I am trying to lay the foundation for a campaign beginning in the Uther Period, so I purchased the Book of Uther to familiarize myself with the time and have been pouring over the forums and various websites for extra info. While I feel good about much of the basic premise I have, I need to clarify the Hundreds, manors with-in, and to whom the fealty is owed.

In Salisbury are several Hundreds belonging to outside Lords - Hillfarm for instance. Since Hillfarm is part of the Baron of Clarence's holdings, if he awards a manor in that area to a knight I assume the knight would owe him fealty. However, the Hundred itself must report to Earl Rodderick since he is Lord of Salisbury correct? If both of those statements are correct, does a knight holding a manor in Hillfarm owe fealty to BOTH the Baron of Clarence and Earl Rodderick?

If Earl Rodderick orders the Salisbury army to assemble and answer the summons of Uther to fight the Saxons, but the Baron of Clarence calls his knights to assemble and repel Irish raiders, whose call do the soldiers of the manor honor?

I realize that the Book of the Estate and Book of the Warlord may have more info on the Hundreds (and may actually answer my questions out right, but it will be a month or two before I can purchase those and I am hoping to start my campaign before then)

In Salisbury are several Hundreds belonging to outside Lords - Hillfarm for instance. Since Hillfarm is part of the Baron of Clarence's holdings, if he awards a manor in that area to a knight I assume the knight would owe him fealty.

Correct. You owe homage/fealty to the liege (i.e. who grants/gifts you the land). (Homage is the usual form for lanholdings, but you can only swear it to one person, usually your first liege, unless a subsequent liege is the King, in which case it can be transferred to him. Others would be just fealties.)



However, the Hundred itself must report to Earl Rodderick since he is Lord of Salisbury correct?


Wrong. Roderick has control over only the land that has actually been granted to him. Hillfarm is not his. He doesn't own the whole county (as of Book of the Warlord, which introduced these more scattered holdings, rather than using territorially concentrated earldoms of GPC and earlier editions). The County of Salisbury is not synonymous with the Vassals of Count Roderick.



If both of those statements are correct, does a knight holding a manor in Hillfarm owe fealty to BOTH the Baron of Clarence and Earl Rodderick?


Nope, just to Clarence, his liege lord.



If Earl Rodderick orders the Salisbury army to assemble and answer the summons of Uther to fight the Saxons, but the Baron of Clarence calls his knights to assemble and repel Irish raiders, whose call do the soldiers of the manor honor?


Their liege lord, the Baron of Clarence. Roderick can go hang, he has no control over Hillfarm.

The only exception is if there is a Duke (or the King himself, via his Sheriff, see below) involved. AFAIK, the Dukes have a royal duty to lead regional defense of their duchies, even though they don't own nearly all the land in the Duchy (probably just a minor part of it, actually). But lets say that the Cambrians invade the Duchy of the Marche. The Duke of the Marche calls, in King's name, the local knights to assemble. Since the King is the liege of their liege, even the knights of other barons would obey, as if it were the King himself sending the summons to war. Same if the Sheriff of Salisbury issues to the summons to all knights in the county of Salisbury, rather than all knights of the Count Roderick of Salisbury.

There are two things here that must not be conflated: the territorial administration for taxation and courts, and the actual liege-vassal relations.

Administration: There is a county of Salisbury, which is subdivided into hundreds, each having their hundred court. The Sheriff is the royal officer in charge of (royal) taxes and justice in the county.

Liege-vassal: There is a Count of Salisbury, who by historical reasons is the major landholder in the County of Salisbury. But he doesn't own all of it. Individual knights follow their lieges, wherever they are.

Finally, there is also the possibility that the nobles have made some deals between themselves. For instance, it could be that the Baron of Clarence has agreed with the Count of Salisbury that his knights in Salisbury will ride with the Count, and in return, some of Roderick's knights elsewhere will follow the Baron's commands, and that both would come to the aid of the other's manors in their spheres of influence. Thus making the local defense more efficient and ensuring that if Hillfarm gets into trouble, help is much closer at hand than at Cirencester. And that is still further ignoring the fact that in many cases, there is no resident knight at a manor, but the knight in question is already with his liege as a household knight.


However, do note that since GPC predates the BotW and BoU, it does use Counties are independent, concentrated holdings ruled by a duke or an earl(/count) or a baron (Baron of Lambor, for instance). In which case, Hillfarm would be owned by the Count of Salisbury, not the Baron of Clarence at all. Personally, I found it easier to stick to the GPC treatment of the counties, rather than make it more complicated.

Thank you Morien for clearing up my misunderstandings. I think the politics of the Hundreds will bring a level of difficulty to my more advanced players without muddying the waters for the inexperienced ones.




Finally, there is also the possibility that the nobles have made some deals between themselves. For instance, it could be that the Baron of Clarence has agreed with the Count of Salisbury that his knights in Salisbury will ride with the Count, and in return, some of Roderick's knights elsewhere will follow the Baron's commands, and that both would come to the aid of the other's manors in their spheres of influence. Thus making the local defense more efficient and ensuring that if Hillfarm gets into trouble, help is much closer at hand than at Cirencester. And that is still further ignoring the fact that in many cases, there is no resident knight at a manor, but the knight in question is already with his liege as a household knight.


Whether such alliances exist or not, if knights from Hillfarm performed some extraordinary service to Lord Roderick would it be uncouth for him to award some gift upon said knights? I'm contemplating throwing a wrench in to the Marriage of Count Roderick adventure at some point by having Lady Ellen and her entourage waylaid by brigands. Most of her escort is dead or wounded and when the PK's (who are on a county patrol for the Earl) come across the scene; only a small, wandering band of knights from Hillfarm are preventing the brigands from making off with the good lady. The characters ride in and "save" the day earning them praise and Glory, and some small reward from the Count (probably a piece of loot from the brigands). If the Count were to be Generous, would the proper course of action be to reward the Hillfarm knights directly or instead give a gift to the Lord of Hillfarm with thanks and appreciations for their long shared goodwill, glories to God that they share such close bonds, further flowery prose... etc?

[I mainly want to accomplish boosting the PK's standing while introducing them to some knights outside their Liege's Court (men bond really well over shared battles after all), and bringing an air of intrigue - the brigands are better armed and more disciplined then common thieves so perhaps this wasn't a random occurrence, who could have been behind this?]

Whether such alliances exist or not, if knights from Hillfarm performed some extraordinary service to Lord Roderick would it be uncouth for him to award some gift upon said knights?

Totally appropriate, IMHO.



If the Count were to be Generous, would the proper course of action be to reward the Hillfarm knights directly or instead give a gift to the Lord of Hillfarm with thanks and appreciations for their long shared goodwill, glories to God that they share such close bonds, further flowery prose... etc?


Depends a bit. If the knights in question are vassal knights, then rewarding them directly would be enough, IMHO. If they are household knights, I'd probably split the reward between them and the liege, and letting the liege decide how much of that reward he wants to kick back to the household knights. In either case, a flowery note of thank-you, praising the valor of his knights, would not go amiss, either.



[I mainly want to accomplish boosting the PK's standing while introducing them to some knights outside their Liege's Court (men bond really well over shared battles after all), and bringing an air of intrigue - the brigands are better armed and more disciplined then common thieves so perhaps this wasn't a random occurrence, who could have been behind this?]

Nice. :)

Thanks again Morien

Some note:
IMHO: The duty of a knight is to protect and serve. Although during the reign of Uther this is mainly directed to their liege and his subjects, a knight might feel obliged to help out other nobles. Especially if a group of nobles is attacked by brigands. If the attackers are knights, the situation is totally different of course and they may not help out at all.

Helping is a way to strengthen the bond between local knights. As you stated knights bond over shared battles. This may ensure that when Hillfarm is in trouble the knights from Roderick may help out. Even if there is no formal decleration to help each other. So I would expect Ealr Roderick to rewards them for their help, especially if one of them got wounded badly or even killed.

If you want to make things more complicated you could have the attackers be knights who Roderick considers as friends. If the PKs come upon the scene and see two groups of knights fighting, both of whom they consider 'friendly'. Do they intervene in for one side of the fight or do they ignore the fighting and only take care of Lady Ellen and her entourage? That may result in some interesting intrigue right from the start. Because who do you believe? Of course there is the word of the Lady Ellen, but did she see enough to know who started it?

So one of the players in the group managed to purchase BotE for us and it talks about awards from higher ranked Lords, the knight is released from his original oath to become the man of the great lord (BotE pg18). This line leads me to expand my previous query about Count Roderick rewarding the Hillfarm knights -

1) If he awards any of them land, are they released from their household knight status to the Baron of Clarence as they would now be vavasours to Roderick?


2) Would this create bad blood between the Baron and Count?


3) Through Oaths of Fealty can a PK hold manors awarded by different Lords in different counties, with his Homage to the highest ranked Lord amongst them? (seems like this sort of thing could lead to horrible conflicts of interest, while also feeling like it might engender the exact sort of intrigue some of these Lords might engage in especially if some of the Barons of the Robe start meddling)

So one of the players in the group managed to purchase BotE for us and it talks about awards from higher ranked Lords, the knight is released from his original oath to become the man of the great lord (BotE pg18). This line leads me to expand my previous query about Count Roderick rewarding the Hillfarm knights -

1) If he awards any of them land, are they released from their household knight status to the Baron of Clarence as they would now be vavasours to Roderick?


If their previous liege releases them from their oaths, yes. Otherwise, they'd become oathbreakers if they leave service without the liege's permission and take a huge hit on their Honor. Why would anyone ever trust them again, when they have gone against their liege like that?

Realistically, though, if the Count and the Baron have friendly relations, the Count would bounce the idea off from the Baron first, to make sure that he is not offering something that the Baron would get upset about.



2) Would this create bad blood between the Baron and Count?


Definitely, if the Count is 'poaching' famous household knights. All the more so because the Baron would likely think ill of the faithless ex-household knight, too.



3) Through Oaths of Fealty can a PK hold manors awarded by different Lords in different counties, with his Homage to the highest ranked Lord amongst them? (seems like this sort of thing could lead to horrible conflicts of interest, while also feeling like it might engender the exact sort of intrigue some of these Lords might engage in especially if some of the Barons of the Robe start meddling)

Yes, maybe (see explanation below) and definitely yes.

Although Homage is usually the first liege lord, and needs to be transferred to the highest one. This might not happen if your first liege is already a baron; a count or a duke is more powerful, but they are not the King, and your first liege lord might not be willing to release you from Homage. If the King becomes your liege lord, then yes, Homage would be transferred to him. Otherwise, additional trouble ensues.

Although Homage is usually the first liege lord, and needs to be transferred to the highest one. This might not happen if your first liege is already a baron; a count or a duke is more powerful, but they are not the King, and your first liege lord might not be willing to release you from Homage. If the King becomes your liege lord, then yes, Homage would be transferred to him. Otherwise, additional trouble ensues.

So the entry in BotE should apply only to grants from the King to vassals of the lessor lords? I've re-read the sentence multiple times and it simply states grants from higher ranked lords releases the vassal from his previous oath. I realize there are myriad problems to such gifts - as you said the previous lord will feel betrayed by his former vassal, as well as feeling slighted by the poacher... and then there will be the problems of the household knights in the Count's service who feel they should have been awarded the gift instead of this "outsider" (at this stage I'm only working on the Uther period of our future campaign, and it seems the knights and lords are a bit more "worldly" and less chivalrous, so jealousy and displeasure seem allowed).

As an aside, should all counties have as many manors as Salisbury does?

And I can't thank you enough Morien for helping me see through the haze... :)

So the entry in BotE should apply only to grants from the King to vassals of the lessor lords? I've re-read the sentence multiple times and it simply states grants from higher ranked lords releases the vassal from his previous oath.

Well I may have injected some of my own reading into it, but I did CMA with 'might'. ;) If the lords are friendly, why not? But if they are more hostile, the shift of Homage (note that the old lord is still owed Fealty) means that the knight has to side with the new lord if there is a conflict. So clearly, the old lord would not be willing to let his Champion shift teams. So I don't think it should be automatic.

Also, if the gap is bigger, like the previous lord having been a mere landed knight instead of a baron, then the gap between the old lord and the new lord is bigger and the shift of Homage makes more sense.



As an aside, should all counties have as many manors as Salisbury does?


It varies, but it is a reasonable rule of thumb. You could also look at the number of hundreds (BotW p.9), although those are (no longer) all of a standard size, either. But taken as a collection of, say, 25 hundreds, the law of averages should come into play, unless for some reason a specific county has particularly big/small hundreds.



And I can't thank you enough Morien for helping me see through the haze... :)

No worries, this is why we all are here: to ask and answer questions and share our experiences of the game we all love. :)

Well I may have injected some of my own reading into it, but I did CMA with 'might'. ;) If the lords are friendly, why not? But if they are more hostile, the shift of Homage (note that the old lord is still owed Fealty) means that the knight has to side with the new lord if there is a conflict. So clearly, the old lord would not be willing to let his Champion shift teams. So I don't think it should be automatic.

Also, if the gap is bigger, like the previous lord having been a mere landed knight instead of a baron, then the gap between the old lord and the new lord is bigger and the shift of Homage makes more sense.

Totally understand the CYA side of it, my personal side is trying to transition myself and my players from the murder-hobo setting where rewards are thrown at them to keep them from overthrowing less powerful npc's into a game where they must interact with powerful social/political ramifications for not only their choices, but also the opportunities that are presented to them. For that reason I am trying to navigate the RAW vs RAI before we start throwing dice. The house rules section here has been very enlightening and a lot of the topics discussed have really brought light to some murky corners. I think it has also helped cement in my mind what sort of lengths PK's will have to go to in order to earn a holding (some of my players are making non-standard starting characters :p ) so they have to earn knighting and have to be worthy of a holding - but likewise, the lord needs to be mindful of rewarding them less another attempt to poach them.




It varies, but it is a reasonable rule of thumb. You could also look at the number of hundreds (BotW p.9), although those are (no longer) all of a standard size, either. But taken as a collection of, say, 25 hundreds, the law of averages should come into play, unless for some reason a specific county has particularly big/small hundreds.



Thanks. I've been looking through the resources online, in books, and homebrew sources looking for quality maps of the other counties and it can be kind of hard to envision all of those minor holdings in some of them. But they have been joyful quests!

What I find the most interesting about KAP is that the PKs are not ruled by intelligence and wisdom. It is the passions and traits that dictate their actions.
And one thing is that passions are not taken away with a simple brushstroke. They are a great source of plotdevice as a GM.

So even if a knight is shifts his homage it does not mean that his loyalty (or fealty) to his original lord is gone. In the old parts both Hom,age and Fealty were called Loyalty(Lord) and you must see them together. When a knight shifts his liege his Homage will change, but his old Homage will become a Fealty.
So the old lord can still call upon this Fealty.

So a Lord may accept a change in the hopes that the knight (who is still loyal to his old lord) be a person he can influence and hence influence the new lords court to be more favorable to him. He probably would do this only if the knight is known for his loyalty to the old lord. Of course the new lord will be aware of this as well and will probably take steps to counteract this.
In the end its the knight who is in trouble. He needs to balance both loyalties and hope to keep both lords happy. This is especially peril of he holds lands for both lords.

Of course the mess gets even bigger if titles get involved. For inspiration just look at the 100 years war between the King of France and his 'vassal' Duke of Aquitaine aka King of England.

In short: Having multiple loyalties (aka Homage and Fealty) will be a great source of trouble.

What I find the most interesting about KAP is that the PKs are not ruled by intelligence and wisdom. It is the passions and traits that dictate their actions.
And one thing is that passions are not taken away with a simple brushstroke. They are a great source of plotdevice as a GM.


Fully agreed.



When a knight shifts his liege his Homage will change, but his old Homage will become a Fealty.


This is true if the knight is a vassal knight to the old lord. However, if he was a household knight, then things change. He would be, IMHO, released from his oath to the old lord*, and swear Homage to the new lord. Now historically, it wasn't impossible for a landed knight to continue as a household knight for the King: more prestigious and better parties that way! But I have difficulties seeing, say, Count of Salisbury agreeing to let his new vassal knight spend all his time in Baron of Clarence's company.

* I think by RAW, the Fealty would go away, since there is no Oath, but I would be tempted to keep it anyway, I admit. I didn't have a problem with old Loyalties lingering after Count Roderick's death, and letting the PKs use it to figure out, what the Count would have wanted them to do. Although I did give them a choice between being loyal to the dead man, or figuring that they were now freed from their oaths and able to engage in whatever powerplay they wanted in the turmoil of Anarchy. More fun all around!



So a Lord may accept a change in the hopes that the knight (who is still loyal to his old lord) be a person he can influence and hence influence the new lords court to be more favorable to him. He probably would do this only if the knight is known for his loyalty to the old lord. Of course the new lord will be aware of this as well and will probably take steps to counteract this.


Yep.



In short: Having multiple loyalties (aka Homage and Fealty) will be a great source of trouble.

Oh yes. To this day, I only have to mention "King of Malahaut" to one of the players to see him cringing. :)

I think it has also helped cement in my mind what sort of lengths PK's will have to go to in order to earn a holding (some of my players are making non-standard starting characters :p ) so they have to earn knighting and have to be worthy of a holding - but likewise, the lord needs to be mindful of rewarding them less another attempt to poach them.


Getting a manor can be a long and arduous task. It needs to be understood that most knights will never manage it.

My rule of thumb is that since Glory 4000 is something that most knights can expect to reach if they live long enough, it is not by itself enough to get a manor. Of course, if someone earns that 4000 Glory while still young, that helps, but it also means they have time to get even more.

Around 8000 Glory, they should be amongst the highest Glory in their county, so at this point, if they haven't already gotten a manor, there is a good chance that some other lord will start thinking about poaching them. So the original liege will probably move fast in coughing up a manor to keep the knight in his service.

Singular, important events and/or damsel-rescues can sidestep the Glory requirement, of course. And if all the other knights are already landed ones, then I usually 'conspire' as a GM to serve opportunities for the laggards to catch up.

Know your players, though. There is nothing that says that the PKs HAVE to be landed knights. Some of my players would have been just as happy to remain as household knights, I feel. Less fiddly and less bookkeeping. By contrast, others really go for the base-building aspect of the game.




Thanks. I've been looking through the resources online, in books, and homebrew sources looking for quality maps of the other counties and it can be kind of hard to envision all of those minor holdings in some of them. But they have been joyful quests!

I fully recommend not sweating too much about it. :) Most players are not into all that nitty-gritty, and if you are basing them in Salisbury as per the default, then you already have more than enough maps and info, IMHO.

What I find the most interesting about KAP is that the PKs are not ruled by intelligence and wisdom. It is the passions and traits that dictate their actions.
And one thing is that passions are not taken away with a simple brushstroke. They are a great source of plotdevice as a GM.


If players actually played according to their passions I would be thrilled. Unfortunately, I feel like the passions and traits will be as meaningful to players as alignment in other games. This is going to be a learning experience for all of us so I have hopes that we will adapt properly and I will see them play their full character, not just murder-hobos out for more loot.

Getting a manor can be a long and arduous task. It needs to be understood that most knights will never manage it.

My rule of thumb is that since Glory 4000 is something that most knights can expect to reach if they live long enough, it is not by itself enough to get a manor. Of course, if someone earns that 4000 Glory while still young, that helps, but it also means they have time to get even more.

Around 8000 Glory, they should be amongst the highest Glory in their county, so at this point, if they haven't already gotten a manor, there is a good chance that some other lord will start thinking about poaching them. So the original liege will probably move fast in coughing up a manor to keep the knight in his service.

Singular, important events and/or damsel-rescues can sidestep the Glory requirement, of course. And if all the other knights are already landed ones, then I usually 'conspire' as a GM to serve opportunities for the laggards to catch up.

Know your players, though. There is nothing that says that the PKs HAVE to be landed knights. Some of my players would have been just as happy to remain as household knights, I feel. Less fiddly and less bookkeeping. By contrast, others really go for the base-building aspect of the game.

The Pendragon 5.2 seems to indicate that PK's get a manor at generation, are you saying you prefer to make them work for them? I like the idea of starting them as household knights and making them earn their way up, but the implication suggests they start with one by default. I do realize that as with all rpg's, I - as the GM - am the final arbiter of all rules and have overall control of the setting.



I fully recommend not sweating too much about it. :) Most players are not into all that nitty-gritty, and if you are basing them in Salisbury as per the default, then you already have more than enough maps and info, IMHO.

Personally, I love all the nitty-gritty and have been collecting maps for as long as I have been roleplaying. I enjoy being able to show players their environs and watching them stand around a map discussing the best approach for an attack, or perfect place to build their empire, etc. Furthermore, my most experienced player has already thrown me my first curve (as expected) and informed me he wants to play a Zazamanc. We've discussed this is out of time as they generally aren't supposed to become viable until the later periods, but story wise I think I can wrangle it, I just don't know that I can tie him to Salisbury. Historically there was a Berber who governed Britain for the Romans between 139 and 142 - Quintus Lollius Urbicus - so he wants to play a descendant who has come to explore his lineage (since he is a seventh son and will never inherit back home). This is a stretch and going to make his early years difficult, but he wants to maintain his personal heritage so I will accommodate the best I can. Where I was originally looking at the politics that could be stirred by the Barons of the Robe, I'm now wondering if I might not have to make their original lord one of these Barons :confused:

The Pendragon 5.2 seems to indicate that PK's get a manor at generation, are you saying you prefer to make them work for them? I like the idea of starting them as household knights and making them earn their way up, but the implication suggests they start with one by default. I do realize that as with all rpg's, I - as the GM - am the final arbiter of all rules and have overall control of the setting.


The default for KAP 5.2 is:
1) Cymric
2) Vassal Knight
3) Salisbury

It sounded to me as if you were going to change many of those, given that you said some of them would be not knights at all at the beginning. :)

Starting out as household knights, especially if your players are new to the game, might be a good idea. It gives them more of a focus, and doesn't add the additional layer of land management. You can easily make some of them like 2nd sons, and then simply kill off the father and the older brother at an opportune moment, if you want them to inherit after all.


Furthermore, my most experienced player has already thrown me my first curve (as expected) and informed me he wants to play a Zazamanc. We've discussed this is out of time as they generally aren't supposed to become viable until the later periods, but story wise I think I can wrangle it, I just don't know that I can tie him to Salisbury.

Probably easiest way of doing this is to have his father be a continental mercenary who joined Aurelius in 466 to invade Britain, and to wrest the crown back from Vortigern. The father did well enough to become a household knight of Aurelius (or if you are starting them all as vassal knights, he was rewarded with a manor in Salisbury for saving young Roderick's life in one battle, or some such), and his son, the PK, is now a household/vassal knight in Salisbury. However, if the player wants to explore more the 'tall handsome foreigner' -angle, it is also possible to bring him in as a new knight. Roderick might have hired him on as a mercenary knight, just for the sheer novelty value, until he can prove himself.

The biggest challenge, or at least thing-that-should-be-borne-in-mind is that it's difficult to get Household Knights involved in one of the USPs of Pendragon - its dynastic game. It's been generally 'accepted' that since Household Knights don't have any means of supporting a wife, they don't have much opportunity for marriage, and don't have much, other than their name (Glory) to pass on to a descendant anyway. I suspect that's why the default has been 'Vassal', for beginners at least.

There are obviously means to get around the restriction: siblings, bastards (though what's to legitimise wrt the child of a HK?). My favourite though is to give HKs the opportunity for marriage within the Lord's Household. His wife has maids, and they're already in the accounting, so how better to cement loyalty to the Solar, and ensure the supply of next generation's knights than to bind Lord's and Lady's servants under God?

The biggest challenge, or at least thing-that-should-be-borne-in-mind is that it's difficult to get Household Knights involved in one of the USPs of Pendragon - its dynastic game.

Yeah, it is an issue, but as you list out, there are ways around it. The Lady's ladies-in-waiting being one of my preferred solutions, too.

One of my preferred starting strategies is to keep the PKs' fathers alive for the first few years. They are still the heirs, but this gives the players some time to adjust. The GPC Expansion 480-484 in Book of Uther is especially nice in this regard, as you can easily kill the fathers off in 484, although Battle of Lincoln 490 would work in unextended GPC, too. Their fathers would definitely want grandchildren, so getting the heirs married would be a priority, with the fathers supporting the wives (either from Discretionary Funds or by the wives already taking care of the manor, if the mothers of the PKs are already dead). Not that they necessarily need to marry right away: having a few years while they can flirt and interact with potential brides goes a long way into making the wives more than just a name and Stewardship stat on the character sheet.

In the end, it is fully up to the GM to come up with an excuse, or even handwave it. But I do agree that the dynastic play is one of the main things that make KAP a unique RP experience.

The default for KAP 5.2 is:
1) Cymric
2) Vassal Knight
3) Salisbury

It sounded to me as if you were going to change many of those, given that you said some of them would be not knights at all at the beginning. :)

Starting out as household knights, especially if your players are new to the game, might be a good idea. It gives them more of a focus, and doesn't add the additional layer of land management. You can easily make some of them like 2nd sons, and then simply kill off the father and the older brother at an opportune moment, if you want them to inherit after all.


I had imploded my previous group because it always devolved to one person killing everything and everyone else standing around to loot. It didn't matter whether we played a D20 or D10 system, the man would just crit after crit after crit, and there was little development of any of the characters because they all knew he was going to be their eternal savior. So after much gnashing of teeth I walked away. After a brief time away he called and asked if next time we game he could play a child - that way his stats would be lower, he would have justification for not being in the front line all the time, and the other players would have to be in the lead. So I thought of finally trying out Pendragon and letting him start as the squire to one of the other players. He'll have a harder time crit'ing, his PK mentor will actually have to roleplay teaching him and defending him, all while realizing that his squire character's behavior has an impact on the PK. I had intended for the other 2 to be freshly knighted, still young but ready to go. One of those 2 doesn't know the game or system so I intended for him to be a household knight while he found his comfort level, so 2 out of the 3 were meant to be non-standard in that sense. The third player is the person who introduced me to the system about 10 years ago and he's always wanted to get in to the crunchy side of the manor and management. He's an experienced gamer, and loves history so I thought we'd give it a go and then he dropped the Zazamanc on me......



Probably easiest way of doing this is to have his father be a continental mercenary who joined Aurelius in 466 to invade Britain, and to wrest the crown back from Vortigern. The father did well enough to become a household knight of Aurelius (or if you are starting them all as vassal knights, he was rewarded with a manor in Salisbury for saving young Roderick's life in one battle, or some such), and his son, the PK, is now a household/vassal knight in Salisbury. However, if the player wants to explore more the 'tall handsome foreigner' -angle, it is also possible to bring him in as a new knight. Roderick might have hired him on as a mercenary knight, just for the sheer novelty value, until he can prove himself.

These are 2 magnificent suggestions. The first alleviates the whole "fear the foreigner" schtick that might come up. His father and mother are local so he isn't unique, his elder brothers may still be mercenaries on the continent, or dead from the fighting so he stands to inherit after his father passes. The second was the way I was previously leaning, with him being hired as a mercenary cavalryman after arriving in Londinium in 480. I did not think of having Roderick hiring mercenaries, I had thought that Bishop Decius might - and since he is originally from North Africa he would not have reservations about a Berber. It was how to transition him from mercenary to the Church to vassal of Roderick that was twisting my mind in knots, but both of these suggestions completely alleviate that. :D Thanks

...He'll have a harder time crit'ing...
Just to note that mechanically, this won't be entirely true. Until (effective) skill breaks the 20 mark, everyone has the same 5% chance of critting. It's true that as a lower-skilled starting character, they may have less opportunity to get their effective skill over 20 (usually happens in lance charges and when attacking foot from horse, as well as when Inspiration strikes, at least to begin with), but in the general run-of-the-mill play, everyone gets the same crit chance. A Squire's biggest restriction, which will help with your dice-monster's overshadowing of everyone else is that they don't often actually get to play in combat situations. Doing things that might accrue them Glory is (canonically) pretty much the sole perogative of Knights, so in most battles, skirmishes and just plain fights, the Squire won't be rolling weapon attacks at all. Which, while it solves the show-stealing problem, might not feel like much fun to the player. Of course, YPMV, and having the 'best' Squire charging knee-to-knee with the rest of the Eschille might be unremarkable.

Just to elaborate on Womble's explanation of the role of the squire. He has a lot of tasks he should do:
- Take care of the excess horses. Aside from the knight's warhorse there are usually more horses around. He will have the duty to keep them together and safe.
- Supply the knight with a new horse if he gets unhorsed. This will usually be his own.
- Supply the Knight of a new weapon. When the knight loses his weapon (for whatever reason) the squire needs to supply a new one. Although the knight probably will switch between a spear and sword after he has lost the spear, he may call out for a new one if he has a chance to charge.
- Supply the knight with a new shield. If the shield gets broken or damaged the squire hands out a new one. During downtime the squire then will try to repair the shields of course.
- Take care of the wounds of the knight if he gets severely wounded or if the was able to get outside the fighting.
- At last the squire will probably patch up the armor if there is time to do so.
Outside the combat the job will be everything that the knight needs. This can also include carrying messages, make camp, make the evening dinner (if they are camping in the wild), serve his master at the dinner table and make small repairs to equipment, etc.

What he does not do is grab his sword and go into the fighting himself. That's not his job. That's the knight's job.
During combat he will probably try to stay out of the fighting and keep an eye out for the needs of his master.

If players actually played according to their passions I would be thrilled. Unfortunately, I feel like the passions and traits will be as meaningful to players as alignment in other games. This is going to be a learning experience for all of us so I have hopes that we will adapt properly and I will see them play their full character, not just murder-hobos out for more loot.

There is a big difference between alignment and passions and traits.
In most games alignment is just a way to describe the character. In D&D only a few classes are bound by their alignment and have consequences if the act outside their alignment (like the paladin being evil). And if no one plays such characters then there is no need for the alignment anyway.

KAP is different. Traits and passions have consequences.
First of all Knights do have a code of conduct. They usually even have a standard that is beyond their own reach due to failts in their character, like chivalry. As a matter of fact everyone has a code of conduct.
As a knight you must be loyal to your lord, but also be loyal to your family. as a christian you will have to live according to certain standards. So being a good christian knight you will have to be a chaste, energetic, generous, modest and temperate. But you will also be loyal to your lord and your family.
IMHO it is the duty of the GM to create situations where these are in conflict. Will you be loyal to your lord? Even if you are confronted by the cursed saxons, who just violated your home?
And this is something I find the charm in the KAP system. Whatever you choose it will have consequences (and something you as a GM should enforce). So Lusty John will notice that lords with daughters tend to be wary around him.

I also suggest to read the chapter on Oaths in the core book (page 17).

And a note about loot:
In most games you need it to get better gear. In KAP you already have the best there is as a knight. You wear the best armor and have the best weapons. But that does not make you safe against the (critical) hits of your opponent. And being adorned with a lot of gold does not help against the mob of angry bandits with inferior quality spears. They still kill you.

KAP is different. Traits and passions have consequences.


Fully agreed.

I might also point out that on occasion, you should play up the positives, too. Someone who is Famously Honest (16+) does speak the truth even when it is inconvenient (unless the player insists on rolling and FAILS the trait roll), but will also be believed.

The more you weave the Traits and Passions to the adventures and the story, the more the players will pay attention to them, in my experience.



And a note about loot:
In most games you need it to get better gear. In KAP you already have the best there is as a knight. You wear the best armor and have the best weapons. But that does not make you safe against the (critical) hits of your opponent. And being adorned with a lot of gold does not help against the mob of angry bandits with inferior quality spears. They still kill you.

Quite. If anything, being adorned with a lot of gold makes you more of a target! After all, you are wearing expensive loot, and are probably worth a nice ransom, too. It is not just bandits you need to worry about, but enemy knights and Saxons, too. The latter especially might make a beeline to your manor, if they hear about the treasures you are hoarding...

Doing things that might accrue them Glory is (canonically) pretty much the sole perogative of Knights, so in most battles, skirmishes and just plain fights, the Squire won't be rolling weapon attacks at all. Which, while it solves the show-stealing problem, might not feel like much fun to the player. Of course, YPMV, and having the 'best' Squire charging knee-to-knee with the rest of the Eschille might be unremarkable.

Emphasis added. I agree with that sentiment.

Uthred, I could see a campaign where you'd have one player starting as a young knight, and the other one as the wise, older squire, or even a more 'default' one with a young knight and an even younger squire, but I don't see particular advantage in making one player start as a squire and hence prevent him from actually doing stuff during the game sessions, until he becomes a knight. Which, if you stick to the "1 session per game year" rule of thumb, would happen in 6-7 sessions (depending if you go with the 14 or 15 year old squires). The only 'advantage' you gain from that is that the other PKs are more experienced (being older), but what goes around, comes around: the older PKs are likely to retire earlier, which means that when they bring in their young sons, the 'lucky' player is still playing his first character, who is now in the prime of his life, much better than the other, newbie PKs. Everything else being equal, of course. If he somehow magically manages to crit all the time, and you don't prevent him from rolling, he will still do so even as a squire.

Also, I don't believe in luck, so either he has dice that are faulty (i.e. rolling 20s and 10s more often than they should), or he is cheating. In the former case, he will actually spend most of the time fumbling (20 is a fumble in KAP, if his modified skill is less than 20), so problem solved when he switches to a different die. In the latter, you'll (the GM) just have to watch his rolls. Or he had minmaxed his character so that he got more criticals by weapon choice and specialization and feats; it can be done in KAP too by specializing on a single weapon skill and using Passions to push it the rest of the way, but all characters can done that, and Passions are not always applicable to the situation. So he would be much more unlikely to be able to minmax right from the start.

Finally, unlike d20 and other D&D-derived systems, KAP is VERY unforgiving if you are outnumbered. Three regular knights can take down Lancelot. Any normal PK would be in serious trouble against two knights. So even if it would happen that the one player would still somehow manage to crit often, the other PKs are still important. Outside the battlefield, there are also many skill and trait tests to be done, too. It is not only about the kill score.

There is a big difference between alignment and passions and traits.
In most games alignment is just a way to describe the character. In D&D only a few classes are bound by their alignment and have consequences if the act outside their alignment (like the paladin being evil). And if no one plays such characters then there is no need for the alignment anyway.

KAP is different. Traits and passions have consequences.
And to expand further:

Traits and Passions are also mechanical levers for the ref: the player is required to have their character follow their heart. If they don't want to, there's a mechanical method for sometimes allowing it, but where the Trait/Passion is 'significant', this won't often give the player the latitude to act 'out of character'. And if they do manage to roll under their 'low half' trait, or fail their Passion roll, there are mechanisms in place to reduce the Trait/Passion to reflect the character's actual behaviour, so they'll get less Glory and/or have less chance of Inspiration in the Passion that they evidently aren't as committed to as the character sheet initially suggested.

In a game where the players do buy into their character's personality-as-defined-by-numbers, any factors of Notable level become plot hooks by which the GM can hang the player... My character in my current game has one Passion of 30, a couple at 20 and more than half his Traits are Notable. I'm effectively an automaton, and any enemy who cares to attend to my weaknesses can probably push me into all kinds of disastrous actions; to date that hasn't been a big problem, but we're entering more complex times now, with the Boy King ascending to the Throne, and I'm pretty much guaranteed some sort of Lancelotian downfall, if I don't get retired by Aging Rolls first.

And to at least some extent, the mechanical enforcement of personality should mean that the advantages conferred by Notable Traits and Passions become balanced out by the restrictions they impose on the character.

Oh yes. To this day, I only have to mention "King of Malahaut" to one of the players to see him cringing. :)

The gold standard for conflict of interest from the BoU is, I think, Duke Corneus. He holds lands from Uther and the Dukedom and the title of sheriff, but his "extensive holdings under the King of Malahaut" obligates him to respond to that sovereign's needs as well.

It (plus Corneus' ambitions) placed him squarely in Uther's crosshairs and made Lindsey first stop on Excalibur's UK tour.

--Khanwulf

Getting a manor can be a long and arduous task. It needs to be understood that most knights will never manage it.

My rule of thumb is that since Glory 4000 is something that most knights can expect to reach if they live long enough, it is not by itself enough to get a manor. Of course, if someone earns that 4000 Glory while still young, that helps, but it also means they have time to get even more.

Around 8000 Glory, they should be amongst the highest Glory in their county, so at this point, if they haven't already gotten a manor, there is a good chance that some other lord will start thinking about poaching them. So the original liege will probably move fast in coughing up a manor to keep the knight in his service.

Singular, important events and/or damsel-rescues can sidestep the Glory requirement, of course. And if all the other knights are already landed ones, then I usually 'conspire' as a GM to serve opportunities for the laggards to catch up.

Know your players, though. There is nothing that says that the PKs HAVE to be landed knights. Some of my players would have been just as happy to remain as household knights, I feel. Less fiddly and less bookkeeping. By contrast, others really go for the base-building aspect of the game.

First, thank you Morien for these benchmarks--really appreciated!

But I think a great motivation for acquiring a manor would be the desire to marry and continue the family line, no? The base understanding from the book is I think that landholding is what enabled sustaining a family at a proper level of support.

Now I suppose if the wife is also employed by the lord, then it could work out, but the family would probably live at a lower standard than whatever the lord carries the knight at--one less?

Have I gone amiss?

Edit for Uhtred:
Just to echo the others, you've got a group of just the right size (3-4) for each player to be able to shine well. Assigning one player the role of lacky can work--if they want that--but you also need to track with them how they grow out of that and when. It sounds like your player has taken the situation to heart and is conspiring with you to encourage the rest of the group to grow, which is an excellent place to be!

For KAP you rightfully discern the system has built-in tools to help you:

* Highest Glory is supposed to take the initiative. Arrange for someone other than Mr. Crit to have highest glory at start by a good margin (older knight).

* The crit system has already been touched on. They tend to happen at random, when impassioned, or when structuring situations to hunt them. They'll happen, but everything PKs can do NPKs can do as well, and you have more of them to throw at the players!

I have a crit-hunter PK who's about as much trouble as a starting Lancelot. He's easy to handle: he gets two opponents all the time, because he'll put himself out there for that. Encounters then get structured so my other PK (of two) gets a challenge and Critsalot (not knights yet, so no 'sir') gets an extra helping. And then... as reputation spreads everyone who meets him will be making passion checks because they know they need their A-game, and things even out.

Leave your player to simmer long enough behind the "older" knights, and he'll find a way to get skill up and arrive at a similar place. Or, switch to social rolls.

As a side note, I commend Morien's house rule where you adjust skills after opponents are assigned--if both have more than 20, the difference over 20 is cancelled out until one is at 20 and the other, above. In this way the relative skill difference is reflected and crit incidence kept at a minimum. (Ex: 24 vs 26 = 20 vs. 22, so a crit on 20 and 18-20. Instead of crit on 16-20 and 14-20!)




--Khanwulf

But I think a great motivation for acquiring a manor would be the desire to marry and continue the family line, no?
Aye. It's a great motivation. But it's not going to happen quickly, and so your first generation of knights might be 6-10 years getting there, which means there will be an interregnum between them becoming too old to adventure and their firstborn son getting old enough to knight/inherit. That is, if they survive the years it takes to get enfeoffed - any player who's character dies is going to be starting over on the 'getting enough notice to earn a fief' ladder, pretty much. For a concrete example, the GPC I'm in at the moment, my first (batchelor HK) knight died at Terrabil, and so my second knight (also HK) didn't even get married until a couple of years before Arthur cropped up. He's pushing 40 and his eldest is 4... The only successor knights-of-the-blood coming into play as the first generation (including a couple who got started a couple of years in as replacements for early casualties) are one who was already born to a Lady-becomes-a-Knight when the game started, and the son who got Changelinged and is chronologically about 9, though has lived his full 21 years (mostly) in Faerie.

For my money, as a player looking forward to the Dynastic aspect of the game, I'm a bit sorry to have missed out this time.



The base understanding from the book is I think that landholding is what enabled sustaining a family at a proper level of support.
You're not wrong :) There has been an amount of discussion about how that affects the supply of Noble sons to replace losses to War and Age, and that I think is where the spinster-Lady's Maids were brought into the thought-experiment :)


Now I suppose if the wife is also employed by the lord, then it could work out, but the family would probably live at a lower standard than whatever the lord carries the knight at--one less?
I think it would still be Ordinary; there's a lot of 'economy of scale' to suggest that the cheaper 'Maid upkeep' wouldn't mean the knight would have to be Poor instead of Ordinary.

Now I suppose if the wife is also employed by the lord, then it could work out, but the family would probably live at a lower standard than whatever the lord carries the knight at--one less?


If the Lord gives his HHK permission to marry and promises to support the wife (who will work for the Lord's wife to earn her keep), then the Lord would also pay for the children's upkeep (actually part of the Married Lady-in-Waiting £2 budget). They would be Ordinary. Also, one thing that my players were keen on doing was to allow their household knights to marry, as long as the wife in question was a decent enough Steward. Thus, they didn't have to hire a steward*, and that £2 went to supporting the HHK's family, hence cementing their loyalty.

I would definitely also allow the Officers to support their family out of their extra maintenance, even though this would be slightly incorrect, since the extra maintenance is actually due to the better food and finer clothes they get from their Lord. But just to make it easier on myself.


* Just to explain a bit... We have a house rule that unless the manors are relatively close together, like half a day's journey away, then you will need another steward to look after your new manor. Since the PKs tended to earn manors all over Logres (and even opposite sides of Salisbury), they needed extra stewards. I think RAW is that you need a steward per county or some such.

EDIT: Just to add to that... you don't actually have to worry about it in RAW. The stewards come out of the Court expense, if they are needed for the outliers. It only matters if you are actually bothering to keep track of the courtiers, and if you have like 2-3 manors. If you have an honour, one or two stewards won't be more than a blip.

Some more notes on how to deal with Critalot.
- No dice rolls. In my games I expect my players to roleplay their characters. So if sir Honest is asked to lie he will have a hard time of it, and may even flatout refuse. Even without any dice rolled. It will focus the game on roleplay in stead of roll play. If during those encounters I feel a PK acts a certain way he may get a check for the apropriate trait or passion. So I rewarded the PK who kept telling the rest that those Saxon ambassadors were devious and would betray them. He acted out of his hatred for them, but I also gave him a check for his suspicious.
- Personal quests. In my games quests are almost always personal. One PK gets a quest to slay Big Bad and the others accompany him and help out where needed. But it is the PK who needs to fulfill the quest. So when they meet the Big Bad its the PK who goes first and has a chance for glory, before sir Critalot comes along and ruins it for everyone. If the PK succeeds he gets the most glory.

Aye. It's a great motivation. But it's not going to happen quickly, and so your first generation of knights might be 6-10 years getting there, which means there will be an interregnum between them becoming too old to adventure and their firstborn son getting old enough to knight/inherit. That is, if they survive the years it takes to get enfeoffed - any player who's character dies is going to be starting over on the 'getting enough notice to earn a fief' ladder, pretty much. For a concrete example, the GPC I'm in at the moment, my first (batchelor HK) knight died at Terrabil, and so my second knight (also HK) didn't even get married until a couple of years before Arthur cropped up. He's pushing 40 and his eldest is 4... The only successor knights-of-the-blood coming into play as the first generation (including a couple who got started a couple of years in as replacements for early casualties) are one who was already born to a Lady-becomes-a-Knight when the game started, and the son who got Changelinged and is chronologically about 9, though has lived his full 21 years (mostly) in Faerie.

For my money, as a player looking forward to the Dynastic aspect of the game, I'm a bit sorry to have missed out this time.



You're not wrong :) There has been an amount of discussion about how that affects the supply of Noble sons to replace losses to War and Age, and that I think is where the spinster-Lady's Maids were brought into the thought-experiment :)


I think it would still be Ordinary; there's a lot of 'economy of scale' to suggest that the cheaper 'Maid upkeep' wouldn't mean the knight would have to be Poor instead of Ordinary.

I think maybe what's causing a mental hiccup for me on this question is the disconnect between the activity cycle of your "average" household knight, who is really just an up-jumped cavalryman with a label that lets him hang with certain social circles, and landed vassal knights with inheritance concerns. The former are a dime a dozen and replaceable by raising up valiant (or at least loyal) men-at-arms. This changes in Arthur's middle years, because by then the land was at peace long enough that it groaned with excess knights who would have otherwise died in battle.

The latter are a special class by virtue of offering something through marriage: money and power. They have to ensure that the fief continues in the family name, and need to marry early and well and produce heirs. Even so, landed knights are a minority among the ~2000 knights in all of Logres, and if the rest of those knights are not marrying and producing heirs to the title then the family will go extinct in a few generations, tops.

So there must, realistically, be a lot more side-marrying going on with maids and the like. Which is more realistic since the lower-class girls will want to marry asap--they gain status and ability to manage men by doing so, and if they hit 25+ spinsterhood their fathers will want them "off the books" quickly. The alternative is having a large number of roudy fighting men about all the time, seducing said maids and creating bastards the family has to acknowledge in order to perpetuate itself... unless non-knight members carry on the banner, which is also possible.

But I'm causing a digression again, and apologize.

For Sir Critalot, yes, the other excellent suggestion is in a small group to assign quests explicitly to each PK so they won't step on each other's toes. This is a bit harder to justify in DnD, but for KAP it makes perfect sense as it works off family and loyalty ties. The group goes along for the same reason and backs up the primary actor. Everyone has their moment of Glory and can pursue their own niche in combat or court.

--Khanwulf

I think maybe what's causing a mental hiccup for me on this question is the disconnect between the activity cycle of your "average" household knight, who is really just an up-jumped cavalryman with a label that lets him hang with certain social circles, and landed vassal knights with inheritance concerns. The former are a dime a dozen and replaceable by raising up valiant (or at least loyal) men-at-arms.

I see what you're saying, and I think that was true at the start of the institution of Knighthood, but I get the impression that by 485 that's well beyond starting to change: the Noble class has consolidated its hold on being Kinghts, and your birth (i.e. being the son of a knight, and hence a Noble) is by default more important than the proven valour/skill of a commoner retainer. Why else would Knights be made out of callow 21 year old youths, rather than the combat-honed 30 year old sergeant? I think by the time of the GPC, a Knight is expected to be more than a jumped-up Cavalryman.

But even if Noble blood isn't that important a prerequisite for Knighthood, for the game's Dynastic element to take hold, if you start with Bachelor Knights, it's probably a good idea to let them marry if they want, even before they get their own lands, in order to get the Dynasty started.

I see what you're saying, and I think that was true at the start of the institution of Knighthood, but I get the impression that by 485 that's well beyond starting to change: the Noble class has consolidated its hold on being Kinghts, and your birth (i.e. being the son of a knight, and hence a Noble) is by default more important than the proven valour/skill of a commoner retainer. Why else would Knights be made out of callow 21 year old youths, rather than the combat-honed 30 year old sergeant? I think by the time of the GPC, a Knight is expected to be more than a jumped-up Cavalryman.

But even if Noble blood isn't that important a prerequisite for Knighthood, for the game's Dynastic element to take hold, if you start with Bachelor Knights, it's probably a good idea to let them marry if they want, even before they get their own lands, in order to get the Dynasty started.

I think you're right, and that the default assumption is that by the time Ambrosius returns and re-formalizes the landowning warrior class one of the reactions--purposeful or otherwise--was to emphasize the noble nature of the class as opposed to relying entirely on "might" to carry authority. After all, Ambrosius could have gone down hard were he not led by a ferocious public relations campaign that survives to this day! (Vortigern basically handed him a kingship as soon as he showed up in an effort to buy him off... of course, he had 2000 [Alan/Sarmatian] cavalry looking to get paid, too, which probably figured in.)

Then Uther, who loved might-make-right, but only if it was HIS might and HIS right, would have had even more reason to push the culture to limit free acceptance of merit knighthoods. It wouldn't limit him, anyway.

ANYway, I think there's some interesting avenues to run a KAP campaign emphasizing that vassal holding makes you really special, and that you (the PK) need to balance the natural urges with your extended family's interest in having you marry for advantage, and your lord's interest in keeping costs down. It's a nice triangle, that, and keeps every pence important.

Then some PK wacks Gorlois and the world turns on its head.

--Khanwulf

PS. One of the side-effects of all this is that in the early period if you want to play a special flower, jumped-up dirt-farmer come knight because you've shown your lord extreme loyalty and competency in his Hour of Need, then you can... and enjoy some of the ill-natured ribbing that we'd imagine female knights would get--only from the class angle.

Later periods would have the same character become a rather-less-poor dirt farmer, or perhaps be provided a fine office, instead.

Agree with Khanwulf here in regarding Aurelius. Son of a high king, fled to Brittany at a young age, he learned there all about knights, types of fighters including cavalry, and when he returns in 466 and destroys Vortigern, he goes about instituting knighthood, or as some would say, reintroduces it back into Britain.

BobS.