With all the popular opinions and feelings surrounding Lancelot, I'm surprised other iconic characters don't get talked about so much. This is a question I've always wondered about: what's up with Mordred?

One wonders why he didn't reveal his secret, or take advantage of it. Instead, he seems to go all rotten inside and, according to Greg, engenders a Hate (himself) passion. Why?

I wouldn't mind hearing what others think of this guy. How to you portray him in your games?

Modred is in my game (most likly (not anywhere near the time modred is born yet)) the realistic knight, not evil, not misled, just not part of the fantasy, which makes him seem evil and cruel compared to the other knights. Why he dosn't reveal him self at first, perhaps out of loyality, of fear of shaming Artur.

Yes I really like Mordred and if I know my players they are going to prefer him to Lancelot, which kinda is the plan

My players also liked Mordred over Lancelot, as do I. He was pretty much depicted as sward says, a realistic ruler who seems like a villain when placed in the later periods. He's a throwback to the Pre-Arthur Warlords like King Lot or Uther, who believes that all the genteel courtly decadence of Camelot will lead to it's destruction... So better to destroy Camelot now, on his terms, while there's still something left of Britain to save.

The PCs ended up making an enemy of Mordred and fighting with Arthur at Camlann. But as once player put it, that wasn't because of any support for Arthur, it was because they themselves were just like Mordred and there wasn't room for both of them in Britain.

I suspect the whole reason that Mordred, and other villains like Morgan, King Lot or Aelle Bretwalda, tend to be better regarded by modern people than Lancelot is that they're people, with actual personalities, flaws and motivations. They may not be nice people, but you can understand how and why they act the way they do. Lancelot is just a walking embodiment of perfection, a concept that's alien and even offensive to modern sensibilities, and worse he fails to live up to this perfection and OOC everyone knows it. And it's almost impossible to rewrite him as a more human character, because the story is written so that his very perfection is the only excuse for him acting how he does- you can't make him human and likable without altering the whole story.

We didn't reach the Mordred timeframe in my game, but for me both Lancelot and Mordred are poor examples and were evil characters.

Lancelot because he is actively cuckholding Arthur, knows it, and just keeps doing it. If anyone tries to talk to him or call him out on it - he challenges them and beats them.

Mordred because even after he announces who he is - he works against the things which Arthur stands for.

Mordred *is* more realistic a person in the literature, but that does not excuse his choices.

Honestly I think a simpler option would have been for Mordred (or a lackey) to have simply put a crossbow bolt into Lancelot's back.

I think the thing that messes Mordred up is the fact that his life isn't his own to live. From birth he is intended by destiny itself to bring about justice for Arthur's unwitting incest. Before Mordred learns the truth about himself, he's a fairly happy young knight. Then he suddenly learns that the paragon of chivalry, the King who he doubtlessly admires, is his father - which means, has committed a very big sin, and, depending on your interpretation of events, attempted to murder him as a baby. Then he learns he's destined to be the one who destroys everythng which he himself has doubtlessly believed in fervently up to this point in time! That's a lot of information for the poor chap to take in.

At this point, Mordred moves through a few of the Stages of Grief. Not in the correct order, of course. His first response is anger. Then he attempts to forget about it. Finally, once Borre and Loholt are dead, and Mordred's been having a lot of sleepless nights, he's forced to accept that it's true. And at that point, I think he decides, "If I'm going to be damned, then, well, I might as well REALLY be damned!" and throws himself into it whole-heartedly. He's already begun questioning everything as a result of learning how imperfect Arthur is; now he just takes it a step or two further.

But I definitely feel that Mordred's evil derives from the fact that he never wanted to be evil in the first place.

That's my take on it, anyway! :)

Mordred.....hmmmm. no matter what his reasons or how justified he felt, he did it wrong. He intentionally embarrased his father by bringing attention to the Cuckolding, when some suspected but ignored it out of courtesy for their king. Arthur probably had his suspicions but who is to say how after all those years he really felt about her. He still loved her, sure, but was he terribly passionate still. If thats the case and he can see that Lancelot is a paragon of a warrior and valuable to have, then maybe he is quietly content to let them both passionately love each other in peace.
OR..... Arthur is really the only one that has no idea. In early years he loves guenivere and lancelot so much that he is blinded by his own happiness. And in later years he is sick, and bedridden a lot , and just does not see.

Should Mordred and Agravaine be angry? Of course . All Arthurs loyal knights should be. Especially knowing the De Ganis clans snotty ways and their pride in lancelot just heightens the feeling.

so... Botom line. Someone was bound to bring it to light. Mordred did so, but It was not really to do justice for the king, but to humiliate him. To say " look at your great King". To make Arthur seem like a dottering old fool who can not even keep his own wife under control , let alone the Kingdom. And Mordred does claim next kingship........ So he is evil. You can change it and make him the unsung hero who just wants to do right. Thats your perogative. But I understand Mordered as evil. It doesnt matter that he probably had pshycological problems from his birth and other factors. His ACTIONS are evil and self serving and they indirectly brought the kingdom down. He is a fun charecter however. But remember that KINGSHIP is SACRED. If everyone just usurped control for whatever reson they felt justified then Kingship would mean nothing. so at the VERY least Mordred becomes evil when he takes power. The thought of doing so is appaling to almost any other knight of the realm. It goes against the very structure of society. All that keeps society together and stops chaos is the rules of Fuedalism, which is why even some evil knights still abide by Hospitality, honor and loyalty lord. It is what holds the world together.

Just to make a point...

Mordred might be illegitimate, but he's still the closest thing Arthur has to an Heir. If he didn't make a move on the throne and Arthur died peacefully in bed, who would be King then?

Kingship is sacred? Maybe so. But what then happens to a land with no King? People already know the answer to that after Uther died without heir. I would suggest that if Arthur had just named Mordred his heir, then for the Cymri things would have turned out better. As it was, the Saxons swept away everything Arthur had worked for his whole life.

Gawaine was always Arthurs heir and often was allowed to hold Excalibur at occasions. Mordred was a bastard wrought of Incestuous sin. The clergy and other nobles would not have approved nor would he have lasted long. Gawaine was supposed to be heir. Until he died at dover. There is quite a bit of difference to the mideaval mind between illigitemate and Incestuous. Not just a bastard , but a bastard born of brother and sister, rule a CHRISTIAN LAND!!!!! AAAHHHHGGGG! Maybe Egypt though.......

With Gawain dead, and Mordred acknowledged as bastard, he'd inherit. Primogeniture generally was construed thusly:

1st: Acclaimed Heir, even if unrelated*

2nd: Wife-born sons, in descending order by age.

3rd: Legitimized sons (Born bastards, but now parents married) in descending age**

4th: Acknowledged Bastards, in descending order by age

5th: other kin. Dad, then dad's heirs; if none, grand-dad's heirs.

6th: seized by liege.

In practice, daughters routinely fell below legitimized sons, but before bastards, tho' in some cases the liege adjudicated them before legitimized sons (including adopted children).

* acclaimed heirs often were ignored if the liege preferred a particular son; in the case of kingdoms, history generally shows them to be disinherited by the first acknowledged child, bastard or not. Russian acclaimed heirs seldom were able to assume, for example... one named one's second son heir by publicly disowning the 1st born, then hiding them in a monastery or prison, or having them ordained a deacon...

** it varied whether legitimized children were separated out from legitimate children. They still could not be ordained...

Mordred, being his sister's son, is his heir anyway as soon as Gawain is out of the picture, and in many eyes, a better choice than Gawain, despite salic inheritance. Keep in mind... most would know him to be kin to Arthur, so it would be presumed Gawain would not inherit. It goes a long way to understanding their dislike for each other in some versions of the tales: by being acknowledged as kin of Arthur's, he's just disinherited Gawain.

Further, was her being arthur's sister widely known? if not, then the acknowledgment as bastard still bumps Gawain without a liege to adjudicate the suit, or Guenivere pops out a child (whom WE would know was Lance's bastard, but legally would be Arthur's wife-born son... and demote Mordred... so I suspect Mordred would see to it the queen was eating a diet high in abortifacients...).

Yes it was widely known at court that arthur begat mordred on his sister after the tale is told by Mordred and confirmed by lancelot. Also Gawaine is Arthurs Kin too. Its his nephew. His sisters son. The same sister that begat Mordred. So Gawaine is her oldest son, nephew to Arthur, and not a wicked little child born of Incest. He is only Killed while on his way to fight Mordred, so... Mordred had already shown his evil little hand. I am just not convinced that the court would allow Mordred to rule. Being born of such a union. He would be king of Britian, Ireland , and EMPORER OF ROME? How would the Bishops feel of a child like that being their emporer? I just can't see it. Before Arthur's time they did have a supreme collegium that elected a ruler. It did fail because there were only a few members left that couldn't agree, but if you note, after Mordreds death ,Constantine?, I believe, was elected and voted to be King. He had no known blood relation to Arthur either. But if people want to find a way to make Mordred a good guy by analyzing his behavior with modern Pshycology, go ahead! ;D It's your game.

geez. My last reply was curt huh? what a wank! Must a had a bad day...... ???

You made a good point, about Mordred and Rome.

As a point of interest, I'd like to mention my beloved Alliterative Morte Arthure's depiction of Mordred. Here, he is the nephew of Arthur (not nephew and son), left as caretaker and possible heir of Britain as Arthur fights the Romans. While he is away, Mordred marries Guinevere (no Lancelot incident in this version), begets a child/children on her, and hires infidels from all over the Isles and the world, giving them lordships and titles. He kills Gawain with a dagger after he trips and falls, then bemoans his actions and eulogizes the dead knight. In the Alliterative MA, Mordred is portrayed as the tool of Fortune, knocking Arthur off his high horse, who was so prideful and cruel in war.

. It did fail because there were only a few members left that couldn't agree, but if you note, after Mordreds death ,Constantine?, I believe, was elected and voted to be King. He had no known blood relation to Arthur either. But if people want to find a way to make Mordred a good guy by analyzing his behavior with modern Pshycology, go ahead! ;D It's your game.

Well, depending on wich texts you base your opinion, you can be wrong. For Wace and Geoffroy of Monmouth, Cador, father of Constantin, was Gorlois and Ygraine's son, so Arthur half- brother, putting here Constantin on the same level as Gawain (that's a point I don't undersabt why Greg didn't took that element for Pendragon ;))

Well, depending on wich texts you base your opinion, you can be wrong. For Wace and Geoffroy of Monmouth, Cador, father of Constantin, was Gorlois and Ygraine's son, so Arthur half- brother, putting here Constantin on the same level as Gawain (that's a point I don't undersabt why Greg didn't took that element for Pendragon ;))



There are infinite choices to make. But that's not my reason here.
Truth is, I overlooked that option.