My GM is letting me develop my Squire as a less basic NPC, got a couple of concepts I'd like to work on, one is the son of a Man at Arms who can trace "noble" blood though his Mercenary Knight Maternal Grandfather. would I make him as the Son of a Warrior or as the son of a Commoner?

My GM is letting me develop my Squire as a less basic NPC, got a couple of concepts I'd like to work on, one is the son of a Man at Arms who can trace "noble" blood though his Mercenary Knight Maternal Grandfather. would I make him as the Son of a Warrior or as the son of a Commoner?

First question: what was his father's profession?
it is far less important what his ancestors did than what his father did
As revealed in the categories, both labelled "son of"

most derelict male parent is a Man at Arms, passably an Unmounted Sergent, making the Squire the son of a Conman born Fighting Man, so what's more important the Social Class or Profession?

I brought up the maternal grandfather to point out the kid has a tentative claim to Knighthood should it ever come up.

According to the KAP 5.1 rulebook:


Members of the nobility can become commoners. A
squire’s sons are considered commoners, though of good
status within the broad spectrum of commoners.

Seeming to imply that gentry does not extend past the first generation of a knight's offspring, especially if the line of descent is through the mother and not the father.

This also begs the question: Why would the grandfather knight hand off his daughter to marry a lowborn mercenary?

1) Was she so ugly that he could find no other suitor?
2) Was the Knight of so little standing? If so the squire wouldn't be able t lay claim to any lands.
3) Is the mother's family in political exile? If so it begs the question how the squire was able to become a squire in the first place, if the noble half of his family are pariahs in the PK's part of the world.
4) Did the father perform so outstanding and valuable a service that he was rewarded the mother's hand, but not a knighting? It must have been something very shameful or illicit, something that might cause the grandfather to keep that branch of the family at a distance.
5) Did the mother and father elope? If so then the mother would have been disowned, and the squire would have literally no ties to the mother's family.
6) Was the squire a product of rape? If so the man at arms would have been hanged from the highest tree in the land, and the squire would have been raised by the mother and her family, the man at arms having zero input in the squires upbringing. Which, being raised in a knight's household, would I suppose qualify him as 'son of a knight'.

Of course your pendragon may vary, but the scenario does seem to raise many interesting questions.

This also begs the question: Why would the grandfather knight hand off his daughter to marry a lowborn mercenary?


Good questions. Let me add one more:

7) The daughter was the Nth daughter of the knight and hence a man-at-arms (potentially still an esquire, a son of a knight but one who wasn't knighted) was the best that could be found.

After all, you get generally 1 knight / generation, so it tends to be the oldest daughter with the biggest dowry who marries a knight. The other sons become esquires (stewards, men-at-arms, etc), and the younger daughters marry them. Even if the man-at-arms would be a commoner, he is still a step and above a peasant, I am sure you'd agree! Maybe he was wealthy from war loot. Could very well be if he is now getting his son as a squire to a knight. Clearly the father is (or was) planning on getting the boy knighted, and the knight in question (or his liege) presumably thought that the boy was a good idea to spend six years of training on. You don't pick up a random kid from the street to be your squire, unless you are in a Hollywood movie!

This is actually an issue that was brought up by my second to last GM: if only the eldest (inheriting) son is knighted, then where do household knight's come from? We know Roderick has at least 50 of them, and that's a lord with about 20-30 vassal knights under him.

He used this as part of his argument for not letting us (as players) take on household knights, that they were so few and so valuable that they would only swear themselves to a master of baronial rank or higher.

To be fair, all we had at the time was the KAP ruebook, so he had to do a lot of improvising. For example one player got 8 manors from a single marriage. Of course one of the more enjoyable digressions as consequence of not having a campaign book, was our mission to rome on behalf of earl roderick. Long story short, after accidentally setting fire to the vatican archives and an exciting chase scene on top of a crumbling aqueduct, one of the players incited a full blown revolt in which the goths were completely ousted, and the reformed roman senate made him an honorary consul. Of course we all thought it best to get the ever loving fuck out of dodge before the gothic army arrived on the scene, and we returned to Salisbury. This was all in 487 by the way.

But I digress.

Anyway, unless household knights can be and regularly are lifted from the lower classes, then second sons of vassal knights can expect at least a reasonable chance of being knighted. It's the old mantra of "The Heir, the Spare, and the Prayer", where in this case the first son is always knighted, the second might be knighted, and the third will typically join the clergy.

You'd think with so many household or errant knights to choose from, the daughter would have many prospective husbands before resorting to the serjentry.





This also begs the question: Why would the grandfather knight hand off his daughter to marry a lowborn mercenary?


Good questions. Let me add one more:

7) The daughter was the Nth daughter of the knight and hence a man-at-arms (potentially still an esquire, a son of a knight but one who wasn't knighted) was the best that could be found.

After all, you get generally 1 knight / generation, so it tends to be the oldest daughter with the biggest dowry who marries a knight. The other sons become esquires (stewards, men-at-arms, etc), and the younger daughters marry them. Even if the man-at-arms would be a commoner, he is still a step and above a peasant, I am sure you'd agree! Maybe he was wealthy from war loot. Could very well be if he is now getting his son as a squire to a knight. Clearly the father is (or was) planning on getting the boy knighted, and the knight in question (or his liege) presumably thought that the boy was a good idea to spend six years of training on. You don't pick up a random kid from the street to be your squire, unless you are in a Hollywood movie!

Yes, the heir, the spare and the prayer was the norm. The spare would become a household knight, or a mercenary knight or a knight errant (probably a professional jouster, in High Middle ages). The 4th sons would be out of luck, lucky if they become sergeantry or stewards or master of hounds or some such in a noble's household.

HOWEVER. Household knights almost never married (as household knights); they usually married only after being rewarded with land/heiress. After all, if they married, who would support their families? That is a net loss for the Lord.

Hence, when it comes to daughters: 1st one marries a vassal knight, but what about the rest? The household knight and the priest don't marry, so the younger daughters are left with little choice. Some might marry stewards and such household officers, but the rest would have to marry down, or become nuns.

As to maternal blood line , the Mother is illegitimate, the squires maternal grand mother was knocked up by a passing Mercenary Knight.

what's more important hear is dose he count as a son of a commoner because his father is a Yeoman or the son of a Warrior since his fathers profession is Man at Arms?

I'd have to check back to 4th ed for this but if I recall correctly, Warrior is a tribal warrior and commoner is a non-combatant. I might be wrong in that. Anyway, the closest thing to a man-at-arms is actually a mercenary knight. The difference between the two is minor, apart from title and possibly wealth. Check with your GM.

EDIT:
OK, I looked up 4th edition, and I can't find son of a commoner in there. Probably because such characters would be quite rare, especially as PKs. In any case, there are two potential 'backgrounds' to use for your Son of a Man-at-Arms.

As stated in the previous, a man-at-arms is very close to a knight: a heavily armored cavalryman who is skilled in the use of his arms. Often, knight and man-at-arms are used interchangeably in talking about medieval battles. So, with that in mind, the question would become if the man-at-arms was a retained soldier for his Lord, or simply a mercenary? In the former case, I would be happy enough to use the Household Knight template, and in the latter, the Mercenary Knight. The only difference is that the father was not actually knighted, so he probably would have less Glory for his son to inherit, but as far as duties and skillsets, it is close enough to a knight.

If this is still early in the campaign, during the Uther or Anarchy Period, then if he has the arms and a horse, and he proves himself to be good at arms, then a warlord may well choose to support him to be a cavalryman,
and if he proves himself and swears homage to the lord, make him a household knight
no matter what his bloodline is
no matter what kind of criminals and low class his parents many have been

Of course, to go the next step and be landed, be a vassal knight, would be a huge hurdle
After all, he has already been promoted beyond his class!

ATM the NPC is my PC's Squire, we may be expanding in to troop play and will likely be my Alt. if we do.

as to period we are looking at early Conquest. Uther was the Grandfathers and older fathers time, the Anarchy was the time of our fathers (who's time has not yet passed, but perhaps soon will).

Edit: I can see four ways of making this character
1. take the Male Cymric Cultural Package and apply the "Son of a Warrior" package (frankly the most favorable to making a future PC Knight),
2. take the Commoner Cultural Package from the Magician section (of 4e) and apply "Son of a Warrior" package,
3. take the Male Cymric Cultural Package and apply "Son of a Commoner",
or
4. (and the worst option) take Commoner Cultural Package and apply "Son of a Commoner".

In the Magician's section it is a son of a peasant and that is a whole lot different. In this case a peasant is your local farmer.
I would say that a son of a Man at arms gets more warrior training than farmer training.

As Morien said there is a close resemblance to a knight and a man at arms. So taking a son of Mercenary or son of Bacheloris also a good option. Aside from his occupation as retainer or mercenary you can also look at how the men at arms look upon the world. Do they strife to be like a knight (it is the epitome of a warrior, so why not) or do they have a more loose moral code. In the latter case a mercenary is probably your best bet.

Of course if they tend to hang to the tribal past a son of a warrior may be more appropriate as the training received for his son.