I have been running games for a bit now and recently some of the Banneret PCs have began knighting footmen as 'in the anarchy period its possible.' I have a hard time saying no as a GM because in essence that was available in the period. But giving a commoner a nice sword, mail armor, shield, lance and charger does not turn them into a knight.

Knighthood takes years of training, mounted combat doesn't come easy nor does ignoring the armor penalty. My current policy is that if you take on a footman as a squire for 6 years+ after you may knight them they can be a full knight. Otherwise they are a poor knight when given superlative upkeep if you knight them off the field.

Does this seem like a fair policy? How would you account for 'on the job' training as a knighted footman? Would they be a liability in war with their poor horsemanship, or would a lower KV be sufficient?

Thank you in advance,

A quick couple of questions:

Are there no squires to begin with? Did they all die? For what reason (in game terms) are commoners being promoted? Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. In game play, a neighboring banneret/lord gets wind of this. Or worse yet, their commoners do. They aren't being promoted over there. Doesn't this other guy care for his commoners?

Our group got a lot out of the commoner my banneret promoted. Little did I know he was a bandit leader and now my character has just sanctioned his banditry... This was in a campaign that no longer runs, but it was a great time when it did.

There are two technical terms for ill-trained footmen with expensive gear: “Easy Ransoms” and “Challenge Magnets”.

Figure they start out with at least -5 to Horsemanship (per BoKL p. 59, Man-at-Arms modifier), and I’d penalize Lance skill as well since it’s hard to practice lancework afoot. A commoner might also be lacking in courtly skills – not as much a problem in the Anarchy period, but it would certainly be a non-combat weakness that others seeking to Put Him In His Place (or just seeking to arrange a profitable challenge) would take advantage of.

Personally, if I were a knight who took an otherwise-very-promising commoner as a squire, I would give him/her extra training to make up those deficiencies every Winter Phase – at a level of extra-hours commitment that justifies awarding a check as well as a yearly point – and not knight him/her until a proper knightly level is reached, even if it takes longer than the squire’s 21st birthday. Of course the NPC squire would have to have something to make him/her put up with that level of effort for the years it will take – a Passion, high Energetic/Valorous, something – which would make for a more interesting NPC anyway.

If the players aren’t willing to put in their PKs’ corresponding commitment and want to just dub/equip the commoners, let them do so (they technically have the right) and then see paragraphs #1-2 above. Maybe the challenger is a family esquire taking "The armor and steed that should have been mine" ...

I have been running games for a bit now and recently some of the Banneret PCs have began knighting footmen as 'in the anarchy period its possible.' I have a hard time saying no as a GM because in essence that was available in the period. But giving a commoner a nice sword, mail armor, shield, lance and charger does not turn them into a knight.

Correct


Knighthood takes years of training, mounted combat doesn't come easy nor does ignoring the armor penalty. My current policy is that if you take on a footman as a squire for 6 years+ after you may knight them they can be a full knight. Otherwise they are a poor knight when given superlative upkeep if you knight them off the field.

Good
remember their combat skills start off terrible too
Especially Horsemanship


Does this seem like a fair policy? How would you account for 'on the job' training as a knighted footman? Would they be a liability in war with their poor horsemanship,

Yes, and also the lack of life-lo9ng training
I'd give them a negative modifier wyhen they are part of the Eschille
which will drag the entire Eschille's effectiveness down


or would a lower KV be sufficient?

I don't use KV anymore
but if you do, then yes

To be fair, lack of training doesn't seem to be a huge handicap in the literature; Sir Tor son of King Pellinore was raised as a farmer's son, and Parzival was raised not even knowing what a knight was, but both were extraordinary warriors.

As was asked before why would one knight a commoner? What do they have to offer? Why do they deserve the station? Why go to them instead of someone with a more suitable pedigree? Commoners can be good sergeants, but knighting them without extraordinary circumstances would certainly raise eyebrows; if nothing else, it would be a tremendous breach of class solidarity and good manners. If they are knighted before they prove their worth, then let us say that nobody takes them seriously (to say nothing of the fool of a lord who knighted them). If they do prove their worth, then, well, they have proven their worth; perhaps people will say that, well, of course his real father is a knight, or maybe the newly-made knight will "acquire" a suitable family tree, or something of the sort, and things will be smoothed out to some degree.

To be fair, lack of training doesn't seem to be a huge handicap in the literature; Sir Tor son of King Pellinore was raised as a farmer's son, and Parzival was raised not even knowing what a knight was, but both were extraordinary warriors.

perhaps people will say that, well, of course his real father is a knight,


Exactly so. Both Tor and Percival were sons of King Pellinore, probably the greatest knight of the early reign of Arthur. Blood will tell, what. :)

I'd ask why would the PK in question -knight- -footmen-? I mean, I can see him knighting proven mounted sergeants, who probably would be tough enough to beat the snot out of a newly minted young knight, let alone a 'not-quite-there-yet' squire who has been knighted before his time. But a footman? What on earth for? If he has all this money to knight people (I assume he is providing the equipment for the footmen, or else it is even a poorer joke), why not spend it on the squires (his own, his companions' and other peoples'): not only will he have knights that have been trained for the job, but he has also gotten a lot of political capital and good will from the fathers and brothers of the new knights, who might otherwise have not afforded the equipment and hence knighthood. Or like people have also suggested in previous answers, the family esquires. There are likely at least a few of them in the sidelines who HAVE training as a knight (if a bit rusty) and likely other useful skills at significant level as well (courtesy, intrigue and/or stewardship, for example).

Finally, if all he is after is muscle to do his bidding, I think heavily armed mounted sergeants without the title are cheaper and more likely to follow his orders to the letter without any niceties of knighthood. Just of the top of my head, a knight's horse costs 20L, and the rest a few libra more. He can probably pay for the upkeep of a mounted sergeant for a decade with that same money, or half a dozen of them for a couple of years. And that is without even thinking on how he intends to maintain all those new knights he is intent on knighting.

My guess is that the player in question has not thought the matter through. Easiest way to correct this would be to explain to him that he will get substandard knights by knighting footmen and political/familial headaches, but if he does it this other way, it will net him competent knights and lots of side benefits. If he still insists on footmen, let him; he has been warned. :)

First off thank you Mr. Stafford, not only for replying but also for taking an interest in the players who play your game enough to help answer our questions. I have shown my players this forum and they have been taken aback by a game designer who cares about his fans this much.

For the others thank you for the replies. While I suspect at times the reason my players want to knight commoners is so they can have more knights in their retinue so they can have an edge on their opponents in times of war I can only speculate. We will see if further support of my position of them making mounted sergeants with a title is appropriate.



A quick couple of questions:

Are there no squires to begin with? Did they all die? For what reason (in game terms) are commoners being promoted? Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

They have plenty of squires some in their family but they are not of age, though I do count squires with knights in my casualty lists in war. But no they are not all dead.



Our group got a lot out of the commoner my banneret promoted. Little did I know he was a bandit leader and now my character has just sanctioned his banditry... This was in a campaign that no longer runs, but it was a great time when it did.

I like this idea allot. Kudos to you or your GM for thinking that gem up, it even fits with the knighted churls story.

To everyone else, again I think the motivations are purely to swell the ranks of their armies. I have knighted commoners before as a player, but really as a political motivation. I captured some tribal Britons and Irish before and made them swear to serve me and my descendants. After this rather exchange I knighted their warriors, it seemed a bit weak but I wanted to bind people to me and to avoid unnecessary killing.

That said knighting footmen seems unusual. I might knight one or two personally in the entire anarchy period if I found one or two heroes among my lines who had been mentioned again and again. But I would still feel best squiring them.

For the others thank you for the replies. While I suspect at times the reason my players want to knight commoners is so they can have more knights in their retinue so they can have an edge on their opponents in times of war I can only speculate. We will see if further support of my position of them making mounted sergeants with a title is appropriate.


You might try to explain them that they are getting very expensive, very fragile, poor cavalry for their trouble. The commoner footmen have rotten Horsemanship and Lance, like explained. They are not practiced at fighting from horseback. I probably would not give them any advantage from being horsed, although the better armor would help. But that would make them equivalent to armored foot soldiers / sergeants, rather than even mounted sergeants. Former mounted sergeants would benefit more, of course. But still, either relying on just commoner muscle (those aforementioned mounted sergeants) or to raise up squires (from other knights if need be, Salisbury ought to be full of squires, and about 1/6 of them should be close to the knighting age) as trained young knights and political favors would be the best options for them.

And how are they proposing to maintain their 'knight army'? At £4 / knight / year, they will soon run out of money, unless they are planning on using their 'knights' as arrowfodder. And frankly, that is what peasants are for. ;)

Some other thoughts:

In the romances, at least, there is an idea that good looks are often an outward manifestation of inner virtues: nobility, valor, prowess, good breeding, and so forth. This is such that lords in romances will quite often assume that a boy who looks the part of a good knight will indeed make for a good knight, assumptions that are later shown to be justified.

We have already mentioned Sir Tor the bastard son of Sir Pellinore, brought before King Arthur and knighted before his lineage was known. Even though as far as Arthur knew Tor was simply the son of Aries the cowherd, the generous king merely saw that Tor was "much more" than his half-brothers and judged that sufficient grounds for knighting. It is only after the matter has been decided that Arthur learns of Tor's true lineage, but the fact remains that in the court of Arthur, even the son of a cowherd can be knighted if he is great enough.

Also from Malory's Morte D'Arthur, we also have Gareth "Beaumains," the brother of the famous Sir Gawain, who came anonymously to King Arthur's court. He was the "goodliest young man and the fairest that ever they [Arthur and his court] all saw"; though Beaumains asks only for a job in the kitchens, it is very much evident that Arthur would gladly have given Beaumains arms and a horse if he had asked for it, while the cruel Sir Kay takes his lack of ambition, not his unknown lineage, as proof that the boy was just a nobody. Furthermore, when Beaumains later asks to be knighted by Lancelot before undertaking the quest of the maiden, his request is also granted by Arthur without hesitation, and without any knowledge of his aristocratic lineage, though Lancelot does demand Beaumain's name and family before dubbing him. However, it should be noted that this sort of acceptance of an obviously exceptional young man of unknown background is not universal, as amply displayed by the conduct of Beaumain's damosel, who continuously insults the "bawdy kitchen knave" despite his inner nobility manifesting itself in his face and in his sword-arm.

Things are even more dramatic the case of the titular character of Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival. Raised not even knowing what a knight was, his looks were nevertheless such that when he showed up to Arthur's court riding a crappy horse and wearing crappy clothes and showing crappy manners, his appearance "told its own story," and so Arthur unreservedly agreed to make Parzival a knight.

T.H. White's Once and Future King provides an interesting reversal. In this work, Lancelot is ugly. Really ugly. And yet, once he has made his name as the greatest knight in the world, made himself a home at Camelot, he is held in such awe that hardly anyone notices; indeed, lesser courtiers are surprised to find he is "'a [normal] person like ourselves . . . Perhaps he eats and drinks as well, or even ssleeps at night.' But in their hearts the new generation was quite sure that the great Dulac did no such things." If a reversal of cause and effect makes more sense to our modern sensibilities-- that it is those virtues that draw admiration such that they are seen as being of magnificent appearance, even if that is not the objective truth-- then that too would work well.

Now, in the game, this virtue may not manifest itself simply in the character's appearance, but through his actions. A non-squire who has e.g. conspicuously shown extraordinary bravery, either over a career as a simple soldier or in one especially dramatic battle, might from the above logic show properly knightly qualities, even if he lacks the attendant pedigree. Though in the above examples the heroes of unknown origin were of extraordinary appearance and really did have the proper lineage, I think that a non-knight who displays the proper virtues in some way (skill in battle, appearance, or even some vague sense of nobility about him) would indeed be able to be made a knight. If those qualities are on display, or if those qualities are known from past exploits, then he may very well get respect from some, though not necessarily all.

In my campaign knighting is a serious business and the action of the young knight reflect upon the man who knighted him. So if he turns out to be a robber knight this will cost you honour. So PK will think twice before knighting anyone.

Also I would have trouble for a PK just knighting people to have more muscle. If he needs arms, just hire mercenaries (sergeants and footman). You can have them swear an oath of loyalty without the need to knight them. They will be cheaper. As a knight they could swear their own oaths to support the warriors.

Commoners who are knighted do have me think about the Onion Knight from 'The game of thrones'. They are never seen as true knights. And mocked at best.

Commoners who are knighted do have me think about the Onion Knight from 'The game of thrones'. They are never seen as true knights. And mocked at best.


However, contrast that with Bronn. Another commoner who gets knighted and isn't mocked much to his face, and eventually gains a minor lordship through marriage and creative inlaw disposal.

However, contrast that with Bronn. Another commoner who gets knighted and isn't mocked much to his face, and eventually gains a minor lordship through marriage and creative inlaw disposal.


Might have to do something with Bronn's reputation for being able and downright happy to kill people he dislikes or as convenient. Also, he has powerful patronage from the Lannisters.

A historical commoner to knight personage seems to be Sir John Hawkmoon, the famous condottiere. Son of a tanner, in most accepted tales.

However, contrast that with Bronn. Another commoner who gets knighted and isn't mocked much to his face, and eventually gains a minor lordship through marriage and creative inlaw disposal.

There are commoners and commoners. Bronn was a proven soldier and known to be an extremely dangerous fencer prior to his elevation - this puts him a several steps above a smuggler in the feudal mindset (the 'extremely dangerous' bit is especially relevant when it comes to matters of open mockery). Even so his social position was precarious and he did extremely well to survive the loss of his patron. Holding land in his own right was the key there I think, although he was also fortunate in his choice of enemies.

In Pendragon terms I would characterise him as a veteran mounted sergeant - so actually a pretty good candidate for knighting in terms of having the training and aptitude. The OP was talking about players wanting to dub footmen however, which is a dubious proposition since those guys don't have the training for the role; but if they were looking at mercenary sergeants say, then as a GM I would be much more positive about the idea. I'd still play up the risks of taking relatively unknown men into your following mind.


A historical commoner to knight personage seems to be Sir John Hawkmoon, the famous condottiere. Son of a tanner, in most accepted tales.

John Hawkwood's father may well have had a tannery or butchery business but he was also a significant landowner, holding several substantial tenancies from the Earl of Oxford and sufficiently well regarded to be able to place his oldest son as a steward within the Earl's household. The Hawkwoods in John's time were either rich commoners or minor gentry - akin to Esquires in Pendragon terms.

Regards
Luke

There are commoners and commoners.


That was kinda my point. Of all the examples of commoners being knighted in Westeros, Davos Seaworth is the odd man out. He is treated the way he was because he ignored his taunters(mostly Queensmen who follow the new faith), but he was well regarded by the Kingsmen who followed Stannis but not the faith of the Red Priestess.


Another two examples of knighted commoners is Sir Duncan the Tall and the grandfather of the Clegane brothers.

The grandfather of Gregor and Sandor Clegane was the kennel master of the Lannister of that time(I dont recall either name) and he saved his lord from a lion attack during a hunt, but lost 3 dogs and his leg. He was rewarded with a bit of land and a knighthood. No problems there.

In the Dunk and Egg stories, Sir Duncan is probably the best example of how a knighted commoner would be treated. He had a difficult time joining a tourney because he could not find anyone to vouvh for him. If you have not read The Hedgeknight by George R R Martin, it is probably the best example of a world closer to Pendragon than the Song of Ice and Fire novels. It is set 100 years prior to the novels and is an excellent read. I dont want to give too much info, but if you dont plan to read it or dont care about spoilers here is a synopsis: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Duncan_the_Tall

I was less wordy in my original post because we are straying so far off topic, but I just wanted to follow up on my post.

I just found a quote concerning this

"If a man has not learned to ride by the time he is twelve, he is only fit afterwards to be a priest."