Hello all,

Could anyone tell me the various years Morgan Le Fay is active in the GPC? I've looked through and seen very few references to her.

It also seems she takes a very minor role in the story. Is this so, or am I missing something.

Could anyone help me out.

thanks

She isn't listed that often, but that just means you have the freedom to bring her in whenever you like.

I'll be happy to help with this one.

482 Born
492 - 499 With Queen Igraine (momma) at Amesbury Abbey, Salisbury. Learns magic somehow at the convent school there.
498 - 521 Wife of King Uriens of Gorre.
499 Gave birth to Yvaine.
c. 515 Attends Arthur's wedding to Guenever. Cheats on Uriens with Guenever's cousin, Guiomar. Guenever discovers them. Hilarity ensues.
520 Steals Excalibur from Arthur
521 Kidnaps Arthur, who fights Accolon, her lover. Arthur kills Accolon.
523 Secret supports Ulfius' sons during the Silcheste rebellion
533-534 Captures Lancelot, along with the Queens of Eastland and the Out Isles.
535 Sends the Horn of Chastity to Arthur's court to reveal Lancelot's treason with Guenever.
558 Briefly allies with King Mark against Arthur.
565 Attends Arthur on the barge to Avalon.

I have a theory about Morgan le Fay and her shifts in activity over the course of Arthur's reign. We customarily think of her as plotting against her half-brother so that she can take over Britain and rule it, but all of her assassination attempts are early in the story; after that, she switches to either kidnapping Lancelot or attempting to expose his affair with Guinevere - and at the end, she comes for Arthur to take him away to Avalon for healing.

Malory doesn't mention this, but in the Vulgate Cycle, Morgan, early in Arthur's reign, had an affair with a cousin of Guinevere's; Guinevere found out and broke it up at once. Morgan hated Guinevere for this (and finding out about Guinevere's own affair with Lancelot couldn't have made matters any better - "so now she's not just a meddler, but a hypocrite as well!"). And her actions might make more sense if Guinevere, rather than Arthur, was her real target from the start.

All of Morgan's attempts to murder Arthur (Accolon, the enchanted mantle that burns up whoever wears it) occur before Lancelot comes to court. If Arthur had died then, Guinevere would now be a powerless widow, and Morgan's real motive for trying to kill Arthur might have been, not to seize the throne or to avenge Gorlois's death upon the Pendragon family, but to reduce Guinevere to that level. (Her plan to usurp the throne is attested in the Accolon incident, but even that might be part of the revenge more than anything else - what could be worse for Guinevere than to not only lose the title of High Queen of Britain, but see Morgan, whom she had once humiliated, now decked in its glories?)

Then Lancelot arrives, he and Guinevere fall in love with each other, and Morgan discovers this. Murdering Arthur is no longer an option; Guinevere would simply marry Lancelot once the mourning was over. So Morgan's shifts in tactics makes sense; kidnapping Lancelot and forcing him to be her lover would clearly hurt Guinevere, as would exposing the adultery. (Though it's popularly assumed that the people trying to expose the Love Triangle - such as Morgan le Fay, or Agravain and Mordred - were doing so in the hopes of starting a war between Arthur and Lancelot that would allow them to seize power, or to bring Camelot crashing down, that seems largely a hindsight assumption; the reason why the exposure of the Love Triangle destroyed Arthur's court was because Lancelot inadvertently killed Gaheris and Gareth during the Battle of the Stake, which nobody could have expected without Merlin's gift of foresight. Without Gaheris and Gareth's deaths, Gawain's vengeance would not have kept the war going after the Pope's intervention - which would have been far easier to predict. I see Agravain and his confederates as plotting to expose the Love Triangle because Lancelot was always unhorsing them in tournaments and constantly winning the prize, and they presumably hoped that if he could be disgraced and banished or executed for his affair with the Queen, they'd have an opportunity to win the honors in the jousts for a change.) She no longer has a strong reason to hate Arthur - hence her coming for him after Camlann.

That's the take that I'd use if I ever gamemaster a "Pendragon" campaign.

In my last long campaign years ago, the players were expecting Morgaine to be quite the evil witch but I pulled a long one on them and actually made her reasonably sympathetic, while oft forgotten sister Elaine was the real witch behind events (took them decades to figure out) while Morgawse was the more openly hostile one.

There are also so many Elaine's in the Arthurian world its ripe for mistaken identities, which I used to full effect :)

In the Blood and Lust adventure Morgan le Fay's Challenge Morgan is at large in Logres, and a guest at Arthurs court in Camelot. Thus, this takes place after her banishment from court. I suspect that she somehow gets Arthurs forgivness and is able to act freely in his realm.

merlyn: Great thoughts, it would explain her quite inconsitent behavior.

I have a theory about Morgan le Fay and her shifts in activity over the course of Arthur's reign. We customarily think of her as plotting against her half-brother so that she can take over Britain and rule it, but all of her assassination attempts are early in the story; after that, she switches to either kidnapping Lancelot or attempting to expose his affair with Guinevere - and at the end, she comes for Arthur to take him away to Avalon for healing.

Malory doesn't mention this, but in the Vulgate Cycle, Morgan, early in Arthur's reign, had an affair with a cousin of Guinevere's; Guinevere found out and broke it up at once. Morgan hated Guinevere for this (and finding out about Guinevere's own affair with Lancelot couldn't have made matters any better - "so now she's not just a meddler, but a hypocrite as well!"). And her actions might make more sense if Guinevere, rather than Arthur, was her real target from the start.

All of Morgan's attempts to murder Arthur (Accolon, the enchanted mantle that burns up whoever wears it) occur before Lancelot comes to court. If Arthur had died then, Guinevere would now be a powerless widow, and Morgan's real motive for trying to kill Arthur might have been, not to seize the throne or to avenge Gorlois's death upon the Pendragon family, but to reduce Guinevere to that level. (Her plan to usurp the throne is attested in the Accolon incident, but even that might be part of the revenge more than anything else - what could be worse for Guinevere than to not only lose the title of High Queen of Britain, but see Morgan, whom she had once humiliated, now decked in its glories?)

Then Lancelot arrives, he and Guinevere fall in love with each other, and Morgan discovers this. Murdering Arthur is no longer an option; Guinevere would simply marry Lancelot once the mourning was over. So Morgan's shifts in tactics makes sense; kidnapping Lancelot and forcing him to be her lover would clearly hurt Guinevere, as would exposing the adultery. (Though it's popularly assumed that the people trying to expose the Love Triangle - such as Morgan le Fay, or Agravain and Mordred - were doing so in the hopes of starting a war between Arthur and Lancelot that would allow them to seize power, or to bring Camelot crashing down, that seems largely a hindsight assumption; the reason why the exposure of the Love Triangle destroyed Arthur's court was because Lancelot inadvertently killed Gaheris and Gareth during the Battle of the Stake, which nobody could have expected without Merlin's gift of foresight. Without Gaheris and Gareth's deaths, Gawain's vengeance would not have kept the war going after the Pope's intervention - which would have been far easier to predict. I see Agravain and his confederates as plotting to expose the Love Triangle because Lancelot was always unhorsing them in tournaments and constantly winning the prize, and they presumably hoped that if he could be disgraced and banished or executed for his affair with the Queen, they'd have an opportunity to win the honors in the jousts for a change.) She no longer has a strong reason to hate Arthur - hence her coming for him after Camlann.

That's the take that I'd use if I ever gamemaster a "Pendragon" campaign.


I like this take so much that I think I will use it in my games!

In my campaign I used Morgan a lot and just confused the heck out of the players! She aided them a few times when they were desperate and they were wary, but I made her honorable and she upheld her oaths and did not betray them. She did this in my games to , of course, lure them in so that she could then use them as unwitting pawns in a grand scheme. She played the victim and the queen of being misunderstood. They actually felt like she had gotten a raw deal on the cruddy reputation and the being outlawed and stuff! HAHAH. But I like ur take better. THat way I can say that while she still hates Guenivere she can be remorseful about trying to kill Arthur and then in due course might aid some of his knights as a form of pennence. Hmmmm...not bad.......

Merlyn, I agree with you on most points. In fact that particular interpretation of Morgan is very close to the one portrayed by Karr in "The Idylls of the Queen." My pks have only encountered Morgan a couple of times in the course of a half dozen campaigns and were immediately suspicious of her, but she helped them out and left them rather confused. Though the second time she did let one of the pks in on the queen's adultery somewhat maliciously....