Re: Game Discussion

[Loreia]

Interesting. So, is it unlawful or vain for me to have picked out a surname after I've been knighted? I like that name, I'd change my background to include it as my last name since I was born if I had to so that I could to keep it, which should have no consequence or bearing on the campaign.

[Ser Alfred Haigh]

'Vain' was the sentiment that would lead to Bronn choose that particular name, he could after all also adopt the name 'Bronn Miller' or 'Bronn AwesomeMcCoolname' or 'Bronn Batman' (my personal favourite, why be something else when you can be Batman ? Always be Batman.). My point was merely the complete freedom to pick any name, basically. While something hearkening back to the the deed (Bronn of the Blackwater) or some family history (Tullison, Drakeson) seems to be particularly favoured ICly by the characters I mentioned, there is no real limit as long as no IC celebrities are harmed ('My name shall be Bronn Mormont !"
'Yeah, right, the Boss of Bear Island would like a word with you, dude. Bring a wooden box about your size while we're at it.' "
What for ?"
'Hospitality gift, they're really into those.')

As I said, the above and what I've posted before are my personal thoughts on that topic that are of course only superficially rooted in the lore and mostly stem from the show and some cross-reference. I don't see an issue with picking a last name upon being knighted as such, after all, you could think of a knight as a House that has only one member (in this case Loreia herself). Granted, Loreia is still young enough to to contribute to that number, the question there would be whether she wants to sorta solidify the existence of House Durant (difficult without being landed, but possible) by means of matrilinear marriage (She is from Bear Island, or so I heard) or whether the name would pass into obscurity again upon her joining another house through marriage (the most accepoted variant, but having read through Loreias threads, Im not sure she sees that option as the most desirable ).

[Theomore Tullison]

There is no definitive canon answer to what social status is afforded to the families of knights. The basics being that a knight have the right to trial (by combat or proper proceedings headed by the ruling lord) and that's pretty much it. Then comes a whole bunch of social add-ons which isn't codified in any way, it's just custom.

What it ultimately comes down to, I think, is that a lord in the Reach is going to say "
But you are no knight"
if you try to get the same privileges by dint of being the son of some random sworn sword of the Riverlands. If you are knighted yourself, or your father is a landed knight or member of an actual noble house (with a lord at it's head), then that's another matter entirely. However, in the Riverlands, you might still get this treatment because people know that your father was knighted because he saved the life of Lord Vance's favorite niece, in the Reach they don't know and they don't care.

From GRRM's mouth, the most applicable parts is where he states in correspondence that knighthood is primarily seen as a profession, you are a fighting man with warhorse, good weapons and armor, it is not hereditary, not a title you pass on to your sons, though being knighted means you can make them knights of course, but you'll need to provide horse and arms for anyone to take them seriously as knights. Some random knight might dub whoever he likes, but Westerosi society will then consider him dishonorable and look down on him and everyone he knighted unless they actually have the skills and equipment needed to perform the role.

So my conclusion is that unless you can trace your lineage to a lordly house, and you are not so far removed from the present lord of that house that he accepts you as part of the extended family (see Lothor Brune) you need to be knighted yourself or have a patron that others don't want to offend in order to be respected in like fashion. That being said, on account of Westerosi custom being that a knight is a protector and that women and girls are to be protected, likely also applying to children, I'd say that the wife, unwed daughters and sons not yet reached manhood will be afforded the protection of their knighted father, as in, he has the right to exercise his duty to fight to prove their innocence, and any lord denying him that will be seen as cruel and without honor. Sons that are grown men are likely expected to be able to protect themselves and be full fledged knights themselves in order to have the same position in society as their father, and when a daughter has married someone, the duty of protecting her falls to the new husband, and if he isn't knighted, well then that's a pity if she ever gets accused of whatever she might get accused of.

I think it's actually such that not even a landed knight's extended family is "
legally"
brought into the knightly caste, but because that landed knight is entrusted by one lord or the other to oversee some parcel of land, and this lord is powerful enough that he needs knights under him to do this and picks someone outside his own family (who'd get a more solid rank on account of family name), a member of knightly house will get the noble treatment as a result. Which essentially goes down to customs reinforcing the part that nobody will name Loreia as Lady Durant because she's just a knight and there's nothing to be Lady Durant of, Lady Loreia wouldn't be wrong since that's how you'd address a female member of a knightly family, but it would also be wrong on account of knight being more of a profession with certain duties and the specific title of ser, which again would be wrong on account that a female* warrior defies pretty much every Andal custom about gender roles.

*Though an interesting point being that the poor fellow's allowed women among their ranks, but these were comprised by smallfolk where the warrior's sons where all knights with no women allowed, of course, some might argue that if you only accept knights and there are no female knights, there won't be any females there. Cue circular argument that women can't be knights.

As a sidenote, the gameofthrones wiki says that women technically could be knights, but it just isn't done, while the awoiaf wiki says they can't, the latter is book canon though, so might be the show actually does it differently. Neither wiki cited any source though. The closest canon statement we have is that "
any man can be knighted"
, but that (and all the rest) only implies that it can't be done.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Interesting. So, is it unlawful or vain for me to have picked out a surname after I've been knighted? I like that name, I'd change my background to include it as my last name since I was born if I had to so that I could to keep it, which should have consequence or bearing on the campaign.

Vain is in the eye of the beholder, but it is certainly not unlawful. Breaking custom... unclear.

As I said, the above and what I've posted before are my personal thoughts on that topic that are of course only superficially rooted in the lore and mostly stem from the show and some cross-reference.

No worries, that's what we all do - none of us are authorities on this stuff;
in the end it comes down to what can be backed up from canon sources, or what Reader decides.

From GRRM's mouth, the most applicable parts is where he states in correspondence that knighthood is primarily seen as a profession, you are a fighting man with warhorse, good weapons and armor, it is not hereditary, not a title you pass on to your sons, though being knighted means you can make them knights of course, but you'll need to provide horse and arms for anyone to take them seriously as knights. Some random knight might dub whoever he likes, but Westerosi society will then consider him dishonorable and look down on him and everyone he knighted unless they actually have the skills and equipment needed to perform the role.

The relevant issue is not whether knighthood is professional (it certainly is) or heritable (it is not), the relevant issue is who gets to use a surname, and what does it mean to have a surname. House Heddle shows that surnames and effective status are unrelated - having a name means nothing inherently, but a known name can clue people in to a person's "
deserved"
status.

[Theomore Tullison]

Well, that is indeed the question, anyone can take a surname, but just because one has a surname does not mean one actually is part of a house that confers certain benefits, and I'd consider it practical to make the distinction that a knightly house would be a family who's head is actually a landed knight, whereas a sworn sword that happened to take a surname is just that, a sworn sword that happened to take a surname.

Some might call it pretentious to do so, most probably doesn't care, except when the knight in question happens to be a woman.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Well, that is indeed the question, anyone can take a surname, but just because one has a surname does not mean one actually is part of a house that confers certain benefits,

Nor do we have any evidence that a knightly house conveys any benefits, other than to signify descent, and probably some inheritance rights (not land, of course, but money, arms, etc.) which seem to be questionable at best for smallfolk.

and I'd consider it practical to make the distinction that a knightly house would be a family who's head is actually a landed knight, whereas a sworn sword that happened to take a surname is just that, a sworn sword that happened to take a surname.

I'm not sure what makes that practical. Can you explain your reasoning?

Some might call it pretentious to do so, most probably doesn't care, except when the knight in question happens to be a woman.

Yeah, whether or not it's common practice is really irrelevant to reactions - people who approve of the knighting would have no issue with it either way, and people who do have an issue with the knighting would have an issue with the name either way.

[Davain Bartheld]

Maybe this was addressed earlier, I simply just scanned the previous post, but Season 6 did give a some quotes from the 7 Pointed Star. In either episode 6 or 7, Margery quotes the book of the Maiden that's along the lines of "
A woman's duty is to calm the violent nature of men."
A knight is sworn to uphold the teachings of the faith. Since knights are warriors, how can she keep her vow to the faith if by fighting in tourneys and battle she is doing the exact opposite of what the faith defines as one of her duties in life. Granted, the majority of knights have gone against the teachings of the faith at some point in their life, its still a better argument than simply "
Well there never been a woman knight."

[Baelon Drakeson]

Maybe this was addressed earlier, I simply just scanned the previous post, but Season 6 did give a some quotes from the 7 Pointed Star. In either episode 6 or 7, Margery quotes the book of the Maiden that's along the lines of "
A woman's duty is to calm the violent nature of men."
A knight is sworn to uphold the teachings of the faith. Since knights are warriors, how can she keep her vow to the faith if by fighting in tourneys and battle she is doing the exact opposite of what the faith defines as one of her duties in life. Granted, the majority of knights have gone against the teachings of the faith at some point in their life, its still a better argument than simply "
Well there never been a woman knight."

I haven't been keeping up with the show (I'm still only partway through S5), so I can't speak to the specifics of what was said... and personally don't hold the show to be canon.

Setting that aside: a dead man is permanently calmed. All Andal women should be warriors.
(just kidding, of course)

[Loreia]

Or maybe just the ones who aren't built for intrigue! I wouldn't be surprised of the holy text contained something along that lines. This does present a problem for Loreia, as she is a follower of the Seven, but you may have noticed she's prone to anger. We could consider this a personal dilemma for her. Well, she can try. She can try to get through to men's violent nature with reason, and fail more often than not.

[Ayleth Bartheld]

Maybe this was addressed earlier, I simply just scanned the previous post, but Season 6 did give a some quotes from the 7 Pointed Star. In either episode 6 or 7, Margery quotes the book of the Maiden that's along the lines of "
A woman's duty is to calm the violent nature of men."
A knight is sworn to uphold the teachings of the faith. Since knights are warriors, how can she keep her vow to the faith if by fighting in tourneys and battle she is doing the exact opposite of what the faith defines as one of her duties in life. Granted, the majority of knights have gone against the teachings of the faith at some point in their life, its still a better argument than simply "
Well there never been a woman knight."

The TV show has a pretty different interpretation of the Faith, but that seems to broadly agree with the hymn Sansa sings in CoK ("
Gentle Mother, strength of women..."
)

[Septon Arlyn]

Or maybe just the ones who aren't built for intrigue! I wouldn't be surprised of the holy text contained something along that lines. This does present a problem for Loreia, as she is a follower of the Seven, but you may have noticed she's prone to anger. We could consider this a personal dilemma for her. Well, she can try. She can try to get through to men's violent nature with reason, and fail more often than not.

This would be a very interesting conversation to have IC. perhaps at the wedding feast? who would like to speak with a fat old man about the faith and knighthood?

[Ayleth Bartheld]

Oh, that's a shame. I had a character in another GoT game I would have loved to have in a conversation like that.

[Ser Jorah Holt]

Something posted up on the Green Ronin website that might be of interest to discuss

http://greenronin.com/blog/2016/06/27/r ... f-success/

[Theomore Tullison]

But it has season 6 spoilers on it, keep in mind.

[Baelon Drakeson]

In general, I don't like it. Our characters are already fairly powerful;
being able to shift destiny, drawbacks, and benefits around like this would, I think, be best reserved for special situations and be offered by Reader. I think that some of these things have already been done, but again it should be up to Reader to offer the option to a player - not for us to be asking for it.

Reposting it here, sans spoilers. Well, I did leave a spoiler from the first book/season, because if you hadn't already read/seen that much you probably wouldn't be playing this game. :;
):
I substituted examples using my own characters. Note that I hope none of these examples ever come to pass!

[size=150:2q3e9t80]Ronin Round Table: The Price of Success
June 27, 2016/in A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying News, Chronicle System, Green Ronin News, Ronin Round Table /by Steve Kenson

“When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.” — Cersei Lannister

Spoiler Warning: This article references material from Season 6 of Game of Thrones and contains spoilers for viewers who have not watched through at least the fifth episode of the sixth season of the show. Redactor's Note: Not anymore, it doesn't!

Fans of A Song of Ice and Fire—and players of the roleplaying game—know full well that success often comes at a cost, and it can be a very high cost indeed. Part of the way the Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying game manages this cost is through the use of Destiny Points, which players can spend or “burn” (permanently expend) in order to influence the narrative of the game, helping move things towards a particular outcome at a cost. This is detailed on pages 71–72 of the Game of Thrones edition. Similarly, the rules for injuries and wounds in battle, frustration in intrigues, and yielding in both (see Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 of SIFRP) reflect the notion that success is often achieved through sacrifice and setbacks of various sorts.

What about combining these two elements? If you want to emphasize the notion that success comes at a cost in your Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying chronicles, consider the following options:

Setbacks to Gain Destiny Points

In the standard SIFRP rules, characters regain spent Destiny points only upon achieving a story goal. Ideally, this means roughly every one or two game sessions. Still, Destiny points can be in short supply at times and players who are out of Destiny are out of options—or are they?

It certainly fits the style of A Song of Ice and Fire for characters to take the “devil’s bargain” of trading some new problem, setback, or complication in their lives for the immediate benefit of making things better in the here and now. This is roughly the equivalent of taking a wound during a conflict to reduce the loss of Health and uses that as a rough model of their game mechanics and impact.

Temporary Drawbacks

One way to model setbacks for success is allowing characters to temporarily take a Drawback (SIFRP, Chapter 5) as if it were a wound, but more a “wound” of circumstance or ill-fortune than actual injury. The character suffers from the effects of the Drawback normally, but gets opportunities to recover from it, like a wound, with a test once per week. See Wounds in Chapter 9 of SIFRP. The test ability and difficulty are up to the Narrator, based on the nature of the Drawback and the subsequent actions of the character to recover from it. A successful test removes the Drawback, while a failed test means it persists. A critical failure on the recovery test means the Drawback becomes permanent!

Example: In a desperate conflict against a group of wights, the novice ranger Donal needs a Destiny point, but doesn’t have any remaining. Donal’s player offers to take on a temporary Drawback and gets the Destiny point he needs to pull his fat out of the fire. Thereafter, he suggests to the Narrator that Donal’s way of dealing with the trauma of the encounter will be to retreat into the bottle, giving him the “Bound to the Bottle” drawback. After a week of binge-drinking, Donal may recover, if his player can roll a successful Will test. If it fails, Donal can’t manage his drinking. If it critically fails, he’s bound to the bottle for good and never quite the same again (at least until his player earns or spends permanent Destiny to remove the Drawback).

Temporary Benefit Loss

At the Narrator’s option, a temporary Drawback may also involve the temporary loss of a Benefit instead. The character loses all of the effects of the Benefit while it is suspended and recovering it follows the same rules as recovering from a temporary Drawback, including a critical failure resulting in the Benefit being lost permanently!

Example: Lady Elinor is renowned as Attractive and has been more than willing to use her looks to her benefit. Still, when she becomes trapped in a struggle with a would-be assassin sent to kill her younger brother, her looks do her little good, and Elinor’s player—out of Destiny and low on options—agrees that an additional effect of the wound Elinor accepts to stave off Health loss is a blow to the face that causes temporary loss of her Attractive Benefit. She uses the Destiny point to hold off the assassin until help arrives. Now, as she heals from her injuries, the question remains: Are her good looks permanently marred?

Sacrifice to Burn Destiny Points

A step above the temporary and risky proposition of a temporary Drawback or loss of a Benefit is the option of allowing players to take on permanent Drawbacks or to permanently give up Benefits in order to gain the benefits of burning a Destiny point. Naturally, the Narrator must approve the sacrifice and it must fit reasonably into the story as it is being told. Some Drawbacks are easier to take on than others, just as some Benefits are easier to lose than others.

Sacrifices of Other People

Of course, true players of the game of thrones tend to prefer when the sacrifices are made by other people, suffering and dying so their ambitions can be fulfilled. This remains an option, if the Narrator permits sacrificing Benefits. For the player characters, the sacrifice of another character should involve the loss of a Benefit related to another character, such as an Animal Cohort, Cadre, or a regular Cohort, or the loss of a Sponsor. The character may literally perish, or the relationship between the Narrator character and the player character may permanently end in some fashion.

Example: [redacted for spoiler]
Redactor's substitution: Patience and her boys draw a bit too much attention of the wrong sort, and a local noble decides to make an example out of her. In the course of the battle, Patience takes a fatal wound. Her player, eager to continue her story, sacrifices her Cadre benefit for the effects of burning a destiny point to determine the outcome of the fight. Patience is unconscious and left for dead, waking some hours later surrounded by the corpses of her boys.

Sacrifice for Benefit

Alternately, rather than the benefit of burning a Destiny point, a sacrifice in-game might be to swap taking on a new Drawback or losing an existing Benefit to immediately gain a new Benefit or shed and old Drawback.

Examples: Bran is thrown from the tower in Winterfell. He gains the Crippled Drawback, but the trauma awakens his Warg Benefit. [redacted for spoiler]
Redactor's substitution: Baelon is attacked by would be bandits - or perhaps paid assassins - while traveling. In the course of the fight, he takes a mace to the face. His nose and one cheekbone badly broken and several teeth lost, his looks will never attract the kind of womanly attention they used to. However, his bloodlust in battle rises to new heights as he takes out his frustrations on his foes. He loses the Attractive Benefit and gains the Berserker Benefit.

Sacrifice for Success

More than a few characters in the Song of Ice and Fire saga sacrifice all for what they believe in and, in an otherwise hopeless situation, it may be preferable for a character to go out in a blaze of glory achieving something of importance rather than to die a senseless and meaningless death. This is similar to the story equivalent of yielding in a conflict in order to set the terms of the loss;
but rather than saving the character’s life, it allows the player to set the terms of the character’s death, and negotiate some sort of victory in the bargain.

In effect, in game terms, the character burns all of their Destiny in one moment, plus accepting the significant “setback” of death in order to garner an extra “boost” of Destiny. In exchange, the player gets to dictate one significant outcome in the story.

Note that this option should only be reserved for when players choose to sacrifice a character in this way, not when circumstances dictate that the character is slain. It’s not something a player can choose to do when their character is dead according to the game rules, as it has to be a deliberate sacrifice.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Hmm...a long read, but in the end I was asking myself if this is trying to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

I feel like the rules as written convey the feel of the Song of Ice and Fire pretty well as-is. Adding these new rules throws a bunch of new options into the mix, and with them a bunch of new things to consider, and complexities to keep in mind. And for what?

Part of the game, and the setting, is also the reality that luck runs out...that sometimes sacrifice isn't enough.

I think the GM should always retain the right to offer a thing like this, but I agree with Baelon that it shouldn't be something players can expect.

[Loreia]

In the sense that a player's character practices magic that requires sacrifice to function, perhaps this can incorporate it a little, but in a different direction besides "
if I die, I'm rolling now or spending DP so that X happens."

[Yoren longshore]

Hmm...a long read, but in the end I was asking myself if this is trying to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

I feel like the rules as written convey the feel of the Song of Ice and Fire pretty well as-is. Adding these new rules throws a bunch of new options into the mix, and with them a bunch of new things to consider, and complexities to keep in mind. And for what?

Part of the game, and the setting, is also the reality that luck runs out...that sometimes sacrifice isn't enough.

I think the GM should always retain the right to offer a thing like this, but I agree with Baelon that it shouldn't be something players can expect.

I think it depends a lot on how it is done. I think that just taking a drawback isn't enough, major things like that should give a bit of story. Like Cat figuring who owned the knife that tried to kill bran, or Davos being on an island for a week... I dislike the concept of taking a drawback to survive, it should be something more long term and all encompassing, like the Hound changing his whole life after the priest saves him.

[Ser Fendrel Bartheld]

Is there some thread with a chronological list of events in a given year?

[Reader]

Is there some thread with a chronological list of events in a given year?

viewtopic.php?f=213&
t=2637

125 - would need to put together, but house events were month 9, campaign against mountain clans a few months prior to this.

[Reader]

Rage at my inability to knock Ser Kevan down.

Still, a keenly contested skirmish so far.

Will try to hit a few of the other longstanding combat threads tomorrow, getting back in to the swing of things despite the tablet/house guest duties!

[Loreia]

Finish him Kevan! It's gonna take at least two more turns if you roll really well, we believe in you!

[Kevan Lyras]

I could also do the Loreia special :;
-):
I could throw the shield away, two-hand the bastard sword for 7 damage per DoS ->
4*7=28-10AR = 18: 4 injuries= 16 ->
he would have to take a wound to survive that, which means he is defeated.
Now for 4DoS, I'd need a 24 (23 +1 from my injury). I have 7d6k6 + 1d from him being prone + 1b from aiming. If I do a reckless attack, I can change the b to a d: 9d6k8.

Would certainly be a nice finish, but if I am not succeeding, I am standing there with a CD of 2 (5 with fatigue) and not a whole lot of health myself

[Reader]

Decisions, decisions.

Knocking you down would have allowed me to use cautious attack and made things tougher...

Fingers crossed for the puissant Ser Antony.

[Loreia]

viewtopic.php?f=173&
t=2381

How did I miss this!? I read with rapt attention, for a second there I thought we might been less successful than we were in Story 2. But Baelon got him, bravo! I should have included this in my story summary for days 6-8.
[size=85:2o9fcxrk]Answer: by paying less attention to other peoples' closed threads, woe is me

[Sponsored content]