market) and would extort quite a high payment for their service. Smaller raids & banditry would likely also increase in the manors that don't have knights to protect them. So, in short, until Scutage is introduced (and I don't think it is well explained in GPC, so in our campaign, I am simply ignoring it), you are better off with household knights.

Scutage should be an equivalent sum to hiring a mercenary knight to cover your service period. So you are looking at something like £4 (equivalent to actually keeping a household knight for the full year), so you are not actually making any profit on that, as long as scutage gets called for yearly. It is actually worse for the nobles and knights if it gets called every year, since they lose the services of household knights for the rest of the year. This is something that will no doubt be tackled in later period books.

I also have a personal dislike of scutage, since it mandates LESS KNIGHTS and MORE MONEY, which is something I don't want in MY CAMPAIGN. I'd rather have the campaign world full of knights rather than lords and vassals trying to 'game the system' to maximize their profits. So, in my campaigns, no scutage!

What about the fealty for ladies? Do ladies even have fealty or homage?
* Do a lady swear fealty or homage to her husband?
* Do a lady swear fealty or homage to her husbands lord?
* If a player knight in Salisbury gets married to a woman, does she swear fealty to his lord or does she "keep" a fealty from her old lord?


I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but Fealty and Homage tend to be between men. Partially because it has the connotations of fighting for the lord. I could see a few exceptions, like a Ruling Lady (a Lady ruling her own estate by her own right, like a twice widowed heiress) accepting oaths of Fealty and Homage from her knights, and giving such an oath of Homage to the King, in turn. A female knight would of course be treated as a honorary man in any case.

So no, I don't think normal ladies (wives of knights) would be swearing fealty or homage to anyone. I would be hesitant to even give them Loyalty (Husband), since we know that Love (Husband) and Love (Wife) tend to be aberrations in that, in essence, business relationship. There are no Passions, currently, explicitly generated when two people get married, and I would likely keep it that way. Sure, there are oaths being exchanged before the priest, and the oath has stuff about obeying one's husband, and certainly the Honor rules tend to punish an adulteress quite severely.

The main passion for the Ladies would no doubt be Love (Family). Which includes her kinsmen in her old homeland. History is full of wives using their influence on their husbands to try and help their old homelands. Part of the idea behind marrying princesses to foreign princes was to secure alliances, both ways. Not that it always worked.



* Does a squire have Homage to his knight? Is he released from this "homage" when he gets knighted and swears to a lord?


I'd say Fealty, since it is limited (usually) to 6 years of service. After the squire has been knighted, the Fealty goes away (but I might, as the GM, allow some lingering Loyalty to take its place).

Thank you Morien! I'm learning a lot.


Knights do not automatically swear Fealty to the King at the knighting, no. However, I think Arthur did have all knights swear at some point in GPC, and of course, many young knights join the Companion Knights of King Arthur, who do swear Fealty to him.


HERALD: Do you also swear fealty to Uther Pendragon, to defend and obey him until he depart the throne, or death shall take you?
CANDIDATE: I so swear.

I'm guessing this is part of my confusion. Is this part removed when Uther dies? Or is it simply not right. :D

Thank you Morien! I'm learning a lot.


HERALD: Do you also swear fealty to Uther Pendragon, to defend and obey him until he depart the throne, or death shall take you?
CANDIDATE: I so swear.

I'm guessing this is part of my confusion. Is this part removed when Uther dies? Or is it simply not right. :D


Looks like I am learning something, too. :P I honestly didn't remember that as part of the oath. But yeah, it definitely would be, at best, a Fealty for most knights, save for those who swear to Uther personally (his direct vassals and household knights).

OK, and now a bit more detailed answer to the points you raise. Skarpskytten answered many of them already and my main difference would be that you wouldn't ever have BOTH Homage and Fealty to the same lord.

Well, they would! KAP 5.1, p 18: "Everyone who has a lard has undertaken an oath [...] composed of homage and [my emphasis] fealty" and read the following paragraphs.

But I agree that it would only be one passion, not two.




HERALD: Do you also swear fealty to Uther Pendragon, to defend and obey him until he depart the throne, or death shall take you?
CANDIDATE: I so swear.

Hey! I was going to say that.

Anyways, I have read this many a times but never implemented it. I think that if I ever run this game again I will give all Logres knights a Fealty (Uther/Arthur/Pendragons) when they are knighted.

HERALD: Do you also swear fealty to Uther Pendragon, to defend and obey him until he depart the throne, or death shall take you?
CANDIDATE: I so swear.

Hey! I was going to say that.

Anyways, I have read this many a times but never implemented it. I think that if I ever run this game again I will give all Logres knights a Fealty (Uther/Arthur/Pendragons) when they are knighted.


Correct me if I'm wrong here. But isn't this a pretty big change then?

First of all, does it not undermine the very feodal pyramid you spoke about?
Secondly. Why would the local lords force their knights to swear to the king? Is it something the king demands?

Also: What would happen in anarchy? And when Arthur appears, there must be thousands of knights that never swore him fealty when they were knighted in anarchy?

Also also: Wouldn't this fealty kind of invalidate the companions of arthur? What's the point in proclaiming "I OBEY THE KING!" when they already swore to on their knighting?

Also also also: Is it to "powerful" to have two loyalty-passions by default for all knights in logres? What would fealty Arthur start with? 2T6?

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But isn't this a pretty big change then?

No really. It's a Fealty. The Homage is more important, and that is to the lord. And each knights lord is supposed to follow Uther/Arthur anyways.

I do mean that knights can be ordered around by Uther/Arther, but both lords would only do that if in dire need (Uther because he need all the friends he can get and won't provoke his barons unnecessarily and Arthur because he's so Just).


First of all, does it not undermine the very feodal pyramid you spoke about?

Not really. Rather, it highlights the fact the the king is at the apex.


Secondly. Why would the local lords force their knights to swear to the king? Is it something the king demands?

It's not forced per se, it's mandatory. The king is the fount of chivalry.


Also: What would happen in anarchy? And when Arthur appears, there must be thousands of knights that never swore him fealty when they were knighted in anarchy?

Yes. And that would be a problem for him.


Also also: Wouldn't this fealty kind of invalidate the companions of arthur? What's the point in proclaiming "I OBEY THE KING!" when they already swore to on their knighting?

I guess it would make the Companions superflous, but I can live with that. I'd probably scrap them anyway, I don't find them very interesting. (And right now I can'd find the description; are they in PGC somewhere?)


Also also also: Is it to "powerful" to have two loyalty-passions by default for all knights in logres? What would fealty Arthur start with? 2T6?

For Uther, I would start at 3d6, unless the PK's background dictates otherwise (father once served Uther as a houshold knight; father hated Uther, etc).

For Arthur, I would use 3d6 for Boy King and Conquest knightings, and then 2d6+6 until the Twilight. Modified as above.

I guess it would make the Companions superflous, but I can live with that. I'd probably scrap them anyway, I don't find them very interesting. (And right now I can'd find the description; are they in PGC somewhere?)


They were in 4th Edition, but got dropped from 5th by oversight. They can be found on Greg's webpage under Errata:
http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtableknights.html

You know, I wouldn't give Fealty (King) to all knights. Fealty is a ceremony and a passion. Just because the word 'fealty' is in the oath, doesn't make it a Fealty Passion. It is should be read, IMHO, as acknowledging that Uther/Arthur is your King. Which is all right and proper. I'd only make it a Fealty Passion if Arthur/Uther personally is accepting/demanding those oaths. Such as in the case of the Companion Knights, who voluntarily swear Fealty to Arthur at Camelot.

I guess it would make the Companions superflous, but I can live with that. I'd probably scrap them anyway, I don't find them very interesting. (And right now I can'd find the description; are they in PGC somewhere?)


They were in 4th Edition, but got dropped from 5th by oversight. They can be found on Greg's webpage under Errata:
http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtableknights.html

You know, I wouldn't give Fealty (King) to all knights. Fealty is a ceremony and a passion. Just because the word 'fealty' is in the oath, doesn't make it a Fealty Passion. It is should be read, IMHO, as acknowledging that Uther/Arthur is your King. Which is all right and proper. I'd only make it a Fealty Passion if Arthur/Uther personally is accepting/demanding those oaths. Such as in the case of the Companion Knights, who voluntarily swear Fealty to Arthur at Camelot.


Oh my god! Morien and Skarpskytten do not agree? Who am I to trust? :)

I'm personally kind of torn here. But I do agree it's either Companions or the Fealty.... hmmm...

It is this bit that convinces me:
"A lord gains a Loyalty (Followers) Passion for everyone who swears Fealty to him."

And the fact that in the real swearing of fealty ceremony, the lord (or his appointed representative) needs to be present. Fealty is a two-way street. The King is not present in every knighting. Thus, he cannot personally accept the oath, nor would he even know that this knight has been added to his Followers.

Thus, in my opinion, the 'fealty to the king' in the knighting ceremony, is simply acknowledging who the rightful king is. It is not a Passion called Fealty, which is only between people in a personal, feudal relationship: "You are my lord and I will follow you." "I accept your oath and promise to support you in return of your fealty." This is lacking in the knighting oath with regards to the king.

It is this bit that convinces me:
"A lord gains a Loyalty (Followers) Passion for everyone who swears Fealty to him."

And the fact that in the real swearing of fealty ceremony, the lord (or his appointed representative) needs to be present. Fealty is a two-way street. The King is not present in every knighting. Thus, he cannot personally accept the oath, nor would he even know that this knight has been added to his Followers.

Thus, in my opinion, the 'fealty to the king' in the knighting ceremony, is simply acknowledging who the rightful king is. It is not a Passion called Fealty, which is only between people in a personal, feudal relationship: "You are my lord and I will follow you." "I accept your oath and promise to support you in return of your fealty." This is lacking in the knighting oath with regards to the king.


Well, that was pretty convincing. I've changed my mind. (So everything is back to normal, Gilmere).

And thus I can lay to rest a mystery that has haunted me since 1990, that wording in the oath in the knighting ceremony in KAP 3, 4, 5 and 5.1 (and possibly 1, but I don't own that one). This actually makes sense, all apart from the non-standard use of the word fealty. If it isn't i fealty, why call it fealty?

Does anyone know if that part of the oath has some historical precedent?

The difference in the use of the word is result of a paradigm shift between the pre renaissance Great Chain of Being Epistemology and our Post modern Epistemology but, although i can go on on about that the easier answer is on page 18

(from page 34 knight oath)
HERALD: [NAME OF CANDIDATE], do you swear and acknowledge [NOBLE] to be your true and lawful liege?

(Relevant text page 18)
The first part of the ceremony, homage, is ancient, having originated among the Franks and Saxons. Homage is an
act of submission. It is the personal oath of an underling to
his lord. The vassal kneels and raises his clasped hands to
his lord, who encloses them in his own. The vassal gives a
brief oath promising aid and counsel. Aid means military
assistance, while counsel means support of the lord in his
business and the granting of advice. Then the lord gives a
similar promise of leadership, and of support expressed as a
beneficium, or gift. The beneficium is usually a land grant,
or fi e f. After swearing, the vassal rises, and the men kiss
once to seal the oath. This fi nishes the act of homage

( still from 18 on liege lords)
Multiple loyalties are possible when a man swears fealty to two (or more) different lords. The issue is confused
at court, but currently the most popular solution offered to
the problem of multiple lords is the practice of having a
liege lord. That is, among all of one’s lords, one is selected
to be liege, and he has priority in the vassal’s loyalty in case
of confl ict.
Your character has only one lord to begin, which creates no problem. However, if he acquires lands elsewhere,
the character will eventually have to choose one as liege.

(Knight ceremony 34)
HERALD: Do you also swear fealty to Uther Pendragon,
to defend and obey him until he depart the throne, or death shall take you?

( page 18 fealty)

Fealty is an oath of faithfulness. It is a solemn oath, often sworn upon saints’ relics. Fealty’s most common clause
includes a promise never to attack the lord. Unlike homage,
which can be sworn only once, a fealty oath is sometimes
re-sworn to remind someone of his place, or whenever otherwise felt by the lord to be necessary.


the key point in GCoB logic is that the king has a divine right to rule and this oath has more to do with acknowledging uther as the font of nobility rather that a _real_ Fealty (the passion) [from pg 17 "Oaths can be taken literally or figuratively. However,
most common people look to the oath’s spirit to be fulfilled, while intellectuals sometimes allow only the letter to
be fulf lled. Such misunderstandings are the cause of much
friction between classes. In game terms, oaths are handled
using the Honor passion "] thus i would argue that although the words are said no special Metagame bond exist right now. i don't allow players to get Fealty Pendragon until the do something for madoc/uther/arthur in person.

notice also the knight's oath says "until he depart the throne" NOT "as long as he lives". this has to do with the Natural Rights portion of The Great Chain of Being philosophy that caused the magna carta to come into being. essentially the depart the throne line is like saying will you Defend you rightful king so long was his claim is acknowledged as right? but again no real Fealty(passion) as a metagame issue.

and even if you did give the PKs a Fealty score it's still won't affect them to much or cause the lords headaches to include because (book of estate page 18) "Fealty is a pledge of obedience, where the knight promises to follow the lord in every way that does not violate his oath of homage"

hope i helped, without my assistive tech the forum responses i write can be unclear

hope i helped, without my assistive tech the forum responses i write can be unclear

Well, yes, it did help me at least.

Just to muddy the waters ... ;D

This topic was discussed here in 2010: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=940.0.

Among other things, this was said:


In my game Loyalty (Earl Robert the Boy) is not transferable to to the king
You ought to have a separate Loyal (King) passion.
Everyone ought to have one.

That is 'Loyal (King)', not Fealty (King). My point still stands. :P

Note that Greg was also suggesting that all the Loyalty flavors would add up to 40... I'd actually modify that slightly. The different Loyalties would add UP TO 40. So you might have Homage (Count) and Loyalty (Group) 15, but add Loyalty / Fealty to someone else, and the end result might see both of those dropping... That would prevent you from starting with Homage 40, which would be abusive as heck.

Not that I would implement that in my campaigns, especially not this late. Instead, I would just keep tugging the high Loyalty numbers if I feel like it, and definitely if there is a conflict of interest. :P

That is 'Loyal (King)', not Fealty (King). My point still stands. :P

That was in 2010. They hadn't invented Fealty back then. Brutes.


Note that Greg was also suggesting that all the Loyalty flavors would add up to 40... I'd actually modify that slightly. The different Loyalties would add UP TO 40. So you might have Homage (Count) and Loyalty (Group) 15, but add Loyalty / Fealty to someone else, and the end result might see both of those dropping... That would prevent you from starting with Homage 40, which would be abusive as heck.

Not that I would implement that in my campaigns, especially not this late. Instead, I would just keep tugging the high Loyalty numbers if I feel like it, and definitely if there is a conflict of interest. :P

Gregg's suggestion is interesting, but I'm happy with doling out "Loyalty"-passions as the need arises, and just assign a number or let the players roll, as the whim strikes me (or what I find most interesting). Don't like the zero-sum thing about it. I would not use it. And I've not really changed my mind, I will not give all PKs a Fealty (King). Unless Gregg barges in here and says something that changes my mind.