One of my PCs has asked if/when his younger brother(s) can/will become knights and I'm not sure of the answer. Am I doing this right?;

I assume that when you have a son, and he's old enough to be knighted, you (as in you the PK) can knight him and the peasants have to cough up the cash to cover it. I also assume that you can do this once as part of one of the four universal aids. But what happens early in play, when you have no sons (or no sons old enough) but you have younger brothers? So far I have just assumed they are not knights and will not by knighted by the earl until the main PK dies. However, if the main PK lives for some considerable time this then means the younger brothers will never be knighted. Is that right? And if not can the main PK knight younger brothers as he would sons or can it only be done by the earl?

One of my PCs has asked if/when his younger brother(s) can/will become knights and I'm not sure of the answer. Am I doing this right?;

I assume that when you have a son, and he's old enough to be knighted, you (as in you the PK) can knight him and the peasants have to cough up the cash to cover it. I also assume that you can do this once as part of one of the four universal aids.

The son will be knighted by whoever his liege lord is. That will rarely be his father.

Also, the son will rarely be knighted earlier than age 21, though it can happen.


But what happens early in play, when you have no sons (or no sons old enough) but you have younger brothers? So far I have just assumed they are not knights and will not by knighted by the earl until the main PK dies.

Seems reasonable.


However, if the main PK lives for some considerable time this then means the younger brothers will never be knighted. Is that right?

That is correct. Note that most members of a family are not going to be knighted. If your main PK dies, the reason the earl knights one of those other family members, is a game design reason: it's to allow the player to keep the same family going when he hasn't been able to produce sons.

Some GMs don't do this. I've run games where, if the player's knight dies, and his sons all die before reaching maturity, that family dies. Maintaining a dynasty throughout the campaign isn't assured. (In practice, if you get through the first or second generation, you are guaranteed to go all the way because you have several branches: the first generation produces more than one son; each of those sons produce another branch of the family; by the end of the campaign a player might have more than a dozen men of knightable age).


And if not can the main PK knight younger brothers as he would sons or can it only be done by the earl?

An interesting question. If the knight has a household large enough to support the extra knights, he could do it. (He might need the Earl's permission, but probably not.) The thing is: their loyalty would be directed to him, and he would be responsible for paying their upkeep (or giving them land).
[/quote]

Darren, thanks.

Your reply has actually raised more questions in my mind though.




One of my PCs has asked if/when his younger brother(s) can/will become knights and I'm not sure of the answer. Am I doing this right?;

I assume that when you have a son, and he's old enough to be knighted, you (as in you the PK) can knight him and the peasants have to cough up the cash to cover it. I also assume that you can do this once as part of one of the four universal aids.

The son will be knighted by whoever his liege lord is. That will rarely be his father.

Also, the son will rarely be knighted earlier than age 21, though it can happen.


This means I had this completely wrong. However;

KAP5 p160.. 1. Knighting of the Eldest Son: Creating a new knight is expensive (£8 minimum). This money is raised to outfit a man with the equipment listed for an Ordinary knight. However, the tax may not be enough to outfit the candidate. A father has choices to make here: He can squeeze his people (and incur their hate), pay from his own treasury, or outfit his son as a Poor knight.

You can see how I arrived at my present way of thinking. This suggests to me a knight can knight his son, and squeeze the peasants to pay for it. Or does this only refer to the earl, not a landed knight?

On the subject of younger brothers not being knights this did cause me some problems during character creation, particularly when determining Family Knights. The die roll for this is 1d6+1. With no younger brothers or older brothers allowed to be knights, I had to farm these out to cousins. Is that right?

One of my PCs has asked if/when his younger brother(s) can/will become knights and I'm not sure of the answer. Am I doing this right?;


Perhaps Knights & Ladies explains this better. All of these six are actually variable, especially throughout the campaign.

To become a knight, only six things matter:
1. Noble blood
2. Being of age
3. Proper training
4. Proper equipment
5. Opportunity (i.e., a job opening…)
6. Swearing the Oath of Knighthood


I assume that when you have a son, and he's old enough to be knighted, you (as in you the PK) can knight him


In the Uther and Anarchy Period, yes, you can, although if there is an earl he will insist on the right.
Later, it becomes the prerogative of nobles, then of King Arthur himself, to knight.



and the peasants have to cough up the cash to cover it.


Yes.
The peasants will pay this, a "traditional fee" as required.



I also assume that you can do this once as part of one of the four universal aids.


Once. For the eldest son



But what happens early in play, when you have no sons (or no sons old enough) but you have younger brothers? So far I have just assumed they are not knights and will not by knighted by the earl until the main PK dies.


That is correct.
Except in the Uther and Anarchy Periods.
I know it's just fudged over in the rules, but here's a clearer explanation about that.

The six requirements above are vague in this period. In fact, the concept of knighthood itself is rather vague. The key fact is that certain people are supported by nobles or by their own means to outfit as well equipped fighting men. They are called milites and have armor, and ride horses, and are trained in shock cavalry tactics.

In Uther and Anarchy Periods, of the six: "Noble blood" doesn't matter--your milite who get established are the source of future claims; "Being of age" in this desperate time means you fight; "Proper training" is key, and probably learned from your father; "Proper equipment" is critical, a part of the job itself; "Opportunity" (i.e., a job opening…) presents itself whenever the king calls out troops; and "Swearing the Oath of Knighthood" is the same as searing fealty to a lord.

But if you are playing in that rough and tumble dark age period, there are no Universal Aides yet either. :o

I chose, for simplicity sake, to project the K&L requirements upon earlier ages.



However, if the main PK lives for some considerable time this then means the younger brothers will never be knighted. Is that right?


Yes. He'll have to find a job somewhere. He becomes part of the gentry, the non-knighted knightly class. It is not heroic, is not particularly connected to the player knight, and I'll address it in the "someday imagined" Book of Family.



And if not can the main PK knight younger brothers as he would sons or can it only be done by the earl?


See above about knighting.

Greg, thanks for the detailed answer.

I am currently in the Uther phase (488 to be precise). From reading your reply it would seem that I have it just about right.

You know, with both the significant differences in pre-Badon and post-Badon knighthood, and the sheer popularity of the Uther and Anarchy periods (probably because they're where everyone starts), we might end up needing a Book of Milites!