So, during the Anarchy period, at the urging of the player knights, Countess Ellen swore fealty to King Idres and thus joined the Kingdom of Cornwall. She then married Prince Mark, so he is currently running Salisbury.

We had an adventure where Squire Arthur and Squire Robert were both held captive together. They became quick friends.

Salisbury has been relatively stable with Prince Mark running it and Cornwall defending it, so there hasn't been as much urgency for Robert to take over as there is in the regular GPC, so I have Robert waiting to turn 21 like normal.

Once Arthur draws the sword from the stone, I intend to have Robert swear fealty to Arthur. Arthur will then knight him (and intend to make him Earl of Salisbury as soon as he can conquer it from Cornwall).

Should the player knights' Loyalty (Lord) passion at this point be a Loyalty (Prince Mark) passion or a Loyalty (Sir Robert) passion?

To whom did they originally swear loyalty? Earl Salisbury? Then I'd make it still Earl Salisbury (Robert.)

Of course, King Idres being the shrewd monarch that he is, knows Robert is approaching the date of knighthood and might knight him himself to keep Robert loyal and the knights receive a vision/warning about the consequences of that action. This could be an interesting scenario...

Bob

To whom did they originally swear loyalty? Earl Salisbury? Then I'd make it still Earl Salisbury (Robert.)

Most of them originally swore loyalty to Earl Roderick. Some of them are young enough that they swore loyalty to Prince Mark in his role as steward of Salisbury.

Is Robert really the Earl of Salisbury yet though? Salisbury is part of Cornwall now, and all Robert has done is swear fealty to the King of Logres (and technically he won't even be the King of Logres for another month or two at that point). Can you really say that you're the Earl of Salisbury at that point? Or do you need to go swear fealty to Idres to become the Earl?

Is Robert really the Earl of Salisbury yet though?

He's the Earl of Salisbury as soon as he invested in the office by a King with the authority to do the investing.


Salisbury is part of Cornwall now, and all Robert has done is swear fealty to the King of Logres (and technically he won't even be the King of Logres for another month or two at that point).

If Arthur invests Robert as Earl straight after being crowned as the King of Logres, then that is Arthur asserting sovereignty over Salisbury. He can do that without beating Cornwall in battle (talk is cheap, but needs to be followed up by deeds in short order).


Can you really say that you're the Earl of Salisbury at that point?

Yup, but the new Earl of Salisbury is a political statement of intent on Arthur's part rather than a de facto peer of the realm (with concommitent fiefs, castles, army, officers etc). To become the real deal he needs to go back to Salisbury and evict anyone who don't recognise his office.


Or do you need to go swear fealty to Idres to become the Earl?

*Someone* will swear fealty to Idres and become the (alternate, Cornish-sponsored) Earl. It could have been Robert, but if he's turned his coat and defected to Merlin's catspaw then it'll probably be Mark. The rightful Earl and the pretender are going to come to blows at some point shortly thereafter and they will both be calling upon the gentry of Salisbury to rally to their side.

Once the dust has settled then those who rallied to the pretender's banner will have some fast talking (or fast riding) to do...

Regards
Luke

Should the player knights' Loyalty (Lord) passion at this point be a Loyalty (Prince Mark) passion or a Loyalty (Sir Robert) passion?


Your answer depends entirely on what the knights did when.



So, during the Anarchy period, at the urging of the player knights, Countess Ellen swore fealty to King Idres and thus joined the Kingdom of Cornwall. She then married Prince Mark, so he is currently running Salisbury.


To whom did they swear when the old count died?
Is that person alive now? If so, they owe their homage to him.

Did they swear to Mark?
They owe it to him



We had an adventure where Squire Arthur and Squire Robert were both held captive together. They became quick friends.

Salisbury has been relatively stable with Prince Mark running it and Cornwall defending it, so there hasn't been as much urgency for Robert to take over as there is in the regular GPC, so I have Robert waiting to turn 21 like normal.


He must be getting along quite well with King Idres and Prince Mark, if he expects to actually obtain his title.
He deserves it, yes, but that actually can be delayed for a long, long time through normal processes
And that property is quite valuable!



Once Arthur draws the sword from the stone, I intend to have Robert swear fealty to Arthur. Arthur will then knight him (and intend to make him Earl of Salisbury as soon as he can conquer it from Cornwall).


Since Robert is not yet a knight, he has not sworn to anyone.
If Arthur knights him he will certainly owe loyalty to the king.
Of course, his mother is in a difficult spot, now being an enemy of Arthur. Too bad she's not a PC--what a quandry!
Does she love Mark? After all, he did right by her, is heir to a powerful kingdom, has protected her (presumably)

Oooh, conflict of Love (Family) versus Loyalty (Lord)
Good luck Robert

Knights would probably not have loyalty to young Robert. He is not even an adult yet.

Remember:
The standards of the time require that a knight be, above all else, loyal to his lord. It is not his place to judge his lord's actions, or if he does, tough tutu, because he has to obey anyway.
To break your vow of loyalty to your liege lord is deeply dishonorable--it is a rupture of the most basic feudal agreement.
If he does something nasty (tortures his enemies, seizes lands of his vassals on flimsy pretenses, never grants mercy, etc.), knights, it is not a reason to break the loyalty oath.

The only thing that would justify a knight breaking his oath is if the lord violates his end of the liege/vassal agreement.

In my most recent campaign the player knights started off allied with the Hope of Britain, King Nanteleod. They fought against the upstart boy king, and after Nanteleod's death were reconciled. Later (the next generation except for the now-leading PC) went to war with the High King because they felt he'd broken his agreement as liege.

Such are the difficulties of loyalty.

Should the player knights' Loyalty (Lord) passion at this point be a Loyalty (Prince Mark) passion or a Loyalty (Sir Robert) passion?


Your answer depends entirely on what the knights did when.



So, during the Anarchy period, at the urging of the player knights, Countess Ellen swore fealty to King Idres and thus joined the Kingdom of Cornwall. She then married Prince Mark, so he is currently running Salisbury.


To whom did they swear when the old count died?
Is that person alive now? If so, they owe their homage to him.

They swore to support Countess Ellen when Roderick died.


Did they swear to Mark?
They owe it to him

To be honest, we didn't go into that much detail when Prince Mark and Countess Ellen married. Looking back, I assume they would have had to swear loyalty to Mark when he married Ellen, wouldn't they?

I'm pretty sure they've used Loyalty (Lord) to help Prince Mark in a battle, so certainly we've been assuming the Loyalty was placed with Mark for the time being.

The tricky bit for me is that I've been assuming that if things went along normally, Mark would hand the County over to Robert once Robert turns 21 (Mark is also the Earl of Dorset since the good Player Knights helped Cornwall conquer Dorset and of course Mark will be King, so the loss of direct control over Salisbury isn't too big a deal, is it? I also said that Idres created a Duchy called "Greater Salisbury that consists of the counties of Dorset and Salisbury and granted the title to Mark)


Knights would probably not have loyalty to young Robert. He is not even an adult yet.


So the Knights' loyalty stays with Mark since (by the rule of Cornwall), he's technically still the steward of Salisbury and Robert is a traitor to Cornwall?

What if the players want their Knights to join with Robert? I mean, they "know" Arthur is going to win out and become High King, they may want to be a part of Arthur's kingdom as soon as possible. Should they lose Honor? Should they lose their passion "Loyalty: Lord"? Or gain a new passion of loyalty to Robert?

And would it be appropriate for Mark to hand the traitors' lands over to more loyal knights? One of the knights in question has a son who's just been knighted. If the father rebels and the son doesn't, would Mark be forced to let the son keep the family lands, or could he take them back because of the father's actions?

Thank you for the insight.

To whom did they swear when the old count died?
Is that person alive now? If so, they owe their homage to him.

They swore to support Countess Ellen when Roderick died.


Did they swear to Mark?
They owe it to him

To be honest, we didn't go into that much detail when Prince Mark and Countess Ellen married. Looking back, I assume they would have had to swear loyalty to Mark when he married Ellen, wouldn't they?


"Had to" takes on great meaning here.
It, like everything else, is open to subtle interpretation.
The PCs could have claimed they swore to the countess, rightful Warden of the rightful Count.
Mark, just a steward of Salisbury, doesn't automatically deserve the stewardship, nor at Ellen's husband
As duke, he deserves respect and obedience, but perhaps not homage
And considering the nasty things a lord can do to make the lives of his knights unhappy, it certainly appears that your didn't didn't go far enough for that



I'm pretty sure they've used Loyalty (Lord) to help Prince Mark in a battle, so certainly we've been assuming the Loyalty was placed with Mark for the time being.


They could have two Loyal (Lord) passions.



The tricky bit for me is that I've been assuming that if things went along normally, Mark would hand the County over to Robert once Robert turns 21 (Mark is also the Earl of Dorset since the good Player Knights helped Cornwall conquer Dorset and of course Mark will be King, so the loss of direct control over Salisbury isn't too big a deal, is it? I also said that Idres created a Duchy called "Greater Salisbury that consists of the counties of Dorset and Salisbury and granted the title to Mark)

[/quote]

Excellent. 100% possible.



Knights would probably not have loyalty to young Robert. He is not even an adult yet.

So the Knights' loyalty stays with Mark since (by the rule of Cornwall), he's technically still the steward of Salisbury and Robert is a traitor to Cornwall?
[/quote]

Yes, but with the possibilities above as well.



What if the players want their Knights to join with Robert? I mean, they "know" Arthur is going to win out and become High King, they may want to be a part of Arthur's kingdom as soon as possible. Should they lose Honor?

Yes.
They broke their most solemn oath.

Remember, though--they can regain it later if the prove themselves and their actions to have been "more honorable"



Should they lose their passion "Loyalty: Lord"? Or gain a new passion of loyalty to Robert?


I'd keep the old ones, but knock them down maybe a point a year if they ae not used.
And yes, get a new one to Robert too.



And would it be appropriate for Mark to hand the traitors' lands over to more loyal knights?


Yes. Only loyal vassals get land. Disloyal ones lose it.



One of the knights in question has a son who's just been knighted. If the father rebels and the son doesn't, would Mark be forced to let the son keep the family lands, or could he take them back because of the father's actions?


No, not by custom or law.
The father was holding it, he rebelled, he loses it. He loses ALL rights to it, including the right to hand it on to his heirs. Sorry kid!
If the son was close to Mark and proved himself, he could petition to get it back, and might.

One of the knights in question has a son who's just been knighted. If the father rebels and the son doesn't, would Mark be forced to let the son keep the family lands, or could he take them back because of the father's actions?


No, not by custom or law.
The father was holding it, he rebelled, he loses it. He loses ALL rights to it, including the right to hand it on to his heirs. Sorry kid!
If the son was close to Mark and proved himself, he could petition to get it back, and might.



Of course, the smart thing to do is to send the kid (who has not sworn to anyone yet) to fight for Robert, while the father fights for Mark. No matter who wins, the family comes out of it OK: father kept his part of the bargain if Mark wins, while the kid would be in position to ask for a boon of the family manor from victorious Robert.

Of course, the smart thing to do is to send the kid (who has not sworn to anyone yet) to fight for Robert, while the father fights for Mark. No matter who wins, the family comes out of it OK: father kept his part of the bargain if Mark wins, while the kid would be in position to ask for a boon of the family manor from victorious Robert.

Isn't that referred to as "hedging one's bets"? A grand solution IMO.

Of course, the smart thing to do is to send the kid (who has not sworn to anyone yet) to fight for Robert, while the father fights for Mark. No matter who wins, the family comes out of it OK: father kept his part of the bargain if Mark wins, while the kid would be in position to ask for a boon of the family manor from victorious Robert.


And if they meet in battle, fail to recognise each other, and one kills the other (or kill each other!), it would be perfectly in-keeping with the tropes of the genre :)

And if they meet in battle, fail to recognise each other, and one kills the other (or kill each other!), it would be perfectly in-keeping with the tropes of the genre :)


Indeed! And if you can pull off something like having them fighting with wrong shields (i.e. without heraldic devices), I am willing to bet that your players will let you know what a bastard GM you are when they figure it out. But the abuse will come tinged with respect. ;)

Maybe one side decides to paint all shields of the same color to help with melee identification? And on the other side, the inexperienced squire has lost his knight's shield, and lends a spare one from a neighboring tent...