It says in the rulebook that a knight typically receives £6 per year as his manor's income.

But how much of it is normally spent on his wife, his retinue, keeping his manor and equipment in good shape, etc.? All of it? Some of it? None of it? Just how much spare cash do you normally receive if your harvest was normal?

Second question, what if you have two manors, and one of them says you are "impoverished" while the other one says you are "superlative", do they cancel each other out and you get a normal income? And do you get extra income (i.e. more than the regular income when you own a single manor) for each extra manor?

But how much of it is normally spent on his wife, his retinue, keeping his manor and equipment in good shape, etc.? All of it? Some of it? None of it? Just how much spare cash do you normally receive if your harvest was normal?


None. A knight living at a normal living standard in an average year with an average harvest, spends everything he earns. You have no spare cash rolling around in your pocket. I do believe it is possible to reduce your expenses by £1 per year by not being married, thereby saving the money you would spend on the upkeep of your wife, but that's about all. Of course, if you live at less than average - poor etc - then you'll have a surplus which you can spend elsewhere.



Second question, what if you have two manors, and one of them says you are "impoverished" while the other one says you are "superlative", do they cancel each other out and you get a normal income? And do you get extra income (i.e. more than the regular income when you own a single manor) for each extra manor?


Are you using the expanded manorial system from The Book of the Manor? For simplicity, I tend to have additional manors provide an extra £5 each (the usual £6 minus one for a resident Steward) which is modified by harvest in the same way as the main manor, ie it has the same harvest outcome. If you wish to resolve each one separately, just determine the income from each and add it to the knight's total earnings for the year.

I am just using the core rules and the expansion in the Great Pendragon Campaign.

So according to the rule you gave, a knight who owns two manors, which both generate an ordinary harvest, earns £5 in spare money, correct?

All things being average, that's how I play it, yes.

Just to chime in, the book of manor notes that 2L of the 6L a knight gets from his manor goes to maintaining his wife. If a knight happens to be unmarried, then he only needs 4L to maintain himself, and after paying for a Steward (1L) he usually has 1L to spare.

The rules don't say how that works out for higher grades of maintenace, but I've been assuming that 1/3rd of the money goes for the wife.

The book of the Manor gets into things like retainers, imrpvments and such. TO give you a quick rundown of how it works, each retainer requires 1L per year, but the usualy staff in already accounted for, and the 6Lis what is left over for the knight. Stewards, guards and other special retainiers on the other hand, must be paid for by thre knight, with his extra income (if any).

The BoM also varies the income given by the harvest. A good harvest yields 1.5 times the normal amount and a excellent one twicve the normal amount. Conversely a meager harvest only yield 3/4the the normal amont, and a poor one half the normal amount. You could adapt this to the basic rules if you wanted to.

So according to the rule you gave, a knight who owns two manors, which both generate an ordinary harvest, earns £5 in spare money, correct?


Yes, although note the reply by Atgxtg, too, about unmarried knights.

If I recall correctly, superlative harvest is x2 and impoverished one x0.5? This would mean:
Income = L6 * 2 + L6 * 0.5 - L1 (steward of the second manor) = L14

Since the maintenance grades go: 3/6/9/12 (poor/normal/rich/superlative), we can see that the knight could easily support himself and his family as superlative knight and still have L2 left over. If he is unmarried, this might even be 6L left over, if using the 1/3rd to wife&family.

HOWEVER, usually the knight owes a knight's service for each of his manors (not always). This means he needs to support another (household) knight at L4. Hence, if he is married, he would afford Rich Knight (L9) for himself and Normal (L4) for his unmarried household knight, with L1 left over.

I have a follow-up question regarding income from multiple manors. My group has just completed the Uther phase of the GPC and we have been using the BoM from the start of the campaign. Two PKs have several manors each, mainly through marriage. I work on the basis that each additional manor grants £2 extra income per year into their treasuries, therefore their annual income is now quite considerable. My question is at what point should these knights become Bannerets and what is in it for them if they are elevated to such a position? Any vassals holding manors from the PK will presumably take up the whole £6 income from said manor for their own maintenance, which will result in a loss of income for the PK. I can't see the players being too thrilled about this and so I can't help but think that I'm missing something fundamental in the landholding system. Sorry for being dim.

Cheers,

Sacha

Short answer: Prestige. Bigger title. More Glory and clout.

(Added: Also, it is a good way to reward faithful household knights. Another thing they might consider is that the vassal knight in question might strat spending his own money to put in improvements, just like the knights themselves have done. And in due time, the vassal holding can be reassessed... Consider it an investment.)

Related answer: You said that the manors come mainly through marriage? Have the ladies in question happened to perish without live children at some point (or the kids have died after the mother's death)? If so, time for a cousin to spring out of the woodworks and claim the manor back to HER family, not some dead-beat ex-husband's family. Remember, the manor was HER dowry, and if she is dead and has no children to inherit her, it reverts back to her family. The husband's right is through her and their common children. No wife and kids = no right to the manor.

Of course, the players can then try to negotiate, turn the manor over to the cousin as a vassal knight and have him swear to them? However, the problem is convincing the Earl of that, since the cousin should probably swear to the Earl instead. But if the Earl is in need of cash/favor, maybe he will let it pass. Or not. Up to you.

Finally, remember that if they have been building stuff and increased the profits of the manors, and the Earl gets any excuse to reassess the manor's 'rent', then he should take that into account. For example, the death of the mother but there are still children alive. 'Oh, this manor makes 9 libra per year, more or less... Shall we say two household knights?' The above court case brought by the cousin might give the Earl a good opportunity to amend the provisions, if he is not too worried about offending the knight, of course.

Finally, money come, money go. Especially where you are in the GPC. You are in Anarchy. Now the Saxons start getting very uppity. I wouldn't worry about the PKs being rich... they are going to need every penny... Muahahahahaaa!!!!!

(Added: Now during the Anarchy Countess Ellen would not be too smart to mess with powerful, proven landholding knights like in the above. However, if they are giving her reason to be suspicious and she has enough other knights to back her, she might do something about these untrustworthy, overly rich fellows. One thing medieval liege lords did, and it is within their rights, was to invite themselves over for an extended period, basically eating the poor vassal out of stores. Feeding the whole Court for a few weeks should be making a dent in their profits, but you might sweeten the deal by having the Countess praise their Hospitality (checks and Glory).)

My question is at what point should these knights become Bannerets and what is in it for them if they are elevated to such a position?

Note that no-one becomes a banneret by gaining enough land to qualify for one. You need both the requisite land, and the granting of the title by a lord. Banneret is a specific duty of being an officer in battle, and it's quite possible to have much larger estates without ever receiving this honour.


Any vassals holding manors from the PK will presumably take up the whole £6 income from said manor for their own maintenance, which will result in a loss of income for the PK. I can't see the players being too thrilled about this and so I can't help but think that I'm missing something fundamental in the landholding system. Sorry for being dim.

Economically, and looking at it from a modern point of view, it's always to the players advantage to NOT have vassal knights, but keep all the estates for themselves.
If you are using the harvest system in book of the manor, and playing through times of bad harvests, then it's sometimes to the players advantage to farm manors off to vassals, since a string of bad harvests can cost a lot.
Also, from a medieval point of view, saving money is (a) a sin, spending all your money lavishly is the proper noble thing to do (for largesse and prestige) and (b) impractical. Most income is from the land - food, wine, livestock, etc., which is highly perishable. It was hard to save money - if you were so minded, you could easily make an argument that exchanging money which you can spend the same year, with money you keep long term, has a 2:1 exchange rate.

Finally, sometimes non-player knights (or player knights) who serve the lord will achieve some deed in their name, and deserve a major reward. The only practical award that a lord can give, often, is a manor. Regardless of whether it costs the lord some of his income, it's the right thing to watch out for those situations and give the reward when it is warranted.

That said, if your players are economically minded, they probably wont buy those arguments, and will still save money and start to profit.

One solution to this exists in KAP 3 and 4. In those rules, an unmarried knight cost £6 not £4 to maintain, exactly the same as a married knight. There was no difference between household knight and vassal knight. The explanation given was: a wife costs £2 for upkeep, but also is economical - she manages the knight's household/clothing better, uses the skill Industry to his advantage, etc, so she pays for herself.

Now, if you combine this with a steward costing £1, each manor after the first that a lord does not farm out to vassals is costing him £1 to maintain. This is not a big problem: it gives players a reason to adventure and get ransoms, etc. But also, the manor improvement system allows the knights to improve estates meaning that given time, they'll be turning a profit.
But a canny lord would give out a manor or to to vassals as a Gift (so it reverts to the lord upon the knights death - at which point, the lord will have hopefully gained some money and can improve the land to the point it gives an income). A generous lord will give Grants.

I like this idea of them starting out as a penalty. Then grants of new estates can be a mixed blessing - which can be fun.

Economically, and looking at it from a modern point of view, it's always to the players advantage to NOT have vassal knights, but keep all the estates for themselves.

You ignore the principal benefit of having vassal knights. Which is that they are on site for much of the year and have a direct personal interest in preserving the manor in question from raiders or opportunist land-grabs.

Regards
Luke

Yeah, the major advantage of vassal knights is having loyal knights who will fight for you. Someone with a lot of manors but no knights is a prime target for raiding, or even a land grab.

Rich knights with lots of land should remender that if the won't give out land, other landholders will. (making treachery far more likely).

Also, landholders are supposed to show thier largress.

You ignore the principal benefit of having vassal knights. Which is that they are on site for much of the year and have a direct personal interest in preserving the manor in question from raiders or opportunist land-grabs.

Regards
Luke


What is to prevent the household knight from sitting on the manor in question throughout the year? I do agree with your other point about the personal interest.

Also, I recall an older thread where someone was thinking about this household/vassal thing, and it was suggested that giving a manor to a person from a local, powerful family might be an excellent thing to do:
- political alliances and favor from gratefulness
- allies to defend the manor in case it is attacked

In addition, unless the manors are close-by, it might be difficult for the knight's wife to administer all of them. They might need to hire Stewards at 1 librum per manor (block), which cuts more into their profits. Also, if you are worried about the money accumulating, I'd use Darren's idea in above, stating that if you are saving the income for the next year, you need to turn it into non-perishable cash at 2:1 exchange rate. This might very well encourage the players to invest money to more knights and so forth, and save less, hence keeping them short on cash. Sounds appropriate for a medieval nobleman.

Economically, and looking at it from a modern point of view, it's always to the players advantage to NOT have vassal knights, but keep all the estates for themselves.

You ignore the principal benefit of having vassal knights. Which is that they are on site for much of the year and have a direct personal interest in preserving the manor in question from raiders or opportunist land-grabs.

Regards
Luke


As Morien said, there's nothing you can do with a vassal knight that you can't do with a household knight (except you can tax vassals - one of the vaguer areas of the rules, but worth trying to exploit). The earl has various holdings where household knights spend part of the year garrisoning them, after all.

I'm glad Morien mentioned that other thread, its definitely worth digging up for anyone interested in this topic.

Here is one thing more, by the way... While in normal situation a household knight is a better choice than a vassal knight (hence why numerous monarchs were so keen to have the lands of heirless nobles revert back to the Crown), there are some situations where a vassal knight is superior.

1. Darren brings up an excellent point about a Gift: You get good mileage out of a vassal knight with this and once he dies serving your interests, his lands revert back to you, perhaps with something extra. Although a Gift doesn't motivate a man to spend much of his own money to improve it, unlike the Grant.

2. A vassal knight with a grant is probably keen to increase the value of his manor, using his own money to do it. This can only benefit the liege (unless the vassal becomes rebellious). At least my players were blowing their loot into fortifications and such, hence improving the security of the whole borderland.

3. Changing economical circumstances (expanding on Darren's point): Once those tributes start to be imposed and raids cause bad harvests to begin with, it might occur to a wealthy knight that a vassal knight with 1-2 libra from the manor after tribute is much cheaper than a household knight costing a flat 4 libra, regardless of the circumstances. And remember, the inability to take care of your household knights is a great disgrace, while the vassal knight is on his own. You might point this out to your players after the first disastrous years. :)

4. Prestige. A household knight is a man without land. A vassal knight is a man of property. If you have your three household knights talking for you, not a big deal. Three vassal knights bring their own gravitas. At least in my campaign.

5. Taxes & Ransom. Like Darren pointed out, you can tax your vassals. Universal aids. Knighting the Eldest Son. Dowry for the Eldest Daughter. Ransoming the Liege. I am not sure what the word is on ransoming your vassals, but at least in my campaign, I have played it so that the liege is responsible for his household knights' ransom.

What is to prevent the household knight from sitting on the manor in question throughout the year?

They might be the ones who end up doing the opportunistic land grab.

Regards
Luke

There is also the matter of progeny and future security. Household Knights were also reffered to as Knights Bachelor, becuase they ususally were not married, as thier stipend was generrally not suffcicent to support a family.

THis makes Vassal Knights a source for future loyal knights. Since the son7s will inerient the land, they have a good reason to support thie liege lord (he is the font of thier livelhood).

With a househbold knight there isn7t such a nice, neat situation for the liege to take advantage of --unless,of course, he provides a good wife for a household knight, but that would make said knight a vassal knight.

THus, vassal knights provide a means of replacement that household knight do not.

THus, vassal knights provide a means of replacement that household knight do not.


Hmm, depends. After all, you can always hire another household knight, although it depends on your campaign how thick they are on the ground. This provides you with an opportunity to forge new political alliances and select knights you know are good at what they do. The vassal knight can go either way: the generations of loyalty might improve the bond, or they might grow feeling entitled to the land (as happened historically) without particular gratitude towards the liege. But I think in the Pendragon context, you are right that it is more likely to fetch you a faithful vassal than not.

As for Luke's reply, if you are going to be paranoid about that and you have several manors, why not circulate the household knights? Similarly, what would prevent the vassal knight from performing a similar land grab, effectively declaring himself independent? Granted, he might have less incentive to do so, but certainly this would not be any more dishonorable than the household knight turning on his liege.