Last sessions, the PKs were captured by saxons sent by Prince Aescwine to take by force his tribute. The saxons laid siege to one of the PKs who denied payment of said tribute. In the end, they were taken as hostages to Essex. According to KAP rulebook, page 161, a vassal knight is worth £18. So far so good. Now it's time to open those account books and pay. :-)

According to the same page, a little below, any vassals are obliged to pay the ransom (for the time being, I'm ignoring other PKs who can or will contribute to pay their friends' ransom). To simplify this, let's call the hostage PK, Knight A.

A) Who are the vassals of Knight A? The peasants who work at the manors?
B) If those manors are enfeoffed to other knights, are these knights obliged to pay the ransom of Knight A?
C) What if Knight A is tutor of the heir to those manors? Are those manors considered his for ransom purposes?
D) Can a tutor squeeze a manor (not enfeoffed) under his tutelage?

I hope this is not too confusing. :-)

Last sessions, the PKs were captured by saxons sent by Prince Aescwine to take by force his tribute. The saxons laid siege to one of the PKs who denied payment of said tribute. In the end, they were taken as hostages to Essex. According to KAP rulebook, page 161, a vassal knight is worth £18. So far so good. Now it's time to open those account books and pay. :-)

According to the same page, a little below, any vassals are obliged to pay the ransom (for the time being, I'm ignoring other PKs who can or will contribute to pay their friends' ransom). To simplify this, let's call the hostage PK, Knight A.

A) Who are the vassals of Knight A? The peasants who work at the manors?

Yes


B) If those manors are enfeoffed to other knights, are these knights obliged to pay the ransom of Knight A?

The knights are his vassals, so yes


C) What if Knight A is tutor of the heir to those manors? Are those manors considered his for ransom purposes?

no
Wait, is he taking care of the heir as his warden?
If so, I'd say yes, he can


D) Can a tutor squeeze a manor (not enfeoffed) under his tutelage?

If he is the heirs warden, then I'd say yes
[quote]
Just the use of the word tutor
Normally a tutor is not the warden
But a warden is responsible for the upbringing and training of his ward
A warden will be assigned if the heir has no responsible adult relatives

If he is the heirs warden, then I'd say yes


Yes, one PK is the heir's warden (I'll keep it simple for the player).

But your last answer begs several questions (although I will keep it simple for the players): Is it possible to have a tutor of the estate/manor and a different warden for the heir of said estate/manor? In what circumstances? What is the role of each?

But your last answer begs several questions (although I will keep it simple for the players): Is it possible to have a tutor of the estate/manor and a different warden for the heir of said estate/manor? In what circumstances? What is the role of each?


This might be a language issue...

Tutor in English means a teacher, a private instructor. So you wouldn't have a tutor of an estate. You could have a knight who is teaching the heir, especially at the stage when the heir is a squire. The knight the heir is squiring for could be considered to be his tutor, responsible for teaching him the skills a knight needs. Tutor is also used in Book of the Entourage to refer to a professional who is instructing a knight in a skill (gaining an experience check).

This is different from the warden. For all intents and purposes, the warden acts as if he were the father of the heir. He can squeeze the manors, call for universal aid to help in knighting the heir and so forth. Yes, I would consider the manor(s) 'his' for the purposes of a ransom.

It is easy to imagine a situation where the warden (the guy responsible for the heir and the estate) and the tutor (used here to mean the knight whose squire the heir is) are a different person. This would actually be relatively common, as the default is that the warden is the liege lord of the estate, and the training knight might be someone else entirely. Just as the father of the heir and the training knight are usually different people. Although in the case of estates, in our campaign, the liege lord often takes such heirs to be his personal squires too, to ensure a mutual understanding and fostering bonds of loyalty from the squirehood on.

I would never use the term tutor to mean the knight training a squire
a tutor teaches outside of the knight/squire relationship
he is a teacher of some non-knightly skill
Otherwise, Morien's got it right





But your last answer begs several questions (although I will keep it simple for the players): Is it possible to have a tutor of the estate/manor and a different warden for the heir of said estate/manor? In what circumstances? What is the role of each?


This might be a language issue...

Tutor in English means a teacher, a private instructor. So you wouldn't have a tutor of an estate. You could have a knight who is teaching the heir, especially at the stage when the heir is a squire. The knight the heir is squiring for could be considered to be his tutor, responsible for teaching him the skills a knight needs. Tutor is also used in Book of the Entourage to refer to a professional who is instructing a knight in a skill (gaining an experience check).

This is different from the warden. For all intents and purposes, the warden acts as if he were the father of the heir. He can squeeze the manors, call for universal aid to help in knighting the heir and so forth. Yes, I would consider the manor(s) 'his' for the purposes of a ransom.

It is easy to imagine a situation where the warden (the guy responsible for the heir and the estate) and the tutor (used here to mean the knight whose squire the heir is) are a different person. This would actually be relatively common, as the default is that the warden is the liege lord of the estate, and the training knight might be someone else entirely. Just as the father of the heir and the training knight are usually different people. Although in the case of estates, in our campaign, the liege lord often takes such heirs to be his personal squires too, to ensure a mutual understanding and fostering bonds of loyalty from the squirehood on.

What if the vassals (in this case the knights under the PK) already paid a first ransom using the universal aid. Could Emrys order them to squeeze their manors to pay for a ransom?

What if the vassals (in this case the knights under the PK) already paid a first ransom using the universal aid. Could Emrys order them to squeeze their manors to pay for a ransom?


According to Greg, the vassals always pay for their lord's ransom, not just the first time.

If you wish to limit this and say that the vassals only pay the first time, has this knight been captured before? If he has, then he is out of luck. If it was the previous lord and this guy is the warden or the heir, then it resets the counter. This is the first time HE is calling for his vassals to ransom him, even if it might be the fourth time the vassals are ransoming their (each time different) liege.

According to Greg, the vassals always pay for their lord's ransom, not just the first time.

More often than not I miss those threads so I have to go with what the rulebook tells me, which is the vassals pay the lord's first ransom (which does not mean I won't change it to suit my campaign, but it's not like they're getting captured every other day).


If you wish to limit this and say that the vassals only pay the first time, has this knight been captured before? If he has, then he is out of luck. If it was the previous lord and this guy is the warden or the heir, then it resets the counter. This is the first time HE is calling for his vassals to ransom him, even if it might be the fourth time the vassals are ransoming their (each time different) liege.


Yes, that is my assessment too. I don't know if that is historically correct but then again, I'm not going for the historically correct. I must weigh what is fun for my players, too. In any case, the rules in KAP state that the first time ransom is roughly equivalent to a full year's income and are not obliged to pay a second time. That does not mean they won't (it all depends on a series of factors that are specific to each campaign). It only means they are not obliged.

I can even assess Countess Ellen's Generous trait to bail some PKs out. One of the PKs is in her inner circle of advisers whereas another, also high on Glory, keeps Fumbling (yes, fumbling, not merely failing) his Courtesy and Orate rolls in court. To me, in MY campaign, it would make more sense that she would pay for the first PK ransom than the second.

But if we apply the rules as a baseline, then yes, all but one is entitled to a "free" ransom, even if the properties belonged to previous OK who died.

What if the vassals (in this case the knights under the PK) already paid a first ransom using the universal aid. Could Emrys order them to squeeze their manors to pay for a ransom?

As a liege he could order it, but if they would do it depends on their loyalty and probably their merci. Some may even promise to pay the ransom, but pay it in several years. (you did not say you needed it directly).

As GM I have told my Players that the payment of ransom can take up from a few months to several years. As GM this lives me some control on the money the PKs have. Of course things will get fussy when the person who gave his word he would pay dies. Is his heir going to pay?

Note, it is the VASSALS who have to ransom the LIEGE out.

If the Liege ransoms his/her vassal out (the case of Countess Ellen paying for one of the PKs), then the PK had better be very very grateful.

As for the size of the ransom, in KAP 5.1 it is £18 for a vassal knight (3 x annual income, using £6 manors). So using that as a baseline, a knight with three manors would be £48.

In our campaign, I am shifting to this rule:
1) Ransom is 2 x annual income, so £20 for a £10 manor knight.
2) Demesne manors count as full manors, enfeoffed manors count as half. So in the case of an estate of £100 demesne and £20 vassal manors, the 'adjusted' annual income is £100 + 0.5x£20 = £110, and thus the ransom would be £220. Each of the two £10 vassal manors would pay £10, the other £200 comes from the demesne manors (peasants).
3) Peasants are good for only one Universal Aid Ransom payment (even though that is ahistorical, apparently); after that, future ransom collections count as squeezes/imposts. That should make the PKs a bit more careful about playing the ransom game.

Also, exactly what Cornelius said. Just because someone promises to pay, doesn't mean:
a) that the money appears promptly.
b) that he actually pays, if released early (since supporting another knight as a 'guest' costs money).
c) that he survives long enough to pay.

Most knights WOULD pay, eventually, as getting a reputation for not paying your ransom means that you are likely to lose your head the next time someone captures you. But it might take years and he might die before that. Usually, some kind of a payment plan is arranged. Or the PKs 'sell' their captives up the chain of command at a discount: 50% in the pocket promptly from the liege/prince/king is better than waiting for years and risking not getting the whole sum, anyway.

As for the size of the ransom, in KAP 5.1 it is £18 for a vassal knight (3 x annual income, using £6 manors). So using that as a baseline, a knight with three manors would be £48.


I'll use this figure as baseline since the knights always receive their £6 (even if the manor is £10). It won't matter, for the purposes of this discussion, the exact value.



3) Peasants are good for only one Universal Aid Ransom payment (even though that is ahistorical, apparently); after that, future ransom collections count as squeezes/imposts. That should make the PKs a bit more careful about playing the ransom game.


In any case, KAP 5.1 mentions that this aid is only worth about one year's income. Assuming, Knight A has two demesne manor, 2 enffeofed manors, that means he would only receive £12 from demesne and £6 from enfeoffed manors (assuming your count each enfeoffed manor at half value). Where would the rest come from? One option would be to squeeze the manors, of course. Would the rest of the family contribute to pay?

Also, it seems to me that, even by using the squeezing rules in BoE, it's not possible to collect the ransom amount.

Yes, use the rule book if you desire
a couple of historical notes:
yea, those poor vassals had to pay every time that the lord was captured
I think that the actual cost of ransom was seven times the annual income of the captor
although I am not really sure what income they mean




As for the size of the ransom, in KAP 5.1 it is £18 for a vassal knight (3 x annual income, using £6 manors). So using that as a baseline, a knight with three manors would be £48.

I'll use this figure as baseline since the knights always receive their £6 (even if the manor is £10). It won't matter, for the purposes of this discussion, the exact value.


3) Peasants are good for only one Universal Aid Ransom payment (even though that is ahistorical, apparently); after that, future ransom collections count as squeezes/imposts. That should make the PKs a bit more careful about playing the ransom game.


In any case, KAP 5.1 mentions that this aid is only worth about one year's income. Assuming, Knight A has two demesne manor, 2 enffeofed manors, that means he would only receive £12 from demesne and £6 from enfeoffed manors (assuming your count each enfeoffed manor at half value). Where would the rest come from? One option would be to squeeze the manors, of course. Would the rest of the family contribute to pay?
Also, it seems to me that, even by using the squeezing rules in BoE, it's not possible to collect the ransom amount.

Unless the knight is a real rotter, his family probably would contribute to the ransom
it is one of the things that a family is for
It is supposed to be very difficult to come up with ransom
Several squeezes, perhaps distributed over several years, will help
And the captor may make some exceptions for special reasons
1. I had the captor offer to free the knight after so many years of serving him as a household knight, on oath to stay
In a campaign a Saxon made my PK this offer and as soon as he could, while armed and armored, he took off. "The oath was forced under duress, I took no Christian vow, and he is just a Saxon anyway!" Of course, he still lost some Honor, and that lord had a terrible Hate for my knight.
2. For proper oaths sworn to captors by honorable men, the captive may be released to collect the ransom himself and if not collected, return to captivity after some length of time. This occurred several times, successfully, in the 100 years war
3. A captor may get to know the knight and like him and trust him, and release him (maybe even with horse and armor) for an oath that he will never fight against the captor, or the captor and his men, even the captor, his men, and his king. That was done, historically, too.