(The exclamation point is gratuitous.)

So, in the legends, and in the GPC/KAP, people are off making babies all the time, it seems. Even given that Romans had *really good* birth control methods at work (the sources complain continuously about late-Roman birthrates being unsustainable for the Empire, and not from abstinance), what happens with all the little tykes from after-feast shack-ups and the like? Let me try to organize my questions better:

1. Even given that the nobility is literally the 0.1 percent (knights 1 of 1000 fighting men, plus the non-fighting nobles, plus noble women), they're throwing off a lot of baseborn bastards. What is done with these? Does the good (if Lustful) Baron's alimoner spend his time passing out pennies to his unrecognized sons and daughters? Do they all show up and beg for knighthood like in the tales? (Perhaps on a broken-down nag?) Do the commoners in the village shrug and say "when the baron wants a roll you go for a roll, I guess!"--while sputtering priests otherwise enforce commoner chastity?

2. What is the social norm toward commoner bastards, children out of wedlock, and the like? I assume the Church(es) don't like it. Common families can't be too keen on it either since an unwed mother is an extra burden on the family that now has a reduced-value daughter. On the other hand, they'll get more farm help when he or she grows up? More's the merrier? Pagan practices are on one hand demonstrably loose with intimacy (May day, etc.), and presented as filled with financial consequences (as in Saxons!).

3. What's the noble attitude toward rolling the peasantry? Other than mocking the Church's efforts to promote chastity, that is. Certainly ladies who birth out of wedlock are on a fast-track to the nunnery or a quick marriage "down"... or the future husband will demand a higher dowry for her established infidelities (to him, future husband).

4. What about all those royal bastards? If, per gossip, Uther's swapping the laundry staff on an annual basis for new "pretty young things" who aren't (yet) pregnant, that means there are a heck of a lot of Uther's laundry-whelps around in the Anarchy! What about noble bastards from Uther, born after Madoc? (I'm assuming Madoc is special because his mother was noble and Uther gave her a token, implying he's probably the eldest noble bastard of his.)

I mean, genetically speaking, this is how half of Europe ends up related to Charlemagne. But logistically, I'd like to understand how this gets worked out in knightly KAP life, beyond "it doesn't: enjoy your true-to-sources ribald knightly tales!"

--Khanwulf

Some thoughts:
- There will be a different attitude between Christian and Pagan families. In the Pagan tradition the Lust is more prominent and as such bastards will be more common. Among Christian families it will probvably be more throwned upon.
- Bastards are outside the normal line of inheritance and as such not a threat for the trueborn sons. On the other hand they may be a danger when the line of succession becomes unclear.
- Bastards must be recognized by the father to be counted as true bastards. This is especially true among noble bastards. I would also say that a child born from a noble lady has a step up from someone born from a commoner. Whether the father acknowledges his bastard probably depends on his love for his family and whther there are children born in wedlock.
- Bastards rely on their fathers for their carreer (being squired and even being knighted). This will make them loyal subjects to their father, since their own strength relies on that of their father. If they are younger than the heir the relationship with the heir is probably less stressfull than being the elder to the heir. Elder bastards may be seen as rivals instead.
- The Attitude of the community towards the bastard is probably depending on the religion (Christians will frown upon it more), is there a true heir (with no heir, the bastard may be seen as the next in line) and the popularity of the father/ family, is the bastard accepted by the family.
- I think that bastards born from noblemen have a better live than those from commoners, as the last are porbably seen as a burden. They are competitors of the rest of the family.

Oops, this slipped between the cracks since I didn't have time to answer it right away... Cornelius gave some excellent answers already, and here are some of my thoughts on the matter, too:

Generally, baseborn/lowborn bastards don't get even recognized by their noble fathers. The servant girls / laundresses might be dismissed out of hand, and left to fend for themselves (with possibly Cruel checks and possibility of upsetting the villagers, if they were local girls, in lecherous PK case). If the noble in question has more of a heart, he might arrange a suitable enough a match to another commoner, pay a reasonable dowry for the soiled dove, and then wash his hands of the rest. Generally, people who are serial womanizers don't tend to make good fathers anyway.

Now, for the noble-born bastards, things are a bit more different. Those noble paramours cannot be shunted aside quite as easily, without upsetting potentially powerful family members. Which might also explain why Uther is not rumored to have a noble mistress; he doesn't want the hassle. Not to mention that those noble ladies would no doubt be pushing to be made a queen or have this or that brother/father to elevate, etc... Bah, buxom 'laundresses' are much easier and just as much fun! :P

It was not uncommon for noble-born bastards to do quite well, IF THEY ARE ACKNOWLEDGED! Unacknowledged bastards are out of luck; if the King/nobleman intended to look after them he would have acknowledged them! If they get really, really lucky and grow up to be handsome, strong lads, they might show up at court later, looking to be knighted (Sir Tor being the poster child of this, albeit his mother was downgraded into a shepherdess). Unacknowledged noble bastards would be very rare, by the way, since the ladies in question have much less of anonymity and freedom of movement than a milkmaid; it would almost certainly be an 'understanding' with a higher noble, who would acknowledge his bastard. For acknowledged bastards, the father would presumably then smooth the way; for example fast-tracking the lad into a clerical career to become a bishop sooner rather than later, or marry him/her off to an heiress/heir (such as Robert of Gloucester or Joan, Lady of Wales). Of course, not all nobles had the means to do so well for their bastards, but then again, a mere knight generally didn't get as far as to get an 'understanding' with a noble lady, either!

Let me try to organize my thoughts better to answer your specific questions:

1. A lustful Baron might very well have a number of baseborn bastards, and like said in above, he would probably have seen his mistresses married off, or pensioned off, given an allowance to live on and to support the children (possibly set up as a 'widow'). However, as unacknowledged bastards, they would be quite unlikely to normally show up, but fade into obscurity. This being Pendragon, however... see Sir Tor, again. As for the commoners, really depends. If the Baron is well-loved, being a just and a generous liege otherwise, and doesn't go after anyone's wife or rape the women, but instead gives them generous dowries or pensions, the peasants are likely to turn more of a blind eye to it. However, if he is more of a use-and-lose type, raping wives and daughters... well, there are few things more likely to kick off a peasant revolt and/or mass banditry than that. (And while Braveheart is crap as a historical film, it does drive that point home; as does an older film called The War Lord, which has an interesting take on some "old Pagan customs".)

2.
a) Celtic branch probably don't mind too much (historically the Welsh Church tended to toe the Welsh Laws, which accorded the acknowledged bastards the same rights as the legitimate children, which is also how I would GM the Pagans); discourage rather than fight it outright, since they are closely dependent on the local lord's good will. Roman church is less dependent on the local lord, and could bring more force to bear. However, again historically, the Church was a political organization as well, and it is hardly worth rocking the boat over something the local bishop might be doing, too... As long as it is not done to an excess, see below. Pagans would probably not condemn it as an absolute, but more from ownership perspective: you broke it, you bought it kinda way. If it was an equitable arrangement for everyone, no harm, no foul. If seduction, some kind of recompense would be in order to look after the bastard. If rape, then blood would need to answer. I could see a situation amongst the Pagans that if things worked out fine for all concerned, the new mother's value might actually INCREASE: proven fertility, higher dowry and a contact with a (probably higher-ranking) noble, as a stepfather to the nobleman's acknowledged bastard.
b) As for the commoners' views on it, the bastards are generally a bad thing. There tends to be a stigma of dishonor (as you say, it lowers the value of the daughter even amongst the commoners), and what stepfather would really love the cuckoo? Children are a BURDEN, until they grow up old enough, and if the nobleman has not provided for the bastard somehow, it means that the burden lands on the stepfather: it is off his own children. So no, it is not a good thing at all (although see above for a situation with the Pagans where it might work out).

3. Historically, male nobles were pretty much free to do as they liked, but there might be consequences if they dallied too much or too openly. The wife's family might take it amiss (less of a danger to a King, of course). However, Eleanor of Aquitaine supported her sons to rise up in rebellion against their father, Henry II, over Henry flaunting his mistress, Rosamund (who was of a noble family, not even a commoner). Given that Pendragon gives +3 Chaste to all Christians, I would assume that in Pendragon, the knights are not quite so inclined to dally with the peasantry, and a dutiful knight would of course not mock the Church: a Lustful knight would be remorseful of the weakness of his flesh, more likely. A knight who would be irreverent AND lustful would likely become a social pariah quickly enough. Uther gets away with it since he is the King (but it might explain why the prelates of Logres are not voting for him to become the High King...). An unmarried knight keeping a commoner mistress and then putting her aside when he marries a lady, well, no harm in that, now is there? Boys will be boys. A lady losing her virginity before marriage... now that is a scandal, her honor and the family honor besmirched. And it is very difficult to recover from that. If they manage to stamp on the secret (for now), maybe some loyal household knight/esquire officer gets a surprise offer of a marriage. After all, sticking her into a nunnery would pretty much reveal the whole thing. But if the secret gets out, nunnery would be very likely. Marrying down to a mere commoner would not really stop the tongues from wagging, since everyone would guess why such a drastic action was taken anyway.

4. I think I already mentioned this in the above. Uther is not rumored to have noble mistresses (save perhaps a dalliance with a certain Baroness, who didn't get pregnant). I can see potential claimants coming out of the woodworks with Anarchy, but since they are unacknowledged, their claims have very little meaning. Especially since it means that the real competitors like Nanteleod and Idres would have to put aside their own claims for the Kingdom of Logres.

Thanks guys! Appreciate the essay response to my complicated question sets.

I think this gives me a good handle on things, where the power dynamics lie, and how to get PKs into trouble.

Let me ask some follow-up questions:

1. If a noblewoman conceives out of wedlock, would her guardian seek to marry her quickly before the child is born, or is that really a concern? Consider that the progenitor is not available as the husband, for any reason. (If he were, then pressure would be applied if appropriate for them to marry, and save the family/lady's honor.)

2. Does the right of legitimization follow the chain of family authority upward? If the father is unavailable (dead, especially), and the woman can demonstrate adequately that the child is his, could the grandfather recognize it? This of course could get especially important with questions of inheritance at hand.

3. What if the lady losing her virginity before marriage suffers the ravages of some invader? Dastardly knight, Saxon, etc.? My sense is that the circumstances don't matter: she's "soiled goods" and either off to the nunnery or subject to being "disposed of" into a less advantageous marriage as soon as that's feasible... and in the meantime you stamp on the rumors as best you can.

Aside: Nice call out to The War Lord. Wife and I watched half of El Cid yesterday and I found Pendragon very useful in explaining the feudal dynamics and what was actually going on between the characters. There are some *excellent* scenes demonstrating KAP concepts and mechanics at work, including inspiration, the force of honor, and hate. Good stuff.

--Khanwulf

1. If a noblewoman conceives out of wedlock, would her guardian seek to marry her quickly before the child is born, or is that really a concern? Consider that the progenitor is not available as the husband, for any reason. (If he were, then pressure would be applied if appropriate for them to marry, and save the family/lady's honor.)


I would imagine it depends a bit on the guardian: does he wish to make it a full scandal to have a good causus beli against the offender, besmirching that knight's name, too? Or does he wish to avoid a scandal and try to keep everything quiet, and take his revenge later? Or maybe the offender is too powerful (the King) and it is better to shut up and and try to cover things up. In the cover-up case, a suitable husband needs to be found ASAP, who is willing to claim the child as his. Engagement used to be a binding promise to marry, so sex after engagement would not be as condemnable as sex without an engagement. So, even if the child is born a bit in advance (since usually, the woman wouldn't even realize she is pregnant until after a month or two), it might not cause more than some ribald jokes about some people being quite hasty...



2. Does the right of legitimization follow the chain of family authority upward? If the father is unavailable (dead, especially), and the woman can demonstrate adequately that the child is his, could the grandfather recognize it? This of course could get especially important with questions of inheritance at hand.


Whoa, there.

Acknowledging bastards: a private matter, recognizing that the kid is the person's love child. Inherits whatever private property the father/grandfather wishes the kid to have, but not land.
Legitimizing a bastard: a public matter, a huge undertaking including, at the very least, the liege (and the local bishop/abbot for Christians), too. In essence, becomes a legitimate offspring. Very very difficult and rare.

So sure, the head of the family (grandfather in this case) can take the bastard as part of the family, acknowledging him, but the LEGITIMIZATION is not just up to the family.



3. What if the lady losing her virginity before marriage suffers the ravages of some invader? Dastardly knight, Saxon, etc.? My sense is that the circumstances don't matter: she's "soiled goods" and either off to the nunnery or subject to being "disposed of" into a less advantageous marriage as soon as that's feasible... and in the meantime you stamp on the rumors as best you can.


Soiled goods, but I think circumstances do matter. Willing lewdness is much worse than being forced; one is a personal failing, the other is fate.) (Off the top of my head, I'd halve the Honor loss.) But sure, it would lower her 'value' nonetheless, and that might lead to her being sent into a nunnery instead (something she might herself be grateful for) or the family being forced to accept a poorer marriage. Needless to say, the culprit (whether a knight or a Saxon) ought to be hunted down and killed by the family if possible. It is not just a stain on her personal honor, but on the family's as well, since they were unable to give her the protection she deserved.



Aside: Nice call out to The War Lord. Wife and I watched half of El Cid yesterday and I found Pendragon very useful in explaining the feudal dynamics and what was actually going on between the characters. There are some *excellent* scenes demonstrating KAP concepts and mechanics at work, including inspiration, the force of honor, and hate. Good stuff.


Yeah, El Cid is great, too. Sits in my DVD collection and gets plenty of use. :)

Thanks Morien, these are good observations and the distinction between acknowledging and legitimizing is important and, I think, something I was handwaving to the same extent as the GPC: as in, we have the example of Uther and Madoc, but no others.

Laying out cards: I'm working with and possibly toward several plot points. My Pendragon Varies, so I'm taking the stance that female knights are possible and not nearly as offensive to British sensibilities as they will be in later Medieval periods.

So point one is an NPC youngest daughter of Eldol, who tagged along to the Treachery of the Long Knives as a girl--and the camp was overrun before he could get back. He dotes on her more than he should, and she'll be perhaps the first knighted lady and a PK companion for a bit. You've essentially confirmed the social details of the approach, as she may be a love interest for a PK.

Point two is much later and potential (but I expect the hooks to work), and also involve a female PK and Madoc--just before he gets brutally killed. Understanding what happens to any children is helpful as I ponder this plotline, as they'd be used to directly or indirectly ruin the PK's life. Good times.

--Khanwulf

Morien: Interesting distinction between acknowledging and legitimizing a bastard.
But in both cases I would say that the power of the family is a huge factor.
For the men: Acknowledging the bastard means that you accept the lady as part of the family, and probably help in seeing to it that she gets a stipend to live of. This will probably help in soothing the bruised relationship.
For the women: Acknowledging the bastard child will ruin the relationship and will bring a stain upon the ladies family as well. If the family is stronger than their opponent they could besmirch their rivals as well. Keeping it quiet is a way to keep the relationship between the families good.

As with marriage self, I guess acknowledging a bastard is a political choice and in the end it all depends on whether you can win with it or not.

A couple of thoughts on what you said... YPMV, of course.



So point one is an NPC youngest daughter of Eldol, who tagged along to the Treachery of the Long Knives as a girl--and the camp was overrun before he could get back. He dotes on her more than he should, and she'll be perhaps the first knighted lady and a PK companion for a bit. You've essentially confirmed the social details of the approach, as she may be a love interest for a PK.


Your campaign is a quite serious prequel, then? Given that the Night of the Long Knives happens in 463, which is closer to the usual birth years of the default 485 starting knights of GPC. So you are in essence starting with the fathers of the usual GPC campaign?

As for which way to spin it... I doubt Eldol would feel any need to air the dishonor visited to her beloved daughter. If he can hush it up, he probably would. Swear any servants/followers to secrecy which may or may not hold. If possible, have her in some isolated location, surrounded with absolutely trustworthy people for her to go through her pregnancy in secret. But it might not be practicable, what with the Saxons roaming in the island as if they own it, until Aurelius arrives.



Point two is much later and potential (but I expect the hooks to work), and also involve a female PK and Madoc--just before he gets brutally killed. Understanding what happens to any children is helpful as I ponder this plotline, as they'd be used to directly or indirectly ruin the PK's life. Good times.


It is very unlikely, IMHO, that Uther would recognize a bastard of his bastard. Sure, he clearly liked Madoc, but surely he would rather have (another) legitimate son and heir with Ygraine. Even if he would adopt the child into the royal family (legitimizing a bastard is something much easier for a King than for a mere knight), the child would just be 4 years old at the start of Anarchy. He (assuming a son) would be a pawn at best (Ulfius probably appointing himself as the boy's Guardian, if he can get his hands on the boy) and other nobles would not accept his right to inherit the Crown of Logres (since that would curtail their own power). A girl child's hold on the inheritance of the crown would be even more tenuous, although I could easily see a plot in later stages of Anarchy to marry her to one of the primary contestants or their son (such as Sir Alain of Escavalon or Prince Mark aiming for this girl rather than Countess Ellen or even Derfel of Lindsey or one of Ulfius' sons), just to gain a thread more legitimacy for their cliam (which would be based on conquest, in any case).

A couple of thoughts on what you said... YPMV, of course.

Your campaign is a quite serious prequel, then? Given that the Night of the Long Knives happens in 463, which is closer to the usual birth years of the default 485 starting knights of GPC. So you are in essence starting with the fathers of the usual GPC campaign?

My Pendragon varies substantially, especially in the start date. I am, in fact, working from the idea that the PKs are founding members of their lines--effectively mercenaries knighted with Ambrosius' assumption of the throne. This setting gives me latitude to illustrate the customs and more of the setting in adventures up-front, runs the "training wheels" portion earlier, and frees the Uther period for more serious intrigue and mal-rulership just before Anarchy drops things off the cliff.

I find Uther as the "bad king" very interesting, and you don't get that kind of environment in the GPC arc except (maybe) for a bit of the Boy King period, and then the Twilight. And of course that's stretching the definition of "bad" greatly.




As for which way to spin it... I doubt Eldol would feel any need to air the dishonor visited to her beloved daughter. If he can hush it up, he probably would. Swear any servants/followers to secrecy which may or may not hold. If possible, have her in some isolated location, surrounded with absolutely trustworthy people for her to go through her pregnancy in secret. But it might not be practicable, what with the Saxons roaming in the island as if they own it, until Aurelius arrives.

Fortunately, as an off-camera NPC, she had no child from that trauma. Her experience is dressing for Eldol, the character, and how I can go about linking the PKs to the period's luminaries. If all goes well she'll get knighted as a favor to her father, and get married to a PK with a manor in one of Eldol's holdings in Salisbury as dowry. Meanwhile I can link the PKs to Roderick by other means.




It is very unlikely, IMHO, that Uther would recognize a bastard of his bastard. Sure, he clearly liked Madoc, but surely he would rather have (another) legitimate son and heir with Ygraine. Even if he would adopt the child into the royal family (legitimizing a bastard is something much easier for a King than for a mere knight), the child would just be 4 years old at the start of Anarchy. He (assuming a son) would be a pawn at best (Ulfius probably appointing himself as the boy's Guardian, if he can get his hands on the boy) and other nobles would not accept his right to inherit the Crown of Logres (since that would curtail their own power). A girl child's hold on the inheritance of the crown would be even more tenuous, although I could easily see a plot in later stages of Anarchy to marry her to one of the primary contestants or their son (such as Sir Alain of Escavalon or Prince Mark aiming for this girl rather than Countess Ellen or even Derfel of Lindsey or one of Ulfius' sons), just to gain a thread more legitimacy for their cliam (which would be based on conquest, in any case).

Yeah, Uther would prefer an heir through Ygraine--and the processes to obtain one--but any direct, legitimate issue of his would have first claim even over an older, legitimized grandson. Even if he did publicly legitimize Madoc's bastard in, oh, 492, that would as you said result in a lot of arguments among very powerful men who would want to cement their claim to Britain through control or marriage. The prospects for mayhem and bad-blood to last decades are delicious, in much the same way it would be if everyone knew that Arthur was Uther's son.

--Khanwulf

Oh, I agree. Bad guys are so much more interesting to GM than good guys. :-)

One suggestion: Make that daughter of Eldol am acknowledged bastard. A duke's legitimate daughter, even a dishonored younger one, could certainly do better than a landless foreign mercenary. But a bastard daughter? Now that could be a different thing entirely.

Oh, I agree. Bad guys are so much more interesting to GM than good guys. :-)

One suggestion: Make that daughter of Eldol am acknowledged bastard. A duke's legitimate daughter, even a dishonored younger one, could certainly do better than a landless foreign mercenary. But a bastard daughter? Now that could be a different thing entirely.

I'm looking forward to playing up Uther's less redeeming qualities, while at the same time he's exactly what the British (nobility and peasants alike) want and need: a hammer on the Saxons.

Thanks for the suggestion: Eldol's not a duke yet (I'm not even to Vortigern's burning yet!), but you're right: the most famous Earl in Britain would have all manner of suitors for his soiled goods even in a post-Treachery land suffering from Sudden Heiress Syndrome. Eldol's certainly old enough to have no more concerns about offspring, meaning that any recent one would be the love-child he wanted. As opposed to the bickering sons and grandsons he got. I also don't, at this time, want to mix in those relatives; and they would meddle if they have a legitimate sister involved!

--Khanwulf

Here is my wiki-page for Bastards, at least how I run with it. :)

http://w.ikabodo.se/index.php?title=Bastards

Here is my wiki-page for Bastards, at least how I run with it. :)

http://w.ikabodo.se/index.php?title=Bastards

Thanks Gilmere, I greatly appreciate another thoughtful look at it, and the mechanics you wrap around such. In particular your table for a woman's honor loss is handy!

So it's feasible in your campaign for a lady to bear Uther's bastard and actually gain honor in the exchange? Or would you limit the penalty to zero?

Just prodding some potential reasoning, there. I can imagine that in some circles entertaining the king would be regarded as a mark of distinction, in addition to any economic benefits directly or for the noble offspring. This might be off-base, however.

--Khanwulf