Looking to get into Pendragon. What edition is the best and where

Honestly? Pick up the latest edition (5.1 I think) and give that a read. See if you can find a pdf of the Great Pendragon Campaign. That's the meat and potatoes of the system.

>>50616326
> Great Pendragon Campaign
What's that?

Generally speaking, the main contenders are the 4th and the 5th edition. Insofar as you should be concerned, the 4th edition is far more flexible: the core book alone covers playing characters from a variety of social classes and cultures, playing magicians, and running a relatively wide variety of games. The 5th edition, meanwhile, focuses almost solely on playing Cymric knights doing Cymric knight things.

In most games, picking the 4th would've been a no brainer but you have to remember that Pendragon isn't just some generic fantasy RPG - it's very much INTENDED to be used to run stories about Cymric knights. Most of the game's hardcore fans actually dislike the 4th edition because as much as they're concerned it wasn't "broader" or "more flexible", it was UNFOCUSED. They never wanted to play Saracens, or magicians, or merchants. They wanted to play Cymric knights. And 5th edition does only that one thing, and does it very good without all the extra rules bloat involving any other type of game.

File: 1480895877237.jpg (90KB, 1032x665px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1032x665px

Didn't Pendragon eventually go off the rails and instead of just being about King Arthur they jammed as much shit as possible in there?

>>50618747
Like what this guy's talking about?>>50616876

>>50616598
One of the largest pre-written campaigns I have ever read that takes the characters and their descendants all the way from the reign of Uther to the death of Arthur. It's very impressive just for the sheer scale of the thing- I have yet to meet someone who has played through the entire thing.Though I will say you have to get past the first few chapters being a bit railroady.

>>50618747
I think you're talking about the fourth edition of the game. From what I've read, they made some changes to try to make it more like a regular RPG.

>>50620010
Ah yes, that brings up another question. How does the whole descendant thing work?

>>50616876

Wasn't there a saracen member of the knights of the round table?

>>50621936
Yeah, Sir Palomides (sp), actually one of the most noble and also well developed of the knights (at least in Mallory). There was also his father and brother (all three converted to Christianity, Palomides held it off until he had done enough great deeds)
I'm not sure what happened to him in the end though since he just up and vanished towards the end

>>50621772
the game goes into extremely in-depth explanations of how it works, it's not easy to repeat really and encompass the whole thing. Better you just grab a pdf of it and read it yourself.

did they ever release a chansons de geste sourcebook for this game? i could really go for a peers of charlemagne campaign

>>50624093
I'm pretty sure there was a Charlemagne book.

File: 712px-Roland_the_Paladin,_A_Book_of_Myths.jpg (186KB, 712x1024px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 712x1024px

>>50624093

>>50624115
i cant find anything on it. maybe i'll read the dnd 2e charlemagne paladins book and go off that

>>50622059

He was the knight who killed the questing beast wasn't

Arthurian mythology is always fun with just how many odd places it had people from to show how EVERYONE wanted to be a member. I almost wish they'd known about Japan and China in more detail at the time so they could have introduced more crazy knight examples

>>50624081
Oh. Do you have to make a new character every generation?

>>50624155
sir Martin from King Arthur's Disasters always filled that itch for me and I always include him in my Pendragon games.

>>50624552
Some might call this heresy, but if I ran this I would kill off some of those movers and shakers and have the pc's inherit their position, then just use the campaign as a guideline rather than a direct way to run it.

>>50625043
Probably how I'd do it, too.

File: 11741137_854442671305124_2588559870869073385_o.jpg (222KB, 866x1122px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 866x1122px

>>50616262
If you can read spanish, get the Spanish 5.1 version. If only for dat art.

File: 11218053_854443507971707_7751883909499596010_n.jpg (110KB, 624x808px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 624x808px

>>50625868
Like seriously, it fits the setting and it's top notch quality.

File: 11696331_854442351305156_9178241696592769197_o.jpg (108KB, 866x1122px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 866x1122px

>>50625895
The black and white is less fitting but good.

>>50625905
Less Pre-Raphaelite, you mean, and more historically accurate.

>>50624155
>Arthurian mythology is always fun with just how many odd places it had people from to show how EVERYONE wanted to be a member. I almost wish they'd known about Japan and China in more detail at the time so they could have introduced more crazy knight examples

I still think of those guys like a medieval superhero league, complete with contrived scenarios for the good guys to fight each other and see what happens.

>>50616876
But what if I want to play a Saxon who leaves Britain following the Norman invasion and offers his sword to the Byzantines in the great Anglo-Varangian migration in which the Varangian Guard suddenly became almost entirely English after the Scourge of the North of England?

>>50628844
I might want to fight Greek/Roman magicians and Saracen and Turkish despoilers of Roman antiquity!

File: PendragonColorMap.jpg (6MB, 3413x4839px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 3413x4839px

mega:///#F!TwUxkbhA!CVBXFzEzPwNZ50BG4abhFQ

>>50628836
You're not wrong. Except medieval superheroes killed their enemies.

>>50630897
True. Named bad guys could sometimes call for mercy and be more likely spared than not, but for the most part yeah.

File: 1465152313253.jpg (882KB, 1232x1608px) Image search: [Google]

882KB, 1232x1608px

I'd recommend Pendragon even if you don't actually play the game for the sheer fact that the people who worked on it really managed to put all the Arthurian myth together and in perspective in a way that won't confuse the fuck out of the average person.

>>50631381
Well, truth be told I've been binging on Prince Valiant and have been craving a game about knightly shit. Can't really do it in other systems.

>>50630227
Apparently this is not a world where you can piss on Calais from Dover.

File: 1481041669058.jpg (126KB, 602x850px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 602x850px

despite being such an enormous influence on fantasy I know nothing about the King Arthur stuff and I'd like to play this game

what could you guys tell me to read from the actual sources?

File: I'm sad.jpg (68KB, 343x578px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 343x578px

>tfw you want to run pendragon with your group
>tfw the guy currently running a game for the group lets you know he has enough campaign material to run his DnD game until the end of time
>tfw can't be assed to run game with assburgers from FLGS or online

>>50628844
GURPS

>>50616262

Latest edition is the best, but the rules don't change much between editions so you can use sourcebooks for any edition.

>>50632763

Go to Gutenburg.com and read "Morte d'Arthur".

File: Erec-et-Enide.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50632763
>>50633514

Morte d'Arthur is really the classic, which brought together all kinds of influences and largely shaped the definitive idea of the mythos we have today.

Also interesting though are Chretien de Troyes four (and a half) poems, which are really the starting point for Arthur as a literary figure.

Geoffrey of Monmouth turned the Welsh legend into a pseudo-historical king, and de Troyes took that pseudo history and plugged in into the world of chivalric poems and courtly love. It was an instant hit and made Arthurian legend (as the Matter of Britain) one of the big genres of chivalric literature.

They are tales of Love and Knights, with lots of quests and melodrama. Arthur is a suprisingly tangental figure, with the action following the Knights and their loves of the court.

Erec and Enide (c.1170), is all about the eponymous love story but unsually for the genre they are happily married early in the story and it's what comes next which is the main focus.

File: Cliges.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50634066

Cliges (c.1176). follows the adventures of Alexander, Prince of Byzantium and aspiring knigh in Arthur's court. Quests, Love, Magic and Dynastic Politics ensue.

Cliges is notable for having Arthur's Britain be the capital of chivalry in Europe with an international cast of Emperors, Kings, Knights and Princesses featuring.

File: Yvain-the-Knight-of-the-Lion.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50634186
Yvain, the Knight of the Lion (c.1177-1181) is probably the wierdest tale, with the most high fantasy elements.

Yvain saves the lion from a dragon and the two go off on a series of magical adventures but the greatest challenge of all is winning forgiveness from his wronged wife.

Gawain features heavily, as in most of Chretien's works, as the most gallant and acomplished of Arthur's knights and is clearly the authours favourite but never the hero of his own tale.

>>50634339
Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart (c.1177-1181 alongside Yvain).

This is Lancelot's debut to the mythos, and the origin of his illicit love affair with Guinevere.

Guinevere is abducted , and Lancelot and Gawain must rescue her. Aside from usual chivalric shenanigans the poem focuses on the forbidden love angle and in many ways is Arthur's nadir as a character in his own mythos; ineffectual, cuckholded and rather a sidenote to the real action.

Finally there is Percival; the story of the Grail. This unfinished poem is Chretien's other big addition to the Arthur mythos with the Grail Quest. Sadly I don't have a pdf copy, but the opening alone is worth a read as one long joke in which the punchline is always the Welsh.

And those are the four and a half poems of Chretien de Troyes' Arthurian cycle. It's a strange world that laid the foundations of all that followed but at the same time a lot of elements that are now integral to the mythos are absent, even those such as Merlin and Morded that predate the poems and are featured in de Troyes' main source Geoffrey of Monmouth. At the time, the poems proved wildly popular and soon cemented the Arthurian mythos as the cynosure of chivalry across Europe, although now they are rather overshadowed by all the later works that followed in their footsteps.

>>50633478
Why?

>>50634858
Camelot is 500 years or more before the Norman Invasion, isn't it?

I'm sure Pendragon is great for Camelot and has a lot of nice specific rules. For general "lets run around the historical world!" stuff, GURPS tends to be a good way to go.

Do any of the most recent editions do a good job of giving an in-setting reason for the rapid advance of tech in the game (for those unfamiliar, the game starts with players using weapons, armor and equipment that are period-accurate for post-Roman Britain, but as each generation of the campaign progresses, tech advances up to the full-plate knight of chivalric myth within the span of a few generations).

I'm basically fine with that being in the game to be clear, I could just never pick up on a clear in-setting reason for why they chose that approach.

>>50631487
>Can't really do it in other systems.
There's a Prince Valiant RPG.

>>50636174
Camelot is from the alternate timeline where JFK doesn't die

Also Pendragon isn't really that history specific, because of people's misconceptions about the era i.e. there are anachronisms like knights running around in plate armor because that is how people often think ofr the Arthurian myths

>>50636300
I really like how it works. The start of the game is relatively accurate to the actual time period, with the anachronism of mounted knights existing as a class. Each era accompanies a leap forward in technology as the splendor of Arthur's reign causes advanced growth. So by the time Lancelot comes around, you're in the high middle ages, and by the end of Arthur's reign, technology is in line with the Wars of the Roses. Better arms and armor becomes a form of character growth.

>>50636300
I was under the impression that arthurian myth is generally ahistorical.

>>50636441
Reminder that Arthur literally conquers the Roman Empire and becomes the Emperor at one point.

Anyway this is an indepth review of 4E if you care.

http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/divinecoffeebinge/pendragon/

>>50636441
Arthurian myth generally depicted its events with whatever technology and social concepts are contemporary, even though the story is set in 6th century Celtic Britain.

File: 73b152866f3fbe42f815a3fac9ecfb42d16ffe2642d8808cca200a616d0ac56f.jpg (229KB, 1200x782px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1200x782px

>>50636441
yeah it is, Malory even said Mordred assault the Tower of London with cannons

Since it's a 'lost age' it's easy to explain that things were better then went to shit.

>>50636261
Yeah, but pendragon has wider appeal, I figured.

>>50633043
Anon, I'd love to play Pendragon with you.

>>50634066
I've read that Lancelot was a largely a later invention, which is why he reads as a self insert. What happened to Camelot before Lancelot was written?

File: 1468707294514.jpg (203KB, 900x1114px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 900x1114px

Does Pendragon account for a 'post-game' campaign after Arthur is carried away to Avalon and Camelot falls? Or is it just 'and then history happened' at that's it?
A 'post-Camelot' decline era would be pretty cool if you ask me.

File: RP532.5L.jpg (157KB, 648x887px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 648x887px

>>50637491
Camelot and Lancelot were invented at the same time by Chretien, because he wanted to rhyme the place Lancelot was going to his name. So they're tied together.

>>50637491
Arthur goes to Rome to become Emperor. While he's away, his nephew Mordred, whom he left as the ruler of Britain while he is away, treasonously marries Queen Guinevere and leads a rebellion. Arthur returns to quell it, and is killed in the battle.

>>50637562
Also of note, Arthur and Guinevere are childless while Mordred has a shitton of kids in just the time that Arthur was away.

>>50637562
And Guinevere goes along with that? Damn.

Wasn't there an even older version where Arthur was some kind of barbarian warlord?

>>50637874
In the earliest stories, he was a Celt following the withdraw of Roman authority from Britain. This makes him the actual heir of civilization, as opposed to the invading Saxons against which he fought. This was sort of forgotten over time.

>>50636224
The glamour and magic of king Arthur's court pushes things forward, until the right courtly period is reached, but the magic fades as the kingdom does.

>>50636261
It's a simplified Pendragon system.

>>50637496
The game is supposed to kill all but one of the players characters, and all their realatives.

But whatever happens, the next few years are mapped as Saxons attacking and all the magic and technology fading away.

>>50616262
I used the latest edition for the storyline but I ended up using Runequest 6 to run the actual game. Got all the way through 25 in game years when we ended it.

>>50640243
Is that The Pendragon Campaign rolling into Saxons!, or The Boy King?

>>50616262
I don't know now, but some years ago you needed the basic rulebook plus Adventurous Knight supplement, to play a PC from any culture. I had bought the supplement about Vikings, but it's boring as hell.

File: Joyeuse-–-Charlemagne’s-personal-sword.jpg (99KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1000x667px

>>50625868
>>50625895
>arthur wielding joyeuse

huh.

>>50634796
>It's the guy who uses the word cynosure

So, anyone want to get a game going

>>50624093
Don't know about Pendragon, but AD&D 2E had a Charlemagne's Paladins book in its historicals line.

File: tilema.gif (170KB, 445x457px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 445x457px

>>50640243
>he game is supposed to kill all but one of the players characters, and all their realatives.

jesus is that necessary? Does everyone just simultaneously drop dead after Arthur goes away? The stories kept going in several sources, Lancelot and Guinevere themselves don't die until long after Arthur's gone.

>>50644130
>Lancelot and Guinevere themselves don't die until long after Arthur's gone.
Did they at least die painfully?

>>50644323
Emotional / spiritual agony if anything

>jesus is that necessary? Does everyone just simultaneously drop dead after Arthur goes away?
PC are supposed to fight in the battle of Camlann and thus die

>>50644937
Aw.

>>50632763
Fate/stay night Réalta Nua

File: 2a1e7e39613acf9c5f672d56fdd61ec8d65bd084edec5bb07c36fb06793c4baf.jpg (363KB, 2000x1311px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 2000x1311px

>>50644323
They both spend the rest of their days in misery trying to make spiritual penance for what they did. Guinevere becomes an abbess and Lancelot a priest / monk who shrivels away because of his constant fasting and praying. When he hears that Guinevere is on her death bed he rushes to see her and she wills herself to drop dead minutes before he arrives because she swore they should never see each other again. Lancelot just deteriorates away and asks the remaining Round Table knights to fight in the Holy Land where they all die on Good Friday.

File: Kote Gesserit.jpg (82KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 500x364px

>>50639433
Isn't it that modern retelling that was not relevant for the mytho for centuries?

>>50646367
That's much more satisfying.

What's Avalon like?

>>50625868
Those expressions are killing me.

File: 11270358_825780477504677_7401360926750501272_o.jpg (345KB, 2048x1441px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 2048x1441px

>>50646367
What's this pic from? It's pretty good.
>>50649168
Aquelarre books have this kind of pics in the third edition.

File: StGeorge & Lenny the dragon.jpg (85KB, 840x623px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 840x623px

>>50649248
Medieval art has a few gems.

File: dragon 2.jpg (155KB, 500x745px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 500x745px

>>50649312

File: 11148664_854442017971856_2796186754074137734_o.jpg (137KB, 1732x694px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1732x694px

>>50649248
T-that's not how I imagined hunting dragons was like. That's more like a mercy for the poor thing than anything else

Ran the Great Campaign from 485 to 511, the year after Arthur becomes king.

Personally I think the players had the most interesting characters across all campaigns we've played in Pendragon.

Their climb to fame during the Uther period to their years as advisors during the Anarchy period is something I often reminisce. The sessions that started with a intense crisis meeting as Saxon's made advancements or demanded tribute sending the players out on fairly hopeless quests of finding allies. They finally settle with King Idres of Cornwall helping him expand his borders and killing the other likely candidate to the throne, the King of Wales. Idres who later refuses to recognize Arthur as king.

Sir Richard emerges as a great leader, he led all troops available to the Player knights to quell the usurpers in neighboring Rydychan during the Anarchy years following Uther's death and succeeded, sharing the manors between the players.

Sir Allard who was dressed in rags during Uther's last years comes across great wealth thanks to his fellow knight gifting him Oxford for his contributions and he founds a new flame for further glory, slowly becoming the greatest swordsman in England (ended at 30 in sword skill, would've become king of England if plot hadn't happened).

511 they are in their mid-forties and have 10k+ glory, they are starting to look at retirement but with dissent within, conflict with Saxons, Picts and Cornwall brewing I don't see any of them dying in bed.

I would love to return to it and most of the players appears to want to return as well if we fast forward the really railroady years or send them on adventures away from Arthur.

>>50649248
It's Thomas Cole's 'The Present'

File: 1481489220946.jpg (163KB, 907x667px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 907x667px

>>50637496
It actually does say that, the last line of the campaign is 'history reasserts itself'.
Now if you listen to Malory it wasn't over there though, a dude named Constantine takes over for Arthur and reigns honorably, I'm not sure but I think it another source there's even further campaigns against Mordred's sons. There's actually an old DOS game where you play in the Post-Arthur world and try to keep Britain together and gather what knights remain.

File: 1466739541668.jpg (39KB, 356x332px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 356x332px

>>50636536
>in some cases the system is chauvinistic

>>50645483

Seems a bit lame and railroady, desu, but it is the end so it's fitting, I suppose.

>>50653237

While it's very much kind of a dumb way to look at it, it does say essentially wanting to play a female character means you don't get to do much shit.

Just makes me more likely to play one pretending to be a dude, honestly, so I don't see it as a fault of the system, really.

>>50630227
>not Malory names even a little
>also obvious errors like confusing Gwynedd and Gwaelod
White Wolf Publishing indeed.

>>50653351
The guy who's going to insist on trying to play a woman disguised as a man who is also a knight
Saints preserve me, why does there always have to be one of you cunty fuckers?

It's never a woman either, that's what really gets me. I've never once in my life had a problem with a female player over this kinda shit, they just accept genre, play a man and have a blast.

>>50653533

Cunty fucker, really? I don't always do it, either. I just like the trope and if it fits with the genre/game and the DM allows it, I go with it. If not, I shrug and make a dude.

It's not really that big of a dealio.

>>50653570
>Cunty fucker, really?
In my experience, yes.
>I don't always do it, either.
Sometimes is bad enough.
>DM allows it, I go with it. If not, I shrug and make a dude. It's not really that big of a dealio.
This on the other hand is good but also not my experience at all. In not acting like a whiny sperg about it you're in a distinct minority.

>>50653570
Yeah. That being said, lady knights are part of the general genre, what with motherfucking Bradamante in the Roland mythos. Now Pendragon is really not that suited to lady knights, but it's also not something to tear your clothes for either way.

>>50653707
>Bradamante
Not really part of the "Roland mythos" nor Matter of France at all; Bradamante is a strictly early-modern novel character, it's like calling T.H. White's backwards-living Merlin part of the Matter of Britain.

>>50653237
>>in some cases the system is chauvinistic

It's fucking supposed to be. The SETTING is chauvinistic as shit. If people can't deal with that, they should have a seance and make sure Thomas Malory can attend.

>>50653764
That's a really big stretch unless you want to say that Bradamante was invented by Marion Zimmer Bradley.

>>50628844

You know what I want? Given the timeline of Pendragon, I want King Arthur to go up against Belisarius, the Last Roman in a great battle for the fate of the Western Roman Empire. The Taghmata of Byzantium vs Arthur's army and the cream of Western Europe.

>>50632763

T.H White's The Once and Future King is a great read.

Did anyone else watch the shit out of 'The Sword in the Stone' as a kid?

>>50653849
>If people can't deal with that, they should have a seance and make sure Thomas Malory can attend.
But what about him raping Joan Smyth like four times? You know he's not going to be even a little bit apologetic about that stuff, his shitlord ways will give them the vapors.

>>50653849

>The HISTORICAL PERIOD and CULTURE is chauvinistic as shit.

Why do people feel the need to ram modern day politics, morality and worldviews into settings and times where those beliefs did not exist? As a Historian, that thing really bugs me.

>>50653882
>early-modern
>EARLY modern
I'm talking about Ariosto, bro. She was invented by Boiardo and AFAIK cast as a lady knight by Ariosto, she has no presence in any trouvere work and doesn't meaningfully count as part of the Matter of France, not any more than Bradley's adaptation of the Arthurian stories is "Arthuriana".

They're both reimaginings built on the old material rather than part of it, although admittedly Ariosto doesn't take a giant hard shit on the source material like Bradley does. Just a side effect of not being a chronic child rapist, I guess.

>>50653975

I do it when and where possible because those things are morally wrong, and should be corrected. "Just because it happened" is no valid defense. Oppression is never OK, and to let it exist - even historically - is to validate it. That is not acceptable. Therefore, our modern enlightened views must be "rammed", as you put it, into other settings and times until all trace is eradicated and people can no longer have such unacceptable viewpoints validated by the historical record.

So RAW, since you lose honor for performing non-knightly skills, you lose honor for fighting with a lance or nearly any weapon that isn't a sword?

>>50653975
>Why do people feel the need to ram modern day politics, morality and worldviews into settings and times where those beliefs did not exist?
Because it makes them insecure to think that their own morals and values are as ephemeral as those of earlier times. Weak people can't handle this idea; instead, they seek to affirm the objectivity of their beliefs by judging all people of all times by them and claiming they should have known better; that, in fact, anyone can know better ex nihilo and that failure to do so can only be due to being a wilful bigot.

>As a historian, that thing really bugs me.
Ditto and ditto.

>>50654128
Wat
Fighting with a lance isn't a knightly skill by RAW? If that's the case, it's so retarded that I've never managed to notice it in the book.

File: lemortedarthurbo03malorich_0097.jpg (223KB, 833x1019px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 833x1019px

>>50653975
I don't get their problem considering men in these romances worship the ground '''''maidens'''' walk on and go through ungodly physical and emotional torment on their behalf and most of the time not even to get laid.

>>50654091
Kek
r8 b8 3/8, gr8 but didn't make me ir8, m8

>>50653975
>>The HISTORICAL PERIOD and CULTURE is chauvinistic as shit.
You mean, the same historical period where some English king conquered the Roman Empire and became its rightful Emperor? Let's not forget, Arthurian myth is made up shit already, and Pendragon is not some GURPS-based historical game.

>>50654199

Yes, but it's not Warhammer. It's still based, even in part, on actual History and on the context of when Le Morte D'Arthur and similar works were written, the time of High Chivalry when the position of Women and minorities was very different to how it is today.

>>50654178
>most of the time not even to get laid.
Uhhhhhhh
Have you ever in actual life read the Morte D'Arthur anon
Because they for real screw to an unsightly extent
Tristan keeps getting in trouble for sleeping with all manner of bitches including but not limited to La Beale Isode, people are forever humping Morgan Le Fay, Gawain and his brothers kill Lamorak for fucking the shit out of Morgause, Arthur himself also fucks Morgause which is what leads to Mordred etc etc etc.

Only guy I can think of who doesn't actually get up on it is Merlin who on the other hand Malory is super explicit about trying to get the maidenhood of the Damosel of the Lake.

>>50654211
As >>50628836 put it, Arthuriana is a medieval superhero setting. There's at least three Saracen knights coming from goddamn Babylon that form part of the Round Table, and somehow I don't think actual Muslim people of the era would have much luck in the local courts.

It's a setting. If you don't want women knights in your game, tell your players instead of flipping out at the imaginary SJW game police. If you do want women knights, also tell your players it's okay. If you want jet fighters instead of horses and lances, well you're fucked because there's no Ace Combat Zero RPG yet. But you don't have to flip out over ahistorical crap for goddamn King Arthur stories.

>>50654211
>>50654343
It's not about ahistorical, you dinks. Both of you have got the argument wrong from opposite angles. The issue with women knights is that it's *off-genre* -- it's like introducing a strong independent woman that don't need no man into a Bond movie and having her gain Bond's respect and lecture him on gender relations. That shit shears the genre, even if you actually believe in feminism, because *Bond movies do not work that way*.

The saracen knights are already in the genre, the equivalent of Leiter or some shit.

Plus, you're way off if you think Saracen/Christian was a bigger distinction between persons than Man/Woman to medieval writers. You could convert between the first two, and indeed the saracen knights do.

File: 1411874807084.jpg (38KB, 340x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 340x480px

>>50654454
>implying you can't convert between man and woman

>>50654454
>t's like introducing a strong independent woman that don't need no man into a Bond movie and having her gain Bond's respect and lecture him on gender relations.
So uh, Jinx?

>>50654554

In fairness, that movie sucked. So it's probably not as good of a counter-argument as you're thinking.

>>50654611
That wasn't a counter-argument?

>>50654554
We clearly have very different recollection s of that movie. Doesn't he save her ass five times, nail her and stay totally chauvinistic? Also,
>using the worst Brosnan movie as an example of things that do not kill the Bond
>this kills the Bond

>>50654300
no there are a few who are dedicated platonicly and it's even something Pendragon accounts for. best example is Sir Palomedes knows he can't have Isolde because Tristan's her man but still fights for her honor. Also Lancelot and Elaine before she rapes him with magic.

So, show of hands, who'd like to get a game going.

>>50655826

I would, if it were 4th Edition. I've always wanted to be a Byzantine at King Arthur's Court. Byzantine History is one of my favourite things.

>>50655826
And what edition?

File: Brienne.jpg (48KB, 530x350px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 530x350px

>>50654454
I think it's okay to have women knights if you want them in your pendragon. You don't need to, but you also don't have to lose your shit over the notion that other people might enjoy it.

Authors in each time period write their own values into the old stories anyway. One of the reasons we had the death of Arthur was because people at that time decided it wasn't okay for Guinevere to cheat with Lancelot (who was himself a later French addition to the round table). So I think it's okay for us to invent women-knights or even LGBT-knights to accommodate the values of our day.

Knights were constantly disguising as others anyway, so it's plausible for one or more knights to secretly not be straight men, then have the court only find out after they proved themselves to be strong and loyal.

Also, even Beaumains, then disguised as a kitchen boy, got his chance to prove himself, so it's easy to imagine Arthur giving a chance to an insistent woman-at-arms.

>>50655982

I feel like I saw a really shitty movie about that concept with Eric Idle as a Dragon.

>>50655866
The RPG trove archive has the Book of Knights and Ladies, where all the non-Cymeric cultures are fleshed out.

File: tumblr_nv3qh1QNfY1rt41q9o1_500.jpg (187KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 500x750px

>>50655982
>to accommodate the values of our day.

you said it white boi

>>50654155
No, it's knightly

File: monstrous-regiment-1.jpg (280KB, 536x800px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 536x800px

>>50655982
>entire party is women disguised as male knights
>except party face, who's the only one who can disguise as a woman believably
>a good two thirds of the round table are also women in disguise

We Monstrous Regiment now

File: 1408922199915.png (1MB, 800x1523px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1523px

>>50656953

No, we Fate Stay/Night.

>>50636383
What's more, with Arthur's death, ends The Enchantment of Britain, and as the fairies retreat from this world and magic fades away, so do people just forget about all the 15th century cultural mores and the advanced technology and just quietly return to being 10th century dirt farmers. It adds yet another dimension of tragedy to what is already a very sad ending for a story.

>>50657059
If this was Fate, all the historical figures would've been secretly female and about 33.3% would've had Saber's face.

File: 1480238890222.jpg (156KB, 1000x1079px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1000x1079px

>>50657092

And another 33% would have Rin's face.

>>50657112
Yeah, but Saberface is practically a meme of its own by now.

>>50657124
It's not just a meme, it's what TvTropes would call an "Ascended Meme" in the case that the creator of the work itself is aware of its existence and has even referred to it specifically.

https://reversethieves.com/2015/12/19/top-10-type-moon-moments-for-2015/

TL;DR Characters in the RPG Fate/Grand Order actually have a Saberface ATTRIBUTE, albeit one the player isn't supposed to see (you can find it by examining the game files). It's literally a number that represents how similar the character's face is to Saber's (with characters like Nero or Joan d'Arc obviously having a "perfect" rating, indicating identity), and it actually HAS AN EFFECT ON GAMEPLAY - characters with a connection to one of the "Saberfaces" (Lancelot, Giles de Reis, Caligula, etc.) will have a MUCH higher tendency to target ANY character with a Saberface. Like how in Fate/Zero Giles became obsessed with Arturia because she happened to look like his Joan.

>>50656224
Ultimately, though, he's not incorrect. King Arthur's tales, of all things, were retold innumerable times over a very large number of historical periods in a large variety of cultures, and it was very common for the people of each to change the stories to fit their own values and sensibilities . In fact, this happened so many times that today nobody can really say what the original version of the story even is - we can THEORIZE that it was originally the mythologized record of the life of some Welsh warchief, but the truth is we honestly don't know, and we know even less about which elements were originally in it. Sir Lancelot, for example, we know for a fact is a later, French edition, and it's not even quite certain that the Sword in the Stone, supposedly the legend's most iconic feature, originally appeared in it (it's suspiciously similar to the sword in the treestump from the Sage of the Volsungs, leading some to theorize that it may've been added later by Saxons). Keeping that in mind brings up an issue which is pervasive to today's world of fantasy fandom, which is of "what stories are sacrosanct?". At which point in history did certain stories become "set in stone"? Why was it okay for them to change to wildly when told by European peasants over the centuries, but if someone tried to change them nowadays they'd be called out for it? (some theorize it's because today more people have more access to records, meaning there are more people to "note the errors" in a changed version of the story whereas back then they'd have just eaten anything out of the storyteller's mouth).

While funny as a joke, it is actually not inconceivable that, were the story allowed to continue evolving like it used to, today's versions of it would've received a similar treatment.

(Imagine historians 800 years in the future researching the story of king Arthur and arguing at which point around the 20th century the detail of it being a cute little girl was added...)

>>50658067
>At which point in history did certain stories become "set in stone"? Why was it okay for them to change to wildly when told by European peasants over the centuries, but if someone tried to change them nowadays they'd be called out for it?

Damn, that's a good question. I often get the feeling like people on /tg/ are actually a lot more autistic about historical accuracy than the actual historical people they're trying to be accurate about - I remember more than one time where people, like, sperged out because someone mentioned centaurs in a medieval fantasy setting because REEE GREEK MYTHOLOGY IN MY GERMANIC CULTURE, even though medieval people actually shoved Greek mythology into every local folktale they could for shit and giggles.

>>50655982
>Also, even Beaumains, then disguised as a kitchen boy, got his chance to prove himself, so it's easy to imagine Arthur giving a chance to an insistent woman-at-arms.
No it isn't. It really, really isn't. On the contrary, it would go against the entire reason why Beaumains got his shot, which is the idea that the noble nature of a true knight shines through every disguise -- his name is Beaumains, "fair hands", for this exact reason. He doesn't have the rough hands of a real kitchen boy.

It's the same with Sir Torre, for instance, who's apparently a chump peasant but only likes war and knightly deeds and his apparent father doesn't know what to do with him -- hey, turns out Pellinore fucked that guy's wife! He *is* a noble! So Arthur knights him.

A lady knight on the other hand goes against the very basic nature of a gentlewoman. It's a total aberration to the mindset, even if you overlook the obvious physical inferiority (although obviously you can't really overlook it as it's part and parcel of the role of women).

>>50655880
>>50655866
Looks like 4th. Who wants to GM.

>anon complains that there's always that one fag who has to try to shoehorn in a ladyknight even though it's patently retarded
>asks why it's gotta be this way
>thread immediately fills with like five of that exact fat fag sperging right the fuck out about ladyknights with the most threadbare, ridiculous attempts at justification

This shit's worse than elf slave wat do? threads, /tg/ really disgusts me sometimes tbf.

>>50658567
Of course /tg/ wants to be lady knights. How else can they force yuri into the game?

>>50658067
>we can THEORIZE that it was originally the mythologized record of the life of some Welsh warchief
Wasn't the story originally Pictish and then subsumed into Welsh mythology?

>>50658154

Because it creates disinformation. Like the horned helmets on the vikings, and so on.

I dont have a problem whit historical inaccuracy (Hell, I dont think there is some thing like REAL historical accuracy.) but dont press it as a fact.

Just look at the Colombus Discovering the New world kinda movies.

>>50658715
I don't think anon tried to claim it as a fact that there were centaurs in medieval Europe. It's more about people getting angry that fantasy stories aren't essentially more historically accurate. I mean, take all of medieval art itself as an example: do you actually think all the people painted in the biblical scenes looked European, dressed like European of the period and lived in buildings that looked like European structures of the period? Obviously, no. But the whole notion of "history" was a lot more fluid and fundamentally very different in a mostly illiterate society (everything that happened more than a generation ago literally WAS no different than a fairytale, and everything more than a walking distance from the village was just one big "far away"), and I think a lot of people on places like /tg/ could save themselves a fair deal of anger if they remembered that.

There's a movie coming out right now about how the Great Wall of China is actually meant to defend it from monsters, and a pair of European outlaws who arrive there looking for gunpowder end up helping the Chinese defenders. Matt Damon, who stars in it, has been accused of whitewashing and I recall one of his responses was "You know what, you're right, I bet there weren't any white people in Chine WHEN THE MONSTERS CAME TO ATTACK THE GREAT WALL."

>>50653975

Well, when you are giving a review for a game you SHOULD mention such things. As 'Can't play female characters without altering it' can be a turning off point for some people.

>>50654128

Not someone who's ever played this game but is intrigued: How broad is 'Knightly' and how important is keeping a high honour? Is it like L5R where you can have a non-honourable member of your group easily as long as he doesn't flaunt it or is it more like Dark Side in most Star Wars games where you quickly stop being a reasonable PC?

>>50653975
Yeah! You can't blame the system for not including women, that's just how things were like back in the dark ages! Just like there were plate armor, 15th century castles, fairies and magical swords! I mean, pff, women. That would've just been historically ridiculous.

>>50654128
Theoretically, yes, though IIRC according to the Book of Knights and Ladies Cymri may treat spears, great spears and lances as knightly weapons (I could be mistaken).

>>50658689
>Wasn't the story originally Pictish and then subsumed into Welsh mythology?
No, it's *possibly* Cornish (Kelli Wic is in Cornwall according to the stories) but the earliest attestations of the Arthur figure are in Welsh poems, a couple Welsh hagiographies and the story Kilhwch ac Olwen. There's no particular reason why the court at Kelli Wic should be evidence of a Cornish origin rather than just a choice for the purposes of the fiction (such as having Arthur's court be in a foreign country for a sense of scope, or just so locals can't ask inconvenient questions), but those people who insist on Arthur having a historical model read into it, obviously.

>>50658780
If you're trying to recreate a setting, which it is, why go out of your way to break immersion in that setting?

There were tales of fairies, magical swords and castles and plate armour came soon after. But there were never lady knights.

>>50653975
I want to play a samurai. Can I? It's technically possible that he travelled through China, Russia, Easter Europe, and Germany. Then, he took a Saxon boat in Germany and arrived in England.

>>50658817
>There were tales of fairies, magical swords and castles and plate armour came soon after
There were tales because people told them, because, as >>50658067 mentions, people back in the day didn't give a shit about "accuracy", they just told whatever stories they liked. At some point very recently, from a historical perspective, the idea was born that stories have a single, "proper" form, and it's presumably then that many of them were "set" in the shape from which deviations are considered inaccurate.

>>50658828

Sure! Go sit over there with the frenchman and the multiple saracens.

>>50658829
The one notable exception to all that is, of course, biblical stories, which incidentally are also the only ones which were continuously kept in writing throughout the entirety of the Middle Ages. Most other things were fair game, though. If the village troubadour somewhere in France heard a version of the Odyssey but decided it'd sound better with Odysseus having Christian values and some of the Greek names being changed for easier to pronounce local variations, then that's how he'd have told it. And if Jacques the blacksmith heard and liked it, and felt like telling it to his children one day, that's what he'd have done. He might've also decided to, say, pepper it up a bit by adding another cyclops, in which case that's the story HIS children would've passed on. That's how stories evolved over time.

>>50658829
Yeah, you can say stories are totally mutable and not set in stone, and there's merit to that. But the point of Pendragon is to simulate Arthurian myth, and the concept of courtly love and the relationship between a knight and a maiden are fairly important to the concept of chivalry.

Do you see how a female knight would kind of fuck that up?

>>50658067
>At which point in history did certain stories become "set in stone"? Why was it okay for them to change to wildly when told by European peasants over the centuries, but if someone tried to change them nowadays they'd be called out for it?
This whole discussion is silly and wrongheaded, nobody's saying that TH White's an asshole for writing a new version of the Arthur stories, or anything like that. What's being said is that FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENDRAGON specifically the Arthurian mythos was set in stone by Malory because Pendragon is a game essentially about RPGifying the Morte D'Arthur. That means specific things in a specific style and screaming and whining about it is as pointless as it would be to go into a thread about a Captain Blood RPG and go WHO DIED AND MADE SABATINI THE ARBITER OF ALL THINGS PIRATICAL????????

Look at it this way, would you allow a robot in your Pendragon game? A twi-lek? If you can see how that would be stupid or might infuriate players who came to the table to play a King Arthur game, congratulations, you now know all your arguments for ladyknights are pure sophistry. The only distinction is you don't have a fetish for twi-lek knights, so you don't try to excuse them.

>b-b-but muh modern take on fantasy

>>50658875
Yes, but I also see how there could be merit (if only in the sense that it would make for an interesting story) in exploring that field, precisely because such exploration would occur against that specific cultural background. Unrealistic elements were introduced into King Arthur's stories because people told them like that - no real reason you can't tell them otherwise.

>>50658908
Really, what can be "explored" by the concept of "BADASS INDEPENDENT FEMALE KNIGHT OF THE ROUND TABLE"? What, a gender equality movement in the middle ages?

>>50658881
Actually, page 6 of the 5th edition rulebook specifically refers to such depictions under the headline "Which Arthur Is This?" (under the subtitle "Radical [depictions]", the short of which is that KAP draws inspiration from many different versions of the legend (rather than just from Malory, as you seem to be implying - I can assure you, for example, that Malory's version didn't have nearly as many pagan elements as KAP). To quote the book:

>"The complexity of the corpus of legend leaves room for these kinds of open-minded and creative interpretations. We encourage Gamemasters to use whichever interpretations they fancy most, even to make up their own for their campaigns. Interpreting the story is, for us as well as for established authors, a creative experience."

This, by the way, literally follows the example of the inclusion of heroic women in the stories (though with more focus on Marion Zimmer Bradley and Phyllis Karr and less on Fate/Stay Night).

>>50658881

Do female characters have the ability to shit out problem-relevant magic items on a regular basis? As I remember that one being pretty common for female characters in Arthurian myth.

>Here Lancelot, have a ring that negates magic.
>Here Sir Percival, have Joseph of Arimathea's shield.
>Here Sir Graham, have a magic sword.
>Here Sir Pelleas, have a necklace to make people love you.
>Here Sir Tristan, have a Love potion.

>>50658950
Once again, courtly love and chivalry are important to Arthurian legend, not to mention the idea of having successors and an estate.

How does that work for a female knight? Especially if you go the lesbian route, which I fucking know you will.

>>50658963
Don't forget the Lady Hautedesert offering Gawain a magical girdle.

>>50658949
Just how poor a storyteller with how little imagination does one have to be to not be able to at least see the options? How will such a woman be accepted by the fellow people of the period (knights, men, women, pagans vs. Christians, etc.)? How will this influence her self-image? Will this have an effect on her behavior? How will her breakaway from the social norms influence her interaction with other characters and under what circumstances? Could the story be used to explore proximate themes (gender relations in general, masculinity and femininity and the perception thereof, or even something indirectly related such as society's acceptance of the "aberrant" in general, with the female knight being more of a metaphor than anything else)? You can highlight the hypocrisy (it's your narrative, you get to decide how it rolls) of a king who supposedly stands for all his people as some sort of superhuman ideal of equality and justice, but is singularly opposed to some of the freedom's he should be representing (as in "Mists of Avalon"), or alternatively, draw allusions to the virtue based personal narratives which became associated with some of the other Knights of the Round Table. You can examine the values of the time period in an ironic, critical or straightforward fashion (Terry Pratchett did that once, by the way, female Arthur and everything, yet he never gets the same flak as Nasu Kinoko). You could evoke a variety of religious themes, pagan OR Christian. There's so much more you could do other than make a simplistic statement about STRONK WOMYN. There's an entire world of literature out there you are choosing to ignore, and why? Because the SJW boogymen might wait around the corner? Loosen up.

>>50658963
In 4th edition, at least, some could. You would roll for a special ability/skill in character creation and women had a 1 in 20 chance of getting "potion brewer", which allowed them to produce a potion a year, IIRC.

Fuck, can we just all agree to stop taking the bait of the fucking ladyknight shitposters already? I don't know if it's one faggot or several but it's totally derailed this previously comfy thread just like it does the game.

The proof of how obnoxious and disruptive these sperglords are is right here, let that be enough. Christ.

>>50658999
So...you want a story about earning gender equality in the middle ages, is what you're saying.

>>50658963
Female characters don't exist in most editions, you have to get a particular supplement if it's available at all. 4th expanded the options but as people said right at the beginning of the thread, the expanded options kinda fucked up the focus of the game and are not normally recommended.

>>50658999
>virtue based narratives
Amusingly, one of the very first proper "fantasy books" in history, Edmund Spencer's The Faerie Queene (a collection of morally uplifting "knightly tales" explicitly written in the honor of Queen Elizabeth around the 17th century - back in the day, such stories would've normally been presented as "recordings" or "retellings" of some older story) features a female knight. Each of the book's stories revolves around a virtue, and Britomart, the Knight of Chastity, is a woman. She ends up saving a princess and all. Funnily, modern readers are often very eager to point to the story for depicting lesbians - Britomart and her princess sometimes act VERY affectionate to each other and even share a bed - but that's arguably missing the story's whole point. Britomart is a woman because women were just seen as more "chaste", and the scene of her sharing the princess' bed is intended to show a model of chastity because OBVIOUSLY women can't have sex and by doing so she's preventing some lecherous man from coming nearby and sleeping there.

Cultural values are always changing, and stories change to match.

>>50659159
Also, one of the knights of virtue is a half-satyr. So there for classical mythology in medieval literature.

>>50659039
No, not at all. But if you don't get what I'm saying after having explained to you in detail, you won't get it any other way, so good day to you. Enjoy continuing to live in fear of feminists.

>>50659039
Do you also think that Mace Windu is a statement about race relations in the Galaxy Far Away?

>>50659248
I understand what you said, and though you dressed it up, what you're asking for is a narrative that examines the social injustice of a "good" king that denies women knighthood. You're asking for a story about how a female knight would change things, and what that'd do to her.

And you know what? Sure, I bet it could be a good book. But that would devour a campaign, especially if you set out to make some social statement about it. What are the other players supposed to do in this grand feminist opus? What if they just wanted to be fucking knights?

>>50659285
Star Wars isn't based off a historical period.

>>50659300
>I understand what you said, and though you dressed it up, what you're asking for is a narrative that examines the social injustice of a "good" king that denies women knighthood. You're asking for a story about how a female knight would change things, and what that'd do to her.
I think that the intention was to show that there's more to dealing with the issue of "femininty" in fiction than pointing out inequalities. Motherhood, for example, is an extremely broad, extremely complex theme that I could definitely see being explored in a book like that. A female King Arthur who has Mordred would probably have a very different relationship with her son Mordred than the male one did, and whether or not she does, each option would no doubt lead to a universe of fascinating possibilities for literary analysis (what does being a mother mean? How do motherhood and fatherhood essentially differ, if at all? How much of Mordred's personal development stemmed from the nature of his father-son relationship with King Arthur, if at all?). Same would go for the role of a woman in Christian society: could a female knight be virtuous, or would becoming a knight itself make her a bad Christian? The whole story could not include a single male other than the Jesus in her mind and it would still be an interesting story. How about female as opposed to male sexuality? Is there a sexual aspect to the violence that dominates a knight's life? To the knightly model of honor? Is it masculine, or something that transcends sex?

Granted, all of these would fit better in a book than in a roleplaying game but this discussion started with people making arguments about the literature. If you're going to claim that all you wanted was a group of knight to dungeon crawl with, what does it matter to you in the first place how they look?

>>50659376
>If you're going to claim that all you wanted was a group of knight to dungeon crawl with
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying I want to play a arthurian knight with his fellow knights, going on quests, right wrongs, wooing maidens, etc.

What I don't want is shit like this.
>How about female as opposed to male sexuality? Is there a sexual aspect to the violence that dominates a knight's life? To the knightly model of honor? Is it masculine, or something that transcends sex?
How about female as opposed to male sexuality? Is there a sexual aspect to the violence that dominates a knight's life? To the knightly model of honor? Is it masculine, or something that transcends sex?
I don't want to play some feminist manifesto.

>>50656953
With the Troll though it's not immediately apparent because humans aren't good at telling the difference anyway. Beyond usually more craggy and sometimes has more stuff growing on them there is no way for a human to tell. And even then it doesn't work considering the head of the Troll Mafia is male and completely cragless with no moss or grass growing on him at all.

And with the Igors it's just so much needlework.

>>50659376
Nash does touch on the motherhood bit a tiny bit when he can spare time from all the futa porn. His version of King Arthur is female, but also in many ways a very "asexual" figure (ironically, her character probably becomes the least interesting in her own route in Fate/Stay Night since her whole personality has to switch to big standard swooning tsundere hentai heroine to accommodate the romance she clearly wasn't written for), as an extension of her general inhumanity, e.g. Seeing herself as more of an ideal than a human being, believing that the king must not have human emotions so their judgement isn't biased.

Long story short: she was an AWFUL parent, and her detachment from Mordred is emphasized through the contrast between the expectation that a woman be warm and caring towards her children (the father is EXPECTED to be stern and cold) and how she actually acts.

File: Shamerfur dispray.jpg (82KB, 521x427px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 521x427px

>>50658774
In 5.1 there are five skills out of 28 + 7 weapon skills that are not Knightly, Chirurgery, Fashion, Industry, Crossbow and Stewardship. Only the last two were of interest for my players, especially stewardship as maintaining the manor is fairly important to not fall into poverty or impoverishment.

Crossbows may be argued are only dishonorable when used against Christians, ranged kills still only reward half the glory reward for kills, Saxons or boars.

Stewardship is fairly crucial but it encourages players to marry early or set out to seduce noblewomen when they are not serving the realm which may be quests of their own.

High honour is good as it firstly makes you a knight that can be trusted and admired which generates Glory. You want to accumulate glory as every 1K glory can be spent on increasing skills, passions and attributes.
Secondly as a passion you can roll against your glory to get a +5 / +10 to skill during for example combat. This may of course backfire and on a failure you get -5 and on a critical failure you may flee and decrease honour by one.

In 26 years, we only had one player loose honour as he failed a Valor roll and fled from a giant making the fight much harder for his battle brothers who of course retold the story of his failing bravery. Loosing honor is fairly hard in my experience other than crit failure.

>>50651613
>There's actually an old DOS game where you play in the Post-Arthur world and try to keep Britain together and gather what knights remain.
This sounds right up my alley. Do you know what it's called?

>>50659402
I don't think feminism means what you think it means. The whole discussion of violence in sexuality is not only not neccaserily a part of it, it's often outright opposed. This is some blatantly Freudian shit. Or are you seriously saying FREUD was a feminist?

>>50659453

Interesting. Thanks.

I'd have expected more 'Being a sneaky bastard' skills on that list of non-honourable skills.

I'm highly amused by the idea that Fashion is non-honorable. Knights must all look like complete disasters if allowed to dress themselves.

>>50659453

So helping some peasants get a wagon out of the muck is going to cost you more honour than pillaging a church? That doesn't seem like something Galahad would ignore.

>>50659490
Welcome to the world of knightly romance. Drama stems from this kind of question precisely.

>>50659460
Spirit of Excalibur.

>>50659462
I'd call a story that explores primarily female themes feminist.

>>50659493

Yeah, it just seems weird that actually being a good christian part of being a good christian knight costs honour.

>>50659499
So you're saying violence is female? I'm sure Paglia would adore you.

>>50659499
Whoa, goalposts. You said there's no place for female knights in Arthurian stories because they can only tell stories about gender equality. You were shown this isn't true. Claiming now that you didn't want to hear stories about female themes in the first place changes your position quite a bit.

>>50659499
>Spirit of Excalibur
Seems to be pretty much Arthurian War in Middle Earth, and I played the shit out of that back in the day. I'll give it a shot.

>>50659519
At least in Spanish violence is grammatically female. "La violencia."

>>50659538
>Whoa, goalposts. You said there's no place for female knights in Arthurian stories because they can only tell stories about gender equality.
Yes, which you or the other guy brought up. An examination of violence and the contrast between male and female identities, if I recall. Also the concept of motherhood and all that.

Yes, you could explore those, but that'd need to be a novel. Because it'd be a crappy campaign if the DM and a player want to write this overwrought story exploring female identity.

Also, violence in sexuality? Yes, that is entirely a feminist issue. Because only feminists care about shit like that.

>>50659477
It gets better, clothes looses half their value every year from wear, tear and "progressing fashion". Fashionable clothes for knights start at £1 (240 denari on a libre (pound)) and he couldn't afford new clothes for years until they were valued at 1 / 64th of a £ or about 4 denari.
The Knight in Rags was however among the best in England with a sword so it was inadvisable to call him that within earshot.

Sneaking rarely works out well with horses or while on foot wearing chain mail, both very important in combat for a knight.
Most avoid using it for more than scouting for a lance charge.

>>50659556
"La Guerra", "La Venganza", "La Muerte" etc. But don't read much into it, we don't use the neutral article that much.

>>50659614

Hah.

Is honour in the game opinion or personal? If you hide your dishonourable action from others does your honour drop?

I supposed that's true for sneaking, I'm just surprised that it's not on the list of disonorable stuff. Shivving people in the back tends to be seen as disonorable but >>50659453 doesn't seem to mind as long as he wasn't unarmed.

>>50659618
I don't, I just thought it was funy.

>>50659668
Might makes right.
Say that a knight have uncovered a group that intends to kill their lord to put a someone more favorable to them on the post.
It would defiantly be honorable to throw a gauntlet at their feet with the accusation and challenge them to a duel to the death.

However inviting them to a dinner party, presenting their plan to the guests as you make your way to his back and shiv him when you present the evidence may work as well.

>>50659725
>However inviting them to a dinner party, presenting their plan to the guests as you make your way to his back and shiv him when you present the evidence may work as well.
Wouldn't this be incredibly dishonorable? When someone is your guest, you honor and respect them, no matter who they are or what they have done.

File: Honor.jpg (246KB, 394x1018px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 394x1018px

>>50659741
Actually yeah you're right!
Hospitality is a thing I entirely forgot about.
We just never had anyone playing a "rogue" knight so I tried to brainstorm something which was clearly wrong.

But on Honor which I was just reading on. Rather than making a fool of myself here is what the book says.

>>50659763

Interesting. So it's personal, not what people think of you.

Which makes it a bit odd that at 4 you lose knighthood. Someone could be considered a paragon of honor but be a horrible, backstabbing cunt as long as he hides it well.

>>50633043
You could run two games in tandem, I mean it's possible my group runns something like eight different campaigns simultaneously.

>>50659799
Keep in mind that you can get Armor of Chivalry if your knightly virtues are high enough, so it makes sense within the game's internal logic: knighthood is as much an inherent quality as a rank of nobility.

>>50659556
It's the same in Hebrew.

So, as far as getting a game together goes...does anyone actually want to DM?

That's always the sticking point.

>>50659610
>Also, violence in sexuality? Yes, that is entirely a feminist issue. Because only feminists care about shit like that.

I'd say something about how you also probably think psychologists are evil, evolution is a scam, literary analysis is pointless and social science is a Jewish conspiracy, but odds are I'll be right and then that'll just be sad.

>>50660271
>I'd say something about how you also probably think psychologists are evil
No, but I appreciate you baring your political leaning in your statement.
>evolution is a scam
This I find particularly hilarious, given my hobbies include studying paleoantropology.
>literary analysis is pointless and social science is a Jewish conspiracy
Because anyone who doesn't want to examine a gendered perspective of violence in sexuality must be from stormfront, clearly.

But hey, I'll humour you. How do you plan on spinning the issue of violence in sexuality into a good plot point in a session of Pendragon.

>>50660353
You are either lying or absolutely incredibly stupid if you claim to know anything whatsoever about evolution OR psychology yet not understand why the relation between sex and violence bears discussion.

>>50660680
I understand it begs discussion, and perhaps in another game about barbarians or some such it would. But this is Pendragon, a setting wherein introducing yourself to a lady without all due pleasantries is dishonourable. How the fuck do you want to tackle the interplay between violence and female arousal in this setting?

I guess maybe you could have a lady set up a tournament to find a suitor or an evil enchantress forcing men to fight for her amusement, but those are already things you'd expect in the setting. You're not "exploring" shit.

Look your slapfight is nice and all but
> The Orkneys are Margawse's personal domain. Its army consists of "100 knights, many fierce footsoldiers, limitless wild Picts, and legions of night demons." It is not a nice place to visit.

Why the fuck aren't we having a game about kicking Pict ass right now

>>50660855
I keep trying to see if we can get a group together for a game, but nobody is biting.

I'd love to remove picts.

File: 15cc2e2bbcb591b52938f18b3bf021da8ce35f118dd813ae9941c05d2c41167f.png (184KB, 510x668px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 510x668px

>>50660887
While looking like this, even.

File: Codpiece.jpg (180KB, 652x581px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 652x581px

>>50660975
Don't forget the most important part.

>>50661030
Let's bring this full circle: women knights are allowed as long as they wear impressive codpieces.

Okay, guys. Who wants to DM? And what edition shall we play?

>>50660855
Because I want to shed the blood of the Saxon men.

Rolling 3d6 for how much I hate the Saxon men

Rolled 6, 6, 4 = 16 (3d6)

>>50661788
Fuck

I bet Saxons did this

>>50658251
>"The complexity of the corpus of legend leaves room for these kinds of open-minded and creative interpretations. We encourage Gamemasters to use whichever interpretations they fancy most, even to make up their own for their campaigns. Interpreting the story is, for us as well as for established authors, a creative experience."

>>50658977
>Once again, courtly love and chivalry are important to Arthurian legend, not to mention the idea of having successors and an estate.
>How does that work for a female knight? Especially if you go the lesbian route, which I fucking know you will.
The Pendragon 5e core book presents rules for creating female player-knights, as well as guidance on how such a knight might be treated, and about a dozen examples from history and literature to draw inspiration from.

>>50661970
So are there rules for risking death upon child birth and being out of commission for 2 - 3 years afterwards?

>>50662046
Considering how Pendragon characters are actually supposed to age, wither and die, this doesn't seem like too rough a deal.

>>50662140
I figured it was one adventure per year, roughly.

Bah, excuse my salt. Female knights in an arthurian setting just feel forced.

>>50662169
It's okay, if you don't like it you just don't like it. I don't mind it myself, but different strokes, etc.

>>50662220
Personally, I'd expect a female PC to be an enchantress or some such. That's how it usually went down.

Then again I'm reasonably sure the only reason /tg/ wants female knights is to lesbo out.

>>50662249
I would actually have more trouble with a magic-using character, female or not, than with a female knight. You can work around issues with the later but Pendragon magic is really not meant for PC use.

(Also, you underestimate how much /tg/ would like to hump strong virile men to get knocked up.)

>>50662298
>>50662298
Indeed, that's the thing. Lady knights aren't just melee fighters, knighthood was a status thing. Maybe a (wo)man at arms or an archer?

Just feels pointless to play a game that simulates a certain type of setting only to make major changes to that setting.

And c'mon, anon. Remember quest threads? Almost all of those ended with a lesbian harem.

>>50662376
Mang, there's a reason why "you're the girl in the next picture" threads are more popular in /h/ than /u/. Lesbians are fun but anons just want to be taken in a manly fashion for purposes of procreation in the end.

>>50662432
I doubt that. Every time I've seen a male player play a female character they always go for /u/.

Listen the only fighting woman in the entire source (in this case Malory) was the female hunter (who lead a band of other female hunters) who shot Lancelot in the ass by accident as he was sleeping then is never mentioned again.

>So at that time there was a lady dwelt in that forest, and she was a great huntress, and daily she used to hunt, and ever she bare her bow with her; and no men went never with her, but always women, and they were shooters, and could well kill a deer, both at the stalk and at the trest; and they daily bare bows and arrows, horns and wood-knives, and many good dogs they had, both for the string and for a bait.
>Right so came that lady the huntress, that knew by the dog that she had, that the hind was at the soil in that well; and there she came stiffly and found the hind, and she put a broad arrow in her bow, and shot at the hind, and over-shot the hind; and so by misfortune the arrow smote Sir Launcelot in the thick of the buttock, over the barbs. When Sir Launcelot felt himself so hurt, he hurled up woodly, and saw the lady that had smitten him. And when he saw she was a woman, he said thus: Lady or damosel, what that thou be, in an evil time bear ye a bow; the devil made you a shooter.

So if you wanna be stronk woman the only avenue is to play some dyke woodswoman with bad aim.

>>50662657
Why exactly was he sleeping in a way that his ass could be mistaken for a boar.

>>50662657
The Arthurian corpus I grew up with, and Pendragon itself, draw on other sources in addition to Mallory.

>>50662912
And nowhere in the canon is there Ser Madame RugMunchere

>persons asks which edition of Pendragon is best
>/tg/
>less than 250 posts later thread is entirely about female knights and feminism
Why am I not surprised at all?

>>50663100
/tg/ has lost his spark of wild imagination, the creators are long lost and the quality dwindles. And people isn't very good at discussing sexuality, basing only in his fetishes. So yeah at the moment some one mentioned it, same old debate.

>>50663100
>it took around 250 posts to get to this point
You should be surprised, this one took a while

>>50662249
>Then again I'm reasonably sure the only reason /tg/ wants female knights is to lesbo out.

I don't necessarily know about that. In my personal group, we have one woman. She's a professional stuntwomen (live in LA, these things happen), an IJA jouster, teaches HEMA and does competitions, and owns three suits of plate armor which she also fights in and I've watched her win handily against men - again, in competition (women's divisions in HEMA are rare and not everywhere).

We've been bouncing the idea of a Pendragon game around, and she would like to play a lady knight, for what I presume are obvious reasons.

>>50663064
The character doesn't have to be lesbian to be interesting. Chastity in a knightly sense works just as well for a lady knight as for a man, and there's already a period example earlier in this thread of just that. Just marry her off to some yeoman or another knight, pump out babies for a few years, and then get a steward to watch the estate while Sir and Madam gallivant around. Both sides of the argument in this thread are making things more complicated than they need to be.

>>50663399
>>50663525

Britomart, the female Knight of Chastity, in Spenser's Faerie Queene. One of the central characters with an almost spotless combat record.and saves a bunch of other knights from shameful captivity.

I have no problem with the idea of female knights or allowing them in my games, as long as none of that gender bullshit and other shit mentioned in this thread shows its head. Also no modern morality/ethics, no subverting the genre or trying to be clever in getting around the cliches. You are medieval knights so act like it, damnit. Everyone should be cutting apples into three pieces and doing other weird medieval shit that Christians did back then to prove how faithful and pious they are.

File: strangelove.gif (428KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 500x322px

Hell, I would easily deal with ,,woman posed for a man" and even ,,when it spilled most of us decided to roll with it".

Actually, that's how I accomodated a female character on my historical pike-and-shot session.

I would even roll with it in Pendragon probably.

But fuck, not in the way that is proposed here.

What you want to do is like that greentext, where party starts pro-gay rights revolution in a kingdom instead of fighting necromancer.

Sure, if you want to outlive your /pol/ fantasies inside setting you are as entitled to it as anyone.

But do it on sesion devoted to those gender issues. Devoting your character to pointing out hipocrisy of arturian society, showing that they are all jerks, because they can't fit your manly woman character in their social structure is strongly against the spirtit of the game that encourages you to adopt their way of thinking, their concepts of honour, knighthood and belief.

Take into accord that this game has very narrow context, which is outliving the arturian mytho, not challenging it with your personal morals.

Seriously, I would be dissapointed if, after I started a Sword and Soccery road-story which had to end with slaying the BBEG necromancer, someone derailed it completely in attempt to enforce it's social conventions on world that was just made up.

Get your own, FATE based, version of Race War for it, because bringing your skub to table in order to overshadow your story with <PRESSING ISSUE> is fucked, no matter what you push.

And (You) are worse. I see a trembling nightmare. Come, look at me, I'm a ghost of campaign to come:

>Finally start Great Pendragon Campaign
>Can I haz female knight?
>Ok.
>In course of few sesions player ascends and shows his power level (>9000), attempting to make gender eqality a issue in a campaign that is about arturian mytho and chansons de geste.

10/10 made me spill my beans.

>>50663659
>And (You) are worse. I see a trembling nightmare. Come, look at me, I'm a ghost of campaign to come:
See, here's the goddamn thing - none of this has happened. There's people looking for a Pendragon game right here, right now, but that game hasn't started. Your greentext is cute but you're afraid of something that is not real. "B-but it WILL HAPPEN---" It hasn't happened.

Go. Get your people and get your game going. Fucking talk to people like grownups instead of wringing your hands about possible bad ends for a campaign that right now is little more than a glint in Anon's eye. This shouldn't be impossibly hard to do, dammit. It's an RPG. It's about talking to people.

>>50663645
>>50663659
That's the thing, though. A female knight wouldn't be allowed at the round table.

That's the whole problem. In order for it to work you have to go full "GENDER EQUALITY"

>>50663775
>That's the whole problem. In order for it to work you have to go full "GENDER EQUALITY"
No you don't. You can make an exception, have ONE unique women knight in the setting, that tries to live by the code of chivalry while still maintaining traditional feminine values as best she can and being a good faithful Christian. Gender bullshit is only an issue if you make it an issue.

>>50663861
So you want to have something that doesn't fit the setting and then just ignore that?

Okay, I want to play as a cyborg with a laser katana. Give me this ONE exception.

>code of chivalry while still maintaining traditional feminine values as best she can
Literally opposites

>>50663935
You see, this is the type of bullshit autism that I was talking about. A single female knight can fit in the setting if done right, as long as you don't don't bring your modern values into the game. A cyborg will never fit the setting no matter what.

>>50654343
>>50654454
>No female knights in Arthuriana

>who is Lady Britomart

>>50663985
A single female knight can fit the setting, sure. But she'd by mocked, excluded, preyed upon and otherwise treated like absolute shit. Not to mention what other women would think about her or the rumors.

And let's not forget the fact the medieval feminine virtues just don't line up with chivalry at all.

>>50664017
>who is Lady Britomart
Not Arthurian, from what google tells me. What's she from?

File: ktulacz.jpg (53KB, 520x386px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 520x386px

>>50663756
Hey, you pointed out what issues you want to bring to table with this female character. And they are pushing your stuff around, picking on presented world and society, along with exploring femenine concepts of violence.

And it's game that is not about reverting tropes, chalenging patriarchal structure or femenine concept of violence.

Honour system and other mechanics are created to help in achiving certain expirience, which you want to topple and reshape in way to accomodate your out-of-character beliefs.

Just get the Game of The Thrones RPG or go back to /pol/ with your gender issues.

If you feel that I'm not serious eunough in presenting my arguments, remember that you are surrounded by 40k threads.

>>50653975
Because C.S. Lewis was right about everything.

Moderns exist in a tyranny of thought, that all things which come later in the scope of time are superior to the brightest things of an earlier age.

>>50664067

It's been pointed out like 6 times. Britomart is from Spenser's "The Fairie Queen", which is an Elizabethan take on the Arthurian mythos.

Spenser's own description of the piece says that it's an allegorical presentation of virtues through Arthurian knights (each knight is a different virtue) and he planned to write a 12-book sequel about King Arthur embodying the 12 Public Virtues of Aristotle.

In short, Britomart is an Arthurian knight who happens to be female, from an irrefutable period source.

>>50664291
That's pretty deep.

>>50664448
From the summary I read it sounds like Britomart retired to found the monarchy.

Honestly, the summary almost sounds like something you'd find in shitty fanfiction.

>>50664448
>posting too soon

In Book III of the Fairie Queen, King Arthur himself (traveling with a knight named Guyon) meets Britomart, an Britomart and Guyon joust. Britomart wins, and Arthur comments approvingly on how good a knight she is before he and Guyon continue on their quest to rescue Florimell. Britomart, for her part, goes and rescues the Redcrosse Knight (star of Book I) and they all meet back up at the end and of all of them, Britomart - not Arthur - is able to save the day and recuse the Lady Amoret.

If women can't be knights, explain why Arthur is totally fine with one existing.

>>50664539
Because she's a very early example of a mary sue?

>>50664514

ALL Arthurian writing is basically shitty fanfiction.

Not accepting the Fairie Queen as a source is just as stupid as not accepting Mallory or TH White. They're ALL valid sources, and it's perfectly fine to pick and choose between there.

Therefore, the people who want lady knights are free to choose Spenser as one of their primary sources. The people who don't are free to not use Spenser as a primary source for their game. BOTH GAMES are still legitimately Arthurian, and neither is more "true" than the other.

>>50664579

She doesn't do anything that the Redcrosse Knight or Sir Guyon (stars of Books I and II) are unable to do in their own books. Either all of the characters are Mary Sues, or none of them are.

Of course, by /tg/ standards, all Arthurian characters are basically Mary Sues anyway. Fuck, look how Arthur got to be king. Total bullshit, that. "Chosen One" plots are just utter rubbish, amirite?

>>50664589
It's one thing to encounter a random lady knight and it's another to have her join something like the round table.

Not to mention she's seeking her future husband and presumably intends to retire afterwards, given the whole "founding the monarchy" thing.

And speaking of that. You are correct in that all Arthurian writing is bad fanfiction. But what do you say about a character who is admired by the protagonist, outdoes him and then gets to found the TRUE monarchy?

>>50664291

That's quite clearly bullshit.

>>50664652
>But what do you say about a character who is admired by the protagonist

I wouldn't know. Because she IS the protagonist. Book III of the Faire Queen is literally about Britomart.

And, as a heads-up since you pretty clearly haven't read it, the thing she outdoes King Arthur at? It basically boils down to "keeping your fucking trousers shut and not fucking everything that moves". Which is a thing the the Pendragons are all pretty lousy at in the first place.

Tell you what. From a place of pure conceptual thought, what would it take to convince you that lady knights can exist in the Arthurian mythos? Would it take a personal visit from Sir Thomas Mallory knocking on your door and saying, "yo, they should be vanishingly rare, but one low-profile lady knight on the Round Table and perhaps a half-dozen across all of Christendom wouldn't change really anything else I wrote and so you may as well be cool with it?"

Because there's a literal primary source - IIRC the 2nd-oldest primary source, actually - pointing out that they existed.

File: fabio.jpg (2MB, 2292x3482px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2292x3482px

>>50664968

>>50664996
What would Fabio's virtue be, /tg/?

First off, posting this in THIS thread to keep it from the new thread, so we can NOT immediately devolve there.
>>50664925
Anon... Spenser's stuff is from the Elizabethan era, is propaganda for Elizabith 1 explicitly, and, I'm sorry, that means it's neither irrefutable nor a period source. Summary also states Britomart was never *actually* a knight, she went out in plate and did knightly things; yes, but she just did that one day, no knighting involved. Beyond that, she used an enchanted lance regularly, which was a deciding factor in her battles. I'm not OP, I think you actually *can* have just a couple sprinkled here and there, without *majorly* compromising the setting, but the issue is that Arthurian fantasy is already not particularly far from regular fair. In the hypothetical if she met the qualifications, I don't think King Arthur would hesitate that much in adding her to the round table, but in a pen and paper game, it's a pretty solidly different issue. In a book, it could be an interesting theme, but an exception like that naturally has gravitas and pulls enough focus off of the other players and the rest of the game to start having knock-on effects. You *can* just ignore all that, it's true, but then you basically end up with a dude knight who happens to be female, which, while there's nothing inherently wrong with that, also is inherently *not* a lady knight. Chivalry and medieval feminism, which is an important distinction, aren't mutually exclusive, but they do often run at cross-purposes.

>>50665154
Lust. Fabio would make Lust a virtue.

>>50664925
>Tell you what. From a place of pure conceptual thought, what would it take to convince you that lady knights can exist in the Arthurian mythos? Would it take a personal visit from Sir Thomas Mallory knocking on your door and saying, "yo, they should be vanishingly rare, but one low-profile lady knight on the Round Table and perhaps a half-dozen across all of Christendom wouldn't change really anything else I wrote and so you may as well be cool with it?"

There nothing anyone, anywhere can say which would ever convince me that female knights should be a thing in anything even remotely resembling arthurian myth (including basically all low fantasy RPGs).

Female knights are shit-tier fapbait, full stop. Keep them the fuck out of a perfectly good quasi-historical RPG like Pendragon. Women can't fight. Period.

>>50665487
Not him, but while I agree that female knights are usually done stupidly they can work in a different setting.

>Women can't fight. Period.
And this isn't true, though they are often weaker.

Really, the parallel here would be playing a game set in an amazon tribe and one player demanding to play a male amazon.

Do anyone have the link for Great Pendragon Campaign PDF? I can't find any.

>>50665623
Look in the pdf share thread

>>50665623
it's in the new /pdg/ MEGA repository

>>50664448
>Britomart is an Arthurian knight who happens to be female, from an irrefutable period source.
You worthless shitmonkey, Spenser is the opposite of a period source. He's closer in time to Marion Zimmer Bradley than to Malory, let alone Chrétien. "Period" doesn't mean the same thing as "in the past" or "old".

File: Franklin.jpg (190KB, 393x478px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 393x478px

>tell everyone to disregard the ladyknight sperglord
>leave to go have life and do lively things
>return
>mfw

>>50666496
>Spenser is the opposite of a period source
>He's closer in time to Marion Zimmer Bradley than to Malory,

La Morte d'Arthur (which is essentially what created the "Arthur Myth": published 1485
Fairie Queen: published 1590
Marion Zimmer Bradley: published 1957

1590-1485 = 105 years.
1957-1590 = 367 years.

367 < 105, according to anon.

>Opinion Discarded.

>>50666740
>La Morte d'Arthur (which is essentially what created the "Arthur Myth"
>opinion discarded

Anon, I think you will save yourself a great deal of embarrassment if you just swallow your pride at this point and say you just don't want women in your fantasies. It's okay. It really is. Once you make it your opinion, it's yours and yours alone and no one can argue with it. When you try to make it sound like you're defending intellectual principles based on facts, well... that takes intelligence and facts. It really doesn't make you look so good.

>>50666680
Well, just in time. We're getting a game together.

>>50664968

>>50665326
>Beyond that, she used an enchanted lance regularly, which was a deciding factor in her battles
Yeah, what man in Arthurian myth relied on something like a magic weapon? Certainly, you'd never find one there whose weapon was so vital to their legend it became almost as famous as themselves. No sir-ee.

>>50666832
>ladyknight neckbeard acting like he's not the one embarrassing himself
Yikes, kid.

>>50666787

The Arthur found in the Annales Cambriae, and the Historia Brittonum may predate La Morte d'Arthur, but it's not the same sort of character at all, and those certainly aren't what started the actual Arthurian Mythos.

Technically what started the Arthurian Mythos was Geoffery of Monmouth's portrayal of him in the Historia Brittonum (Books 9-12), where he's a larger-than-life character who united Britain. However, except for those points, the portrayal of Arthur is so far off of what we now consider to be Arthur as to be completely unrecognizable.

The modern Arthurian Mythos - which is the subject of the game, the thread, and the argument - originates with La Morte d'Arthur and is next expounded upon in The Fairie Queen. So yes, The Fairie Queen is certainly one of the primary sources for a Pendragon game, and that source supports (rare) female knights. Get over it.

>>50666832
Look, ad hominem attacks make no one look good. I think you'll save yourself a great deal of embarrassment if you just swallow your pride at this point and say you just want lady knights in Arthurian legend because it gives you a boner, since you like to imagine them fucking other ladies and/or getting ravaged by barbarians. It's okay. It really is. Once you make it your opinion, it's yours and yours alone and no one can argue with it. When you try to make it sound like you're defending intellectual principles based on facts, well... that takes intelligence and facts. It really doesn't make you look good.

>>50666880
Arthur used magical swords, and, even then, he used the sword in the stone long before Excalibur, and I'm reasonably certain the only magic in that sword was keeping it in the stone until the rightful king of England pulled it out. Besides that, he was accomplished in jousting as well, where he had no magic weapons, whereas Britomart won in the contest that earned her respect while using a magic weapon. Besides, while using a magic weapon may be fine in war, in a sporting contest, it doesn't seem very sporting to me.

I'm genuinely impressed that absolutely nobody managed a good rebuttal to >>50663399's point that he has a woman in his game - who is basically an actual badass - who wants to play a female knight capable of the same things that the player is capable of. Which is in no fucking way an unreasonable request.

Instead, the only possible motivation for wanting female knights in an Arthurian game is because people want to jack off over it.

Never change, /tg/.

>>50667061
You almost seem surprised.

>>50667061
What was that post supposed to prove? The point wasn't that women can't be badasses. It's that arthurian times weren't exactly friendly to the idea of a female knight.

>>50667061
You are familiar with the concept of a bell curve, yes? There are people on both far ends. People that say that women universally can't fight are as much idiots as those that say that every one of them can fight as well as the average military man. Militaries either take the best when they can afford to be choosy, or take everyone when they need cannonfodder. If they're taking everyone, they're not likely to turn you down, but if they're taking only the best, the average woman has lower martial capacity than the average man. As much as I hate it, we don't live in a world where you can just throw yourself into training and surpass all barriers; that's simply not how life works. Beyond that, though, that particular tale doesn't actually refute all of the arguments here, only some of them. A lot of other people are arguing about theme, setting, flavor and focus, not that women are inherently incapable of doing these things. Suggesting that all that boils down to is "women are weak" is disingenuous.

>>50667061
Firstly it's because that one woman is the exception to a rule of Magicstanky neckbeards. Secondly it's probably because nobody wants to point out that he made this woman up -- a professional stuntwoman who routinely beats capable male opponents in HEMA would be a *sensation* on the tourney circuit, that hasn't happened, therefore clearly part or all of this alleged person is make-believe. Thus "the same things the player is capable of" is nonsense even before you point out the glaringly obvious different-social-norms thing.


Thirdly, it would still be a totally unreasonable request. "Sorry, I'd be totally fine with it in D&D, but this is Pendragon and it's not about that. It just doesn't fit."

>>50667110
>What was that post supposed to prove?

That sex isn't necessarily the primary motivator of somebody asking about female knights? The way it's been outright claimed by >>50666921 and >>50665487 and >>50662657 and >>50662516 and >>50662249 and >>50658977 (and that's only half-way back through the thread).

Try to keep up.

>>50667176
>That sex isn't necessarily the primary motivator of somebody asking about female knights?
This is /tg/, a board of permavirgins who don't even play traditional games. Of course sex is the only possible motivator.

>>50667201
>This is /tg/, a board of permavirgins who don't even play traditional games. Of course sex is the only possible motivator.
Yeah, it's not like this routinely happens in every quest thread ever.

>>50667231
>quest thread
Only reinforces my point.

File: 41ed1152a023f0b1bcb8d0537b715d7b.jpg (89KB, 564x851px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 564x851px

>>50667161
>a professional stuntwoman who routinely beats capable male opponents in HEMA

Samantha Swords exists, anon. IIRC 3-time national Aussie champion, beating the men.

Also, he didn't say "routinely". He said that she CAN beat men, not that she does so all the time. Hell, here's a pic of an American stuntwoman in Arizona who does all that as well.

Yes, those women are breaking the bell curve as >>50667145 rightly points out. The Round Table - and Arthurian Myth in general - are specifically about the people who are exceptions ot the bell curve in the fucking first place. We aren't talking about a "meet 1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year" town milita made of 50% women. We're talking about getting to play one of a half-dozen female knights across ALL the know Christendom. Literally the exception to the rule, in the same way that Lancelot is an exception to the fighting bell curve and Guenevere is an exception to the hotness bell curve and Galahad is an exception to the purity bell curve.

The ONE amazing female knight who breaks the bell curve is EXACTLY the sort of person who the Arthurian tales are all about.

>>50667282
>Samantha Swords exists, anon.
Is this a joke, or are you really this retarded?
She doesn't even do HEMA, you mong.

>>50667282
>Beyond that, though, that particular tale doesn't actually refute all of the arguments here, only some of them. A lot of other people are arguing about theme, setting, flavor and focus, not that women are inherently incapable of doing these things. Suggesting that all that boils down to is "women are weak" is disingenuous.

Nice job ignoring the rest of the post. I will agree that Arthurian myth, and, more importantly, myths in general are all about people who are exceptions to the bell curve. That's fine. I've previously said it would be a really cool story, and honestly, I think it would be. The problem I have remains that it would inherently demand a lot of gravitas and focus simply for how unusual it is, and if you made it not unusual, that's... rather heavily altering the setting, which is the main point of Pendragon (though that could be a decent story in its own right, it's not the same style as Arthurian myth). That's not really fair to the rest of the players unless they *also* draw the same level of gravitas and focus, a proverbial group of legends among legends, basically. More than flavor, more than fluff, more than martial capacity, that's been my longstanding issue with this, and no one's refuted that to my satisfaction.

>>50667371

http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2/this-armored-lady-won-the-longsword-competition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/

Educate yourself, fuck off, or preferably both.

HEMA is more than just Swordfish and Longpoint. She's practicing a historical European martial art. That is literally what HEMA means.

>>50667441
>that's been my longstanding issue with this, and no one's refuted that to my satisfaction

That's because it's player- and group-dependent. The CONCEPT is sound, and this thread has been about the concept in general. Your issue with whether it can be done in practice.

Some players/groups could pull it off. Some could not. There's no way to know whether it's a no/no go unless you're actually in the specific group in question. Which means that refutation is effectively impossible, because people who are opposed to the concept at large will simply disbelieve anyone who relates about their group pulling it off, in the same way that every personal anecdote is intrinsically disbelieved here unless you live-stream it (and even then it could be a setup).

File: 2001 Gojira, Mosura, Kingu Gidorâ Daikaijû sôkôgeki.720p.ac3.CG.avi_snapshot_01.16.44_[2016.12.12_18.36.13].jpg (39KB, 1280x544px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1280x544px

>>50667282
I bet you think it's totally permissible for Mothra to beat other monsters too because she's a strong female.

>>50667617

Only if it's a Mothra movie.

If it's a Godzilla fight movie, Godzilla wins. If it's a King Kong fight movie, King Kong wins. If it's a Mothra movie, then surprise! Mothra wins.

It's like the protagonist is SUPPOSED to be able to triumph in the end (sometimes at a dear cost, but they do triumph). And funny thing, at the game table, the players are ALL protagonists. Ergot, if one player is playing a female knight, then the GM should allow that player to eventually achieve a triumph, even at a dear personal cost. The GM shouldn't just have the character exiled for wearing men's clothes, relentlessly raped, and then put to death by burning as a witch without having achieved anything at all. Because in a story, those things do not happen to protagonists on page 75 of a 350 page book.

Hate the female knight and want to see her brought low because she's a female? Fine. Do it as part of the story climax. But in the interim, the female knight has accomplished something and that death is the price she has to pay to accomplish it. <That's> good GMing, and good storytelling. Hell, that's even totally in keeping with the Arthurian storytelling tradition.

Shit GMing is just telling the player to fuck off, fap somewhere else, and die in a fire.

>>50667747
Mothra has defeated Godzilla in every single movie they've been enemies in with the exception of GMK.
It was bullshit there and it's bullshit in your forced feminist wanking here.

>>50667835

The mere existence of a female knight is not forced feminism you gormless fuckstick.

The female knight who wins every tourney, beats Lancelot 1-on-1, lectures Guinevere on why she's setting a bad example for women by being a "stay at home queen", and is tapped to lead the Round Table as Arthur's heir after Mordred leaves? Yeah, fuck that. THAT'S forced feminism. Learn about nuance.

Simply allowing a person to play a female knight in your game has nothing at all to do with the inanity you're claiming. Your argument is shit and you're a piece of shit.

>>50665487

What did they do to you, anon.

File: King Arthur's K.O.R.T.png (117KB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 320x200px

>>50651613
>>50659460

There is another one! King Arthur's K.O.R.T.
Aye it has kind of a goofy name but I played it a fair bit back in the day.
Worth playing for the terrifying sound sample of 'HAIL AND WELL MET' the other knights give you.

>>50667932

Including women anywhere they shouldn't be <is> forced feminism.

>>50667443
>Educate yourself
KEK
You're the one who needs to get a grip, kid. Go ask the HEMA threads if Bohurt or HMB are welcome.

>HEMA is more than just Swordfish and Longpoint.
Correct, it's also Dijon, Fightcamp, etc.
>She's practicing a historical European martial art. That is literally what HEMA means.
No and no. What she does isn't historical OR a martial art and it isn't what HEMA means at all. HEMA is the term for reconstructing practicing historical sword arts according to surviving manuals of fencing, not for bad bloßfechten in unhistorical armor at recreational-jousting events. What she does is the ren faire equivalent of HEMA, if ren faires were mostly populated by potato vendors in steampunk outfits.

So in conclusion, fun as it is to see you getting desperate, you're also retarded.

>>50668171
>What did they do to you, anon.
Ladyknight fags ruined his Pendragon thread, and he's been bitter and wary of them ever since.

>>50674493

You...are not an intelligent person. For what it's worth, I honestly pity you that.

What is the problem with someone wanting to make a female knight? Just let the player create one. Then have her get insulted by about every important NPC. Once she cannot stand it anymore, challenges and maybe defeats one NPC in fair duel, or kill one trying to kill/rape her, have her get burnt on suspicion of being a lesbian and a witch (torture and rape in the dungeon is optional).

>>50674816

If she is an actual, honest-to-god, knight, that treatment would bring the entire Round Table down on the perpetrator's head. Not because she's a female, but because nobody does that shit to a Christian <knight> during the Arthurian period. It's about defending the position and not letting a precedent get set.

This isn't real life, and even the worst villains in the stories didn't pull that sort of trick. With that said, you could probably do something like that during a campaign if and only if it was portrayed as a casus belli for Arthur to go to war with the perpetrators.

>pulling a bait-and-switch as a GM makes you a much, much worse person than literally any possible player archetype. You want to ban something, just fucking ban it. Letting it in just to get fucked over is the absolute pinnacle of shit GMing.

>>50656224
>woven mail

I thought Monty Python and the Holy Grail was the last film to realise how bad that shit looks

>>50664925
>And, as a heads-up since you pretty clearly haven't read it, the thing she outdoes King Arthur at? It basically boils down to "keeping your fucking trousers shut and not fucking everything that moves".

Not a strength of Arthur's no.

>>50674493
>implying HEMA is only concerned with sword arts
Nigga fuck off

Can someone describe Pendragon for me? Settingnlooks interesting but does it fill a niche no other rpg does?

>>50675546
It's as if you were a knight of the round table.

>>50674881
Implying a female passing for a knight counted as something Christian and Honest-to-God and not as some satanic heresy tainted with witchcraft and with a smell of sulfur.

>>50674632
>calls anon unintelligent
>responds to an articulate post full of arguments with a pointless ad-hominem
Did you sincerely think either anon or the rest of us would be convinced by this?

>>50667747
>The GM shouldn't just have the character exiled for wearing men's clothes, relentlessly raped, and then put to death by burning as a witch without having achieved anything at all.
hot

>>50677546
Getting a little Spanish Inquisition for Arthur, aren't you? That's more Berserk than Pendragon.