What is the situation for houshold knights and ransoms? This is related to the prisoner protocol thread. Is it the lord they serve or the peasants who pay? I'm unsure because it seems the onus to pay passes downward - earl paid by knights, knights by peasants etc - but do the peasants cough up for every houshold knight on the manor?

On a similar note I was thinking about trait checks for being captured and imprisoned. How about Chaste (no women), Lazy (sitting around for days on end) Prudent (time to reflect) and Temperate (learning to live on scraps) per year of captivity? Perhaps Vengeful creeping in there also.

I might be wrong in this, but IIRC, the Lord is the go-to guy when it comes to ransoming his household knights. He might not pay, though.

The peasants are in line to ransom -their- lord. A household knight is not their lord, a vassal knight is.

So a situation where you have a vassal knight with three manors (L18/yr total), who has two household knights, if the household knights get captured, the vassal knight pays (or not). The peasants pay nothing (apart from Squeezes and the normal yearly income, of course). However, if the vassal knight gets captured, then the peasants pay.

The usual ransom seems to be 3 years income. So our hypothetical rich vassal knight in above would be worth 54 libra in ransom. Good thing that he can get that money from his peasants. Household knights, on the other hand, would be only 3*4 libra = 12 libra, although famous household knights could easily net more.

EDIT: Looks like the Lord IS expected to ransom his household knights.

Thanks. The situation came up in my campaign very recently. The manor lord was killed and my PKs thought about taking his household knights prisoner. I have difficultly stopping my PKs from ransoming just about every thing they come across. They are struggling somewhat to make ends meet on their manors (using full BoTM economics) and so look for income anywhere else.

This would not present a problem if the huge sums on offer didnt derail other game aspects (eg detailed manor bookkeeping). A vassal knight at £18 is three times the standard yearly manor income. Sell his charger and that’s another £10 on top. You could let your manor go to the dogs and still live like a king with that each year. OK I rule that if someone is taken prisoner he’s ransomed back with his belongings but you get my point.

Last session my PKs were intercepted by a border patrol of 6 knights and 2 men at arms. For campaign reasons they chose to fight rather than be taken back to the earl, killing all the knights in the process. They wanted to take all the horses and sell them - an £80 injection of cash - and I was unable to think of any reasons why they couldn’t. In the end they chose not to because of other factors but you get the point. All that from just one semi random encounter.

Money itself is not the issue, its the unbalancing effect of such huge that bothers me. Is this a general problem?

I was reading about ransoms in the real world just last night. Some insights:

1.) Army leaders can give a "no quarter" order before a battle, effectively quashing the opportunity for ransom. This is usually done with Hated enemies, or when a leader on campaign can't risk losing control of all those prisoners.

2.) Sometimes it can be a challenge to defend your noble prisoners from the common soldiers in your army, who may be hell bent on killing him in revenge for earlier deeds.

3.) There's no guarantee that a ransom will be paid, or that the full amount will be paid. The English mercenary John Hawkwood once asked for 10,000 florins to ransom a prisoner, but in the end had to content himself with just 500! That's only 5% of the asking price.

4.) Ransoms don't have to be for cash. One noble was ransomed for two tuns of wine, but the wine was stolen and the hapless prisoner couldn't pay up.

5.) If you take a really important prisoner, it's not up to you to determine the ransom amount. When John of Coupland captured the king of Scots in 1346 he hand to hand him over to the crown. Coupland obtained his reward in the form of a grant of £500 a year for life. That was only a tiny fraction of the total ransom of £66,666, but John could hardly have hoped for more. Also, your lord may take 1/3—or more—of any ransom you collect. This is, in effect, a tax on ransoms (big surprise there).

6.) You can sell the ransom. This is much easier than holding on the prisoner yourself, negotiating the amount yourself, etc. You won't get the best price, but you'll make some money and save yourself a great deal of bother. Two knights sold their rights to to a prisoner to the Black Prince for £3,000 each. The Black RPince turned around and set the ransom at £16,500! Noblemen can negotiate better ransoms than mere vassal knights!

7.) If you don't sell the prisoner on quickly, you may face many difficulties. Friends of the prisoner may try to rescue him, which can turn deadly. Legal disputes may arise and drag on for many years. Their may be disputes with other knights on who really captured the prisoner.

8.) You can set the ability of the prisoner to pay. If he's a poor knight, he may not be able to pay the standard price in the book. Maybe instead of £18 for a vassal's knight ransom you could roll 3d6 to determine the amount.

I don't know if that's helpful, but there are a few ideas on how to reduce the ATM effect.


Best,


T.

Money comes, money goes. Your PKs were heroic and took on 8 enemies, winning. Good for them. (By the way, I tend to have poor knights and sergeants have lesser warhorses, only worth half us much, but doing 1d6 less in a charge.)

So, these 6 knights that were killed... Any family? Friends in high places? Potential raids on the PKs' lands, ESPECIALLY if they are known to be out adventuring in some distant part and have not gotten a household knight to look over their manor. Are you using Book of the Manor? A burnt mill or two and that money is spent really quickly. And where are they keeping their money, by the way? Probably not with them, or it would be easy to lose it all if they lose a battle.

If you are not using any economic system, it becomes even easier, as there are very limited ways for them to actually spend that money, when they can't invest it in their lands:
1) Better standard of living (very much in demand in our campaign to let those kidlets be spawned and raised)
2) Better armor (limited especially in the early phases)
3) Better horse (again, limited in the early phases)
4) Ransom somebody (friend, family, liege, yourself)
5) Tribute (especially during Anarchy)
6) Extra taxes to build fortifications for the county (Uther & Anarchy)

Other ways of keeping the ransom amounts down:
1) Don't always use vassal knights: 1 vassal knight, 2 household knights and 5 sergeants are almost as fierce a battle, but the ransom is a lot less. (Not that it matters if you are using good horses and your players just kill everyone and loot the horses.)
2) Poor knights. Good opportunities for Generous checks. They are unable to pay the full amount. Especially if they are knights errant, by which I mean knights without lands or lords or even much in the way of employment, trying to eke a living from tournaments and roadside challenges. These knights might offer half the amount or they might offer service instead. "Free me and I will fight for you for 2 months next summer." kinda thing.
3) Defaulting knights. Not all knights are honorable, and some, while not dishonorable exactly, might be inclined to promise more than they can deliver in order to be freed. "Yes, I will pay my ransom, but the harvest was terrible... I will pay you next year, promise!" And of course, they might die before paying the full amount.
4) Upkeep for the captured knights. So you don't trust the knight's words, so you are keeping him captured. You'll have to feed him, and unless you are a bad knight, you probably are not keeping him locked up in some root cellar on bread and water, so it is going to cost you. Something like 2L per year would be reasonable, IMHO.
5) Not all knights will be ransomed. A brother might be keen to inherit the family manor. "Oh, we can't afford to pay the ransom. So sorry. Guess you will just have to kill him."

I was reading about ransoms in the real world just last night. Some insights:[snip...]



That’s a good find and I will use some of those suggestions. It deals more with prisoners of war though and I don’t find those too problematic. Getting a prisoner in BOB can be nails hard - extended battle rounds, getting off horse to take prisoner, getting back on horse, having squire take him away, etc - so the reward is more in line with the risk. Despite my PKs love of ransom they rarely go for prisoners in battle unless they are cruising to victory.



Money comes, money goes. Your PKs were heroic and took on 8 enemies, winning. Good for them. (By the way, I tend to have poor knights and sergeants have lesser warhorses, only worth half us much, but doing 1d6 less in a charge.)


Quite right. I was generalising a little but the sergeants were on lesser horses.



So, these 6 knights that were killed... Any family? Friends in high places? Potential raids on the PKs’ lands, ESPECIALLY if they are known to be out adventuring in some distant part and have not gotten a household knight to look over their manor. Are you using Book of the Manor? A burnt mill or two and that money is spent really quickly. And where are they keeping their money, by the way? Probably not with them, or it would be easy to lose it all if they lose a battle.


I’m using full BoTM economics and more. Despite the hours long bookkeeping my group prefers it. The raid point is a good one that warrants a thread of its own. I have no rules for the effects and politics of raiding and I don’t want to get too ivolved with it till I do. Yes there are the raid effects from BoTM but what about PKs that go raiding themsevles? If that’s too easy then they might exploit that too.



If you are not using any economic system, it becomes even easier, as there are very limited ways for them to actually spend that money, when they can’t invest it in their lands:
1) Better standard of living (very much in demand in our campaign to let those kidlets be spawned and raised)


This does soak money and has been the prime motivation for getting additional funds. But even though Ive hiked the amounts (Rich £10, Superlative £16) it’s small fry compared to the amounts a ransom can offer (vassal knight £18, charger £10 etc). Even if my PKs turn loose any captors, to avoid any prickly issues with taking prisoners, they can still keep the horse and sell it for a large chunk of cash. One horse and you can live at Rich.



2) Better armor (limited especially in the early phases)
3) Better horse (again, limited in the early phases)
4) Ransom somebody (friend, family, liege, yourself)
5) Tribute (especially during Anarchy)



Currently in Uther so several of these don’t apply.



Other ways of keeping the ransom amounts down:
1) Don’t always use vassal knights: 1 vassal knight, 2 household knights and 5 sergeants are almost as fierce a battle, but the ransom is a lot less. (Not that it matters if you are using good horses and your players just kill everyone and loot the horses.)


Good point. I’ll have to start doing that. TBH I’ve created some rules to dampen the problem which are undoubtedly historically BS but my PKs accept the plausibility of them. Eg To capture knights riding under the banner of their lord on patrol is an affront to that earl or duke and something to be frowned upon - assuming if you don’t want to inflame cross county relations. Killing them is not so good either but of course these things happen in the cut and thrust of knightly duty. Captured knights also almost automatically develop a hatred of their captor which in turn affects future raid events.

In my game session the PKs killed the entire patrol. There were no witnesses or survivors to report what had happened and by the time the next patrol turned up they were long gone. Yes I tested to see if they were spotted and recognised but the chance is low enough to be considered a worthwhile risk.



2) Poor knights. Good opportunities for Generous checks. They are unable to pay the full amount. Especially if they are knights errant, by which I mean knights without lands or lords or even much in the way of employment, trying to eke a living from tournaments and roadside challenges. These knights might offer half the amount or they might offer service instead. “Free me and I will fight for you for 2 months next summer.” kinda thing.
3) Defaulting knights. Not all knights are honorable, and some, while not dishonorable exactly, might be inclined to promise more than they can deliver in order to be freed. “Yes, I will pay my ransom, but the harvest was terrible... I will pay you next year, promise!” And of course, they might die before paying the full amount.
4) Upkeep for the captured knights. So you don’t trust the knight’s words, so you are keeping him captured. You’ll have to feed him, and unless you are a bad knight, you probably are not keeping him locked up in some root cellar on bread and water, so it is going to cost you. Something like 2L per year would be reasonable, IMHO.
5) Not all knights will be ransomed. A brother might be keen to inherit the family manor. “Oh, we can’t afford to pay the ransom. So sorry. Guess you will just have to kill him.”


This concerns something that I don’t understand. KAP5.1 states that it is the peasants who pay the ransom (and Greg has since stated that they pay all the time, not just once), which means the living standard of the knight, or the attitude of his family, is somewhat irrelevant.

Paying 2L per year for one knight is over the top IMHO. Considering the size of most families, one extra body (who TBH i would expect to be kept locked up and fed on pap :) ) is neither here nor there.

The upkeep for the knight depends a lot on the treatment, of course. Given that a knight + warhorse is 4L / year, I don't see 2L for a knightly upkeep to be that much beyond the pale. YMMV. :) I could see the argument that it would actually be closer to 1L, given the squire and other horses. In addition, I tend to go for the full ransom including the return of the knight's equipment (including the horse), too. Sometimes, of course, these

While the peasants are supposed to pay the ransom, someone needs to get it from the peasants. Think of Richard the Lionheart and Prince John of Robin Hood stories. Peasants might also actually be too poor to pay for their Lord, out of the pocket, here and now. In a year or two, sure. Historically, what often happened was that the knight was released on parole, so that he could go back to his lands and get the money from the peasants. Also, note that this applies ONLY to vassal knights, even. If you have captured landless, masterless knights (like mercenary knights), then tough luck for them. Either their friends and family pays, or no one at all.

Also, personally I dislike the idea that the peasants always pay, since that makes it very much a 'risk-free' situation for the PK finances:
- Try to capture someone:
-- Fail and be captured yourself: no matter, peasants pay
-- Succeed: lots of money!

As for patrolling knights... Attacking a patrol is an act of war, in our campaign. Did the PKs kill the squires of the knights as well? Did the squires escape? If the answer is No and Yes, then they were seen and likely recognized. Especially if they are already relatively Glorious. Political trouble arises for sure. Now, if they were themselves patrolling and happen on a party of enemy knights trying to raid the County, well then, the right is on their side. Still, political kerfuffle would easily follow, as the King tends to dislike his nobles killing one another without his say so...

EDIT: I forgot to mention... Horses are individuals. Not like you can just file the serial number off. Assuming this patrol happened relatively close, it would not be hard for people to count 1 (patrol dead) + 1 (same amount of rather familiar looking horses being sold nearby) = 3 (the PKs killed the patrol). Hey, that gives me an idea for an encounter on the road, if one of the PKs happens to buy a new horse... :P

Thanks Morien, this is most helpful.

I think it’s a YPMV moment with regard to captured knights. I see your logic for sure. The upkeep of the knight’s horse is expensive and would warrant the cost alone but again it could just be subsumed into the cost of the manor horse herd (20 of which is standard) and assumed to be kept at a lower standard.

I too do not like the fact that it is the peasants who pay (history be damned!). For a long while I wrongly assumed it to be the earl and that made things far more interesting. I would check Loyalty Lord to see if he paid up and adjust said Loyalty each time he did so. Perhaps rolling vs Concern Commoners to see if the peasants pay would equate to this but that does mean a captured PK could be held captive forever because his peasants refused to cough up (hmmm perhaps roll yearly?)




As for patrolling knights... Attacking a patrol is an act of war, in our campaign. Did the PKs kill the squires of the knights as well? Did the squires escape? If the answer is No and Yes, then they were seen and likely recognized. Especially if they are already relatively Glorious. Political trouble arises for sure. Now, if they were themselves patrolling and happen on a party of enemy knights trying to raid the County, well then, the right is on their side. Still, political kerfuffle would easily follow, as the King tends to dislike his nobles killing one another without his say so...



In my game a state of cold war exists between Salisbury and Marlborough. Over the last eight years there have been numerous cross border raids and one decent sized county clash of arms. My Pks crossed the border on their way to an outlying Marlborough manor. Earl Roderick sent them, saying to avoid capture or interrogation. They were spotted by a border patrol and tried to ride off but one of the PKs (with high Reckless and Valour) fluffed his rolls and refused to run. Rather than leave him, the others stayed and fought. When they get back, Earl Roderick won’t be happy but it won’t change much. Neither county is powerful enough to seriously trouble the other, so the cold war continues. I’m brewing this up in time for Anarchy btw... It also gave me a good excuse to run BoB when it came out, with smaller battles.

Some of the patrol routed and ran but my PKs chased them down.. They captured the squires and presently have them holed up at Devizes castle. Any captured horses will be sold back at Sarum market. No one will care a jot where they came from. And we're still in Uther, most horses are plain dun brown. I'm not convined they could be told apart.

Your campaign, of course. :)

I don't know enough about medieval animal husbandry to know if they were marked somehow. Certainly the squire and the knight would know the charger that the knight rides. Also, a herd of almost thirty horses (or even more?) should leave very clear tracks, IMHO, so I think there is a very good excuse to say that the Marlborough knights know where the attackers retreated. Also, those 6 squires? Likely sons of other knights (may or may not be from Marlborough), so certainly their families would have an incentive to investigate.

A group of that size would be noted, too, by peasants and other travellers on the road. So unless the knights specifically said that they'd avoid roads and people until getting to Devitzes, chances are that someone saw them, and the word might reach Marlborough that way.

It all depends how much consequences you want to pour on the PKs. If you don't, then no worries. Your game and all that. But it might go a long way towards making your PKs more hesitant to kill and ransom/loot other knights, which is what I think you were after?

Minor additional item about selling horses, armor, extra weapons etc. is that you won't get full price for them. A charger might cost you 10 librum, but is a knight going to dicker with the local horse merchant to get 10 librum for a spare one that he is trying to sell off? No profit for the merchant.

And if a knight insists on running a tough bargain then there is suddenly another party that also happens to get around who might be willing to let drop some information on knights suddenly selling a parcel of extra chargers.

Minor additional item about selling horses, armor, extra weapons etc. is that you won't get full price for them. A charger might cost you 10 librum, but is a knight going to dicker with the local horse merchant to get 10 librum for a spare one that he is trying to sell off? No profit for the merchant.


I have taken that into account. Chargers cost £20. My PKs never barter and always sell at -50%.

Your campaign, of course. :)

I don't know enough about medieval animal husbandry to know if they were marked somehow. Certainly the squire and the knight would know the charger that the knight rides. Also, a herd of almost thirty horses (or even more?) should leave very clear tracks, IMHO, so I think there is a very good excuse to say that the Marlborough knights know where the attackers retreated. Also, those 6 squires? Likely sons of other knights (may or may not be from Marlborough), so certainly their families would have an incentive to investigate.

A group of that size would be noted, too, by peasants and other travellers on the road. So unless the knights specifically said that they'd avoid roads and people until getting to Devitzes, chances are that someone saw them, and the word might reach Marlborough that way.

It all depends how much consequences you want to pour on the PKs. If you don't, then no worries. Your game and all that. But it might go a long way towards making your PKs more hesitant to kill and ransom/loot other knights, which is what I think you were after?


I certainly want consequences otherwise this ransom activity will become a meal ticket to untold wealth. However, I want it to be realistic. Putting this into a wider perspective, this is five PKs crossing the border, killing a patrol and then coming back. They may well have been spotted by a few peasants who will be able to say "yeah they came from the south" but that's it. The earl of Marlborough may be irked but he's got a whole county to run. These border sqabbles happen all the time, he's not about to bother the king with that (esp with Uther virtually on his deathbed). But while this may be a small matter for the higher nobility it's a big deal for individial PKs, a big win money wise.

I'll have Roderick get annoyed at his knights, have Marlborough raid south (my PKs are well south of Sarum so its not going to reach them) and have Marlborough enact a "shoot to kill policy" with Salisbury knights from now on.

Actually, the more I think about it the more I see the selling of booty to be the problem. My Pks could turn loose any foes they overcome and just hang on to their horses. That alone is a king's ransom in horse flesh.

I just wondered if other GMs were having a similar problem and if so how they dealt with or curtailed it. If I just let it happen then there is no sense to using the BoTM economics. It's hard to worry about your Apiary and Dovecote bringing in 1 or 2 less libra each year if you can just sell off another charger.

6 knights is a good chunk of a County's knight pool. Doesn't Salisbury have like 100? Assuming Marlborough is a bit smaller, this could easily be 10% of the knights. Certainly reason enough for the Count of Marlborough to be upset. But I think you have already considered this and his countermoves. Raiding Salisbury is a good response, I think, even if he does not know who exactly is the culprit.

Still, it would not be impossible to track the PKs down. Those squires are still alive somewhere. They need to be fed. I could easily see Marlborough knights capturing some noble hostages during the raids in order to trade them for the squires.

However, you identify your main problem as the loot. Here is one simple, easy solution: make horses cheaper. The price of chargers is not written on stone. Perhaps in your campaign, the breeding of good horseflesh happens faster, and the price comes down as the result. And it is not as if buying too many Chargers is a problem, so cheaper Chargers pretty much only impact on the looting. Most knights get their chargers from their manorial horseherds anyway. There, you have just halved your problem by making Chargers half-price (i.e. 10L price when bought, same as in Boy King Phase).

The other thing that will happen if the players make a habit of this... They will start making lots of enemies. Some might complain to their lords who will put pressure on Earl Roderick to rein his robber knights in. It might go all the way to the King, with the PKs accused of breaking the King's Peace. That is not a good place to be in.

On the other hand, if they simply loot horses from knights invading Salisbury, then those other knights are in error and get their just desserts. But this is reacting to a GM-inspired event, and as a GM, you control the frequency of those. :) Rather than having knights with expensive horses as their opponents, you could focus more on Saxons. Or Giants and other monsters in need of slaying.

Finally, I'd say that don't sweat about it too much. If the PKs make a habit of hunting their brother knights, you can bring consequences on their heads. If they get an occasional looted charger, no biggie. They'll need all the money they can for the Anarchy. And if you make chargers cheaper, then one charger / year is approximately enough to bump the knight up Rich (in your campaign) or almost to Superlative (as per 12L) for the next year. This is not a huge problem, in my humble opinion. Sure, it buffers very nicely against bad harvests and swamps the manorial improvements, but in order to loot that horse, you will have to fight and risk death, major wounds and capture. Whereas manorial improvements let you sit on your behind and rake in the dough.

Of course if you were evil you could let the PK's sell the horses for 80£ without trouble, and then have one of the PK's captured at a later time.
Imagine the ransom negotion going something like:
Captor: "The standard ransom is 3 years income, and I am a fair man, I will be content with that, and you get to keep the horse and armor."
PK's: "We accept"
Captor: "Good, since I hear you are wealty from horses, I will expect 240£ delivered shortly."

I don't think the peasants will be able to pay that.

I can't see raiding for horses working out for long. Firstly, if you carry your coat of arms, you're done. If you don't carry your coat of arms, any patrol that meets you, even from Salisbury, is going to want to know exactly what you think you're up to. Once the PCs become a known source of cheap horses, rumour will spread through the peasants and filter upwards.

Actualy, that could have interesting consequences of it's own. The fences taking the horses off the PK's hands must relaise somethign dodgy is going on. maybe they can put the PKs in contact with business associates of theirs. maybe get the PK knights in on some more lucrative 'action'. Who know how deep that rabbit hole might go, and the potentialy disastrous conseqeunces for the PKs down the line.

Simon Hibbs

I'm coming in late on this, but will comment nonetheless



Money itself is not the issue, its the unbalancing effect of such huge that bothers me. Is this a general problem?


Just for the record, this is not a problem or bug, but a feature
£28 for a captured knight is just fine
Buy treasure that will make the manor fancy: furniture, candlesticks and so on for the interior
Then it'll be on hand to ransom your own PC when needed