I'm running a two-player GPC game and now find myself in a dilemma as a result of player actions. The game has reached 498 AD and my players have taken advantage of the Anarchy to incite a war between Wessex and Sussex, beaten the army of Levcomagus in battle and killed the army leader, and attempted to dispose of the Steward of Levcomagus.

This is the problem I am facing. They did not do the knightly thing and challenge him to a duel (that the Saxon knight would likely have won), nor did they do the sensible thing and hire assassins (though what are assassins called during this era?). Instead, both knights rode into Levcomagus at night, gained entrance to the castle, and proceeded to throw a dagger at Sir Blaines that nearly killed him (Dagger skill of 1, roll of 1, the damage done dropped him to zero hit points). Then they escaped, slaying two of the more notable knights of Levcomagus on their way back to Salisbury.

Here's the catch: They were wearing false colors (Ulfius is now sending knights to find the Blue and Brown Knights), but Blaines recognized them and called them by name in an attempt to be a medieval Bond villain, complete with offer of hospitality. They turned down the offer before throwing the dagger, but several other knights and footmen in the hall heard the exchange of dialogue.

So, I'm not sure what the repercussions for this should be, both mechanistically and storywise, other than that Blaines is currently bedridden.
Hopefully someone can enlighten me as to what should happen as a result.

Wow, this is really way different than my anarchy was. But interesting!

Sneaking into someones house, and throwing daggers at them after being offered hospitality is really not very knightly...

I'd probably consider a few events after this.

Possible positive outcomes:
* The players defeated a large army, against odds. They should receive attention for this. This is the anarchy after all, might is respect.
* Rewarding the players with land and treasure.

Possible negative outcomes:
* If Ulfeus is looking for them, and finds their real names. I'd consider this a problem if he decides he needs to deal with them. His has the army of a Duke in a time of Anarchy (more than twice that of a regular Count, if I understood it correctly). He'd have no problem sending an army into Salisbury, demanding the "knaves" sent out to deal with them.
* If Ulfeus does NOT know of them. An interesting outcome would be that Ulfeus finds "the brown knighg of the wilds" or another knight with mistaken identity and mistakes him for one of the players. And attacks... the outcome could be... strange.
* When Arthur takes power, he would be less likely to trust to aid the players.

In our campaign, Hospitality is triggered the instant you are classified as a guest, i.e. from the point you peacefully enter a castle/city/dwelling. And yes, claiming to be a guest and then attacking the gate guards does constitute as a breach of Hospitality. So in our campaign, the two knights would get dinged in Hospitality, something of the order of -3 (attempted murder of the host). Also, it would not be so easy for the would be murderers to escape the castle afterwards, since the guards are still there and a yell of 'Foul murder, close the gates!' is much quicker than a knight running. But, apparently in your campaign, they managed to pull it off (well, Balin managed a similar in-court murder in Camelot of all places, so...). The Players may not have realized that they are under Hospitality already, so I might take that into account in the decision-making re: size of the Hospitality penalty, if I didn't warn them in advance.

First of all, since the Steward recognized them and is still alive, they would get identified. The Steward would be fully within his rights to call for aid from his liege lord, Ulfius, who probably would be pissed that someone tried to assassinate his vassal like that. Demands to the Countess to hand them over for a hanging might be forthcoming. Given their great service to Salisbury, these demands might not be heeded (or the two are strong enough to overrule the Countess), or the Countess might suggest that the two 'vanish' for a while (adventuring in the Sauvage Forest sounds good?).

If the two are remaining in Salisbury, I can see Ulfius trying to mediate a peace between Wessex and Sussex to turn them against Salisbury. Has Salisbury been paying protection money to Essex? If not, Ulfius' emissaries might hint to Essex that Silchester is happy to look another way, if Essex wishes to sneak rading parties across Silchester (escorted by Silchester knights, of course), to attack Salisbury. This is in addition of preparing to invade himself, should the political situation allow it.

Also, there will be a stigma to follow them. After all, which lord after this will allow them to approach whilst they are armed? The humiliation of being stripped of weapons, even daggers (considered utensils more than anything) before allowed to approach a lord should sting. Duels might result, and remember that lords can appoint champions to fight for them: you can't just challenge Ulfius and expect to kill him in a duel. Also, forget about getting a seat close to a lord in a feast, since you have shown your dagger flinging skills.

* If Ulfeus is looking for them, and finds their real names. I'd consider this a problem if he decides he needs to deal with them. His has the army of a Duke in a time of Anarchy (more than twice that of a regular Count, if I understood it correctly). He'd have no problem sending an army into Salisbury, demanding the "knaves" sent out to deal with them.
* If Ulfeus does NOT know of them. An interesting outcome would be that Ulfeus finds "the brown knighg of the wilds" or another knight with mistaken identity and mistakes him for one of the players. And attacks... the outcome could be... strange.

As it turns out, Blaines only recognized the dagger thrower (I checked my notes, and Blaines is not sure who the Brown knight was). Given that the Blue Knight is well-known (being both a Saxon and the Marshall of Salisbury), I think that Ulfius will demand that the Countess hand him over, which probably won't fly, as the Marshall stopped a potential coup against the Countess. The Brown Knight of the Wilds being mistaken for the Cymric PK will make for an interesting dilemma for the player.



First of all, since the Steward recognized them and is still alive, they would get identified. The Steward would be fully within his rights to call for aid from his liege lord, Ulfius, who probably would be pissed that someone tried to assassinate his vassal like that. Demands to the Countess to hand them over for a hanging might be forthcoming. Given their great service to Salisbury, these demands might not be heeded (or the two are strong enough to overrule the Countess), or the Countess might suggest that the two 'vanish' for a while (adventuring in the Sauvage Forest sounds good?).

If the two are remaining in Salisbury, I can see Ulfius trying to mediate a peace between Wessex and Sussex to turn them against Salisbury. Has Salisbury been paying protection money to Essex? If not, Ulfius' emissaries might hint to Essex that Silchester is happy to look another way, if Essex wishes to sneak rading parties across Silchester (escorted by Silchester knights, of course), to attack Salisbury. This is in addition of preparing to invade himself, should the political situation allow it.

Essex does have a grudge against Salisbury, so raids in 499 will happen. Ulfius did get gifted 30 Libra by the PKs to stop any raiding parties, but this was before the recent unpleasantness. Perhaps it is time for the PKs to take a sudden interest in Cornwall or the Continent...

30 Libra is chicken feed for Ulfius and the traitorous assassination attempt by Salisbury's Marshall is more than enough grounds to forget about that agreement.

The smart option for the Countess, I feel, would be either to disown the pair (officially or in truth) or start looking for an alliance with Cornwall or Wessex soonest. They have just poked the wolf of silchester and trouble will ensue.

Given the services the two have done for the Countess, I'd see her telling them to 'flee' and hopefully things will calm down later for them to return. Cornwall seems to need mercs, for instance. The adventures of Sausage Forest await. Nanteleod might be hiring mercenaries in Escavalon and his patronage would later make it very easy to bring the PKs back to Salisbury.

Thank you Morien and thank you Gilmere! In light of your advice, I've decided to offer the Saxon a choice during 499 (as currently it is almost winter phase of 498). He'll have to choose if he wants to give himself up, fight it out with Silchester, or seek temporary employment/adventure abroad.

The Cymric might be able to dodge Ulfius' wrath. The Duke only knows that the Brown Knight was a Cymric who was possibly touched in the head (the PK tried to distract the guards by inventing some story about Merlin summoning a dragon to burn Levcomagus to the ground, or somesuch nonsense). He too will have to choose what to do. 499 AD will be an interesting time, no doubt about that!

The Brown Knight of the Wilds being mistaken for the Cymric PK will make for an interesting dilemma for the player.

I was thinking more about this.

What if the PK witness the Brown Knight being challenged for the crime? Would he stand up and take responsibility (Reckless/Honest/Honorable)? Or stand back and let the Brown Knight take the blame (Prudent/Deceitful/Dishonorable(?)).

And how would the Brown Knight of the Wilds react? In my campaign, the Brown Knight was sworn to tell no lie, but was also sworn to keep his identity hidden. If he was asked "Are you the knight that tried to murder the Steward of Levcomagus?" he would answer "I am sworn not to reveal who I am. I will take this to my death." He would CHALLENGE Ulfius to the death for this. (I.e. I-would-rather-die-than-give-a-hint-who-I-am-or-not-am). How would the players react at this point? Still go with the lie? Then what? What if the Brown Knight would loose? Or for that matter WIN against Ulfius champion? The PK would be "off the hook" so to say. But the Brown Knight would be the only person knowing that it's not true. Perhaps the Brown Knight (of the Wilds) goes on a quest to find the REAL culprit? Perhaps by starting to look for the "Blue knight"...


They have just poked the wolf of Silchester and trouble will ensue.
Indeed. I would probably make Ulfius demand the surrender of the two knights, or face war. Otherwise, he would look weak amongst his vassals. I also think that Ellen (at least in my campaign), would not be strong enough to stand against him, especially since she actually hails from Silchester. (in my campaign she was one of Ulfius MANY daughters, but's that's not canon I think. If Ulfius came running with an army, she would have surrendered.)

My standard reaction in these cases? If PK's choose to act dishonorably, or against any of the universal laws. I reward them. And then set a set of events in place. Indeed, I like to lay out plenty of tempting lures for this. (You really want land? Well.. you only have ONE older brother...). It's also wonderful to see a player realise that they have become the "bad-guy" in another characters story-arc.

And how would the Brown Knight of the Wilds react? In my campaign, the Brown Knight was sworn to tell no lie, but was also sworn to keep his identity hidden.


How does keeping his identity hidden have to do with refusing to say ANYTHING about his actions? Sure, if he were asked, are you Sir So-and-so of Wherever, he certainly would refuse to answer since that has to do directly with his identity. But why would he refuse to answer a question like: "Did you help the Blue Knight to try to assassinate the Steward of Levcomagus?" I mean, he would forever be unable to talk about anything he has done.

"Did you help King Arthur in his battles?"
"I cannot answer that."
"But I saw you!"
"I cannot confirm or deny that you saw me or some other knight."
"Argh!"
"I feel your pain."

Well "I can't answer that", when in fact you can answer that, is a lie isn't it? Either the Brown Knight would have to candidly tell them he didn't do it, or else remain completely silent.

Well, it's a bit complicated, I grant you that. And you have a good point Morien. His oath does indeed not force him to remain silent about actions, if they do not reveal clues about his identity. He usually prefers not to answer, since small clues can add up. It has become sort of a game at court, trying to get him to give clues.

He has sworn an oath to not reveal any clue of his identity, one way or another.

I guess it's all about wording?

"Did you take part in the attempted murder of Sir X?"
"No, that would be unknightly."

"Are you Sir Y that took part in the killing of Sir X?"
"I cannot answer who I am."

And yes, The Brown knight of the Wilds is pretty annoying in my setting. :)

Well "I can't answer that", when in fact you can answer that, is a lie isn't it? Either the Brown Knight would have to candidly tell them he didn't do it, or else remain completely silent.


By today's standard that is a lie but honour is what would be served by remaining silent and honour is of paramount importance. Without honour a knight is little more than a beast.... or a commoner.

Well "I can't answer that", when in fact you can answer that, is a lie isn't it? Either the Brown Knight would have to candidly tell them he didn't do it, or else remain completely silent.


By today's standard that is a lie but honour is what would be served by remaining silent and honour is of paramount importance. Without honour a knight is little more than a beast.... or a commoner.


Honor doesn't enter into it, Gilmere said that his Brown knight doesn't lie, not that he is honorable.

Well "I can't answer that", when in fact you can answer that, is a lie isn't it? Either the Brown Knight would have to candidly tell them he didn't do it, or else remain completely silent.


By today's standard that is a lie but honour is what would be served by remaining silent and honour is of paramount importance. Without honour a knight is little more than a beast.... or a commoner.


Honor doesn't enter into it, Gilmere said that his Brown knight doesn't lie, not that he is honorable.


Honour always enters into a knight's actions. Gilmere did not say that the Brown knight was a villain or evil knight. Your comment that, "I can't answer that", when in fact you can answer that, is a lie isn't it?" is only a lie by modern standards. Knowing that the Brown Knight is a knight and not a villain, Ulfius, Ellen or whomever will know that for him to answer as such, to do otherwise must touch upon his personal honour. Unless treason is involved, they should not press the issue and force the Brown Knight from dishonoring himself, his lord, god or whomever....

So basically, not answering the question is not a lie. It is a choice. A choice that is central to the honour of the knight in question. As I said before, honour is what separates the knight from the knave.

Well "I can't answer that", when in fact you can answer that, is a lie isn't it? Either the Brown Knight would have to candidly tell them he didn't do it, or else remain completely silent.


It's not a lie in the first place. Sure he has the cognitive ability to give an answer, but that is not the only condition on doing things. While a slimy C17th-and-later lawyer might draw the distinction, and claim that the cognitive potential overrides any moral or ethical considerations and requires that an answer be given, the value system of KAP's pseudo-history recognises that moral and ethical restrictions can be absolute.

"Betray your Lord!" commands the Saxon chieftain who has our heroic knights prisoner.
"I cannot do that."
"Nor I," respond our doughty Cymric chivalry.
"You are honourable foes. I will ransom thee," says the Chief. He does not cavail, "Sure you can, you just choose not to."

This conversation just took place in my head.

Sir Know-it-all: "So... who are you?"
Brown Knight: "I cannot answer that!"
Sir Know-it-all: "Why?!"
Brown Knight: "Because I've sworn an oath."
Sir Know-it-all: "Ohhh... and is it true that you also cannot lie?"
Brown Knight: "I can lie, but I have sworn not too."
Sir Know-it-all: "I see... I see... Well, who are you then?"
Brown Knight: "I can't answer that."
Sir Know-it-all: "Oh! Ha! That's a lie! In all common sense you KNOW who you are, but you just CHOOSE not to say it. Right? Right? That's actually a LIE you are telling! Eh? Eh?"
Brown Knight: "Alright, if you are going to be difficult about it 'I WILL not answer' is perhaps a better choice of words."
Sir Know-it-all: "You can't just change it around! You broke the oath!"
Brown Knight: "No."
Sir Know-it-all: "Yes you diiiiiiiid!"
Brown Knight: "I consider that a challenge, Sir. Prepare your sword, to the death. If you kill me, you will know my identity."
Sir Know-it-all: "But... no.. what!? I didn't..."
Brown Knight: "No take-backsies."

But all in all. Let's not litter this thread further with the adventures of "my" Brown Knight.

Perhaps Cavalier could fine some use of the idea of mistaken identity! I look forward to seeing how it pans out.

A follow up question to Cavalier: How do you manage having a Saxon knight in a county filled with Hate: Saxons?

A follow up question to Cavalier: How do you manage having a Saxon knight in a county filled with Hate: Saxons?

The player chose to be a Saxon from Windsor/Staines during chargen, and a quick jaunt through the family history established that his family arrived with Hengist and Horsa, his rather mercenary grandfather aiding Vortigern before following Flavius Aetius to a glorious death at Chalons.
His father went native, converting to Christianity, siding with Aurelius Ambrosius, and serving in the militia of Staines as an officer. At the Battle of Salisbury he saved the life of Earl Roderick, who agreed to have one of his knights squire the Saxon's son. As a squire, the Saxon knight, named Hengist, saw his father fall beneath Saxon blades at Mt. Damen, which is where he picked up his Hate(Other Saxons) 18.

I originally tried to portray the NPCs as being suspicious and mistrusting of this Saxon upstart, but his actions kinda threw that for a loop. He's helped Merlin, for good and for ill, captured Octa at Lindsey and later slew Octa at St. Albans (Hengist was grievously wounded there, missing the Feast for the same reasons that Ulfius and Brastias did), and repeatedly defied the Saxon kings. He's also been nigh-undefeatable in single combat, which tends to discourage naysayers within earshot.

Most of the county by now sees Hengist and family as an example of Cymric cultural dominance, and it helps that he is a war hero (8000+ Glory at last count). A bit of an anomaly though, the outsider turned local hero.



Perhaps Cavalier could fine some use of the idea of mistaken identity! I look forward to seeing how it pans out.

Actually, the Cymric did encounter the Brown Knight of the Wilds being questioned in our last session. The player, and by extension the PK, took a third option and convinced the Brown Knight and his accusers to go to Levcomagus see if the witnesses recognize him. The player presented his argument relatively well (It was something along the lines of "If you go, you can clear your name if they don't recognize you, which, if you are telling the truth, they won't"), and succeeded a Courtesy roll to soothe tempers all round. Not what I was expecting.

The Saxon has some crazy plan of using faerie aid that he gained to appear in Ulfius' court and ask forgiveness via impossible task. I'm not sure how Ulfius would react, having not statted him up, but I'm guessing he'd clap the knight in irons as a first step.

The Brown Knight doesn't have to say who he is, but he can say who he isn't, like he is not the dishonorable criminal dressed in brown, if he accused of such he could request Parlay to try and clear up things, if that failed he could offer a parole where he and those who happened upon him retreat to a neutral hall or keep till the matter could be resolved.