My first exposure to Pendragon was when I picked up the 6th ed starter set last year and I absolutely fell in love with it. Unable to wait for the release of 6th ed I ordered 5.2 off DriveThru along with the Great Pendragon Campaign and some of the other supplements that have been done. Not sure how much value they really brought. At this point I'm just not sure if I'll bother picking up the 6th ed books as I don't think there's enough difference between it and 5.2 to warrant it. I'm very happy with 5.2.
Well, since you have the starter set you can see all the mechanical changes made, which I would say are mostly for the good, and you can implement those if you like. I certainly hope you use the new battle system instead of the old one. :)
Really good overview. Thank you. And I agree. That nomenclature of "core rulebook " feels misleading. But they likely realised releasing just a "player's handbook" in isolation would not sell so well. So they went with core rulebook. The whole launch of this has been disappointing. Back in 2021 (2020?), I was super excited with the interviews saying that it was largely done, but they wanted to complete the range so as to not trickle out the books over an extended period. Then it took until 2023 for the Starter Set. Then 2024 for the player's handbook; then 2025 for the GM book? Don't get me wrong - it takes as long as it takes - but more open and honest communication would be appreciated. Just as honest naming of this book would be appreciated. This range is good enough that it doesn't need obfuscation. Anyway, once it is fully out hopefully it will be a big success.
I agree The nature of Pendragon really does necessitate release of the rules/sourcebooks/campaign pretty much at the same time. I guess we will just have to wait, which will hurt initial sales.
I’m a huge Pendragon fan and I’ve already ordered my 6th edition leather cover. But even I feel like it was dishonest to remove Player Core from the title. You really need the GM book and the Nobility book to have the main rules needed to play. They already waited four years to release this one. They should have waited and released at least the three necessary books at once, if not the GPC too.
@@03dashk64 I considered the leather cover just because I think the cover art on the normal book is terrible. But after seeing how many mistakes and typos there are in the book I think I'll hold off entirely for a 2nd revised printing
This name change was explained in a Discord server: "Player's Handbook" is trademarked by WotC/Hasbro, so Chaosium had to change the name lest they leave themselves open to a lawsuit for trademark infringement. But yeah, having that explanation upfront would have helped.
Extremely happy and grateful to see this pillar of the RPG hobby covered by you Jeff. I hope Chaosium respects your multiple decades of experience of their properties, so I can think of no one better to cover this new edition of Pendragon.
There is going to be a Gamemaster's Handbook, based on an old interview by David Larkins, the Line Editor. Discord chatter suggests that it might be out (early?) next year. Which to me is strongly implying that the 'Core Rulebook' is 'Core Rulebook for Players', as also implied by the earlier name of Player's Handbook. No idea why the name change, which just invites the criticism like here that it lacks the GM stuff, when Player's Handbook would have made the distinction clear...
This name change was explained in a Discord server: "Player's Handbook" is trademarked by WotC/Hasbro, so Chaosium had to change the name lest they leave themselves open to a lawsuit for trademark infringement.
I'm a big Pendragon fan and a player in a 5.2e camping. Hopefully, the GM Handbook and the Noble's Handbook won't take forever to come out. With just the 6e Corebook the game feels incomplete.
Minor nitpick: I assume when you said "2nd edition Pendragon" you actually meant the 2nd version that was published, which was the 3rd edition. 2nd edition was a placeholder in a catalog and was never published. Just to clarify that for people who might look for 2e KAP. :)
I’m gonna push back about the historical validity of a guy named Arthur (it’s a popular name in 6th century Britain) and Camulodonum is a Roman caste in Colchester that Caratacus fought Rome from - but yea it’s an amalgam and if there was a historical Arthur he likely wasn’t a king
The Major Wound knocks you unconscious, it is actual physical effect, although the GM can of course tweak things in their own game. Multiple small wounds do not make for a Mortal Wound, which is a single wound that is larger than your Total HP (not Current HP). However, if you are at 0 or below, then you are dying, but you still take some time to die (until midnight the same day, in the example) , it is not an instant, and the successful application of First Aid to bring you back to the positive hit points can still save you. With Mortal Wounds, you need healing within the hour if you are to survive, and even then, you need to be healed enough to get back to positive HP. Which is not guaranteed, especially if the Mortal Wound came from a Giant's treeclub, pulverizing your bones...
Imagine it's 1991 and The Dark Eye, Midgard, D&d, star trek, Runequest and Pendragon. And all of them just got or are getting a new edition/a major overhaul. Well, same situation in 2024...
great overview of a book I am very curious about....coming from the indie (as in pretty small zines and books) ttrpg scene, quite disappointed to see how little GM support is here. So many indie games add loads of GM tables, support tables, even lots of solo oracles....it just seems poor form to take up 200+ pages and have so little in that direction when there's so many more options...will be curious to see your grey knight overview.
You are not alone in your frustration. Older editions had a lot of this support in the core book, but also had it sprinkled through different supplements. There will be a GM specific book coming out soon though, and a book about nobility.
My recollection of the traits and passions rules are that the die rolls are only used when the player role plays outside of the numbers they've chosen.
I have imported Traits and Passions into all my games for my roleplaying. Though I do use a 3d6 roll for each "positive" trait instead of a flat 10s, 13s, and 16s.
Looks nice, like the appropriate style of artwork. I still think ye olde 4th edition was the most complete Pendragon core book. Wish such was the norm. As far as more recent stuff, the Paladin offshoot (Charlemagne era) has a decent amount of content in it's big core book. Although I think that one's based off of 5.1 or 5.2e.
You'd have "knights" in mail. And after antiquity, there's no historical evidence of leather armor. And, you'd have stone fortifications. Most of the castles in the UK were built by Normans, not to mention Hadrian Wall. For anyone interested in European Medieval armor and arms check out any video or podcast featuring Dr. Tobias "Toby" Capwell who is the curator of the Wallace Collection and an all-around cool dude.
The warlord some historians claim is the inspiration for the legend of King Arthur is supposed to have lived during the late 5th into the early 6th centuries. You might have stone fortifications but you certainly wouldn't have had castles, seeing they don't make their appearance until the 11th century in France. I could see some mail shirts in the mix at that time though. The point I was making was someone accepting "truths" of the Arthurian legend such as knights in plate armor, Arthur being a king, and the castle of Camelot but turning around and complaining how dare Chaosium Inc include the female knights in Pendragon is just a bunch of B.S. ~ Jeff
@Thegaminggang Certainly, you would've had stone, earthen, and wooden fortifications. And loica hamata (mail), lorica segmentata (segmented bands), and some lorica musculata (bronze, maybe iron, and maybe leather) and possibly even armor made from textiles. You're absolutely right. The knight in shining armor wasn't a thing until the late medieval period, and the concept of knighthood didn't arrive in England until after the Norman Conquest of 1066
@@Thegaminggang Mail shirts have existed since at least the 4th century BCE. Hill forts (small castles) have existed in England since about 2k BCE ish, and there were over 2,000 constructed in England alone. During the "Age of Arthur" around 600ish AD, give or take, there would likely have been very few female warriors, if any, in England, however we know there were some in England during the time Rome invaded, including Boudicia of course, and some Pict females fought in battle. After the Viking Invasions, some female vikings are also known to have fought, and several Viking graves that were historically assumed to be male because of their contents (weapons and armor) have found to have been female once genetic testing was performed. I think that including female warriors is not completely a-historical, though of course it would be a rare exception, rather than a commonality. In the age of Plate Armor (late 14th century / 15th Century), you have Joan de Arc, Jeanne Hachette, the Duchess of Flanders Joanna, and Countess Caterina Sforza all are historical female figures who wore armor and fought or lead soldiers in battle. So even if you place Pendragon in more of a later middle ages period, there is historical precedent, however rare, for female warriors in armor who fought. If you had a female player or two who wanted to play female characters, its a little silly to get up and arms about it, I think.
@Thegaminggang Yeah, the only issue is that the castles and knights thing are social structures. They don't have knights not because of equipment, there are still the equite, with scale and maille, so still some heavy cavalry; they don't have knights because they don't have a knightly class within a feudal structure that they also don't have. They don't have castles because they don't build with stone; they have stonework fortifications, and the earliest castles would be made from wood (like the motte and bailey), but they don't have castles because they don't use a feudal structure with noble lords living in fortified residences at chokepoint locations.
@@Thegaminggang Frankly, I prefer this title over the Player's Handbook, as the Core Rulebook seems to include all the basic rules not only for players but also for GMs. Great review, by the way!
Word on the web is Chaosium didn't *want* to rename this book from Players Handbook to Core Rulebook... They were forced since WotC was going to take legal action if it was called Player's Handbook (they use that phrase for D&D and consider it intellectual property)
That would be pretty ridiculous seeing there are a multitude of roleplaying games which also use the title Players (or Player's) Handbook. Not to say WotC wouldn't try but they'd be hard pressed to win that case. Honestly, that rumor sounds like more anit-WotC crankery.~ Jeff
Does it come with a table to convert old editions to the current edition, or is that something that is more likely to come with the eventual game master's handbook?
There is an appendix to convert the pre-existing characters. Of course, if you have a suitable 'wipe the slate clean' situation coming up in your GPC run, I would be tempted to talk to the players and see how they feel about a generational shift. Or even think about retiring the current PKs if there are suitable heirs of age waiting in the wings, and then rather than converting, just doing 6e chargen with all new PKs.
Geez - you get in there early! I’m still waiting on the official release! Good review - whets the appetite. Big question as to whether to upgrade to a limited edition leather cover?
Good question! Truthfully, if it was a complete core rulebook I'd say go for it! But, as much as I love what's in the book, it really does feel like a players handbook as opposed to an all-encompassing volume. I don't know if the volume that completes this will be available in a limited edition. ~ Jeff
Does the rulebook include a complete setting description? Or does it assume you have read all that stuff by Thomas Malory? I had issues with the Starter Kit, which just name drops important npc's and stuff without explanations and descriptions.
Female knights opens doors in creating creative ways to implement them into the narrative. Plus it's a game and women should be able to at least be able to express themselves or explore this world as a woman. Like you said, you can always leave it out if it bothers you too much but try to at least play with the idea. This legend always been an ever evolving thing with so many authors adding to it.
You're not constantly rolling traits so it doesn't slow down the game at all. You're also not "failing" a trait roll you're just rolling to see if it falls into that range. As far as the example I gave, the GM could have asked for a roll against cruelty rather than merciful just as easily. ~ Jeff
Generally speaking, you usually don't need to roll unless there is some kind of a test or a personality conflict going on. Like in the example of a Hated Saxon, if your Traits and Hate are all below 16, you get to choose what you want to do. However, if you inspired with the Hate passion, then you are currently seething with hatred against all things Saxon, and I would make you roll an opposed contest between your Merciful and Hate if you wanted to try and spare the Saxon, as your current emotion is one of Hate and you try to go against it. If you'd just want to kill the Saxon, no problem, that is what your Hate (currently active) is telling you to do, and your Merciful is just 13, not enough to overrule you. Now if your Merciful would be 16+ and you didn't have the Hate on, you would have to fail in Merciful (or ask for an opposed contest with Hate and hope the Hate wins) in order to go against your dominant Merciful trait and kill the guy regardless. As an aside, on a critical Merciful, at the very least First Aid the guy. :P
The type of cavemen who complain about female knights in a fantasy game set just after the fall of Rome are the type of people who deserve to be handed over to Boudicca so they can find out first hand how real historical female warriors dealt with such troublemakers
Banger after Banger... I started this hobby a few years ago and the amount of quality products and pure creativity/artistry is just breathtaking. It's definitely not appreciated enough. Also 50 bucks for a book like this is insane. I work in publishing and let me tell you, books like this are really REALLY expensive to make...
Re: female knights, I usually ask my players what kind of game they are interested in playing. Do they want to play closer to the patriarchal norms of the source literature? Do they want to play a fully egalitarian world? Or do they want to do a compromise where things start very patriarchal, but under the influence of Arthur and Guinevere slowly become more and more egalitarian until we are at an EVEN BETTER version of gender relations than we have in our modern real world in the Tournament Period? Each approach highlights different themes, but I never want to make someone uncomfortable by choosing it for them. (Similarly, I ask ALL my players, not just the women, because you never know when someone presenting as a man might be a closeted trans woman or something. Better to just see what ideas the group vibes with.)
Looks to me like this edition is a big step back from 5th in terms of graphic design and artwork. I'm really surprised just how bad some of the art shown here is, and that cover is one of my least favorites in the entire series. Really bums me out. Are all the new rules in the starter set? Maybe it makes more sense to grab that just as a rules supplement for 5.2 and skip this one?
The starter set is just that, designed to get someone started; no character creation rules, only details on rules which are accessed during the adventure, minimal background, etc. As I mentioned in the review, I'm not well versed enough in Pengragon 5.2 to tell you every little change but I don't believe a huge amount has been revamped. ~ Jeff
@@Thegaminggang yeah. I'm just wondering if the Starter Set actually contains all the new rules (outside of character creation). Or if it's missing a bunch hidden throughout chapters of the Core Rulebook.
Nice, fair review. I remember playing Pendragon way back in the late 1980s and I'm excited to see what is hopefully the ultimate edition released. Regarding female knights, I'm with you 100% - any talk of 'realism' in the context of Arthurian legends is laughable. Arguing against them on the grounds that there weren't any female knights in any of the medieval source material is fair enough but then even then you have to say "it's a game people". Looking forward to watching your review of the first campaign book.
I heard someone making the "not historically accurate" complete about female knights a while back. I asked him in a game about King Arthur, Merlin, the Fae Folk and Excalibur....what made him think that historical accuracy is a high priority?
I wonder if the original authors of the Vulgate version in the 1200s had people complaining "It's not historically accurate to have female knights in a King Arthur story!" when they included Avenable? That aside, I do hope it's not too long before the GM and campaign sourcebooks start coming out. I haven't been into Pendragon since 3e and this new edition looks like a great jumping-in point.
You beat up that strawman you made up about female knights real good at the beginning of the video. That's how I do most of my debates too, I'm alone in a room and I'm the only one who gets to talk. XD XD XD But it should be about what a Game MASTER wants for their table. I wouldn't be happy running a WFRP campaign where there weren't female warriors on par with men, and I wouldn't indulge Chaosium burnishing their Twitter profiles by allowing female knights in Pendragon. I like staying true to the setting and Arthurian Legend does not pretend women could be knights or Medieval warriors in general.
I personally don’t have a problem with female knights. But I understand why some people might.. this woke identity. Politics cancer is destroying every form of entertainment.. you can’t blame some people for being hypersensitive at this point
Just shows how much these guys who are up in arms about "wokeism" know about history if they think they can use a FANTASY game to argue about history. And they don't even know the history! The Arthurian legends that Pendragon is inspired by are basically French minstrel/trubadour songs/tales from the 1200s, which is 700 years after the supposed life of Arthur and all they had to go on really was Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britian, which is now considered more of a mythmaking work due to Geoff's editorialising and embellishment. Also, in 1200s, they had knights, in the 400s-500s Britain of "Arthur", there were no knights. That class in society didn't exist until late 700s Francia under Charlemagne and didn't get imported into Britain until 1066. Not to mention, the Chivalric Code was created by the Church to try to give the knights a behavioural expectation to strive for in civilised society, because until then, they were just hilbilly thugs in heavy armour who were basically scaring peasants into submission on behalf of the king. Crusades were also used as a way to channel their violent personalities into something that was "productive" to Christianity. To argue that Pendragon has anything to do with history other than being loosely inspired by the French and British Arthurian poems and songs from the 1200s-1300s is like saying Disney's animations are historical documents.
I am prepared to argue that the setting of Pendragon is closer to the historical 1200s than e.g. Dungeons & Dragons. In the 4th edition from p. 11 there is a box: "This boxed portion of the chapter deals with facts which were prevalent in the middle ages, but unknown to most people today. They are the historical facts - the reality of a brutal and violent world". So Pendragon did include many elements of historical realism.
Apparently there were female knights or the equivalent, in France there was a female version of knighthood given and although in Briton technically men could only take the title of knight there were women who preformed similar roles. Besides wasnt Joan of Arc technically a knight?
In France a female could hold land but she had to maintain a knight to meet the feudal obligation. Joan was granted a coat of arms that doesn't make her a knight. To say that women where commonly bachelor/household knights or landed knights that annually give 40 days military is nonsense. Just because a noble woman straps on armor does make her knight nor does it mean they line up ready for a charge . There were female knightly orders but they honorifics the main part of which was a yearly parade where they go to dress up. Noble and royal woman were of often involved military operations organising men, supplies and defense and as defenders in sieges. These outliers and Joan Arc who was just a pawn of the French royalty should not be used for propaganda by a cult for political purposes. If you want to add female knights to your fictitious setting go right ahead but re-writing history and established fiction to justify it is either pathetic or done for political purposes.
@@walts4425 While women were not officially granted the title of Knight during the Middle Ages, there are documented cases of women who defied societal norms and took on knightly roles. These high-born women donned Armour, directed troop movements, and fought in times of war. Here are a few notable examples: Joan of Arc: The legendary French figure who led the French army to key victories during the Hundred Years’ War. Eleanor of Aquitaine: A queen consort of both France and England, Eleanor wielded significant political influence. She participated in the Second Crusade. Hua Mulan: Disguised as a man, she joined the army in place of her father, demonstrating courage and filial piety. Women Knights of Tortosa: During the mid-12th century, Moorish invaders laid siege to the town of Tortosa, Spain. With the men away at battle, the women of Tortosa defended their town. Dressed in men’s clothing, they wielded swords, farm implements, and hatchets. In their honour, Count Ramon Berenguer of Barcelona founded the Order of the Hatchet, granting them privileges and immunities. The Knights Templar admitted women during their first ten years of existence. Teutonic Order: Another related group, the Teutonic Order, accepted women as “Consorores” or Sisters. These women played auxiliary roles, providing support and hospital services during times of war, including on the battlefield.
In the litterature itself we also have Avenable, Silence, Marine of Alarie (and her bunch of unamed female knights and warriors) and if we go a bit wider Spenser’s Faerie Queene would add Britomart and Palladine and also has Radigund as an enemy and her Amazons. All these available in text concurrent with the continuations of the French stories (so before Mallory) except of course Spenser. So none of these are recent additions. Pendragon also add the Daughters of Boddica as an order of female knights pretty early in its history.
@@francishelie8658 And besides in the modern context Knight is an honorific still used for the male whereas a Dame is the female equivalent. In the middle ages the history was written by men, and it largely still is. Who is to say that there was not women who carried out the role of a knight all but in name, it is after all only an honorific in a male dominated society and as i mentioned there is evidence that women were allowed to join the knights templar.. There is always those exceptions to the rule throughout history and that is usually consigned to myth and legend, which I believe to have to be based on some tale based in reality. Makes for great inspiration for those at the table who want to play the character that speaks to them.
3:50: "This is not made to be historically accurate. This is a fantasy roleplaying game. This is based on the legends of King Arthur". Wrong! The female knights can't be based on the legends of king Arthur, since there are no female knights there.
"Based" as in many movies and TV shows are "based on a true story"; this game isn't a historical simulation nor a blow by blow recreation of Le Morte d'Arthur either...
@@Thegaminggang Exactly. For the arguments against female knight to hold zero water, we need to forbid people from demanding both historical accuracy and trueness to the legends.
Don't have female knights in your games. Problem solved. I don't think many people are demanding historical accuracy from Chaosium Inc either; they want a game which will entertain them around the table.
@AmmitzbollJeppe except that the whole game revolves around you creating a fictional knight in a fantasy world. So really accuracy isn't a thin at all unless you're playing a named knight from legend. The whole premise is you create a made-up character to interact with a made-up world. So you can really create whatever you want and its not breaking anything.
@@raginasiangaming910 Of course you can make up whatever you want, but the elements YOU make up - such as female knights - are not "based on the legends of King Arthur".
@@jameshenderson4876 Yep. Or just use any other fantasy rpg. The whole selling point of Pendragon is that it is set in the classic arthurian lore. So 6th edition has no purpose, it is just another fantasy rpg, but now it does a disservice to the lore.
Pendragon is the medieval fantasy bersion of the Arthurian lore. If you want a more grounded ‘realistic’ take then maybe Keltia would be a better choice?
But there were female knights in history, so I don’t see an issue. Arthurian legend also didn’t have your PC’s, so you better not let them make custom characters.
I'd say that's a huge overreaction. Seeing this isn't a typical high fantasy setting, there wouldn't be much of a bestiary in the first place and most of the entries would no doubt be animals. I believe there will be a bestiary section in the upcoming GM book though. ~ Jeff
@@Thegaminggangthere would be quite a few nasties in the baddie section, what with fairies, dragons, giants, stoor wyrm, demonic knights, British Panthers, bears and of course Pendragon Boars (killer of many of a knight)
I dont think I'd run it. I'd like it for the maps for my lion & dragon game, tho. It's very immersion jaring to me with the female knights. they just wouldn't stand a chance in a fight
@03dashk64 Yes, that is correct. Women may have fought but not as knights. They may have fought as auxiliary or in desperation. But they wouldn't have lasted long on the battlefield against men. As for in my rpg. I've seen too many men play women as characture of women. I think it's pretty offensive. And when I get a female player. She can play the only woman who is the super duper rare exception.
Thing about female knights is they need to make babies to further their dynasty/family but this ain't possible if they are active knights. It isn't about historical accuracy - its about the game, its internal logic, and its approach actually working. Does this new edition address that because it wouldn't really work in previous editions without some specific/silly/bespoke solutions? You didn't cover it in your review... Personally, I'd not allow them at my table because of how the game and its setting logically works, as understood from previous editions, not because of any historical accuracy. Either way, this looks great and definitely will be picking it up. Can't wait!
It is not a problem. The usual adventuring schedule is that you do one adventure/battle per year, usually during the summer. It is easy enough to handwave that the later stages of pregnancy and the actual childbirth (rolled in Winter Phase for that matter) take place afterwards and before the next year's adventuring. Nor are female knights pregnant every year. Finally, there would even be an option of the female knights adventuring without marrying and getting kids, and instead adopt a nephew or a cousin to carry on the family line. Or settling down once they do marry, if that is what the player would want. Although also see the previous about why this is not a big deal unless the GM wishes to make it one. That being said, if you don't want to allow female knights in your campaign, that is your decision to make. Your Pendragon Will Vary (YPWV) as Greg used to say.
@@anarionelendili8961 Good points, thanks. For me, its still stretching credibility to have female knights as common occurances in my game and then to have them falling pregnant (and then giving birth) when it doesn't impact their adventuring but I appreciate your responses and also that it would work for others. I think the rare female knight (like Brienne from ASoIaF) would be pretty cool and offer lots of interesting RP opportunities though I just think, as presented in previous editions, Pendragon's setting is a 'mans world' and makes sense as such so having too many female knights (beyond them being extremely rare) would be a huge stretch for my appreciation of it so I won't be going in that direction. My players are fine with that too as they're in agreement - in fact a couple of my players who are female actually like the idea of playing a male character as well.
@@Rich_H_1972 I keep them rare in my campaign too. There are the Daughters of Boudicca from 3e/4e, but other than those, most likely female knight is the daughter of a PK who lacked male heirs. Which reminds me that I ought to introduce more female NPKs, just to see how the PKs react to them. :) we are already in late 540s and there have been several high Glory female PKs, one of whom is sitting at the Round Table, so it makes sense that it would be more acceptable now. Especially as the kingdom has been at peace for almost a couple of decades.
@@anarionelendili8961 I think evolving the social acceptance of females in, traditionally, non-female roles is something that could certainly be developed - especially during high/enlightened periods. Then to see that be lost and descend again would be very fitting to the source material.
![On Pendragon 6th Edition - Part 1 [Unboxing]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RXGgT4d1gQY/mqdefault.jpg)
My first exposure to Pendragon was when I picked up the 6th ed starter set last year and I absolutely fell in love with it. Unable to wait for the release of 6th ed I ordered 5.2 off DriveThru along with the Great Pendragon Campaign and some of the other supplements that have been done. Not sure how much value they really brought. At this point I'm just not sure if I'll bother picking up the 6th ed books as I don't think there's enough difference between it and 5.2 to warrant it. I'm very happy with 5.2.
Well, since you have the starter set you can see all the mechanical changes made, which I would say are mostly for the good, and you can implement those if you like.
I certainly hope you use the new battle system instead of the old one. :)
Really good overview. Thank you.
And I agree. That nomenclature of "core rulebook " feels misleading. But they likely realised releasing just a "player's handbook" in isolation would not sell so well. So they went with core rulebook.
The whole launch of this has been disappointing. Back in 2021 (2020?), I was super excited with the interviews saying that it was largely done, but they wanted to complete the range so as to not trickle out the books over an extended period. Then it took until 2023 for the Starter Set. Then 2024 for the player's handbook; then 2025 for the GM book?
Don't get me wrong - it takes as long as it takes - but more open and honest communication would be appreciated. Just as honest naming of this book would be appreciated. This range is good enough that it doesn't need obfuscation.
Anyway, once it is fully out hopefully it will be a big success.
I'm wondering if when the GM book comes out they will also release a combined, revised single "deluxe" book containing both
I agree
The nature of Pendragon really does necessitate release of the rules/sourcebooks/campaign pretty much at the same time.
I guess we will just have to wait, which will hurt initial sales.
I’m a huge Pendragon fan and I’ve already ordered my 6th edition leather cover. But even I feel like it was dishonest to remove Player Core from the title. You really need the GM book and the Nobility book to have the main rules needed to play.
They already waited four years to release this one. They should have waited and released at least the three necessary books at once, if not the GPC too.
@@03dashk64 I considered the leather cover just because I think the cover art on the normal book is terrible.
But after seeing how many mistakes and typos there are in the book I think I'll hold off entirely for a 2nd revised printing
This name change was explained in a Discord server: "Player's Handbook" is trademarked by WotC/Hasbro, so Chaosium had to change the name lest they leave themselves open to a lawsuit for trademark infringement.
But yeah, having that explanation upfront would have helped.
Extremely happy and grateful to see this pillar of the RPG hobby covered by you Jeff. I hope Chaosium respects your multiple decades of experience of their properties, so I can think of no one better to cover this new edition of Pendragon.
I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
You're foolin' yourself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class...
There is going to be a Gamemaster's Handbook, based on an old interview by David Larkins, the Line Editor. Discord chatter suggests that it might be out (early?) next year. Which to me is strongly implying that the 'Core Rulebook' is 'Core Rulebook for Players', as also implied by the earlier name of Player's Handbook. No idea why the name change, which just invites the criticism like here that it lacks the GM stuff, when Player's Handbook would have made the distinction clear...
This name change was explained in a Discord server: "Player's Handbook" is trademarked by WotC/Hasbro, so Chaosium had to change the name lest they leave themselves open to a lawsuit for trademark infringement.
I thought it was originally going to be called the "Knights Rulebook" or some such. I liked that name.
@@nexuslax3284 That would have worked too.
I'm a big Pendragon fan and a player in a 5.2e camping. Hopefully, the GM Handbook and the Noble's Handbook won't take forever to come out. With just the 6e Corebook the game feels incomplete.
Gm book is most likely coming out in 2025.
In another year or two :)
@@jameshenderson4876oof. It’s such a miss to split that stuff up and then not release it at once
Minor nitpick:
I assume when you said "2nd edition Pendragon" you actually meant the 2nd version that was published, which was the 3rd edition. 2nd edition was a placeholder in a catalog and was never published. Just to clarify that for people who might look for 2e KAP. :)
Yep! I meant the second release which came out for Pendragon. ~ Jeff
I’m gonna push back about the historical validity of a guy named Arthur (it’s a popular name in 6th century Britain) and Camulodonum is a Roman caste in Colchester that Caratacus fought Rome from - but yea it’s an amalgam and if there was a historical Arthur he likely wasn’t a king
The Major Wound knocks you unconscious, it is actual physical effect, although the GM can of course tweak things in their own game.
Multiple small wounds do not make for a Mortal Wound, which is a single wound that is larger than your Total HP (not Current HP). However, if you are at 0 or below, then you are dying, but you still take some time to die (until midnight the same day, in the example) , it is not an instant, and the successful application of First Aid to bring you back to the positive hit points can still save you.
With Mortal Wounds, you need healing within the hour if you are to survive, and even then, you need to be healed enough to get back to positive HP. Which is not guaranteed, especially if the Mortal Wound came from a Giant's treeclub, pulverizing your bones...
Imagine it's 1991 and The Dark Eye, Midgard, D&d, star trek, Runequest and Pendragon. And all of them just got or are getting a new edition/a major overhaul. Well, same situation in 2024...
Damn you Jeff, you keep convincing me buying more books. Excellent review, thanks!
great overview of a book I am very curious about....coming from the indie (as in pretty small zines and books) ttrpg scene, quite disappointed to see how little GM support is here. So many indie games add loads of GM tables, support tables, even lots of solo oracles....it just seems poor form to take up 200+ pages and have so little in that direction when there's so many more options...will be curious to see your grey knight overview.
You are not alone in your frustration. Older editions had a lot of this support in the core book, but also had it sprinkled through different supplements.
There will be a GM specific book coming out soon though, and a book about nobility.
My recollection of the traits and passions rules are that the die rolls are only used when the player role plays outside of the numbers they've chosen.
I have imported Traits and Passions into all my games for my roleplaying. Though I do use a 3d6 roll for each "positive" trait instead of a flat 10s, 13s, and 16s.
Love the Pendragon ttrpg. Played it a long time ago. 1st edition i think. Have wanted to run it ever since
My first exposure to (literary) Arthurian legend was Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy.
Looks nice, like the appropriate style of artwork. I still think ye olde 4th edition was the most complete Pendragon core book. Wish such was the norm. As far as more recent stuff, the Paladin offshoot (Charlemagne era) has a decent amount of content in it's big core book. Although I think that one's based off of 5.1 or 5.2e.
You'd have "knights" in mail. And after antiquity, there's no historical evidence of leather armor. And, you'd have stone fortifications. Most of the castles in the UK were built by Normans, not to mention Hadrian Wall.
For anyone interested in European Medieval armor and arms check out any video or podcast featuring Dr. Tobias "Toby" Capwell who is the curator of the Wallace Collection and an all-around cool dude.
The warlord some historians claim is the inspiration for the legend of King Arthur is supposed to have lived during the late 5th into the early 6th centuries. You might have stone fortifications but you certainly wouldn't have had castles, seeing they don't make their appearance until the 11th century in France. I could see some mail shirts in the mix at that time though. The point I was making was someone accepting "truths" of the Arthurian legend such as knights in plate armor, Arthur being a king, and the castle of Camelot but turning around and complaining how dare Chaosium Inc include the female knights in Pendragon is just a bunch of B.S. ~ Jeff
@Thegaminggang
Certainly, you would've had stone, earthen, and wooden fortifications. And loica hamata (mail), lorica segmentata (segmented bands), and some lorica musculata (bronze, maybe iron, and maybe leather) and possibly even armor made from textiles. You're absolutely right. The knight in shining armor wasn't a thing until the late medieval period, and the concept of knighthood didn't arrive in England until after the Norman Conquest of 1066
@@Thegaminggang Mail shirts have existed since at least the 4th century BCE.
Hill forts (small castles) have existed in England since about 2k BCE ish, and there were over 2,000 constructed in England alone.
During the "Age of Arthur" around 600ish AD, give or take, there would likely have been very few female warriors, if any, in England, however we know there were some in England during the time Rome invaded, including Boudicia of course, and some Pict females fought in battle. After the Viking Invasions, some female vikings are also known to have fought, and several Viking graves that were historically assumed to be male because of their contents (weapons and armor) have found to have been female once genetic testing was performed.
I think that including female warriors is not completely a-historical, though of course it would be a rare exception, rather than a commonality.
In the age of Plate Armor (late 14th century / 15th Century), you have Joan de Arc, Jeanne Hachette, the Duchess of Flanders Joanna, and Countess Caterina Sforza all are historical female figures who wore armor and fought or lead soldiers in battle. So even if you place Pendragon in more of a later middle ages period, there is historical precedent, however rare, for female warriors in armor who fought.
If you had a female player or two who wanted to play female characters, its a little silly to get up and arms about it, I think.
@Thegaminggang Yeah, the only issue is that the castles and knights thing are social structures. They don't have knights not because of equipment, there are still the equite, with scale and maille, so still some heavy cavalry; they don't have knights because they don't have a knightly class within a feudal structure that they also don't have. They don't have castles because they don't build with stone; they have stonework fortifications, and the earliest castles would be made from wood (like the motte and bailey), but they don't have castles because they don't use a feudal structure with noble lords living in fortified residences at chokepoint locations.
Yes! Been waiting for this one, thanks!
Hope you like it!
We do know that there will be both a GM book and a Noble's Handbook coming!
That's why naming this book a Core Rulebook is a bit confusing.
@@Thegaminggang Frankly, I prefer this title over the Player's Handbook, as the Core Rulebook seems to include all the basic rules not only for players but also for GMs. Great review, by the way!
Word on the web is Chaosium didn't *want* to rename this book from Players Handbook to Core Rulebook... They were forced since WotC was going to take legal action if it was called Player's Handbook (they use that phrase for D&D and consider it intellectual property)
That would be pretty ridiculous seeing there are a multitude of roleplaying games which also use the title Players (or Player's) Handbook. Not to say WotC wouldn't try but they'd be hard pressed to win that case. Honestly, that rumor sounds like more anit-WotC crankery.~ Jeff
Does it come with a table to convert old editions to the current edition, or is that something that is more likely to come with the eventual game master's handbook?
Not so much a table, but a list of things you do. Most of it is centered on the simplified skills list.
There is an appendix to convert the pre-existing characters. Of course, if you have a suitable 'wipe the slate clean' situation coming up in your GPC run, I would be tempted to talk to the players and see how they feel about a generational shift. Or even think about retiring the current PKs if there are suitable heirs of age waiting in the wings, and then rather than converting, just doing 6e chargen with all new PKs.
Geez - you get in there early! I’m still waiting on the official release! Good review - whets the appetite. Big question as to whether to upgrade to a limited edition leather cover?
Good question! Truthfully, if it was a complete core rulebook I'd say go for it! But, as much as I love what's in the book, it really does feel like a players handbook as opposed to an all-encompassing volume. I don't know if the volume that completes this will be available in a limited edition. ~ Jeff
Excited to check this one out. I finally grabbed the starter box, but haven't read it yet. Now...finding players to bring it to the table...
Good to see another great Chaosium book.
Thanks Jeff.
Does the rulebook include a complete setting description? Or does it assume you have read all that stuff by Thomas Malory? I had issues with the Starter Kit, which just name drops important npc's and stuff without explanations and descriptions.
Honestly, you need to have some knowledge of the legends since there isn't a ton of page space devoted to everything you'd want to know. ~ Jeff
I think a lot more will be explained in the Book on Salisbury and the Great Pendragon Campaign. But…I ended up googling and reading a lot haha
Female knights opens doors in creating creative ways to implement them into the narrative. Plus it's a game and women should be able to at least be able to express themselves or explore this world as a woman. Like you said, you can always leave it out if it bothers you too much but try to at least play with the idea. This legend always been an ever evolving thing with so many authors adding to it.
missed the 5th edition version. bummer.
So, a failed trait roll requires ANOTHER roll to determine outcome? Seems like that would slow down game play, unless Trait tests are very rare.
You're not constantly rolling traits so it doesn't slow down the game at all. You're also not "failing" a trait roll you're just rolling to see if it falls into that range. As far as the example I gave, the GM could have asked for a roll against cruelty rather than merciful just as easily. ~ Jeff
Im playing Pendragon right now, about 10 sessions in, it doesn't slow down gameplay at all.
Generally speaking, you usually don't need to roll unless there is some kind of a test or a personality conflict going on. Like in the example of a Hated Saxon, if your Traits and Hate are all below 16, you get to choose what you want to do. However, if you inspired with the Hate passion, then you are currently seething with hatred against all things Saxon, and I would make you roll an opposed contest between your Merciful and Hate if you wanted to try and spare the Saxon, as your current emotion is one of Hate and you try to go against it. If you'd just want to kill the Saxon, no problem, that is what your Hate (currently active) is telling you to do, and your Merciful is just 13, not enough to overrule you. Now if your Merciful would be 16+ and you didn't have the Hate on, you would have to fail in Merciful (or ask for an opposed contest with Hate and hope the Hate wins) in order to go against your dominant Merciful trait and kill the guy regardless.
As an aside, on a critical Merciful, at the very least First Aid the guy. :P
The type of cavemen who complain about female knights in a fantasy game set just after the fall of Rome are the type of people who deserve to be handed over to Boudicca so they can find out first hand how real historical female warriors dealt with such troublemakers
Banger after Banger... I started this hobby a few years ago and the amount of quality products and pure creativity/artistry is just breathtaking.
It's definitely not appreciated enough. Also 50 bucks for a book like this is insane. I work in publishing and let me tell you, books like this are really REALLY expensive to make...
40 Second Intro is Wild.
Re: female knights, I usually ask my players what kind of game they are interested in playing. Do they want to play closer to the patriarchal norms of the source literature? Do they want to play a fully egalitarian world? Or do they want to do a compromise where things start very patriarchal, but under the influence of Arthur and Guinevere slowly become more and more egalitarian until we are at an EVEN BETTER version of gender relations than we have in our modern real world in the Tournament Period? Each approach highlights different themes, but I never want to make someone uncomfortable by choosing it for them. (Similarly, I ask ALL my players, not just the women, because you never know when someone presenting as a man might be a closeted trans woman or something. Better to just see what ideas the group vibes with.)
Thanks Jeff!
Looks to me like this edition is a big step back from 5th in terms of graphic design and artwork. I'm really surprised just how bad some of the art shown here is, and that cover is one of my least favorites in the entire series.
Really bums me out. Are all the new rules in the starter set? Maybe it makes more sense to grab that just as a rules supplement for 5.2 and skip this one?
The starter set is just that, designed to get someone started; no character creation rules, only details on rules which are accessed during the adventure, minimal background, etc. As I mentioned in the review, I'm not well versed enough in Pengragon 5.2 to tell you every little change but I don't believe a huge amount has been revamped. ~ Jeff
@@Thegaminggang yeah. I'm just wondering if the Starter Set actually contains all the new rules (outside of character creation). Or if it's missing a bunch hidden throughout chapters of the Core Rulebook.
People’s taste vary. I really love this art direction.
@@Thegaminggang there is a form of character creation in the solo rpg. You can sus out that its 60 points, and by reversing the derived stats
Boiled leather? No....high status fighters would've had maile.
Nice, fair review. I remember playing Pendragon way back in the late 1980s and I'm excited to see what is hopefully the ultimate edition released. Regarding female knights, I'm with you 100% - any talk of 'realism' in the context of Arthurian legends is laughable. Arguing against them on the grounds that there weren't any female knights in any of the medieval source material is fair enough but then even then you have to say "it's a game people". Looking forward to watching your review of the first campaign book.
been waiting for a long time, that wait was worth it I'm sure. The best RPG ever created, imho
Lol: the "historically accurate" argument in the context of an rpg focused around King Arthur is hilarious! Lol
Why? The setting of the earlier Pendragon editions was much more medieval than e.g. Dungeons & Dragons.
I heard someone making the "not historically accurate" complete about female knights a while back. I asked him in a game about King Arthur, Merlin, the Fae Folk and Excalibur....what made him think that historical accuracy is a high priority?
I wonder if the original authors of the Vulgate version in the 1200s had people complaining "It's not historically accurate to have female knights in a King Arthur story!" when they included Avenable? That aside, I do hope it's not too long before the GM and campaign sourcebooks start coming out. I haven't been into Pendragon since 3e and this new edition looks like a great jumping-in point.
You beat up that strawman you made up about female knights real good at the beginning of the video. That's how I do most of my debates too, I'm alone in a room and I'm the only one who gets to talk.
XD XD XD
But it should be about what a Game MASTER wants for their table. I wouldn't be happy running a WFRP campaign where there weren't female warriors on par with men, and I wouldn't indulge Chaosium burnishing their Twitter profiles by allowing female knights in Pendragon. I like staying true to the setting and Arthurian Legend does not pretend women could be knights or Medieval warriors in general.
I'll stick with 1st Edition.
I personally don’t have a problem with female knights. But I understand why some people might.. this woke identity. Politics cancer is destroying every form of entertainment.. you can’t blame some people for being hypersensitive at this point
Just shows how much these guys who are up in arms about "wokeism" know about history if they think they can use a FANTASY game to argue about history. And they don't even know the history!
The Arthurian legends that Pendragon is inspired by are basically French minstrel/trubadour songs/tales from the 1200s, which is 700 years after the supposed life of Arthur and all they had to go on really was Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britian, which is now considered more of a mythmaking work due to Geoff's editorialising and embellishment.
Also, in 1200s, they had knights, in the 400s-500s Britain of "Arthur", there were no knights. That class in society didn't exist until late 700s Francia under Charlemagne and didn't get imported into Britain until 1066. Not to mention, the Chivalric Code was created by the Church to try to give the knights a behavioural expectation to strive for in civilised society, because until then, they were just hilbilly thugs in heavy armour who were basically scaring peasants into submission on behalf of the king. Crusades were also used as a way to channel their violent personalities into something that was "productive" to Christianity.
To argue that Pendragon has anything to do with history other than being loosely inspired by the French and British Arthurian poems and songs from the 1200s-1300s is like saying Disney's animations are historical documents.
I am prepared to argue that the setting of Pendragon is closer to the historical 1200s than e.g. Dungeons & Dragons. In the 4th edition from p. 11 there is a box: "This boxed portion of the chapter deals with facts which were prevalent in the middle ages, but unknown to most people today. They are the historical facts - the reality of a brutal and violent world". So Pendragon did include many elements of historical realism.
Apparently there were female knights or the equivalent, in France there was a female version of knighthood given and although in Briton technically men could only take the title of knight there were women who preformed similar roles. Besides wasnt Joan of Arc technically a knight?
In France a female could hold land but she had to maintain a knight to meet the feudal obligation. Joan was granted a coat of arms that doesn't make her a knight. To say that women where commonly bachelor/household knights or landed knights that annually give 40 days military is nonsense. Just because a noble woman straps on armor does make her knight nor does it mean they line up ready for a charge . There were female knightly orders but they honorifics the main part of which was a yearly parade where they go to dress up. Noble and royal woman were of often involved military operations organising men, supplies and defense and as defenders in sieges. These outliers and Joan Arc who was just a pawn of the French royalty should not be used for propaganda by a cult for political purposes. If you want to add female knights to your fictitious setting go right ahead but re-writing history and established fiction to justify it is either pathetic or done for political purposes.
@@walts4425 While women were not officially granted the title of Knight during the Middle Ages, there are documented cases of women who defied societal norms and took on knightly roles. These high-born women donned Armour, directed troop movements, and fought in times of war. Here are a few notable examples:
Joan of Arc: The legendary French figure who led the French army to key victories during the Hundred Years’ War.
Eleanor of Aquitaine: A queen consort of both France and England, Eleanor wielded significant political influence. She participated in the Second Crusade.
Hua Mulan: Disguised as a man, she joined the army in place of her father, demonstrating courage and filial piety.
Women Knights of Tortosa: During the mid-12th century, Moorish invaders laid siege to the town of Tortosa, Spain. With the men away at battle, the women of Tortosa defended their town. Dressed in men’s clothing, they wielded swords, farm implements, and hatchets. In their honour, Count Ramon Berenguer of Barcelona founded the Order of the Hatchet, granting them privileges and immunities.
The Knights Templar admitted women during their first ten years of existence.
Teutonic Order: Another related group, the Teutonic Order, accepted women as “Consorores” or Sisters. These women played auxiliary roles, providing support and hospital services during times of war, including on the battlefield.
In the litterature itself we also have Avenable, Silence, Marine of Alarie (and her bunch of unamed female knights and warriors) and if we go a bit wider Spenser’s Faerie Queene would add Britomart and Palladine and also has Radigund as an enemy and her Amazons. All these available in text concurrent with the continuations of the French stories (so before Mallory) except of course Spenser. So none of these are recent additions. Pendragon also add the Daughters of Boddica as an order of female knights pretty early in its history.
@@francishelie8658 And besides in the modern context Knight is an honorific still used for the male whereas a Dame is the female equivalent. In the middle ages the history was written by men, and it largely still is. Who is to say that there was not women who carried out the role of a knight all but in name, it is after all only an honorific in a male dominated society and as i mentioned there is evidence that women were allowed to join the knights templar.. There is always those exceptions to the rule throughout history and that is usually consigned to myth and legend, which I believe to have to be based on some tale based in reality. Makes for great inspiration for those at the table who want to play the character that speaks to them.
"women who preformed similar roles". Women hacking people down? That must be very much "apparently".
3:50: "This is not made to be historically accurate. This is a fantasy roleplaying game. This is based on the legends of King Arthur". Wrong! The female knights can't be based on the legends of king Arthur, since there are no female knights there.
"Based" as in many movies and TV shows are "based on a true story"; this game isn't a historical simulation nor a blow by blow recreation of Le Morte d'Arthur either...
@@Thegaminggang Exactly. For the arguments against female knight to hold zero water, we need to forbid people from demanding both historical accuracy and trueness to the legends.
Don't have female knights in your games. Problem solved. I don't think many people are demanding historical accuracy from Chaosium Inc either; they want a game which will entertain them around the table.
@AmmitzbollJeppe except that the whole game revolves around you creating a fictional knight in a fantasy world. So really accuracy isn't a thin at all unless you're playing a named knight from legend. The whole premise is you create a made-up character to interact with a made-up world. So you can really create whatever you want and its not breaking anything.
@@raginasiangaming910 Of course you can make up whatever you want, but the elements YOU make up - such as female knights - are not "based on the legends of King Arthur".
Half of our group are females...
And the legends of king arthur had....zero female knights.
Then don't have any in your campaign. Problem solved.
@@jameshenderson4876 Yep. Or just use any other fantasy rpg. The whole selling point of Pendragon is that it is set in the classic arthurian lore. So 6th edition has no purpose, it is just another fantasy rpg, but now it does a disservice to the lore.
Pendragon is the medieval fantasy bersion of the Arthurian lore.
If you want a more grounded ‘realistic’ take then maybe Keltia would be a better choice?
But there were female knights in history, so I don’t see an issue.
Arthurian legend also didn’t have your PC’s, so you better not let them make custom characters.
@@alexpartenopei1021 Arthurian lore subjected to woke lore. The female knights are supplied by woke lore.
No bestiary in the core rulebook? This is unplayable!
I'd say that's a huge overreaction. Seeing this isn't a typical high fantasy setting, there wouldn't be much of a bestiary in the first place and most of the entries would no doubt be animals. I believe there will be a bestiary section in the upcoming GM book though. ~ Jeff
@@Thegaminggangthere would be quite a few nasties in the baddie section, what with fairies, dragons, giants, stoor wyrm, demonic knights, British Panthers, bears and of course Pendragon Boars (killer of many of a knight)
I dont think I'd run it. I'd like it for the maps for my lion & dragon game, tho.
It's very immersion jaring to me with the female knights. they just wouldn't stand a chance in a fight
….so the actual female knights and warriors of history are just…not real to you? Ok bud.
@03dashk64 Yes, that is correct. Women may have fought but not as knights. They may have fought as auxiliary or in desperation. But they wouldn't have lasted long on the battlefield against men. As for in my rpg. I've seen too many men play women as characture of women. I think it's pretty offensive. And when I get a female player. She can play the only woman who is the super duper rare exception.
Thing about female knights is they need to make babies to further their dynasty/family but this ain't possible if they are active knights. It isn't about historical accuracy - its about the game, its internal logic, and its approach actually working. Does this new edition address that because it wouldn't really work in previous editions without some specific/silly/bespoke solutions? You didn't cover it in your review... Personally, I'd not allow them at my table because of how the game and its setting logically works, as understood from previous editions, not because of any historical accuracy. Either way, this looks great and definitely will be picking it up. Can't wait!
Precisely. Internal logic is essential to make any world believable.
It is not a problem. The usual adventuring schedule is that you do one adventure/battle per year, usually during the summer. It is easy enough to handwave that the later stages of pregnancy and the actual childbirth (rolled in Winter Phase for that matter) take place afterwards and before the next year's adventuring. Nor are female knights pregnant every year.
Finally, there would even be an option of the female knights adventuring without marrying and getting kids, and instead adopt a nephew or a cousin to carry on the family line. Or settling down once they do marry, if that is what the player would want. Although also see the previous about why this is not a big deal unless the GM wishes to make it one.
That being said, if you don't want to allow female knights in your campaign, that is your decision to make. Your Pendragon Will Vary (YPWV) as Greg used to say.
@@anarionelendili8961 Good points, thanks. For me, its still stretching credibility to have female knights as common occurances in my game and then to have them falling pregnant (and then giving birth) when it doesn't impact their adventuring but I appreciate your responses and also that it would work for others. I think the rare female knight (like Brienne from ASoIaF) would be pretty cool and offer lots of interesting RP opportunities though I just think, as presented in previous editions, Pendragon's setting is a 'mans world' and makes sense as such so having too many female knights (beyond them being extremely rare) would be a huge stretch for my appreciation of it so I won't be going in that direction. My players are fine with that too as they're in agreement - in fact a couple of my players who are female actually like the idea of playing a male character as well.
@@Rich_H_1972 I keep them rare in my campaign too. There are the Daughters of Boudicca from 3e/4e, but other than those, most likely female knight is the daughter of a PK who lacked male heirs. Which reminds me that I ought to introduce more female NPKs, just to see how the PKs react to them. :) we are already in late 540s and there have been several high Glory female PKs, one of whom is sitting at the Round Table, so it makes sense that it would be more acceptable now. Especially as the kingdom has been at peace for almost a couple of decades.
@@anarionelendili8961 I think evolving the social acceptance of females in, traditionally, non-female roles is something that could certainly be developed - especially during high/enlightened periods. Then to see that be lost and descend again would be very fitting to the source material.
KING ARTHUR was a fairy in the original story.
The ‘original’ story? Which source are you using?