Hello,

I am currently faced with a situation where three PKs were captured by enemy knights, and I am trying to wrap my head around the ransoms. The rulebooks indicate that normally, the vassals are expected to ransom their liege (at least the first time), by invoking one of the Aids. However, then it gets a bit confusing when the knight to be ransomed is a vassal instead of a liege himself. My impression was that the Liege would get a hit to his Loyalty (Vassals) if he doesn't pay to get his vassal freed. Is the vassal expected to pay anything back, are there limits (like one time) to this favor?

My own impression from history was that ordinary knights were most often reliant on their own means of ransom payment. For example the famous knight, William Marshall, was wounded and captured while protecting Queen Eleanor. The fact that she paid his ransom was seen as a generous thing to do, reflecting well upon her, which suggests that she could have left him to rot without being condemned by the polite society.

GMing-wise, I am a bit hesitant to hand all PKs a get-out-of-jail-free card simply because they are not mercenary/masterless knights, but household and vassal knights, because this would remove one of the balancing factors from the hunt of enemy knights to ransom, in turn. It wouldn't seem right that the liege would be there to pay the bills, while the PKs pocket any ransoms gained from captured enemy knights. (Not that they are proposing to do that; they went into the war with the gentlemanly agreement amongst themselves that all prisoners are held in common and used to exchange to each captured PK, if necessary, and in the end the gain from the ransoms is shared amongst the PKs. However, their current pool of captives is not enough to balance the books.)

Now, the NPC liege lord happens to have Loyalty(Vassals), Generous and Love(Family) (two of the knights are siblings of his) all at high levels, so he certainly wouldn't leave the knights to rot. With the high Generous, he probably wouldn't even bring up the topic of repayment. But would the PKs feel any societal pressure to give a 'gift' in gratitude for the rescue by the liege lord? Not from the Lord himself, but more like what is expected by the society at large, and a failure to do so (if they have the means) might result in whispers of a miserly personality and an unbecoming ingratitude? I would expect that the circumstances of the capture might be pertinent as well? For example, the knights adventuring somewhere by their own initiative would absolve the liege of much of the responsibility, while incur a greater debt of gratitude in the ransomed knights, while if they were 'on-the-clock' for the liege, he would feel more responsible and hence a lesser debt for the knights.

One of the captured PKs is actually a Knight of the Round Table, and holds a manor in Salisbury. Salisbury's young heir (I think 1-yr old at the moment) is a ward of King Arthur, so it could be claimed that King Arthur is the acting Earl of Salisbury, and hence the liege lord of that knight (as well as the Round Table connection). Given Arthur's famous largesse, would he be likely to cough up the money for the ransom?

Best wishes,
Morien

Household knight = the lord pays, or loses Loyalty (Vassals). The knight, if ever freed, have no obligations any longer

Vassal knight, first capture = his peasants (manor) pays.
Vassal knight, second capture = he have to pay himself.

Knight Lord = his vassal knights and his peasants (his demesne manors) pay, in proportion. I.e. Sir Brutus with the Runner Lance, banneret knight with a ransom of £150 and say 15 manors, of whom three are demesne and 12 enfeoffed to other knights. Each of those knights pay £10 each, and the remaining £30 comes from his demesne manors.

A vassal knight's lord or a lord knights lord (i.e. Sir Brutus liege lord) are never required to pay. But of course, generosity, Loyalty (vassals) and politics might make them pay, some or all of it anyways.

This is who I under stand it.

This is who I under stand it.


My thoughts are in the same vein.

I am currently faced with a situation where three PKs were captured by enemy knights, and I am trying to wrap my head around the ransoms. The rulebooks indicate that normally, the vassals are expected to ransom their liege (at least the first time), by invoking one of the Aids.
I have learned, since then, that it is not just the first time, but every time.
Also, that a vassal's share of ransom cold not (later int he campaign) be more than 1/6 of the value of his land.


However, then it gets a bit confusing when the knight to be ransomed is a vassal instead of a liege himself. My impression was that the Liege would get a hit to his Loyalty (Vassals) if he doesn't pay to get his vassal freed. Is the vassal expected to pay anything back, are there limits (like one time) to this favor?

Is the knight a landholder or a household knight?
If he is a landholder, then the vassals responsible are his commoners, his tenants. The liege lord has zero responsibility to pay his ransom.
If he is a household, then the liege has responsibility to get him back.


My own impression from history was that ordinary knights were most often reliant on their own means of ransom payment. For example the famous knight, William Marshall, was wounded and captured while protecting Queen Eleanor. The fact that she paid his ransom was seen as a generous thing to do, reflecting well upon her, which suggests that she could have left him to rot without being condemned by the polite society.

Your assumption is correct.

This is of course William's break-through act of his life. For those unfamiliar, imagine this:
William is the fourth or so son of an earl, basically a knight for hire in his uncle's household, when they are escorting the Queen. They are ambushed at night and William dashes out without armor to save the queen, does a good job until he is cut down.
Heck
she not only paid his ransom, but threatened her captors with horrible fates if William died before his ransom was paid
and this is what bought him to the king's attention

Way cool history



Now, the NPC liege lord happens to have Loyalty(Vassals), Generous and Love(Family) (two of the knights are siblings of his) all at high levels, so he certainly wouldn't leave the knights to rot. With the high Generous, he probably wouldn't even bring up the topic of repayment. But would the PKs feel any societal pressure to give a 'gift' in gratitude for the rescue by the liege lord?

Yes indeed.
It is called a Favor, it is an unspoken debut of great value
At some point the lord will ask them to do something to return the favor, and they dare not refuse anything



One of the captured PKs is actually a Knight of the Round Table, and holds a manor in Salisbury.

Round table with only one manor?
That's a pretty cheap king!
As a RT knight the king would gift him with another five or so, just to keep him in nice clothes



Salisbury's young heir (I think 1-yr old at the moment) is a ward of King Arthur, so it could be claimed that King Arthur is the acting Earl of Salisbury,

"could be claimed" nothing!!
It is so, but MORE SO
There is no earl at all. This is a holding of the King, or whoever he gifts the wardship to.

Also, there would actually be some RT knight who is present in the territory as overseer.



and hence the liege lord of that knight (as well as the Round Table connection). Given Arthur's famous largesse, would he be likely to cough up the money for the ransom?

No. not unless they are household, as I said.
That is not largesse, that is foolishness
He does what he must, not what his foolish PCs wish he would do

I have learned, since then, that it is not just the first time, but every time.
Also, that a vassal's share of ransom cold not (later int he campaign) be more than 1/6 of the value of his land.


Is that 1/6th of the yearly income, or does 'the value of his land' refer to something else? And later in the campaign would mean...?

While we are on that topic... When calculating the ransoms, the rule of thumb is 18 libra (3 years' income) for a basic vassal knight. I assume that for a famous and/or a rich knight, this would be more. Do you apply the 3 years' income on lords, too? And if you do, do you calculate it based on the manors held by the lord directly, or all the manors under his rule (i.e. vassals as well)? I can see how in the latter case a king's ransom might truly be beggaring the kingdom (Richard Coeur-de-Lion anyone?).

For example, the NPC banneret I have been referring to holds 6 manors directly (36L) and 7 enfeoffed ones (42L). Should he be captured, would his ransom be:
a) 150L as in the rulebook
b) 36L * 3 = 108L (3 years' income from his own manors)
c) 78L * 3 = 234L (3 years' income from all manors under his rule)

Regardless of the exact answer to that, would the vassals only be 'in the hook' for 1L per manor = 7L? This seems insanely low. If the value of the land is closer to, say, 120L (20 years' income), then I can see the vassals being required to pay 1/6th of that = 20L, which would lead to 140L from seven manors.



Round table with only one manor?
That's a pretty cheap king!
As a RT knight the king would gift him with another five or so, just to keep him in nice clothes

Also, there would actually be some RT knight who is present in the territory as overseer.


A pretty cheap GM, more likely. :P

Gaining land is a big deal in our campaign, with each manor carefully cultivated and additional manors coveted. It fits our playstyle to not have the title of a Knight of the Round Table tied to land holdings. If the Knight is worthy, he is worthy. Granted, if he is dirt-poor, then certainly our Arthur would find a manor to relieve the knight from financial woes, or take him as a household knight.

Also, we like the focus on a few manors, rather than vast estates. If I were to 'retire' characters as they reach the RTK status, then giving them a castle and lands somewhere far away would be the perfect excuse. But of course, that would beg the question, why won't the other PKs (some of whom might be kin) beg favors from their erstwhile companion (probably with Loyalty Group through the roof) who is now much more wealthy than they are.

To your other point, yes, there is a RTK overseeing day-to-day administration of the county, but the authority and the responsibility rests with Arthur. :)

Thanks for the answer, Greg!

Best wishes,
Morien