In our game there was an incident where a raiding group of Picts were come upon while pillaging a village and stopped with some killed and a dozen or so disarmed. Those disarmed were then put to the sword by about half the player knights. This has made the other half somewhat salty. There is some back and forth now that killing the disarmed pictish warriors was wrong, that they should have either been taken in as prisoners or set loose. The other argument is that they are Picts and setting them loose was bad as they would just return to raid more, and it was risky to return with them as prisoners due to their unconventional tactics and ambush ability. (There is no such thing as a disarmed Pict, just a Pict looking for a stick to stab into your eye while you sleep.)

So what are the laws exactly? As I understand it the laws are based loosely on the old Roman laws. I can't find references to the old Roman laws themselves, except the twelve tables which talk mostly about civil offenses. One thing I found about medieval England was the penalties were very heavy, that most villages had gallows to hang criminals and punishment was swift and brutal due to the fact that jails and prisons didn't exist. Thieves had their hands cut off, Blasphemers had their tongues cut out and murderers were hung or worse (often drawn and quartered and eviscerated.) I can't imagine the laws under Uther were /more/ civilized than that. Looking at other laws of the times, the Hammurabi Code (for which death was the penalty for most infractions), the Halakha {Noahide Laws} (for which death was yet again penalty for most infractions), Sharia laws of Qisas and Tazir (which treated murder as a civil issue but demanded equal punishment for the crime) all have capital punishments for the crimes of murder (and even less) . To be fair early Irish law (Brehon Law) only used capital punishment as a last resort demanding financial restitution for such crimes (Wergild). Even the Ten Commandments set a precedence for capital punishment for Murder (see Genesis 4:15).

In fact, Picts were Heathens and under the ten commandments the punishment is genocide (Deuteronomy 2:33-34, Numbers 21:34-35, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 6:21. Joshua 10:40). The era we're in is Important, it's 493 and Uther is purging the pagans from the kingdom and forcing pagans to accept Christ following the kidnapping Arthur.

The reason this is an issue: The PK's are in the service of Earl Roderick. One of the PK's has apparently delivered a "message" from Earl Roderick condemning the action and threatened to take the lands and titles away as well as take action. "You forget who your lord is an he asked me to remind you. Cross him on this and Lord Roderick will revoke both title and lands as I pull my sword from your lifeless corpse."

The question is, does anyone have a good resource which can be referred to so we can get a better handle on the times? My PK was one of those who put the Picts to the sword, and is a Roman which I know has some familiarity with law plus has courtly of 16 which we've been using as the default since the racial skills were deemed to OP by the GM. Therefore instead of the Law skill we're using courtly with a bonus when it comes to the law.

Secondly, for the times is this even a moral issue? These Picts raided a Celtic village and murdered its inhabitants. Was it justified or unjustified to put the Picts to the sword for the times?

As an aside question, IIRC wouldn't that "message" from Earl Roderick constitute a threat which, under the rights of being a knight, give one the right to challenge with single combat?

They are murdering savages, and thieves. They should be put to the sword. No trial needed. The King's Law is for the king's subjects (nobles, really). All the rest is diplomacy — and revenge.

So, one of your PKs is working against your other PKs? Why? What's the motivation? If the knight is giving false orders, this would be a serious affront to Lord Salisbury's authority. You could handle such accustations using the courtly rules in the Book of the Warlord. They're for handling graft, but instructive on how to handle other crimes, like slander, falsing representing the Count, etc.

T.

THe question of the Law:
I am not familiar with the historic laws, but in this case I would rule as follows:
1) The ruler of the land should decide on such crimes. Usually this is the King or the closest representative of him. This could be a Sheriff or a Baron whose land it is.
2) In this case the raiders would probably be executed so if the knights did it before the ruler could decide they would not be punished for the killing but will be punished for not letting the law decide. Depending on the relationship between the PKs and the ruler this could be something like a fine or just a simple reprimand.
BTW under the rule of Arthur I would imagine that it would be frowned upon even more. As a good chivalric knight you do not kill unarmed prisoners. So a chivalric knight will choose to go through all the trouble of escorting dangerous prisoners.

Also a good idea is to discuss this with the GM and hear his take on the matter.

The problem of the message:
This depends on whether the message is true or not.
If the message is true then you have violated the bond between lord and knight. That is assuming that you knew beforehand what the lord wanted in this situation. The Lord could decide to punish you for not following his orders.
If the message is false then the PK who delivered it has violated the bond between the lord and knight and he should be in trouble.
Of course the trouble is that you will only know if the message was true or false if you ask the Lord. Even if the Lord did not give the message at the time he may decide to back either your case or that of the other PK. It depends on the relation with both knights.
Asking the PK who brought the message is not an option. He is a knight of course and questioning his honor may create a response.

BTW revoking the title and land for killing some foreign raiders seem a bit high imho. The Earl probably would keep a closer eye on your PK and may ask you to proof your loyalty.

EDIT: So yeah, pretty much what Cornelius already said. More long-winded response below.

Barbarian raiders caught in the act of pillaging... Seems like a clear cut case of justifiable warfare at that point. No different from common bandits. While High Justice (death penalty) is the province of the King, when it comes to bandits caught red-handed, I allow the knights to string them up, no questions asked. They are outlaws, outside the law. Besides, it gives me a chance to hand out Merciful and Cruel checks, depending what they do, rather than always forcing them to take the bandits to be judged by their liege. Especially during Uther's reign & the Anarchy (obviously).

Now, more of an issue is the killing of surrendered prisoners. If these were knights (or similarly acknowledged class of professional, honorable warriors), then it would be a no-no (not to say that it didn't happen, but Honor would suffer, breaking the implicit promise that those who surrender are treated honorably). But these are Picts, not very well known for their own Honor, ambushes and all. However, it is definitely Cruel to kill unarmed and presumably bound (otherwise, why did the Picts allow themselves to get slaughtered?) prisoners. Also, if any of the Picts survived, or the word spreads (peasants like to tell tales, too), then it will be that much harder to get the next bunch of raiders to surrender, since they expect to be murdered afterwards. Why not go down fighting and try to take some of those knights with you? Surviving Picts (if any managed to flee rather than be captured and murdered) might also make it more personal and try to get a posse together to kill the knights from ambush, at some opportune moment. Or even attack their families. Picts are not nice, after all.

That being said, the Count is the liege. He is within his rights to say that his vassals should have brought those prisoners to him, for him to decide what to do with them, especially if it was his village that was under attack. However, if it was his village, then it would seem a bit strange to defend the raiders and berate the knights who helped to stop the pillaging. One alternative that comes to mind is that these Picts were not mere 'raiders', but part of some reinforcements lent by King Lot to his semi-father-in-law, King Uther. So the Count is pissed because this might become a diplomatic incident. They just got a bit drunk and rowdy, is all...

Personally, I'd talk with the GM. After all, it is his campaign and his take on the laws and such. Same thing with challenging the other PK. After all, intra-party violence seldom ends well (unless if both players are fine with it). While I would definitely see an opening to tell the messenger PK that if he is so eager to kill me, I would be happy to oblige him right here and now, if he is not otherwise occupied (and if he gives excuses, cause to insult his valor), for the campaign, it might be better not to go ahead with that murderous impulse. If it is just a misunderstanding on how the world works, talking it through with the GM allows both sides to understand better how the world is supposed to work. The GM might realize that yeah, being upset that some bandit trash got offed with a sword rather than hanged is not really worth it, or the players might realize that Roderick (or even Uther) is a bit more of a stickler when it comes to High Justice (death penalty).

These are Picts from Caledonia, right? Because if they were from Jagent, that opens a very large can of worms.

Speaking with the GM a little the source of concern has shifted a little. We are on a diplomatic mission to Malahut to encourage the Centurion King to crack open a cold one with the boys. Because he was being a grumpy guss we, the PK's, decided to go sightseeing at Hadrians Wall. That's where we met the ghost(?) of a Roman soldier who told us of the raid which we went to stop. So after discussing this event with the GM the renewed concern is that fighting the Picts in Malahut may be a diplomatic faux pas.

jmberry I do not know if they are from Caledonia or Jagent. They are from north of the wall.

If from above the wall, they can be assumed to be from Caledonia and not Jagent in Cornwall. Yes, the Picts do raid south of the wall. As time passes, they become less of a threat, but until every tribe of Picts become civilized (and some never do), their lifestyle includes raiding, so it is always possible the more north you go, the greater the chance of running into a raid.

This can go all kinds of ways depending on the state of mind of the Centurion King
- He could be thankful that the PKs stopped the raid and that they protected his people. The fact that some prisoners were killed is just bad luck on their part.
- He could feel threatened. He does not need the help of the foreingers to rule his lands. He could ignore the whole matter publicly (he does not want everyone to know what happened) but it will impact the future relations. On the other hand he could point towards the fact that the PKs violated his laws and blow this matter up into a diplomatic incident.
- He could feel insulted that the knights took the law in their own hand instead of bringing the criminals before him. Again this will impact the relations, but also may be that he asks reparations for breaking his law.

Burglary (entering the home of another uninvited to cause harm) and robbery (stealing from those on the king's road) are both considered crimes against the person of the king and thus demand death. To allow such offenders to be spared would merit an Arbitrary check from me. Letting them go when you could easily ride them down would be Merciful. Slaying them while they try to deceive you that they are honest men surrendering merits no checks. Binding them and returning them to your liegelord to meet the King's Justice merits a Just check.

This changes is your liege has ordered you to bring all criminals to him and even though you are within the kings law to execute them on the spot you would risk loss of Honor for failing to obey your lord or loss of Loyalty (liege).

I cannot cite a source
But those Picts were raiders, enemies engaged in destruction, and their deaths were well deserved
Even the ones captured

It would have been more polite to turn them over to whatever lord ruled in the land where they were captured, presumably Malahaut
And since the king was already grumpy he could easily use it as an excuse to foment difficulties with King Uther--maybe even keep the offending knights as prisoners



The era we're in is Important, it's 493 and Uther is purging the pagans from the kingdom and forcing pagans to accept Christ following the kidnapping Arthur.

Interesting twist
I hope no Player-knights are Pagans in your campaign!


The reason this is an issue: The PK's are in the service of Earl Roderick. One of the PK's has apparently delivered a "message" from Earl Roderick condemning the action and threatened to take the lands and titles away as well as take action. "You forget who your lord is an he asked me to remind you. Cross him on this and Lord Roderick will revoke both title and lands as I pull my sword from your lifeless corpse."

If that "message" is true then the PKs are in trouble with their liege, especially since this is the Uther Period when Might Makes Right. Depending on how you are playing Roderick, this is actually overstepping his normal bounds--it does not seem like an offense to warrant attainder (loss of all rights and lands).
If it is false, then the knight who delivered it is in deep trouble for falsifying his lord's commands


Secondly, for the times is this even a moral issue? These Picts raided a Celtic village and murdered its inhabitants. Was it justified or unjustified to put the Picts to the sword for the times?

I'd say that it is acceptable action.


As an aside question, IIRC wouldn't that "message" from Earl Roderick constitute a threat which, under the rights of being a knight, give one the right to challenge with single combat?
Challenge who?
But a knight always has the right of Trial by Combat.

As an aside question, IIRC wouldn't that "message" from Earl Roderick constitute a threat which, under the rights of being a knight, give one the right to challenge with single combat?

A lot has already been said about the rest, so I'll weigh in on this. I assume you are talking about challenging Roderick to Trial by Combat? I think this would be a bad idea, regardless of the outcome. If you lose, you either die or are publicly humiliated. Even if you win, you are going to have a VERY sour relationship with your lord from then on. Even if you are only talking about challenging the PK, if he really has been sent by your lord, Roderick will be severely pissed that you attacked and possibly killed his messenger. And as far as Roderick taking the challenge, I don't know how he is portrayed in your game, but unless he is extremely reckless, he would most likely pick a champion to represent him. And you can bet your arse the man he picks will be highly skilled. If they have a high Homage (Roderick), they might even become inspired to subdue this rogue who has so offended their liege! (I would not want to fight an inspired Sir Jaradan in one-on-one combat.) If your lord is angry with you, best to apologize, take the punishment, and move on. Although, I agree that being stripped of lands and title for executing raiders is very harsh, especially for the time period.

I'm with the others that this is a matter for Trait checks, not a major thing. PKs should not be concerned with the others save for becoming less friendly toward one another over their different ideals. If they disagree so much that they cannot compromise then a third party should arrange a mediation or a contest of arms (first blood or knock down are both acceptable).

Its ridiculous to think that knights of the same lord, sworn to service and brotherhood as well as of the same lineage (Bretons includes both the Romano-britains and the Cymri) should come to blows over the fate of enemy fighters. If it was Pictish women, children or elderly that's one thing, but raiders? Come on.

Even if Roderick agrees with the doves in this case the harshest punishment can only be 'in the future bring all such prisoners to me' provided malahaut doesn't make a scene and enrage Uther. The King may well be wroth with the knights and demand some penance, but if he's purging pagans then he may well thank them for ridding the land of heathens.