Hello. I was browsing through Book of the Manor, where I spotted the costs for knighting the eldest son (forget the page, just before the economic system, almost at the end). Yikes, but the prices have gone up from the basic rule book (5th ed, p 161)! This then led to some other questions. Let me organize my questions in a sequence, for clarity...


1. Who pays?

The rulebook speaks only of vassals. On the other hand, I think I spotted a mention in the BotM that the universal aids are not considered squeezes by the peasants, which hints that they'd pay, too. Also, the ransom example hints that all manors under the lord, whether held by him or his vassals, would contribute equally to the Ransom. Lordly Domains says that a lord may raise additional amounts from his demesne equal to the yearly income to outfit his eldest son as a knight.

My conclusion from all this was that the vassals pay to the lord, and the peasants in fiefs -directly- held by the lord pay.

For example, lets imagine a knight lord who has 4 manors with household knights and 5 manors with vassal knights who owe their allegiance to him. His eldest son is about to be knighted. In the four manors where he is the local knight by right, the peasants pay grudgingly the extra expense. In the five manors held by the vassal knights, the -vassal knights- pay the extra expense. Now, they may squeeze the peasants for the money, but this would be considered as a Squeeze on their part. On the other hand, if one of the vassal knights' eldest sons becomes a knight, then his fief's peasants would pay without Squeezing.

Is this correct?


2. How much would they pay?

Book of the Manor stated no limit for the knighting and the implication for the Ransoming was that the vassals pay the full amount. So yikes for the peasants living in the single manor of a vassal knight who needs to knight his eldest son! (BotM quotes 35 libra, prompting one of my players to ask that if the peasants can pay that kind of money, could they start paying early, please!)

Instead, the 5th ed rulebook implies that the amount is the bare minimum of 8L but possibly much more... Lordly Domains goes one better and says it is just the year's normal income (usually around 6L), with the extra to be paid by the father. On the other hand, Lordly Domains implies that the lord can collect that from all of his estates, so the final sum might be humongous for a Count's eldest son (as well it should be). For Ransom, BotM implies a full share of whatever amount it is (for example, 18L for a vassal knight from his single manor), while the 5th ed rulebook is clear that it is usually just the year's income.

So, my conclusion based on the above: Each manor is expected to contribute its yearly income, as per Lordly Domains.


3. How much does it (the Knighting, mainly) cost?

Again, Book of the Manor quotes the highest number for Knighting, a whopping 25 - 55 L, depending on the era. Try as I might, I can't account for that number by equipment alone, not by a long shot, so should I assume that the rest is intended as Feasting and Celebration (and Tournament) expenses?

Given the earlier examples in 5th ed rulebook and Lordly Domains (8L min, which I expect is some poor charger for 4L, Norman chain for 1L, two Rouncys for 2L and 1L for the rest), I am tempted to say that the lord will outfit his son as well as he can, and have as big a party as he can, based on how much money he can raise and spend. Maybe use the wedding feast as a gauge for how big a feast is expected without looking like a miser. And naturally, a 8L poor knight is in a big disadvantage while trying to find employment as a household knight, as there are better equipped candidates for the job, too.

I'd use the same for Wedding+Dowry, too. For example, a vassal knight's eldest daughter is expected to have a 5L Wedding and 6-9 L Dowry, but if Daddy only has one manor, he needs to come up with 5-8 L from his own pocket. Whereas a knight with three manors could have a slightly bigger party (say 6L) and a heftier dowry at 12L without needing to draw from his own purse.


So, in summary, this is how I am planning on GMing it:
1. Vassals pay for their liege's request for Aid, and the peasants pay for their vassal knight's request for Aid.
2. Each manor is expected to pay a year's income, any extra amount is either a squeeze or just Generosity on the part of the vassals.
3. They cost what they cost, and this reflects well or poorly on the father's reputation as well as the subsequent success of the new knight / wife.


I do know that Greg has made some changes in the costs of the fortifications, for example, in BotM, and I do recall him mentioning that the Ransom is no longer a one-time Aid from the vassals but part of what is expected of them each time a Liege is captured. So perhaps some of the differences between the rulebook and BotM can be explained by this shift. But the very reason I am posting this is to ask Greg if this is so, and of course to elicit responses from not-Greg people as well. :)

Hello. I was browsing through Book of the Manor, where I spotted the costs for knighting the eldest son (forget the page, just before the economic system, almost at the end). Yikes, but the prices have gone up from the basic rule book (5th ed, p 161)! This then led to some other questions. Let me organize my questions in a sequence, for clarity...

We struggle to unify prices :D
but yes, it is more expensive


1. Who pays?
Is this correct?

Yes.


2. How much would they pay?
Book of the Manor stated no limit for the knighting and the implication for the Ransoming was that the vassals pay the full amount. So yikes for the peasants living in the single manor of a vassal knight who needs to knight his eldest son! (BotM quotes 35 libra, prompting one of my players to ask that if the peasants can pay that kind of money, could they start paying early, please!)

They can do it, and will be resentful but not officially :)
think of the "money you never see"


Instead, the 5th ed rulebook

If 5.1 says otherwise, then drop this data point. Latest publications always trump earlier ones.


implies that the amount is the bare minimum of 8L but possibly much more... Lordly Domains goes one better and says it is just the year's normal income (usually around 6L), with the extra to be paid by the father. On the other hand, Lordly Domains implies that the lord can collect that from all of his estates, so the final sum might be humongous for a Count's eldest son (as well it should be). For Ransom, BotM implies a full share of whatever amount it is (for example, 18L for a vassal knight from his single manor), while the 5th ed rulebook is clear that it is usually just the year's income.

Ransom is a multiple of annual income
Ransom for a baron will bankrupt his barony
Ransom for King Richard bankrupted England (giving John a great start)


So, my conclusion based on the above: Each manor is expected to contribute its yearly income, as per Lordly Domains.

They contribute a percentage equal to their share of the whole.
The inconsistent message there is whether you want to make it easy on the knights of not.
LD generally made it easy to get money and pay swtuff off
that is not the way I do it


3. How much does it (the Knighting, mainly) cost?
Again, Book of the Manor quotes the highest number for Knighting, a whopping 25 - 55 L, depending on the era. Try as I might, I can't account for that number by equipment alone, not by a long shot, so should I assume that the rest is intended as Feasting and Celebration (and Tournament) expenses?

Yes


Given the earlier examples in 5th ed rulebook and Lordly Domains

You are confusing yourself with outdated sources compared withy the latest onesw


(8L min, which I expect is some poor charger for 4L, Norman chain for 1L, two Rouncys for 2L and 1L for the rest), I am tempted to say that the lord will outfit his son as well as he can, and have as big a party as he can, based on how much money he can raise and spend. Maybe use the wedding feast as a gauge for how big a feast is expected without looking like a miser. And naturally, a 8L poor knight is in a big disadvantage while trying to find employment as a household knight, as there are better equipped candidates for the job, too.

Yes
Standards of armament are set early in Arthur's reign
If you don't have the latest requirement, you are downgraded in pay


I'd use the same for Wedding+Dowry, too. For example, a vassal knight's eldest daughter is expected to have a 5L Wedding and 6-9 L Dowry, but if Daddy only has one manor, he needs to come up with 5-8 L from his own pocket. Whereas a knight with three manors could have a slightly bigger party (say 6L) and a heftier dowry at 12L without needing to draw from his own purse.

Is the question where the money comes from?
Squeeze the peasants is answer #1


I do know that Greg has made some changes in the costs of the fortifications, for example, in BotM, and I do recall him mentioning that the Ransom is no longer a one-time Aid from the vassals but part of what is expected of them each time a Liege is captured. So perhaps some of the differences between the rulebook and BotM can be explained by this shift. But the very reason I am posting this is to ask Greg if this is so, and of course to elicit responses from not-Greg people as well. :)

use the latest figures
LD is not a secure source for economics

--g

They contribute a percentage equal to their share of the whole.
The inconsistent message there is whether you want to make it easy on the knights of not.
LD generally made it easy to get money and pay swtuff off
that is not the way I do it


My players would disagree with the statement that I make it easy on them. >:)

It is a bit of the opposite, really. Rules in the BotM actually make it EASIER to get money and pay for stuff, IMHO. Investments have a great return for the money used to build them, in comparison to LD, where you needed a string of luck to roll new fields to be cleared, for instance.

More pertinent to the discussion at hand is that using BotM system, all knights get all of their first sons knighted with good equipment without needing to go for their purses, and their eldest daughters wedded and dowried appropriately. Even if they have just one manor. And if the Earl's eldest son gets knighted, the sum demanded from each vassal knight would be miniscule in comparison. For example, lets say that Salisbury has around 100 manors. Lets say that the proper knighting of the Earl's son is x10 (admittedly, another fudge factor here) the normal cost, so 350L. Each manor, therefore, is expected to contribute 3.5L, under BotM system. Under LD system, each manor is expected to contribute 6L, for a grand total of 600L, and making it -more difficult- for the normal non-Earl PKs to pay for the expense (6L vs 3.5L).

Lets do a quick calculation for the knighting of the eldest son (assuming 35L would do it properly). Under BotM method, all it takes is one manor, and the PK can sigh with relief. With LD method, the PK needs to have 6 manors under his rule to avoid the need of getting extra money from somewhere (whether loot or Squeezes). What if the PK is someone's vassal (aren't they all)? Under BotM system, this can hurt more than LD system if the lord has less than 6 manors (which tends to be rare), BUT this is more than made up for the extra 29L that BotM gives for the one-manor knight's own son's knighting.

Summa summarum: Even in the worst case scenario (1 manor 'banneretcy' held by a vassal knight, which is a bit silly), the BotM ends up with +-0 (35L for the liege's son, but 35L for your own son), same as LD (6L / 6L). A more reasonable would be a two-manor knight having a PK knight as his vassal in one of those manors (so the PK vassal would pay 17.5L, and get 35L from his peasants for his own son = net increase of 17.5L with comparison to LD).

I do see Ransoming as a bit of a special case, admittedly:
1. Ransom is usually 3 x income, so 1 x income is not going to cut it.
2. Having the knights say that their Earl can rot in the dungeon for all they care doesn't sound right, either.
3. It is a good safety net for the PKs as well, encouraging them to actually surrender rather than fight to the death, which is appropriate for the genre.
4. However, it should not be a total free lunch.

So I'll probably implement the following houserules in our campaign:

1) Knighting of the Eldest Son / Wedding of the Eldest Daughter: the vassals/peasants contribute 1 year's income from each manor. If this is not enough, consider Squeezes, Tallage, spending your own money... (results in the PKs usually needing to spend money)

2) Ransoms happen. The first time it happens, the vassals/peasants pay the ransom in proportion of the manors under the lord, with no ill effects. The subsequent times, this takes time and effort: 1 x income is available with little grumbling, but each additional 1 x income generates Hate Landlord 2 in the peasants (it does not give any Squeeze checks, though) and may require Loyalty rolls for the vassals (if that fails, their Loyalty is lowered and they come up with excuses not to pay more). Furthermore, each additional 1 x income imposed on the peasants, has an impact on the well-being of the peasants and hence their ability to pay taxes! Reduce the Harvest results by as many steps as the additional increments of yearly income and it recovers like from a raiding, one step up per year until the penalty is canceled. For example, our one-manor PK has been ransomed for the second time, and he has taken all that money from his peasants (thus 3 x income). They increase their Hate Landlord by 4, and the year's Harvest result is downgraded 2 steps (lets assume Normal -> Bad 1/2th harvest = 3L).

Quick numbers check:
A) Ransom gained 18L. Harvest lost: 3L 1st year, 1.5L second year = 4.5L. Hmm. What if they would have been Good years, 9L? Then losses would be: 4.5L first year, 3L second year = 7.5L.
B) Ransom 12L + 6L own pocket. Harvest lost: 1.5L first year => 7.5L losses when you include the money purse, but get only +2 Hate.
C) Ransom 6L + 12L own pocket. Harvest lost: none. 12L losses but no Hate.

Yes, I think those numbers work, and make it more palatable for the knights to allow themselves to be captured occasionally, but not make it consequence-free.



Standards of armament are set early in Arthur's reign
If you don't have the latest requirement, you are downgraded in pay


Which makes perfect sense and is how I have been GMing it so far: You can be a knight with a poor horse and a rusty Norman Chain, but you will be looked down upon by more wealthy knights and the mercenary contracts have lower pay (you are classified as a Mercenary Mounted Sergeant instead of a true knight, in combat-value and pay).



Is the question where the money comes from?
Squeeze the peasants is answer #1


No, it is a question of how much can you get out of the peasants WITHOUT it being considered a Squeeze. BotM gives you all the money you need, which I see perhaps a bit too generous.

Forgive me, I am skipping the huge text


More pertinent to the discussion at hand is that using BotM system, all knights get all of their first sons knighted with good equipment without needing to go for their purses, and their eldest daughters wedded and dowried appropriately.
[/quote]
KAP goes to great lengths to give your first player knight many advantages so that a starting player will have a relatively easy time of it.
Remember, the whole econ system details are optional
It's not really meant to be a complete accounting system


Yes, I think those numbers work, and make it more palatable for the knights to allow themselves to be captured occasionally, but not make it consequence-free.

I am happy to allow everyone their own campaign, and in my own don't discourage knights from being nice to their peasants
The truth is that most nobles did not care, and the commoners put up with it. Most of the time.
And for that cruel standard the core rules are written.
Being nice to your commoners is dangerous, because there is very little chance they will care, be nice back, or credit the lord as a nice guy. There is a status quo that exists and includes ten thousand years of commoners held static by Ancient Law and Customs. Generosity is probably seen as a weakness, and anything except full liberation is not enough.
Though that is not how KAP works.


Standards of armament are set early in Arthur's reign
If you don't have the latest requirement, you are downgraded in pay

Which makes perfect sense and is how I have been GMing it so far: You can be a knight with a poor horse and a rusty Norman Chain, but you will be looked down upon by more wealthy knights and the mercenary contracts have lower pay (you are classified as a Mercenary Mounted Sergeant instead of a true knight, in combat-value and pay).
[/quote]
The fact that so many things make it difficult to be a knight and keep up is intentional.
£6 gets impinged by dowers, new equipment is more expensive, and it is quite possible that knight families will slip down the social scale.

I was doing some math again and talking with my players, and this is probably what we will end up using:

1) Knighting of the eldest son: 2 x income from peasants (manors directly under your control), 1 x income from your vassals
2) Wedding of the eldest daughter: 1 x income from peasants, 1/2 x income from vassals
3) Ransoming the Lord: as in my previous post

Lets see how our 1-manor and 2-manors knights will do... Assuming that they have 25 years before they need to outfit their son and have a wedding for their daughter.

1) Yearly 'profit': we are nice and assume 1L/yr/manor from good governance, and +2L/yr for the 2-manors knight for only having a household knight to support in his second manor
-> 'War chest' of 25L and 100L respectively.

2) Dowry of the wife: +9L.

3) Liege lord's Universal Aids: -6L + -3L = -9L and -12L - 6L = -18L, respectively

4) Raising money for the daughter's wedding: +6L and +12L, respectively. The cost of the wedding(5L)+dowry(9L) = -14L, meaning the total expense of -8L and -2L (likely more, for a bigger dowry and a bigger wedding, since the 2-manor knight can afford it)

5) Knighting of the son: +12L and +24L. Now, this depends a lot on the equipment of the son. We counted that a charger+reinforced chain basic knight would need about 16L worth of equipment (assuming he can get it from Camelot) + 5L for a party (taking the wedding party as the example) = 21L. The rich knight, on the other hand, wants to equip his son with the state of the art... Andalusian (20L) + Partial Plate (10L) + a spare Charger (8L) + stuff (rouncys, sword, shield, etc = 4L) = 42L + 8L for the party = 50L for the knighting. In total, the knights need to spend 9L and 36L respectively.

6) The remaining war chest is 6L and 63L.

7A) We see that the younger siblings (the next 10 years? = +10L) are struggling for crumbs for the 1-manor knight: the second son might inherit his father's old armor and warhorse, and get sent off to do what he can. The younger sisters might have to make due with small dowries and wedding feasts (like 4L - 8L total expense). And heaven forbid if the Liege Lord needs to be ransomed (-18L)! Even 'bad' (average) weather can break this knight, and his eldest son's equipment is merely 'adequate' or 'subpar'. Of course, there is always Squeezing...

7B) By contrast, the 2-manors knight is affluent. He can easily equip his second son well, too (and/or upgrade his eldest to a destrier), and give good dowries for his younger daughters. Even if the weather is against him (no bonus income for weather, -50L, or if he needs to pay for a steward), he still has no problems giving his eldest son good equipment (perhaps minus that spare charger), and the second son might get adequate equipment. (Of course, there is the temptation for the 2-manors knight to live as a Rich Knight, which pretty much eats away his profits (-75L)... and then he finds himself in a similar trouble as the 1-manor knight... Muahahaha! :P )

In short, these numbers seem to support the idea that (NPK) 1-manor knights are in danger of slipping as the more expensive equipment becomes available, and become 'poor knights' or slip into being esquires as they can't scrape up enough money to really get knighted (they could, but given the number of better armed young knights looking for a household knight position, they are out of that race). 2-manors knights should be OK, and the 3-manors knights can be comfortable with the knowledge that they have made it.

We like messing around with the economy in our campaign and playing SimKnight, so it works for us. :)

(Note: the above analysis ignores the effect of raiding, war loot, ransoms, remarrying, Good/Bad Fortune and most importantly, the Investments. A little bit (0.5 - 1 L) of extra income yearly pays off a lot in long term, but can waste the money if the enemy raid hits just the wrong time.)