There is a topic that crops up from time to time in my campaign. Players wit PCs that have survived until their sons are adult that want to "resign" and give up their land and titles to their sons (the old PC would become a NPC hermit or just played occasionally). I did accept this once, with an extremely pious knight that literally felt like he belonged to God more than this world and once, with a PC who ran away from his manor and wife with a danish shield maiden (don't ask!). Come seven years, Arthur had him declared dead and his son inherited his manor. I felt okay with these very specific situations. My feeling, however, is that, generally, knights can't just walk away from their holdings. Honor, Loyalty (lord), Love (family) stands in the way. What I wonder is if there is any historical precedence for knight "resigning"? Or should they keep lands and titles until they die?

This is a question that I've had from my player's so it'll be interesting to see the answer. It was my understanding that the son is not knighted til the father dies - under normal circumstances - but is that honour also bestowed if, as Skarpskytten says, the father "resigns"?

Your previous rulings seem very cool, Sharp. More generally, it is possible for the father to resign, but doing so is irrevocable. You can't do it and remain a knight. You are breaking your oath to your liege, and can only do this if there is a higher calling, and the only one with universal support is your religion. Taking holy orders and retiring to a monastery, or becoming a hermit are certainly valid ways to do this.
Note that becoming a monk (or pagan equivalent) requires renouncing all ties to worldly possessions, and will likely require a sizeable gift to the religion. This often involves land, so a knight with several manors may end up with fewer of them to hand down to his son... Or, quite posisbly, the manors become the church's until the knight dies. So the heir may be played, but doesn't get the lands yet...
Whether or not this happens, the lord of the knight will not be happy about the retirement, and will also require a payment for the son to assume the inheritance.

So, I would say, let the players do it. Make them aware:
a) The retired knight cannot be played again (though if a hermit, you might use him as an NPC)
b) there is a cost, possibly several years annual income, to be divided between the lord and the church.

There will be exceptions like those you previously mentioned, but some of them iwll bring shame on the family, and some may prompt the lord to charge extra fees on the heir before he can assume the inheritance, and may even have to complete a quest to prove his worthiness.

Whether or not this happens, the lord of the knight will not be happy about the retirement, and will also require a payment for the son to assume the inheritance.


Darren, just on this point. It seems odd that the lord would be unhappy. Or rather, it seems odd that he would be unhappy if the retiring knight is simply too old to serve. If the knight in question is in his 50s or 60s - and virtually decrepit - isn't it better to have the son serve rather than the father?

Also, is there no option simply to retire after a long life of good service or does the knight with no excuse other than creaking bones *have* to carry on until he literally dies on his feet? "Watch out for Sir Geriatric, he's quite dangerous once he lets go of the zimmer frame"

*giggles*

Old knights do generally serve till they die. The lord will have a spread of knights of all ages. The youngest, most virile, will be given dangerous physical tasks. The oldest will likely be influential and have a wealth of life experience and maybe also contacts too, so he calls on them for advice, for favours through their contacts, and so on. Fighting may be the most important duty of a knight, but it actually makes up a small part of their life. In times of war, the old knight will be expected to do his duty, but is likely to be able to afford to send a proxy in his name - though there are many that don't, see Brastias for instance. No stats as high as 10 at one point, and still serving as a solder.

It's perfectly reasonable for players to retire an old knight, and play the son while the father continues to live on and administer the family manor. In which case, the player plays the son, without the land, and waits for the father to die so he can inherit. For the old knight to actually be removed from his position as lord of the land, so that the heir can take it, is a much more drastic thing, and that's what is unusual.

Your previous rulings seem very cool, Sharp.

Thanks :)



So, I would say, let the players do it. Make them aware:
a) The retired knight cannot be played again (though if a hermit, you might use him as an NPC)

This is I think my instinct too. Go ahead and retire him, but then on an permanent basis. I don't want some old über-mighty character popping in to save the son ... or a discussion about it.



b) there is a cost, possibly several years annual income, to be divided between the lord and the church.

The knight is a pagan; Im sure he would object.

There are some good replies here, but I am compelled to offer my opinion and contradict some of them.


Players wit PCs that have survived until their sons are adult that want to "resign" and give up their land and titles to their sons (the old PC would become a NPC hermit or just played occasionally). I did accept this once, with an extremely pious knight that literally felt like he belonged to God more than this world and once, with a PC who ran away from his manor and wife with a danish shield maiden (don't ask!). Come seven years, Arthur had him declared dead and his son inherited his manor. I felt okay with these very specific situations.

Excellent decisions, I think.


My feeling, however, is that, generally, knights can't just walk away from their holdings. Honor, Loyalty (lord), Love (family) stands in the way. What I wonder is if there is any historical precedence for knight "resigning"? Or should they keep lands and titles until they die?

There are hundreds of examples of noble men giving up their noble life and entering the Church.
In many cases it was at retirement, but in others it was from a sincere streak of piety.
The lords have no way to stop this whatsoever.
And, once committed to the Church, there is absolutely no way for them to escape that responsibility and become knights again.
(Though there are also numerous examples of fighting clergy, like Bishop Odo, the brother of King William I)

However, in the cases I know about, entering the church is the only way to "resign" totally. To ignore or "give away" title and responsibility (almost) automatically means loss of noble status, honor, and rights--i.e. he becomes a peasant and a major first-class dork.

However, it is NOT unusual for the old man to step back, run the estate and continue to confer with his lord as adviser, while the son is knighted and goes off adventuring and to war for him. Unless he is specifically called to muster, he needs only send the number of knights he is obligated to send.

Sons certainly can be knight before their father retires, as long as the other conditions are met (training, someone to "hire" him, etc.). If hi father has multiple titles, it is also common to grant him the minor title and let him start his life with that. He will inherit the other titles and lands when the old man croaks.