In the GPC, page 252, it is mentioned that "Percivale was the seventh legitimate son of King Pellinore. The king and his six elder sons were all slain in the wars and the countess was driven to distraction by her grief."

Does this mean Lamorak and Aglovale, being eldest, were not legitimate?

True, the dwarves say "the six elder sons were all slain", they don't specify if they were the legitimate or illegitimate sons. Can someone clarify this part? I can always rearrange this myself but I'd like to know more.

One thing to keep in mind is that when the Arthurian tales were first written (or even told), they did not necessarily hang together as a coherent whole, but each writer picked and chose elements to include in the story or came up with them full cloth. Malory then collected and edited the tales for his Morte d'Arthur, which has some contradictions, too. However, the story of the dwarves is not in Malory, and comes from a different source... I checked Parzival, and while it has the tale of him being raised in a forest by his mother (the Queen) and meeting the knights, it does not speak of the dwarves, and has as Parzival's father Gahmuret, the King of Anjou and Zazamanc.

EDIT:
Alright, it seems that Chretien's Perceval is raised in the woods by his mother, but he has only TWO brothers who are killed in wars, and his father dies of grief. So yeah, yet another different version of the same basic story. I couldn't find the dwarves here either, which is annoying. (Admittedly, I can't be 100% sure of that since I couldn't find a full translation online.)

Malory is clear that Lamorak and Aglovale are legitimate:
"NOW turn we again unto Sir Lamorak, and speak we of his brethren, Sir Tor, which was King Pellinore's first son and begotten of Aryes, wife of the cowherd, for he was a bastard; and Sir Aglovale was his first son begotten in wedlock; Sir Lamorak, Dornar, Percivale, these were his sons too in wedlock."
Each time Tor's parentage is mentioned, it is clearly stated that he is a bastard, whereas Lamorak is NEVER called a bastard. (Except by the Orkneys in private, but this didn't end up in Malory's book. :P)

Furthermore, it is clear in KAP (as in Malory) that Pellinore and Lamorak do not die in war, but are killed/murdered by the Orkneys. In Malory's timeline, Lamorak is alive and kicking, too, when Percivale is knighted. Also, in Malory, he is brought to Arthur's court by Sir Aglavale (given that Aglovale shows up after this and Aglavale is never heard from again, I think this is the same guy: similarly, Dornar is occasionally typoed as Dornard) who is another brother of his. Percivale's parentage is never in doubt, nor is there any hint that he is raised anywhere else but with his brothers.

So, I'd chalk the dwarves' statement up to the fact that KAP combines different legends, and sometimes, those discrepancies are not edited out even when they should be. The dwarves' statement is incorrect when it comes to the fate of Pellinore and his legitimate sons.

My problem is not with the conflicting tales of Peredur / Percivale / Parsifal. My focus is on that particular passage of the GPC which seems to contradict itself. Nothing in that particular passage addresses how the GM should approach that situation: Are the dwarves are lying? Are they particularly oblivious as to the existence of Percivale's brothers (not likely) or any other option? The material as "game material" seems contradictory. Was this intentional or poor editing?

It is contradictory
Probably just simple oversight on my part more than anything else
The easiest option, if the "fact" has been released into the campaign, is to say the dwarves are either lying or ill informed, whichever suits the campaign better

It is contradictory
Probably just simple oversight on my part more than anything else
The easiest option, if the "fact" has been released into the campaign, is to say the dwarves are either lying or ill informed, whichever suits the campaign better

Just antecipating the year when this will happen. Ironing out any contradictions or making them more natural to the flow of the campaign. Thanks, Greg. :-)

I noticed that the Percival section in "The Great Pendragon Campaign" used a lot of material from the Peredur section of "Savage Mountains"; presumably, the passage in question was copied from that without adapting it to its new context.

I noticed that the Percival section in "The Great Pendragon Campaign" used a lot of material from the Peredur section of "Savage Mountains"; presumably, the passage in question was copied from that without adapting it to its new context.

Yes, I noticed that too. I caught on the contradiction when comparing both texts, and only then did I notice Peredur is really Percivale.