Looking at the price of armor and weapons and horses is it normal for knights to plunder the fallen. In some cases it that would give them a lot more money than what they might earn from there manors.killing a knight would give you 20 libra a sum surpassing 3 years worth of manor income.

Yes, it is.

A knight who defeats another knight has the right to the loser's horse, armor and weapons.

And afte a battle it's pretty much a free-for-all. But battle plunder is not individual; its split according to custom, and the Lords take a larger share.

Like Skarpskytten said, it is the norm to help yourself to the horse and armor of your defeated opponent. Happens all the time in Malory, and leads sometimes into hijinks when the friends of the victorious knight don't recognize him in that new fancy armor. :)

Also, you can control this influx of wealth somewhat, if there is need. First of all, the common household knight might not be riding as fine a steed as a vassal knight. A Poor Charger, doing 1d6 less lance damage and costing half the price (so £10 or £5 in later periods), would do nicely during Uther's time and the Anarchy. Combined with the £2 Chainmail, this will come to £12 value. But wait! That is the full value. The resale value is only 50% of that, so £6. And that is not any more something huge. Two years of Rich Standard of Living, or patching up for poor harvests (if you use variable harvests). Finally, it is not always possible to loot. Sure, you may have defeated a knight, but his friends are approaching. No time to loot him, and even grabbing his horse might take time you don't feel you have. Etc. Or instead of selling the stuff, they might instead use it to sponsor a relative into knighthood, always a nice thing to have.

The real 'problem' is the ransom, since that is 'pure money'. It can get pretty silly especially if the PKs manage to capture someone of high rank. Still... in our campaign, the PKs managed to get £50 each from one adventure. A few years later, that £50 had melted away in mercenaries, investments, higher lifestyles, upgraded armors... And it costs a lot to knight your second and third sons, and give dowries to your second and third daughters. Trust me, there are always places to spend the money, and if they are just hoarding it, then it is not influencing the game at all, now is it? :)

And after a battle it's pretty much a free-for-all. But battle plunder is not individual; its split according to custom, and the Lords take a larger share.


Actually, I have gotten some information on loot that I did not have before

It is a free for all
But afterwards the knights and other combatants all give a third of their loot to their leader
Their leader also gives a third of his loot to his leader, presumably the leader of the expedition, and that is including what he got from his guys

It is called "a third, and a third of the third"

And the amounts given in the BoBattle are, I figure, the final amounts gained

And after a battle it's pretty much a free-for-all. But battle plunder is not individual; its split according to custom, and the Lords take a larger share.


Actually, I have gotten some information on loot that I did not have before

It is a free for all
But afterwards the knights and other combatants all give a third of their loot to their leader
Their leader also gives a third of his loot to his leader, presumably the leader of the expedition, and that is including what he got from his guys

It is called "a third, and a third of the third"

And the amounts given in the BoBattle are, I figure, the final amounts gained


Thanks for the info.

And regarding what Morien said; I've found that players often keep armor and weapons to knight sons, relatives or to get an extra household knights. Horse are sold If not in immediate demand, since they spoil with age i.e. dies.

It is a free for all
But afterwards the knights and other combatants all give a third of their loot to their leader
Their leader also gives a third of his loot to his leader, presumably the leader of the expedition, and that is including what he got from his guys

It is called "a third, and a third of the third"


That is a rather big shift from the way it was in Savage Mountains. Not that I mind, the Savage Mountains one was very much in the leader's favor (2/3 for the leader, 1/3 shared by everyone else).

Lets see... lets assume 100 knights, divided in one group of 10 (A), one of 30 (B) and one of 60 (C, also the leader of the whole thing). Making it easy, we call the FINAL share of each individual knight = 1. This might not get evenly distributed, but close enough. That means that the full loot per knight was 1.5, of which 0.5 is kicked up to their respective leaders.

So:
A gets 5+1.5 shares = 6.5. He pays C one third of this (around 2 knight-shares), so he is left with 4.5 shares.
B gets 15 + 1.5 shares = 16.5. One third goes to C (5.5), leaving B with 11 shares.
C gets 30 + 1.5 + 7.5 shares = 39 shares.
Total shares 150, of which C gets about one fourth, A+B get about one ninth, and little less than two thirds go to the regular knights, who were actually doing all the fighting.

Seems reasonable to me.



And regarding what Morien said; I've found that platåers often keep armor and weapons to knight sons, relatives or to get an extra household knights. Horse are sold If not in immediate demsnd, since they spoil with age i.e. dies.


It is the same in our campaigns. Unless the horse is an 'upgrade', spare horses are usually sold, unless there is a kid brother about to be knighted in a couple of years. The perceived risk of the horse dying is just so great (actually, it is about 50/50 that the horse survives 8 years, so the odds are in your favor as long as the kid brother grows up within those 8 years).

It is a free for all
But afterwards the knights and other combatants all give a third of their loot to their leader
Their leader also gives a third of his loot to his leader, presumably the leader of the expedition, and that is including what he got from his guys

It is called "a third, and a third of the third"

That is a rather big shift from the way it was in Savage Mountains. Not that I mind, the Savage Mountains one was very much in the leader's favor (2/3 for the leader, 1/3 shared by everyone else).

Yes, but when I wrote that I didn't have any data
This is historically more correct


Lets see... lets assume 100 knights, divided in one group of 10 (A), one of 30 (B) and one of 60 (C, also the leader of the whole thing). Making it easy, we call the FINAL share of each individual knight = 1. This might not get evenly distributed, but close enough. That means that the full loot per knight was 1.5, of which 0.5 is kicked up to their respective leaders.

So:
A gets 5+1.5 shares = 6.5. He pays C one third of this (around 2 knight-shares), so he is left with 4.5 shares.
B gets 15 + 1.5 shares = 16.5. One third goes to C (5.5), leaving B with 11 shares.
C gets 30 + 1.5 + 7.5 shares = 39 shares.
Total shares 150, of which C gets about one fourth, A+B get about one ninth, and little less than two thirds go to the regular knights, who were actually doing all the fighting.

Seems reasonable to me.

Excellent

This new grab what-loot-you-can on the battle field also has the very nice effect of giving incentive to the PKs to actually think about whether to try and loot while the battle is still raging. Many a battle has been lost because the cavalry went after the baggage train in hopes of loot, rather than hitting the enemy in the back... Gaugamela, for one, and perhaps more pertinently to Pendragon, Verneuil. Good opportunity for Trait & Passion checks.