When running through the first scenario involving the bear and the village of Imber my new Player Knights refused the offer of sleeping space at Old Gar's house and instead went to the small and simple hall of the local Knight and stayed there. They didn't quite demand hospitality but there were quite insistent on it.

They had criticalled a Stewardship roll and therefore knew the situation of the village pretty well. So therefore they gathered that the village had little in the way of farmland or animals and therefore had to be relying on the woods for food. Food that they also knew couldn't be gathered because of the bear.

Despite this they made sure they ate their fill at the manor or the Knight, who I had said was already at court in Sarum on business. Witnessing Gar eat sparingly they still tucked in and went back for more.

Looking back I should have awarded Selfish checks.

However what I am planning on doing is having the Knight of the manor being not to pleased with the new Knights and have a grudge against them.

So my question is he is being reasonable or did the Squires, as they were at the time, behave as Knights would?

Was that an abuse of hospitality or just selfishness?

It seems a bit mild to be an abuse. They were simply demanding their knightly prerogative.
If they had insisted on staying for several days, longer than they needed for the mission just to wallow in luxury, then it would be abusive.

If they had refused food that was offered, I'd have been inclined to give Generous checks, but it would have to be pretty over-the-top indulgence at the hall to qualify for selfish. And then, it would be more likely an Indulgent mark.

That said, there's no reason the knight couldn't have a grudge against them. For a start, they've sorted out a problem he couldn't - and them being only squires. His pride could be affronted.

OK so it's within the bounds of Knightly prerogatives and not abuse, well that works just fine given as how I didn't give those selfish checks.

Oh yes they'll have an enemy at court regardless, I was just figuring out his motivations.

Thanks again.

I agree with Darren,

It's all part of the feudal system. The host if honor bound to provide for his guests, regardless of the state of the land. Failure to do so would reflect poorly on the host, not the guests.

Historically, the knight would probably be forced to squeeze the peasants if necessary. It's harsh, but its the way of the world back then. Famine occurs about 1/3rd the time normally, so this situation is very common.

OK so does Sir Dafydd de Imber have any reason to be publicly aggrieved at the Squires?

In private his pride will have been prickled that while he was away on business a group of Squires did what he could "easily" have done but what, if anything, could he confront them with?

Perhaps he'll just demean their actions and offend the new Knights pride and honour.

Publicly aggrieved? No.
In fact, it would probably reflect poorly on him if he were to do so. Privately he has some options.

Probably the easiest way to avenge himself would be to go visit each of the squires homes and do the same thing.

Publicly aggrieved? No.
In fact, it would probably reflect poorly on him if he were to do so. Privately he has some options.

Probably the easiest way to avenge himself would be to go visit each of the squires homes and do the same thing.


I don't think the squires did anything wrong, even in being gluttons, in being rude, etc.
They are nobility, lordly born and lordly destined.

However, from the big fuss gong on I have to wonder what that woman told the knight these visitors did! :o

--G

Is it really their knightly prerogative when they weren't even knighted yet? Assuming you were playing the introductory scenario in order, the "player knights" were actually squires. I am not sure squires are entitled to an awful lot.

I'm starting a new campaign tomorrow (yay) and I'm modifying the introductory scenario slightly (so that it isn't identical for the players who played in my last campaign, but so that it still teaches the same rules for new players). The modified scenario will still involve the squires going to Imber (only this time to chase a criminal, not a bear). If any of them demand their knightly prerogative of hospitality from the local knight, I think I'll have the local knight point out that they're not knights yet.

Hmm... typing this has made me decide to create the local knight and make sure he has a low Hospitality passion... such a knight would be bound to be one the players would remember the next time they see him in Sarum :)

I don't think the squires did anything wrong, even in being gluttons, in being rude, etc.
They are nobility, lordly born and lordly destined.

I don't either. They visited a manor and ate well. Hardly a breech of hospitality. It's not like they were insulting or grabbed the knight's relatives.

So what if the villagers are starving, it would have been a breech of etiquette not to have visted the manor, and possibly a slur on the Knight's ability to maintain his fief if the squires had pointed out the situation in the village and refused food.





However, from the big fuss gong on I have to wonder what that woman told the knight these visitors did! :o

--G


Reminds me of the time when someone ate my sister's M&M's. They way she told it, you'd have thought it was a capital crime.


But...
If the Knight choose to take offense at thier behavior, there is nothing to prevent him from stopping by thier manors (or family manor) for a meal or two.

So, while it has been brought up - is there a knight in charge of Imber or could the manor be knightless? I don't think the rulebook mentions one.

The idea of the squires "encroaching" on some other knight's turf, to kill something he should have taken care of doesn't sit well with me.

Unless of course the knight can't be bothered or the squires are just facing this test alone.

It was a test given them by Elad. I would assume the knight was busy elsewhere, on the earl's orders.
Any 'encroachment' would be in the knights mind - his sense of pride as people talk about the squires killing the bear on his land, maybe some joking about how he needed boys to do a man's work, etc.

Or... maybe the knight was being lax, and Elad was actually deliberately showing him up, by getting the squires to do the job he should have been doing.

Maybe the knight was a werebear? ;)

It would explain why the wife got so upset. ;D

I don't believe that the adventure mentions if Imber has a Knight or not, however it seemed reasonable enough to add one and his absence on "business" for the Earl explained why Squires would be sent to deal with the problem. That the villagers tales of a giant bear didn't seem to be believed would also explain why Sir Elad didn't see fit to send another Knight or two to deal with the problem, he wasn't expecting there to be much trouble.

There was no wife just a steward looking after the absent Knight's hall.

I'll go with the Knight being mocked for having the Squires do what he feels that he should have been doing rather than being away on some errand.

Thanks for all the responses.

Is it really their knightly prerogative when they weren't even knighted yet? Assuming you were playing the introductory scenario in order, the "player knights" were actually squires. I am not sure squires are entitled to an awful lot.


Squires are part of the knightly class.
They deserve respect and a sort of "slightly fewer prerogatives" than a knight.

The advenutre makes no mention of a knight or a manor nearby. In fact, it seems to suggest that the village is a bit isolated. Hence the reasons why the squires get simple fare.

But, since you added a manor already, it makes sense to add a knight.

Mind you, I don't think he has much to complain about. Consider:

1) If it was his job to handling the matter. why didn't he? (His fault). If his leige sent him away, then the knight should be greatful that his liege looks out for his lands while he is away.

2) The squires didn't come here to upstage the knight, but were sent here by Sir Elad, almost certainly at the wish of the Earl. So if the Knight's complaint, if any would be with the Earl or Sir Elad, not the squires, who were just doing their duty.

If the Earl did send a group of squires to fix a problem in the knights fief, it might have been meant as a sort of chastisement to the knight. Basically, take care of your fief or I'll find somebody who will, permanently.

About the only real possibility of being insulted that I see would be if Sir Elad send the squires out after the bear on his own initiative. Basically sending message that he thinks the knight was either not up to the task or was shirking his duties. If so, the knight might be upset at Elad.

But getting upset with the squires is hardly justified. Because they killed a bear they were ordered to while serving thier liege lord? Because they ate and drank well? Even if the feasted they didn't use up more than a shilling's worth of food. If he was that low on food, why didn't the Knight go out and kill the bear for the meat?

Frankly I'm a little suspicious of this guy's Hospitality and Loyalty (Lord) passions?

What would he do if he got a Liege visits result on the events table?

Basically, the guy seems like a jerk. If you want him to bear some sort of grudge against the PCs, okay, but I don't think he has a justifiable excuse.

Of course, you could also have him get upset over an imagined slight. Especially since he is getting all the events second hand. What if his wife felt one of the squires was flirting with her (or her daughter) or ig she took a fancy for one of the squires and felt somehow rebuffed? What if the knight's daughter was pregnant and, rather than admits she slept with a commoner, blamed one of the squires? Or maybe she fell for a squire and just claims to be pregnant?

That could give the knight some real motivation to be angry with the squires and want revenge.

If that is what you want.