So you're a knight who gets an urgent message from the castellan of Castle Y to ride with all haste to Castle of X because the castellan of that place has just kidnapped Lord Y's daughter. Recently wounded on campaign against the Saxons, Lord Y is sending you, his trusted friend, to affect her release, or arrange ransom payment — whatever it takes to get his daughter back. As it happens, the daughter had a mad crush on you at one time, but you've always put your career before romance, so...

So you ride to Castle X with a small group of retainers to help your old friend out, with somewhat bittersweet thoughts of Lady Y and how she might've avoided this fate, had you been more attentive.

When you get there, Lord X greets you from the battlement and most pointedly refuses to extend you his hospitality. Furthermore, he tells you that — not only did he not kidnap the maiden of Y, but that she, in fact, came with him willingly and is now his lawfully wedded wife! Lord X's priest did the ceremony, and she signed a legal document before a magistrate saying that she married X of her own free will. They produce the priest, who waves a copy of the document as proof. They tell you the marriage has been consummated.

So — this is all legal (or so says X, his priest, and even the lady, if it comes to it). You don't really have much of a leg to stand on, and Lord X knows it. You're a Round Table knight alright, but you only have a few men, and he has a medium-sized stone castle. He won't let you in to talk to the lady herself (although he might bring her to the battlements, at which she dutifully says that she married Lord X according to the laws of God and King Uther (albeit without her father's consent). She even seems sincere. Fearing your reputation as a high-ranking Round Table knight, Lord X is not inclined to let you inside his walls, lest you try something everyone will regret later.

What do you do now?

What will Lord Y do?

According to my historical sources, you might appeal to the King (who, according to the precedents I read, might remove Lord X as castellan), and you might appeal to the ecclesiastic courts. But they'll likely not do anything, as the woman acted of her own free will.

Is this a dead end for our hero?

I'm trying to put together an interesting scenario, but the likely outcome is a little anti-climactic — unless you join Lord Y in a private war with Lord X. But since both X and Y are castellans, this is problematic, to say the least. I don't necessarily need a tidy, quick resolution — in fact, if it sets up a long-running feud or something, that's all for the better.

Any ideas on how to rescue this seed?


Thanks,


T.

No shame in not having a large enough force to take the castle. I see several options:

(1) Go home. Not your daughter. Not very knightly or Arthurian.

(2) Go home and take Lord X's army to attack the castle. The PK could lead the army while Lord Y is incapacitated. A RT knight would probably attack more of a following too. Optionally, lay in wait challenging everyone who tries to enter or exit the castle, or conduct an actual siege.

(3) Appeal to Arthur. Also lame, but not a-historical.

(4) Have Lord X set up some trial of arms that the PK has to complete (eg, fight giant A). If successfully completed, the PK gets to take ex-damsel X back to her father, Lord X. Turns out ex-damel X does love Lord Y. She requests a boon of the PK to bring about a resolution of hostility between Lord X and Lord Y so she can remain married to Lord Y. If the PK doesn't, she kills herself. Lord Y is enraged that is lady-love is dead and a war starts between Lord X and Lord Y.

You could have Lord Y agree to personal combat. You can then set up a series of choices. For the PK to make.

(1) Just vs Merciful. The PK defeats Lord Y. It would be just to kill him for abduction the maiden. Or, the PK could be merciful. He doesn't know yet that the two are actually in love.
(2) Just vs Honor. The PK should take the ex-damsel back to her father. She shouldn't elope or marry without his consent. However, she asks him a boon (on his Honor): to help her stay with Lord Y. Probably involves some other quest. The result of the quest helps to resolve the dispute between Lord X and Lord Y. Perhaps and old family feud between Lord X and Lord Y was actually caused by Lord Z or some fairy knight, but neither really knows that. Lord X just thinks Lord Y is raiding him and won't admit it.

If the PK goes wrong at some point, you get some Romeo and Juliette type ending.

If it goes right, Lord X acknowledges the marriage and Lord X and Y become good friends etc. THe PK becomes the godfather of Lord Y's and Dame X's child.

Some additional tests, and of course, fighting.

NT

Eothar already gave a great answer, so I have little to add to that, except to say that as long as the lady is in the castle surrounded by Lord X's men (Xis the baddie, Eothar, Y is the father), anything she says could be considered to be under duress. Marriages made under duress are invalid, even if they have been consummated. Not to mention that they did it without parental consent, always a no-no in a patriarchal society.

(You mention the Round Table but then reference Uther? A mere typo and this should be Arthur?)

I would be partial to demand that the Lady is released from the castle to return to her father, and then they can deal with the legalities of it all. That failing, a private 'challenge siege' would fit the RTK ethos, as well as sending word back to Lord Y and Arthur (and I presume Arthur is the boss of both castellans in this case, yes?), asking the High King to summon both Lords and the Lady in question to Camelot to deal with this. Of course, the straightforward Arthurian solution is to challenge Lord X to a trial by combat, or Lord X will be proven a craven cur, and then just fight it out like Eothar suggested. That is probably most story-appropriate solution; Arthur wants his RTKs to solve problems, not to bring him more problems. Of course, as Eothar points out, even a victory in that duel might lead to interesting complications, if the Lady is indeed in love with Lord X, and Lord Y wishes to stick her into a convent instead...

Long running feud... You don't really get that, if you are aiming for the RTK to solve this. You only get it if the 'abduction' stands, whether by the RTK losing the fight or by him deciding to side with the lovers (against the wishes of his old friend, Lord Y). Well... actually, you might still get the feud result, if she ends up in a convent and basically 'pines away'. Lord X blames Lord Y and the RTK for imprisoning and, in effect, killing his wife, and a feud results because of that.

I'd say it depends somewhat on period too, but I'm assuming it's Arthurian since he is mentioned!

This is what I'd do in my setting:
Uther: He took her by conquest, you should have protected her better. You can always take her back!
Anarchy: It's not HER right to choose who she marries or not. Her free will doesn't enter into it. Destroy the castle, get vengeance or appear weak.
Boy King: Hmm... maybe she wanted it after all? Anyway, let's deal with the saxons first.
Conquest: What? You should probably deal with it, Arthur's a bit busy at the moment. You shouldn't distract him, but I'm sure he would be upset. Or?
Romance: They're probably in love! But eloping sounds rushed! Love does not require marriage after all... What a cunundrum that knight is in? Does he respect love or his lord?...

This is what I'd do in my setting:
Uther: He took her by conquest, you should have protected her better. You can always take her back!

Your Pendragon May Vary, but...
While it is true that Uther tends to be more 'Might makes right' than Arthur, I don't think that he runs a total anarchy where you can just steal other person's stuff (and yes, in this context, a daughter is 'stuff'). If that were the case, we wouldn't have a kingdom and definitely not one as complex as portrayed in Book of the Warlord, with rules about inheritance, wardship, taxes and whatnot. You would arguably have even a worse anarchy than The Anarchy, if the King is just letting everyone conduct their own private wars!

In my view, Uther is aware that the Kingdom needs order, and it is his order and rules that he is enforcing. However, he is Arbitrary, which means that he is quite happy to bend those rules if need be, rather than be bound by what is Just. "What is good for Uther is good for the Realm." would be his motto in our campaign. Two of his castellans squabbling over a mere woman is annoying, since it is distracting them from doing their service to him, the King. If he has a reason to favor one claimant over the other, that is what he'd do, even if it wouldn't be Just. (That reason could simply be that one of them is a vassal knight and another a baron, and he would rather discipline the vassal knight than the baron; less of a political hassle. This is where the might makes right can come in.) If he doesn't care, he would likely order a trial by combat to settle the issue. Done and done. No need for lengthy arguments nor what the girl herself wishes to do, since who cares about her opinion anyway?

Thanks, Eothar. My comments, below:


No shame in not having a large enough force to take the castle. I see several options:

(1) Go home. Not your daughter. Not very knightly or Arthurian.

Agreed. It's the logical, obvious answer, but the least fun. I do like the idea of the plot twist — you travel all the way to the castle expecting the classic rescue-the-princess action story and instead you're put on your heels in a reversal. I should hasten to add that this will be even easier because I'm playing with some people that are COMPLETELY NEW TO RPGS. But once I've delivered the twist, I wasn't sure where to take the story from there — something fun and possibly with long-reaching implications.

To disclose even more — this is not a KAP game. It's PRINCE VALIANT. But there's enough overlap to post this here, I'm sure you'll agree. The challenge with running PV games in general, is that much of the magic and monsters of the Arthurian milieu is downplayed. Hal Foster really wanted more real-world vibe. So one is a bit more limited to more mundane situations. Finally, my players are ot the knight in question, but retainers of an NPC knight who is in this position. Since my players are brand new to gaming, I thought they needed a period of heavy guidance, not unlike the first ten years of the GPC. But the challenge is to give them something to do while these events unfold. Obviously, I just don't want to read a narrative to them. They have to have the opportunity to influence the outcome, or contribute to the story in some meaningful way.

(2) Go home and take Lord X's army to attack the castle. The PK could lead the army while Lord Y is incapacitated.[/quote]

Yes, I was inclined to go this way, but the castellan vs. castellan thing would displease the king mightily, so it gave me pause as to what the ultimate endgame would be once we go down that road. I think probably threats by the king, then fines, then direct intervention if he is ignored. But again, nothing much for the Adventurers to do.


A RT knight would probably attack more of a following too.

I think you meant "attract" more of a following, but yes, I see.


Optionally, lay in wait challenging everyone who tries to enter or exit the castle, or conduct an actual siege.

Yep, but see above.


(3) Appeal to Arthur. Also lame, but not a-historical.

Right.


(4) Have Lord X set up some trial of arms that the PK has to complete (eg, fight giant A). If successfully completed, the PK gets to take ex-damsel X back to her father, Lord X.

Hrm...seems sort of arbitrary. Why would Lord Y (Morien's right — you have the black hat confused with the white, but no matter) capture Lord X's daughter just to get a giant defeated?


Turns out ex-damel X does love Lord Y. She requests a boon of the PK to bring about a resolution of hostility between Lord X and Lord Y so she can remain married to Lord Y.

Yes, I have intentionally left "the truth" of her feelings hard to ascertain understanding (as GM) that it could go either way at this point, depending on how the action unfolds.


If the PK doesn't, she kills herself. Lord Y is enraged that is lady-love is dead and a war starts between Lord X and Lord Y.

But again, how does Arthur respond? It can be assumed that PV roughly coincides with the Romance period in KAP. I'd think he's want to quash this infighting ASAP, especially as it's HIS royal castles that are being damaged!


You could have Lord Y agree to personal combat. You can then set up a series of choices. For the PK to make.

I was going to set up Lord X as someone who dares not face a Round Table knight — won't even let him into his castle to parley about the girl. But it doesn't have to be so — I won't face decision that until the next session.


(1) Just vs Merciful. The PK defeats Lord Y. It would be just to kill him for abduction the maiden. Or, the PK could be merciful. He doesn't know yet that the two are actually in love.
(2) Just vs Honor. The PK should take the ex-damsel back to her father. She shouldn't elope or marry without his consent. However, she asks him a boon (on his Honor): to help her stay with Lord Y. Probably involves some other quest. The result of the quest helps to resolve the dispute between Lord X and Lord Y. Perhaps and old family feud between Lord X and Lord Y was actually caused by Lord Z or some fairy knight, but neither really knows that. Lord X just thinks Lord Y is raiding him and won't admit it.


If the PK goes wrong at some point, you get some Romeo and Juliette type ending.

If it goes right, Lord X acknowledges the marriage and Lord X and Y become good friends etc. The PK becomes the godfather of Lord Y's and Dame X's child.

Some additional tests, and of course, fighting.


Thanks! Lots of good ideas in there. Just what I needed — a nudge to help me past my block.


Best,


T.

Eothar already gave a great answer, so I have little to add to that, except to say that as long as the lady is in the castle surrounded by Lord X's men (Xis the baddie, Eothar, Y is the father), anything she says could be considered to be under duress. Marriages made under duress are invalid, even if they have been consummated. Not to mention that they did it without parental consent, always a no-no in a patriarchal society.

That is true, but sometimes exceptions were made if the marriage really was with the girl’s consent (elopement). It depends on the era and the country, but there's just enough vagaries in the historical record to give me some wiggle room in the logic. Basically I can make any idea work, I'm just trying to find the most interesting one, or the one with the most legs.


(You mention the Round Table but then reference Uther? A mere typo and this should be Arthur?)

Yes, sorry. In all instances where I may have typed Uther, I meant to type Arthur. I'm playing PRINCE VALIANT, not KAP.


I would be partial to demand that the Lady is released from the castle to return to her father, and then they can deal with the legalities of it all.

Can't see Lord X agreeing to that.


That failing, a private 'challenge siege' would fit the RTK ethos...

Challenge siege? Tell me more!


...as well as sending word back to Lord Y and Arthur (and I presume Arthur is the boss of both castellans in this case, yes?), asking the High King to summon both Lords and the Lady in question to Camelot to deal with this. Of course, the straightforward Arthurian solution is to challenge Lord X to a trial by combat, or Lord X will be proven a craven cur, and then just fight it out like Eothar suggested. That is probably most story-appropriate solution; Arthur wants his RTKs to solve problems, not to bring him more problems. Of course, as Eothar points out, even a victory in that duel might lead to interesting complications, if the Lady is indeed in love with Lord X, and Lord Y wishes to stick her into a convent instead...

Yes, I like some of this, too. I do need to find something for the players to do, and this might fit the ticket.


Long running feud... You don't really get that, if you are aiming for the RTK to solve this. You only get it if the 'abduction' stands, whether by the RTK losing the fight or by him deciding to side with the lovers (against the wishes of his old friend, Lord Y). Well... actually, you might still get the feud result, if she ends up in a convent and basically 'pines away'. Lord X blames Lord Y and the RTK for imprisoning and, in effect, killing his wife, and a feud results because of that.

I guess where my biggest uncertainty comes from is how does Arthur deal with feuds and castellans (not necessarily barons, though they could be) warring against each other), from Royal castles, no less? I think once I have my head around that, I know better how to move the pieces on the board. But I see you've addressed that somewhat in your follow-up post to Gilmere as well!

Thanks, Morien!

Challenge siege? Tell me more!


Basically what Eothar was suggesting: plant a pavilion next to the road leading into the castle, and stop anyone from going in or out, unless they defeat you in a duel or the Castellan X agrees to your legitimate demands for the Lady to be released to your custody so that she is free to speak her mind. If Castellan X implies that he doesn't trust the RTK to keep his word and let the Lady return if she is truly in this marriage willingly, why then, that is an insult to my honor, sirrah, and I demand satisfaction!



I guess where my biggest uncertainty comes from is how does Arthur deal with feuds and castellans (not necessarily barons, though they could be) warring against each other), from Royal castles, no less? I think once I have my head around that, I know better how to move the pieces on the board. But I see you've addressed that somewhat in your follow-up post to Gilmere as well!


Well, if the said castles are remote, and they conduct the feuding more like hit and run raids on each other's lands, rather than try to besiege and damage the King's castles, they might be able to keep it up for quite some time.

By my memory, Hal Foster's comics were full of remote castles and Arthur was more of a backdrop, rather than an active King (save for smacking Saxons/Vikings around from time to time).



Thanks, Morien!

Always happy to try and help. :)

Your Pendragon May Vary, but...
While it is true that Uther tends to be more 'Might makes right' than Arthur, I don't think that he runs a total anarchy where you can just steal other person's stuff (and yes, in this context, a daughter is 'stuff'). If that were the case, we wouldn't have a kingdom and definitely not one as complex as portrayed in Book of the Warlord, with rules about inheritance, wardship, taxes and whatnot. You would arguably have even a worse anarchy than The Anarchy, if the King is just letting everyone conduct their own private wars!

In my view, Uther is aware that the Kingdom needs order, and it is his order and rules that he is enforcing. However, he is Arbitrary, which means that he is quite happy to bend those rules if need be, rather than be bound by what is Just. "What is good for Uther is good for the Realm." would be his motto in our campaign. Two of his castellans squabbling over a mere woman is annoying, since it is distracting them from doing their service to him, the King. If he has a reason to favor one claimant over the other, that is what he'd do, even if it wouldn't be Just. (That reason could simply be that one of them is a vassal knight and another a baron, and he would rather discipline the vassal knight than the baron; less of a political hassle. This is where the might makes right can come in.) If he doesn't care, he would likely order a trial by combat to settle the issue. Done and done. No need for lengthy arguments nor what the girl herself wishes to do, since who cares about her opinion anyway?

You have a good point (several actually). :)

My quote might have come off as a bit more "I don't care" than I intended. I didn't intend it as Uther's opinion, more perhaps as the opinion of other lords in the area, who I think would care less.

From the way I interpret it, Uther isn't really interested in micromanaging his own kingdom. He sets policies (and brakes them), and makes sure that his subjects know damned well what his intentions and goals is. And then the system kinda just "works", because everyone is working hard to please the king. If it ended up on his personal todo-list he would probably be pretty annoyed "Why am I solving this problem? Who didn't do their job further down the chain?". In this particular instance Uther might pull favor from the kidnapping lord (or the other, depending on his needs and whims). He might chastice the lord for letting his daughter be kidnapped, or the kidnapping lord for taking something that isn't his. If the castellans makes to much of a issues of it, Uther might even go take care of it himself. After all, as you said, they serve the king, not themselves. It's like the CEO trusts his middle management to deal with issues themselves, but if they don't he is not afraid to make an example. I think... depending on the stuation. Uther might even make a point with both the lords.

You have a good point (several actually). :)


Thank you. One of the reasons I like this forum is that it is very useful to see how other people think, and that tends to make me either refine the way I see the situation (in order to put it into words) or realize something I hadn't considered, a fresh viewpoint. :)



My quote might have come off as a bit more "I don't care" than I intended. I didn't intend it as Uther's opinion, more perhaps as the opinion of other lords in the area, who I think would care less.


Assuming they are Royal Castles (as Taliesin specified) and the feuding parties are not causing any issues for the surrounding Lords (although they could be, disruption of trade by besieging each other's castles or raiding the lands around them), then sure, they wouldn't care all that much. That being said, it is very likely that the castellans would have some interaction with the surrounding lords, kinship ties, friendship, enmity, border disputes... the surrounding lords might have a stake in it, too. And if it does become a bigger issue, then it is more and more likely that the King would express his displeasure for having to deal with this rather than dally with the newest, buxom, blonde laundress in his household.



From the way I interpret it, Uther isn't really interested in micromanaging his own kingdom...

I agree with everything you wrote after that. However, it is this starting position that I take slight issue with. :) These are not independent barons, but castellans of ROYAL castles. It is not two barons throwing away their own wealth (as long as they show up to the muster with the requisite number of knights, Uther might very well ignore it), it is two royal officers throwing away UTHER'S weath! The King does not like it when other people waste his resources; he likes to do that himself! It is not micromanaging the Kingdom, when the guys involved are your direct underlings and there is no intermediate boss in between. :) Now, two knights in the garrison having a beef with one another, that is a job for the Castellan, not the King, I am totally agreeing with you on that.

Quite right, Morien. Royal castles in this scenario. Two feuding castellans separated by only about 20 miles.


T.

Basically what Eothar was suggesting: plant a pavilion next to the road leading into the castle

What he said.

My main suggestion is basically to set up a series of trait tests typical of the literature. Fight...be presented with a moral decision with two reasonable outcomes. Make a choice to decide what type of knight you are.

It also comes down to what type of adventure you want to GM. You could run it as a realistic conflict with a series of raids and counter raids until or subterfuge to retrieve the damsel, or you could run in as a series of individual tests with a more Arthurian flavor.

Sounds fun either way.