It takes 6L or a Vassal Knight to maintain himself as an ordinary knight. 4L or the knight plus 2L or the wife. If the knight doesn't have a wife (i she dies in childbirth, or example), then it costs him 4L to maintain himself as an ordinary knight, plus 1L to hire a Steward and another 1L per year to pay the Steward.

But what happens if the knight maintains himself as a rich or superlative knight? Is the wife's portion a fixed 2L, or is it one-third of the knight's maintenance?

I would suspect the latter, since if the knight is living as a rich knight (or poor) his wife would also live accordingly, but I can't find anything official on this.

The costs of maintaining yourself as Rich or Superlative knight are, I think, independent of whether you are married or not.

It's not just about the benefits gained on childbirth, etc., you also need the demonstration of luxury (or excess) that comes with that spending. If you don't have a wife and family to lavish your money on, you spend it in other ways - so that you are still seen to be rich or superlative. You get glory for it, after all.

That's my rationale anyway.

If someone asked me this moment about Standard of Living, I would say this:

if you do not maintain yourself (and our wife and household) at the appropriate standard,
you lose a point of Honor per year.

If you maintain yourself at a higher total than required, you get the perks of the standard (extra servants, etc.) and Glory.

Let me clarify:
If a knight doesn't (currently) have a wife, how much less does it cost to maintain himself at the various grades?

Normally the "wife's portion" is 2L out of 6L. If a Knight was living as a rich knight, that would normally mean spending at least 9L a year, but if he didn't have a wife, should it cost him 7L (9L-2L) or 6L (9L-one third)?

Let me clarify:
If a knight doesn't (currently) have a wife, how much less does it cost to maintain himself at the various grades?

Normally the "wife's portion" is 2L out of 6L. If a Knight was living as a rich knight, that would normally mean spending at least 9L a year, but if he didn't have a wife, should it cost him 7L (9L-2L) or 6L (9L-one third)?
In my group we do like this:
- First we have the SoL (standard of living) för a knight, his squire(s) and his horses. This is 3£/6£/10£/15£ for poor, ordinary, rich and superlative lifestyles.
- If the knight lives his life "on the road", as in adventuring most of the year or is at war, we up the cost of living one step.
- THen we add a cost for having a wife and family, with 1/2/4/8 depending on SoL.
- This way a knight can live on one SoL himself, and support his family on a different level. We have, for example, one knight, living his life poor "on the road", while supporting his family @ rich. He gets all the penalties to horse survival and armor deterioration and such for being poor, but his wife and kids have a bigger chance of surviving the winter events.
- SO, to get to the question being discussed here: we add a cost for family (among other things). That way a Superlative (15£) adventuring (6£) knight, supporting his family @ a superlative level (8£) has to pay a total of 29£ per year.

// M

If someone asked me this moment about Standard of Living, I would say this:

if you do not maintain yourself (and our wife and household) at the appropriate standard,
you lose a point of Honor per year.

If you maintain yourself at a higher total than required, you get the perks of the standard (extra servants, etc.) and Glory.




Even if the knight can't afford his appropriate level of maintenance for a year? I seem to remember the rulebook saying something like there was no dishonour in being a poor knight?

If someone asked me this moment about Standard of Living, I would say this:
if you do not maintain yourself (and our wife and household) at the appropriate standard,
you lose a point of Honor per year.
If you maintain yourself at a higher total than required, you get the perks of the standard (extra servants, etc.) and Glory.

Even if the knight can't afford his appropriate level of maintenance for a year?


Yes.



I seem to remember the rulebook saying something like there was no dishonour in being a poor knight?


Yea, the quote from Sir Balin a little while before he chops off Nineve's head.
This is causing me some problems, but I'm thinking about it.
Perhaps Sir Balin was always poor and this wasn't a step down in his standards? :-D

Actually, the problem with poverty is that it is indicative that one is not doing his duty to his station.
A knight has an obligation to display his station.

Assumptions are made about a poor knight.

Proof is required to indicate one is still honorable without the right tatches.


Being poor in itself is not a problem, but living beneath your station is a problem.

Well, just a brief note:

Living as a Poor Knight, if you're not a banneret, is nothing major; you're not the only one.

There's already rules for living as an impoverished knight. If you're a vassal knight doing this, then your lord has a right to yank your manors and toss you out on your ass (which loses you honor) because, as said, you're not fulfilling your feudal duties. If you're a household knight, by contrast, your lord is the one whose honor is going to spiral into the toilet, and you have the right to fling down the gauntlet the moment you get a better offer.

Yea, the quote from Sir Balin a little while before he chops off Nineve's head.
This is causing me some problems, but I'm thinking about it.
Perhaps Sir Balin was always poor and this wasn't a step down in his standards? :-D


Or he's now realised that he's lost any chance of preferment from any right-thinking court and so he's looking at a precarious career as a mercenary/errant knight. So perhaps he's talking up his situation?

Regards
Luke

In my experience, the penalties for being a poor knight - increased chance of death of children and horses (with no free replacement) - have been enough that no player chooses to be poor if they can afford to be ordinary. So, an extra penalty may not be needed.

In my experience, the penalties for being a poor knight - increased chance of death of children and horses (with no free replacement) - have been enough that no player chooses to be poor if they can afford to be ordinary. So, an extra penalty may not be needed.


Yeah. My players try to live a high as they can in order to protect their heirs and exceptional horses.





Yea, the quote from Sir Balin a little while before he chops off Nineve's head.
This is causing me some problems, but I'm thinking about it.
Perhaps Sir Balin was always poor and this wasn't a step down in his standards? :-D


Since knights often have failings on one sort of another, I'd suggest that in Balin's case his traits made up for his being poor/failing to live up to the proper standard. Perhaps a character who merits the Chivalry bonus can get away with living as a Poor Knight without dishonoring himself?


Considering the vows of poverty that often went with some of the fighting orders (Templars, Hospitlars) perhaps such a vow warrants a similar break?

Considering the vows of poverty that often went with some of the fighting orders (Templars, Hospitlars) perhaps such a vow warrants a similar break?


Perhaps the difference is not the holy vow itself but the fact that an Impoverished Templar still has a top-of-the-line steed, armor, and weapons, courtesy of his not-at-all-Impoverished Order.

Perhaps the difference is not the holy vow itself but the fact that an Impoverished Templar still has a top-of-the-line steed, armor, and weapons, courtesy of his not-at-all-Impoverished Order.


Well...maybe. It is true that once the Templars were established the order got very rich, and many Knights Templar maintained a high standard of living, at the Order's expense. Indeed, it was the Templars vast wealth that ultimately led to thier downfall.

But that was not always the case, nor were all the fighting orders as rich and successful as the Templars.

I'm sure that the vow of poverty such knights took was not meant with respect to the upkeep of armour, horses, and maintaining their own health (food to maintain healthy fighting fitness).
So, those kinds of poor knights could still be Ordinary (or even Superlative) without breaching their order's vows. The upkeep of a superlative knight templar, for instance, would be spending money on the poor, rather than buying the latest fashionable silks, etc.

Yeah, poverty just meant personal poverty; they weren't actually poor, they just held all the property in common.


The upkeep of a superlative knight templar, for instance, would be spending money on the poor, rather than buying the latest fashionable silks, etc.
the sheer number of polemics from both within and without the Church indicates that the templars (and the rest of the monastic world) were just as dissolute and debauched as the secular world, so I guess the traditional outlet for excess cash would be open as well.

Yes, I wasn't thinking of the Knight's Templar specifically, but more generally how a templar-style knight would work in Pendragon

They would totally be medieval communists. They share everything in common, allocated to each knight by a central authority, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
"The goods of the monastery, that is, its tools, clothing, or anything else, should be entrusted to brothers whom the abbot appoints . . . He will, as he sees fit, issue to them the various articles to be cared for and collected after each use . . . Above all, this evil practice [private ownership] must be uprooted and removed from the monastery . . . All things should be the common possession of all, as it is written [Acts 4:32], so that no one presumes to call anything his own." --The Rule of St. Benedict, upon which I'm pretty sure the Templar Rule was based.

My next character is totally going to be the Red Knight.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/doorknobdeity/TheRedKnight-2.png