These are some random questions that occasionally pop into my head just from reading the books.

1) The lord must support his vassals (BoE, p. 47). If a knight is starving, the lord helps him. Does this mean the lord will give money to the vassal to "bump" his Grade of Maintenance?

2) A knight goes off and conquers a manor from Ambrius in the name of his lord (in this case, Lady Ellen). He kills the widow and her children. Could the injured party seek redress by talking to Lady Ellen (before they go the way of vengeance)? And what if then manor's heir, still underage, was Dilwyn's ward (the Abbot of Ambrius’ Abbey)? Could he seek Lady Ellen and demand some sort of compensation? What would take to make amends, if any?

3) Do knights have to seek their lord's permission to go raiding saxon lands? What about briton lands?

4) What if an overambitious knight takes a manor in the same county by force? What would Lady Ellen do? What could she do?

5) Would an earl demand a knight to do whatever he wanted during the obligatory military duty period? Say, send him on a dangerous errand to pictland or escort someone to the continent, even if that's contrary to the knight's wishes? What about outside the 40-day period?

6) A knight has Hate (Saxons) 16+ and he lops prince Aescwine's head in Sarum court during the Anarchy Phase, would Lady Ellen punish him? If so, what could she do to him?

Note, these are my opinions. Your Pendragon May Vary.



These are some random questions that occasionally pop into my head just from reading the books.

1) The lord must support his vassals (BoE, p. 47). If a knight is starving, the lord helps him. Does this mean the lord will give money to the vassal to "bump" his Grade of Maintenance?


If the vassal is starving, yes. Circumstances matter, IMHO. If the vassal has just blown through £20 of cash to get a shiny new spare warhorse, I think the lord would be within his rights to offer to buy the warhorse off the vassal rather than just hand money over. In general, the manor should be enough to support the vassal, and the lord shouldn't have to step in. If there is famine or something, or if the enemt raid flattened the manor, then yes, the lord should help.



2) A knight goes off and conquers a manor from Ambrius in the name of his lord (in this case, Lady Ellen). He kills the widow and her children. Could the injured party seek redress by talking to Lady Ellen (before they go the way of vengeance)? And what if then manor's heir, still underage, was Dilwyn's ward (the Abbot of Ambrius’ Abbey)? Could he seek Lady Ellen and demand some sort of compensation? What would take to make amends, if any?


Depends on the kin/liege of the widow and the children. Note that this is VERY dishonorable thing to do, and I cannot see Lady Ellen being happy about it, either (after all, she is a widow with children, and if this psycho gets his jollies by killing widows and children...). The head of the knight responsible would be the righteous demand, I think, and unless this knight has done some VERY BIG FAVORS for the Countess, in our campaign, she would be likely to agree to that.



3) Do knights have to seek their lord's permission to go raiding saxon lands? What about briton lands?


Depends. Some times, it might be easier to ask forgiveness than permission. I would be pissed off as the liege lord if my raiding vassals get me into a war with a neighboring baron. On the other hand, if I am already at war with those Saxons/Britons, raid away!



4) What if an overambitious knight takes a manor in the same county by force? What would Lady Ellen do? What could she do?


From another vassal of the same liege? This is a big no-no. Your liege has sworn to protect his vassals, and you just attacked one of his. You don't stab your own team in the back!

As for what Lady Ellen could do, it depends how strong she is and how strong the unruly vassal is. If most knights stay loyal to her, I think she would punish the unruly vassal, at the very least taking the conquered manor back and perhaps imposing a fine, or even an exile.

If the manor belongs to some other baron now dead at St. Albans, and his heir is somewhere half Logres away... well, then she might stay silent about it, as long as the knight is now bringing TWO knights to her army (1 per manor). If it is a close neighbor, see above for raiding other Britons without permission.



5) Would an earl demand a knight to do whatever he wanted during the obligatory military duty period? Say, send him on a dangerous errand to pictland or escort someone to the continent, even if that's contrary to the knight's wishes? What about outside the 40-day period?


You, the knight, have sworn to obey your liege. Dangerous errands and escort missions come as part of the job. Technically, they should be part of the 40-day period, but any knight who insists upon that is liable to find himself on the liege's black list, and that is not a good place to be.

The lord cannot tell you to cut your own throat, or anything like that. And I would definitely allow a knight to reconsider service to this lord if the lord is commanding him to go and fight a dragon with a teaspoon while unarmored. However, if the said dragon is ravaging the county, then again, that is what you signed up for, Sir Knight, and if you have Homage 16+, tough luck. Saddle up, boyo.



6) A knight has Hate (Saxons) 16+ and he lops prince Aescwine's head in Sarum court during the Anarchy Phase, would Lady Ellen punish him? If so, what could she do to him?


YES! This is one of the worst crimes you can do! You have broken your liege's hospitality, drawn your sword in her presence, and murdered her guest! Look at Sir Balin in Arthur's court. Arrest the knight and bundle him off to the East Saxons to punish.

Then again, I would NEVER make even a Hate (Saxons) 16+ knight roll the Passion to do something as dishonorable and insane like this. Sure, if the Prince manages to insult the knight or otherwise cause a Hate (Saxons) roll, and the PK crits it, then tough luck. But not from a mere Passion 16+. The knight would look for opportunities to pick a fight and provoke a duel so that he could kill a Saxon in the accepted way, and he would be rude and so forth, but not a murderer.

Note, these are my opinions. Your Pendragon May Vary.



4) What if an overambitious knight takes a manor in the same county by force? What would Lady Ellen do? What could she do?


From another vassal of the same liege? This is a big no-no. Your liege has sworn to protect his vassals, and you just attacked one of his. You don't stab your own team in the back!

As for what Lady Ellen could do, it depends how strong she is and how strong the unruly vassal is. If most knights stay loyal to her, I think she would punish the unruly vassal, at the very least taking the conquered manor back and perhaps imposing a fine, or even an exile.
Damn straight. Attacking another vassal of your Lord without explicit instructions from them is very close to if not directly treason. At the very least, Ellen would want to strip the wayward vassal of the lands he holds from Salisbury and exile him.


If the manor belongs to some other baron now dead at St. Albans, and his heir is somewhere half Logres away... well, then she might stay silent about it, as long as the knight is now bringing TWO knights to her army (1 per manor). If it is a close neighbor, see above for raiding other Britons without permission.

Looking at the "legal" principles here, when a Lord dies, his Manor escheats to the King, who installs an escheator to assess the Manor, and take care of it until the heir pays his relief. In this case, Ellen as Robert's Regent is standing in for the King, so the Manor escheats to her and one of her vassals taking it by force from the steward is, precisely and exactly making war upon your Liege lord.





5) Would an earl demand a knight to do whatever he wanted during the obligatory military duty period? Say, send him on a dangerous errand to pictland or escort someone to the continent, even if that's contrary to the knight's wishes? What about outside the 40-day period?


You, the knight, have sworn to obey your liege. Dangerous errands and escort missions come as part of the job. Technically, they should be part of the 40-day period, but any knight who insists upon that is liable to find himself on the liege's black list, and that is not a good place to be.

The lord cannot tell you to cut your own throat, or anything like that. And I would definitely allow a knight to reconsider service to this lord if the lord is commanding him to go and fight a dragon with a teaspoon while unarmored. However, if the said dragon is ravaging the county, then again, that is what you signed up for, Sir Knight, and if you have Homage 16+, tough luck. Saddle up, boyo.

The lord is severely pushing his perqs if he tries to tell the Knight how to perform a task set, I feel.




6) A knight has Hate (Saxons) 16+ and he lops prince Aescwine's head in Sarum court during the Anarchy Phase, would Lady Ellen punish him? If so, what could she do to him?


YES! This is one of the worst crimes you can do! You have broken your liege's hospitality, drawn your sword in her presence, and murdered her guest! Look at Sir Balin in Arthur's court. Arrest the knight and bundle him off to the East Saxons to punish.

Then again, I would NEVER make even a Hate (Saxons) 16+ knight roll the Passion to do something as dishonorable and insane like this. Sure, if the Prince manages to insult the knight or otherwise cause a Hate (Saxons) roll, and the PK crits it, then tough luck. But not from a mere Passion 16+. The knight would look for opportunities to pick a fight and provoke a duel so that he could kill a Saxon in the accepted way, and he would be rude and so forth, but not a murderer.

Very much so. A Passion is not an excuse. My current knight has Hate (Saxons) 20 and Loyalty (Lord) 21. If he gets sent on mercenary service in lieu of tribute to a Saxon leader, he'll plead with Ellen not to be sent, on grounds of likely causing trouble and disgracing her name, but he'll go (and drop a point, maybe 2 of Loyalty (Lord)). And then likely cause trouble in the camp and lose Honour, and possibly be sent home.

If your character is already low on Honour, he might do something nefarious to the Saxon, but just assailing him in open court would be the result of some sort of madness. So it could come as a result of a fumbled Passion roll (maybe he invokes Hate (Saxons) to inspire some poetry meant to sting the Saxon and fumbles it, charging the Saxon yelling "F*** off you red-nosed ****!!" (https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_en-gbGB431GB478&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=master%20of%20wit%20and%20repartee%20joke)).

2) A knight goes off and conquers a manor from Ambrius in the name of his lord (in this case, Lady Ellen). He kills the widow and her children. Could the injured party seek redress by talking to Lady Ellen (before they go the way of vengeance)? And what if then manor's heir, still underage, was Dilwyn's ward (the Abbot of Ambrius’ Abbey)? Could he seek Lady Ellen and demand some sort of compensation? What would take to make amends, if any?


Depends on the kin/liege of the widow and the children. Note that this is VERY dishonorable thing to do, and I cannot see Lady Ellen being happy about it, either (after all, she is a widow with children, and if this psycho gets his jollies by killing widows and children...). The head of the knight responsible would be the righteous demand, I think, and unless this knight has done some VERY BIG FAVORS for the Countess, in our campaign, she would be likely to agree to that.

To provide context:

1) The manor is in the Ambrius Hundred but it's an outlier. I haven't decided yet what this estate is but it's far from Salisbury for a number of story reasons, including starting a feud between two families.
2) What would or could Lady Ellen do against a knight who is deemed guilty of killing an unarmed noblewoman and her underage children. Admittedly, this was a rash decision on the player's part. Nothing can be done now, but to deal with the consequences. Could she confiscate his lands? Thrown him in the dungeon?
3) On the other hand this is the Anarchy Period, some excesses are unavoidable. It's not like this particular knight is a total psycho. He's known as a Valorous knight with 6500 Glory who has done quite a great deal for Earl Roderick and Lady Ellen, including giving a major contribution to building a wall around Sarum and saving Uther's life back then.

So, any suggestions on possible scenario ideas to exploit?

The countess can do what she wants, as long as enough knights support her.

Some factors to consider:
- You mentioned that there was a feud between the families? Can a case be made for 'heat of the moment', passionate insanity defense? Also, is there a possibility of an-eye-for-an-eye, i.e. did the other family massacre women and children of the knight's family? If so, I think there would be a much better case of 'you reap what you sow' -reaction from the knight's peers.
- How friendly is Countess Ellen with the Abbot? If he is an enemy, she would be less likely to punish the knight. How big a sting can the Abbot make, politically? Are there other knights who dislike this particular PK, and would be pushing for a harsher punishment?
- Remorse: is the knight proud of what he has done, or is he remorseful? This is a big thing with regards to the Church but probably it would help to reassure the other nobility (including Ellen) that the knight is not a psycho who gets his jollies from murdering women and children.
- Returning the manor to its rightful heir. Goes with the remorse and making amends towards the Abbot and his ward, the heir.
- It is the Anarchy and before the Chivalric ideal is the norm. So you can tweak the 'might makes right' -dial to the max if you want, and ignore that this should be worth around -4 in Honor (-2 for killing a noblewoman, and I would make at least the same for the child). If you wish to go with the Honor Loss, I wouldn't be surprised with the knight being nicknamed 'Child-Killer' or something like that, kind of like Jamie Lannister was nicknamed Kingslayer. I probably would impose that penalty still. Your Honor will suffer for these excesses, even if the punishment of a low Honor (stripped of knighthood) is not enforced until Arthur's time. (If even then: plenty of evil knights in the legends.)

If the knight had been serving someone who has climbed to the top by offing the previous occupant's heirs (i.e. an usurper), then the knight's actions might carry less condemnation ('You conquered a manor? Good for you!'), but this is Countess Ellen with her young son, Robert. It can't help but hit close to home. Good opportunity for some nice RP if the Countess asks the knight to consider how he'd feel, if the Steward of Levcomagus would come to Sarum and kill Ellen and Robert to lay a claim on Salisbury... :)

EDIT:
I realize that I misread what was being said about the Abbot's ward. That was the child that got killed, right? So there is no other heir. I think the Abbot would claim, as the liege lord of the manor, that it escheats back to the Abbey. (If the abbot is not the liege lord, then the true liege lord should claim it.)

Without reading what are undoubtedly excellent answers that came before this, I'd like to dip my oar into the scenario consequences


These are some random questions that occasionally pop into my head just from reading the books.

1) The lord must support his vassals (BoE, p. 47). If a knight is starving, the lord helps him. Does this mean the lord will give money to the vassal to "bump" his Grade of Maintenance?

The lord would probably take the knight into his home and feed and clothe him


2) A knight goes off and conquers a manor from Ambrius in the name of his lord (in this case, Lady Ellen). He kills the widow and her children.

This is a capital offense. Only the king has the right to kill people in Logres. Of course, there is no king, but this would nonetheless be considered by everyone to be a crime. KAP pg 76 lists this as a -2 to Honor.


Could the injured party seek redress by talking to Lady Ellen (before they go the way of vengeance)?

Yes, certainly. As the "lord" of this man the countess is responsible for his actions. Presuming of course that the murderous knight is her knight (and being a PK, I assume that to be so.) She would have to think very seriously about shielding a lady-murderer. If she does it also reflects upon her Honor.


And what if then manor's heir, still underage, was Dilwyn's ward (the Abbot of Ambrius’ Abbey)?

If the victim was the abbot-bishop's vassal, then this wouldn't add anything to the penalty. The bishop has been severely wronged.


Could he seek Lady Ellen and demand some sort of compensation?

Yes.


What would take to make amends, if any?

Oh, the abbot would probably demand the man's death, and failing that he be outlawed. Then there would be some kind of compensation the the countess could demand. This is murder of noble woman, a "sister" of Ellen's. I doubt that she would feel good about letting him off scot free.


3) Do knights have to seek their lord's permission to go raiding Saxon lands? What about Briton lands?

Have to? No to both. BUT he should do so. He is a servant of the liege lord, who is responsible for his men. Doing anything without permission indicates the knight is reckless to the point of disobedience. Now, if the knight came home and turned his winnings over to the liege, the countess, she might decide to forgive him for the offense.


4) What if an overambitious knight takes a manor in the same county by force?

If it was a manor that is under the countess' holdings, then the answer is an absolute no. Unless she ordered it. If it was held by another lord then her response would depend on what kind of relationship she has with the lord.


What would Lady Ellen do? What could she do?

It would depend on what kind of relationship she has with the lord. If he was an ally she would return it promptly. If the liege lord as neutral towards her, she would probably do the same. If he was an enemy, the she would probably honor the knight for his prowess.


5) Would an earl demand a knight to do whatever he wanted during the obligatory military duty period?
The 40-days of service is only what the lord owes to the king. The knight is ALWAYS under his lord's command.


Say, send him on a dangerous errand to pictland or escort someone to the continent, even if that's contrary to the knight's wishes? What about outside the 40-day period?

The 40-day period has nothing to do with the knight's obligation to his liege lord. The knight's wishes are of absolutely no worth. The knight has sworn an oath to obey his lord in every thing, even unto death. So yes, of course the lord could order him to do anything he wants, even go to a certain death. Every time that the lords goes to battle he is ordering his men to a possible death or dismemberment.


6) A knight has Hate (Saxons) 16+ and he lops prince Aescwine's head in Sarum court during the Anarchy Phase, would Lady Ellen punish him?

Yes. This is a terrible violation of her Hospitality. The murder is a direct affront against her and her rights. By having that boy in her hall she has guaranteed his safety. This kind of recklessness is EXACTLY the behavior that Hospitality is supposed to protect against. Even if the boy was her prisoner, this would be a crime against her if she did not order it.
Oh, and the knight's hatred is not a mitigating factor.


If so, what could she do to him?

Considering that Aescwine is sure to take vengeance on her for this murder, she would have to be very careful. The nature and severity of the crime might warrant her just turning the murderer over the Aescwine. The Saxons are 100% in favor of retribution.
OTOH, if Aescwine has been an enemy of hers, raiding her lands and killer her people, she just might take credit for the deed as an insult to her foe.

The 40-days of service is only what the lord owes to the king. The knight is ALWAYS under his lord's command.


You are talking about vassal knights now, Greg, not of household knights?

I assumed that the same rules go for Vassal Knights as other landed nobles. I.e. they are the 'barons' to the Count='king'.

The household knights are in service 24/7, of course.

On page 16 of KAP 5.1, it says under Knight Vassal:
"Knights vassal generally live at their
own home, but are obliged to serve for forty days per
year at war, plus a customary extension of twenty more
if the lord demands it. They must also serve three
months of castle garrison duty, and appear at court to
offer advice whenever the lord demands it."



The 40-day period has nothing to do with the knight's obligation to his liege lord. The knight's wishes are of absolutely no worth. The knight has sworn an oath to obey his lord in every thing, even unto death. So yes, of course the lord could order him to do anything he wants, even go to a certain death. Every time that the lords goes to battle he is ordering his men to a possible death or dismemberment.


The Lord also owes the vassal (household knight or landed knight) protection. I'd say that ordering the knight to strip naked and let peasants stone him to death would be a violation of the lord's side of the feudal bargain, and the knight would be within his rights to revoke his oath.

The 40-days of service is only what the lord owes to the king. The knight is ALWAYS under his lord's command.


You are talking about vassal knights now, Greg, not of household knights?

I assumed that the same rules go for Vassal Knights as other landed nobles. I.e. they are the 'barons' to the Count='king'.

The household knights are in service 24/7, of course.

On page 16 of KAP 5.1, it says under Knight Vassal:
"Knights vassal generally live at their
own home, but are obliged to serve for forty days per
year at war, plus a customary extension of twenty more
if the lord demands it. They must also serve three
months of castle garrison duty, and appear at court to
offer advice whenever the lord demands it."

Oo. That's another good reason for a Lord to restrict the enfeoffment of his lands to those he really wants to bind to him. A household knight is a full time soldier, whereas the vassal knight is a step closer to a reservist!

Oo. That's another good reason for a Lord to restrict the enfeoffment of his lands to those he really wants to bind to him. A household knight is a full time soldier, whereas the vassal knight is a step closer to a reservist!


Yes, at least according to KAP 5.1. I kinda like it, since it gives the PKs a bit more freedom to go and do their own stuff. I also like it in that it keeps the difference of barons and landed knights more of a matter of scale (how much land they have) rather than changing the terms of enfeofment.

Most of the knights (80-90%) would be household knights, so this may be what Greg is alluding to in his response, rather than vassal knights. And of course, even if a vassal knight is only forced to go off to war for those 40 days, giving your liege lord the 'time sheet' showing that you have already served your 40 days and hence won't be going to, say, Escavalon to deliver a message for him, would not make the liege lord think kindly of you. You can forget about future preferment, and guess who will be doing their garrison & patrol duties in the winter sleet from now on? :)

The 40-days of service is only what the lord owes to the king. The knight is ALWAYS under his lord's command.

You are talking about vassal knights now, Greg, not of household knights?

Yes, both household and vassal knights are under their liege's command at all times


I assumed that the same rules go for Vassal Knights as other landed nobles. I.e. they are the 'barons' to the Count='king'.

No, and the barons are not independent either
Sure, if the lord doesn't need them they are free to go to their barony or manor
But if they are needed at any time, they must answer their lord's summons
Holding a manor isn't an exemption from the basic cuties


The household knights are in service 24/7, of course.

On page 16 of KAP 5.1, it says under Knight Vassal:
"Knights vassal generally live at their
own home, but are obliged to serve for forty days per
year at war, plus a customary extension of twenty more
if the lord demands it. They must also serve three
months of castle garrison duty, and appear at court to
offer advice whenever the lord demands it."

Yes, not clear I guess about the 40 days and 3 months being the annual expectation, a regular thing
But the rest of the time they are still subject to their liege lord
Think of this: if the vavasour was attacked would the liege lord not have to help him because it wasn't in those 40 days+3 months? Of course he would have to help. And it goes both ways.
but if you can find any documentation that indicates that vavasour knights were free from their lor'ds duty other than the time listed above, then please let me know




The 40-day period has nothing to do with the knight's obligation to his liege lord. The knight's wishes are of absolutely no worth. The knight has sworn an oath to obey his lord in every thing, even unto death. So yes, of course the lord could order him to do anything he wants, even go to a certain death. Every time that the lords goes to battle he is ordering his men to a possible death or dismemberment.

The Lord also owes the vassal (household knight or landed knight) protection. I'd say that ordering the knight to strip naked and let peasants stone him to death would be a violation of the lord's side of the feudal bargain, and the knight would be within his rights to revoke his oath.


Yes, of course that would
I did not mean to say that the lord could make his knights act dishonorably
He cannot just tell the knight to get killed, or replace someone who is going to be beheaded

Is it the knight service that's 40 days? So if a Baron has some land from the King "for 3 knights and 6 foot for 40 days", they King can command the Baron to attend him at any time but he hasn't got a legal perogative to require him to bring his knights for more than the 40 days?

Apart from that I'm struggling to see the point of the "40 day" stipulation... Though if a King keeps his Lords away from their lands, he's doing himself a disservice by ensuring those lands go to wrack and ruin...

Is it the knight service that's 40 days? So if a Baron has some land from the King "for 3 knights and 6 foot for 40 days", they King can command the Baron to attend him at any time but he hasn't got a legal perogative to require him to bring his knights for more than the 40 days?

Correct
But that 40 days is for the knight serving and supplying himself
If the king offers to pay for additional time, he has to continue
I am not sure if that additional time has a limit--maybe Morien will fill my faulty recollection with the truth
But otherwise, it's the middle of a military campaign?
40 days is up, no offer to recompense for the additional time?
The knight can walk, and he will not suffer any dishonor for it
Although if the kingdom has been invaded then he does stillowe service becasue it is his duty to defend the realm


Apart from that I'm struggling to see the point of the "40 day" stipulation... Though if a King keeps his Lords away from their lands, he's doing himself a disservice by ensuring those lands go to wrack and ruin...

No, sorry
That is why knights and barons have wives and stewards--to look out for their lands
If the land falls into ruin because there is no wife or steward to tend it then the baron (or knight) has failed to uphold his oath to properly take care of the holding
He could even suffer its loss for this

Apart from that I'm struggling to see the point of the "40 day" stipulation... Though if a King keeps his Lords away from their lands, he's doing himself a disservice by ensuring those lands go to wrack and ruin...

No, sorry
That is why knights and barons have wives and stewards--to look out for their lands
If the land falls into ruin because there is no wife or steward to tend it then the baron (or knight) has failed to uphold his oath to properly take care of the holding
He could even suffer its loss for this

Wives and stewards are not as effective against outland raiders as an extra Knight and 2 spearmen...

Apart from that I'm struggling to see the point of the "40 day" stipulation... Though if a King keeps his Lords away from their lands, he's doing himself a disservice by ensuring those lands go to wrack and ruin...

No, sorry
That is why knights and barons have wives and stewards--to look out for their lands
If the land falls into ruin because there is no wife or steward to tend it then the baron (or knight) has failed to uphold his oath to properly take care of the holding
He could even suffer its loss for this

Wives and stewards are not as effective against outland raiders as an extra Knight and 2 spearmen...

Anyone with a Siege skill of 2 or more can lead the defense of a fortification. Most of the time an attacker will have the advantage so that hiding behind walls is the best option.
An a lord who punishes his vassal for not defending the land, when that lord has summoned the vassal to go away from his land, is on the edge of losing that vassal anyway.

But that 40 days is for the knight serving and supplying himself
If the king offers to pay for additional time, he has to continue
I am not sure if that additional time has a limit--maybe Morien will fill my faulty recollection with the truth
But otherwise, it's the middle of a military campaign?


Off the top of my head, I don't know if there was ever any requirement to continue past 40 days. In KAP 5.1, 20 days customary extension is mentioned, which I think would be for this case. The 'unreliability' of the feudal levies were one of the main reasons why the English Kings preferred to collect scutage and hire mercenaries/companies instead, especially with the Hundred Years' War in the continent. There was also an on-going dispute about whether that 40 days of service would actually extend outside the kingdom at all, and even if the 40-day expenses should be covered by the crown, too.

I don't think the argument is that the knight would not be subordinate to the liege for the rest of the year, but more if the lord can order the knight to take up dangerous/long assignments past those 40 days. I doubt it would often come up, and such a book-keeping would probably be an indication of lack of trust and loyalty between the two.

Lord: "Sir Bean-Counter, I have an important assignment for you to ride to King Lot with this message."
Sir Bean-Counter: "I would love to, my lord, but I already fought 40 days for you in Summer, remember? And my beans are about to sprout, so no can do."
Lord: "I see... Sir Eager-Beaver, are you willing to take up this task, even though you actually served through the whole of Summer already?"
Sir Eager-Beaver: "Always at your service, my lord!"
Lord: "Good man."

Later...

Sir Bean-Counter: "My lord, I would ask for the hand of your ward, Lady Huge-Tracts of Land."
Lord: "I would love to, sir knight, but I already promised her to Sir Eager-Beaver when he comes back from his mission. Say, how are those beans sprouting?"

The fact that the knights tended to have their duties counted down to the days even for garrison duty, is a very strong hint to me that the Lord cannot FORCE the knight to spend more time running errands. But smart knights know that it is give and take. Rewards go to those who please the Lord. If they bend when the Lord needs them, the Lord in turn will be more amenable to fixing the 'duty-roster' so that they can attend tournaments, etc.

Naturally, defense of the homeland would be within the 'emergency clause', but I could, actually, see some very ornery knights arguing that if the liege lord's lands are not invaded, then it should be part of the 40-day muster. The English Barons certainly pulled the plug on King John's war plans, even when his continental possessions were invaded by the French. Then again, John was seriously not the most favorite king ever amongst the barons. Hence First Barons' War. :P

An interesting note:
In the GPC in the year 505 three battles are fought against the Saxons. After the second battle King Nanteleod has to make a rousing speech to stir the knights on as the 40 day period is already long past. He succeeds and they continue the campaign.

So this issue will creep up from time to time. although I agree with Morien that a good knight just always does what is asked of him as it will benefit in the long run.

But that 40 days is for the knight serving and supplying himself
If the king offers to pay for additional time, he has to continue
I am not sure if that additional time has a limit--maybe Morien will fill my faulty recollection with the truth
But otherwise, it's the middle of a military campaign?

Off the top of my head, I don't know if there was ever any requirement to continue past 40 days. In KAP 5.1, 20 days customary extension is mentioned, which I think would be for this case.

Would you quote the page number for me?


The 'unreliability' of the feudal levies were one of the main reasons why the English Kings preferred to collect scutage and hire mercenaries/companies instead,

Yes, and the levy there included the landed knights

Would you quote the page number for me?

It's the one I quoted earlier in this thread, repeated here for convenience.

On page 16 of KAP 5.1, it says under Knight Vassal:
"Knights vassal generally live at their
own home, but are obliged to serve for forty days per
year at war, plus a customary extension of twenty more
if the lord demands it. They must also serve three
months of castle garrison duty, and appear at court to
offer advice whenever the lord demands it."



Yes, and the levy there included the landed knights


Yep, in the more general 'feudal levy' = feudal army -context than the more Pendragon-specific 'levy' = peasant levy.

The interesting bit here is that while the 'deal' was for only 40 days of campaigning, the household knights were of course 24/7, constantly at their lord's beck and call (or garrisoning his castles or patrolling his lands). This emphasizes how much better off the liege is when he keeps a tight hold of his land, and what a huge advantage & privilege & reward it is to be a landed knight.

I'm reading Thomas Asbridge's THE GREATEST KNIGHT: THE REMARKABLE LIFE OF WILLIAM MARSHAL (which I highly recommend) and one thing I just ran across lately it that, while knights weren't obliged to serve their lord past the forty days of service, this was way a way to procure the liege lord's favor (with a reward on the back-end, naturally).

I'd really like to see some sort of Awards scale that showed how a knight could move up the landholding track by deeds of arms, loyal service, marriage, etc. one of the items could be Glory earned per day of service beyond the forty. Don't know how much would be appropriate — 20?

The book also describes how it was apparently common for knights to sort of campaign (politically) for more land, and even bug their lord about it. Marshal did this, and we certainly see Buckingham doing that to Richard III in Shakespeare.

Another curiosity I ran into, that perhaps deserves it's own thread, was the revelation that the King of France made Marshal swear homage to him for his land in France — he was to be Marshal's liege-lord "while in France." Marshal took the oath, even though he was King John's man. King John actually permitted Marshal to sweat homage to his enemy the King of France but was highly pissed when Marshal also took the liege-oath with France.


T.

PS. Intering sidenote: My wife is the 25th Ggranddaughter of William Marshal. So my kids have the Marshal's blood in their veins!

I'd really like to see some sort of Awards scale that showed how a knight could move up the landholding track by deeds of arms, loyal service, marriage, etc. one of the items could be Glory earned per day of service beyond the forty. Don't know how much would be appropriate — 20?


20 per day would be way way way too much. I'd be hesitant to even make it 1 glory per extra day. Something like 10 glory to stay on campaign when the liege asks you sounds more appropriate. If it is not wartime, you don't accrue extra glory for simply being 'available', but what you actually DO. If the liege is doling out assignments and you prefer to sit at home, no glory for you. But if you go on the assignment, you will probably get some glory from doing the assignment itself.

I am very much against the idea that the vassal knights would get additional glory for simply being available during the year, which is practically passive annual glory, one of the banes of Pendragon Glory inflation. Would household knights be eligible for the same glory for being available to their lords? Why not?

Loyal service is something that a vassal knights would start at a disadvantage compared to a household knight, I think. After all, the household knight is there 24/7. While admittedly the vassal knight is there voluntarily for 'extra time', from liege lord perspective there is not a huge difference. So it would be more something to distinguish between vassal knights themselves, especially as tie-breakers. Landholding is such a huge issue that a mere loyal service is probably not going to cut it. You'll need to back it up with Glory and actual big heroic events, like saving the liege lord's life, etc.

As examples... In GPC, the PKs are not getting rewarded with manors for helping Merlin retrieve Excalibur, even. They do gain brownie points, but those don't instantly turn into a second manor for the PKs. Also, even capturing Octa in the Battle of Lindsey, the PKs are just getting rewarded with money (pretty well rewarded, but still, no manors mentioned). Of course, some of that you could argue that GPC doesn't really hand out manors explicitly but leaves that for the GM. For example, Book of the Estate singles out killing Gorlois as something worthy of promotion (sidebar on p. 17 hints that this could be an actual estate, although some of the examples given on p. 18 seem a bit too collective to hand out estates left and right, IMHO, such as defending Sarum vs. Cornwall), which totally goes unmentioned in GPC. Given BotE guidelines (capturing/killing enemy king), capturing Octa would be a good moment to be handing out manors (if a collective achievement) or even an estate (for a remarkable solo performance), too.

EDIT:
I might add quickly here that unlike in most of actual Medieval History, in Pendragon big heroics seem to be more expected. Thus, it is harder to simply 'plod' onto a manor, which I think would have been very rare to begin with. For example, William Marshal didn't get a county heiress for having served for X number of years. He got a county heiress since he was a recognized badass, probably the best knight of his generation, who had also demonstrated loyal service throughout his career, and he had been promised the heiress by the dying king. Finally, it was a good opportunity for Richard to show off his own generosity and honor by upholding that promise, even if he had himself been in rebellion against his own father at the time.

So yeah, the benefits of mere service would be below the land-rewarding scale. In our campaigns, this would show up with the liege being more amenable to giving permission to the knights to go questing, haring off on their own family affairs, or even allow/smooth way to marriages that would be a bit better than what the knight might ordinarily achieve (I think this latter is also accounted for by the Loyalty modifier in the Book of Entourage's Wife & Dowry Table). Also, that Loyalty / Homage 16+ is also good for being Inspired, and as Greg is fond of pointing out, Passions of 16+ come with their disadvantages, too. In this case, willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty.

20 per day would be way way way too much. I'd be hesitant to even make it 1 glory per extra day. Something like 10 glory to stay on campaign when the liege asks you sounds more appropriate. If it is not wartime, you don't accrue extra glory for simply being 'available', but what you actually DO. If the liege is doling out assignments and you prefer to sit at home, no glory for you. But if you go on the assignment, you will probably get some glory from doing the assignment itself.

Well, that's a good point. Agreed.


I am very much against the idea that the vassal knights would get additional glory for simply being available during the year, which is practically passive annual glory, one of the banes of Pendragon Glory inflation. Would household knights be eligible for the same glory for being available to their lords? Why not?

Well...their lifestyle is sustained 24/7 by the lord, but it brings me back to my original point — how does one get awarded landin the first place (besides inheritance, I mean)? When does one get a manor, and another, and other, and an estate (and another, etc.), much less an honour.


Loyal service is something that a vassal knights would start at a disadvantage compared to a household knight, I think. After all, the household knight is there 24/7. While admittedly the vassal knight is there voluntarily for 'extra time', from liege lord perspective there is not a huge difference. So it would be more something to distinguish between vassal knights themselves, especially as tie-breakers. Landholding is such a huge issue that a mere loyal service is probably not going to cut it. You'll need to back it up with Glory and actual big heroic events, like saving the liege lord's life, etc.

We had a go at suitable "awards" in ESTATE, but I think it would be cool to have more concrete guidelines, like:

3,000: the minimum threshold for a manor, and you might get another manor per 2,500 G
4,000: you're a good candidate for a comital office.
5,000: you're worthy of an estate
7,000: you're a candidate for royal office
12,000: the minimum for an honor, etc.

I'm not saying these are the numbers — but something like this. It doesn't have to be complicated at all. It would be nice to further have guidelines for rewards for different heroic actions. In ESTATE we list the sorts of deeds that made one "promotion worthy", but if you had some sort of scale as above coupled with some guidelines (even if they're fluid ranges — killing the Duke of Cornwall is worth 500–1,000 Glory, GM's discretion). All of this could be done on one page.



As examples... In GPC, the PKs are not getting rewarded with manors for helping Merlin retrieve Excalibur, even. They do gain brownie points, but those don't instantly turn into a second manor for the PKs. Also, even capturing Octa in the Battle of Lindsey, the PKs are just getting rewarded with money (pretty well rewarded, but still, no manors mentioned). Of course, some of that you could argue that GPC doesn't really hand out manors explicitly but leaves that for the GM. For example, Book of the Estate singles out killing Gorlois as something worthy of promotion (sidebar on p. 17 hints that this could be an actual estate, although some of the examples given on p. 18 seem a bit too collective to hand out estates left and right, IMHO, such as defending Sarum vs. Cornwall), which totally goes unmentioned in GPC. Given BotE guidelines (capturing/killing enemy king), capturing Octa would be a good moment to be handing out manors (if a collective achievement) or even an estate (for a remarkable solo performance), too.

Agreed. The problem is the award of Glory is everywhere in the system, but how to equate that Glory with land is barely addressed at all. And if you're not landed, what good's all that Glory? I know it can influence Courtly skills and stuff, but it would be nice to see some sort of Glory scale for household knights, too. Better armor? Horses? Marriage track?




EDIT:
I might add quickly here that unlike in most of actual Medieval History, in Pendragon big heroics seem to be more expected. Thus, it is harder to simply 'plod' onto a manor, which I think would have been very rare to begin with. For example, William Marshal didn't get a county heiress for having served for X number of years. He got a county heiress since he was a recognized badass, probably the best knight of his generation, who had also demonstrated loyal service throughout his career, and he had been promised the heiress by the dying king. Finally, it was a good opportunity for Richard to show off his own generosity and honor by upholding that promise, even if he had himself been in rebellion against his own father at the time.

Agreed, but the author specifically went out of his way to make a point that knights who stuck with John after their tenure got extra consideration when it came to awards. Just the Loyalty alone should be worth something.



So yeah, the benefits of mere service would be below the land-rewarding scale. In our campaigns, this would show up with the liege being more amenable to giving permission to the knights to go questing, haring off on their own family affairs, or even allow/smooth way to marriages that would be a bit better than what the knight might ordinarily achieve (I think this latter is also accounted for by the Loyalty modifier in the Book of Entourage's Wife & Dowry Table). Also, that Loyalty / Homage 16+ is also good for being Inspired, and as Greg is fond of pointing out, Passions of 16+ come with their disadvantages, too. In this case, willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty.


Yes, just like that.


T.

how does one get awarded landin the first place (besides inheritance, I mean)? When does one get a manor, and another, and other, and an estate (and another, etc.), much less an honour.


By doing a great service to someone who has land to spare.

There is a bit of a positive feedback loop. The more land you have, the more powerful person you are yourself, and hence more desirable to have as a vassal. The more Glory you have, the more famous and presumably more skilled you are, too, and hence again more desirable, enhancing also the prestige of your liege. However, I don't think it is AUTOMATIC. You don't become entitled to a manor simply because you have X amount of Glory. How did you gain that Glory? 500 from saving your liege from a bunch of Saxon berserkers that had him in the ropes is worth a much more in the liege's mind than 500 gained from tournaments over a 20 year career. But I would still look primarily at the EVENT, rather than the accrued Glory.

Also, the timing may matter. It is easier for the liege to hand out manors if he has just conquered a patch of land that is his to dole out.




We had a go at suitable "awards" in ESTATE, but I think it would be cool to have more concrete guidelines, like:


For offices, Homage and actual ability would be more important than Glory, IMHO. If the liege trusts you and wants you for the job, it is yours.

As for land, I think I would keep the manor as a possibility regardless of the Glory. Even a squire who saves a baron's life is eligible. But i can see estates and honours being more difficult to attain, unless you have loads of Glory, too. Something like 4000 and 8000 might be my pick, with the understanding that this is just a guideline: you'll still have to earn it. 8000 because it is the minimum for the Round Table, and if you are good enough for that, you are good enough for everything else. Getting a honour would be a huge thing, though, well beyond normal campaign events.



Agreed. The problem is the award of Glory is everywhere in the system, but how to equate that Glory with land is barely addressed at all. And if you're not landed, what good's all that Glory? I know it can influence Courtly skills and stuff, but it would be nice to see some sort of Glory scale for household knights, too. Better armor? Horses? Marriage track?


Because it doesn't scale that easily. For instance, a better armor or horses might not be available (especially during the early phase) or affordable by the liege. Would it even be the liege's responsibility? In our campaign, the household knights own their own stuff (replacement chargers do come from the liege) and are responsible for their own upgrades from loot etc, with better horses/armor as gifts if they do something great. Marriage track is already in the Book of the Entourage, where it gives +1 / 1000 Glory.

I'd probably start looking at a loyal household knight of 8000 Glory as someone to cultivate a bit more, either upgrade to Rich Knight by the liege, or look for an heiress to marry him off to.


I am a bit more stingy GM that some when it comes rewarding land. The land is a limited resource, and once it is made into an inheritable grant, the liege is not (usually) getting it back. Let me look back at the two campaigns to see what merited a manor...


In the Old Campaign (started 503, before GPC was out):

- PKs conquered Medbourne from Sir Gorboduc, but ended up giving it away to a kinsman of one of the PKs eventually

- Posthumous rewards of manors (1 / PK) for being heroes of Badon Hill, dying with Great Glory. I think one managed to kill a Saxon King, too, although the point is that they kept the Saxons at bay so that Arthur could outflank them with the rest of the cavalry. They were already RTKs at the time.

- In the second generation, one PK managed to marry a Saxon heiress, and then participated in a family bloodfeud against another Saxon family. Long story short, his wife died, but he married the sister of the feuding Saxon, making a deal with the guy. These two manors were a bit of a millstone around his neck, since he owed service to Malahaut and had made a rather bad deal with the King to ensure that he would get a title for them. So definitely a mixed blessing.

- In a war against France, they helped Sir Kay to reconquer Normandy (which had slipped back to French control during the late 520s). Their own liege managed to conquer a small county, and four manors were given out as rewards to those who had contributed the most to the victory (both materially by giving out donations to the war chest as well as being the first on the walls, etc). The sister of the liege (a PK) got a manor as dowry and married off to a banneret (estate holder).

- One PK had a good chance of actually becoming a (compromise) Cambrian king in the Builth War, by showing off his generalship, being a RTK, and managing to earn the respect of the tribal chieftains. Alas, he did make a political misstep and the opportunity was lost, and he died soon after in any case. That would have been an honour-worthy achievement. Alas, with the death of their 'elder statesman', things broke down even more and the PKs managed to get their army surrounded in the Cambrian mountains, surrendering to the rebellious tribesmen than risk a 2:1 fight in a bad terrain. With such an ignominious ending for the active phase of the war, no manors were rewarded to the PKs, although King Arthur did salvage things in the negotiating table (Powys was going down, so Griflet's army was getting ready to march on Builth the next year, if the tribal chieftains didn't agree to Arthur's peace).

- A couple of high-Glory PKs got given gift manors by a grateful Earl, whose right to ruling the county was in question, and the PKs sided with him and fought for him in a group-duel as champions. The Earl also gave an heiress as wife to one of the above PKs, who happened to also be a RTK and not his own vassal (before).

- The Earl got captured during the Grail Quest by King Brian, and the PKs raised the ransom. Also, they defended Sarum against Cornwall and led the Salisbury Knights to destroy the Engine outside the walls of Camelot. For this, most of them got advantageous marriages (heiresses that had become available thanks to the Yellow Pestilence earlier and death during Grail Quest). In addition, the one who actually destroyed the Engine got a manor from Arthur. Others were given smaller rewards, and three PKs were made into RTKs, with others' names on the shortlist for the upcoming years (they had way too little Glory still).

- They recently helped the Kingdom of Gold (KoG) to deal with all the monsters that escaped due to the Enchantment fading in Britain, and got a manor a piece for that one. Explained by the fact that a lot of the knights got killed by the monsters and the idea of adding 3 RTKs & 1 almost RTK to his list of vassals appealed to the new king of KoG mightily. Besides, the PKs got on average something like 600 Glory out of all the fiends and griffons and such, almost dying a couple of times. 'Saving the Kingdom' comes to mind.


In the New Campaign (started 485, following GPC):

- Killing of Sir Gorlois: The PK responsible got a gift Estate (£70), with other PKs who helped as (gifted) vassals in that estate. Alas, with Uther's death and the Anarchy, there was no time to earn a change into a grant... not that it would have mattered so much with Cornwall on the rampage.

- Saving Countess Ellen and her children: After St. Albans, the senechal of Salisbury tried to usurp Salisbury. The PKs freed the hostages (the children) and exposed the Seneschal's treachery to others, forcing him to flee the County and restoring the Countess. The three PKs saving the children each got a manor for it (one via a suitable heiress), while the fourth one more prominent in the latter part became the Champion of Salisbury (which in our campaign was good for 50 Glory per year, I think, and Rich Knight upkeep, paid by the Countess). (I should probably also mention that those three PKs were all new ones, who hadn't had manors of their own yet. So admittedly, part of the generosity was to OOCly get them landed, too. But it happened to work out nicely.)

- Defeating ex-Praetor Syagrius: Syagrius had been trying to use the Anarchy to rebuild his new powerbase and invaded Salisbury with mercenary knights. The PKs managed to negotiate an alliance with Levcomagus (Sir Blains had died at St. Albans in our campaign) and together they managed to defeat the invasion. The main negotiator & eschille commander got a gift manor, while another PK who killed Syagrius got a wardship over a neighboring manor. Both of these PKs had pretty much missed the previous saving of the Countess, for IC (badly wounded at St. Albans) and OOC reasons (couldn't make it to the game).

- Liberating Rydychan: The main motivator and commander, who led the Salisbury + some loyal Rydychan knights to victory over the usurpers got rewarded (posthumously) with a manor. Another PK, who single-handedly took down 5 knights in a 7:1 fight (the PKs had been ambushed with 2:1 odds, and the enemies had gotten lucky with their lances), driving the other two away, got rewarded with a manor, too. (It helped that he got Critically Impassioned at just the right time, and that the melee was a fluid one on horseback; the enemies didn't manage to make full use of their numbers.) The other PKs didn't shine enough for manors of their own.

- Conquest of Medbourne. One manor, conquered by the force of arms.

I am going to repeat the same thing a couple of times below
Your query is based on an incorrect assumption




20 per day would be way way way too much. I'd be hesitant to even make it 1 glory per extra day.

No one gets Glory for doing their normal job


Something like 10 glory to stay on campaign when the liege asks you sounds more appropriate.

Yes, for the entire 20 days I think
Not household knights--they are always at their liege's beck and call


I am very much against the idea that the vassal knights would get additional glory for simply being available during the year, which is practically passive annual glory, one of the banes of Pendragon Glory inflation. Would household knights be eligible for the same glory for being available to their lords? Why not?
[/quote]
The only passive Glory obtained is for fulfilling Chivalry and Religious knighthood standards
When I made the "you missed a game play this" solos I tried to make no opportunity to gain Glory
Glory is gained from in-play adventuring overseen by the GM


Well...their lifestyle is sustained 24/7 by the lord, but it brings me back to my original point — how does one get awarded land in the first place (besides inheritance, I mean)?

Here is your mistaken assumption

When does one get a manor, and another, and other, and an estate (and another, etc.), much less an honour.

The answer is NEVER. It ought not be expected
The GM may see such extraordinary deeds to award it

Loyal service is something that a vassal knights would start at a disadvantage compared to a household knight, I think.

Absolutely
Household knights get the opportunities because they live with their liege and are the most trustworthy, the best-known to the liege--the best among them are familiars of the king


After all, the household knight is there 24/7. While admittedly the vassal knight is there voluntarily for 'extra time', from liege lord perspective there is not a huge difference. So it would be more something to distinguish between vassal knights themselves, especially as tie-breakers. Landholding is such a huge issue that a mere loyal service is probably not going to cut it. You'll need to back it up with Glory and actual big heroic events, like saving the liege lord's life, etc.

That is the point: Glory is gained for deeds
Not land
Getting land is the equivalent of winning the game. The knight retires to raise a family to inherit the land after him.
Expecting to get land is a false expectations


We had a go at suitable "awards" in ESTATE, but I think it would be cool to have more concrete guidelines, like:
3,000: the minimum threshold for a manor, and you might get another manor per 2,500 G
4,000: you're a good candidate for a comital office.
5,000: you're worthy of an estate
7,000: you're a candidate for royal office
12,000: the minimum for an honor, etc.
I'm not saying these are the numbers — but something like this. It doesn't have to be complicated at all. It would be nice to further have guidelines for rewards for different heroic actions. In ESTATE we list the sorts of deeds that made one "promotion worthy", but if you had some sort of scale as above coupled with some guidelines (even if they're fluid ranges — killing the Duke of Cornwall is worth 500–1,000 Glory, GM's discretion). All of this could be done on one page.

But there are no numbers of this sort
GLORY IS THE REWARD
oh wait--obtaining 1000 Glory in a single adventure ought to warrant something
Being knighted does not count for this
And there are only two things that get 1000 Glory: killing the Troit boar single-handed, and becoming a member of the Round Table



As examples... In GPC, the PKs are not getting rewarded with manors for helping Merlin retrieve Excalibur, even. They do gain brownie points, but those don't instantly turn into a second manor for the PKs. Also, even capturing Octa in the Battle of Lindsey, the PKs are just getting rewarded with money (pretty well rewarded, but still, no manors mentioned). Of course, some of that you could argue that GPC doesn't really hand out manors explicitly but leaves that for the GM. For example,


Because Glory is the reward
Not getting land
Holding land ought to be an entirely separate career track


Book of the Estate singles out killing Gorlois as something worthy of promotion (sidebar on p. 17 hints that this could be an actual estate,

Those samples are intended to show how hard it is to get land


although some of the examples given on p. 18 seem a bit too collective to hand out estates left and right, IMHO, such as defending Sarum vs. Cornwall),

I agree that collective activity does not warrant land
Now, single-handedly defending Castle of the Rock--that probably warrants some land


which totally goes unmentioned in GPC. Given BotE guidelines (capturing/killing enemy king), capturing Octa would be a good moment to be handing out manors (if a collective achievement) or even an estate (for a remarkable solo performance), too.

A collective capture of the king wouldn't warrant land


Agreed. The problem is the award of Glory is everywhere in the system,

Yes of course. It states up front in KAP that the object of the game is to collect Glory


but how to equate that Glory with land is barely addressed at all.

Because there is none


And if you're not landed, what good's all that Glory? I know it can influence Courtly skills and stuff, but it would be nice to see some sort of Glory scale for household knights, too. Better armor? Horses? Marriage track?

Glory is its own reward
You get to sit closer to the lord at dinner
It brings you to the attention of the king, so you might move to a higher liege lord
It is what everyone in the game world acknowledges as the most important factor



EDIT:
I might add quickly here that unlike in most of actual Medieval History, in Pendragon big heroics seem to be more expected.

Yes, that is correct
This is not a historical game, it is a fantasy roleplaying game based on literature


Thus, it is harder to simply 'plod' onto a manor, which I think would have been very rare to begin with. For example, William Marshal didn't get a county heiress for having served for X number of years. He got a county heiress since he was a recognized badass, probably the best knight of his generation, who had also demonstrated loyal service throughout his career, and he had been promised the heiress by the dying king. Finally, it was a good opportunity for Richard to show off his own generosity and honor by upholding that promise, even if he had himself been in rebellion against his own father at the time.

Richard didn't award the marriage, John did
Which means that Sir William loyally and without error served as the chief household knight for Henry the Young King, Henry II, Richard the Lion-hearted, and finally, John Lackland to make the score (And for completeness sake, let us add that he was also regent and served Henry III)
And yes, he was rewarded with the hand of the richest heiress in England, but he served the king for decades


Agreed, but the author specifically went out of his way to make a point that knights who stuck with John after their tenure got extra consideration when it came to awards. Just the Loyalty alone should be worth something.

Well, let's not forget that most of the barons revolted against King John (including William Marshall's son and heir), so it's not surprising that the few who remained got extra perqs


So yeah, the benefits of mere service would be below the land-rewarding scale. In our campaigns, this would show up with the liege being more amenable to giving permission to the knights to go questing, haring off on their own family affairs, or even allow/smooth way to marriages that would be a bit better than what the knight might ordinarily achieve (I think this latter is also accounted for by the Loyalty modifier in the Book of Entourage's Wife & Dowry Table). Also, that Loyalty / Homage 16+ is also good for being Inspired, and as Greg is fond of pointing out, Passions of 16+ come with their disadvantages, too. In this case, willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty.

That is the heart of the game

We had a go at suitable "awards" in ESTATE, but I think it would be cool to have more concrete guidelines, like:


For offices, Homage and actual ability would be more important than Glory, IMHO. If the liege trusts you and wants you for the job, it is yours.

As for land, I think I would keep the manor as a possibility regardless of the Glory. Even a squire who saves a baron's life is eligible. But i can see estates and honours being more difficult to attain, unless you have loads of Glory, too. Something like 4000 and 8000 might be my pick, with the understanding that this is just a guideline: you'll still have to earn it. 8000 because it is the minimum for the Round Table, and if you are good enough for that, you are good enough for everything else. Getting a honour would be a huge thing, though, well beyond normal campaign events.



Agreed. The problem is the award of Glory is everywhere in the system, but how to equate that Glory with land is barely addressed at all. And if you're not landed, what good's all that Glory? I know it can influence Courtly skills and stuff, but it would be nice to see some sort of Glory scale for household knights, too. Better armor? Horses? Marriage track?


[...]
I'd probably start looking at a loyal household knight of 8000 Glory as someone to cultivate a bit more, either upgrade to Rich Knight by the liege, or look for an heiress to marry him off to.


I am a bit more stingy GM that some when it comes rewarding land. The land is a limited resource, and once it is made into an inheritable grant, the liege is not (usually) getting it back. Let me look back at the two campaigns to see what merited a manor...
[...]


I suspect that Taliesin is not looking for a guaranteed "you are entitled to land after this much glory", but rather a guideline for the casual GM to know about when those awards take place.

The high book-keeping option would be to know who owns every manor and parcel, and keep track of their heirs and their fate in each battle. This makes it relatively easy to see who is most favored or first in line for a vacant manor.

I actually attempt this, to some degree, with my PBP campaign (I have a spreadsheet which tracks every vassal knight and manor in Salisbury for each year of the campaign). Then again, we go through 1 in-game year every 6 months or so, because it's PBP, so I can better afford the overhead.

For a face to face game, it might be nice to have a general rule of thumb, such as "most PKs will begin being considered for manor awards starting at around 3000 glory, and will generally be awarded sometime before reaching 7000 glory; it is at this point that GMs should begin looking for suitable deeds which might warrant such a reward."

BoE, p14 has the following to say:


For service past forty days inside the kingdom, whoever commands the army pays for upkeep (food, replacement horses, etc.) for everyone. Without that pay — or promise of it — any knight may go home without loss of Honor. Accusations of desertion, cowardice, or treachery are false.

For service past forty days outside the kingdom, the king pays upkeep and maintenance (a daily money fee of 8d. per knight, 1d. per soldier).

Easy promise to make, maintenance...

I suspect that Taliesin is not looking for a guaranteed "you are entitled to land after this much glory", but rather a guideline for the casual GM to know about when those awards take place.

Correct. If we can't tie the award of lands to Glory (which seems strange to me even if the award is not automatic, but whatever) at least we should know the sorts of deeds that could get you a manor, or estate, honour, etc...

We kinda sorta did that in ESTATE, but it wasn't specific to landholding size and one of the guidelines (killing Gorlois was worthy of an estate) was very nearly retracted later on these forums! It'd be great to have something like:

This deed is worthy of a manor, this many years of loyal service is worth an estate, etc.

Not that that a character will get one, automagically, but that a character may be a good candidate for one. Not rules. Guidelines. Right now, I confess I have NO IDEA when it's an appropriate award (barring the stuff I pushed for in ESTATE which doesn't cover manor or honors) and I don't want to be completely arbitrary about it.

My characters are just finishing up 495. They fought loyally at St Albans, and returned home to unmask a conspiracy for the Seneschal to take over in the vacuum that's left. They have declared for the Countess and Robert and will fight to see his right preserved. Several of the twenty Salisbury manors have had their lords killed in either St Albans or the Infamous Feast, and now, in the struggle for control of Salisbury, several other lords of that county (I'm looking at you Elad of Vagon) may die. Will the Countess award lands to her staunch supporters? I would think yes, but how much — a £10 manor? Several? An office? Castellanship (is that a word?)? An estate? I have no idea, and no guidelines, other than what I've see other people do in their campaigns online. Shouldn't we provide such guidelines? Do I have to go scrubbing through history books or blogs to try to figure it out?

That's all I'm after.


T.

I have given this some thought




I suspect that Taliesin is not looking for a guaranteed "you are entitled to land after this much glory", but rather a guideline for the casual GM to know about when those awards take place.
Correct. If we can't tie the award of lands to Glory (which seems strange to me even if the award is not automatic, but whatever) at least we should know the sorts of deeds that could get you a manor, or estate, honour, etc...

Only something absolutely unusual, something unique, might warrant a gift of land


We kinda sorta did that in ESTATE, but it wasn't specific to landholding size and one of the guidelines (killing Gorlois was worthy of an estate) was very nearly retracted later on these forums! It'd be great to have something like:
This deed is worthy of a manor,
Something absolutely unique


this many years of loyal service is worth an estate, etc.

basically, no deed is great enough for this


Not that that a character will get one, automagically, but that a character may be a good candidate for one. Not rules. Guidelines. Right now, I confess I have NO IDEA when it's an appropriate award (barring the stuff I pushed for in ESTATE which doesn't cover manor or honors) and I don't want to be completely arbitrary about it.

Then go with None


My characters are just finishing up 495. They fought loyally at St Albans, and returned home to unmask a conspiracy for the Seneschal to take over in the vacuum that's left. They have declared for the Countess and Robert and will fight to see his right preserved. Several of the twenty Salisbury manors have had their lords killed in either St Albans or the Infamous Feast, and now, in the struggle for control of Salisbury, several other lords of that county (I'm looking at you Elad of Vagon) may die. Will the Countess award lands to her staunch supporters?

No, probably not


I would think yes, but how much — a £10 manor?

No


Several?

No


An office?



Castellanship (is that a word?)?

This is an officer position, not a permanent a grant
Although later on (Romance, Tournament periods) these become hereditary through the demands and political machinations of the barons
That is, the job and its privileges are taken over
And in such a case, the king appoints new officers to do the actual work


An estate?

absolutely not


I have no idea, and no guidelines, other than what I've see other people do in their campaigns online. Shouldn't we provide such guidelines? Do I have to go scrubbing through history books or blogs to try to figure it out?

I want to get back to the fact that the gifting or granting of land was very, very rare except in the time of Ambrosius, who took over the whole land, threw out a whole bunch of landowner, and distributed to his major supporters
Like William the Conquerer did


That's all I'm after

I understand
But I wan to make it clear just how extraordinary a gift of land would be
Also, normally, it is not a piece that would diminish the liege's holding
He would, at best, arrange for a marriage to an heiress
The big opportunity for this is after the Battle of Badon, when the Saxons lands are taken
I think that a starting progression due to success would be like:
A cash gift, or a year's worth of upgrade
leadership of a few knights or a batch of foot soldiers (a temporary position)
becoming a familiar of the lord (a really, really high honor)
Performing special deeds for the lord
becoming an officer for the lord, in which land as a gift is received, or a payment per year, entirely to upgrade his lifestyle and make him appear the part

So when does someone get land?
He would probably be promised an heiress when she became available
When she did, the lord would hold onto her possessions for a couple of years
Then a marriage
Then, maybe right away, her properties or, if they are huge, a part of them
Then the lord would give out the rest slowly, in return for deeds done

Someone will ask: would he really be such a skinflint?
Yes, probably
The Generosity for which lords are noted is in the reward at the moment for a deed done
Or a small upgrade in living conditions, like having a groom
But they are really, really careful of giving away their sources of income
Those are preserved for heirs

Harsh
Yes
Difficult?
Yes

But it is clear to me that the game doesn't make this clear enough
The emphasis of the latest publications on the upper class should not indicate that any player knight should expect this
It was done to show what the upper class is like, to given a picture of their lifestyle and obligations
to illustrate the courtly setting which the PKs operate within

So does not one ever get land?
Sure, kill Duke Gorlois single-handed and get a gift from King Uther

YPWV, and if you wish to squander the nobles' future, that is fine with me
And I will continue to ponder

I am not quite as hard as Greg is when it comes to land, but



this many years of loyal service is worth an estate


Mere loyal service is a prerequisite, IMHO. You can serve loyally your whole life, indeed, the liege expects nothing less from his household knights, and not even see a manor. An estate would be right out, for just 'loyal service'. Deeds, big, heroic deeds are needed for land.



Will the Countess award lands to her staunch supporters? I would think yes, but how much — a £10 manor? Several? An office? Castellanship (is that a word?)? An estate?


Heck no on several manors and estates! The Countess would beggar herself and her son if she were handing out several manors to each of the PKs! :)

Our campaign was in a similar situation, and here is how the rewards were doled out:
1) Marriage to an heiress (hence no land off the Countess' hands)
2) Re-enfeoffement of a manor (within an estate), whose owning family had died out, in the estate heiress' name (again, no land off from Robert's patrimony... also, the estate heiress was not available for the PKs)
3) Gift of a manor (hence temporary; the land will return to Robert, as it did just a couple of years later)
4) Wardship of a manor heir (hence temporary, too)
5) Outright grant of a manor, but this was from 'empty' dower lands and part of the new Steward of Levcomagus making nice with Jenna, his bride, since the female knight in question was the one who actually saved her. (Also, the character was retiring, so...)

So, from all of these 5 'reward manors', the Countess was actually out 0, and Levcomagus 1 (out of ~20 or so new ones).

Use gifts and wardship for temporary rewards that give a taste but leave the PKs hungry to excel for more. There are bound to be some underaged heirs (or even heiresses) after St. Albans and whatever internecine fighting happened in Salisbury. Widows are good ones to dole out to the heroes, too.

My small problem is that having a manor during Anarchy is almost a punishment, given how harsh the Saxon Tribute payments are in GPC. As soon as you have more than one Saxon princeling showing up, the Players start groaning...

My characters are just finishing up 495. They fought loyally at St Albans, and returned home to unmask a conspiracy for the Seneschal to take over in the vacuum that's left. They have declared for the Countess and Robert and will fight to see his right preserved. Several of the twenty Salisbury manors have had their lords killed in either St Albans or the Infamous Feast, and now, in the struggle for control of Salisbury, several other lords of that county (I'm looking at you Elad of Vagon) may die. Will the Countess award lands to her staunch supporters?

No, probably not


I would think yes, but how much — a £10 manor?

No


That's all lovely and historical, but in the context of the game as presented is going to come as a shock to players. The "default" setting has every single PK being landed (at least to start with), and groups that start out (using random character generation per Book of Knights and Ladies, say, which seems to produce about 80% squires, let alone household knights) as unlanded knights are generally going to be expecting progression to the landed classes. Indeed, the PKs having a Manor, at least, is integral to one of the basic structures/processes in the game: "Dynastic roleplaying" that allows your players to obtain continuity to their tale. This becomes especially true given that unlanded knights were often unmarried, so their sons will be bastards, and largely struggling to get back into the knight game in the face of competition from all the second sons of the families holding the over-subinfeudated (from BotW, we know that lands of the contiguous Hundreds of Salisbury require the service of about 75 knights. There are 20 single manors subinfeudated to potential PKs, plus several manors for heiresses, and there must be more senior families of Salisbury who hold grants of land from the Count, historically; there's no suggestion that the PK families are generally office-holders). It seems to me that there would probably be enough junior sons from families which canonically hold land to fill out Ellen's need for (and ability to support) replacement knights while she's just dealing with the "ten contiguous Hundreds, Ebble and the Castles".

Except for casualties. And that's where the players have a potential "in", IMO. There will have been Lords of Salisbury who died heirless in the carnage that was the start of the '90s, with Lindsey, Terrabil and St Albans, plus the Feast, along with any internecine strife that leads to attainder within Salisbury; with the number of landed knights in Salisbury's eschilles, it's a near certainty. While it seems like a good opportunity for the County to bring land back into demesne holding (?disensubinfeudation? :) ), the whole point of subinfeudation (from the Lord's, in this case Ellen's, point of view) is to bind allies close, and loyal followers closer, and the Count never needed reliable allies as much as Robert does in the aftermath of St Albans.

By the time Ellen's settled in as guardian of the Boy Count, or the "Women shall not rule Salisbury" party have chucked her out on her ear, and Robert's died in a terrible hunting deliberate, the PKs (assuming they picked and helped make the winning side) will have had the opportunity to prove themselves loyal, competent supporters of the victors, and, IMO, binding them with Homage would seem to be a good move on the Count's part, since there will be parts of the County which were not historically part of the County patrimony available to dole out.

Sure, we can play a game of Squires, or reroll a new, unrelated, knight every time we lose a character to the merciless combat mechanics, but that's failing to engage with one of the USPs of the game as I see it: Dynastic Roleplaying. And Dynastic Roleplaying requires progeny to be heirs, and for heirship to mean much, the inheritance needs to be able to support a knight.