The Black Hart of Camelot

I don’t think the game will have name tags, so it might be useful to post a list of characters and players. There will be introductions both OOC and IC, and many of the characters don’t know each other anyway, so hopefully it’ll work out. Kay the Seneshal will be available to ask who people are too (assuming I can remember).

Argante - Simone Michaux
Arthur - Jared Hansen
Brangaine - Prema Cottingham
Clarissant - Anna Klein
Elaine - Donna Giltrap
Galahad - Blair Purkiss
Gawaine - Derek Tomes
Guineth - Hannah Jackson
Guinevere - Lucy Brychkova
Isolde - Daphne Cohen
Lancelot - Vanya
Leodegrance - Mike Curtis
Lynette - Kahiro Wada
Lyonesse - Juliet Thomborson
Mark - Scott Kelly
Merlin - Malcolm Harbrow
Mordred - Jack Benson-Rea
Morgan - Stephanie Pegg
Morgause - Zara Kinzett
Nimue - Kara Jensen
Palamedes - Hans Edward Hammond
Pelles - Morgan Davie
Percival - Porl Bowlder
Tristan - Edward Colenbrander

Vanya is the only person listed with no last name, he doesn’t need one :stuck_out_tongue:

If you have special items on your character sheet then please let me know if you can supply a prop, otherwise I’ll provide one.

For swords, shields, and daggers I’ll assume you’re bringing latex or similar weapons unless you let me know otherwise. There are plenty among the player base, and this forum is a good place to borrow.

It may pay to bring a pewter goblet or suitable cup, if you have one. There will be some drink to keep us going, and some goblets supplied, but not enough cups for 24 characters. I don’t want to go the road of plastic cups for this game.

Anyone who has a wedding even distantly hinted at on their character sheet may wish to bring a ring that fits them.

Beautiful, so I now get a goal for the game. How many people can I send to counselling…?

Btw, does anyone have a shield I could borrow.

Below is a review of a previous Camelot larp run about 750 years ago.

[quote=“Matthew Paris”]In this year the knights of England, in order to prove their skill and bravery in knightly practices, unanimously determined to try their powers, not in the sport commonly and vulgarly called a tournament, but in that chivalrous sport which is called “The Round Table.” In the octaves of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, therefore, they assembled in great numbers at the abbey of Wallenden, flocking together from the north and the south, and some also from the continent; and, according to the rules of that warlike sport, on that day and the day following some English knights disported themselves with great skill and valour, to the pleasure and admiration of all the foreigners there present.

On the fourth day following, two knights of great valour and renown, Arnold de Montigny and Eoger de Lembum, entered the Lists, completely armed in knightly fashion, and mounted on choice and handsome horses; and as they rushed on to meet one another with their lances, Roger aimed his weapon, the point of which was not blunted as it ought to have been, in such a way that it entered under the helmet of Arnold, and pierced his throat, cutting asunder his windpipe and arteries; for he was uncovered in that part of his body and without a collar. Being thus mortally wounded, he fell headlong to the earth from his horse, and immediately expired, to the great grief, as was reported, of Roger. This Arnold, having been one of the bravest in feats of arms, not leaving his compeer, or even one that could be considered second to him in that respect, great grief and lamentation arose amongst the knights there present, and thus those who had come thither in joy and gladness, separated on a sudden amid grief and lamentation. His body was buried in the neighbouring abbey of Wallenden, amidst much grief and sorrow, before the nobles who had been present took their departure, and no one of the knights lamented the death of the deceased so much as the author of it, the aforesaid Roger, and he at once made a vow to assume the cross and to make a pilgrimage for the release of the soul of Arnold. As it appeared evident that it was against his will and unknowingly that he had killed the aforesaid Arnold de Montigny, he was not accused of, nor reproached for, his murder.

But there were in that knightly assemblage, many nobles of England, and amongst others the earl of Gloucester, who, immediately on the said knight, Arnold, being wounded, endeavoured to withdraw the fragment of the lance from the throat of the wounded man, and when he succeeded in withdrawing the wooden staff of it, the iron head remained in the wound; and, on this being cut out, and examined by the surrounding knights, it was found to be very sharp at the point, like a dagger, though it ought to have been blunt, and about as broad as a small knife: its shape was like that of a ploughshare on a small scale, whence it was commonly called a little plough, and in French soket. On the strength of this evidence the aforesaid Roger de Lemburn, although he declared himself to be innocent, became an object of suspicion, and was bitterly reproached with having treacherously perpetrated the crime of murder, particularly as the said Arnold had, in a previous tournament, broken this Roger de Lemburn’s leg. But God only knows the truth of this, who alone searches into the secrets of men’s hearts.[/quote]
As I’ve regretfully vetoed Derek’s suggestion that our players fight with sharp metal weapons on horseback like real men, hopefully we won’t run into the same sorts of difficulties.

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]Below is a review of a previous Camelot larp run about 750 years ago.
[/quote]

Lol, Run 750 years ago or set 750 years ago? Thats one ancient larp :wink:

Ryan’s correct, that was run 750 years ago.

I remember in my Arthurian lit class, we learned how the courts of France would hold events where they would take on characters from Arthurian legends and ‘be’ those characters for the duration of the event. I’ve always said larping is the sport of kings, and now I have historical proof! :laughing:

Either another Derek suggested this or my memory is going… I’d give even odds either way :smiley:

I may have exaggerated slightly.

An Arthurian lit class? Is that like a single lesson, or a whole paper?

An Arthurian lit class? Is that like a single lesson, or a whole paper?[/quote]

A whole paper, I did in Semester 2 of 2007. It was a really great paper, I can’t remember the proper title, but it’s taught by Auckland Uni English department as a mixed Stage 3/Honours level paper. I’m not sure if it’s still running, since Stephanie Hollis retired, but Tracey Adams is still there, so it might be.

Cool, it never occured to me that there would be a whole paper on it. There’s more than enough material though, the amount of Arthurian literature is staggering. I had an interesting time trying to find a suitable compromise between all the contradictary versions of events.

I predict you’re going to spend this game trying not to use stuff you know but your character doesn’t… but I’ve added some twists to keep people who know too much on their toes.

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]Cool, it never occured to me that there would be a whole paper on it. There’s more than enough material though, the amount of Arthurian literature is staggering. I had an interesting time trying to find a suitable compromise between all the contradictary versions of events.

I predict you’re going to spend this game trying not to use stuff you know but your character doesn’t… but I’ve added some twists to keep people who know too much on their toes.[/quote]

There is staggering amounts of literature out there on the King Arthur mythology, they had to be pretty ruthlessly selective with what they included in the course. You have ‘historical’ Arthur, the English Arthurian myths, the French Arthurian myths, then all the lit pretty much from the heyday of Arthurian romances through till…well, now, since people are still writing them.

Fun fact: To the English, King Arthur was historical fact. He existed. He was gonna come back and pwn those oppressors (whoever they might be at the moment - the Saxons, the Normans…) while to the French, King Arthur was their Lord of the Rings. To the French, it was the most romantic high fantasy of all time, and they wrote gobs of fanfiction about it. Which is why most of the written Arthur stuff is French.

I wouldn’t worry so much about my OOC knowledge, we focussed very much on one aspect of Arthurian literature, and that was Lancelot and his…misdeeds, and I don’t know much outside it. I am familiar with the procedures of courtly love, which can only be useful, and unless much of the game is about the psychological symbolism in Chretien de Troyes’ “Lancelot, le Chevalier de la Charette” which is what I wrote my essay on, I’m sweet :smiley:

I am not. I didn’t even know there are “procedures” for it :astonished: Sounds very official :laughing:
Would you be keen to share a few bits of that precious knowledge here for those like me who have no idea what they are gonna do?

I am not. I didn’t even know there are “procedures” for it :astonished: Sounds very official :laughing:
Would you be keen to share a few bits of that precious knowledge here for those like me who have no idea what they are gonna do?[/quote]There’s a really big idea of women not being allowed to be in love with their husbands - feudal marriages are all about money and land, none of this ‘love’ nonsense. So you’d get a bunch of poets and troubadours writing about women falling in love (preferably chastely) with a young beautiful knight in their husbands’ employment, preferably with lots of angsting and noble gestures. The big deal with Lancelot and Guinevere was supposed to be, not that they were in love, but that there was a physical component to that love. Oh, and from the guy’s side it all got mixed into a feudal idea of service, so the lady who was longed for would be referred to as ‘Midons,’ a masculine form for ‘my lord.’

And then there is the business with tokens and favours, and the Lady being cruel and forever rejecting the lovelorn young knight, and the burning love sickness that consumes the knight. Courtly love was what actually put me off doing any more Arthurian lit, it was just mean and not at all what I would find romantic :frowning: It was considered heroic to suffer for the love of the Lady.

One of the funnier moments in class was when our little old lady lecturer was discussing the symbolism of Lancelot entering Guinevere’s tower, how it symbolised…other things. “When Lancelot penetrated Guinevere’s tower,” our little old lady lecturer says nonchalantly, only to have a quarter of the class burst into giggles. Little old lady lecturer suppressed a smile and continues blithely “it symbolises the knight penetrating the Queen’s clothes” About two thirds of the class burst into giggles again. Lecturer continues - “and this penetration-” at which point all but the mature students completely lose it laughing, including the little old lady lecturer, who then giggled for five minutes straight and couldn’t lecture. The mature students gave us all dirty looks as if we were acting like kids.

So the eternal riddle was answered: How many times do you have to say ‘penetrate’ successively to reduce an honours class to giggles? Answer: 3.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I think these days it’s called “tease and deny” (don’t google that). [/joke]

cough well, if you’d permit me to introduce you to the “Rules of Courtly Love”

Rules of Courtly Love

  1. Marriage should not be a deterrent to love.
  2. Love cannot exist in the individual who cannot be jealous.
  3. A double love cannot obligate an individual.
  4. Love constantly waxes and wanes.
  5. That which is not given freely by the object of one’s love loses its savor.
  6. It is necessary for a male to reach the age of maturity in order to love.
  7. A lover must observe a two-year widowhood after his beloved’s death.
  8. Only the most urgent circumstances should deprive one of love.
  9. Only the insistence of love can motivate one to love.
  10. Love cannot coexist with avarice.
  11. A lover should not love anyone who would be an embarrassing marriage choice.
  12. True love excludes all from its embrace but the beloved.
  13. Public revelation of love is deadly to love in most instances.
  14. The value of love is commensurate with its difficulty of attainment.
  15. The presence of one’s beloved causes palpitation of the heart.
  16. The sight of one’s beloved causes palpitations of the heart.
  17. A new love brings an old one to a finish.
  18. Good character is the one real requirement for worthiness of love.
  19. When love grows faint its demise is usually certain.
  20. Apprehension is the constant companion of true love.
  21. Love is reinforced by jealousy.
  22. Suspicion of the beloved generates jealousy and therefore intensifies love.
  23. Eating and sleeping diminish greatly when one is aggravated by love.
  24. The lover’s every deed is performed with the thought of his beloved in mind.
  25. Unless it please his beloved, no act or thought is worthy to the lover.
  26. Love is powerless to hold anything from love.
  27. There is no such thing as too much of the pleasure of one’s beloved.
  28. Presumption on the part of the beloved causes suspicion in the lover.
  29. Aggravation of excessive passion does not usually afflict the true lover.
  30. Thought of the beloved never leaves the true lover.
  31. Two men may love one woman or two women one man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love
eleanorofaquitaine.net/book_of_love.html

So, any chance of being able to borrow a cloak (and pin / clasp to attach it with)?

Mine just won’t fit in the suitcase with all the other stuff.

What kind of cloak are you after? I have a big red mage cape I can bring, but it’s got sleeves but is pretty wizardy :slight_smile:

Anything I can get. I already have a red C12th robe, so red would go with that.

Damn, I should dig out a hat too.