I thought I'd make a quick post about some things that have to do with the Courts. This is more 'common knowledge' stuff, but if your character is newly Reckoned, please ignore it.

1) A King can appoint more then one Rook - usually in cities much bigger than Regina.
2) A King can appoint more than one Knight - this is a risky measure, but it has been done.
3) One King in every Civitas *should* know the Crucifixion Rite. That doesn't mean that both, or either, must know it.
4) A King may not appoint more than one Queen
5) There may not be more than one King for each Conviction.
6) A King may appoint more than one Bishop.

It is rare, though not unheard-of, for a King to appoint a member of the Deistical to a court position. In this case, that person would be known as the Grey (Rook, Knight, Bishop) of the (Black, White) Court. The King may not be Grey.

How rare is a Grey Queen?

I figure that it'd be pretty rare. Grey positions are generally chosen when there isn't some one who is suitable present within the Court, or denotes something of a trust issue. Since Queen is essentially second in the chain of command I think there would be a good amount of (possibly due) outcry from the members Divine/Infernal, as it means that their King a.) doesn't trust any of them, b.) thinks that there are no suitable choices within their own conviction, and c.) is willing to put a member of the Diestical in command over their Knights.

I could totally imagine this happening if the elected King distrusted the greater population of his conviction or all of them. It would definitely hurt some prides and make you not too loved a King through the subtext of choosing a Diestical as their right hand. Appointing a Grey Queen could also be read as 'my conviction is not strong enough to fill this position themselves'.

I can't recall reading anything of it but I've only heard of Grey Knights, Rooks and Bishops. These are just my logical guesses.

Love wrote:These are just my logical guesses.

My logic matches your logic. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Well, it's really similar at least; my initial response to Mark's post was "Over my dead body!", but yours is close enough. :)

I can appoint whoever I want as Queen. I'm King, I can do anything I want!

Mua-hahahahahahahaha!

P.S. What they (Love, Friedrich) said.

Ahem...

*mach brimstone punch*

The only position that *cannot* be held by someone not of either the Infernal Conviction or the Divine Conviction is King.

I was also under the impression that most "grey" knights are in addition to white and black Knights, not instead of. A grey knight of the _____ court can't challenge the king so that King has no real check on their power.

Eliel wrote:I was also under the impression that most "grey" knights are in addition to white and black Knights, not instead of. A grey knight of the _____ court can't challenge the king so that King has no real check on their power.

Knights in generally are probably by far the most common position to have multiples of - their your sergeants in the battle against the Host and the Horde. Anyone who is likely to regularily be doing battle with the Host & Horde should probably be either a Knight, or a member of a Knighted Congregation(a Congregation whose Prelate is a Knight), otherwise they need direct commands from the King or Queen in order to be allowed into battle. Obviously, it is to a Civitas' advantage to have combatants organized ahead of time into Knighted Congregations capable of joining battle using their own judgement.

Anyway, one would generally expect Grey Knights are appointed because the Diestical usually aren't expected to fight, but if there is a stand-out member who should be regularily called to battle, as opposed to just on special orders, they might be Knighted. But that would likely be in addition to the regular Knights, I think, for precisely the reasons you specify.

Whether or not Grey knights are in addition to black/white knights is a convention up to each court; there's nothing in the rules or setting that says a Knight *must* be either Infernal or Divine, nor that a Court *must have* a Divine or Infernal Knight before appointing a Grey Knight.

The King *always* has a check on her power, because in addition to the more common 'challenge' issued by the Knight to the King (and remember: the King is usually first defended by the Rook), a King can be removed from her position by the Council. Basically, it's a vote of non-confidence, and both the White Queen and Bishop and the Black Queen and Bishop comprise the Council.

A Grey Knight could still challenge a King, but would have to name someone else to the position, should the Grey Knight be successful in his challenge.

Sorry Jill, once again I have gone off of memory of the old book where it had explicitely stated that a Grey Knight couldn't challenge a king. Any word on when we may be able to get a copy of the new book so we can find out about how the in character rules work.

Actually, what the rules say is this:

Grey Knights to not have the right to challenge for a King position, and Queens/Regents or Bishops have no vote on a council (although they are free to voice and to argue their opinions)

So. My interpretation of that setting information (found in the "Deistical" section of the "Codex" chapter, for those of you who decide to read the setting information at a game) is that Grey Knights are welcome to challenge the King, but not for her Position; the Grey Knight could challenge, but *must* appoint someone else, as Deistical *cannot* be King.

As I've mentioned numerous times before, anyone is welcome to read the setting/codex section of the rulebook on the computer at games, or when you're at my house. I will not make copies of this section, however. Which is why I find these threads helpful.

Also, Dave, to answer your other question, We're currently planning for a spring release. But, things being what they are, and both the author and the editor doing this on a volunteer basis, it could take longer.

Wait. Could a Grey Knight then challenge EITHER King?

Grey positions are (to my knowledge, this is just from me playing in Trent's games and onwards, text might have changed) 'of the White Court' or 'of the Black Court'. Shay, for example, is the Grey Bishop of the Black Court.

There fore, whichever Court they are filling a position for is the only one that they can Challenge. I've never heard of a Grey Knight having that ability, but my interpretation isn't the same as Jill's.

Yes, Rhea, your opinion is the same as mine on this. There is a Grey ___ of the X Court. So the only King you could challenge as the Grey Knight is the King of your own court.

Grey Knights to [sic] not have the right to challenge for a King position, and Queens/Regents or Bishops have no vote on a council (although they are free to voice and to argue their opinions)

... could certainly be interpreted as you suggested, however (going by memory here), isn't the sentance right before that something like, "The one area no Deistical has sway over is the removal of a King.", and then the line you quoted. If my memory is correct, that would make it much more difficult to interepret the way you suggested.

That doesn't mean there has to be a regular knight in addition to the grey one, it just makes the King more powerful if there isn't. Also speaking of making the King more powerful, what would be your interpretation of the council needing to be unanimous in something. If only one of the council positions is filled with someone who can vote on King removal (for example no Black Queen, a Grey Bishop, no White Queen, and only a White Queen who can actually vote) are they powerless since the council needs 4 votes to be unanimous, or can they go all "Are you being served?" on the King's ass and be unanimous in themselves?

I realize to some extent these things would have different IC interpreations as well, but I'm curious if you view the world as having certain conventions regarding this.

*snort*

can they go all "Are you being served?" on the King's ass and be unanimous in themselves?

Dave, you just made my day.

I would say that the council needing to be "unanimous in this" (snicker), that would be up to the characters. *Traditionally*, no two Kings in their right minds would fill their council in such a way that there would be more Deistical than not who would either have to abstain from voting, or who could sway a Mandate or vote to remove a King. To me as Storyguide, it would be incredibly difficult to step in and say "Oh, Arc, you can't have Shay as your Bishop because Shamus has chosen Sarina as his Regent and that would unbalance the Council". In fact, I wouldn't do that. I'd let the character try to sort it out themselves. Hopefully, in that situation, *somebody's* Knight would step forward (or Regent) and say "BOLLOCKS!" or something to that effect.

Also, I can't imagine a King allowing a Deistical Knight if it would unbalance the ...erm... balance... of power. HOWEVER, on to the meat of the issue.

Kingdom Come rulebook, Codex section wrote:A Deistical may become a Queen/Regent, Bishop, Rook or, with the mutual agreement of the Kings, even a Knight. They thus gain the distinction of being a Grey member of a particular court. For example, a Deistical Fallen who is chosen to be the White Rook would be known as a Grey Rook for the White Court.

However, there is one area where the Deistical continue to have no sway, and that is the removal of a King. Grey Knights do not have the right to challenge for a King position, and Queens/Regents or Bishops have no vote on a council (although they are free to voice and argue their opinions). For this reason it is unwise for a King to choose casually the Deistical to fill the roles of the Court.

Grey Knights have special conditions in that they do not have Congregations outside of the Brood and are not expected to command their Deistical brethren into battle. They become lone warriors who may join up with other Choirs or Murders at the behest of a Queen/Regent.

Is what the Codex section has to say about the Deistical being Knights. While I see your point, Dave, I think I would rule that a Deistical Knight could challenge a King, but could not replace him. However, the reason this book is not available yet for sale is because things like this could be taken either way. And again, this is something that I would feel comfortable with characters settling IC - if someone was, say, a scholar of the Codex, one might use one's Cinematic Points to remember that in an obscure tract printed sometime in the 60s, there was evidence that the Civitas of San Francisco had a Grey Knight who was forced to challenge the Black King as the Black King had "done something" to the rest of the court, both black and white. That Grey Knight, having no choice BUT to challenge the King, and, having been successful, may have named her lover as Black King, only to watch her lose her life a month later when the entire Infernal Conviction removed her head at a tea party.

However, the vast, VAST majority of Fallen will never have ever heard of a Grey Knight being allowed to challenge a King.

Does that make sense?

Last edited by cenobyte on Tue 3 Nov 2009 - 14:41; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : #!**$%#@ formatting.)

cenobyte wrote:That Grey Knight, having no choice BUT to challenge the King, and, having been successful, may have named her lover as Black King, only to watch her lose her life a month later when the entire Infernal Conviction removed her head at a tea party.

Now here is the real travesty. Why weren't we made aware of the tea parties that the Infernal have? I swear, Jill, things like this should not be kept quiet.

Thanks Jill. Isn't it great when we agree on something 99%.

Now here is the real travesty. Why weren't we made aware of the tea
parties that the Infernal have? I swear, Jill, things like this should
not be kept quiet.

It is the job of the Infernal to inform the other Convictions as to where and when the Infernal tea parties will be held. The Storyguide cannot track all the tea parties that occur every month.

If these involve Obama in a Hitler mustache, I respectfully decline.

I can handle Fallen Angels who are servents of evil embracing Sin and Vice, but Glenn Beck scares me.

For those watching this thread and showing the obvious differences on what has been done in game in regards to this text:

Arc requires that his Bishop vote in Council meetings, much to her discomfort. He's an ass like that.
Also, given everything that Arc has done, put into context, it would be clearly easy to assume that he would allow a Grey Knight to challenge a King but not be able to become King on account of his being a fencesitt...er...member of the Brood.