Just wondering how people deal with petty cash and spending money.

On the one hand, vassal knights are obviously quite wealthy and, despite the potentially complex manorial and estate management systems, Pendragon is definitely not a game of "counting coppers". On the other, much a knight's wealth is tied up in assets and even an item such as a sword represents a sizeable investment to a starting knight.

I would certainly expect that, at the start of any adventuring season, a knight has had the time to equip himself to a basic level, replace any lost or broken weapons, repaired armour, grabbed a new charger from the herd if required etc ...

But how much money should he have available for expenses when out on the road? Should any available cash beyond maybe a handful of denarii have to come from the discretionary fund? This seems harsh for a starting character but, then again, the knight can most likely rely on hospitality and the generosity of strangers for most of his needs, so maybe this isn't a problem. I kind of like the idea that a rich and powerful vassal knight doesn't necessarily have much disposable income unless he's gained plunder and the like, and it also marks another distinct difference from the wealthy merchant classes.

I'm interested to hear how other people deal with this, as I haven't seen any official guidelines.

My opinion:

Few denarii, don't sweat it. Replacement shields, lances, etc.

Stuff costing a significant fraction of a libra: Yeah, this is something that a £10 manor vassal knight would need to consider. The Discretionary Funds are just for these kinds of purchases, supporting an additional entourage member, etc.

Stuff costing several libra: Loot, Ransom and Plunder.

I never deal with the petty cash. So replacements like shields and lances, no problem. Most expenses are calculated in the money needed to support the knight anyway (like food and clothing).

If they want something worth more than a librum or something specuial. Then they will need the amount in their treasury. They do not need to have the money in their hand, but giving their word is enough.also these are usually special items so if able I write a (very) short adventure around it.
Example: A knight wants to by a nice ring for his lady love. That may mean that he has to search for that special jeweler. This can be trying to comprehend the common folk of London to getting to that hermit jeweler that lives deep in the woods.

That mostly aligns with my thinking. Excellent point about not actually needing cash on hand.

The best solution I have read for dealing with petty cash
somewhere in these forums
is that the knights simply charge everything back to their lord or their own estate.
The debtors either go to the person in charge and collect, or perhaps sell their debts to someone who collects them all and collects it
Then if the knights are extravagant their lord will deal with them, or their wives.

IRL Knights and all kinds of Nobles where notoriously short of Coin, their Assets where tied up in Land, Paraphernalia of Battle and Stable, what little Liquidity they had was eaten up by ongoing expences (like maintaining those assets).

but Knights where supposed to be above such base things like Commerce and Coin. Comspictus Consumption was expected

further there where Strumpery Laws that required a Knight or Noble to spend a minimum amount on lifestyle based on their station and a further sum based on their possible income (hang misfortune you had to spend it even if you didn't have it).

little wounder they where up to their future grandchildren's eyeballs in Debt.

so get out there, Torny, Pillage, Ransom and hunt Bounties or you won't be plucking gems from you armor and fling them at passers by.

Could You provide a source for aforementioned 'strumpery' laws? My spell checker doesn't even recognize recognize that as a word, and neither does any dictionary I can find. The closest I can find is either 'Strumpetry', that in relation to being a strumpet or prostitute, or 'trumpery' which is a fraud or something of high price but low value.

Regardless, I highly doubt any such ordinance was on the books of any feudal state before the 13th century, no one except for merchants or noblemen even used currency on a regular enough basis. Paying a fixed rate of coinage just wasn't a concept outside perhaps the very early bankers. What the people of the day DID have was a firm grasp of assets. They knew how much ten bushels of apples was worth in relation to a pig, how many eggs you could get for a chicken, how many nails you could get for sheep. If you've read the 'Pagan Shore' supplement for Pendragon, you know that the Irish of King Arthur's day have the system of 'Einach', a persons 'worth' measured in dairy cows.

Like all non-monetary assets, land is really hard to pin a value on. The land a Knight is given the amount of land that would usually produce at least enough assets to maintain a knight's household. A landholder's fortunes could literally change with the wind. Would a Knight have spare coin on hand? Probably not. Might he have additional assets on hand after his expenses are accounted for? Definitely.

It really depends on how generous of a GM you want to be. Personally, my system goes that your yearly income is equal to your harvest result in Librum, plus 3d20-1 shillings, all income 6L and below must be spent, the rest (1.5 in a typical year) can be used at the PK's discretion.

Could You provide a source for aforementioned 'strumpery' laws? My spell checker doesn't even recognize recognize that as a word, and neither does any dictionary I can find. The closest I can find is either 'Strumpetry', that in relation to being a strumpet or prostitute, or 'trumpery' which is a fraud or something of high price but low value.


I think it is a typo and he meant sumptuary laws. Usually those were to limit the amount you could spend on your outfit, rather than the other way around, though...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law

Midnight posting will get you on odd words,

they where written to keep the commoners from blowing all their cash to live like lords meaning your Yeomen and Guild Folk would be able to pay their taxes or have some extra Cash should the Lord need to squeeze them for a bit extra through Tallage or applying one of the universal aids.

as applied to Nobles to force them to spend, it was to keep them poor so as to prevent them from raising armies against the crown, make them willing to join the crown armies to fight in foreign wars or go on crusade.

the marriage of economics and politics to keep everyone in their place. it may be a bit to real for the more high literature or golden age of Hollywood feel that many Pendragon campaigns I've seen over the years, but if you want to get a bit gritty.

You still haven't cited any specific examples of nobles ever being given a minimum expenditure. As Morien said, Sumptuary laws were always used to set a maximum on how someone of a given rank can live, ie a yeoman can't dress as well as a knight , a knight can't dress better than an earl, an earl can't dress nicer than the king.

And the four universal aids apply to one's vassals, not ones serfs.


When the aid is imposed by a lord knight, each of the lord’s vassals pays an amount equal to the average yearly income of his primary holding.
From the KAP5 core rulebook.

Squeezing the peasants for second helpings of taxes is supposed to be a dick move, not a regular occurrence.

Ok it's bean around 20 years since I formally studded Medieval history don't have my texts anymore, thease days I'm more up on my Shognate and Edo period history from half a world away.

And the four universal aids apply to one's vassals, not ones serfs.


Actually, it applies to your own peasants, too. They pay as well.
Your own manors: your peasants pay their share
Your vassal manors: your vassals pay their share

You are right, though, that KAP 5.1 doesn't mention the peasants, only the vassals. Book of the Manor is explicit in including the peasants, though:
p. 32: "The cost of the knighting for the eldest son of a knight is one of the Universal Aids, and thus paid for by the peasants of a holding."
p. 33: "Note that the cost of the ransom for a lord the first time he is captures is one of the Four Universal Aids, and thus paid for by the vassals and peasants of a holding."



Squeezing the peasants for second helpings of taxes is supposed to be a dick move, not a regular occurrence.


Also known as Impost, yep. That is why it is worth of 'bad' trait checks and Hate Landlord (in Book of the Manor).

And the four universal aids apply to one's vassals, not ones serfs.


Actually, it applies to your own peasants, too. They pay as well.
Your own manors: your peasants pay their share
Your vassal manors: your vassals pay their share

You are right, though, that KAP 5.1 doesn't mention the peasants, only the vassals. Book of the Manor is explicit in including the peasants, though:
p. 32: "The cost of the knighting for the eldest son of a knight is one of the Universal Aids, and thus paid for by the peasants of a holding."
p. 33: "Note that the cost of the ransom for a lord the first time he is captures is one of the Four Universal Aids, and thus paid for by the vassals and peasants of a holding."


Ah, my mistake. I haven't got any of the supplementals for Pendragon except Pagan Shore, and it's a borrowed copy at that.