Good gentles,

I've been noodling ahead on plots that are or may-be likely for my group, and have a grab-bag of questions that you all might nudge me toward understanding. This is haphazard and non-specific because no details exist yet, so bear with me:

1. If a PK ends up mad/disguised/enchanted such that they abandon their home and duties for a time, wandering under another name (e.g. The Knight of Sticks or whatnot) doing deeds or even taking up with another king, what happens to accrued Glory when they come to their senses and return?
a. Does the Glory pass on directly to Sir Fancypants even though he is totally not The Knight of Sticks any longer?
b. Does the Glory NOT pass on to Sir Fancypants, and he decrements Glory totals by the amount gained while out-of-person? Say, -3000 glory or somesuch?
c. Is the glory partially decremented, treating The Knight of Sticks as, say, the ancestor-father of the newly abashed Sir Fancypants?

I can see arguments for each result and partly it hinges on whether Glory is only a measure of personal fame and deeds, or more of a metaphysical concept of fame. --The latter could be supported by PKs earning glory for deeds done that are not reported/widely known, which I think is a thing. No one need know you saved that child from drowning in the latrine in order to get your (pittance) glory for it....

2. Is adult adoption a thing in the KAP setting? It certainly was among the Romans, so I'm just trying to get a sense of whether that carried over into the (much later) materials.

3. Madoc is broadly regarded as Uther's heir, right? Mostly because he didn't have another son to point to until Arthur. Yet in the GPC 485 dialog there's much ado about how no illegitimate bastard will inherit the king.... Can I assume this is ignored in the later BoU revisions, and/or did Uther make a point to legitimize him? If so, when?

4. Duke Corneus of Lindsey dies in 508 and is succeeded by his nephew and heir Derfel. Yet Lucan (the Butler to Arthur) is a son of Corneus. Lucan joins the RT in 528 so can we assume he's just a boy when the Duke dies? Or how are the lands and title handled here? I'd expect Lucan to be the heir and Derfel to be a regent, but it is the Anarchy....

5. Who do you think Balin killed, who was a cousin of Arthur, to land in the dungeon for a time (variously 6 months to 1.5 years)? Balin gets out in 512 (I assume ransomed by important people--he's apparently one of the best knights of the time), but Arthur only realizes his own parentage in early 512! So.. killing a 'cousin' of Arthur's means a relative of Sir Ector??? I'm puzzled by this.

6. How essential is the death of Balin and Balan to the eventual resolution of the Wasteland? I have a recollection that Merlin at some point pronounces that their (well, Balin's) death permitted the Grail quest.

Regarding Balin and Balan, I'm broadly trying to understand them more in the GPC. They seem super-important to the overall story, but just pop up as NPCs and overwhelm everyone in their scenes, before departing.... It's... like Lancelot-in-a-box, or something. Oh: and Balin may be responsible for killing King Lot, according to some sources.


Cheers,
--Khanwulf

Good gentles,
I've been noodling ahead on plots that are or may-be likely for my group, and have a grab-bag of questions that you all might nudge me toward understanding. This is haphazard and non-specific because no details exist yet, so bear with me:

1. If a PK ends up mad/disguised/enchanted such that they abandon their home and duties for a time, wandering under another name (e.g. The Knight of Sticks or whatnot) doing deeds or even taking up with another king, what happens to accrued Glory when they come to their senses and return?
a. Does the Glory pass on directly to Sir Fancypants even though he is totally not The Knight of Sticks any longer?
b. Does the Glory NOT pass on to Sir Fancypants, and he decrements Glory totals by the amount gained while out-of-person? Say, -3000 glory or somesuch?
c. Is the glory partially decremented, treating The Knight of Sticks as, say, the ancestor-father of the newly abashed Sir Fancypants?

I can see arguments for each result and partly it hinges on whether Glory is only a measure of personal fame and deeds, or more of a metaphysical concept of fame. --The latter could be supported by PKs earning glory for deeds done that are not reported/widely known, which I think is a thing. No one need know you saved that child from drowning in the latrine in order to get your (pittance) glory for it....

MUCH SNIPPAGE

Cheers,
--Khanwulf
I would say that the whole "how much glory does Sir Fancypants" receive would directly be related to how well known it is that "Sir Fancypants" was actually "The Knight of Sticks".
If it is announced at his Liege Lord's court, or at Arthur's court, then I would say that he gets 100% of the glory.
If it is somewhat spoken of here and there, then 25-50%.
If no one knows, then no glory is gained.

Of course, this is my personal opinion. YPMV

Ave!

5. Who do you think Balin killed, who was a cousin of Arthur, to land in the dungeon for a time (variously 6 months to 1.5 years)? Balin gets out in 512 (I assume ransomed by important people--he's apparently one of the best knights of the time), but Arthur only realizes his own parentage in early 512! So.. killing a 'cousin' of Arthur's means a relative of Sir Ector??? I'm puzzled by this.

6. How essential is the death of Balin and Balan to the eventual resolution of the Wasteland? I have a recollection that Merlin at some point pronounces that their (well, Balin's) death permitted the Grail quest.

Regarding Balin and Balan, I'm broadly trying to understand them more in the GPC. They seem super-important to the overall story, but just pop up as NPCs and overwhelm everyone in their scenes, before departing.... It's... like Lancelot-in-a-box, or something. Oh: and Balin may be responsible for killing King Lot, according to some sources.


Cheers,
--Khanwulf

5. This may be a plothole in Malory (or his sources) that remains unresolved, even in "THe Great Pendragon Campaign". (Merlin does announce more than once before the meeting between Arthur and Igraine that Arthur is Uther's son - in the parley with the rebellious kings before the Battle of Carlion, for example - but Arthur somehow fails to believe it until the aforesaid meeting.) If a biological cousin, it would have to be on Igraine's side of the family, to explain why this cousin was not a claimant to the throne.

6. This is the first I've heard of that statement of Merlin's; "I have a recollection", without anything more definite, suggests "false memory".

In Malory, Lamorak claims (just after Gaheris kills Morgause) that it was Balin rather than Pellinore who slew Lot, but this claim appears nowhere else in Malory; his account of Lot's last battle makes it clear that Pellinore slew him. Lamorak may simply be trying to clear his father of the Orkney clan's charges against him (it clearly didn't work).

Good gentles,

I've been noodling ahead on plots that are or may-be likely for my group, and have a grab-bag of questions that you all might nudge me toward understanding. This is haphazard and non-specific because no details exist yet, so bear with me:

1. If a PK ends up mad/disguised/enchanted such that they abandon their home and duties for a time, wandering under another name (e.g. The Knight of Sticks or whatnot) doing deeds or even taking up with another king, what happens to accrued Glory when they come to their senses and return?
a. Does the Glory pass on directly to Sir Fancypants even though he is totally not The Knight of Sticks any longer?
b. Does the Glory NOT pass on to Sir Fancypants, and he decrements Glory totals by the amount gained while out-of-person? Say, -3000 glory or somesuch?
c. Is the glory partially decremented, treating The Knight of Sticks as, say, the ancestor-father of the newly abashed Sir Fancypants?

I can see arguments for each result and partly it hinges on whether Glory is only a measure of personal fame and deeds, or more of a metaphysical concept of fame. --The latter could be supported by PKs earning glory for deeds done that are not reported/widely known, which I think is a thing. No one need know you saved that child from drowning in the latrine in order to get your (pittance) glory for it....


I wouldn't bother. Chances are that the word will get out and the deeds are accorded to Sir Fancypants in due time. Than again, I don't allow gameplay while mad anyway. So the only occasion when this might apply is when a knight is voluntarily a mystery knight, hiding his identity for good, and even then, there are probably others who will see through the disguise anyway. In short, too much work for very little gain. You get to keep the Glory you earn.



2. Is adult adoption a thing in the KAP setting? It certainly was among the Romans, so I'm just trying to get a sense of whether that carried over into the (much later) materials.


The whole dynasty thing is built on the assumption that you will need to have a child of your blood to inherit you. If an adult adoption is a thing, it undercuts the whole tension of not having heirs. Furthermore, since this would essentially mean that the lands would never escheat back to the liege lords & the king, I can't see them agreeing to it, either. So no, I would not allow the Roman custom of adult adoption in Pendragon.

I can't remember off the top of my head if adoption was still a thing in 500s in the Eastern Empire. I think Diocletian & co. were using it to try and shore up the tetrachy by adopting their junior caesars, but that was around AD 300, two centuries earlier.



3. Madoc is broadly regarded as Uther's heir, right? Mostly because he didn't have another son to point to until Arthur. Yet in the GPC 485 dialog there's much ado about how no illegitimate bastard will inherit the king.... Can I assume this is ignored in the later BoU revisions, and/or did Uther make a point to legitimize him? If so, when?


I presume that you are referring to the "Gossip" dialog? Because that, to me, implies very heavily that Madoc, as the King's ACKNOWLEDGED bastard and heir presumptive WILL inherit. Just that not all the nobles might go along with it (which might be referring to the Dukes of Lindsey and Cornwall, to start with).

“I’ll trust Prince Madoc to take care of us. He’s hand-
some enough, and he talks boldly enough. But the truth
will depend on how he fares in battle, of course.”
“Well, I’ll say it’s too bad he is illegitimate. No bastard
will automatically inherit. It’ll be difficult, you can be sure,
unless his glory is truly great when the old king dies.”
“Listen, darlings, it’ll take something monstrous
to get rid of tough King Uther. Madoc will have to be
waiting a long time for any inheritance!”

Emphasis (bolded) mine. Sure, if Madoc is a newcomer to court, unproven youngster, he will have a hard time of it. Still, not as if there are other, more legitimate claimants (unless you count Cerdic). However, it is clear that Uther is grooming Madoc to be his successor:

486
Madoc leads knights to raid against the Saxons at Colchester; very successfully too given his Christmas gifts to his father. After the defeat of Duke Lucius of Caercolun, he takes command of the reinforcements to keep the Saxons at bay (replacing Brastias in GPC, as corrected in BoU, since Brastias is still with the Duke of Cornwall). He is given the castle of Windsor and lands on the Thames by Uther, making him at least a baron, too, and I wouldn't be surprised if other gifts of land wouldn't make him at least a Rich Baron.

487
Prince Madoc is put in charge of the Naval raids, the premier military action against the Saxons this year. He is very successful in it, too: Saxon fleets burn.

488
Prince Madoc leads the half of the army of Logres to Gaul, conquering a city and returning with rich booty and low losses.

491
Prince Madoc is in command of the main part of the army, when he dies.

In short, during the years that we see Prince Madoc in action, he is clearly the leading British General (when Uther himself is not taking to the field), and is in confidence of his father (in the know about the affairs of state and war). He is a successful leader of men, bringing victory and plunder to his followers. If Prince Madoc would have survived 491 and 495, there would not have been any Anarchy, since he would have been the obvious rightful claimant for the throne, despite his bastardy.



4. Duke Corneus of Lindsey dies in 508 and is succeeded by his nephew and heir Derfel. Yet Lucan (the Butler to Arthur) is a son of Corneus. Lucan joins the RT in 528 so can we assume he's just a boy when the Duke dies? Or how are the lands and title handled here? I'd expect Lucan to be the heir and Derfel to be a regent, but it is the Anarchy....


Don't forget Lucan's brother, Sir Bedivere.

1. Easiest suggestion: Derfel is also a son of Corneus, and the eldest of the three. GPC is in error when it calls him a nephew, but correct where it names him as the heir.

2. Another easy suggestion: Lucan & Bedivere are illegitimate, and thus don't inherit.

In GPC, Lucan joins the Round Table in 528, so it is very likely that he is underaged in 508. While it is possible that Derfel would be the designated heir in 508, in the trying times of the Anarchy, it becomes harder to explain why he is still the Duke in 531. Unless it is one of those "you rule for your lifetime, and then it is Lucan's turn". However, Lucan and Bedivere never inherit the Duchy, which implies to me that Derfel's lineage is the senior one.

Frankly, the way Sir Lucan's (typoed Lucas, in the online translation I am using) lineage is told, it would be reasonable to assume that Duke Corneus is still alive! Lucan and Bedivere are never referred to as Dukes, and Corneus is mentioned just once, as Lucan's father. Derfel is not mentioned at all, which means he is coming from elsewhere (Greg's fertile imagination would be my guess). So yeah, the easiest way to handle this is my first suggestion in above: Make Derfel the eldest son of the three, instead of a nephew.



5. Who do you think Balin killed, who was a cousin of Arthur, to land in the dungeon for a time (variously 6 months to 1.5 years)? Balin gets out in 512 (I assume ransomed by important people--he's apparently one of the best knights of the time), but Arthur only realizes his own parentage in early 512! So.. killing a 'cousin' of Arthur's means a relative of Sir Ector??? I'm puzzled by this.


One thing to keep in mind is that Malory compiled his magnum opus Le Morte d'Arthur from many many sources, some of them contradictory. Consistency was not quite as important to him and his audience as it is for us. :)

The tale of Balin being imprisoned is not in the GPC, and I would argue, for a good reason. I agree, it would have to be Sir Ector's uncle's/aunt's son, since Arthur's heritage is not known at the time of Balin's imprisonment. (In GPC, that is. In Malory, you are correct that Merlin blurts it out, which then makes the hash of the whole 'doing the dirty with my sister' with regards to Margawse, later.

Another example of Malory getting entangled with different versions, this is what is said just prior to King Lot dying against Pellinore:
"of late time afore [Lot] had been a knight of King Arthur's, and wedded the sister of King Arthur; and for King Arthur lay by King Lot's wife, the which was Arthur's sister, and gat on her Mordred, therefore King Lot held against Arthur."

But earlier, when Lot reappears in the story (after aving wedded Margawse at King Uther's request), arriving at Carlion when King Arthur has been crowned (he is not at the great tournament):
"But the kings would none [of the gifts] receive, but rebuked the messengers shamefully, and said they had no joy to receive no gifts of a beardless boy that was come of low blood"

and later, Merlin addresses them (the kings):
"
Then all the kings were passing glad of Merlin, and asked him, 'For what cause is that boy Arthur made your king?'
'Sirs', said Merlin, 'I shall tell you the cause, for he is King Uther Pendragon's son, born in wedlock, gotten on Igraine, the duke's wife of Tintagil.'
'Then is he a bastard', they said all.
'Nay', said Merlin, 'after the death of the duke, more than three hours, was Arthur begotten, and thirteen days after King Uther wedded Igraine; and therefore I prove him he is no bastard. And who saith nay, he shall be king and overcome all his enemies; and, or he die, he shall be long king of all England, and have under his obeissance Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, and more realms than I will now rehearse.'
Some of the kings had marvel of Merlin's words, and deemed well that it should be as he said; and some of them laughed him to scorn, as King Lot; and more other called him a witch.
"

Clearly, King Lot, in this version, has NEVER been King Arthur's knight and vassal, nor does he know King Arthur is his brother-in-law, until Merlin reveals this.




6. How essential is the death of Balin and Balan to the eventual resolution of the Wasteland? I have a recollection that Merlin at some point pronounces that their (well, Balin's) death permitted the Grail quest.


I was unable to find that quote in Malory.

The only thing I can find is that Galahad is fated to have Balin's sword, which will be difficult with Balin still alive. On the other hand, I think Balin's story is one of tragedy, so having him die fighting his brother Balan is a fitting end to his tale.



Regarding Balin and Balan, I'm broadly trying to understand them more in the GPC. They seem super-important to the overall story, but just pop up as NPCs and overwhelm everyone in their scenes, before departing.... It's... like Lancelot-in-a-box, or something. Oh: and Balin may be responsible for killing King Lot, according to some sources.


They are important in a sense that they set up the whole Wasteland & the Grail Quest. They are also responsible for capturing King Ryons (Rience) in Malory, but their names are omitted in GPC, probably as to not overwhelm the GM. Although I think I would add them back for that, highlighting their prowess.

However, it is very very clear in GPC that Pellinore is responsible for the death of Lot, and to change that to Balin would undercut the whole Orkney - de Gales feud, which is one of the central themes of the big story.

5. This may be a plothole in Malory (or his sources) that remains unresolved, even in "THe Great Pendragon Campaign". (Merlin does announce more than once before the meeting between Arthur and Igraine that Arthur is Uther's son - in the parley with the rebellious kings before the Battle of Carlion, for example - but Arthur somehow fails to believe it until the aforesaid meeting.) If a biological cousin, it would have to be on Igraine's side of the family, to explain why this cousin was not a claimant to the throne.


I already started to allude to this in my previous post, but it seems that there are two stories here:
One where Lot is antagonistic from the first, and another where Lot accepts Arthur, but then turns against him when Arthur sleeps with his wife, without knowing she is Arthur's sister.

I think GPC dropped Merlin's reveal of Arthur's parentage in Carlion in order to have King Arthur to have the important affair with Margawse later, to beget Mordred. Although you could argue that Merlin only told that to the enemy kings, who had no reason to spread the news around... Unfortunately, this makes Ulfius' treason charge against Ygraine somewhat baffling. How is she a traitor to King Arthur?

In Malory, this is easily explained: Ulfius (having heard the story from Arthur and Merlin) is accusing Ygraine for keeping silent about Arthur, when she could have come forward right at the birth and let everyone know that Arthur is Uther's lawful son (I get the impression that unlike in GPC, Arthur's birth was not advertised), so that Arthur would have been claimed as the heir while Uther was still alive. Or even come forward as soon as Arthur was declared King, and thus cement his legitimacy amongst the barons and prevented the civil war. Ygraine explains that the son was given to Merlin by King Uther's order; she barely saw the boy and certainly would not recognize him as a grown man.

As for Arthur's reluctance to believe his parentage prior to this... he had already slept with Margawse before Merlin told him. So if he weren't Uther's son, he'd be innocent of incest, but still the king, since his claim on that was not resting on his parentage, but on the Sword of Victory.

First, thank you gentlemen. I tossed out a lot of red meat there, at once, to chew on.

Broadly we can acknowledge that (1) Malory cobbled together his story from a variety of sources, and wasn't particularly careful to either explain the comments of the characters always, or ensure consistency; (2) the GPC, as an effort of Greg's to translate Malory and other sources into a coherent narrative timeline, necessarily makes some hard choices about what would be of greatest interest to PKs assumed to be from Salisbury, and what "actually" happened/to include. There is nothing wrong with either of these points--at all--and it means that as GMs we both have wide literary latitude in interpretation and YPWV.

That said, this is a conversation because we do care about coherence and truth in characters!

6. "I have a recollection" can also mean that in my efforts to read everything I can find about the enigmatic Balin, I'm conflating author's analysis with our original sources. If this strikes no chord then let it slide until I can find a reference. Anyway, Balin gets the short straw, the Dolorous Stroke is done, and we get a Wasteland healed by healing the Fisher King.

5. Good additional points! GPC goes to lengths to place Lot at the head of the resistance and very carefully structures the period 509-512, however I can see attempting to conflate the versions of Lot where he starts as a leader of the resistance, swears peace at least after Bedegraine (explaining again why 511 is quiet), then after his wife is "molested" by the boy-king (511) AND her child stolen (512) he's properly enraged by what would be a viscous abuse of vassal relationships.

I always understood Ulfius' distress at Ygraine as stemming from her unwillingness to just come forward and settle the matter of parentage in 509--before so many knights died in battle! But yes, GPC makes the Ygraine a dutiful mother to Arthur, Uther apparently forgetful of his promise of the child to Merlin, and then requires the PKs to get involved in Merlin's flat-out abduction (with subsequent trial). Malory's depiction of Uther seems more appropriate for a king who trusts and owes much to Merlin, and he hands over his newborn heir just like that.

Personally I like my Arthur a tad ambivalent at this point: he's a boy, and though he has some good ideas and is literally the inflection point between might-makes-right and chivalry, it's his marriage to Guinevere that tempers him and gives him focus in this regard. Prior to that he's sleeping around and making bad calls about kidnapping babies to keep his realm safe from prophecies. GPC assigns this solely to Merlin and Nineve, making me wonder why he's tolerated in the kingdom at all, what with his history of kidnapping/treason!

Back to the main points:
4. I have assumed Greg was nodding to Derfel Gadarn, who legendarily survived Camlann by his strength of arms and went on to become a monk and saint. If so, Duke Derfel comes rather early as he would be ancient by Camlann. But I'm inclined to just whip up another Derfel for later, for that purpose. The minimalist change to the GPC would, indeed, be to change "nephew" to "son" and call it a day.

I ignored Bedivere because it seems clear to me that he was a maternal brother to Lucan, as his father is mentioned as Bedrawd--not Corneus. Also, Griflet is called a cousin of both of them, so that must be a maternal cousin. A reasonable sequence then could be: Corneus and XX have Derfel, Bedrawd and YY have Bedivere, XX dies, Bedrawd dies, YY remarries to Duke Corneus, YY has Lucan, Corneus dies and Derfel inherits. The alternative could be a knock-down, drag-out brawl about legitimacy between the Church (supporting Derfel, and hating Corneus) and Corneus' son Lucan; this dispute being settled by Arthur through making (a modest) Lucan his butler, while proven Derfel gets to stay Duke.

However: in Malory's account of Bedegraine Lucas (Lucan) is already a valiant knight and his butler. So if that were the case it just means Lucan had to wait his turn for RT-knighting. In the "legal dispute" scenario Arthur could have settled the matter of Lucan quickly in order to ensure Duke Derfel's full support, as well as that of the Church.

3. Yeah, Uther made a point of supporting Madoc as heir, by making sure he had plenty of wealth and opportunities to demonstrate kingly leadership qualities (i.e. kill Uther's enemies and plunder their lands).

Still makes me wonder why Eliwlod wasn't promoted as the next logical heir.... Maybe some factions in the Anarchy did so, but being the bastard of a bastard is not enough to engender much support! Greg makes the point in BoU that he plays no part in the GPC, so I'll just accept that as a craftsman's decision.

2. Thanks! Yes, I can see how widespread adoption would undercut the passage of noble claims and make the middle-ages presentation of KAP a problem.

1. Ok, so assume Sir Fancypants is disguised, adventures for a time, and then spreads news that the Knight of Sticks is dead while returning as Sir Fancypants? There's some un-knightly deceit in there of course.

I get your main reasoning, however: word gets around and the PK gets the Glory by hook or crook, even if their story is complicated.


Thanks for the attention!

--Khanwulf

First, thank you gentlemen. I tossed out a lot of red meat there, at once, to chew on.


Happy to shoot the breeze; that's what the forum is for. :)



5. Good additional points! GPC goes to lengths to place Lot at the head of the resistance and very carefully structures the period 509-512, however I can see attempting to conflate the versions of Lot where he starts as a leader of the resistance, swears peace at least after Bedegraine (explaining again why 511 is quiet), then after his wife is "molested" by the boy-king (511) AND her child stolen (512) he's properly enraged by what would be a viscous abuse of vassal relationships.


510 - 513, surely?
Yes, in our newest campaign, it almost played out as above (with some changes to default GPC):
510 Arthur defeats the rebel kings at Carlion & Bedegraine.
511 Arthur defeats the Cornish Coalition. (In our campaign, Salisbury is part of Cornwall, and this battle came out of Cornwall trying to knock Levcomagus and Silchester out of the war, helped by Wessex.) This also draws Arthur's army south, explaining how Lot can ravage the northern Logres.
512 Arthur knocks Malahaut and Garloth out of the war in an early Spring campaign. Lot starts reconsidering things and sends Margawse down to talk about peace (not his sons, though; no need to give Arthur many valuable hostages!). Margawse seduces the young king and becomes pregnant.
513 Mordred is born. Merlin steals the May Babies away without Arthur's knowledge. Lot demands the return of the babies and Merlin's head, while Arthur denies knowing anything about it or Merlin's whereabouts. Lot calls for all of his allies and the decisive battle is about to begin...

Note, in our campaign, Arthur's true parentage is still hidden. I figure to spring it on Arthur after Terrabil, when he is chewing Merlin out. Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, kinda thing. I'll have to think about how this works out in the long run, since I expect Merlin will give Arthur the whole unvarnished truth about his incest baby. Ought to be interesting in the future when Mordred comes to Camelot and Arthur knows his true parentage and the prophecy...



I always understood Ulfius' distress at Ygraine as stemming from her unwillingness to just come forward and settle the matter of parentage in 509--before so many knights died in battle! But yes, GPC makes the Ygraine a dutiful mother to Arthur, Uther apparently forgetful of his promise of the child to Merlin, and then requires the PKs to get involved in Merlin's flat-out abduction (with subsequent trial). Malory's depiction of Uther seems more appropriate for a king who trusts and owes much to Merlin, and he hands over his newborn heir just like that.


In 510, surely? Yes, it is obvious when one reads Malory, but in GPC, it is much more vague (IMHO). Also, in GPC, it is clear & public knowledge that Arthur is kidnapped as a kid, there is a trial and all that for crying out loud, so how is Ygraine supposed to recognize him as a grown man? It is different when it is a voluntary fosterage, leading Ulfius probably to assume that Ygraine ought to know that Ector's foster son is actually hers and Uther's baby.



I ignored Bedivere because it seems clear to me that he was a maternal brother to Lucan, as his father is mentioned as Bedrawd--not Corneus. Also, Griflet is called a cousin of both of them, so that must be a maternal cousin. A reasonable sequence then could be: Corneus and XX have Derfel, Bedrawd and YY have Bedivere, XX dies, Bedrawd dies, YY remarries to Duke Corneus, YY has Lucan, Corneus dies and Derfel inherits.


Yeah, I forgot about Bedivere's paternal lineage, thanks for the reminder. The above would work for me. :)



3. Yeah, Uther made a point of supporting Madoc as heir, by making sure he had plenty of wealth and opportunities to demonstrate kingly leadership qualities (i.e. kill Uther's enemies and plunder their lands).

Still makes me wonder why Eliwlod wasn't promoted as the next logical heir.... Maybe some factions in the Anarchy did so, but being the bastard of a bastard is not enough to engender much support! Greg makes the point in BoU that he plays no part in the GPC, so I'll just accept that as a craftsman's decision.


It is a bit of a pity, actually. In the old Welsh Triads, he is one of the Three Golden-Tongued Knights of Britain, up there with Gawaine. Sounds like a charming guy. :)

One possibility is that Eliwlod's mom is no one especially highly ranked. Heck, he could even be a posthumous birth, and that combination might mean that Uther is not really grooming him as an heir. Or, given that Eliwlod might be born 492, he is just 3 years old when Uther kicks the bucket. I could easily see some ambitious nobleman trying to kidnap him as a pawn and Eliwlod being raised in secrecy to keep him safe. That would explain his absence during Anarchy, while keeping him as a possibility for later.

510 - 513, surely?

In 510, surely?

Yes, 510. Apologies!



Yes, it is obvious when one reads Malory, but in GPC, it is much more vague (IMHO). Also, in GPC, it is clear & public knowledge that Arthur is kidnapped as a kid, there is a trial and all that for crying out loud, so how is Ygraine supposed to recognize him as a grown man? It is different when it is a voluntary fosterage, leading Ulfius probably to assume that Ygraine ought to know that Ector's foster son is actually hers and Uther's baby.

Fosterage is a good point: it would not have been unusual or out of reason for a high noble like Uther to place even his heir in trusted care--where assassins wouldn't get at both himself and the boy at the same time. Also, Ygraine might grumble a tad, but get over it.

I've not understood why the GPC makes the point of the abduction and trial plot, except that it accomplishes three things a GM might want: 1. It involves the PKs, 2. It ties them very strongly to Earl Roderick and Salisbury, and 3. it obliterates a huge reservoir of royal goodwill PKs would have gained by killing Gorlois. They get the land, but will no longer linger in the intense favor of the king.

Yet, all this flies in the sense of the sources, which make Arthur's absence from his parents into barely an issue and the main point of dispute being that Merlin either neglected to tell Ector, or swore him to secrecy regarding Arthur's parentage.

When I get to the birth of Arthur, I may just flip it: Merlin needs help because Brastias and eager knights of Uther are after him, rashly assuming the worst (or tipped off by a distraught nursemaid), and the PKs get in trouble for harming/opposing Uther's favorite knights instead of facilitating a treasonous abduction! The trial that follows needs no mention of Arthur, as the motivations of Uther's knights are irrelevant and Ygraine need not even be present.

"But sire! Merlin was carrying your infant heir!"
Uther tersely cut them off, "Of course. We gave him to Merlin for fosterage as We promised!" He turned to <<PKs>> "And you have grievously wounded my most trusted companions with your rash swords! You will pay mightily for this offense against Our Person!"

And off to the races you go. Tossing out much of the GPC trial text, of course. Merlin doesn't have to be banished, just chooses not to hang around Uther much in the next three years, and doesn't have to live under a death sentence and suspicion during the Anarchy.




It is a bit of a pity, actually. In the old Welsh Triads, he is one of the Three Golden-Tongued Knights of Britain, up there with Gawaine. Sounds like a charming guy. :)

One possibility is that Eliwlod's mom is no one especially highly ranked. Heck, he could even be a posthumous birth, and that combination might mean that Uther is not really grooming him as an heir. Or, given that Eliwlod might be born 492, he is just 3 years old when Uther kicks the bucket. I could easily see some ambitious nobleman trying to kidnap him as a pawn and Eliwlod being raised in secrecy to keep him safe. That would explain his absence during Anarchy, while keeping him as a possibility for later.

The GPC (492, gossip) indicates that Eliwlod's mom was rumored to be in the Forest Sauvage somewhere. Which is odd, since I thought the Sauvage appeared on Uther's death! Oh well. BoU puts his birth as 488 and doesn't mention his death. It's a shame, really, since he was important enough to be mentioned for his courtly skills alongside Gawain!


--Khanwulf

I tended to interpret Balin as having killed Eliwlod, tying up both threads. Granted, that depends on reading "cousin" as "kinsman," but trying to figure out who else it could have been is difficult, as all of Arthur's literal cousins (Culhwch, St. Illtud, Caradog Vreichfras, etc.) are accounted for.

Fosterage is a good point: it would not have been unusual or out of reason for a high noble like Uther to place even his heir in trusted care--where assassins wouldn't get at both himself and the boy at the same time. Also, Ygraine might grumble a tad, but get over it.


To make things even more confusing, Malory has Merlin attending Uther after the victory at St. Albans, with the king having returned to London but falling sick again. At his deathbed, Uther confirms Arthur as his heir. There is no Infamous Feast. There is an Anarchy, though, as Merlin doesn't produce the 2+ year old Arthur to the barons, who then proceed to plot against each other and act like minor kings. I can see why Merlin wouldn't do that, but then it beggars belief that Merlin and Sir Ector wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops in 510 that Arthur is Uther's and Ygraine's son! Not only that, in Malory, right after Arthur demonstrates his sword-yanking prowess to Sir Ector:
"And then Sir Ector told him [Arthur] all, how he was betaken him for to nourish him, and by whose commandment, and by Merlin's deliverance." Given that Sir Ector was given this task by King Uther ("And when Sir Ector was come he made fiaunce to the king for to nourish the child like as the king desired; and there the king granted Sir Ector great rewards."), there is no excuse whatsoever for Arthur not believe his foster father's tale. Ector KNEW.

Again, something to chalk up to Malory being inconsistent in weaving different stories together.



When I get to the birth of Arthur, I may just flip it: Merlin needs help because Brastias and eager knights of Uther are after him, rashly assuming the worst (or tipped off by a distraught nursemaid), and the PKs get in trouble for harming/opposing Uther's favorite knights instead of facilitating a treasonous abduction! The trial that follows needs no mention of Arthur, as the motivations of Uther's knights are irrelevant and Ygraine need not even be present.

"But sire! Merlin was carrying your infant heir!"
Uther tersely cut them off, "Of course. We gave him to Merlin for fosterage as We promised!" He turned to <<PKs>> "And you have grievously wounded my most trusted companions with your rash swords! You will pay mightily for this offense against Our Person!"

And off to the races you go. Tossing out much of the GPC trial text, of course. Merlin doesn't have to be banished, just chooses not to hang around Uther much in the next three years, and doesn't have to live under a death sentence and suspicion during the Anarchy.


That would work. Then again, you don't even have to go that far. Uther may very well think that he has already rewarded these PKs well enough, and Uther's gratitude can be fickle. They might not be as high in their favor a year or two down the line than they were right after the grief and anger over Madoc's death.



The GPC (492, gossip) indicates that Eliwlod's mom was rumored to be in the Forest Sauvage somewhere. Which is odd, since I thought the Sauvage appeared on Uther's death! Oh well. BoU puts his birth as 488 and doesn't mention his death. It's a shame, really, since he was important enough to be mentioned for his courtly skills alongside Gawain!


I think a distinction needs to be made between Forest Sauvage, the mundane forest and a geographical location, and the enchanted Forest Sauvage, which expands to cover more land, overgrowing roads and pathways, and becomes much more treacherous for outsiders to wander in. "At the center of Logres, the forests grow thicker" it says, implying that there was already a forest there. Granted, the same chapter says that it becomes known as Forest Sauvage, but I put that down to editorial mistake.

Clearly, the fact that the lady was not introduced at court hints that she was a 'mere' lover, not a wife-candidate. I think Eliwlod suffers a bit that unlike Gwalchmei/Gawaine, he didn't make the transition from Welsh Triads to the chivalric romances. So we don't get to hear about his daring do. He is definitely one of those interesting characters for the gamemaster to throw at their players, especially if they are adventuring in Forest Sauvage during the Anarchy and knew Prince Madoc...

Also, in GPC, it is clear & public knowledge that Arthur is kidnapped as a kid, there is a trial and all that for crying out loud, so how is Ygraine supposed to recognize him as a grown man? It is different when it is a voluntary fosterage, leading Ulfius probably to assume that Ygraine ought to know that Ector's foster son is actually hers and Uther's baby.



There's no mention in Malory that Igraine was informed about Sir Ector being entrusted with her son, making her silence on that understandable.

There's no mention in Malory that Igraine was informed about Sir Ector being entrusted with her son, making her silence on that understandable.

Yes, that is her defense. My point is that Ulfius' accusation is baffling in GPC:

In GPC:
- Arthur is kidnapped by Merlin as a newborn. Neither Uther nor Ygraine have any idea where Merlin took Arthur.
- So why would Ulfius assume that Ygraine would know all along and should recognize Arthur 18 years later?

In Malory:
- Arthur is given by Uther to Merlin to give to Ector for fosterage. Uther knows Ector and has met him.
- Thus, in Ulfius' mind, it is very easy to presume that Ygraine is in on this fosterage plot, and knows that Sir Ector's foster son is actually her's and Uther's. Thus, as soon as Arthur pulls the Sword from the Stone, Ygraine should have come forward and said, yep, that is my son alright, I and my husband, King Uther, gave him as a newborn for Sir Ector to raise. She didn't, ergo she was hiding that information deliberately in order to help Lot gather support for the civil war against Arthur, ergo she is a traitoress to King Arthur. The chain of deduction makes sense.
- Now, Ygraine didn't know of the fosterage, only that Uther gave Arthur to Merlin, which is what she says in her defense.

Granted, it should have been obvious even to her (and everyone else) that Arthur is her son: Merlin shows up with a 18-year old boy who is "the rightwise king born of all England" 18 years after Merlin goes away with King Uther's legitimate, newborn son. But at least it gives her some wiggle room. Arthur himself has no excuse in Malory: he was TOLD by Sir Ector right there and then who he is and how he came to Sir Ector's keeping. That is why I believe that there are two different traditions being told here:
1) Arthur becoming the king without his heritage being revealed, Lot becoming his vassal, the affair with Margawse results in Mordred, the May Babies are kidnapped and Lot goes to war against Arthur. Arthur finds out his parentage only after Merlin tells him, after the affair.
2) Arthur knows from the get-go who he is, and Merlin uses that argument to try and convince the rebel kings to follow this 'beardless boy'. But the kings refuse to listen (or even if they believe, don't think that entitles Arthur to the crown).

Yes, that is her defense. My point is that Ulfius' accusation is baffling in GPC:

In GPC:
- Arthur is kidnapped by Merlin as a newborn. Neither Uther nor Ygraine have any idea where Merlin took Arthur.
- So why would Ulfius assume that Ygraine would know all along and should recognize Arthur 18 years later?



Yes, I think the blame here rests on the GPC adding Uther having second thoughts about Merlin taking his son away (we will assume that in the GPC, as in Malory, this is Merlin's payment for helping Uther have his way with Igraine), which does not happen in Malory, where Uther has no problems with his son (and presumably only heir) being raised in secret by Sir Ector.

I tended to interpret Balin as having killed Eliwlod, tying up both threads. Granted, that depends on reading "cousin" as "kinsman," but trying to figure out who else it could have been is difficult, as all of Arthur's literal cousins (Culhwch, St. Illtud, Caradog Vreichfras, etc.) are accounted for.

Brilliant! I like this link a lot! Plus, while it may be known shortly afterward that Eliwlod was in fact Arthur's cousin, at the time of the killing he would be "only" a highly respected courtly voice and the last surviving male relative of Uther. Which is, I think, enough to earn Balin a spot in the gaol for a bit in righteous kingly wrath. Gotta respect the line of kings, after all....

Regardless, I expect Balin killed the cousin in battle or a duel, when the other requested mercy and it was refused. An impassioned murder, essentially.

Or, Balin could have just lopped off the fellow's head in court. But I think we'd have note of that if so... "Again Balin, with the head-cutting! Out!"

--Khanwulf

Edit: Or, if Arthur knew all along that he was Uther's son, then he would know immediately that Eliwlod was his cousin. Depends on the assumption used.

To make things even more confusing, Malory has Merlin attending Uther after the victory at St. Albans, with the king having returned to London but falling sick again. At his deathbed, Uther confirms Arthur as his heir. There is no Infamous Feast. There is an Anarchy, though, as Merlin doesn't produce the 2+ year old Arthur to the barons, who then proceed to plot against each other and act like minor kings. I can see why Merlin wouldn't do that, but then it beggars belief that Merlin and Sir Ector wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops in 510 that Arthur is Uther's and Ygraine's son! Not only that, in Malory, right after Arthur demonstrates his sword-yanking prowess to Sir Ector:
"And then Sir Ector told him [Arthur] all, how he was betaken him for to nourish him, and by whose commandment, and by Merlin's deliverance." Given that Sir Ector was given this task by King Uther ("And when Sir Ector was come he made fiaunce to the king for to nourish the child like as the king desired; and there the king granted Sir Ector great rewards."), there is no excuse whatsoever for Arthur not believe his foster father's tale. Ector KNEW.

Again, something to chalk up to Malory being inconsistent in weaving different stories together.


I feel like this is another area where the portrayal of Arthur is sanitized a bit by the GPC: he has no idea he's Uther's son and the legitimate heir, he's seduced by Margawse into incest, Merlin and Nineve are solely responsible for the May Babies, and no-one who could know the truth (including the PKs) are speaking up about the abduction/public trial to settle the whole affair before half the kingdoms on the island get trashed. Merlin gets painted as a manipulative bastard (which, literally, he is) with the devil's black heart, and BoU even suggests that he could be responsible for poisoning the Infamous Feast! --NOT a stretch for his characterization, really.

All of this is legitimate story-crafting and a polishing of one of several traditional takes on Arthur. I'm not complaining, but as you've pointed out there are other versions and I'm going to have to be careful in my own re-telling. My preference is to hew as close to sources as possible and pull the levers necessary to keep the GPC-line on track at the same time.

What might I do? Arthur knows he's Uther's son because Ector tells him after the drawing. The other kings know because Merlin tells them--they believe or disbelieve as they like... Uther wasn't their favorite king anyway, and their ambitions after nearly 20 years of Anarchy are still high. Arthur lets himself be seduced by Margawse because, in that moment, he simply doesn't care about their familial relationship--boyhood hormones and the stresses of death and heady rulership if you will; only afterwards does he regret, but still makes bad decisions regarding their child. It's a combination of Merlin's advice, his own ideas, and Guinevere's gentling that pulls Arthur from being the next warlord tyrant into the Once and Future King of legend.

And then it's the failure of his wise councilors that enables him to turn a blind eye toward the rot, later, and let the house come crashing down.



That would work. Then again, you don't even have to go that far. Uther may very well think that he has already rewarded these PKs well enough, and Uther's gratitude can be fickle. They might not be as high in their favor a year or two down the line than they were right after the grief and anger over Madoc's death.

Yeah, basically opposing his household knights on whatever they're doing is enough to rouse his ire, especially if his wife is now irritated at him for handing over their son and taking it out on him in private (Valor 19, anyone?). Uther in a pissy mood is not an Uther you want to be explaining yourself to--even if you ARE a favorite! "Trial" in this case could (and probably would) involve small court proceedings with Roderick frankly only knowing about them because it involves his vassals (in GPC canon).



I think a distinction needs to be made between Forest Sauvage, the mundane forest and a geographical location, and the enchanted Forest Sauvage, which expands to cover more land, overgrowing roads and pathways, and becomes much more treacherous for outsiders to wander in. "At the center of Logres, the forests grow thicker" it says, implying that there was already a forest there. Granted, the same chapter says that it becomes known as Forest Sauvage, but I put that down to editorial mistake.

Clearly, the fact that the lady was not introduced at court hints that she was a 'mere' lover, not a wife-candidate. I think Eliwlod suffers a bit that unlike Gwalchmei/Gawaine, he didn't make the transition from Welsh Triads to the chivalric romances. So we don't get to hear about his daring do. He is definitely one of those interesting characters for the gamemaster to throw at their players, especially if they are adventuring in Forest Sauvage during the Anarchy and knew Prince Madoc...

Noted, RE: Sauvage, and definitely would have been nice to have more of Eliwlod survive. I like the traditional Welsh tales quite a bit. They're something else! They're also not all that compatible with chivalric tenants and I understand why others (Culhwch and Olwen, Mabinogion) are not fully integrated into the GPC.

--Khanwulf

I tended to interpret Balin as having killed Eliwlod, tying up both threads. Granted, that depends on reading "cousin" as "kinsman," but trying to figure out who else it could have been is difficult, as all of Arthur's literal cousins (Culhwch, St. Illtud, Caradog Vreichfras, etc.) are accounted for.

I managed to miss this post earlier, but like Khanwulf says, I do like it, especially as both Balin and Eliwlod are both associated with Forest Sauvage. The only problem is that it gives Eliwlod very limited timeframe to establish his credentials as one of the Golden-Tongued Knights of Britain. The implications are that Balin gets locked up late 510 or late 511 at the very latest. So Eliwlod would have only a couple of years of scene time, which might not be enough.

One potential idea would be to have Eliwlod appear in 509, as the New Great Cymric hope, with Ulfius and others rallying to him. Eliwlod could be convinced by the miracle of the sword to put his own claim aside for Arthur's, especially if Arthur's own heritage is revealed. Which it pretty much has to be, if Arthur is imprisoning Balin for killing his nephew (also, to forestall rumors that he had Balin kill Eliwlod to get rid of a potential rival).

I managed to miss this post earlier, but like Khanwulf says, I do like it, especially as both Balin and Eliwlod are both associated with Forest Sauvage. The only problem is that it gives Eliwlod very limited timeframe to establish his credentials as one of the Golden-Tongued Knights of Britain. The implications are that Balin gets locked up late 510 or late 511 at the very latest. So Eliwlod would have only a couple of years of scene time, which might not be enough.

One potential idea would be to have Eliwlod appear in 509, as the New Great Cymric hope, with Ulfius and others rallying to him. Eliwlod could be convinced by the miracle of the sword to put his own claim aside for Arthur's, especially if Arthur's own heritage is revealed. Which it pretty much has to be, if Arthur is imprisoning Balin for killing his nephew (also, to forestall rumors that he had Balin kill Eliwlod to get rid of a potential rival).

Quick question: on what basis is Balin associated with the Forest Sauvage? I've not found that link, only that he was from Northumbria? Reference please for my research?

We have no actual birth-dates for Eliwlod outside of the GPC, which puts him down as 488 and 22 y.o. in 510. By 528 he's dead and an eagle, which doesn't necessarily mean that he died that year, but definitely beforehand. Madoc is knighted 480, so you could move his dalliance with a Maiden of the Sauvage back to then or even before, resulting in a good extra 7-10 years for Eliwlod to ply his tongue, so to speak. Then, he would be an adult when the Anarchy rolls around and immediately a potential solution to the problem--as well as a tool for powerful people to bat back and forth.

The GPC gives quite a bit of deal-making and settlements, as well as fallings-out, during the Anarchy. Give Eliwlod, oh, 10 years to be a recognized adult and he's reached maturity in 500, right in the middle of the period. He's also been born *before* Madoc was knighted, meaning that his father wasn't even acknowledged as a prince yet and Eliwlod's standing becomes even more questionable; we could assume as well that Madoc never actually named him as heir, given his father's pressures to eventually marry well.

Since we've wandered into these weeds, what might Eliwlod's character be like? Well if he's spent his youth on the outside of Uther's court, and teenaged years watching the trashing of Britain, I can see him arriving either at:

1. The conclusion the Pendragon line's greatest fault is pride. Hence the warning to his uncle.
2. Or, a surfeit of pride himself, which in death-eagle transmutes to his regretful observation--perhaps delivered as a kind of repentance for his own failing.

Regardless, he would be a superb candidate for the great barons to rally around in 509, at the tournament, and if so then undoubtedly many of them would have come with that plan: my side is for Eliwlod. And then the sword and he steps aside, arguing for peace but is still the rallying figure-head for the resistance. Then Balin kills him in 510 and is tossed into prison for 18 months, putting his release by summer of 512.

Additional note: Balin may be a baron. The version of Le Mort I'm staring at now has Arthur inviting "his barons" to try to draw the damsel's sword, and it was his barons who requested Balin's release, which Arthur did "willingly". We're again left with a picture of a political punishment for a death that Arthur probably didn't mind much since (in Eliwlod's case) it cleared a major hurdle for his free reign.

I'm almost getting a Henry II vibe:
"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome bastard?" -- Arthur
"Ooo! Pick me! Me!" -- Balin, leaving immediately ahorse

Could even have the death spark the first serious resistance, and the imprisonment of Balin be part of the settlement with Lot (late July, 510). If that's not desired, then Eliwlod could die at Bedegraine and achieve the same effect: with the other semi-legitimate claimant dead, and the army broken, Lot could surrender with honor. Well, at least until given every reason to rebel!

Good stuff, this line, methinks.

--Khanwulf

PS. Sir Balin: "King Arthur's Royal Assassin" - cutting problems down to size since 510 AD!

Quick question: on what basis is Balin associated with the Forest Sauvage? I've not found that link, only that he was from Northumbria? Reference please for my research?

GPC, p. 157, has:
Sir Bavid of Sauvage
Knight, brother of Sir Balin.
Home: The Tower of the Boar, somewhere in Sauvage Forest.

Balin is also named "Balin le Savage" in Malory, although you are right, Malory also states flat-out that he was born in Northumberland. But since in Pendragon that tends to mean Nohaut & Deira, it doesn't really work for us, now does it? :)

Balin is clearly not a baron (although clearly thought highly by the barons, for them to intercede for him). In Malory: "THEN fell it so that time there was a poor knight with King Arthur,"

I think the slaying of Eliwlod would work nicely. Arthur needs to distance himself from Balin, but since Balin doesn't actually deserve to be killed, Arthur just sticks him in the jail for a while. The barons are a convenient excuse to let him out again, or something, as the furor of Eliwlod's death has died down.

The epithet le Sauvage means 'the wild'... perhaps a comment on Sir Balin's tendency to let his temper get the better of him. He's always rashly killing the wrong people without preamble. Never do we see him named de Sauvage ('of the Wild' or 'of the Forest Sauvage').

The epithet le Sauvage means 'the wild'... perhaps a comment on Sir Balin's tendency to let his temper get the better of him. He's always rashly killing the wrong people without preamble. Never do we see him named de Sauvage ('of the Wild' or 'of the Forest Sauvage').

You are of course correct. My mistake.

There is actually a knight in Malory whose 'surname' is actually 'de Forest Savage', but it is not Balin.

I think that Madog and Eilwlod are another example of "blended sources" , of the sort that Morien described above.

These two come from early Welsh records where Uther Pendragon is not explicitly described as a king of Britain or Arthur's father. Geoffrey of Monmouth and his successors, who do depict Uther as King of Britain and Arthur's father, make no mention of Madog or Eilwlod.

I think that Madog and Eilwlod are another example of "blended sources" , of the sort that Morien described above.

These two come from early Welsh records where Uther Pendragon is not explicitly described as a king of Britain or Arthur's father. Geoffrey of Monmouth and his successors, who do depict Uther as King of Britain and Arthur's father, make no mention of Madog or Eilwlod.

I think we have much more about Madog because there's enough there to build a more intimate legend in play around, compared to Eliwlod. The later literally only survives in the Welsh Triads, in a list of 23 other notables in Arthur's court. And, of course, in the poem as an eagle. That's not much to go on! I don't blame Greg for leaving him out of the GPC.

Madog, however, we know must be dead before Uther, else the Anarchy would have a very different flavor. I shan't wander into "tweak the plot with Madog" territory, but you could... the GPC is bent but not broken.

Sir Bavid appears from my Googling to be a purely GPC invention in order to create the Otherworld attack scenarios that help to show PKs the mess Balin left behind him. And meet a few interesting people. Like Balor. I'm going to guess that Bavid gets a castle in the Sauvage Forest because Balin is called "le Sauvage" and you can nudge him up toward Northumbria at the same time. It's the Castle of the Boar, because I've seen some imagined coats of arms for Balin that include a boar. Ok. Storycrafting fair enough.

I'd still rather agree with Mr. Undead Trout, that Balin got his nickname from well-earned episodes of good ol'-fashioned wild violence. Of which we know only a few. There was an article that called Balin a throwback to the pre-chivalric age, and his story illustrating the necessity for transitioning to the period of gentle romance and adventure, versus he rash tendencies. That resonates.

Rereading the passage, Morien, I see that after Arthur invites his barons to try, it talks about the knights--conflating the two, but also opening up the possibility that other knights present were given the opportunity to try the lady's sword if they wanted to. The inference is also there that many did not even try--finding themselves to mean in the presence of their betters' failure. It also, however, points out that the barons felt very jealous of Balin's success. Whether or not Balin was a baron in fact, he seemed to be in direct service to Arthur (later on Arthur very much wants him back, and he's hanging around when the mourning knight passes by)--or at least we could infer such in the GPC. Also, if Balin was physically restrained and prevented from normal maintenance, yet just recently released, he'd look like a poor knight (poor... because he paid Arthur off?) regardless of how much land he had.

--Khanwulf

What this shows, IMHO, is the possible directions your campaign can take. We have the Welsh traditions which say one thing, then the French writers who showcase a different viewpoint, then the Germanic stories, and so on. Over all this, Greg has codified a certain timeline illuminating certain events and personages. In one campaign, one of my players ended up being the mother of Eilwlod, in a different one, a simple knight was the first to bend knee to Arthur and so on.

Every single scenario, even if it ends up exactly with the same result, usually will have different avenues to get there. That is part of the fun of storytelling. I have found Balin to remain in the background in certain campaigns, and in others, to be front and center. These differences result in different story lines. I think it is fair to say GM's who have run through the GPC once and are running it through a second time, run it a bit differently than the first. Either by correcting mistakes they made the first time, or wanting to slant it in a different direction.

The Pendragons' overall have a problem with "official" heirs. Vortigern has Constans killed, then Aurelius dies without an heir, Uther has only Madog who dies without an heir (or does he?), and Arthur has... (well that depends on your story, doesn't it?).

The Pendragons' overall have a problem with "official" heirs. Vortigern has Constans killed, then Aurelius dies without an heir, Uther has only Madog who dies without an heir (or does he?), and Arthur has... (well that depends on your story, doesn't it?).

What stands out to me most about Constans is that Constantin places him, his eldest son, in a monastery - with his other two sons well in their minority at the time of his death. I'd like to know what could have motivated him to perform such an act. (I've read speculations that this was based on the historical Constantine III, whose son Constans left a monastery to support his father in his bid for Western Roman Emperor - but if so, Geoffrey of Monmouth does not seem to have adapted it well enough to his story; from what I've gathered, the historical Constans entered the monastery before his father became an Imperial claimant.) Layamon's "Brut" puts the blame on evil counsellors (it doesn't name names, though it's tempting to imagine Vortigern as one of them, as the first step in his scheme to seize the throne). It certainly seems a questionable act from the perspective of the king's duty to provide for the succession.

Aurelius can be pardoned for dying heirless; in Geoffrey, his reign is too brief for him to get around to marrying and fathering sons. (The much longer reign in the "Pendragon" chronology is the game's invention.) Uther, on the other hand, lets Merlin take away Arthur without demuring (in Malory - as I mentioned, his "second thoughts" is GPC's invention). It does seem as if this problem indeed regularly afflicts the family, not only the failure to provide heirs, but even a surprising lack of care and concern that seems nothing short of irresponsible.

Aurelius can be pardoned for dying heirless; in Geoffrey, his reign is too brief for him to get around to marrying and fathering sons. (The much longer reign in the "Pendragon" chronology is the game's invention.) Uther, on the other hand, lets Merlin take away Arthur without demuring (in Malory - as I mentioned, his "second thoughts" is GPC's invention). It does seem as if this problem indeed regularly afflicts the family, not only the failure to provide heirs, but even a surprising lack of care and concern that seems nothing short of irresponsible.

In Arthur's defense... he did marry young and presumably tried to have children with Guenever. They are not closely related, so they cannot get an annulment, not easily at least. And he does love her. In addition, he has a perfectly good heir presumptive in Gawaine for most of his career. Granted, he makes an oopsie concerning Mordred, but even so Mordred is the closest thing to a rightful heir that Arthur has by that point.

And it is tempting to wonder whether Arthur, remembering Merlin's prophecy that he and his knights will be wiped out in a catastrophic battle, suspects that there'll be little left afterwards for anyone to inherit - that Britain will not long survive him, so what's the point of an heir?

What this shows, IMHO, is the possible directions your campaign can take. We have the Welsh traditions which say one thing, then the French writers who showcase a different viewpoint, then the Germanic stories, and so on. Over all this, Greg has codified a certain timeline illuminating certain events and personages. In one campaign, one of my players ended up being the mother of Eilwlod, in a different one, a simple knight was the first to bend knee to Arthur and so on.

Every single scenario, even if it ends up exactly with the same result, usually will have different avenues to get there. That is part of the fun of storytelling. I have found Balin to remain in the background in certain campaigns, and in others, to be front and center. These differences result in different story lines. I think it is fair to say GM's who have run through the GPC once and are running it through a second time, run it a bit differently than the first. Either by correcting mistakes they made the first time, or wanting to slant it in a different direction.

The Pendragons' overall have a problem with "official" heirs. Vortigern has Constans killed, then Aurelius dies without an heir, Uther has only Madog who dies without an heir (or does he?), and Arthur has... (well that depends on your story, doesn't it?).

You're exactly right, Hzark10, and yet we're happy to mull over the levers in the GPC, because we do care about the source material--what it might mean, how it might fit together differently yet hold in logical ways, and the like. The reason the GPC is such a great work is that it is a campaign--not a setting book. Greg took great pains to craft a sandbox with distinct sides in which to play, such that it can be used to move through the period at a more-or-less constant clip. To do that he timelined things in a way I've certainly not been able to find anywhere else, and THAT means deciding order, what is included, and what is excluded.

Craftsmanship, in other words. In my case I figure I have one shot to use the GPC, and want to get the most out of it. The commentary of the community is valuable: the ideas of my one head are limited!

So anyway, you make another good point: for all the emphasis on heirs, the Pendragon line seems mighty dismissive of the need for stable succession. I suppose this is in part the collision between our modern perspective, and the realities of medieval life and society. In other words, sure you need an heir, but just any bastard won't do, marrying "wrong" diminishes the honor of yourself and your family, and you may end up tied to new relatives with grievances and characteristics you don't want! Plus! Even if you did toss out a few viable bastards, you might not want to legitimize them if you're young enough to expect a decent heir through marriage. I also get the impression form reading that certainly later Roman, and likely Post-Roman and Medieval society knew very well indeed how to practice birth-control, which was a woman's thing since she was the one at considerable risk of dying from childbirth....

And so, the Pendragons were "ok" with the idea of passing the torch on to brothers, cousins and the like, because it kept things in the family--the most important objective.

Uther made a solemn promise to Merlin to deliver Arthur, should a child result of one night with Ygraine. He followed through on that because honor, and the very real possibility that honking off the archdruid would come back to haunt him (literally, according to some legends of their capabilities). I very much doubt he wanted to give Arthur up, but he was a man of violence and pretty good at shaking off a funk by taking it out on others. Another reason any PKs mixed up in Merlin's departure would get shafted, royally.

Ambrosius is a bigger problem. I'm solving it thusly (YPWV, natch): Ambrosius met Ygraine himself shortly after he invaded Britain, as did Gorlois who was one of the first knights to meet him on the beach and swear loyalty. Ygraine is the daughter of the King of Galvoi (and may be a faerie beach-foundling). Both Gorlois and Ambrosius are vying for her affections and the favor of her father. Ambrosius has riches and honor to offer, but will be subject to the whiles of many ladies. Gorlois has valor and his undying, honest love as a knight of modest means. As a type of Guinevere, Ygraine chooses the later and marries Gorlois, but Ambrosius displays his modest character and kingly generosity by following through on his promise to give Ygraine Tintagel, and then rewards Gorlois with the Duchy. Ambrosius swears to marry only for such a love, and does not find it before he is dragged down by poison and battle, despite the earnest attention of Roderick's mother.

Uther, watching all this (but having not met Ygraine until much later), blames Gorlois for putting himself before the desires of the king, his brother. That said, he at least gets the kingship out of it all, but it poisons his mind against Gorlois and creates the self-fulfilling spiral of Uther's impassioned reign.

YPWV.

Arthur, as merlyn points out, approached the heir question with the same pride he did everything else, and I suspect that there was a mix of satisfaction in his potential heirs (Gawain), love for Guinevere, and plain old stubbornness. Also remember: he digs up Bran's head, proclaiming that Britain needs no protection except for himself! Ok mate... so you're planning on living forever? This is not a man who plans ahead well....

Arthur skates along on his esteemed qualities, but was very much in the same vein as Balin, who would "take whatever adventure was decreed." Circling back a bit, that to me is part of a signal (among many) that Arthur was a man of the ruthless, bloody warlord era--like Balin--and elevated and enabled toward a higher form of court by the gentle touch of Guinevere.

--Khanwulf

Also remember: he digs up Bran's head, proclaiming that Britain needs no protection except for himself! Ok mate... so you're planning on living forever? This is not a man who plans ahead well....

Since that Head had done such a bang-up job with the Romans, the Irish, the Picts and the Saxons already, what's not to trust... :P

Since that Head had done such a bang-up job with the Romans, the Irish, the Picts and the Saxons already, what's not to trust... :P

Well taken. However his speech is not making that point, but how now that they've got Arthur they need no other protection.

--Khanwulf