What is the correct way to deal with a knightly challenge?

I have a PK with a strong dislike of his cousin, which is reciprocated. The cousin has been threatening for a number of years (due to bad blood caused by a family incident) and has now come out and said he does not think the PK is fit to lead the family.

If he challenges what happens if the PK simply says no? Is that it, does he just shrug he shoulders and walk off? Or can he attack anyway without the nicety of a formal challenge? In the above example would such a challenge be to the death?

I've grappled with this for a while in the broader setting of the game but this is the first time a situation has actually arisen.

The cousin’s public statement that the PK is unfit to lead IS an already-made challenge, just as a mundane-world Parliament resolution that they lack confidence in the Prime Minister ends the minister’s leadership.

If the PK backs down, he’s toast. If he’s too cowardly to defend his position against a mere classic leadership challenge like this one, how can his liege lord trust him to defend his manor against deadly foes? How can his fellow knights trust him to stand by them in battle? How can he compel his subordinates to obey him?

The PK needs to immediately challenge the cousin to an open, formal, and very public duel, demanding not just retraction of his words but a public oath of obedience/acceptance of his leadership. The goal is to bring into line not just the cousin but anyone else who might be thinking such thoughts. Though sharpened weapons would be used (given the hate) it need not be to the death – killing would cost the family a valuable knight (though the PK should realize that the cousin may not be so far-sighted).

Of course, Kin-slaying is a big no-no...so accepting a challange from your cousin might actually be seen as a weakness of character. You'd certainly lose love(family) if you fight your kin.

Any knight who refuses to accept a legitimate challenge would be viewed as a coward at best. Knight's can freely ignore challenges fron non-knightly or non-noble folks as being beneeth them, but a challenge from another knight must be answered.

Now that the cousin is putting it out publicly that the PK is unfit to lead the expected response would likely be as Gideon13 has said a demand by the PK that the cousin swear a public oath of obedience and acceptance of the PK's leadership. Failure on the part of the cousin should likely result in his banishment or casting out from the family. An alternative to banishment would be to challenge the cousin to a trial by combat. The winner taking the leadership of the family, the loser swearing fealty. Trial by combat is of course risky, but will settle the issue.

Failure to respond quickly and firmly to the cousin's insubordination will encourage others to question the PK's authority.

Simply attacking the cousin out of hand is likely to backfire and be seen as treacherous, rather than simply ruthless in putting down opposition. You don't treat family like that...

If the PK is the cousin's superior, I don't think he's really under any obligation to answer the challenge.

If the PK is the cousin's superior, I don't think he's really under any obligation to answer the challenge.


I agree. I think he can go further, and simply demand that the cousin retract his words, and even impose some sort of penalty duty on him for his disloyalty and betrayal of family. This could be a humiliation. He can, in other words, push the cousin to the point where it is the cousin who must choose whether to challenge, or to humbly accept his place and apologise.

The cousin is in an untenable position, unless he has support of other family members and is willing to rebel. Either way, he can't look good.

Any knight who refuses to accept a legitimate challenge would be viewed as a coward at best. Knight's can freely ignore challenges fron non-knightly or non-noble folks as being beneeth them, but a challenge from another knight must be answered.


Actually, you are not obliged to accept the challenge even from a knightly inferior.
This is why people identify themselves upon meeting--to establish foe or friend, and if the latter, the pecking order.

Let the kid fight his way up to be worthy.

The cousin challenging the PK is kind of like Lancelot challenging Arthur. He is supposed to owe loyalty to the PK, and the PK has several options. To rebuke the cousin in public and demand an apology and oath of loyalty is the obvious first step.

Now, the cousin can try to call the PK out if he wants. The PK may accept, though he should try to avoid kinslaying (have an executioner on hand if the cousin is a completely obstinate idiot after refusing). He may also simply tell the cousin to beat it and cut him off from the family. Shunning is serious business; a junior knight who can't call on his family has basically nobody to back him up (if he's out of sorts with his paterfamilias, his lord is not likely to help him out either), and this will likely cost the kid Honor as well. While (unless he's a Roman) the PK doesn't have any authority to impose legal sanctions (unless I'm mistaken), a shunned knight won't get any of the benefit of the doubt that most knights get when the law could be brought to bear.

Thanks for the replies.

I think I'm combining two issues here, one about how to handle challenges and one about how to handle unruly family members. I take on board the "a family knight would not do that" but I like to spice things up somewhat. The actual situation arose from my family events table, which is greatly expanded from the KAP5 version, utilizing some ideas that were presented by Spoonist and adding some of my own, while keeping to the same rough percentages as before. The actual event outcome was "a family knight develops a deep dislike for you" which I then worked into the narrative of previous events (in this instance, a cousin, whose mother had been accused of Saxon treachery, believing that the PK had not dealt with it sufficiently well).

With the challenge issue, I was unsure really how it worked. If the Knight of Screaming Black Death rides up and says I challenge you to the death and you say no, what then? Does said evil knight just go back to scaring children? Or does he attack anyway; "sod you pal, challenge or no challenge, you're getting it!". If a knight loses Honour for declining a challenge, then he is effectively duty bound to fight off challenges from every so and so who rocks up wanting to try their luck. Is this how it should be? And having said that, if the Honour loss is relatively light, declining a challenge from potent adversaries (eg Screaming Black Death knight) is probably preferable to to getting chopped up by them.

I think I'm combining two issues here, one about how to handle challenges and one about how to handle unruly family members.


Yep



I take on board the "a family knight would not do that" but I like to spice things up somewhat.


Perfectly acceptable, encouraged even, but when you go "off the charts" this way you're in unexplored territory.

The solution is really quite simple: call a family council meeting together with all the important members, explain to them what happened, have people who witnessed it speak up.
Ask the family "What will we do?"
They will collectively decide what's best. Maybe it will split the family into two. They will decide who is the aggressor, who needs to be leaned on.

There is absolutely no good resolution, except reconciliation.
Anything else there will inevitably be a real stain on family honor, which will cause every member's Honor to go down.

Family Meeting. Get everyone together, only the family of course, and lay down the law. Tell the aggressor what the conditions are ("Chill.") and what the consequences will be for failure. Then live by that.

The question for the family is simply to minimize the loss.
Killing one of the two people is out of the question. Lose 20 Honor. (Royalty seem to have an exemption on this)

Socially Ostracize him: Avoid him entirely, forbid all your household and holdings to give him anything at all, in public speak politely but distinctly saying, "He is not one of us."
Something like that goes on with Sir Gareth, in reverse though. He often states to others how he disapproves of his brothers' actions,
effectively distancing himself from them, proclaiming his loyalty to Lancelot and virtuous conduct.



With the challenge issue, I was unsure really how it worked.


A challenger issues the challenge.
Everything after that is conditional.



If the Knight of Screaming Black Death rides up and says I challenge you to the death and you say no, what then? Does said evil knight just go back to scaring children? Or does he attack anyway; "sod you pal, challenge or no challenge, you're getting it!".


Is he evil? He must have Fumbled something to even offer a challenge! :-D
Certainly conditions provide variables, but this is an attack.



If a knight loses Honour for declining a challenge,


Only from an equal or a superior.
A knight loses nothing by refusing to fight an inferior.



then he is effectively duty bound to fight off challenges from every so and so who rocks up wanting to try their luck. Is this how it should be?


In a society where Might Is Right, there is no way to stop this.
A challenge, with formal conditions, some modicum of fairness, is an effort to moderate the violence.



And having said that, if the Honour loss is relatively light, declining a challenge from potent adversaries (eg Screaming Black Death knight) is probably preferable to to getting chopped up by them.


Is there a published number for refusing a challenge?

--g

I think I'm combining two issues here, one about how to handle challenges and one about how to handle unruly family members. I take on board the "a family knight would not do that"

No-one was saying, "a family knight would not do that". We were saying that the head of the household, in this case, the player-knight, has the better position, and the young rebel is in an untenable position - even if he gets his way, as Greg's excellent answer points out, it could end up splitting the family. So it is exactly the sort of thing that makes for interesting family drama, and things like this definitely should occur during a campaign :)


With the challenge issue, I was unsure really how it worked. If the Knight of Screaming Black Death rides up and says I challenge you to the death and you say no, what then? Does said evil knight just go back to scaring children? Or does he attack anyway; "sod you pal, challenge or no challenge, you're getting it!".


An evil knight in Pendragon is by definition one who no longer has any honour. He is not bound by the laws of society. He can make challenges, and then ignore the terms of those challenges; he can pretend to yield and attack when his victor is surprised; he can do everything that would cost other people honour loss with impunity - and he will. The price he pays for this, is he is already ostracised from society, he has no allies except other evil/honourless knights (and how can he trust them?).

So if screaming black death knight comes out and challenges someone, and that person declines, the evil knight doesn't care. He'll attack anyway. But once the player-knights know they are dealing with an honourless knight, they don't have to treat him with honour either. (Plus, they know no-one will pay his ransom, so no need to keep him alive.)

In any case, the vast, vast majority of knights in a campaign will not be knights like this - they have at least some honour, and try to avoid doing things that will cost them honour. So, a typical knight who challenges a superior, when refused, will be chastened for acting out of turn and accept that. But if he is driven by a passion, he may go ahead anyway - and everyone will comment on this moment of weakness or this foul act that a good knight did. See Balin's killing of the lady in Arthur's court for an example of this kind of thing.

Thanks for the clarification.

With evocative replies like that I wouldn't mind being in your campaigns!