I'd like to get some clarification regarding the protocol for taking knights prisoner. If you defeat a knight can you always take him prisoner or is it only acceptable only under certain circumstances (in battle for eg). The problem I'm having is that when constructing a scenario I have to be wary of introducing too many NPC knights for fear of them being captured and ransomed off. The comparatively large sums even a single knight brings in throws the economic balance off the scale.

Two examples-
1) I recently had a PK accept a challenge from another knight having insulted his wife. The PK lost and the NPC took him prisoner (his freedom was later bought back). Is that acceptable in a challenge? Can you take a knight prisoner, assuming you don't kill him of course, or are you just proving who is right or wrong for honour?
2) A PK sought lodging at a foreign manor. He was invited in then attacked by the lord and porter. The PK defeated both attackers and took the lord prisoner, ransoming him back a few weeks later. Is this reasonable?

In any truly hostile situation, taking a prisoner would be fine in my opinion. However, appropriate trait rolls might be in order. Generous and Forgiving knights might release prisoners w/o randsom, reckless and cruel ones might kill them. Worldly or Selfish or Just ones might hold them as prisoners.

In most formal situations like a duel of honor or at a tournament, there would be rules set prior to the duel, which the combatants would have to follow.

Outside of the formal situation...if you win...you win. Just remember, your lord probably has a say in the matter. If you capture the Lord of Levcomagus, Count Robert is going to have something to say about it.

Also in terms of game play, just because you have a captive, doesn't mean you can actually collect the random. His family or lord might not pay hoping to just trade for him later. In reality, fortunes were made and lost on randoms, but in many cases prisoners were released on parole and collecting the randsom could take years.

E

E

Isn't a ransom one of the four universal aids? So if a vassal knight is captured his peasants have to fork out the money to release him, not his family.

Good call of the traits. I'd overlooked that somewhat.

What Eothar said. If it is a formal occasion (tournament, honorable duels) then the stakes are agreed in advance, for example: 'If you will, I will be your captive, but if I win, you will let my brother go without ransom.'

On the other hand, if some dastard jumps out of the bushes and starts flailing at you with his sword, you are within your rights to restrain him and ransom him, IMHO. Of course, his kinfolk & liege might feel differently, and if they make a ruckus, that might discomfit your lord, too. Also, remember that you will need to get that person securely to your home (whilst his lord might be sending soldiers after you to rescue his vassal), -and- feed the bastard until he is ransomed! Plenty of opportunities for Generous & Selfish, Merciful & Cruel, Hospitality and others, depending on if you treat him as a knight and support him as such (which eats into your earnings from the ransom), or if you toss him into some storage closet and lock the door (which might give you a bad name, if the guy didn't really deserve it). Escape attempts might happen as well, either because the knight has not given his parole, or breaks his word (for shame!).

What else... Oh yes. Don't forget those humble footmen and other soldiers, who are next to unransomable, or a small step up, sergeants who are almost equal to knights in a fight, but bring a measly couple of libra in ransom, if that. Or impoverished mercenary knights simply unable to make the ransom. What do you do then? Let them go (with or without their equipment)? Slit their throats? Ask them to go raiding with you as ransom? And of course those smelly Saxons...

On the subject of getting a captive lord back, according to the rules, if he surrenders then he's duty bound NOT to try and escape. He could be lying etc of course. Still it makes taking a captive a relatively pain free affair.

Depends... If the knight has given his word that he won't escape, then all well and good. But if he hasn't, then he hasn't. At which point he'd probably be bound to keep him from escaping.

And of course, would you trust a guy who has invited you to his home and then attacked you? I mean, that's very dishonorable already!

A few words


I'd like to get some clarification regarding the protocol for taking knights prisoner. If you defeat a knight can you always take him prisoner or is it only acceptable only under certain circumstances (in battle for eg).

It does depend on the Period. In the Early Phase (Uther, Anarchy, Boy King) many of the rules are being established.
Ransom is one, though, so being captured and ransomed would happen.
Not with deadly enemies, though
except the most important
but what would you take as payment for the GPC Saxon kings?


The problem I'm having is that when constructing a scenario I have to be wary of introducing too many NPC knights for fear of them being captured and ransomed off. The comparatively large sums even a single knight brings in throws the economic balance off the scale.

Will you reiterate this problem for me?


Two examples-
1) I recently had a PK accept a challenge from another knight having insulted his wife. The PK lost and the NPC took him prisoner (his freedom was later bought back). Is that acceptable in a challenge?
yes


Can you take a knight prisoner, assuming you don't kill him of course, or are you just proving who is right or wrong for honour?

Peaceful combat (:D) terms are called "for love."
It should be decided beforehand.
Early times have no set standards. The values given in the KAP booksw are just to keep things simple.
IN the later periods knights regularly let their captured foes go after going to the king and reporting their defeats. That is a thing of great generosity.


2) A PK sought lodging at a foreign manor. He was invited in then attacked by the lord and porter. The PK defeated both attackers and took the lord prisoner, ransoming him back a few weeks later. Is this reasonable?

Yes

One note: I generally play down the capture for ransom aspect in my campaigns. It becomes too... mercenary. While I'll always allow that in a player, I do try to keep the campaign from being so.

I have a simple rule as a GM: Do not do unto others that you do not want to be done to you.

If my PK start acting like some mercenaries trying to collect ransom, they will be confronted with it too. The profit they think they have gained in one year may be lost when one of them gets ransomed.

As said by ohers having a hostage will not guarantee payement. Or payement will take years to arrive.
Also the Universal aid only protects you one time. The second time nobody is obliged to pay it.

I would probably have the captured knight turn out to be a young knight of high standing and little money.
I'd also let him be friendly, likeable and willing to swear he will never leave the PK's side until the ransom has been paid.
Of course in his absense his uncle takes over his lands and refuses to pay ransom.

So the PK's will now have to pay upkeep for a "prisoner" until something convinces the uncle to pay ransom.


Or someone could show up to rescue the prisoner. Guys like Lancelot seems to do this a lot.


Or the knight is related to someone important, who shows up with his entire court and happily hands over the ransom, which almost covers the expense of hosting him ;-)

I'm going to "down play" ransoms as Greg suggests using the excellent points made here, otherwise things will get out of hand. A ransom of £18 for a vassal knight is 3 times what a standard manor makes in an entire year. That's what I mean when I say "The comparatively large sums even a single knight brings in throws the economic balance off the scale." Last year alone my PKs defeated five knights and took four of them captive (the fifth was killed in melee), all from far off manors in Cornwall.

The way I play the ransoms is that they are not guaranteed. On player captured 3 knights that he took their parole and released them. One of the knights died on the way home and a second took the dishonour. I decided to do an honour check and he fumbled.

I'm happy to allow player-knights to capture foes and collect ransoms, but my players expect their knights to be captured and ransomed just as often. Whether a NPC's ransom gets paid depends on their rank, grade of maintenance, and notable traits (Generous/Selfish, Trusting/Suspicious, etc.) or passions (Hate, Honor, Love (Spouse), Love (Family), etc.) possessed by that NPC or the person who is paying their ransom. Many a PK has found himself languishing in durance vile thanks to neglect of his relationships.

Generally I have a PK make three rolls: one Love (Spouse or Family), one Loyalty (Liege or Vassals), and Concern (My Commoners). Each successful roll means one-third of his or her ransom is secured without causing undue hardship. A critical doubles the amount, so you can miss a roll and still pay your ransom in full. Roll once per season for each passion which has yet to succeed. You may reroll a previous success in hopes of getting a critical, but the new result stands regardless.

As said by ohers having a hostage will not guarantee payement. Or payement will take years to arrive.
Also the Universal aid only protects you one time. The second time nobody is obliged to pay it.


My latest research indicates my original ruling on this was wrong
Those poor subjects have to pay up every time that the lord is ransomed
in later times their max payment was limited

Some rules for it spring to mind. Id suggest, if you use the BoM, making a concern roll, subtracting hate to see if the peasants pay up, +10 bonus if its the first time? Hows that? ???

I have the peasants pay up but increase Hate Landlord by 1 point. It may well be an accepted universal aid but that doesn't mean they have to like it.

On a related note,there are references in the GPC or 5e that captured commoners can be sold into serfdom/slavery at £1 per head.

Would it be acceptable to sell a foe into serfdom instead of ransoming him if they are not noble (ie Saxon warriors)? What about for hated enemies? Would they be somehow restrained so as not to flee from bondage?

In frontier areas or regions with large populations of belligerent ethnic groups, like Prussia or Sicily, it seems to have been common practice to resettle conquered enemies so as to both bolster the economy and neutralize the threat of revolt by spreading the population out.

What about captured knight that are not heirs? Does universal aid mean villagers must pay the ransoms of other knight in the family or just the heir? ???

ONLY their own lord. Not the Heir, not the Spare, not the Prayer. And definitely not cousins and uncles.

Is the captured knight the vassal knight who holds the manor? If yes, then the peasants pay.
Is the captured knight a household knight? If yes, then his lord pays.
Otherwise, he'd best hope that his family can afford to pay.

So in the case of the Vassal Knight's son being captured, the peasants are not beholden to pay anything. The Vassal Knight might employ Squeezes, though, to get some money for the ransom, but with all the consequences to the Hate Landlord and trait checks that entails.

Thanks for clearing that up Sir Morian. Glory to you.

Would it be considered overly mean to deny a PK his normal end of year training bonus if he were imprisoned somewhere? So no +1 Stat, +2-7 skills or +1 Passions etc? The guy is held in a dungeon, pacing up and down. He has plenty of time to ponder his experiences (eg roll ticks to increase) but no winter weapons/skill training etc.

BUT, in the grand scheme of things does it matter? I'm kindof torn. I have such a PK and the year has just ticked over.

Would it be considered overly mean to deny a PK his normal end of year training bonus if he were imprisoned somewhere? So no +1 Stat, +2-7 skills or +1 Passions etc? The guy is held in a dungeon, pacing up and down. He has plenty of time to ponder his experiences (eg roll ticks to increase) but no winter weapons/skill training etc.

BUT, in the grand scheme of things does it matter? I'm kindof torn. I have such a PK and the year has just ticked over.


I would not do that, unless he has been imprisoned most of the year and has been kept in a dungeon (as compared to having given his parole and probably able to practice at the yard and train his courtly skills with the ladies of the castle). I see the yearly training as being a summary of the stuff you did during the year whilst not playing in a scene, not something that you'd specifically do only during winter time.

I would not do that, unless he has been imprisoned most of the year and has been kept in a dungeon

But if he had been kept in durance vile then I think it's fair game to limit his winter development options. Combine it with a "Prisoner's Solo" of some kind. Hmmm...

Regards
Luke