Arthurian Resources

[Psion]

I've been developing an Arthurian campaign sort of based on Steven Lawhead's vision of Camalot. I'm looking for resources to help me detail the campaign a bit... both celtic and Arthurian.

Any suggestions? Books, websites, PDFs, whatever you got.

There were two d20 books specifically targeted at Arthurian style gaming recently put out.

Legends of Excalibur, which C. Baize and Vigilance have mentioned, approached Arthurian folklore England in much the same way as FFG approached their dark-Tolkienesque Midnight setting. Namely, it is a whole campaign setting, introducing new base classes and magic systems. The maps are beuatiful and the book stats out various figures from Arthurian lore.

Relics & Rituals is more of a mechanics sourcebook with elements appropriate to a d20 fantasy game that you want to add Arthurian flavor to. It lacks the background material that LoE has, and if you actually want to play in Malroy's camelot, you'd have to do a bit more work since it is light on fleshed out campaign details like LoE has.

 

[PosterBoy]

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Arthurian Legends

This has been one of the most useful non gaming books I've owned. I keep it by my side when runing my Legends of Excalibur game and it's an endless source of adventure ideas and information.

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Arthurian Legends

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...thekn-20/102-7710604-4958508?v=glance&s=books

 

[adembroski3]

Well, sense I posted this I've decided to go in a different direction... I know, it's only a few hours ago... but I realized that I liked Lawheads Celtic Crusades trilogy, not so much the Pendragon Cycle I got to thinking "what am I thinking?". I did like some elements of it, but not all.

I own the R&R Excalibur thing, and one thing I have taken from that is a decent way to deal with Christianity in a D&D game... that book uses a sort of dualism that seems to make sense (The King of Heaven and the Redeemer), as well as the old Celtic gods and goddesses coexisting... that part I was planning anyways.

Thanks for the advise so far, I appreciate it.

Also, if anyone has any specific advise, rather than just where to go, I'd appreciate that as well. I've been running Dragonlance so long it's going to be a big change for me.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

hmm, well, in terms of specific advice...

...are you aiming for a particular theme of Arthurian-ness, historical, new-agey, or Mallorian, or to go wild crazy everything at once?

Cause both are possible. Though mixing the Mallorian and the historical is a little weird. Saxons fighting 15th century chivalry is a little mind-bending at the least.

I recommend AU as a sourcebook just because it's magic is a little more appropriate and it's use of armor is really important.

If you're going to go Mallorian I recommend spending a lot of time on new and cool rules for arms, armor, and horses.

Another recommendation, along those lines, is that you look at adding a chivalry class. Fighter and Paladin, or some equivalent, should still be available, but the base line Arthurian knight doesn't really fit either.

The Camelot specific books probably have better suggestions, but I recommend, aside from AU, the Samurai from Oriental Adventures.

If nothing else the rules for upgrading your personal arms are really nice and it has a good balance of fighter style flexibility with a more chivalry specific skill list.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I might also recommend using a virtue style system, ala Exalted, rather than simple straight up alignment.

In any of the Arthurian systems violent emotion balanced against abstract notions of good and evil should be a major theme.

Exalted uses four virtues: Temperance, Compassion, Valor, and Conviction.

In DnD terms they function as something in between saving throws and action points.

So, let's say you want to do something particularly Brave, well you'd have to make a valor check and they you would get a bonus for some brave action.

If, on the other hand, you wanted to pass up some opportunity for bravery, like say not challenge someone to a duel after they had insulted you, then you would have to fail a valor check. If you succeeded than you would have to challenge him to a duel.

Some sort of saving throw mechanic for situations that challenge your knightly quality seems essential for me.

Free will seems very possible for Arthur but also very compromised.

 

[Krieg]

There were two d20 books specifically targeted at Arthurian style gaming recently put out.

Legends of Excalibur, which C. Baize and Vigilance have mentioned, approached Arthurian folklore England in much the same way as FFG approached their dark-Tolkienesque Midnight setting. Namely, it is a whole campaign setting, introducing new base classes and magic systems. The maps are beuatiful and the book stats out various figures from Arthurian lore.

Relics & Rituals is more of a mechanics sourcebook with elements appropriate to a d20 fantasy game that you want to add Arthurian flavor to. It lacks the background material that LoE has, and if you actually want to play in Malroy's camelot, you'd have to do a bit more work since it is light on fleshed out campaign details like LoE has.

In addition to the above mentioned by Psion (and others) I would suggest taking a look at Green Ronin's Medieval Player's Manual . While it is does not deal specifically with Arthurian mythology it does do a wonderful job of shoehorning D20 into a more period specific setting.

 

[Gregor]

You should also check out Jack Whyte's book series called "a dream of eagles" which takes a more historical approach to the Arthurian legend. He essentially explains (his version) of how Arthur could have existed in our world history. Even if you get nothing out of the books for your campaign the writing is top notch!

Cheers,

 

[Thotas]

Gotta confess, I haven't read any of Lawhead's stuff. So I'm not sure what the target is, but I will take a moment to rattle on about some of my fave Arthurian ammo. I like books written various scholars trying to work out the "true" Arthur's story. Interesting, because many of them talk a good arguement but contradict each other massively so some of those very feasible sounding ideas have to be flat-out wrong. Norma Lorre Goodrich's books "King Arthur", "Merlin" and "Guinevere" are all interesting; if you're big on the Grail Quest her "Holy Grail" is good, too. KA might be a little dense on the scholarly stuff for some, G feels like it's reaching more than the others that, while they reach, are fun and even make some points along the way that just might be right. For example, historicaly, as fond as many people are of the idea that much of the legend derives from the transition from Celtic to Christian beliefs, the truth is that the Romans had already done enough damage to Celtic religion that it's more likely the conflict was between Celtic Christianity (specificly the Pelagian Heresy) and Roman Catholicism. Her theory that Merlin was a disguise for (ha! no spoiler) is interesting. "The Keys to Avalon" and it's sequel (sorry, not handy, and I don't remember the authors' names, either) are seeming pretty reasonable over all, and while Arthur wasn't born in Tintagel castle because it wasn't built yet, there are indications that there may have been a very powerful political/military leader in that area at the appropriate time. And yep, if you haven't guessed yet, I'm very interested in this summer's "King Arthur" movie that claims to tell the "true story" when half of the historians say he's completely made up and the half that believe he existed can't even come close to agreeing what that story is.

 

[Thotas]

Wow, I did rattle. Sorry about that, it looked smoother before I hit the "submit reply" button. Could've been worse, you should see all the stuff I left out!

 

[Wombat]

I have a deep and abiding love for the Arthurian legends, leading back to when I was probably less than four years old. I also have studied medieval and "Late Antiquity" history a fair amount (my degree is in Medieval History). By combining the two, along with a long love of literature in general I can say this about the historical King Arthur: if he existed as a single figure, which I very much doubt, we would not recognize him as such. Whether you go the dux bellorum line, the Last of the Romans line, the Celtic Revival line, the Sarmatian Import line, or anything else, there is very little we can say about post-Roman Britain with any degree of certainty other than the fact that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (along with their various allies) poured into Britain in great numbers; between the Retreat of the Legions in 415 and the establishment of the Heptarchy two centuries later, there is a lot of mist, a lot of conjecture, and a fair amount of intriguing, yet inconclusive, archaeological evidence.

This is one of the many reasons that the Arthurian legends continue to exist in so many different forms -- you can choose your emphasis, drawing on multiple, semi-connected strands of legend, history, and pure mystery. Nennius doesn't give us much to go on. The Mabinogian was written down so late that it is almost of necessity corrupted.

So who was the "real" Arthur? My thought is that "he" was probably not even one guy, but a series of people whose stories got woven together through the intervening centuries. To his tale was added various tales of Myrddin/Merlin, Taliensin, Merdaut/Mordred, Gwalchmai/Gavin/Gawain, the Grail/Cauldron, Avalon, Joseph of Arimethea, Tristram/Drustan and Isolde/Issuelt/Yseld, and all the rest -- think of "Arthur" as the gravity well that drags all the other nearby tales into a erratic orbit.

Don't look to closely for reality -- you will always be disappointed

OTOH, there have been some fantastic writers over the years: Geoffrey of Monmouth, Chretien de Troyes, Thomas Mallory, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, T.H. White, Vera Chapman, Phyllis Ann Carr, Thomas Berger, to give only the mildest spot check.

In other words, when it comes to King Arthur, there is little truth, much speculation, and some wildly divergent literature, from the truly amazing to the truly awful.

Personally, I am putting together my "Arthurian Limberger" collection, including pictures of the Excalibur Hotel in Las Vegas, a copy of the Planet of the Apes comic book where the characters "inadverently" re-enact Arthurian tropes, and some amazingly cheesy movies!