If I am correct, a knight does not have the authority to kill another knight (unless in a tournament where death is a possibility), although he can imprison and ransom them. Say I have a group of knights working border patrol for the earl (Roderick) and they happen across another group of knights, say from Silchester. They demand that the Silchester knights accompany them back to Sarum to report their business to the earl but the knights refuse and a fight ensues. If any of the Silchester knights are killed (inadvertently as can easily happen in combat) what happens? Are the knights reprimanded? Do they have to pay a blood price to the family of the deceased knight or, as the incident took place while they were working for the earl, does he cough up the blood price or smooth the incident over with Ulfius? Or is it all just fair game?

If I am correct, a knight does not have the authority to kill another knight


That's not quite correct.
I'm gonna take a wild guess that this is from the statement that a knight can not deliver High Justice?
Knights are warriors first, and their primary job is to fight and win. That usually mans killing.



(unless in a tournament where death is a possibility),


It's not that death is allowed at a tournament!
Accidents always happen.



although he can imprison and ransom them.


...for his lord.
It is wise to do this, because it is how to get money.
This is also done as a sign of respect, of the bond between warrior brothers who may be opposed, but who share the ideals and rights of knights.
And did I mention the money?



Say I have a group of knights working border patrol for the earl (Roderick) and they happen across another group of knights, say from Silchester. They demand that the Silchester knights accompany them back to Sarum to report their business to the earl but the knights refuse and a fight ensues. If any of the Silchester knights are killed (inadvertently as can easily happen in combat) what happens?


Silchester widows weep and heirs gnash their teeth and swear revenge.
Earl Roderick listens cloely to the account, especially where it occurred, and praises whomever did exceptionally well.
Earl Robert accepts the report as one more grim sign of either: 1. Silchester's bad intent; or 2. an inconvenient accident.
He acts accordingly.



Are the knights reprimanded?


Praised, I think.
They did their job.



Do they have to pay a blood price to the family of the deceased knight or, as the incident took place while they were working for the earl, does he cough up the blood price or smooth the incident over with Ulfius? Or is it all just fair game?


Nothing is paid, nothing is due. This is a normal type of incident, not abnormal
Everyone was doing their job.

NOW, blood price CAN be paid to end cause for dispute, but no one expects it.

Excellent. Thanks for the great answer.



That's not quite correct.
I'm gonna take a wild guess that this is from the statement that a knight can not deliver High Justice?
Knights are warriors first, and their primary job is to fight and win. That usually mans killing.


It comes from here.. Noble Prisoners KAP5 p.23
"Surprisingly, even enemies of the worst kind do not kill their enemies. Hated murderers languish away in prison rather than being hung or killed. Player-character knights may occasionally spend years in prison this way, for reasons the Gamemaster must understand.

The answer lies in the fact that most knights and lords do not have the right of life and death over their prisoners. This is determined by the division of Justice into High and Low, as mentioned above. Most lords have the rights only to Low Justice, which allows them to enforce most laws except those of capital crimes. Any crime that warrants death of the culprit is a matter of High Justice, enforceable only by a king. To execute a criminal would be unusual and illegal, drawing the lord’s attention and wrath significantly enough that the knight might lose his station for disobedience to his rightful office.

Remember, most knights are law-abiding in their own realm and sworn to uphold their king’s justice. Thus, instead of killing his foe, a knight will simply throw the offender into jail, a thing which is well within the rights of his office."


although he can imprison and ransom them.

...for his lord.


I thought the ransom money went to the knight. Are you suggesting that the ransom money goes to the knight's lord instead?

What that means, Pramalot, is that knights aren't supposed to execute surrendered foes. It means that if an enemy surrenders, they should be taken back to Sarum rather than lynched on the spot. But if someone is killed resisting arrest, hey, it happens (and in almost all cases, the knight will be taken at his word if he says that the enemy was "killed resisting arrest" or "cut down trying to flee," though it's obviously Deceitful to pretend that that's the case).

Excellent. Thanks for the great answer.



That's not quite correct.
I'm gonna take a wild guess that this is from the statement that a knight can not deliver High Justice?
Knights are warriors first, and their primary job is to fight and win. That usually mans killing.


It comes from here.. Noble Prisoners KAP5 p.23
[i]"Surprisingly, even enemies of the worst kind do not kill their enemies. Hated murderers languish away in prison rather than being hung or killed. Player-character knights may occasionally spend years in prison this way, for reasons the Gamemaster must understand.


Got it.
OK, that is referring to criminal doings.
If the enemy is actually invading, that is no criminal, that is war.




although he can imprison and ransom them.

...for his lord.


I thought the ransom money went to the knight. Are you suggesting that the ransom money goes to the knight's lord instead?


Actually, there is a chunk of "money you never see" accounting here, where the prisoner is handed over to the liege who does the negotiating for his ransom, and collects it, and gives the share shown to the knight who did the capture.

For that reason, the ransoms for the upper ranks nobles are probably too high, but there it is anyway.

Oops, I let players knights themselves handle the ransom negotiation. So as GM, how do you decide if an enemy pays his ransom.
And if the dice/GM decides a prisoner is not ransomed, then what are the steps a player knight can take (and with what consequences)?
[Released (generous), Keep in dungeon till rotten (arbitrary), execute (cruel), release on promise of later payment (trusting)]?
As GM I'd like some table for that, since some of my players are already 'showing signs of complaint' of being too arbitrary as GM when something/someone is or is not paid/ransomed/released...


fg,
Thijs

I think an older edition used a a Loyalty (Lord) roll for household knights.

If the players are thinking you are being too arbitrary about whether to pay the ransoms, you are not paying the ransoms often enough.

My default situation: the ransom is always paid.
That's the default - I only devitae from it if I have a good reason. It's worth bearing in mind that every knight and lord in the land relies on the feudal ties continuing to exist. Your enemy and your own lord are united in ensuring that this remains so - it's the end of the world if it starts to fail (knights may start to question their loyalty to their lieges, etc.). That's unthinkable.

Also, ransoms are one of the major rewards players can expect in Pendragon. You undermine their expectations and cheat them, if you refuse to give them ransoms when they have earned them.

That said, there are cases when a ransom might not be paid - but every single one is an important exception from the norm, and you should have a campaign reason why it happened.

For instance, if the players have had a campaign of aggression against a particular enemy (or vice-versa), then one side may keep the other locked up for years without demanding a ransom(and someone else will probably come to rescue them in that case) - or they may demand a higher than usual ransom. But such actions are usually motivated by strong hate (or maybe love: a knight might keep a love rival locked up).

Sometimes a ransom might not be paid for years simply because a lord is suffering hardship. Usually though he can tax his peasants to get it, and the wellbeing of his knights is more important than his peasants, so this should be rare.

Also, the players might capture a rare knight who has no honour at all - who promises to pay the ransom for his freedom, and then never returns. That's unusual, because such a knight must expect to be never given the option to yield again - by the pcs or by anyone else once the tale is told.

Villainous knights often capture knights and just keep them locked up (rarely executing them) - why, when they could ransom them? Good question - you'd have to ask Malory. But that behaviour is roundly condemned - they do it because they are villains, and are usually outside the normal feudal structure - they probably answer to no-one, and have no-one to ransom them if they get captured. The Robber barons that spring up during the anarchy are a good example. But players will nearly always know when they are dealing with someone like this, before they ask for a ransom.

The exception: if you release someone on promise of being paid, you are giving them the temptation not to pay. They can fully intend to pay, but other things keep coming up that need paying first... So when a player releases a knight on promise of payment, I do decide if he will start to make excuses later on. I often give a delay of a year or two later than promised (unless the knight is a paragon, like say Lancelot): I will roll the knight's generous or honour or similar trait, and if he fails, he is delaying out of convenience. If he succeeds, he is delaying because he has a good reason (his estate is suffering a famine, his lord has demanded extra taxes this year, whatever). The player won't know. This gives the player the opportunity to press the issue, and see if he badmouths the knight - thus encouraging him to delay further or challenge over the issue. But if they keep they cool, the knight usually pays up. Sometimes players are generous and let the knight off. Sometimes it is the tart of a generational feud. Fun times.

Hope that helps!

Sounds logical, but what about Saxon Heorthgants? Especially ones from Anglia that rebelled again against Arthur? :)

fg,
Thijs

Most saxons player-knights meet aren't worth ransom, and usually get sold into serfdom like bandits. Likewise, my saxons tend not to ransom knights, unless they can make it especially humiliating. They will keep prisoners in foul conditions, and maybe just kill them. There are noble saxons though, that act just like knights in many ways.

The ransoms taken in battle are different: I usually assume these are immediate after-battle arrangements, along with prisoner exchanges and such-like. The players are getting a ransom for their captured saxons, while at the same time, elsewhere, saxons are handing over knights for money.

Some battles (like, say, Badon) are too brutal for such exchanges - and both sides just kill off their captives, or sell them into slavery.

Also if u want to give the knights there ransom, but dont feel comfortable just handing them HUGE chunks of money , there is another way to handle it. Payments. Sometimes a knight cant raise all the money for his ransom up front so on his word of honor, he is let go and then pays a certain amount every year at the same time every year until it is fully paid. This spreads the funds out and also gives u an excuse if you want to reduce the total ransom. What if , for example the first few years of ransom were paid but then you were able to concoct a reason why the they stopped? After all if a knight fails to pay up he loses honor. It might be acceptable for a knight with a 17 honor to lose a few points rather than pay 150Libra!!! he might seee it that way anyway... Depends on that particular knights stance. You are still a knight unless ur honor score dips below a 6 i believe!!!!!!!! Just some thing to think about.... :P

Somewhat relevant:
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/labels/Hawley%20and%20Shakell.htm


. . . Hawley and Shakell, who captured a Spanish count in the 14th century wars and spent decades trying to cash in on their "good fortune." Hawley ended up being murdered in Westminster Abbey (I recall being told it was during high mass) by thugs working for a royal duke, who wanted control of the captive to promote his diplomatic schemes.

Very interesting - that could be a fun thing for players to experience. Having a rich captive, who is from a distant land, and having various difficulties linked with getting the ransom.

Very interesting - that could be a fun thing for players to experience.

Deceitful check. ;D

It might be fun thing for someone to experience, but I don't think you really meant fun for the players.

I suspect all the evil cackling will probably tip the players off that something isn't going to go quite right on this ransom.

I must admit, I do sometimes have difficulty keeping a straight face when GMing, and have been known to cackle evillly (well, that's how I like to think of it, but it's more accurate to call it a giggling fit - like the one your post just gave me). ;D