During the session before tonight's, one of my Salisbury PKs fought a practice duel against a knight from Silchester. The Silchester knight was impassioned, the Salisbury knight was melancholic - and won (rolling a 2 against the other's 1). We rolled on the Death tables from the Book of the Estate at the end, only to find that the PK's wife had been murdered. We decided the most logical culprit was the humiliated Silchester knight.

The knights asked around about their foe, only to find that the knight was relatively cowardly and cruel, often striking his squire. They decided that he might not be so kind to his wife, based on this.

Tonight, our knights rode to Silchester to mete out justice. They found their foe in his manor, riding directly into his hall. After a brief battle, the PK struck the Silchester knight to the floor, where he lay unconscious. I ruled that killing an unconscious knight would lead to loss of Honor, so the player pitted Honor against Hate (knight) and decided to spare him. He then picked up the Silchester knight's sword, handed it to the man's wife, told her, "Do what you will with him," and rode off.

I'm curious to know how people would handle the situation, and the repercussions. Right now, I'm going with "no Honor loss for the knight, but the Silchester/Salisbury feud has just escalated immensely."

Well, here are the questions I would have:

0. What period is this? In my mind, Arthurian Periods require a higher code of conduct from the knights than the Uther & Anarchy Periods.

1. Did they have any witnesses that pointed to the Silchester Knight as the culprit, or did they just assume that he must have done it, since who wouldn't kill his opponent's wife after losing a practice duel...? This has an impact on how the world around them would react, whether they would see it as a justifiable blood feud or an unprovoked attack?

2. How was the fight set up?
- Did they literally ride into the hall and thus attacked mounted vs. unmounted?
- Did they gang up on the guy or was it a formal accusation and a duel?
- Did their opponent have time to armor up? Was he given the opportunity/time to armor up?

3. And of course finally, did the wife kill her husband? If she did, it is overwhelmingly in her best interests to claim that the PK did it, since otherwise, she is a murderess and a husband-killer, and will surely be put to death for her treachery and violation of her marriage oath. So as far as the rest of the world knows, the PK is the one who killed the knight. Whether she can get away with it, with a household full of servants and other people, is a wholly another matter. Also, would she risk it? Once he is dead, she becomes a widow, to be married of again to whomever, and she loses her rather independent role as the lady of the manor. If they have kids, they might be better off with the husband alive and able to arrange marriages and stuff, rather than on the mercy of whatever warden the liege lord appoints for them.


Best case scenario:
1. They can pin the murder of the PK's wife on the Silchester Knight. (This has less impact on the Honor than it has on the consequences, see below.)
2. They rode up to the manner, stormed the hall, and the PK challenged the Silchester Knight to a duel to the death for the death of his wife, giving the Silchester Knight time to armor up. The duel is fought one on one. In this case, since the stakes are laid out and the Silchester Knight's guilt is obvious, killing him even when he is unconscious is not dishonorable, IMHO, but self-help justice. Even in Arthurian times, I would not ding Honor for this, even thought Silchester and Salisbury liege lords might be a touch upset that they were not consulted. Still, it would be a minor upset, since the facts are obvious. If the facts are not obvious, then Silchester could maintain that their knight was innocent, and this case should have been brought to the Duke of Silchester's court and accusation made there. So objecting more on the procedural grounds. But the sources are full of knights going: "Ah, Sir Tristram! You killed my brother! Prepare to die!"
3. What the wife does after the PK spares the bounder is up to her (see above). Since the duel was to the death, the PK would not lose Honor even if it is later said that he killed the guy.


Honor Loss:
Depending on the period, I would be inclined to Ding the honor for each of the step 2 questions, definitely after Arthur has established the new code of conduct for his knights and it has time to percolate, say by the time of Conquest. Since they did not kill the knight (assuming that the wife doesn't pin it on them), I might scale back the honor loss some, since while it was not really cricket, there was no permanent harm done. In Uther & Anarchy Periods, I might ignore it, or just give -1 Honor for the whole affair if the knight got killed. Note that if they would have followed the correct procedure of making a formal accusation and making it into a judicial duel, the PK would not lost any Honor even if he does kill the guy. In fact, he is expected to kill the guy in that situation, and sparing him would be Merciful and Forgiving, IMHO. In fact, it could be argued that NOT killing the guy after accusing him of murdering your wife WOULD be Dishonorable! You are not doing your duty to your family and loved ones, to avenge their deaths / get justice for their murder!


Repercussions:
- If the PKs cannot pin the original crime on the Silchester Knight and the wife kills him, blaming the PKs, then they are in for a bit of trouble. As far as Silchester sees it, it was an unprovoked attack and murder of one of their knights. So they might be looking for some restitution, and the Salisbury knights might close ranks around the PKs, believing their story and claiming it was justifiable manslaughter of the murderer or that the PKs did not kill him, so no restitution is necessary. Which of course makes it worse.
- On the other hand, if the knight is still alive, then there is not really much in the way of damages, so while the feud (which is Levcomagus and Salisbury, not Silchester and Salisbury, officially that is; Levcomagus is a VASSAL of Silchester, but Duke Ulfius doesn't have a personal stake in the feud other than supporting his vassal when needed) might get a new talking point, it is not a big deal. Nobody died.

Thanks for engaging with me. Let's see..."


0. What period is this? In my mind, Arthurian Periods require a higher code of conduct from the knights than the Uther & Anarchy Periods.

Uther Period


1. Did they have any witnesses that pointed to the Silchester Knight as the culprit, or did they just assume that he must have done it, since who wouldn't kill his opponent's wife after losing a practice duel...? This has an impact on how the world around them would react, whether they would see it as a justifiable blood feud or an unprovoked attack?

He rode up in full view of the entire village and struck her down.


2. How was the fight set up?
- Did they literally ride into the hall and thus attacked mounted vs. unmounted?
- Did they gang up on the guy or was it a formal accusation and a duel?
- Did their opponent have time to armor up? Was he given the opportunity/time to armor up?

No challenge. They were delayed outside by the guards, giving him time to put on his armor, but he was unmounted vs. them mounted. It was one on one.


3. And of course finally, did the wife kill her husband?

She did not. It just seemed unlikely.

I'm curious as to how others would have handled it, but I'd really like to find out the repercussions. Is this a deadly insult, or is this guy going to be a laughingstock from this day forward?

You are quite welcome. Note that the following is MY reading of the period and the society, and things can easily be different in your campaign.



Uther Period
He rode up in full view of the entire village and struck her down.
No challenge. They were delayed outside by the guards, giving him time to put on his armor, but he was unmounted vs. them mounted. It was one on one.
She did not. It just seemed unlikely.

I'm curious as to how others would have handled it, but I'd really like to find out the repercussions. Is this a deadly insult, or is this guy going to be a laughingstock from this day forward?

Well, if it were MY campaign, the one who is laughingstock is the PK here. The Silchester Knight kills his wife, and what does he do? Leave the murderer alive and free. Not even burn the manor down or anything. What a wuss. This is Uther Period. Might makes Right. The PK has just demonstrated that even if his own wife gets murdered, he doesn't have the balls to take a life and avenge her death.

So, if I were you, I'd offer the player a mulligan on the decision to kill the guy (since it was a 'GM-error' in this case, if you switch to my view). And then you have, possibly, some cause for added strife on procedural grounds (no duel challenge), although even then it would be pretty weak (not like the Silchester knight offered any duel or anything before murdering the lady).

To be honest, I can't really think any situation where it would be preferable to just leave the knight lying there. At the very least, they should have grabbed him and hauled him to the Sheriff, and accuse him of murder. Any gentleborn witnesses? Clergy? The peasants' word might not weigh that much, especially given that they are presumably biased. In the very least, the PK ought to be able to get an official judicial duel out of this, even if he can't get the knight hanged for the murder.

Here is how I would handle it:

First of all the silchester knight would have lost a lot of honor by striking down a lady. And the PK is fully justified to get justice for the murder. The first step he did was ride up to the Silchester knight and attack his home. If he had killed the silchester knight I would give him a love(family) and vengeful check. But in this case he left the knight alive. As you said you ruled that it was dishonorable to strike a downed knight. I would not see it as that. The fight started fairly and if the PK was the only one who fought with the Silchester knight I would say it was a fair fight even without the formal declaration it was fight to the death and he has bested his opponent fairly. Killing him would mean he gets a vengeful and love(family) check. If he keeps him alive it would mean that he gets a merciful or forgiving check, depending on why he keeps him alive. Another option would be a Just check if he drags the culprit to the court of his liege lord (Ulfius?) or the sheriff to be judged for his crimes.

I agree if Morien that I would give the PK another chance in whether he keeps him alive or not.

The consequences would then be:
He kills the culprit- The Silchester knight's liege lord will probably be very angry about such an attack. Not so much for the killing as well that the case was not brought before him, so he could have ruled justly (or arbitrary). Of course the family of the Silchester knight might have some influence and inflame a vendetta between the Silchester family and the PKs family. Since it is already escalated to murder, it could mean several deaths among both sides. Of course this could infalme the Salisbury/Levcomagus rivalry as well and maybe even draw Ulfius into the conflict.

He brings the wounded knight to court - I would say that this is the best option to prevent any further escalation. The attack on the Silchester knight was probably justified, but the court willdecide that. This could end up in some large scale machinations as the court drags on. This could mean that the Silchester knight is not the biggest enemy, but his heirs or family will probably be out for revenge.

He leaves the wounded knight alone - Others may see this as sign of weakness (as Morien stated Might makes right) and it may make the Steward of Levcomagus more bold in his attempt to increase his power in Salisbury. Salisbury has shown that they are weak and maybe others may take advantage of it as weak, like Wessex. Of course if the PK is known for his merci or forgiving, and still a formidable knight the enemies would see this as his normal routine. But since the culprit was left alive he is now probably out for revenge so I would expect some raids (at the least) on the lands of the PK.

Thanks to both of you for your advice.

We decided to let the actions stand - but the PK had to make matters right. We had a proper duel, and the other knight was killed. The nobles decided to pursue the matter no further, given the heinous nature of the Silchester knight's crime. Ulfius acknowledged to one of the other PKs that having knights slaughtering each others' families was not something he wanted to encourage.

Then, of course, the PK went into the Forest Sauvage and died from two simultaneous criticals from what lurks on the Whispering Path...